Topic: mini disc levels

[DaveH]

Just out of curiosity, when you are recording a live show with a mini disc recorder, where should the levels run? I've recorded several shows over the past year and a half and they all seem to need boosted in the aftermath. I generally set for -12 dB, but one show I began to record the level started much higher and I paused it to readjust. I only recorded about 20 seconds of it on the higher level and was certain it would brickwall. Upon listening to it, it was not brickwalled (although I'm only going on a few seconds of the band playing). Since this happened and it did not seem distorted, I have to ask, have my levels been too low? Or did the recording just not have enough time to become distorted? FYI, the band was a loud punk band, so it wasn't a low volume show.

[willndmb]

whats the rest of your set up?

i would def try and go higher then -12 though if you are on 16/44.1 --- i would shot for -6 average

[boojum]

You can always raise your levels in post.  You will always have a difficult if not impossible time trying to take out any clipping which could occur from too-high levels.  Take your choice.   

[DaveH]

whats the rest of your set up?

i would def try and go higher then -12 though if you are on 16/44.1 --- i would shot for -6 average

My setup is a Sony MZ-R91, Giant Squid Omnis, and a Church Audio BAT-2B battery box. Obviously, using this model recorder, you can't adjust levels on the fly, but it seems like something higher than a -12 would produce better results. I understand the mic is considered substandard by many, but it seems like it should be getting somewhat better results.

[boojum]

Check this link out for commentary on the pre-amps.  You can always raise the volume afterwards.      http://www.minidisc.org/mzr91_review.html

Minidisc.org is an excellent source for info on, minidiscs!

If the mics are the problem, the mics are the problem and you will need better ones.  I am not familiar with the mics you have.

[fmaderjr]

I understand the mic is considered substandard by many, but it seems like it should be getting somewhat better results.

Raising your levels from -12 to -6 is not going to make a noticeable difference. Switching from the Squiiddly Diddly mic to Church Audio will.

I aim for -12 when I record to Mini-Disc, raise the levels in post (Adobe Audition coverts to 32 bits before adding gain, which may help) and these recordings sound fabulous.

By the way you could change levels on the fly if you got a ST-9100 preamp (my favorite low cost one). You could raise or lower the levels with the pre. If you went that route, change the mic too.

[sunjan]

whats the rest of your set up?

i would def try and go higher then -12 though if you are on 16/44.1

The OP is not on 16/44, his model is a legacy MD, meaning ATRAC compression. 
That said, the best way to determine how high you can go without brickwalling is testing your setup in front of your stereo at home. Especially since you can't change levels on the fly.

In the long run, consider upgrading your entire rig. My first step would be to grab a HI-MD recorder on ebay. You can get them for as low as $50-$70 these days.
Or spend a bit more, get an Iriver ($50-$100) and pair it up with a Church combo ($150 and upwards): http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,80054.0.html

[attheshow]

I'd stick with -12db. I made some recordings with a legacy MD that are totally unlistenable because the levels went too high. It's better to be conservative and bring up the levels in post. Audacity will convert to 32 bit float and amplify, and it's free. (check sourceforge).

If you're thinking of upgrading your MD and you have some recordings you like that are made on the MZ-R91, then consider getting an MZ-R1. It records in 16/44.1 on 1G hiMD discs, allows level changes on the fly, and will let you digitally transfer your legacy MD discs to your PC.

[DaveH]

Thanks for all the advice. As much as I'd love to upgrade, financially it just is not an option at this point in time. I think I will probably leave the levels alone at -12. I've used the Audacity program to amplify the recording, it does not increase it to the level I would like and if I do it twice, it goes too high. Nonetheless, the recordings I'm getting with the recorder and Squid mics are still better than anything I previously used. (Radio Shack cassette recorder).

[fmaderjr]

I've used the Audacity program to amplify the recording, it does not increase it to the level I would like and if I do it twice, it goes too high. Nonetheless, the recordings

I don't use Audacity, but you must not be employing it correctly. It should be able to provide you with all the amplification you need. If you have a few very high peaks (perhaps applause) that prevent the rest of the recording from being amplified loud enough, you would need to compress the peaks or use a limiter (if Audacity has one).

Someone who uses Audacity should be able to give you tips on how to amplify your recordings to your satisfaction.

[DSatz]

I record mainly classical music, including opera, with a wide dynamic range. When I'm recording on any 16-bit medium I try to get the peaks as close to 0 dB (full scale) as possible without ever actually reaching it. Of course it's better for the peak levels to be 3 or 4 dB below that than 1 dB too high, and with 16 bits at your disposal there's rarely any need to push levels all the way to 0.

But I've been recording live concerts professionally for going on 40 years now, and I expect to be able to estimate levels fairly accurately. When I've made an entire 16-bit recording that is all below -6 dB, then I feel as if I haven't done my job to a professional level. The idea of intentionally setting peak levels at -12 dB makes no sense to me; I might as well just add extra noise in to the signal, because that's all that would be accomplished.

The exception is if the meters on your recorder under-read peaks so badly that you must leave a wide margin in order to reach a higher recording level. The Sony TCD-D7 and -D8 DAT recorders, for example, can record 0 dB peak levels when their meters are still reading -4 to -5 dB. But even then, the goal is still to get the actual peaks up as close to 0 dB as possible without actually reaching it.

The main risk of "brickwalling" a recorder occurs at its first stage of analog circuitry--the microphone inputs. If the combination of loud sound and sensitive (high-output) microphones threatens to overwhelm the input of a consumer recording device, then turning down the record level control and aiming for a lower peak level won't usually help.

Circuitwise, the record level control is nearly always "after" the input stage (IOW it controls how much of the signal from the input stage is sent on to the next stage of internal processing), so it's only controlling the level at which you will commit an already distorted signal to disc or tape. When that's the case you need to reduce the signal voltage before it enters the device.

And any recording device that doesn't sound right in the top 12 dB of its range is badly, badly broken. If its manufacturer won't fix the design, everyone who has bought one should return it for a refund and no one should ever buy that model of equipment again.

--best regards

[boyacrobat]

closer to 0

yes and no

depends what your doing
battling in the loudness war yes
live rec at concerts using mics in aud - yes also
pre rec music - no can be yes sometimes
live rec on location - birds etc - no
studio work - no

closer to 0 is not always a yes

g

[fmaderjr]

When I've made an entire 16-bit recording that is all below -6 dB, then I feel as if I haven't done my job to a professional level. If it was all below -9 then I would feel positively embarrassed even though the results might still sound good to most non-technical people. But the idea of intentionally setting peak levels at -12 dB makes no sense to me at all--I might as well just add extra noise in to the signal, because that's all that would be accomplished.

Of course DSatz is the man here and I've learned a ton from reading his posts. Obviously he's correct for a professional recordist, but for someone who just wants to have fun and make consistently good sounding recordings not marred by clipping I'm with those favoring -12. I'm just not as skilled as DSatz and can't aim for peaks close to 0 dB without clipping too often.

In practice with my 16 bit Mini-Disc recordings I've done much better aiming for peaks around -12 (often they actually reach -6) than when I used to try to peak close to 0.

I hear no audible increase in noise when I convert to 32 bit in Audition to do the boosting (although I'm sure it is there if DSatz says it is) and I avoid the risk of clipping that marred so many of my recordings  when I was aiming to peak close to 0.

Also when I was trying to peak close to 0 I wasn't able to enjoy the shows too much because I had to constantly be checking the levels to watch for possible clipping.

If you can aim for peaks in the -3 to 0 range and avoid clipping, then go for it. If you can't then try -12 (or -6) method. I think you'll find the recordings still sound good and you won't risk clipping.

[attheshow]

I agree that, technically, DSATZ is right on, but I'm not that precise either. I set my levels cautiously because I know how badly clipping can hurt/ruin a recording. I don't want to loose a show because I was a little off on my peaks.

Besides, some of the performers I tape can be rather unpredictable  (see attached)

[DSatz]

I completely agree that it's more fun to record when you don't have to worry about levels. About 10 years ago I outgrew the thrill of the risk. But that's also why I specified "when I record 16-bit"--it's something I rarely do any more, except for recordings that are essentially documentary.

To me, the whole point of 24-bit recording is so that I can deliver a clean 16-bit product to the customer. But if for some reason I don't have that advantage, I've got to get somewhat closer to the edge because the noise floor rises whenever you boost the levels later on. Raise them 12 dB, and the noise floor comes up 12 dB right along with it.

On the other hand the dynamic range of a good 16-bit recorder with the peaks at -12 dB is still around 85 dB, which is quite large. I don't want to blow this all out of proportion. I'm just saying, if you have a choice and can get the peaks closer to, say, -4 dB without much risk of going over, then setting them so that they peak at -12 isn't better in any way.

--best regards