Sennheiser 421s - pros, cons?

[BC]

Like I said, I don't understand using part of your valuable dynamic range to preserve sonic information that is so nearly indetectable when compared with the audible portion of the audio spectrum.

I have a feeling that you are taking up very little dynamic range by adding the ultrasonics, in my experience recording levels tend to be dominated by bass freqs. What do y'all think?

But I think you are definitely right that the importance of this info up in the freq. response stratosphere is pretty insignificant when compared to stuff that is more in the human hearing range.

WRT sampling freq, I always roll at 44.1, just for convenience in burning to CD audio.

[RebelRebel]

I overlooked something else - regardless of what frequencies I can (barely) hear at full blast, I need to take into account the volume I'm actually going to be listening to my recordings at, which obviously won't be full volume.  Given that, should I still be taping at 48khz for the headroom, or is 44.1khz sufficient?

24/44.1 is more than adequate. Especially since the delivery medium will be CD..no SRC-==less processing. If you had a stellar listening system or were recording acoustic music in great halls...i could see the need for higher sampling rates, but with a PA enviroment, the audio  equivalent of a trailer park, what is the point of capturing more crappy room?

teddy

[shaggy]

I'm listening right now to a master FOB cassette of the Dead on 7/2/89 at Foxboro Stadium, which someone asked me to digitize along with some of his other masters.  It was taped using Sennheiser 421s and sounds better than the Schoeps source on archive.org.  There's a lot of richness and warmth, but also definition and separation in the recording. 

This GD 7-2-89 Schoeps source is one of the reasons I had the dream of getting a pair of Schoeps.  It is also a prominent reason why I got back into taping!  One of the better split omni recordings I have ever heard, very life-like feel from the floor (although in the first three minutes of 'Playin', the levels are too low).  I have heard amazing 441 tapes (12-30-83 SF Civic) from the Phil Zone, but the 421s I have heard, never had the sparkle or the transient detail like the 441s.

Man, if this 421 source is better than Gaswirt's split cmc42 > Oade m118 > PCM source on archive, I wanna hear it!  Anytime this is gonna be torrented soon?  It is a great show to boot!

I say just go 16/44.1 and get the show out there if it is as stellar as you say it is!

[RebelRebel]

  no problem , Moke!

the audio equivalent of a trailer park

some days are just so worth waking up for!
thanks for brightening my day.

[Church-Audio]

Like I said, I don't understand using part of your valuable dynamic range to preserve sonic information that is so nearly indetectable when compared with the audible portion of the audio spectrum.

The reason to try and capture above 16k?

One word

HARMONICS.

That is why we should always try to capture the full bandwidth of the source.

Chris Church

[SparkE!]

The reason to try and capture above 16k?

One word

HARMONICS.

That is why we should always try to capture the full bandwidth of the source.

Chris Church

I prefer to capture only the AUDIBLE harmonics so that I don't waste bits on inaudible portions of the audio spectrum.

[Church-Audio]

The reason to try and capture above 16k?

One word

HARMONICS.

That is why we should always try to capture the full bandwidth of the source.

Chris Church

I prefer to capture only the AUDIBLE harmonics so that I don't waste bits on inaudible portions of the audio spectrum.

The funny thing about harmonics is that even the ones you do not hear effect the ones you do. So you need to capture it all DAMIT

[laptaper]

I'm listening right now to a master FOB cassette of the Dead on 7/2/89 at Foxboro Stadium, which someone asked me to digitize along with some of his other masters.  It was taped using Sennheiser 421s and sounds better than the Schoeps source on archive.org.  There's a lot of richness and warmth, but also definition and separation in the recording. 

Man, if this 421 source is better than Gaswirt's split cmc42 > Oade m118 > PCM source on archive, I wanna hear it!  Anytime this is gonna be torrented soon?  It is a great show to boot!

I say just go 16/44.1 and get the show out there if it is as stellar as you say it is!

Damn the PCMs, full 24 bits ahead!  Trust me, it'll be worth waiting for.     Keep checking shnflac.net, I'm putting a new Tim Alexander source up there each night, 16 bit first, 24 the next night.  It'll be up sometime within the next month.

As far as harmonics and sample rate are concerned, if I'm correct by harmonics you mean that by upping the samples per second you're creating more room for extra tones to squeeze in, regardless of frequency, creating a fuller sound.  E.g. if a recording were a digitized picture, bitrate would be analogous to the potential number of shades a given pixel could have and sample rate would be the number of pixels per square inch.  Have I got that right?

[SparkE!]

The funny thing about harmonics is that even the ones you do not hear effect the ones you do. So you need to capture it all DAMIT

What's that?  You say you want to try another ABX comparison?

[Church-Audio]

The funny thing about harmonics is that even the ones you do not hear effect the ones you do. So you need to capture it all DAMIT

What's that?  You say you want to try another ABX comparison?

OK sure lets do it, Two tracks ( the same song) One with a low pass at 20k 96db per octave, the other one with out any lowpass recorded at 24bit 192k  Does that sound like a fair test?
Let me know if you have trouble getting a hold of a 96db per octave lowpass I can do it here and upload the files already done.
Let me know if you can find a host for the files.

Chris Church

[laptaper]

"You can bring a bowl of popcorn and a glass of water, too." 

Cream, "Anyone for Tennis"

[SparkE!]

The funny thing about harmonics is that even the ones you do not hear effect the ones you do. So you need to capture it all DAMIT

What's that?  You say you want to try another ABX comparison?

OK sure lets do it, Two tracks ( the same song) One with a low pass at 20k 96db per octave, the other one with out any lowpass recorded at 24bit 192k  Does that sound like a fair test?
Let me know if you have trouble getting a hold of a 96db per octave lowpass I can do it here and upload the files already done.
Let me know if you can find a host for the files.

Chris Church

OK, you do that.  I'll be interested to see how you propose to get 96 dB per octave past 20 kHz.  How far down do you plan to be at 20 kHz? Wait... don't tell me... You want it to be flat to within 1 dB out to 20 kHz and be -96 dB by 40 kHz. 

[BC]

OK sure lets do it, Two tracks ( the same song) One with a low pass at 20k 96db per octave, the other one with out any lowpass recorded at 24bit 192k  Does that sound like a fair test?

That is one steep slope!!!!   

[Church-Audio]

The funny thing about harmonics is that even the ones you do not hear effect the ones you do. So you need to capture it all DAMIT

What's that?  You say you want to try another ABX comparison?

OK sure lets do it, Two tracks ( the same song) One with a low pass at 20k 96db per octave, the other one with out any lowpass recorded at 24bit 192k  Does that sound like a fair test?
Let me know if you have trouble getting a hold of a 96db per octave lowpass I can do it here and upload the files already done.
Let me know if you can find a host for the files.

Chris Church

OK, you do that.  I'll be interested to see how you propose to get 96 dB per octave past 20 kHz.  How far down do you plan to be at 20 kHz? Wait... don't tell me... You want it to be flat to within 1 dB out to 20 kHz and be -96 dB by 40 kHz. 

There are many ways to do it but I can use a digital crossover to get the slope but it got me thinking I think I have to be carefull about this because if I use a digital crossover it will change the sound of the processed signal and make the two samples less like each other. Any ideas out there?

[Gutbucket]

There are many ways to do it but I can use a digital crossover to get the slope but it got me thinking I think I have to be carefull about this because if I use a digital crossover it will change the sound of the processed signal and make the two samples less like each other. Any ideas out there?

Start with two copies of a harmonically rich 24bit 192khz source that actually has content over 20khz (varify that with a spectral analysis).  Low pass one at 20k and the other at 80k, or 96 or whatever, just higher than the other.  Check the two low passed copies in a spectral analyzer to varify the presence of ultrasonics and the roll off.  ABX the two 24/192 files that have been through the same processing sequence and should differ only in their cutoff frequency.