Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Recording Gear => Topic started by: kidtexas on October 15, 2007, 11:36:55 PM
-
I've got a 702t. I'm rather familiar with it as I use it for video purposes. I'm recording my first couple shows soon - hopefully board feeds, but otherwise I'll use my Sennheiser MKH's in MS. Here's my question: I'm probably recording in 24bit/44.1 or 24bit/88.2 - should I just record the whole show as one take/file/track and deal with the monster file after the fact? Or do you guys drop markers/splits during the show?
-
First off welcome to the audio world and second split later w/ CD WAV or other program. Checking levels is already to muck of a distraction at shows and guarding stand so try to enjoy the music.
PEace
-
That's what I figured. Cool.
Will also be hoping to snag some pictures of the show and enjoy it as wel... :)
-
I record at 24/48, but have just now read in Katz's "Mastering Audio" that he thinks 96 is better. I record the whole show as one file. I do the mastering of it as one file. When I am done I export it as 16/44.1 and track it and convert it to FLAC to save on space. YMMV. 8)
-
I've read that book too. Pretty good. Some people who really know their stuff (Dan Lavry) think anything much more than 96k is bunk. Actually, they think 80k is probably good enough. So, since 88.2 -> 44.1 is an easy easy conversion, I might go with that.
-
I record at 24/48, but have just now read in Katz's "Mastering Audio" that he thinks 96 is better. I record the whole show as one file. I do the mastering of it as one file. When I am done I export it as 16/44.1 and track it and convert it to FLAC to save on space. YMMV. 8)
Of course 24/96 is better then 24/48 but 24/48 makes for easier editing and file split for post work. Most including my self have started recording in 24/48 and then dithered down to 16/44.1. It really is a nice number and unless your saving HD or card space I would record at 24 bit sample rate.
Peace
-
I'm a total convert of 24bit. No questions there. There is some interesting reading though regarding the higher sampling rates and dealing with the hairy edge of technology. Once the sampling rate gets high enough to be able to design a nice, easy low pass filter (somewhere around 60-80khz) maybe we should declare victory.
Check out this page, specifically the sampling theory pdf.
http://www.lavryengineering.com/supportpage.html
http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf
This guy makes completely banging convertors, so he really knows his stuff.
-
KT - Lavry does make sense. Just one thought makes the whole deal for me: my mics do not go high enough to make anything higher than 24/48 usable. The mics I have get to 20kHz, but do not get much past that. Same with the recording hardware. So 96 and 192 are a moot point. To master at those speeds may be better. I do not know. But upsampling and then dithering and downsampling can introduce errors. So I just master at 24/48 and dither/downsample as the last step when exporting a finished file at 16/44.1. When I learn how to track it in SAM8 I will track it there, too. Until then, CDWave editor.
The SD hardware is very nice. And it is so simple to use in the field: just push the "rec" button. 8)
Cheers
-
General rule of thumb is to record at 24/48 unless the band has a PA system worth 24/96.
-
Even if I did have mics that go that high, my ears don't. Do yours?
The higher sampling rates are more about designing low pass filters that don't have sharp roll-offs in the audible spectrum. You have 48khz to have a nice gentle rolloff if you record at 88.2k, whereas if you record at 44.1, you've got to have a much steeper filter since you've only got 4khz before you start getting into audible frequencies. Higher order filters have more ringing, etc., in the pass band.
Yes I got a little esoteric here - the limiting factor is totally the PA and the crowd, and the placement of mics. Hopefully it'll be a board feed though so some of the variables will be taken out of the picture.
The SD hardware is awesome. I love it. I only wish I had a 744t so I could do mics and board feed at the same time.
-
88.2 is super handy if you plan to listen to the 16/44 source a lot. I run that way a lot.
Have fun!
-
Good stuff the 7xx I would say. I use it mostly with a Schoeps stereo mic (MSTC64) or a Sennheiser MS pair in a Rycote (MKH30+40).
Most of my recordings are 24 bit/44.1kHz. It makes life easier when transferring to CD-s that is my main media when delivering to clients.
But I guess I am the odd bird here as I do only acoustic classical music. Must be soo much more demanding to record the stuff coming out of PA speakers then from real life unamplified instruments? 8)
Seriously, with the SD boxes there is of course a difference between 44.1 and higher rates, but it is not quite as large as the number may make you believe. Best is to test it yourself and get som help from a friend to do a real blind test, the brain very easily starts to hear exactly what you want it to hear.
The 48k speed comes from old DAT days. DAT tape is as we all know more or less a dying technology. A small tidbit of info is that the CD rate 44.1kHz was selected specifically to make the sample rate conversion as difficult as possible to 48kHz. It was believed that if too easy, the CD-s would be copied to DAT. Those times when SRC had to be done in hardware are long gone, modern software can convert between any two sample rates with equal quality -- there is from that point of view absolutely no reason to select 88.2 over 96. If done properly it is not easier to go from 88.2 to 44.1 than from 96 to 44.1 if you want to filter out the artifacts from the conversion process.
Gunnar
-
While SRC should be equal all things considered, I think some programs still handle it better than others. Since I don't know where Logic/Quicktime falls in that bunch, I figured 88.2 or 44.1 would be the way to go.
As far as 48k, while what you say is true about DAT, a lot of video production still requires that sampling rate, which is why it's sticking around. DVD is 48k, FCP works in 48k (you can import 44.1 obviously), etc., so while working with audio for video, it's easier just to record in 48k. For audio only stuff, I always stick to 44.1, but might play around with 88.2 if I can get a board feed, just for the hell of it. But probably not. Why double storage space?
Yes, acoustic is way more demanding, isn't it?
How do you like the Schoeps compared to the MKH's? When do you go stereo or MS? I've got a MKH50+30 combo (and a 60), but I'm coming from a video background, so I haven't yet picked up a 40.
-
Instead of easier, I should have said "if you don't want to resample" I guess.
-
Well, I have never done video work so I missed out that. I sort of believed that you migh end with all kinds of pullups and pulldowns in video (ie 47952 or 48048), I see them in the 7xx menus. Well, it is better to go 44.1 for CD end media if you ask me.
For SRC (sample rate conversions), it seems like a lot of people like the sound of Voxengo r8brain, even the free version. The pro version is supposedly a bit better still and has more options.
The ORTF setup of the Schoeps generally sounds really good to my ears, my first goto for quick setups in unknown acoustics. Gives decent results all the time, quite good some times. Not quite as good as a setup of omnis though, but the omnis sort of accentuates bad room acoustics. Or to further it even more, Blumlein (crossed figure 8-s) that can give some of the most stunning stereo images I ever heard, or simply sound awful, depending on the acoustics.
In really good acoustics I might end up with two omnis instead, a bit more tricky to setup as a single pair -- they usually come with my larger rig as a Decca Tree or as main pair plus outriggers. I did test a bit with a field mixer and three omnis (Left, Mid, Right) which I would believe to be a real good thing to have for many symphony orchestra recordings. But it sort of got too close to having the large rig along, three mic stands is sort of a bit to carry. With a single stereo mic all I need is one mic stand (a Manfrotto 004 that goes 13 foots / 4 meters is quite portable) .
The Sennheisers are used outdoors as they work so well in the stereo Rycote, but they come out now and again in various other situations. But the Stereo Rycote where they tend to live is sort of large indoors (understatement). My friend sampled a grand piano this weekend and he really liked one setup of a rather close MKH20+MKH30 (they tested a lot of mics and recorded quite a few channels), something I would not have thought of myself. Just goes to show that experimenting and listening does make a difference. Somewhere in my mind though I walk around with this feeling the MKH-s simply sound a tad "uninspiring". Totally noisefree, very clean, very detailed but sort of a bit on the boring side. Nothing really tangible though and migh be only ghosts of the mind.
Guess it depends on my mode on the day, but for a typical 2 channel recording the Schoeps is what comes along. I add a 30 meter stereo cable when I play in the orchestra myself (trombone is my instrument), allows me to set volumes and start and stop recordings.
Sorry for the rambling.
Gunnar
-
Very interesting. I had a pair of Schoeps MK4's + an MK8 cap back in the day, but I ended up getting rid of them to fund the MKH 30/50/60 setup, which was better suited for video. I've always wanted to round out the set with some 20's, etc, but never could afford it ;)
I must admit that I'm not quite sensitive enough to pick up on the subtle flavors. Maybe I've just never had a chance to A/B them, but the MKH's sound great, are quiet and rugged. That was enough for me at the end of the day. Oh yeah, and the crappy exchange rate was killing me on the Schoeps.
-
I am with Gunnar on the Schoeps CMC64/ORTF for a run and gun setup. The venues around here are all bad. And as it is not a recording session but a live gig I get to show up a little early, run up a mic stand, hook up the interconnects and hit the "on" button and then set levels on the fly. I pretty much know about where they will be for the groups/rooms around here, though.
I am going to record a Bach chorale this fall and will want to use ORTF plus omni outriggers. I will practice a bit first with the mixer and mics so I am not a complete plunk when I do the chorale.
As for conversions, yes, on the computer it makes no difference if it is an even half/double or some weird number. It is all being done in binary anyway. And binary only knows two states: off or on.
Cheers
-
I am with Gunnar on the Schoeps CMC64/ORTF for a run and gun setup. The venues around here are all bad. And as it is not a recording session but a live gig I get to show up a little early, run up a mic stand, hook up the interconnects and hit the "on" button and then set levels on the fly. I pretty much know about where they will be for the groups/rooms around here, though.
I am going to record a Bach chorale this fall and will want to use ORTF plus omni outriggers. I will practice a bit first with the mixer and mics so I am not a complete plunk when I do the chorale.
As for conversions, yes, on the computer it makes no difference if it is an even half/double or some weird number. It is all being done in binary anyway. And binary only knows two states: off or on.
Cheers
hey bro, when you say omni outriggers, what do you exactly mean? just omnis that are positioned wider, or 'outside' of the ORTF Cards ??? so the ORTF Cards would be in the normal position in the 'middle', while the omnis are on each side of the ORTF bar further apart than the ORTF cards are ???
TIA Bro ;)
Bean
-
Bean - 8)
I will use the setup that John Eargle likes for classical: ORTF in the center and omnis flanked out at about 1/2 to 1/3 the distance from the ORTF mics to the edge of the sound field. It gives some nice ambiance. I tried it in a better-than-most but still a large phone booth venue last night. I have not listened to the tracks yet. I ran the four mics through a new Mackie 1402-VLZ3 and played with the ratio of center to flanked. The ORTF was two Schoeps CMC64's and the flankers were DPA 4006TL's. I have not ever tried this setup before and have to learn more about it. I plan to get that chorale recital later this year and want to be able to set up more easily.
Learning, learning, learning. Eargle's Handbook fo recording and Bartletts' Recording Music on Location are two winners.
Cheers
-
Bean - 8)
I will use the setup that John Eargle likes for classical: ORTF in the center and omnis flanked out at about 1/2 to 1/3 the distance from the ORTF mics to the edge of the sound field. It gives some nice ambiance. I tried it in a better-than-most but still a large phone booth venue last night. I have not listened to the tracks yet. I ran the four mics through a new Mackie 1402-VLZ3 and played with the ratio of center to flanked. The ORTF was two Schoeps CMC64's and the flankers were DPA 4006TL's. I have not ever tried this setup before and have to learn more about it. I plan to get that chorale recital later this year and want to be able to set up more easily.
Learning, learning, learning. Eargle's Handbook fo recording and Bartletts' Recording Music on Location are two winners.
Cheers
awesome, thanks for the info. that should sound good considering your mic selection 8)
So about your omni placement, do you mean your omnis were on the same stand as the schoeps, or where they actually by themselves in a different location on the floor 1/3 of the way from your mics to the speakers ??? I am somewhat confused on their location ???
TIA,
Bean
-
Bean -
The ORTF was on its own vertical Shure mic bar in the center and the omnis were out on the sides on their own mic stands. I had them further than Eargle would have called for in consideration of the venue (small) and the musicians. The mics were in a semi-circle and the band was in a corner. It was as if the mics were on a arc drawn from the point where the two walls converged. Think of HS plane geometry class. 8) I still have not listened to them. I will this afternoon for sure. I'm hopin.'
Cheers