best way to record loud live concerts? MD or DAT?
Bjorn Ciggaar
I'm a newbie here and I was just wondering. What's the best to use for
recording live concerts? I kno friends of mine use DAT, but I have an
own MD deck and I think that now with the LP2 and LP4 function MD is
taking over.
There are some concerts coming up and I want to buy a potable MD
recorder & a good set of mics. I got my eye on the Sony MD MZR-700 (or
500) and a set of Powered Battery Box Binaural / Stereo microphone
units.
I just wanted to hear some advice on the use of this. As I understand
for these mic units I need a line in, and not a mic in (1st question,
does the 700 or 500 have a line in?).
Please let me know experiences, etc..
And try to e-mail me since I'm not there often to check the
newsgroups. (cig...@warande.net)
Thanks,
Bjorn
Morten Eriksen
> I'm a newbie here and I was just wondering. What's the best to use
> for recording live concerts? I kno friends of mine use DAT, but I
> have an own MD deck and I think that now with the LP2 and LP4
> function MD is taking over.
I'd say go with a DAT. I bought a MiniDisc for this purpose myself,
but I regret that decision and is now looking for a good deal on a DAT
recorder.
There's a simple reason for this: an "74min" MD disc can only store
140MB of data, which means the internal firmware of the MD-recorder
have to compress the input data with a factor of about 1:4.5. This is
done in a "lossy" way, in principle the same way mp3-encoding works
(although MiniDisc recorders use a different compression algorithm,
called ATRAC). To make a long story short (though not 100% correct),
you "loose" 75-80% of the input signals in your recording when using
an MD-recorder, and there is nothing you can do to prevent it.
A DAT-recorder, on the other hand, keeps every single bit of
information it is feeded, since the DAT tapes can hold gigabytes of
data and doesn't have to filter and compress the input signals.
(Still, the most important part of the sound quality of a live
audience recording is the type of microphone you use, if the soundman
of the venue or the band is capable of doing his job properly and
perhaps your position in the theatre/venue.)
Morten
--
Ees a sad an' beautiful world
Bjorn Ciggaar
I'm a newbie here and I was just wondering. What's the best to use for
recording live concerts? I kno friends of mine use DAT, but I have an
own MD deck and I think that now with the LP2 and LP4 function MD is
taking over.
e gunn
>cig...@warande.remove.net (Bjorn Ciggaar) writes:
>
>> I'm a newbie here and I was just wondering. What's the best to use
>> for recording live concerts? I kno friends of mine use DAT, but I
>> have an own MD deck and I think that now with the LP2 and LP4
>> function MD is taking over.
I would not use the LP2 and LP4 for music, and it is not a factor
in considering MD over DAT for recording live music.
Disc flip on MD can be sizeable. It takes approx 40 seconds on
my Sharp 831. There are tricks to minimize this, but I have not
used them. Sony's I have seen are faster at writing TOC, so
are somewhat quicker than Sharp. Don't know about others
You can record mono to double your time, but I prefer not to
do this, I prefer stereo recording.
I have only run into a couple of situations where this has been
a problem (Dark Star Orchestra, Other Ones). tho last weekend
I had 2 bands in a row that were >80 min sets, but neither band
was worth recording anyway so no big deal.
Depends on where you are recording. I am mostly in clubs and
festivals, and generally 80 minutes is enough. And often there
is enough of a break in a long set to allow a flip anyway.
>I'd say go with a DAT. I bought a MiniDisc for this purpose myself,
>but I regret that decision and is now looking for a good deal on a DAT
>recorder.
I've seen decent deals on DATs on eBay, since many tapers are
going to MD. I seldom use my D7 these days. I would try and get
an M1 if I were getting DAT (smaller, less battery use, better mic
pre).
>There's a simple reason for this: an "74min" MD disc can only store
>140MB of data, which means the internal firmware of the MD-recorder
>have to compress the input data with a factor of about 1:4.5. This is
>done in a "lossy" way, in principle the same way mp3-encoding works
>(although MiniDisc recorders use a different compression algorithm,
>called ATRAC). To make a long story short (though not 100% correct),
>you "loose" 75-80% of the input signals in your recording when using
>an MD-recorder, and there is nothing you can do to prevent it.
The ATRAC compression on current MD is compressed about 1:5, but
quality differences are NOT detectable (by me) on standard equipment.
I have done A/B tests (taping to both DAT and MD w/ same SBD
source) and I cannot hear any difference.
You can see some hi freq loss in a computer analyzer, but I cannot
hear it (Alessis M1 studio monitors as reference).
This is particularly true on mic source live recordings, but I have
also tested CD digital transfers with the same results.
Bottom line is, sound quality is NOT an issue between MD and DAT for
all but the pickiest listeners.
MD suffers from the reputation of the earliest ATRAC versions long ago
that did have artifacts, but you are in no danger of buying a unit
with these versions.
again, this does not apply to the extended time, higher compressed LP
modes, which I personally have not heard, but would avoid.
>A DAT-recorder, on the other hand, keeps every single bit of
>information it is feeded, since the DAT tapes can hold gigabytes of
>data and doesn't have to filter and compress the input signals.
>
>(Still, the most important part of the sound quality of a live
>audience recording is the type of microphone you use, if the soundman
>of the venue or the band is capable of doing his job properly and
>perhaps your position in the theatre/venue.)
true. the source (mics typically) are the most important link.
IMHO, There are 2 adantages to DAT:
1.uninterrupted time >80 minutes.
2. compatibility w/ other traders who have DAT.
The compatiblity issue is disappearing but it depends on what
you record. If you plan on being daisy chained at a concert
you'll want DAT, since you can pass thru digital out. If you
have friends with DATs and you trade, DAT->DAT is easier
to clone (but expensive). These are not issues with me since
I don't hassle with chains, and transfer both DAT and MD to CDR.
MD is smaller (stealthier), takes less battery power, costs less,
has cheaper media, has comparable sound quality.
I have also heard MD is more reliable both as unit and in media,
but I cannot confirm this, as I have not had major problems with
either. DAT definitly has a more intricate mechanical mechanism,
and requires more maintenance. DAT tape does not have as
long a shelf life as MD.
Home units (for digital out transfers) are also cheaper for MD.
In a year of recording maybe 50 shows, I have never bought a single
battery for my sharp 831, I have run stricty off the rechargeable,
have recorded up to 5 hours of music. (i use external power supply
at all day festivals, which i'm not counting; also use if for DAT).
I would put money into MD, and apply the difference saved over
DAT to microphones.
I would avoid Sony's because 1) you can't adjust levels without
pausing and 2) heard too many stories about motor noise.
Also note you can generally get better deals online as opposed to
standard retail (e.g. Best Buy in the US). and US retail is generally
1 or 2 models behind what is available overseas.
Note Aiwa has the advantage that many models are back lit.
Jeez, did I type this much?
e gunn
>Morten
nebulax
says...
I have to agree with all of this. MD is cheaper, and more
convienient to use, but that's about it. If your main concern is sound quality,
go with DAT. And yes, good mics are important, too. And good pre-amps, for that
matter... but I'll save that for another post!
-Neb
K T
I do a lot of research on mics, but real experiances and reviews help just as
much.
Any info would be wonderful.
thanks
In article <2LdP6.6842$r4.4...@www.newsranger.com>, nebulax says...
Ben
nebulax
>
>I have a
question, I would like some input on what mics some people use and why.
>I do a
lot of research on mics, but real experiances and reviews help just
as
>much.
>Any info would be wonderful.
>
>thanks
>
I'm using Sound
Professionals slimline cardiods. These are the only 'stealth' mics I've used, so
I can't really make a comparison with Core Sounds, Sonic Studios, etc, but they
work for me. I do have some non-stealth mics, such as the Audio-Technica AT-822,
which I've gotten better results out of, but I can't hide it on my shirt!
;-]
-Neb
James Dean Young
> I have a question, I would like some input on what mics some people use and
> why.
It all depends on the venue. Sound is different in each place. height
of mic stand makes a difference. Distance between the mics makes a
difference. Distance form the stage makes a difference.
I taped about 300 hundred Dead and Phish shows. I use a TEAC DA-P1 DAT.
I patched into various mics in the taper section and FOB during this
time. The best results always came from Neumann, Scheopps, and AKG.
There are different variations of these mics as well. My FOB tapes were
always on Neumann mics and sound AWSOME.
As far as shotgun style mics go, they seemed to only be appropriate for
the tapers sections at places like BC or a stadium. Stay away from NAK
shotgun mics. The farther away from the stage you get the more
necessary shotgun mics become.
My advice is to drop some coin and go with Neumann, Scheopps, or AKG,
or just patch into some friends since the tapers section can be quite
crowded and patching into a mic setup is easier and less troublesome,
but if you are going stealth then get those Neumann's!
James Dean
rsmor
is the only right way to go.
Keep in mind the old saying, "If you have to use/consider EQ you're just
miking it wrong."
rsmor
"nebulax" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:2LdP6.6842$r4.4...@www.newsranger.com...
rsmor
co-operation. Here's a tip that might help.
If you only have a 2-track machine, take a direct feed from the mixing board
(it's fine if it's dry, i.e.; no reverb)
for one side. Put up a QUALITY mic on a high, sturdy stand for room
ambience and plug into the other track.
[I used 421 Sennheisers before I could afford Neumann]
The result will give an incredible stereo sound! Had some of these played
on air and they were great. It is also a very economical way always
providing the band doesn't louse it up!
Hope this is of some help.
Roger
"James Dean Young" <j...@sundream.com> wrote in message
news:240520012223413454%j...@sundream.com...
James Dean Young
<rsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [I used 421 Sennheisers before I could afford Neumann]
I actually have some great tapes using 421 Sennheisers! Great choice if
you can't afford the top of the line.
James Dean
Shawn C. Robak
> If you only have a 2-track machine, take a direct feed from the mixing board
> (it's fine if it's dry, i.e.; no reverb)
> for one side. Put up a QUALITY mic on a high, sturdy stand for room
> ambience and plug into the other track.
> [I used 421 Sennheisers before I could afford Neumann]
>
> The result will give an incredible stereo sound!
That has got to be one of the goofiest things Ive ever heard.
Record it straight from the board, wash it through a computer afterwards if you
need verb and post production stuff.
> Had some of these played
> on air and they were great.
Uh... commercial radio stations playing such a recording? That's a scary
thought. I hope it was actually an amatuer station.
---
New Web Site! http://www.robak.net
All opinions and comments in this message are my own, and are not on behalf of
any or all of Indiana University in any way.
Support Search and Rescue - Get Lost!
----------------------------------------------------
Shawn C. Robak sro...@indiana.edu
Indiana University Alumni Association
Network Analyst http://www.alumni.indiana.edu
---------------------------------------------------
http://php.indiana.edu/~srobak
ICQ#: 41962699 75232335
Walter Knapp
> I have to agree with all of this. MD is cheaper, and more
> convienient to use, but that's about it. If your main concern is sound quality,
> go with DAT. And yes, good mics are important, too. And good pre-amps, for that
> matter... but I'll save that for another post!
Before getting too wound up with DAT being the be all of recording, a
few notes.
DAT's dynamic range is limited to 96dB, MD is now up to 120dB. When Sony
specified the MD format, they allowed for this increase, DAT (and CD)
did not.
DAT has a higher maintenence cost. Tape wears out the mechanism. Being
non-contact, MD does not wear out. Over the life of a DAT machine you
can easily end up paying for it several times in repair costs. Assuming
you actually heavily use the machine. In light hobbiest use you may get
by for extended periods without repairs, it all depends on how many
hours the tape is grinding the heads.
DAT is sensitive to moisture/humidity if you are talking outdoor
concerts.
DAT media is far less reliable than the MO technology of MD. And, being
linear, is more difficult to edit. Think about being at the wrong place
on a DAT tape when you need to record. With MD all I do is start record,
the Portadisc finds the appropriate place immediately and starts
recording. And, yes, I have been recording alongside a DAT user where I
got the recording while they were waiting for the DAT to find the spot
on the tape after winding back to check what they were getting.
There are now only two brands of portable DAT's left, Tascam and Sony.
Tascam portables have some noise issues with their phantom power leaking
AC into the input lines, though I'm not sure this would be audible in a
loud concert recording. Portable DAT is on it's last legs, going fast in
pro use. MD usage is still growing.
If you wish to compare DAT to MD, at least compare comparable units.
That means you compare to the HHb Portadisc, not some consumer MD
walkman. The HHb Portadisc has quiet phantom power, robust construction,
excellent preamps, XLR inputs, built in digital I/O in several forms and
so on. It also has 6 second preroll, can be left in record pause for
extended times, uses reasonably light batteries and can record nearly 3
MD disks on a single charge.
As for sound quality, in blind listening tests it's still the case that
people do no better than chance at identifying which recording has been
through ATRAC compression and which has not when the samples are
prepaired so that's the only difference.
For those who won't go MD, the future is direct to HD, or to DVD if they
can manage to make that portable. There are already high quality direct
to HD machines available.
D.A. Cameron
Shawn C. Robak <sro...@with.honors.indiana.edu> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 May 2001, rsmor wrote:
>
>> If you only have a 2-track machine, take a direct feed from the mixing board
>> (it's fine if it's dry, i.e.; no reverb)
>> for one side. Put up a QUALITY mic on a high, sturdy stand for room
>> ambience and plug into the other track.
>> [I used 421 Sennheisers before I could afford Neumann]
>>
>> The result will give an incredible stereo sound!
>
>That has got to be one of the goofiest things Ive ever heard.
why is this goofy? it's basically just a matrix, and is not terribly
uncommon. true, it will not be in stereo and you MUST later mix the sbd
and the aud both onto each channel (ie., L=R=40%aud60%sbd or 30/70 or ?).
if the intention is to actually listen to it with the aud in one channel
and the sbd in the other, then yeah, i would agree, that is a bit goofy.
depending on the room, band, music, and all sorts of other factors, the
sbd is not necessarily what you would hear in the aud. (ie., drums are
mixed low, but still quite loud on their own.) so, it's not a bad idea to
have both the sbd and the aud. a hassle? of course. but, sometimes
worth the effort.
one small problem with doing this, however, is that the sbd and the aud
recordings are very slightly out of phase (depending on how far the mic is
from the source), and this should be corrected, although most people dont
bother.
take care,
dave
--
David Cameron
Sociology, McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
(dcam...@mcmaster.ca)
Seabishop
> DAT's dynamic range is limited to 96dB, MD is now up to
> 120dB. When Sony specified the MD format, they allowed
> for this increase, DAT (and CD) did not.
Mostly I agree with what you said - just one small
point - even though MD theoretically allows 120dB
of dynamic range, a good line input might typically
have no more than 100dB dynamic range (portables are
certainly worse), the typical stealth microphones
have about 60-70dB dynamic range, and the typical
rock concert has maybe 20-30dB of dynamic range.
Mike Rivers
> DAT's dynamic range is limited to 96dB, MD is now up to 120dB. When Sony
> specified the MD format, they allowed for this increase, DAT (and CD)
> did not.
I think you're talking about marketing bits here, not acutal dynamic
range.
> DAT has a higher maintenence cost. Tape wears out the mechanism. Being
> non-contact, MD does not wear out.
> Over the life of a DAT machine you
> can easily end up paying for it several times in repair costs.
I have two DATs, both well past their lifetime as far as I'm
concerned, and my total repair cost has been $1 for a bottle of
alcohol and $3 for some foam swabs. Oh, and about 2 hours total of my
very expensive time over the past 7 years to clean them.
A Minidisk may not have tape to wear, but the disk still spins inside
that little plastic case. Ever see a floppy disk that doesn't work
any more? And a Minidisk recorder still has a mechanism to wear out.
The difference is that they're generally not user-servicable at all,
and cost more to repair than to replace. That's why you don't hear
about MD repairs.
> DAT is sensitive to moisture/humidity if you are talking outdoor
> concerts.
So am I.
> If you wish to compare DAT to MD, at least compare comparable units.
> That means you compare to the HHb Portadisc, not some consumer MD
> walkman. The HHb Portadisc has quiet phantom power, robust construction,
> excellent preamps, XLR inputs, built in digital I/O in several forms and
> so on. It also has 6 second preroll, can be left in record pause for
> extended times, uses reasonably light batteries and can record nearly 3
> MD disks on a single charge.
This is a shame. DAT just never caught on, so manufacturers
eventually stopped making the transports, and good companies like
Sony, TASCAM, and HHB ran out of products to which they could add
value. The portable DATs that you can buy today still have the
converters and features that they did five years ago because there's
not enough future in the product to be worth upgrading. Sony is
keeping MD alive by hook or crook, at least for a while, so there are
MD transports available for professional packaging. I believe, though
I haven't done a shootout of the latest Minidisk, that a DAT with
modern converters would sound better than a MD with equivalent
converters.
> For those who won't go MD, the future is direct to HD, or to DVD if they
> can manage to make that portable. There are already high quality direct
> to HD machines available.
How about those who want to record for 2 or even 3 hours continuously,
and want to handle just a single tape, not two or three disks? Back
when I used to read the DAT-Heads mailing list, people would put up
with the risks of using thinner 3-hour DATs because they didn't want
to change tape in the middle of a show.
--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mri...@d-and-d.com)
Walter Knapp
Which of course leaves us to ask why are we bothering with sound quality
worries at all? I doubt that even major sound quality problems would be
identifiable in a typical stealth rock concert recording. But, maybe
that's a separate subject.
BTW, actual tested dynamic range on MD comes out more like a little
under 110dB. At least in what little testing I've read.
You also left out that many of the stealth recordists do a poor job of
recovering even the little dynamic range available in the rock concert.
e gunn
<sro...@with.honors.indiana.edu> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 May 2001, rsmor wrote:
>
>> If you only have a 2-track machine, take a direct feed from the mixing board
>> (it's fine if it's dry, i.e.; no reverb)
>> for one side. Put up a QUALITY mic on a high, sturdy stand for room
>> ambience and plug into the other track.
>> [I used 421 Sennheisers before I could afford Neumann]
>>
>> The result will give an incredible stereo sound!
>
>That has got to be one of the goofiest things Ive ever heard.
>
>Record it straight from the board, wash it through a computer afterwards if you
>need verb and post production stuff.
this is not necessarily better. an ambient mix w/ the board is
definitely the preferred method in most situations, tho it is
usually mixed in as a 4->2 matrix by using L board out with
L mic, R board into R mic. This will maintain the stereo
ambience of the mics.
Many LR mixes from boards are not stereo, sometimes the
only differnce is in the drum mikes, often it's mono.
The mic generally gives a truer mix, esp. in smaller venues,
since the PA is not getting the instrument speakers from stage.
(no one mics and mixes all the speakers of a cabinet) or the
acoustic sound of drums/cymbals.
the sbd often give heavy vox and lower drums, and the ambient
mic balances this out.
I would not do a straight board to one channel, mono mic to
the other and call it stereo. I would take that and treat it as
a 2 track, and remix to taste. you still would not have the
phase ambience of stereo miking.
Good soundboards generally only come from big venues,
where the PA is way dominant over stage sound.
>> ad some of these played
>> on air and they were great.
>
>Uh... commercial radio stations playing such a recording? That's a scary
>thought. I hope it was actually an amatuer station.
That has got to be one of the goofiest things Ive ever heard.
e gunn
e gunn
wrote:
>Have to agree.....2 Neumann mics (minimum) properly placed, direct to a DAT
>is the only right way to go.
>
>Keep in mind the old saying, "If you have to use/consider EQ you're just
>miking it wrong."
Everyone keeps saying "Neumann" as if it's one mic. What model are you
guys using? KLM 184's? Anyone tried TLM 103s?
anyone have problems/concerns w/ humidity outdoors on these condensor
mics?
for budget minded, I use Rode NT3s, about $150 ea. They can run on
48V phantom, or internal 9V, since many folks don't cart phantom power
around (remember to include that in your cost if your gonna go high
end like Neumann!).
NT3s are hypercardiods, and reasonable sound for the money.
I also use them in my home studio for miking acoustic guitars.
They are not stealthy, a bit bigger than broomstick, about 8" long.
you also need a stereo XLR->1/8' adapter.
for stealth and budget, I like the Sound Professional Slimlines (AT
853), These will fit thru a button hole on my shirt. They also
have interchangeable caps, and I have been using the mini-shotguns
in clubs, as they reject side noise (i.e the crowd) pretty well, and
also are less boomy in of the theatres i frequent. Also nice for
acoustic shows sitting up front, pointed right at the source to get
some ambient source instead of just amplified PA. While some
vocalists sound better thru a PA, I've never heard an acoustic
guitar sound better thru a PA.
Mini Shotguns are the size of a ball point pen.
Be sure to include the battery box in the cost (about $250-300 total,
extra caps $80 a pair). There are cheaper models from SP and others.
I don't care what anyone says, MD quality is comparable to DAT, and
both are way better cassette. Spend your money on mics, save money
on batteries.
e gunn
James Dean Young
cheapskate and uninformed. I immediately give away ANY discs made with
MD. I can hear the difference!
In any case Walt tells you to imagine the horror when you go to tape
and you are in the wrong spot on your DAT tape. Only an unprepared fool
would be at the wrong spot of a tape to record right before a show!
DAT records up to THREE HOURS. MD goes for 74 minutes I think. The
first big reason I went to DAT form analog was no more tape flips! With
MD you get cuts...I am a purist, I go for the duration of the show!
MD sucks and sucks bad...don't be suckered into MD garbage!
James Dean
In article <3B0E8AE5...@mindspring.com>, Walter Knapp
<wwk...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Before getting too wound up with DAT being the be all of recording, a
> few notes.
>
> DAT media is far less reliable than the MO technology of MD. And, being
> linear, is more difficult to edit. Think about being at the wrong place
> on a DAT tape when you need to record.
>
> loud concert recording. Portable DAT is on it's last legs, going fast in
> pro use. MD usage is still growing.
>
> If you wish to compare DAT to MD, at least compare comparable units.
>
Steve Sobel
audiophiles... why don't you pipe down and stop shouting "cheapskate"?
Take me for example. I have about $300 to spend, I don't think I can
afford a DAT recorder and decent mics. Will I save up for a DAT instead
of buying MD? I don't know yet... but I'm not trying to make bootlegs I
can sell to people, so it's gonna be hard to convince me to justify the
extra cash for DAT equipment.
Steve
--
--------------------------------------------------
Life's short and hard, like a bodybuilding elf -
So save the planet, and kill yourself!
http://twiggy.dhs.org / http://www.babysmasher.com
Walter Knapp
>
> In article <3B0E8AE5...@mindspring.com> wwk...@mindspring.com writes:
>
> > DAT's dynamic range is limited to 96dB, MD is now up to 120dB. When Sony
> > specified the MD format, they allowed for this increase, DAT (and CD)
> > did not.
>
> I think you're talking about marketing bits here, not acutal dynamic
> range.
Actual usually measures out at just under 110dB according to what I've
read. Though I've not yet seen where anyone has measured the HHb
Portadisc. HHb specs say 120 for it, and they don't tend to stretch
specs much.
MD has the capability of using offsets, which is how it manages 120dB
with a 16bit storage system.
In my nature recording I find I need even more dynamic range. I doubt
that loud concerts tax dynamic range much.
> This is a shame. DAT just never caught on, so manufacturers
> eventually stopped making the transports, and good companies like
> Sony, TASCAM, and HHB ran out of products to which they could add
> value. The portable DATs that you can buy today still have the
> converters and features that they did five years ago because there's
> not enough future in the product to be worth upgrading. Sony is
> keeping MD alive by hook or crook, at least for a while, so there are
> MD transports available for professional packaging. I believe, though
> I haven't done a shootout of the latest Minidisk, that a DAT with
> modern converters would sound better than a MD with equivalent
> converters.
Indeed, this is the main reason why portable DAT is going away. That,
and dropping demand. It never could replace analog tape with consumers,
and the pros are just not that interested either. They are moving to
direct to disc, and many more channels.
Closest I can come to such a shootout is in the nature recordist's.
Several I know have switched from DAT to the Portadisc. Universally they
seem to be of the opinion that the Portadisc is doing as well or better
than the DAT. I've done some side by side nature recording with a nature
recordist using Sony DAT vs my Portadisc. Both recording from a custom
stereo mic setup of his which used the high end Seinheiser mics. We
could find no difference using high quality headphones. The difference
is far, far less than those who have not done the comparisons think. Our
sound quality problem was the cars on the highway 4 miles away, and the
airplanes anywhere in the sky...
Incidentally, that recordist said his next recorder would be the
Portadisc. He does use his DATs enough to have to rebuild them
periodically. To the tune of over a thousand dollars last year.
> > For those who won't go MD, the future is direct to HD, or to DVD if they
> > can manage to make that portable. There are already high quality direct
> > to HD machines available.
>
> How about those who want to record for 2 or even 3 hours continuously,
> and want to handle just a single tape, not two or three disks? Back
> when I used to read the DAT-Heads mailing list, people would put up
> with the risks of using thinner 3-hour DATs because they didn't want
> to change tape in the middle of a show.
There are HD systems capable of this sort of record length. I've got
enough spare space on my Powerbook to hold well more than that and it
does not have the latest, largest HD. Just one of my 3 HD's in my G4 has
enough room for more than 10 hours in one continuous recording right now
and it already has 4 hours of uncompressed audio on it plus aiff files
for burning 5 other audio CD's. Let's see the band that can play
continuously for that long!
Everyone using tape might as well resign themselves to having to move to
new media fairly soon. The writing is on the wall.
It may also turn out to be very hard to get uncompressed audio in the
future too. There does not seem to be any development effort going into
that route. And that worries me more. I fear we are on a downhill slide
in audio quality. Even high quality compressed audio like is in MD may
be in danger. At least as far as reasonably priced portable recorders is
concerned. Just listen to the people telling us that LP4 is fine for
recording music...
DWT
audio nor Phish, and I'm not going to post to alt.music.bootlegs as
it appears to be specifically for *illegal* bootlegging (there are
several definitions of bootlegging, some of which can be legal).]
James Dean Young (yeah, like that's a real name) <j...@sundream.com> scribbled
and dribbled in <250520012049512647%j...@sundream.com>:
| I can hear the difference!
Sure he can.
| MD goes for 74 minutes I think.
He thinks. He doesn't know. This "I'm a young James Dean" creature has had
zero experience with MD and done zero research on it yet does not hesitate to
claim expertise and authority.
| Only an unprepared fool would be at the wrong spot of a tape to record
| right before a show!
True [though the word "fool" was a tad impolite], but notice that the one
thing "I'm a young James Dean" got right was about tape, not about MD.
Walter Knapp
> | Only an unprepared fool would be at the wrong spot of a tape to record
> | right before a show!
>
> True [though the word "fool" was a tad impolite], but notice that the one
> thing "I'm a young James Dean" got right was about tape, not about MD.
Maybe I should start charging every time someone does this and asks me
if I got it so they can get a copy. I've seen quite a few DAT folks do
this while out nature recording. Just can't resist checking if they got
anything the last try. Or making sure the DAT is going to record ok this
time because they have been burned before.
And I've done it, way back when I still used tape. Those who think only
a "unprepared fool" could do this have not recorded enough yet. The
trick is to think fast, you could, after all, wipe whatever is on there
and start where you are. As another variant.
It's even harder to fail to get it when you have the preroll that's in
the Portadisc. (Recording starts 6 seconds before you press the button
if you set it to do that) That one really gets the DAT folks I record
with drooling. That and near infinite time available in record/pause
without damaging the machine.
James Dean Young
wrote:
> Fine, hate MD all you want... but some people are HOBBYISTS and not
> audiophiles... why don't you pipe down and stop shouting "cheapskate"?
You're right, I do hate MD, and I also didn't mean any harm by typing
cheapskate only once...I will pipe down now.
> Take me for example. I have about $300 to spend, I don't think I can
> afford a DAT recorder and decent mics. Will I save up for a DAT instead
> of buying MD? I don't know yet... but I'm not trying to make bootlegs I
> can sell to people, so it's gonna be hard to convince me to justify the
> extra cash for DAT equipment.
That's true, but you can still be a taper without buying mics since
there are more than enough tapers that will let you patch in, and if
you have a DAT deck then you are going to get a spot in the front and
analog and MD guys get behind you in the daisy chain. This way you can
leave your deck and make more room in the over crowded tapers section.
DAT tapes are also more expensive. I had to sell Black Bean Burritos
just to cover my taping costs during the Dead tours and Phish
festivals. Buy a DAT then sell grill cheese after the show while you
are playing the show you just taped and you will have no attracting
hungry people and keeping your taping costs down.
James Dean
Steve Sobel
> there are more than enough tapers that will let you patch in, and if
This depends completely upon what concert you're trying to record.
At pretty much none of the concerts I go to will there be such tapers.
I notice that this is crossposted to rec.music.phish, however. Well,
the original place *I* saw it was alt.audio.minidisc -- people in this
particular newsgroup don't all only go to phish shows.
At most shows I'm at, if there's 1 or 2 people recording at ALL, that's
a surprise.
> DAT tapes are also more expensive. I had to sell Black Bean Burritos
> just to cover my taping costs during the Dead tours and Phish
> festivals. Buy a DAT then sell grill cheese after the show while you
> are playing the show you just taped and you will have no attracting
> hungry people and keeping your taping costs down.
Again.. this is all fine and good for phish.. but they're not the only
band people want to record... please keep in mind that you're
responding not only to rec.music.phish - but to tons of other newsgroups
that are totally non-phish related.
James Dean Young
wrote:
> > DAT tapes are also more expensive. I had to sell Black Bean Burritos
> > just to cover my taping costs during the Dead tours and Phish
> > festivals. Buy a DAT then sell grill cheese after the show while you
> > are playing the show you just taped and you will have no attracting
> > hungry people and keeping your taping costs down.
>
> Again.. this is all fine and good for phish.. but they're not the only
> band people want to record... please keep in mind that you're
> responding not only to rec.music.phish - but to tons of other newsgroups
> that are totally non-phish related.
Oh I see that now, sorry...I hate cross posting...oh well, I read this
in the Phish group so I never looked to see if it was cross
posted...cross posting should be illegal. ;-)
James Dean
David Glover
> Which of course leaves us to ask why are we bothering with sound quality
> worries at all? I doubt that even major sound quality problems would be
> identifiable in a typical stealth rock concert recording. But, maybe
> that's a separate subject.
I think Walter's hit the nail on the head.
To get good results at a live rock concert you need:
1 Good performance
2 Good mixing
3 Good sound system
4 Good acoustics
5 Good position (relative to PA)
Then YOU can start worrying about the quality of your microphones, their
support (nothing like people bumping your non-shockmounted mike stand!)
before you even get to the recorder.
Getting a feed from the desk is great, but it won't have the same balance as
the live mix unless the band has gone for minimal on-stage sound. If you're
recording a band like AC/DC, with a huge proportion of the guitar sound
coming straight off the stage, all you'll get from the desk is vocals and
drums!
Probably the ideal (for an amateur taper) would be to mix a feed from the
desk with live microphones. You can either send one to each channel as our
earlier poster suggested or mix them live. If you're a long way back (or
obsessive) you'd time-align them with a delay.
The only way to get better would be to do it the 'proper' way a la Rolling
Stones mobile: take splits from all microphones, add extra mikes for
recording and either mix live to stereo or multitrack and mix it later.
Frankly I think the issue of DAT vs MD is a complete red herring. They are
the smallest variables in the whole equation. Either can do the job to a
very high standard. MD has lots of advantages: cheaper (and smaller)
machines, cheaper media, random access. DAT has longer recording time. If
any are critical for you, there's your choice. If you already own one or the
other, relax.
Worry about something else guys.
--
David Glover
Sydney, Australia
Bob Cain
"D.A. Cameron" wrote:
>
> one small problem with doing this, however, is that the sbd and the aud
> recordings are very slightly out of phase (depending on how far the mic is
> from the source), and this should be corrected, although most people dont
> bother.
It isn't a small problem, it is a huge one. You will get comb filtering
all over the place if you mix the two and there isn't a thing you can do
to get rid of it. You can effect where the notches are by moving the
mic around but not so's your ear is going to tell you much even if you
are monitoring. The timbre will change but it will never be right. You
won't be able to make it go away. It isn't just the distance from the
mains, it is the distance from the walls, the ceiling, the floor, the
back wall, the bald heads in the crowd, etc., etc. that affects the
group delay function of a reinforcement system in a room and it begins
to look pretty random over the audio band which pretty much randomizes
the comb filter nulls.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
////////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
To contribute your unused processor cycles to the fight against cancer:
To feed a hungry kid today at the cost of a click follow this link:
http://www.thehungersite.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/HungerSite
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\///////////////////////////////////////
Bob Cain
e gunn wrote:
>
> I don't care what anyone says, MD quality is comparable to DAT, and
> both are way better cassette. Spend your money on mics, save money
> on batteries.
>
Listen to the man. He is dead on. As I've said before, I recommend the
Oktava MC012 kits from the Sound Room, http://www.oktava.com, because
you get a set of great capsules with different directivity patterns
instead of just one.
James Dean Young
wrote:
> e gunn wrote:
> >
> > I don't care what anyone says, MD quality is comparable to DAT, and
> > both are way better cassette. Spend your money on mics, save money
> > on batteries.
> >
>
> Listen to the man. He is dead on. As I've said before, I recommend the
> Oktava MC012 kits from the Sound Room, http://www.oktava.com, because
> you get a set of great capsules with different directivity patterns
> instead of just one.
He is only dead on if you prefer your music compressed and the music
lasts no longer than 74 minutes. But I guess if you don't mind cuts in
your music then knock yourself out with an MD recorder.
James Dean
P.S. Listen to the man only if you think MP3s sound as good as CDs.
Toby A Inkster Esq
:He is only dead on if you prefer your music compressed and the music
:lasts no longer than 74 minutes. But I guess if you don't mind cuts in
:your music then knock yourself out with an MD recorder.
With two MD recorders (still cheaper than a DAT set-up), one microphone
and a little extra wiring, you can record for infinitely long with no
breaks. You are only limited by the number of MDs.
Follow-ups set to alt.audio.minidisc,alt.music.bootlegs.
--
Toby A Inkster, Esq.
mailto:tob...@goddamn.co.uk | http://www.toby-inkster.co.uk/boots
icq:6622880 | http://www.badtraders.cjb.net/
Have/Want: Counting Crows, Matchbox 20, Train, Dexter Freebish,
+Live+, Coldplay, Jewel, Dido, Ben Folds Five, Oasis and more!
David Morgan (MAMS)
James Dean Young
<5A11729944B57B9B.3C84B4FD...@lp.airnews.net>,
MAMS\ <ma...@airmail.net> wrote:
> > This is a shame. DAT just never caught on, so manufacturers
> > eventually stopped making the transports, and good companies like
> > Sony, TASCAM, and HHB ran out of products to which they could add
> > value. The portable DATs that you can buy today still have the
> > converters and features that they did five years ago because there's
> > not enough future in the product to be worth upgrading. Sony is
> > keeping MD alive by hook or crook, at least for a while, so there are
> > MD transports available for professional packaging. I believe, though
> > I haven't done a shootout of the latest Minidisk, that a DAT with
> > modern converters would sound better than a MD with equivalent
> > converters.
> >
> > > For those who won't go MD, the future is direct to HD, or to DVD if they
> > > can manage to make that portable. There are already high quality direct
> > > to HD machines available.
> >
> > How about those who want to record for 2 or even 3 hours continuously,
> > and want to handle just a single tape, not two or three disks? Back
> > when I used to read the DAT-Heads mailing list, people would put up
> > with the risks of using thinner 3-hour DATs because they didn't want
> > to change tape in the middle of a show.
Exactly.
Remember two things...MD and K-mart suck, unless of course you like
polyester and chopped up compressed music!
James Dean
Bill Mitchell
> Remember two things...MD and K-mart suck, unless of course you like
> polyester and chopped up compressed music!
>
> James Dean
these are a few of my favorite things
emil schwartze
>> >
>> > I don't care what anyone says, MD quality is comparable to DAT, and
>> > both are way better cassette. Spend your money on mics, save money
>> > on batteries.
>> Listen to the man. He is dead on. As I've said before, I recommend the
>> Oktava MC012 kits from the Sound Room, http://www.oktava.com, because
>> you get a set of great capsules with different directivity patterns
>> instead of just one.
>
>He is only dead on if you prefer your music compressed and the music
>lasts no longer than 74 minutes. But I guess if you don't mind cuts in
>your music then knock yourself out with an MD recorder.
The time limitation (80 min BTW) has already been discussed,
and has nothing to do w/ quality. If you only record long sets
(like Phish) and can get in a chain, definitely go w/ DAT, but
I claim quality is not the reason.
MD disc flips definitely suck, and are worse than DAT flips.
I have tested on live digital and analog source and I'm satisfied.
Have you done the same test?
>James Dean
>
>P.S. Listen to the man only if you think MP3s sound as good as CDs.
Specious reasoning.
I don't think MP3s sound as good as CDs, and we are talking
about live source anyway.
ATRAC and 320kbs mp3 are not comparable. Mp3 and ATRAC
use the same filter bank principles, but are not the same algorithms.
Can you give me an example of MD/DAT from the same source
where you tell the difference??
e gunn
JnyVee
<wwk...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> You also left out that many of the stealth recordists do a poor job of
> recovering even the little dynamic range available in the rock concert.
well, yeah and why not when you wander all over the place diverting the
initial fact that Md doesn't and can't sound as good as 44/16pcm. I
have better dynamic range than CD/DAT in my dbx cassette and I dont
offer it up as a 'better' workign medium than DAT. Heck if I slapped
teh dbx on teh DAT I;d have your MD wiped for dynamics AND sound but
hey.. who could actually -do- anything with more than the 90+ on 16bit?
That the MD is finally getting put into robust reporter field units
like DAT and casette have had for decades just shows catch-up.
MD was a shot at a sonically-compromised (for more recording time)
consumer/recordable medium competeing with Philips' much
better-sounding PASC Digital Compact Cassete system and Sony's just
pounding the last drops out of it.
Look at the future in the Marantz RAM unit sold next to the MD version.
--
<Help Keep The Net Emoticon-free!>
David W. Tamkin
| DWT wrote:
and under that attribution to me he put text written by someone else, editing
out my attribution to their real author (the twit that calls itself "James
Dean Young"). True, Knapp left in the extra level of citation marks, but one
cannot rely on them for people to understand who said what. I've been flamed
more than once for words that others put into my mouth by removing my credit
to the person who really wrote them.
"James Dean Young," not I, wrote this:
Y> Only an unprepared fool would be at the wrong spot of a tape to record
Y> right before a show!
to which I replied,
T> True [though the word "fool" was a tad impolite], but notice that the one
T> thing "I'm a young James Dean" got right was about tape, not about MD.
and Walter Knapp responded,
K> Maybe I should start charging every time someone does this and asks me
K> if I got it so they can get a copy. I've seen quite a few DAT folks do
K> this while out nature recording. Just can't resist checking if they got
K> anything the last try. Or making sure the DAT is going to record ok this
K> time because they have been burned before.
K> Those who think only a "unprepared fool" could do this have not recorded
K> enough yet.
Young's example, to which I was responding, was a taper who doesn't position
the cassette to the right start position *before* a show, or in the case of
nature recordists, before going out. Yes, it is easy to forget to reposition
after checking as Knapp said, but that's a different situation.
The people Young described are indeed unprepared. The second set of people
Knapp described (who want to test their machines before recording but don't
do it until they're already out in the field) can also be called unprepared.
But for the first set of people Knapp described, who rewind to check what
they've just recorded and then find something new to record is happening
before they can play or fast-forward back to where they had stopped and thus
overwrite the first recording, preparation has nothing to do with it.
And for all of them, Young's use of the word `fool' is unwarranted.
Walter continued,
K> It's even harder to fail to get it when you have the preroll that's in
K> the Portadisc. (Recording starts 6 seconds before you press the button
K> if you set it to do that) That one really gets the DAT folks I record
K> with drooling. That and near infinite time available in record/pause
K> without damaging the machine.
And those apply to concert recording as well as nature recording, though
AFAIK the Portadisc is the only *portable* MD recorder with that feature.
Conor Beattie
--
[Reply to this address or conor_...@hotmail.com]
"Toby A Inkster Esq" <use...@goddamn.co.uk> wrote in message
> With two MD recorders (still cheaper than a DAT set-up), one microphone
> and a little extra wiring, you can record for infinitely long with no
> breaks. You are only limited by the number of MDs.
That sounds interesting! What do you do? How do you do it?
Conor
Bob Cain
Use a cable splitter to send the signal to two devices simultaneously
and start the fresh one just before stopping the full one. Subsequent
splicing on a DAW is not very difficult and can be totally transparent.
That the impedence as seen by the mic is halved should not be a problem
because the input impedences of line-in or mic-in is high enough that
half it won't unduly load a microphone.
Come to think of it there could be a glitch problem using mic-in when
the "plug in power" is switched off and on.
Toby A Inkster Esq
:"Toby A Inkster Esq" <use...@goddamn.co.uk> wrote in message
:
:> With two MD recorders (still cheaper than a DAT set-up), one microphone
:> and a little extra wiring, you can record for infinitely long with no
:> breaks. You are only limited by the number of MDs.
:
:That sounds interesting! What do you do? How do you do it?
Set up the mic so that the signal goes into both Minidiscs. You will
probably need to custom make your own wiring to do this, but it honestly
isn't too difficult.
Press "record" on one MD recorder. When there's only 5 minutes left of
the first MD recorder, press "record" on the second MD recorder.
Once the second recorder is recording happily, stop the first one and
take the MD out. Put a new blank disc into the first MD recorder.
When there's only 5 minutes left on the second MD recorder, start
recording with the first one.
Keep doing this until the show is over. There aren't many bands who
would require more than 2 minidiscs without a break. Sure, some shows
are 3 discs long, but there's usually a break before the encore or
something.
Bob Cain
JnyVee wrote:
>
> well, yeah and why not when you wander all over the place diverting the
> initial fact that Md doesn't and can't sound as good as 44/16pcm.
From the standpoint of perceived differences I don't think this
statement can be supported today with ATRAC 4.5. I did my recording for
years with a Sony TCD-D8 DAT but gradually switched over to where I now
use an Aiwa AM-F80 MD exclusively for air mixed sound. For vocal or
single instrument recording and sampling I still use the DAT but
wouldn't if I didn't have the SBM-1 that can be added on to a TCD-D8 and
has professional quality pre-amps and converters and which also provides
about 12 dB better SNR than can be achieved with undithered 16 bit PCM.
> I have better dynamic range than CD/DAT in my dbx cassette and I dont
> offer it up as a 'better' workign medium than DAT. Heck if I slapped
> teh dbx on teh DAT I;d have your MD wiped for dynamics AND sound but
> hey.. who could actually -do- anything with more than the 90+ on 16bit?
Check out the Sony SBM-1 as proof that you can get better than 96dB in
16 bits. Modern MD's convert and record at a higher resolution than
that and if you use their analog out you can get even better dynamic
range than a DAT with an SBM-1. Remember that in theory and apparently
in practice ATRAC, being a perceptual lossy encoding, only loses what is
not perceivable anyway. You may not believe that but even modern MP3 at
the same compression ratio withstands ABX comparison tests with a
statistically insignifigant difference.
Recording quality difference between DAT and MD is a red herring.
JnyVee
wrote:
> From the standpoint of perceived differences I don't think this
> statement can be supported today with ATRAC 4.5. I did my recording for
> years with a Sony TCD-D8 DAT but gradually switched over to where I now
> use an Aiwa AM-F80 MD exclusively for air mixed sound. For vocal or
> single instrument recording and sampling I still use the DAT but
> wouldn't if I didn't have the SBM-1 that can be added on to a TCD-D8 and
> has professional quality pre-amps and converters and which also provides
> about 12 dB better SNR than can be achieved with undithered 16 bit PCM.
I'll admit to having a kneejerk skepticism towards anything with the MD
stamp on it due to all of the SONY hoopla and claims over the earlier
implementations and having heard so many projects in theater and music
crowed over by producers and recording techs that sounded like they
were produced on a really good dictation recorder. It made me (and I'm
sure others) skip the format, and NOT for any dynamic range issues but
simple sonics. 4.5 may well have undone much of this but I'm thinking
too late since RAM's most likely going to overtake it quickly.
> Check out the Sony SBM-1 as proof that you can get better than 96dB in
> 16 bits. Modern MD's convert and record at a higher resolution than
> that and if you use their analog out you can get even better dynamic
> range than a DAT with an SBM-1.
Never had a problem with dynamic range... sure more is better but that
wasn't the issue in teh first place.
> Remember that in theory and apparently
> in practice ATRAC, being a perceptual lossy encoding, only loses what is
> not perceivable anyway. You may not believe that but even modern MP3 at
> the same compression ratio withstands ABX comparison tests with a
> statistically insignifigant difference.
If you;re comparing hi-rate mpeg and MD then I wouldn't doubt it for a
moment.
Maybe 4.5 can stand up to pcm44/16, I haven't tried it. It's a good
thing to know to check on if a project comes my way that might ask if
MD is an option for the production.
>
> Recording quality difference between DAT and MD is a red herring.
but it didn;t start out that way.
first impressions are so important.
Seabishop
> Seabishop wrote:
> > ... the typical stealth microphones
> > have about 60-70dB dynamic range, and the typical
> > rock concert has maybe 20-30dB of dynamic range.
>
> Which of course leaves us to ask why are we bothering
> with sound quality worries at all?
Prezactly - MD/DAT isn't the bottleneck. Worry about the
bottleneck first.
Mike Rivers
> MD was a shot at a sonically-compromised (for more recording time)
> consumer/recordable medium competeing with Philips' much
> better-sounding PASC Digital Compact Cassete system and Sony's just
> pounding the last drops out of it.
MD was also supposed to be a replacement for the analog cassette.
Consumers didn't want to give up the cassettes in their car and didn't
want another format, then CD players for cars became the norm.
Bob Cain
JnyVee wrote:
>
> 4.5 may well have undone much of this but I'm thinking
> too late since RAM's most likely going to overtake it quickly.
I don't think so because magnetic storage has for a very long time
stayed ahead of solid state storage and if anything the gap is getting
wider. Costs are still a couple of orders of magnitude apart and that
isn't going to close easily, if ever. IBM's latest "pixie dust"
technology quadruples magnetic density again and gives 6 gB on one of
their 1" micro disks in the lab. Slower, multi-layer optical
technologies are about to hit the market that can increase that by
another order of magnitude without much affecting cost in the long run.
What totally amazes me is the immunity the MD has shown to advances in
magnetic storage technology.
> >
> > Recording quality difference between DAT and MD is a red herring.
>
> but it didn;t start out that way.
> first impressions are so important.
You are so right. I was highly skeptical too but and have long worked
on ridding myself of contempt prior to investigation.
Toby A Inkster Esq
:JnyVee wrote:
:>
:> 4.5 may well have undone much of this but I'm thinking
:> too late since RAM's most likely going to overtake it quickly.
:
:I don't think so because magnetic storage has for a very long time
:stayed ahead of solid state storage and if anything the gap is getting
:wider.
And think about it... RAM costs roughly £1 ($1.50) per MB. Magnetic
storage (ie hard disc) costs about £100 for about 20000 MB.
RAM recording will never take off simply because the costs involved with
it are astronomic.
Ian
> > > I don't care what anyone says, MD quality is comparable to DAT, and
> > > both are way better cassette. Spend your money on mics, save money
> > > on batteries.
> > >
> >
> lasts no longer than 74 minutes. But I guess if you don't mind cuts in
> your music then knock yourself out with an MD recorder.
>
> James Dean
>
> P.S. Listen to the man only if you think MP3s sound as good as CDs.
You can buy 80 minute Mini Discs James, and thats 160 mins if you record
Mono, which is what I do if I expect a set to last over 80 minutes.
I do not notice too much difference between mono and stereo as my Mics are
normally within 3 inches of each other on my collar anyway, so thats one of
your arguments out of the window.
Try explaining a DAT recorder away as a walkman too if you get caught by
security entering the venue.
With regard to the compression, unless you are a dog you are most unlikely
to notice it.
Ian
Andr01d
: convienient to use, but that's about it. If your main concern is sound
quality,
: go with DAT. And yes, good mics are important, too. And good pre-amps, for
that
: matter... but I'll save that for another post!
:
: -Neb
Well, I read all the posts, and it made me think a lot...
I WAS planning to buy a Sony D100, with mics around ~$200 - 300, but i'm a bit
puzzled now what it do. I will be mainly stealthing shows, but i don't think
bringing in the D100 is gonna be a real big problem. So the size is not the
problem, but I'm not sure what to spend my money on. Should i buy a Sharp MD
with a good pair of mics, or should i buy the D100 [$695 new] and 'less' good
mics? What is the best to spend my money on? I wanna spend $1000, maybe $1100,
but not more. Any ideas?
I think it's a bit naive to reject MD because of the compression only. The main
reasons for me to go with the DAT are/were: No flips [as mentioned]. If i would
decide to use a A/D converter that's possible. Digital out. And sound quality,
but i'm not so sure about that anymore...
cheers,
Andr01d
Nick Georges
Yes, DAT is better than MD in sound quality and recording time.
However..it is difficult to hear the difference between them if all
things are equal. Do a blind test with this and you'll find that almost
no one will be able to hear the difference unless you have some serious
studio quality play back equipment or very golden ears.
Now, a 48k dat vs. a 44.1k MD recording...that is noticable. Yet still,
it takes a mildly trained ear to hear it.
I used MD for a while to record live shows, but stepped up to DAT only
because of an opportunity to get one for free. I'll likely never go
back to MD. The 74min recording limit just sucks.
DAT is, however..being phased out.
Sony stopped production on the D8, its least expensive unit.
A new M1 will run you $700+. A Tascam DAP-1, which is one of the best
portable dat decks will run you twice that.
Believe it or not, the once superior 48k recordng capability is now
becoming a limitation. The newest and best equipment can take samples
at 96k 20-bit. The only portable means of recording at this level that
I know if would be a laptop with digital I/O supplied via a PC/MCIA
card.
Sure, this would have to be downsampled to be burnt to CD, but probably
not for long. I'm sure that DVD-R will become very cheap in the near
future. I believe that it uses 96k vs. the standard 44.1k-16 bit that
normal CD audio is.
If I were buying a new rig and wasn't concerned with getting the
abosolute best money can buy, I might seriously look into a creative
labs NOMAD 6gb MP3 player/recorder. It has a line in, and can record
6gb of straight .wav files @ 44.1k. That is CD quality, better than MD
and MP3 with several hours of recording time to boot. I bet one of
these matched with a little preamp and some of the better sounding
stealth mics would rock pretty good!
However..if I was concerned with the good stuff, I'd go laptop all the
way. Even if you can' afford the high-end preamp and A/D that will do
96k, you'll be ready for it when it does make itself available for less
money.
Put your $$ into good mics like the ones mentioned previouly.
Also, neumann and schoeps are not the end all, be all of good
micrphones. Personaly, I think there are many mics out there that are
much cheaper and sound just as good or better. Neumann has gone down
the crapper recently and Schoeps is SERIOUSLY over priced.
Check out the russian made Elations, or german MBHO (which smoke both
the neumanns and shemps mics, IMO)
James Dean Young wrote:
>
> MD music is compressed. Case closed. Anyone suggesting MD over DAT is a
> cheapskate and uninformed. I immediately give away ANY discs made with
> MD. I can hear the difference!
>
> In any case Walt tells you to imagine the horror when you go to tape
> and you are in the wrong spot on your DAT tape. Only an unprepared fool
> would be at the wrong spot of a tape to record right before a show!
>
> DAT records up to THREE HOURS. MD goes for 74 minutes I think. The
> first big reason I went to DAT form analog was no more tape flips! With
> MD you get cuts...I am a purist, I go for the duration of the show!
>
> MD sucks and sucks bad...don't be suckered into MD garbage!
>
> James Dean
>
> In article <3B0E8AE5...@mindspring.com>, Walter Knapp
> <wwk...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > Before getting too wound up with DAT being the be all of recording, a
> > few notes.
> >
> > DAT media is far less reliable than the MO technology of MD. And, being
> > linear, is more difficult to edit. Think about being at the wrong place
> > on a DAT tape when you need to record.
> >
> > loud concert recording. Portable DAT is on it's last legs, going fast in
> > pro use. MD usage is still growing.
> >
> > If you wish to compare DAT to MD, at least compare comparable units.
> >
> > As for sound quality, in blind listening tests it's still the case that
> > people do no better than chance at identifying which recording has been
> > through ATRAC compression and which has not when the samples are
> > prepaired so that's the only difference.
> >
> > For those who won't go MD, the future is direct to HD, or to DVD if they
> > can manage to make that portable. There are already high quality direct
> > to HD machines available.
--
*** www.nickspicks.com ***
Mike Rivers
> What totally amazes me is the immunity the MD has shown to advances in
> magnetic storage technology.
This might be related to the customers' reluctance to change formats
every year.
JnyVee
wrote:
> > >
> > > Recording quality difference between DAT and MD is a red herring.
> > but it didn;t start out that way.
> > first impressions are so important.
>
> You are so right. I was highly skeptical too but and have long worked
> on ridding myself of contempt prior to investigation.
somethign that is a lifelong task. Every time you clear one layer of
prejudices it seems another is revealed...
JnyVee
Esq <use...@goddamn.co.uk> wrote:
> In our last episode, Bob Cain wrote:
>
> :JnyVee wrote:
> :>
> :> 4.5 may well have undone much of this but I'm thinking
> :> too late since RAM's most likely going to overtake it quickly.
> :
> :I don't think so because magnetic storage has for a very long time
> :stayed ahead of solid state storage and if anything the gap is getting
> :wider.
>
> And think about it... RAM costs roughly £1 ($1.50) per MB. Magnetic
> storage (ie hard disc) costs about £100 for about 20000 MB.
>
> RAM recording will never take off simply because the costs involved with
> it are astronomic.
ummm let's compare the cost of the KILLER WAY TOO BIG TO BE BELIEVED
NED PostPro System of the 80's with today's home computer.
Prices are not at hand but a PostPro was REAL expensive for pro
customers and had the INCREDIBLE feature of 100 (that's right One
Hundred!) meg of RAM on board.
What's a pretty common ram-maxed video-loaded Mac go for these days?
friend of mine has a CANON camera with a removable chip that holds an
ABSURD amount of data and the whole CAMERA is only as expensive as a
2Gig drive was several years ago.
JnyVee
<stit...@totalise.co.ukNOSPAM> wrote:
> You can buy 80 minute Mini Discs James, and thats 160 mins if you record
> Mono, which is what I do if I expect a set to last over 80 minutes.
>
> I do not notice too much difference between mono and stereo as my Mics are
> normally within 3 inches of each other on my collar anyway, so thats one of
> your arguments out of the window.
so why 2 mics in mono?
>
> Try explaining a DAT recorder away as a walkman too if you get caught by
> security entering the venue.
if you're stealing performances against the express wishes of the
performer you;re a cad anyway. hope your batts die on the best tune.
JnyVee
<ku.o...@d10rdnA.REVERSE> wrote:
> Well, I read all the posts, and it made me think a lot...
> I WAS planning to buy a Sony D100, with mics around ~$200 - 300, but i'm a bit
> puzzled now what it do. I will be mainly stealthing shows, but i don't think
> bringing in the D100 is gonna be a real big problem. So the size is not the
> problem, but I'm not sure what to spend my money on. Should i buy a Sharp MD
> with a good pair of mics, or should i buy the D100 [$695 new] and 'less' good
> mics? What is the best to spend my money on? I wanna spend $1000, maybe $1100,
> but not more. Any ideas?
Idea; buy the artist's released records and just go attend the show
leaving the crimetoys at home. Get some respect for the groups you
claim to be a 'fan' of... although I suppose 'fan' as from 'fanatic'
could apply to the types of folks who stalk old girlfriends and attack
their objects of attention and sometimes manage to kill them. The shoe
fits. Hope the sec guys grab your gear and ceremoniously have the tour
bus and road trucks roll over it.
JnyVee
<ni...@nickspicks.com> wrote:
> If I were buying a new rig and wasn't concerned with getting the
> abosolute best money can buy, I might seriously look into a creative
> labs NOMAD 6gb MP3 player/recorder. It has a line in, and can record
> 6gb of straight .wav files @ 44.1k. That is CD quality, better than MD
> and MP3 with several hours of recording time to boot. I bet one of
> these matched with a little preamp and some of the better sounding
> stealth mics would rock pretty good!
this sounds grand...
Andr01d
: leaving the crimetoys at home. Get some respect for the groups you
: claim to be a 'fan' of... although I suppose 'fan' as from 'fanatic'
: could apply to the types of folks who stalk old girlfriends and attack
: their objects of attention and sometimes manage to kill them. The shoe
: fits. Hope the sec guys grab your gear and ceremoniously have the tour
: bus and road trucks roll over it.
What if you have all the albums + singles?!??!
Crimetoys? Can you be more specific? Should i leave my knives at home?
cheers,
Andr01d
Kristian Svennevig
pro audio formerly Bruel and Kjaer)
miniture mics.. If you are unfamiliar with DPA... They make some of the most
accurate mics in the world..
as a matter of fact most measurements of audio system performance are done using
DPA(Bruel and Kjaer) mics.
That give an accurate clean sound...
K T wrote:
> I have a question, I would like some input on what mics some people use and why.
> I do a lot of research on mics, but real experiances and reviews help just as
> much.
> Any info would be wonderful.
>
> thanks
>
> In article <2LdP6.6842$r4.4...@www.newsranger.com>, nebulax says...
> >
> >In article <87d78zc...@mani.sim.no>, Morten Eriksen
> >says...
> >>
> >>cig...@warande.remove.net (Bjorn Ciggaar) writes:
> >>
> >>> I'm a newbie
> >here and I was just wondering. What's the best to use
> >>> for recording live
> >concerts? I kno friends of mine use DAT, but I
> >>> have an own MD deck and I
> >think that now with the LP2 and LP4
> >>> function MD is taking over.
> >>
> >>I'd say go
> >with a DAT. I bought a MiniDisc for this purpose myself,
> >>but I regret that
> >decision and is now looking for a good deal on a DAT
> >>recorder.
> >>
> >>There's a
> >simple reason for this: an "74min" MD disc can only store
> >>140MB of data, which
> >means the internal firmware of the MD-recorder
> >>have to compress the input data
> >with a factor of about 1:4.5. This is
> >>done in a "lossy" way, in principle the
> >same way mp3-encoding works
> >>(although MiniDisc recorders use a different
> >compression algorithm,
> >>called ATRAC). To make a long story short (though not
> >100% correct),
> >>you "loose" 75-80% of the input signals in your recording when
> >using
> >>an MD-recorder, and there is nothing you can do to prevent it.
> >>
> >>A
> >DAT-recorder, on the other hand, keeps every single bit of
> >>information it is
> >feeded, since the DAT tapes can hold gigabytes of
> >>data and doesn't have to
> >filter and compress the input signals.
> >>
> >>(Still, the most important part of the
> >sound quality of a live
> >>audience recording is the type of microphone you use,
> >if the soundman
> >>of the venue or the band is capable of doing his job properly
> >and
> >>perhaps your position in the theatre/venue.)
> >>
> >>Morten
> >>--
> >>Ees a sad an'
> >beautiful world
Kristian Svennevig
right channels... as for getting a "amazing stereo image"
I think not.... the best and most realistic stereo images come from several
mics that are positioned at the same distance from the source...
this is an elementary concept.... something people learn in recording
techniques 101
rsmor wrote:
> I've done a lot of live recording of bands but only with their complete
> co-operation. Here's a tip that might help.
>
> If you only have a 2-track machine, take a direct feed from the mixing board
> (it's fine if it's dry, i.e.; no reverb)
> for one side. Put up a QUALITY mic on a high, sturdy stand for room
> ambience and plug into the other track.
> [I used 421 Sennheisers before I could afford Neumann]
>
> The result will give an incredible stereo sound! Had some of these played
> on air and they were great. It is also a very economical way always
> providing the band doesn't louse it up!
>
> Hope this is of some help.
>
> Roger
>
> "James Dean Young" <j...@sundream.com> wrote in message
> news:240520012223413454%j...@sundream.com...
> > In article <CTeP6.6966$r4.4...@www.newsranger.com>, K T
> > <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I have a question, I would like some input on what mics some people use
> and
> > > why.
> >
> > It all depends on the venue. Sound is different in each place. height
> > of mic stand makes a difference. Distance between the mics makes a
> > difference. Distance form the stage makes a difference.
> >
> > I taped about 300 hundred Dead and Phish shows. I use a TEAC DA-P1 DAT.
> > I patched into various mics in the taper section and FOB during this
> > time. The best results always came from Neumann, Scheopps, and AKG.
> > There are different variations of these mics as well. My FOB tapes were
> > always on Neumann mics and sound AWSOME.
> >
> > As far as shotgun style mics go, they seemed to only be appropriate for
> > the tapers sections at places like BC or a stadium. Stay away from NAK
> > shotgun mics. The farther away from the stage you get the more
> > necessary shotgun mics become.
> >
> > My advice is to drop some coin and go with Neumann, Scheopps, or AKG,
> > or just patch into some friends since the tapers section can be quite
> > crowded and patching into a mic setup is easier and less troublesome,
> > but if you are going stealth then get those Neumann's!
> >
> > James Dean
Kristian Svennevig
can you say proximity effect?
you would much better off getting a pair of Beyer M101's
which are a very underated omni dynamic mic.... put a little compression
on them and voila... almost condensors..
M101's blow away any other dynamic for that specific purpose.
they have a very balanced response and they are not so plagued with
proximity effect...
ok so you might get a little more crowd noise... big deal... the sound
quality will definitely be improved.
Kristian Svennevig
Producer/ Engineer
Mobius Productions/ Evolution Recording Studios
James Dean Young wrote:
> In article <sslP6.9933$i25.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>, rsmor
> <rsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [I used 421 Sennheisers before I could afford Neumann]
>
> I actually have some great tapes using 421 Sennheisers! Great choice if
> you can't afford the top of the line.
>
> James Dean
JnyVee
<sven...@home.com> wrote:
> with that technique essentially there is just a phase delay in the left and
> right channels...
well. TIME delay certainly. 'phasing's a tricky word as it's
traditionaly misused for several wholly different artifacts... POLARITY
and PHASE SHIFT (which is pretty much just time-shift at teh wavelength
level) and he pretty much is DEALING with that by keeping the direct
feed and mic on separate channels so's you can FIX that when you blend
them later... sheeshe
> as for getting a "amazing stereo image"
> I think not....
well yeah, there ain;t much stereo image in a mono recording... but a
good mono recording is better than a lousy stereo one
> the best and most realistic stereo images come from several
> mics that are positioned at the same distance from the source...
> this is an elementary concept.... something people learn in recording
> techniques 101
well... again gouing back to the other idea of 2 mics cliped to your
collar, 'phase delay' is the major element of what makes stereo
recording work. It's getting -good-sounding- differences between mics,
finding the sweet spot in room and position for performer and mics,
that makes pd work FOR you. and that 3" is about the distance betwwen
capsules on some MS, XY stereo mics that are well-regarded as $4k tools
for someof the best recordings... but then those engineers didn't place
those mics under their chin or on their hat... we're talking kids
playing with toys here and one decent $30 omni on the tip of my head to
a Walkman Pro would do as well or better than most of this stuff.
JnyVee
<sven...@home.com> wrote:
> using MD421's for live recording....eeeewwww
> can you say proximity effect?
yes I can... are we placing the mics within 3" of the PA or something
here? If not, at distances beyond a foot or so it aint there adn teh
421's a nice dynamic cardioid. I;d take the omni over i too though.
--
Kristian Svennevig
the tlm 103 is not a good mic for micing at distances of more than say 10
feet...
huge proximity effect not to mention the large diaphram can't respond as quickly
as a small diaphram
if you use large diaphram mics at significant distances your recordings will
sound dull.... the km184's on the
other hand.. sound fantastic at distances.. they have an excellent off axis
response and
they have a big sound.... km184's would be my mic of choice..
but something that also is extremely nice for the money is Oktava Mc012's
(provided you get a good pair. I have heard that they are sort of inconsistent)
I picked up a nice pair of them for $350.00 on ebay...
people are using them in big studios more and more
Somthing else that is worth mentioning is using Earthworks SRO's
I probably wouldn't record a string quartet with them due to a bit of noise..
however
in live concert settings they will work beautifully...
you can get them for $250.00 a piece at full compass...
if you want the most accurate mic for the money , Earthworks is the ticket.
I have not tried the NT3 but have been intrigued by it's ability to be
internally powered..
Rode does make some fairly decent mics. Better than all that AudioTechnica crap
that floats around.
and I do feel the need to voice my oposition to people that diss the MD....
I agree with egunn... I love minidisc...
I think a lot of professionals diss things they are unfamiliar with so they can
sound knowledgable.
Frankly, minidiscs don't wear out like dat does... and people who think that MD
sounds like MP3 should have their heads or ears examined. They are not even
close...
Most new minidiscs have 24 bit converters on the front end..
not many dats do... and as for having lossy compression... that is bull....
There is way too much mythology going on with audio professionals... I frankly
like the sound of my
MD with it's 24 bit converters better than the sound of my dat with it's 16 bit
converters...
and as far as media costs, MD is as cost effective as it gets.... I think people
are just resentfull that they spent $1000
for their dat machines and then along comes a minidisc deck for $250 that blows
it away....
I think If people don't have experience with something personally, they have no
business spouting off about it!!
After all your ears are the final judge... forget what Mr. so and so says....
think for yourselves.... you be the judge!
I have produced plenty of live recorded CD's captured with minidisc and everyone
that has heard them
thought they sounded great.... and these were people with excellent ears... not
some joe shmoes
that can't tell the difference between mp3 and cd...
It's too bad that so many people have hangups about a technology that is really
good..
it is the ignorant people who kill the good ideas...
Kristian Svennevig
Producer/ Engineer
Mobius Productions/ Evolution Recording Studios
e gunn wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2001 00:44:17 -0700, "rsmor" <rsm...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Have to agree.....2 Neumann mics (minimum) properly placed, direct to a DAT
> >is the only right way to go.
> >
> >Keep in mind the old saying, "If you have to use/consider EQ you're just
> >miking it wrong."
>
> Everyone keeps saying "Neumann" as if it's one mic. What model are you
> guys using? KLM 184's? Anyone tried TLM 103s?
>
> anyone have problems/concerns w/ humidity outdoors on these condensor
> mics?
>
> for budget minded, I use Rode NT3s, about $150 ea. They can run on
> 48V phantom, or internal 9V, since many folks don't cart phantom power
> around (remember to include that in your cost if your gonna go high
> end like Neumann!).
> NT3s are hypercardiods, and reasonable sound for the money.
> I also use them in my home studio for miking acoustic guitars.
> They are not stealthy, a bit bigger than broomstick, about 8" long.
> you also need a stereo XLR->1/8' adapter.
>
> for stealth and budget, I like the Sound Professional Slimlines (AT
> 853), These will fit thru a button hole on my shirt. They also
> have interchangeable caps, and I have been using the mini-shotguns
> in clubs, as they reject side noise (i.e the crowd) pretty well, and
> also are less boomy in of the theatres i frequent. Also nice for
> acoustic shows sitting up front, pointed right at the source to get
> some ambient source instead of just amplified PA. While some
> vocalists sound better thru a PA, I've never heard an acoustic
> guitar sound better thru a PA.
> Mini Shotguns are the size of a ball point pen.
> Be sure to include the battery box in the cost (about $250-300 total,
> extra caps $80 a pair). There are cheaper models from SP and others.
>
> I don't care what anyone says, MD quality is comparable to DAT, and
> both are way better cassette. Spend your money on mics, save money
> on batteries.
>
> e gunn
Kristian Svennevig
thank you for squashing the much mythology about minidiscs!
as I said in an earlier post, I feel "it is the ignorant people that kill the good
ideas"
Minidiscs are a good technology that gets a bad rap from people who don't know
personally...
actually they just a bunch of polly parrots spouting crap they heard someone else
say!
Walter Knapp wrote:
> nebulax wrote:
>
> > I have to agree with all of this. MD is cheaper, and more
> > convienient to use, but that's about it. If your main concern is sound quality,
> > go with DAT. And yes, good mics are important, too. And good pre-amps, for that
> > matter... but I'll save that for another post!
>
> Before getting too wound up with DAT being the be all of recording, a
> few notes.
>
> DAT's dynamic range is limited to 96dB, MD is now up to 120dB. When Sony
> specified the MD format, they allowed for this increase, DAT (and CD)
> did not.
>
> DAT has a higher maintenence cost. Tape wears out the mechanism. Being
> non-contact, MD does not wear out. Over the life of a DAT machine you
> can easily end up paying for it several times in repair costs. Assuming
> you actually heavily use the machine. In light hobbiest use you may get
> by for extended periods without repairs, it all depends on how many
> hours the tape is grinding the heads.
>
> DAT is sensitive to moisture/humidity if you are talking outdoor
> concerts.
>
> DAT media is far less reliable than the MO technology of MD. And, being
> linear, is more difficult to edit. Think about being at the wrong place
> on a DAT tape when you need to record. With MD all I do is start record,
> the Portadisc finds the appropriate place immediately and starts
> recording. And, yes, I have been recording alongside a DAT user where I
> got the recording while they were waiting for the DAT to find the spot
> on the tape after winding back to check what they were getting.
>
> There are now only two brands of portable DAT's left, Tascam and Sony.
> Tascam portables have some noise issues with their phantom power leaking
> AC into the input lines, though I'm not sure this would be audible in a
> loud concert recording. Portable DAT is on it's last legs, going fast in
> pro use. MD usage is still growing.
>
> If you wish to compare DAT to MD, at least compare comparable units.
> That means you compare to the HHb Portadisc, not some consumer MD
> walkman. The HHb Portadisc has quiet phantom power, robust construction,
> excellent preamps, XLR inputs, built in digital I/O in several forms and
> so on. It also has 6 second preroll, can be left in record pause for
> extended times, uses reasonably light batteries and can record nearly 3
> MD disks on a single charge.
>
> As for sound quality, in blind listening tests it's still the case that
> people do no better than chance at identifying which recording has been
> through ATRAC compression and which has not when the samples are
> prepaired so that's the only difference.
>
> For those who won't go MD, the future is direct to HD, or to DVD if they
> can manage to make that portable. There are already high quality direct
> to HD machines available.
>
> Walt
> wwk...@mindspring.com
Mike Rivers
In article <3b10fc07$0$12244$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com> stit...@totalise.co.ukNOSPAM writes:
> I do not notice too much difference between mono and stereo as my Mics are
> normally within 3 inches of each other on my collar anyway, so thats one of
> your arguments out of the window.
I think that explains a lot about the way that you record concerts.
That's not what we do in rec.audio.pro. Please confine your
cross-postings to other newsgroups. Thanks.
Bob Cain
Nick Georges wrote:
>
> If I were buying a new rig and wasn't concerned with getting the
> abosolute best money can buy, I might seriously look into a creative
> labs NOMAD 6gb MP3 player/recorder. It has a line in, and can record
> 6gb of straight .wav files @ 44.1k. That is CD quality, better than MD
> and MP3 with several hours of recording time to boot. I bet one of
> these matched with a little preamp and some of the better sounding
> stealth mics would rock pretty good!
Nick, ignore that beast. There is a digital crosstalk whine on the
line-in of around -75 dB at the lowest recording gain and all higher
gains are digitally derived by simply multiplying the ADC output by an
integer. This means that quantization or crosstalk noise is multiplied
by the same value and the best you get is a 12.5 bit equivalent ADC
corresponding to the -75 dB noise figure. I have not been able to get
Creative or any of the users to measure the sensitivity of that lowest
gain setting to see what amount of pre-amplification would be required
to get digital full scale at that record level.
What could make it rock would be a good external pre/converter with a
microcontroller and USB master that did the recording via the NJB's USB
port and they have published an SDK for programming that port but no one
has made one.
>
> However..if I was concerned with the good stuff, I'd go laptop all the
> way. Even if you can' afford the high-end preamp and A/D that will do
> 96k, you'll be ready for it when it does make itself available for less
> money.
This is where I'm headed for anything but air mixed, shirt pocket
stereo. With a Firewire port, which will be standard soon enough, and
one of IBM's upcoming 200 gB notebook drives the end of the road will be
reached for professional recording except for possible further
minaturization. Processing power is already good enough and storage
density is poised to be adequate for serious multi-tracking any day. It
probably is already if one can offload to a server via the Firewire port
after a long day of tracking. The least common denominator in notebooks
will soon be up to the job and cost will plummet for serious recording
because of the economy of scale these notebooks will bring.
StArSeEd
> Nick Georges
> > If I were buying a new rig and wasn't concerned with getting the
> > abosolute best money can buy, I might seriously look into a creative
> > labs NOMAD 6gb MP3 player/recorder. It has a line in, and can record
> > 6gb of straight .wav files @ 44.1k. That is CD quality, better than MD
> > and MP3 with several hours of recording time to boot. I bet one of
> > these matched with a little preamp and some of the better sounding
> > stealth mics would rock pretty good!
> this sounds grand...
It would probably sound more so if the 10MB chunks the damn thing auto-splits its
recordings into (with the newer firmware revisions) were not missing samples at their
splice points. With the older firmware versions (straight recording), if the drive filled
up (and possibly if it reached 2GB or 4GB, I forget), you lost your recording, period. If
the batteries ran dry (which is much more likely, considering the unit's large storage
capacity vs. relatively low battery life - the reason for the 10MB chunking with the new
firmware), you lost your recording. You'd think you'd be able to just pop out the 2.5" HD
and stick it in your PC or laptop to restore it, but apparently it doesn't use a standard
PC-compatible HD format (if you're interested in the format it uses, look up how to
upgrade the HD to a 20-gigger on tomshardware.com).
-StArSeEd
--
IRC EFNet: #smashing_pumpkins
star...@shaolindeathsquad.com
ICQ UIN: 1711589
Bob Cain
JnyVee wrote:
>
> Idea; buy the artist's released records and just go attend the show
> leaving the crimetoys at home. Get some respect for the groups you
> claim to be a 'fan' of... although I suppose 'fan' as from 'fanatic'
> could apply to the types of folks who stalk old girlfriends and attack
> their objects of attention and sometimes manage to kill them. The shoe
> fits. Hope the sec guys grab your gear and ceremoniously have the tour
> bus and road trucks roll over it.
Most of the shows I go to allow you to set up your mics on ten foot
stands or at the edge of the stage if you want to or to get a feed from
the board. Restrictions on taping are disappearing as performers
recognize it isn't really a threat to their pocketbooks and that there
isn't a hell of a lot they can do about it anyway.
StArSeEd
> Most new minidiscs have 24 bit converters on the front end..
> not many dats do... and as for having lossy compression... that is bull....
It's not bull, it's audio science. Yes, MD uses a lossy compression scheme. The trick,
which it does *quite* well, mind you, is to only drop what is not audible by the (above
average; not "golden", however) human ear.
-StArSeEd
--
IRC EFnet: #smashing_pumpkins
star...@shaolindeathsquad.com
ICQ UIN: 1711589
Ian
news:270520011106516044%moc....@ybmurbrevlis.com...
So it was your curse......
They died sometime between Sabbath starting their encore and the fireworks
ending at the Ozzfest yesterday. Just listening back now to see if I got the
whole encore or not.
And you won't draw me into an argument on the 'stealing their performance'
bit.
Ian
Ian
news:znr990973867k@trad...
I replied to the groups already on the thread.
If thats 'not what you do in rec.audio.pro' then do please enlighten me. I'm
always willing to listen to advice to make my recordings sound better.
I also think it would be hard to get anything than the crowd noise in stereo
when you are recording from PA's that are in mono. All this assuming my
method of Mic mounting.
Ian
David Morgan (MAMS)
"JnyVee" <moc....@ybmurbrevlis.com> wrote in message news:270520011326528668%moc....@ybmurbrevlis.com...
> In article <3B112ADD...@home.com>, Kristian Svennevig
> <sven...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > using MD421's for live recording....eeeewwww
> > can you say proximity effect?
>
> yes I can... are we placing the mics within 3" of the PA or something
> here? If not, at distances beyond a foot or so it aint there adn teh
> 421's a nice dynamic cardioid.
3 inches sounds about right to me for 'proximity' to kick in on a 421.
Johnny V ? Mike R. ? Is this really you crossposting to 'bootlegs', 'MD',
and 'phish' ? Man-o-man.... I can't believe that there's still peace in this
thread. Even though that's almost all there is to commend from what's
eventually shown up on r.a.p. ;-)
How the dickens *did* this thread show up on r.a.p. anyway ? Some
stranger by the moniker of 'nebulax' was the first post I saw.
I knew if you guys kept watching this rather humorous parlay of opinion
and approach, that you couldn't resist setting straight some of the
mis-information found herein. (And I see a flood of questionables).
I'm getting a kick out of it, but this will be my only 'crossed' post. Be careful
out there. "MD rulez, man !!" "Phish Rocks, dude" "Bootlegs R us !"
Whoooboy..............
--
David Morgan (MAMS)
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (972) 622-1972
_______________________________________
Main Street Studio, Garland, TX (972) 487-4045
Kristian Svennevig
to be, golden ears and the loss with current versions of the Atrak ( like 4.5) it is not
significant...
the key is that it isn't really a perceiveable loss.... so it is therefore insignificant
a good analog input stage ( good preamps and mics) can take care of making it sound just
fine...
I think people are good at hallucinating audio differences; I have seen many an
audiophile, or should I say idiotphile, "hear" differences in two identical pieces of
wire....
only to get pissed off when they found out that it was two identical peices of wire.... if
you get my drift
If this person had to pay $100 for this peice of wire and someone else paid $0.50 for that
piece of wire..
of course the guy who paid the $100.00 for their peice of wire is going to swear that
theirs is better..
they don't want to look like an ass for being stupid enough to pay $100 for it....
As PT Barnum said... there is a sucker born every minute
Kristian Svennevig
Producer/ Engineer
Mobius Productions/ Evolution Recording Studios
...
James Dean Young
<stit...@totalise.co.ukNOSPAM> wrote:
> You can buy 80 minute Mini Discs James, and thats 160 mins if you record
> Mono, which is what I do if I expect a set to last over 80 minutes.
>
> I do not notice too much difference between mono and stereo as my Mics are
> normally within 3 inches of each other on my collar anyway, so thats one of
> your arguments out of the window.
>
> Try explaining a DAT recorder away as a walkman too if you get caught by
> security entering the venue.
>
> With regard to the compression, unless you are a dog you are most unlikely
> to notice it.
Good Lord! We need to change this thread to the "CHEAPEST way to to
record live concerts" instead of the best way. I mean, come on for
Christ's sake! You guys are talking about recording nono onto MD just
to get 160 minutes, using multiple recorders so you can splice MDs
together just to get longer running time, using $100 mics, no regard
for quality WHATSOEVER! Who ever listens to these buffoons will
certainly be looked down on in any trading circle, not too mention
being forced to listen to less than adequate music!
By the way, my dog can hear the difference on my Klipsch and he refers
DAT.
I am now going to back out of this "Bluelight Special" debate because
squeezing pennies at the cost of quality was never part of my audio
taping equation.
James Dean
James Dean Young
> This post is malarky!
>
> Yes, DAT is better than MD in sound quality and recording time.
> However..it is difficult to hear the difference between them if all
> things are equal. Do a blind test with this and you'll find that almost
> no one will be able to hear the difference unless you have some serious
> studio quality play back equipment or very golden ears.
Malarky to to you because you like to settle for second best, and I
don't. Listen to yourself. You say you'll only hear the difference with
good studio equipment. Did you think I was recording with a Tascam
DAP-1 and Neumann mics and then playing it on my boom box? Your choice
of words like "difficult" and "almost" show that you are indeed
admitting the superior qulaity of DAT. I have studio speakers and
golden ears and I prefer DAT tapes over MDs...you're the one full of
malarky!
> Now, a 48k dat vs. a 44.1k MD recording...that is noticable. Yet still,
> it takes a mildly trained ear to hear it.
There you go again..."a mildy trained ear"? I'll have to admit mine is
more than mildly trained. Once again you are contradicting yourself by
saying malarky when DAT is in fact of better quality.
> I used MD for a while to record live shows, but stepped up to DAT only
> because of an opportunity to get one for free. I'll likely never go
> back to MD. The 74min recording limit just sucks.
Everything I have been saying you are sort of saying here...where's the
malarky?
> DAT is, however..being phased out.
Phased out for you since you do all your shopping at K-Mart and Circuit
City. There will always be pro-DATs on the market for some time!
> Sony stopped production on the D8, its least expensive unit.
> A new M1 will run you $700+. A Tascam DAP-1, which is one of the best
> portable dat decks will run you twice that.
And the Tascam DAP-1 is what I used to record over 300 Dead and Phish
shows as well as countless other bands, but hey, don't listen to
me...Nick says I am full of malarky! ;-)
James Dean
James Dean Young
<sven...@home.com> wrote:
> Minidiscs are a good technology that gets a bad rap from people who don't know
> personally...
Minidiscs are a bad technology that gets a good rap from people who
don't know anything about the technology...isn't that whay you meant to
say?
James Dean
James Dean Young
<stit...@totalise.co.ukNOSPAM> wrote:
> > I think that explains a lot about the way that you record concerts.
> > That's not what we do in rec.audio.pro. Please confine your
> > cross-postings to other newsgroups. Thanks.
>
> I replied to the groups already on the thread.
>
> If thats 'not what you do in rec.audio.pro' then do please enlighten me. I'm
> always willing to listen to advice to make my recordings sound better.
We have been trying to enlighten you but instead of listening you
futily try to defend MD and mono recording telling us it just as
good...LOL...do you think any decent bands today archive their shows on
MD? Why not? It's consumer-level garbage. And this thread originally
asked for the BEST way to record a concert. Go play in rec.audio.deaf
where you belong ;-)
James Dean
Toby A Inkster Esq
:By the way, my dog can hear the difference on my Klipsch and he refers (sic)
:DAT.
FYI, the human hearing range extends to roughly 20KHz whereas a dog's
hearing range extends to roughly twice that.
As the loss in ATRAC compression occurs mainly *above* 20KHz, I would
expect a dog to be able to spot the difference between DAT and MD much
more easily than a human.
--
Toby A Inkster, Esq.
mailto:tob...@goddamn.co.uk | http://www.toby-inkster.co.uk/boots
icq:6622880 | http://www.badtraders.cjb.net/
Have/Want: Counting Crows, Matchbox 20, Train, Dexter Freebish,
+Live+, Coldplay, Jewel, Dido, Ben Folds Five, Oasis and more!
Chris Johnson
> JnyVee wrote:
> > well, yeah and why not when you wander all over the place diverting the
> > initial fact that Md doesn't and can't sound as good as 44/16pcm.
> > I have better dynamic range than CD/DAT in my dbx cassette and I dont
> > offer it up as a 'better' workign medium than DAT. Heck if I slapped
> > teh dbx on teh DAT I;d have your MD wiped for dynamics AND sound but
> > hey.. who could actually -do- anything with more than the 90+ on 16bit?
I could slap three DBX companders in a row on my freaking telephone
answering machine and wipe the floor with all of you on strictly dynamic
range concerns, but nobody on earth would consider that any kind of good
sounding.
Better yet, I can slap a digital noise gate onto Xing-encoded 128K mp3s
and get (more or less) _infinite_ dynamic range, and this means even less.
You simply cannot go by isolated measurements like that to judge the
merits of an audio tool.
> Check out the Sony SBM-1 as proof that you can get better than 96dB in
> 16 bits. Modern MD's convert and record at a higher resolution than
> that and if you use their analog out you can get even better dynamic
> range than a DAT with an SBM-1. Remember that in theory and apparently
> in practice ATRAC, being a perceptual lossy encoding, only loses what is
> not perceivable anyway. You may not believe that but even modern MP3 at
> the same compression ratio withstands ABX comparison tests with a
> statistically insignifigant difference.
> Bob
Which tends to invalidate the methodology of the ABX tests. Are you not
aware that as a sound engineer your job is to hear _better_ than the Great
Unwashed? If you're not hearing a difference with mp3, either your
monitoring isn't any good, you're not listening for the right things, or
you're not using the right program material. Try anything with deep
ambience (room sound or even good artificial reverberation) that sounds
like it's coming from a distance, and see if the mp3 version doesn't
radically flatten this sense of distance. The damage the perceptual
algorithms do to the sound are well understood by now- and it is very
obvious, not simply perceptible.
Remember, when Edison invented his wax-cylinder phonograph, people
literally could not tell the difference between that and real life sounds.
Sound discrimination is _learned_. If you haven't learned to discriminate
between real sound and mp3 (or ATRAC!)- you should. Listen for ambience
and distance cues in the room sound. If there is no room sound, listen for
how solid the instruments are- do they come off like instruments or paper
cutouts? This type of sonic degradation is one-way: you can't get the
'size' of the sound back, once lost, which is an even better reason for
knowing what's going on and being able to hear it...
Chris Johnson
Ian
> In article <3b115c8f$0$12242$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>, Ian
> <stit...@totalise.co.ukNOSPAM> wrote:
> > If thats 'not what you do in rec.audio.pro' then do please enlighten me.
I'm
> > always willing to listen to advice to make my recordings sound better.
>
> We have been trying to enlighten you but instead of listening you
> futily try to defend MD and mono recording telling us it just as
> good...LOL...do you think any decent bands today archive their shows on
> MD? Why not? It's consumer-level garbage.
MD is the equipment I use and I am happy with the results. In a stealth
environment we can't put 8 inch Mics 3 inches from the PA. Its just not
possible.
With regard to the mono, I was correcting your statement that you are
limited to 74 minutes with MD. I also said that *I* didn't notice much
difference between Stereo and Mono when listening to shows i've recorded in
the manner that I record them.
I record concerts by stealth, so can you tell me a better way to get a good
recording than my current setup whereby I have my mics clipped onto my
collars, the wires going over my shoulders and down my back into my battery
box in my left back pocket with this going to my MD in my left front pocket
or inside jacket pocket?
And this thread originally
> asked for the BEST way to record a concert. Go play in rec.audio.deaf
> where you belong ;-)
I didn't notice it was crossposted until it was pointed out to me and
assumed, as I was in a.m.b, that we were talking about 'consumer level
garbage' as thats what we amateurs use. Please accept my apologies for
stumbling into your exclusive club. I'm just a music fan.
Ian
Ian
> In article <3b10fc07$0$12244$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>, Ian
> <stit...@totalise.co.ukNOSPAM> wrote:
> Good Lord! We need to change this thread to the "CHEAPEST way to to
> record live concerts" instead of the best way. I mean, come on for
> Christ's sake! You guys are talking about recording nono onto MD just
> to get 160 minutes, using multiple recorders so you can splice MDs
> together just to get longer running time, using $100 mics, no regard
> for quality WHATSOEVER! Who ever listens to these buffoons will
> certainly be looked down on in any trading circle, not too mention
> being forced to listen to less than adequate music!
My mics cost a bit more than that actually, (£240 with battery box - about
$330) and as I've said before i'm more than pleased with the quality I get
stealthing in a live environment. With a good position and a bit of
breathing space with a soundman who gets it right on the night my recordings
are comparable to the better quality audience recordings doing the rounds.
Ian
Steve Sobel
don't you realize that most people AREN'T audiophiles, don't have your
ears, and don't CARE to?
Clearly you take your audio stuff seriously.. for some people it's a
HOBBY. No, you haven't replied to any of my posts and pissed me off,
but I see you behaving just like a freaking newsgroup troll and it's
pathetic. Take your holier-than-thou audio attitude and shove it up
your ass.
"BEST" could very well mean best quality/cost ratio....
As for MD and DAT, most people agree that MD compression isn't lossy
enough that "your average joe" can tell the difference... I don't give
a shit if you can hear the difference if 93/100 people can't.
In fact, one study showed that (I believe this number is correct... it
was on www.r3mix.net somewhere) 18/20 people can't tell the difference
between 192kbps MP3 and CD.
Go be an audio nazi all you want.. but do it in your local hi-fi store
or something..
I don't see this thread cross-posted to alt.audiophile.holier.than.thou
... so why don't you pipe down and stop talking like you're better than
everyone just because you take audio more seriously than them. Some
people prefer to do other things with their time.
Steve
> Good Lord! We need to change this thread to the "CHEAPEST way to to
> record live concerts" instead of the best way. I mean, come on for
> Christ's sake! You guys are talking about recording nono onto MD just
> to get 160 minutes, using multiple recorders so you can splice MDs
> together just to get longer running time, using $100 mics, no regard
> for quality WHATSOEVER! Who ever listens to these buffoons will
> certainly be looked down on in any trading circle, not too mention
> being forced to listen to less than adequate music!
>
> By the way, my dog can hear the difference on my Klipsch and he refers
> DAT.
>
> I am now going to back out of this "Bluelight Special" debate because
> squeezing pennies at the cost of quality was never part of my audio
> taping equation.
>
> James Dean
--
--------------------------------------------------
Life's short and hard, like a bodybuilding elf -
So save the planet, and kill yourself!
http://twiggy.dhs.org / http://www.babysmasher.com
JnyVee
<sven...@home.com> wrote:
> I own both tlm103's and km184's
>
> the tlm 103 is not a good mic for micing at distances of more than say 10
> feet...
> huge proximity effect not to mention the large diaphram can't respond as
> quickly
> as a small diaphram
> if you use large diaphram mics at significant distances your recordings will
> sound dull....
you need to talk to some folks using tlm170's...
or M50's for that matter
> and I do feel the need to voice my oposition to people that diss the MD....
> I agree with egunn... I love minidisc...
> I think a lot of professionals diss things they are unfamiliar with so they
> can
> sound knowledgable.
unfair to the majority of real pros who can and have always used
anydamedn thing that gets the job done... and you heard and rejected Md
early on and moved on. As I saidm the 4.5. thing may indeed be a good
answer and I hope I get a chance to play with it, but I don;t see it,
at this late date in the format, getting me to dive into a MD
investment when other options are present and looming.
> Frankly, minidiscs don't wear out like dat does... and people who think that
> MD
> sounds like MP3 should have their heads or ears examined. They are not even
> close...
> Most new minidiscs have 24 bit converters on the front end..
and just to pick a point, 24bit convertors can be badly implemented...
and even perfect 24bit conversion into and from a mediocre medium is
going to be as good as the weakest link.
> not many dats do... and as for having lossy compression... that is bull....
> There is way too much mythology going on with audio professionals...
and you;re telling me that MDers have a hard-held myth that Md works on
anythign BUT lossy compression?
>I frankly
> like the sound of my
> MD with it's 24 bit converters better than the sound of my dat with it's 16
> bit
> converters...
the you have a DAt with lousy convertors (lousy-sounding convertors
come in all bitrates) and shouldn;t be using it as a comparison but as
a kick to get real convertors at 16bit.
> and as far as media costs, MD is as cost effective as it gets.... I think
> people
> are just resentfull that they spent $1000
> for their dat machines and then along comes a minidisc deck for $250 that
> blows
> it away....
waiting to hear that MD that 'blows away' 44/16 on a critical material.
> I have produced plenty of live recorded CD's captured with minidisc and
> everyone
> that has heard them
> thought they sounded great.... and these were people with excellent ears...
> not
> some joe shmoes
> that can't tell the difference between mp3 and cd...
done the same for cassette... as we've hit here, teh
performance/tone/recording quality are MORE important than the
medium... a mediocre recording on 88/24 will not outrace a stellar
piece of production on anolder/lesser medium.
>
> It's too bad that so many people have hangups about a technology that is
> really
> good..
> it is the ignorant people who kill the good ideas...
yep.. you really should study up on that lossy compression angle...
JnyVee
Braindead Jony <moc....@ybmurbrevlis.com> wrote:
(a whole bunch of stuff thinking he was talking to folks in
rec.audio.pro)
to all you folks that have been reading my stuff on the bootlegers'
lists that I didin;t pay attention that I was crossposted to,
sorry to bother you.
Won;t see me again!
JnyVee
wrote:
> Most of the shows I go to allow you to set up your mics on ten foot
> stands or at the edge of the stage if you want to or to get a feed from
> the board.
this is a time-honored thing at many artists' shows. A grand tradition
and a great hobby.
>Restrictions on taping are disappearing as performers
> recognize it isn't really a threat to their pocketbooks and that there
> isn't a hell of a lot they can do about it anyway.
It's about honor and respect for the band. You have it or you don't.
>
>
> Bob
> JnyVee wrote:
> >
> > Idea; buy the artist's released records and just go attend the show
> > leaving the crimetoys at home. Get some respect for the groups you
> > claim to be a 'fan' of... although I suppose 'fan' as from 'fanatic'
> > could apply to the types of folks who stalk old girlfriends and attack
> > their objects of attention and sometimes manage to kill them. The shoe
> > fits. Hope the sec guys grab your gear and ceremoniously have the tour
> > bus and road trucks roll over it.
>
JnyVee
<6A735FCA283FFD3C.022DE78D...@lp.airnews.net>,
"David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <ma...@airmail.net> wrote:
> Johnny V ? Mike R. ? Is this really you crossposting to 'bootlegs',
> 'MD',
> and 'phish' ?
yeah.. I wasn;t paying attention (again) and thought it was a real rap
thing.
JnyVee
<stit...@totalise.co.ukNOSPAM> wrote:
> MD is the equipment I use and I am happy with the results. In a stealth
> environment we can't put 8 inch Mics 3 inches from the PA. Its just not
> possible.
why would you want to only record the midrange (or bass or treble)
driver?
> I didn't notice it was crossposted until it was pointed out to me and
> assumed, as I was in a.m.b,
and myself at least in rap though similarly...
> that we were talking about 'consumer level
> garbage' as thats what we amateurs use.
well no, the tradition of live taping was set woth some serious gear
that remains good to this day. It's the tinkertoy sneaktheives that
insist on playing iwith junk rather than stickin to honest endeavors
and using the best gear they can field.
Please accept my apologies for
> stumbling into your exclusive club. I'm just a music fan.
just indeed. the fanatacism certainly doesn;t extend to the artists.
JnyVee
wrote:
> man why are you such a fucking audio nazi?
Steve, great vocab there, there folks who know shit from shinola and
those who don;t. Both types of folks can be found in the pro world and
in the amateur/hobbyist world. Your lack of concern for quality gives
most hobyists and all amateurs (check the word's root) a bad name. Your
whole littel funtime game of taping live gigs was started decades ago
by folks who did more with less than you ever will, and who knew how to
get results without whining. You're obviously an oversensitive
status-groveling crackpot who can't stand an opinion other than his
own. Stay with your sneakthief musical guerrilas and hope Mom springs
another $400 for a new rig when the security guys nab you and dip yours
in a pitcher of Miller. I'll be the guy 20 feet over applauding.
Bob Cain
know that what I wrote was going to r.a.p and to those trained to hear
the differences you speak of. For live event, air mixed recording,
which is the thrust of the group I thought I was talking to, such
differences would be very difficult for even a trained ear to detect.
I have never even tried to obtain, vocal, or instrument recordings on an
MD so have no valid opinion on what kind of diferences could be heard.
I do know, however that nothing of the binaural effect which one would
think to be so susceptable to things lossy is in fact lost. Nothing at
all. I feel confident in predicting that if I recorded two sets of a
show from the sweetest spot in the house, one with my MD and the other
with my SBM/DAT the guesses as to which was done by which would be no
better than random regardless of ear training or the material recorded.
I do think that, speaking of profesionally produced material, there is
something anomalous in the fact that, when asked, the people which
receive and judge such matters as purchasers of the art, hereafter
refered to as the Great Unwashed, can't tell that the art has been
compromised at all much less to the degree considered so important by
its practitioners as evidened by the ABX testing that has been done on
material that has been compressed six to one. But that's really neither
here nor there, just odd.
Bob
Chris Johnson wrote:
>
> Which tends to invalidate the methodology of the ABX tests. Are you not
> aware that as a sound engineer your job is to hear _better_ than the Great
> Unwashed? If you're not hearing a difference with mp3, either your
> monitoring isn't any good, you're not listening for the right things, or
> you're not using the right program material. Try anything with deep
> ambience (room sound or even good artificial reverberation) that sounds
> like it's coming from a distance, and see if the mp3 version doesn't
> radically flatten this sense of distance. The damage the perceptual
> algorithms do to the sound are well understood by now- and it is very
> obvious, not simply perceptible.
>
> Remember, when Edison invented his wax-cylinder phonograph, people
> literally could not tell the difference between that and real life sounds.
> Sound discrimination is _learned_. If you haven't learned to discriminate
> between real sound and mp3 (or ATRAC!)- you should. Listen for ambience
> and distance cues in the room sound. If there is no room sound, listen for
> how solid the instruments are- do they come off like instruments or paper
> cutouts? This type of sonic degradation is one-way: you can't get the
> 'size' of the sound back, once lost, which is an even better reason for
> knowing what's going on and being able to hear it...
>
> Chris Johnson
--
Fletcher
> FYI, the human hearing range extends to roughly 20KHz whereas a dog's
> hearing range extends to roughly twice that.
Then "Poochy" must really dig analog...because you ain't gettin' jack shit over
20 kHz with DAT, MD nor any other 44.1kHz sample rate digital format. Search
'Nyquist' for details.
>
> As the loss in ATRAC compression occurs mainly *above* 20KHz, I would
> expect a dog to be able to spot the difference between DAT and MD much
> more easily than a human.
Human's can spot it pretty easily if they actually listen...which unfortunately
for some requires actually removing their head from their ass [all can hear, damn
few listen].
Seeing as the bootlegging, mini disc toting, phish fans of the globe are going to
try and light those statements...let's give you something to really get your
panties in a bunch...
The best way to record loud live concerts is with a remote truck with an
experienced engineer. Anything else is just amateur crap...so you might as well
use the fuckin' MD thing, because the rest of the chain is so flawed, the MD
thing will still be the least of the defects.
Flame on dudes...
--
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
TEL: 508-543-0069
FAX: 508-543-9670
http://www.mercenary.com
"this is not a problem"
Producers/Engineers/Hardware forum:
Go to: http://www.recording.org
register, then proceed to 'Pro Talk'
it's next to the frozen food aisle
Chris Johnson
<j...@sundream.com> wrote:
> We have been trying to enlighten you but instead of listening you
> futily try to defend MD and mono recording telling us it just as
> good...LOL...
Hey, don't knock mono recording! *G* I have a lot of awesome music that
is mono recordings. Also someone replied to me saying 'well, we're only
recording air-mixed live music' but the thing is, 'air mixed' is the best
mixer you could possibly have (given that some instruments are being mixed
in the air and not the PA...).
I wish you could get CDs that went twice as long, uncompressed 44.1/16,
only in mono. It's a shame they didn't see fit to make that a format
option back in the day...
With a bit of attention and luck tapers just taping in mono could get
_terrific_ sound, you really don't need stereo for a lot of things. What
you'd want is:
great resolution- good DAT or some sort of decent reel-to-reel tape
running at at least 15 ips
good miking- rather than cheap condensers, how about a good omni
dynamic? Failing that, how about extremely small-diaphragm condensers?
Noise isn't as good on them but they can be very focussed _and_ you can go
heavily DIY and buy just plain elements at Radio Shack for 2$ that might
do better than certain cheap large-diaphragm condensers. You're not trying
to get color out of a vocalist here, you're trying to get the least
distortion out of a big loud live situation. PZMs would also be suitable-
those tend to use very small condenser elements.
the right situation! Think small. If you have a band that's playing,
and it's small enough that the guitar's cranking a Fender Twin or Marshall
stack as his only volume, the drums are unamplified except maybe for hat
and kick, PA's mostly handling vocals, maybe keyboards... then you have
the ingredients for a great sounding audience tape, whether it's
limited-stereo or just plain mono. Once you start getting big PAs and
running everything through the PA you'd be better off going to the board
if possible, but for really small gigs where most of the instruments are
mixed in the air, the 'put up one omni' method is potentially an awesome
force.
Then all you need to do is keep the signal chain simple- maybe get an
RNC compressor to keep from overloading your DAT while feeding it a strong
signal, get mic stands or some sort of pole to raise the mic/s up to a
suitable height over the audience, record either to 44.1/16 or better
(good reel-to-reel tape run fast counts as better, but you can hardly
carry it around in a pocket!) and voila- you might get better sound than
some commercial releases.
What's not to like? _And_ there's no reason you couldn't do it all in
mono. You're recording music and depth and ambience, not studio
pingponging. Some great, great classical recordings were made with one
mike in mono using air to mix all the instruments together.
Chris Johnson (I didn't notice how crossposted this was at first
either. Figured that I'd give decent RAPer advice now that I've noticed)
Oh yeah- and the obligatory RAPer chorus- pick the mic that SOUNDS
BEST! Don't go by numbers, listen to it. If mic X is more expensive than
mic Y and boasts much better high frequency response but sounds like ass,
use mic Y without a moment of hesitation. It's about how good it sounds-
and micing a live show in a room will really test a mic :)
Steve Sobel
Go watch the movie High Fidelity, there's a great line about discophiles
feeling like they're "underappreciated geniuses" when someone comes
along that doesn't know as much about music as them... this can be
applied metaphorically to you, quite well...
Nowhere in my message that you replied to did I post anything about
stealth gear or taping live shows that I don't have permission to
tape... hell I didn't even mention anything about the size of MD
players... so why don't you take your little "theif" assumptions
elsewhere you pompous, ignorant prick? That seems to be all you post
here -- even to people who have nothing to do with it...
I, and many other people asking questions around here, care far more
about the price to quality ratio than I do about having the absolute
best of the best. Mommy and Daddy stopped paying for things for me
years ago, thanks very much, but I still don't want to drop thousands on
recording gear when I'm not recording professionally.
I'm not defending the people who go take stealth bootlegs and sell them,
nor am I trying to profess that one medium is better than the other -
though you have gone so far as to assume both... Why? Oh wait, I know
the answer to that question already -- because you're so fucking bitter
that you feel the need to get pissed off at ANY post that has opinion
that doesn't align with yours.
Kindly shut the fuck up. And go get yourself laid instead of lurking
around your computer so much looking for posts to flame -- then maybe
you'll be less bitter, and stop posting less horseshit to newsgroups.
Steve
> Steve, great vocab there, there folks who know shit from shinola and
> those who don;t. Both types of folks can be found in the pro world and
> in the amateur/hobbyist world. Your lack of concern for quality gives
> most hobyists and all amateurs (check the word's root) a bad name. Your
> whole littel funtime game of taping live gigs was started decades ago
> by folks who did more with less than you ever will, and who knew how to
> get results without whining. You're obviously an oversensitive
> status-groveling crackpot who can't stand an opinion other than his
> own. Stay with your sneakthief musical guerrilas and hope Mom springs
> another $400 for a new rig when the security guys nab you and dip yours
> in a pitcher of Miller. I'll be the guy 20 feet over applauding.
>
> --
> <Help Keep The Net Emoticon-free!>
--
David Morgan (MAMS)
"Bob Cain" <arc...@znet.com> wrote in message ...
> Chris, there is nothing you say that I would disagree with. I didn't
> know that what I wrote was going to r.a.p and to those trained to hear
> the differences you speak of. For live event, air mixed recording,
> which is the thrust of the group I thought I was talking to, such
> differences would be very difficult for even a trained ear to detect.
Now would be a good time then, for everyone to go back to their own
sandboxes. It's a simple matter to continue this discussion amongst
peers on your respected groups by removing the the newsgroups to
which you do not frequent from the reply header. I think rec.audio.pro
was slipped in by accident, or by someone who wanted to see them
trolled into combat.
Good day, everyone.
Toby A Inkster Esq
:man why are you such a fucking audio nazi?
Usenet Rule #4 - as soon as someone brings up Nazis, a thread is
officially dead.
Chris Brightwell
> Idea; buy the artist's released records and just go attend the show
> leaving the crimetoys at home. Get some respect for the groups you
> claim to be a 'fan' of... although I suppose 'fan' as from 'fanatic'
> could apply to the types of folks who stalk old girlfriends and attack
> their objects of attention and sometimes manage to kill them. The shoe
> fits. Hope the sec guys grab your gear and ceremoniously have the tour
> bus and road trucks roll over it.
you're an idiot.
-chris
David Glover
> Now would be a good time then, for everyone to go back to their own
> sandboxes. It's a simple matter to continue this discussion amongst
> peers on your respected groups
Don't you mean "respective" groups? That's the kind of sloppy, half-assed
language that, that, that, gets people on the 'net a bad reputation. So...
Hey, why isn't there a rec.english-usage.pro I can cross-post this to?
--
David
Sorry, I became a writer when I stopped being an audio pro. Forgot myself.
r.domain
JnyVee
Brightwell" <cd...@nospam.home.com> wrote:
I know... as are we all in one way or another.
JnyVee
<stit...@totalise.co.ukNOSPAM> wrote:
> I record concerts by stealth, so can you tell me a better way to get a good
> recording than my current setup whereby I have my mics clipped onto my
> collars, the wires going over my shoulders and down my back into my battery
> box in my left back pocket with this going to my MD in my left front pocket
> or inside jacket pocket?
A single omni would make a clearer recording in mono and sound about
as good or better, a couple of mics on collar or hat in the crowd is
going to hear the sound system blurred into mono mush through the hall
surrounded by Big Stereo Crowd.
the DATheads, like the DEADheads from which they take their name,
originally DID have something damned-well worth recording from 100'
back.. The deservedly legendary Dead Wall system was a wonder to hear,
in stereo mind you, that far back. That was it's whole reason d'etre.
The taping was started because there WAS something Absolutely Amazing
(not 'good' not 'loud'... amazing, unprecendented) happening out there
in the audience position that -would- be represented on a field tape
and it was indeed That Good (not to mention the performances were worth
the trouble). Nothing since has approached it and I've always been left
smiling sadly at the brouhaha from the overblown cult devotion to a
phenomenon that is now some 25 years past any reason... hobby recording
of even a good tour sound system is just a status thing with no real
listening-quality point. It's nice for the bands that do a really good
job in the hall and encourage you to take a memory home on MD, but like
taking photos from mid-house, other that a good souvenier for the scrap
book, it's not an impressive feat, and more than outweighed by the
moral vacuum that results in stealing from groups that decide they'd
rather not play.