Topic: Frequency Levels

[rockymtnryan]

So in listening to my first recordings, I like them and I'm pleased with my rookie effort, but have a question I'm hoping the experts can answer.  I play my FLAC files from my pc > stereo using MediaMonkey and I was listening to my recordings and those of other tapers who were on the same stand as me, or back in the section.  When playing files in MM I can see the frequency levels on a basic animated multi-band equalizer.  I know I'm explaining this wrong, but basically on the left are the low end frequencies and on the right are the high end.

While other recordings have a more balanced look to them, mine has higher low end levels and the mid to high range frequencies don't "dance" as much.  Not to say that my recordings sound boomy or too much bass (as I can hear the mid and high tones) but just wondering the cause or and/or solution to this for the next time.  I have normalized the files and basically I'm just wondering is this a lack of gain, or is this particular sonic pattern just the signature of my mics and pre?  Would I see more mid and high action on the EQ if I had used more gain on the pre and a lower recording level on the recorder, or vice versa?

Just curious, thanks.

[boyacrobat]

signature of the live sound you rec it is
mids and treble would be higher up if soundman pushed them
its not the signature you will get always.
most push mids and highs and tame the lower when they rec live sound like us
that gives them a more balanced freq spread

also make sure you have bypassed the k mixer if on windows
that boosts the lower end and lowers the rest of the freq spread in the display
classic k mixer trait that is

i prefer the raw signature by the way.

a good mic pattern will give you a more balanced freq capture
tighter mids and highs balanced well with low end and a good image not skewed
that all helps the spread of the freq to look like the others

omnis will also give you more of a freq spread than cards

i hope you also get me
happy captures

g

[page]

While other recordings have a more balanced look to them, mine has higher low end levels and the mid to high range frequencies don't "dance" as much.  Not to say that my recordings sound boomy or too much bass (as I can hear the mid and high tones) but just wondering the cause or and/or solution to this for the next time.  I have normalized the files and basically I'm just wondering is this a lack of gain, or is this particular sonic pattern just the signature of my mics and pre?

I'll be lazy and ask for screenshot first, but yeah, it's possible that you're looking at sonic signature of the room plus your gear in that environment using those settings which is a hideously ambiguous statement, I know.

[Church-Audio]

So in listening to my first recordings, I like them and I'm pleased with my rookie effort, but have a question I'm hoping the experts can answer.  I play my FLAC files from my pc > stereo using MediaMonkey and I was listening to my recordings and those of other tapers who were on the same stand as me, or back in the section.  When playing files in MM I can see the frequency levels on a basic animated multi-band equalizer.  I know I'm explaining this wrong, but basically on the left are the low end frequencies and on the right are the high end.

While other recordings have a more balanced look to them, mine has higher low end levels and the mid to high range frequencies don't "dance" as much.  Not to say that my recordings sound boomy or too much bass (as I can hear the mid and high tones) but just wondering the cause or and/or solution to this for the next time.  I have normalized the files and basically I'm just wondering is this a lack of gain, or is this particular sonic pattern just the signature of my mics and pre?  Would I see more mid and high action on the EQ if I had used more gain on the pre and a lower recording level on the recorder, or vice versa?

Just curious, thanks.

The way a file looks is not whats important its what it sounds like... Dont focus on an analyzer view of your file there are many analyzers out there many of them suck donkey balls and are not accurate. Sound first how it looks second... That applies to gear as well as files

There could be many reasons why you are having problems with the mids could be a phase  issue could be lots of reasons.. Post a quick sample somewhere so I can listen to it.

[stevetoney]

So in listening to my first recordings, I like them and I'm pleased with my rookie effort, but have a question I'm hoping the experts can answer.  I play my FLAC files from my pc > stereo using MediaMonkey and I was listening to my recordings and those of other tapers who were on the same stand as me, or back in the section.  When playing files in MM I can see the frequency levels on a basic animated multi-band equalizer.  I know I'm explaining this wrong, but basically on the left are the low end frequencies and on the right are the high end.

While other recordings have a more balanced look to them, mine has higher low end levels and the mid to high range frequencies don't "dance" as much.  Not to say that my recordings sound boomy or too much bass (as I can hear the mid and high tones) but just wondering the cause or and/or solution to this for the next time.  I have normalized the files and basically I'm just wondering is this a lack of gain, or is this particular sonic pattern just the signature of my mics and pre?  Would I see more mid and high action on the EQ if I had used more gain on the pre and a lower recording level on the recorder, or vice versa?

Just curious, thanks.

The way a file looks is not whats important its what it sounds like... Dont focus on an analyzer view of your file there are many analyzers out there many of them suck donkey balls and are not accurate. Sound first how it looks second... That applies to gear as well as files

There could be many reasons why you are having problems with the mids could be a phase  issue could be lots of reasons.. Post a quick sample somewhere so I can listen to it.

That was my first thought too...you could have some phase cancellation going on, but I totally agree with others that a) this could be caused by anything, and b) if it sounds good that's the most important thing, even though you're totally not alone if you get caught up in the analysis end. 

[rockymtnryan]

12/30  http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=541440
12/31  http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=541407

I would assume that my location (DFC 45ft back, 6ft up) in that big arena has a lot to do with it.  I would probably see a different signature from back in the section raised up 10 ft, no?

[rockymtnryan]

also make sure you have bypassed the k mixer if on windows
that boosts the lower end and lowers the rest of the freq spread in the display
classic k mixer trait that is

I took the master 24bit files and used Sound Forge Pro 10.0 to add fades at the beginning and end of sets, bit convert to 16bit, resample to 44,100, and normalize.  I'm not familiar with what a "k mixer" is and where I would look to make sure it is bipassed.  I did all of this one my Toshiba laptop loaded with Windows 7.

[taperj]

omnis will also give you more of a freq spread than cards

Please explain your logic.

[boyacrobat]

omnis have a more flatter freq response than cards
they cover more of the freq spectrum
a more balanced sound

omni specs show this also --- look them up -- be a good lesson for you

you will get a wider freq response than cards using them
you will also see it in the freq display
freq graphs are more than good enough to show this

g

 

[fmaderjr]

you will get a wider freq response than cards using them
you will also see it in the freq display
freq graphs are more than good enough to show this

I think the most obvious difference when listening to the recording is that you will hear more bass with the omnis (which can sometimes be a detriment if the sound man has the bass cranked way up or the venue is too boomy). Omnis sound great when you are in a sweet spot in a venue with good sound and there is not too much crowd chatter. Because I don't usually record in venues where this is the case, I usually record with cards. Too much crowd chatter drives me nuts.

[rockymtnryan]

Originally I bit converted, resampled, and normalized the 24bit master WAV files in that order.  After spending some time reading the Sound Forge manual today I realized that I should have normalized the 24bit files first.  SF says this gives you the best possible results.  I also used the more advanced iZotope MBIT + Dither and resampled with the anti-alias filter and at the highest interpolation accuracy setting.  I think the end result is an improvement, with more clarity in the higher frequencies.

[boyacrobat]

dithering is an art form in itself

done the right way whatever that is
i would imagine you could hear a diff

much on dithering to digest isnt there ?
im finding it very interesting

my dsd captures in raw are brilliant
my audiogate dither to 16/44 of some of them
are strange.

to many variables that leave many questions
am sure they can be better, if you understand
dithering on the next few levels.
i dont

g

[taperj]

boyacrobat, let's take the Schoeps mk5 for example, Frequency range: 20Hz - 20kHz (omni), 40Hz-20kHz (cardioid), why do you think this cardiod does better than the omni on mids and highs in general? In addition to a slight bump in the high end response on paper it is at least in part it's because the card has less response in the extreme low end and therefore in most environments would tend to emphasize the resolution of mids and highs, less bass response = higher average loudness of mids and highs, more bass coming from an omni would  tend to deemphasize the mids and highs by putting their relative gain lower in the mix, decreasing resolution, which is exactly what rockymtnryan specified has already happened and he doesn't want. You are correct about the response being wider and I never disputed that fact, but, your logic on whether this would help rockymtnryan to emphasize mids and highs at an indoor Widespread Panic show at distance I believe to be flawed.

I think the most obvious difference when listening to the recording is that you will hear more bass with the omnis

Too much crowd chatter drives me nuts.

These being my points really, it's a practical application question. Crowd chatter aside(which I despise as well), I have recorded omnis alone indoors and in general, in my opinion, they don't fare well at a distance. Most people I see running omnis indoors are running them in support of hypers or cards so as to have adjustable stereo and crowd effect, much like descreet M/S recording with it's capacity to adjust stereo effect after the fact. Due to increased crowd noise and what in general seems like a more pronounced fall off in high end at distance(sometimes due to the exact extended frequency response boyacrobat spoke of).  I tend to feel they would fare worse in the situation specified, rockymtnryan already isn't getting enough mids and highs. If mids and highs are what are needed, I would generally think you would want to move the other way, and go to a hyper(or aim at the stacks  ). Just my 2cents. 

my dsd captures in raw are brilliant
my audiogate dither to 16/44 of some of them
are strange.

Interesting you say this. I have definitely had at least one show I can remember I thought dithered strangely in audiogate from DSD and I had friends listening to it to see if they could hear the odd quality I was hearing. I'm at about 200 shows on an MR-1 now and use audiogate for most of my dithering, WAV has always dithered fine on the shows which I used it with no remnants, anomalies, or weirdness using TPDF or Korg Aqua. The only truly appreciable difference I have found(other than that one stange dither) is that with 1 bit the highs may remain a bit crisper and clearer as opposed to post decimation wav, this is the nature of the beast though, even at DSD's lower sampling rate of 2.8mHz it's sampling at over 10 times the sample rate of even 192kHz wav. Wave format is, in fact, lossy compared to DSD and one should not expect the brilliance found in a properly rendered DSD recording out of wav. I just wish DSD was a more usable format, rendering support, as I'm sure you have found, is sorely lacking across the board except in Sony products since they are one of the players in DSD. Obviously the Korg recorders can render as well but I found using my MR-1 to render all my DSD to be a kludge.

[rockymtnryan]

So if DSD is so much better what is keeping the manufacturers from adopting it as the standard.  Am I right in assuming that most new recorders from handheld up to 744T and beyond are all based on wav as being the default file type for recording?

[taperj]

So if DSD is so much better what is keeping the manufacturers from adopting it as the standard. 

DSD would not really be considered 'so much' better, we are talking about diminishing returns when you go above a certain point, so DSD being ~15x the sample rate of 192 kHz wav would not mean it would sound 15x better, quantitatively speaking it may sound .00001% to 1% better depending on your rendering system.  DSD does of course have extended frequency range in the high end, but really this only applies to ultrasonic sound. SACD burners do exist, but I think last I checked it was about $20,000 to get one, so it's cost prohibitive. I have successfully burned a few "DSD Disks" but most of the time these get resampled on playback anyway(there's a winamp plugin for this). I have also read some debates about DSD having an inordinant amount of distortion throughout the high end frequencies, I have not experienced anything that would support this but admittedly, I'm not the authority and don't have the equipment to test it in a way that could truly prove or disprove it.

As for manufacturers adopting it as a standard, what I have read on the subject seemed to indicate that at least one of it's formats being associated with Sony has not helped the cause. I am not aware of that many products that do support DSD other than Sony CD players that support SACD rendering and Sony Vaio PC's, Playstations and other Sony products which are capable of rendering DSD out of the box. I did notice on wikipedia that Mytek is supposedly developing a product for DSD rendering, I may have to go check their site...

Am I right in assuming that most new recorders from handheld up to 744T and beyond are all based on wav as being the default file type for recording?

I don't think I know of many other than the Korg MR series that are doing DSD at this point. Sound Devices is Wav, yes.