Internal mics question

[lsd2525]

 

[bombdiggity]

 

Seriously old skool section there.  Where was that? 

[lsd2525]

Seriously old skool section there.  Where was that?

No idea:) Making the rounds on facebook. Two things about that photo: That taper looks like Henry Kissinger. And there isn't a damn soul smiling either.

[Gutbucket]

Rolling tape waiting for the jive to click and the magic to happen, we've all been there.  One guy sort of appears to be snickering.  Looks like Kissinger but he'd never be caught dead in that scene.  I say it's Neal Cassady sporting Ginsberg's glasses and a sweet hands-free stealth setup directly FOB.  Check out the two dudes head-holding identical mono boom boxes making a spaced A-B recording in the background!  That's deadication.

[furburger]

I don't think anyone disagrees with this concept, correct?

Did George Martin or Tom Dowd ever use internal mikes?

I disagree with your concept 100%.

I'm not a Beatles nut-fluffer, nor am I working with more than 2 tracks, but that is a classic mic-stand'r tactic, to pull in an analogy that has nothing to do at all with the original post to cover up that their argument is inherently flawed.


kinda like the stuffed animals they hang from their stands.

[furburger]

It seems only a few have answered the Op's question R-09 vs M10.

I stated that Edirol internals, in my experience are crap, that I have never owned an M10 (though what I've heard of M10 internals was not impressive) and that if the OP truly wanted to get an excellent internals capture, to get a DR-2D.

a seller had been dumping NIB ones on Ebay over the last month (I bought 3), and people were getting them for as cheap as $75 shipped.

in addition, I posted *five* great-sounding examples of DR-2D internals recordings across multiple genres (i.e. not 'just acoustic'), proving what I am saying.



when the DR-2D outperforms the Sonics 2-3 shows out of each 10 recorded, it's a viable alternative to the spendy route.


and it shows.

[Scooter123]

Wow, Furburger.

You really think that a Tascam DR2d with internals is better than the same recorder with external mikes and a preamp.  Amazing opinion. 

Which mike-preamp combination does your rig beat out?  The low end Church stuff, or is your Tascam internal rig better than AKG, Neumann, Naks, and Schoeps, as well?   

I'm dying to know. 

[furburger]

Wow, Furburger.

You really think that a Tascam DR2d with internals is better than the same recorder with external mikes and a preamp.  Amazing opinion. 

Which mike-preamp combination does your rig beat out?  The low end Church stuff, or is your Tascam internal rig better than AKG, Neumann, Naks, and Schoeps, as well?   

I'm dying to know.

nowhere did I say "better than".

I've always been happy with my recordings sounding 90% as good as a mic-stand recording at a fraction (1/20th?) of the cost.

the Tascam internals produce a superior recording to the Sonic Studios with the 3-way lo-cut 2-3 times out of 10.

it's usually when I'm at the Loon in the balcony (like the Mulvey show I linked) and put the deck at my feet on the projector box, but I've also done it in arenas and clubs in the States.

I've also done excellent recordings putting the DR-2D right at the performers feet (Kevn Kinney in Atlanta in '13 was a great one, ran two of them on stage, Sarah Peacock was another one that came out amazing)

throw in the non-existent set-up and tear-down time, and it's a viable alternative in more ways than one.   (cost/hassle/sound quality).

[Scooter123]

Agreed.  There is simply no reason to use internals.  For half the price of a recorder, you can add a preamp and decent mikes which will significantly improve any recording.  Adding multiple recorders, recording at different settings, different locations, and even jumping to 24-98 won't improve the recording as much as a pair of inexpensive mikes and a preamp.  I don't think anyone disagrees with this concept, correct?

OK, so good, we've settled that.  External mikes will achieve better results than internal mikes.

And you're happy with your recordings, which is a good thing. 

[TheMetalist]

Not many tapers use these internal mics (for obvious reasons) but here are some samples (not my recordings) that I found:

Roland R-09HR:
1. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/13548894/BillyBragg-170702-TapedBySoledriver-R-09HR.mp3
2. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/13548894/MikeNockTrio-170708-TapedByVierstein91-R-09HR.mp3

Sony PCM-M10:
1. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/13548894/TheShins-170709-TapedByJotjoqri-M10.mp3
2. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/13548894/Coldplay-160723-TapedByJotjoqri-M10.mp3

Pretty bad samples but I hope it will make your decision, at least a bit, easier.

[nak700s]

I've always been happy with my recordings sounding 90% as good as a mic-stand recording at a fraction (1/20th?) of the cost.

Not to criticize your personal preferences, and everyone hears and appreciates music differently, but to suggest a percentage is to is to measure actual statistics or facts.  Yes, YOU have always been happy with your recordings made with your DR-2D, and that is a wonderful thing, as it is important to create something you are happy with.  To suggest, however, that those recordings actually sound as good or even better than real microphones is simply ludicrous.  They can not offer the range as a full size microphone, and just can't handle the bottom end effectively.  Period.  That may not matter to you, which is cool, but it does matter to serious tapers that invest in better equipment in order to reproduce the sound as accurately as possible.  As stated above, I have used the internal mics on the Sony PCM-M10 and the Edirol R-09HR (and the Edirol R-09).  The Sony isn't bad and the Edirol R-09HR is better, but neither come close to the Church Audio CA-14's (much less a full sized microphone).  I find it both comical and sad that you can't tell the difference...but moreover, I think it's a blessing, as you can enjoy so much more live recordings than I can.  Please don't take offense to what I've said, it was not a personal attack, only my humble opinion.  Cheers. 

[furburger]

taped Bush last night in Anchorage, ran both the Sonics > DR-2D and another DR-2D with internals sitting on the armrest of an empty seat (of which there were many)

while the bass on the Sonics source is 'more defined', it's also much thinner than what the internals captured. the internals bass sounds richer, and has a wider range on the EQ.

basically it was a "draw" between internals in a $150 deck and a $650 set of mics.

again, proving my point that while nice mics are cool, they are NOT necessary at all to obtain an excellent capture.

[TheMetalist]

taped Bush last night in Anchorage, ran both the Sonics > DR-2D and another DR-2D with internals sitting on the armrest of an empty seat (of which there were many)

Is it possible that you can share samples (without any added EQ of course) of these two recordings? I would love to make a comparison. I guess a few others here are curious as well.

[daspyknows]

taped Bush last night in Anchorage, ran both the Sonics > DR-2D and another DR-2D with internals sitting on the armrest of an empty seat (of which there were many)

Is it possible that you can share samples (without any added EQ of course) of these two recordings? I would love to make a comparison. I guess a few others here are curious as well.

+1  as there are lots of definitions of "excellent"

[Sloan Simpson]

taped Bush last night in Anchorage, ran both the Sonics > DR-2D and another DR-2D with internals sitting on the armrest of an empty seat (of which there were many)

while the bass on the Sonics source is 'more defined', it's also much thinner than what the internals captured. the internals bass sounds richer, and has a wider range on the EQ.

basically it was a "draw" between internals in a $150 deck and a $650 set of mics.

again, proving my point that while nice mics are cool, they are NOT necessary at all to obtain an excellent capture.

Wait, you're running a bass rolloff and saying the resulting bass sounds thin?