Compare two recordings of same performance.
Tobiah
I'll just post them first, without revealing the equipment.
I thought it might be fun, as has been done in the past, to
take comments on what equipment, procedures, instrument, piece,
setting, etc. was used.
In the end, I will reveal what three often discussed
pieces of equipment were involved.
http://tobiah.org/tester1.mp3
http://tobiah.org/tester2.mp3
Tobiah
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Don Pearce
>I recorded a piece using two different setups simultaneously.
>I'll just post them first, without revealing the equipment.
>I thought it might be fun, as has been done in the past, to
>take comments on what equipment, procedures, instrument, piece,
>setting, etc. was used.
>
>In the end, I will reveal what three often discussed
>pieces of equipment were involved.
>
>http://tobiah.org/tester1.mp3
>http://tobiah.org/tester2.mp3
>
>Tobiah
Nope, can't hear a difference - they are very, very similar. I can see
some differences on my DAW, but that really doesn't count.
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
Tobiah
That's odd... to me they are like night and day. Boost the
treble.
Don Pearce
OK, that'll teach me not to listen from 45 degrees off my speakers'
axes, half buried in a settee. Not treble, perhaps, but the upper mids
are much brighter in No. 1.
Tobiah
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 14:44:31 -0700, Tobiah <to...@tobiah.org> wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 13:34:44 -0700, Tobiah <to...@tobiah.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I recorded a piece using two different setups simultaneously.
>>>> I'll just post them first, without revealing the equipment.
>>>> I thought it might be fun, as has been done in the past, to
>>>> take comments on what equipment, procedures, instrument, piece,
>>>> setting, etc. was used.
>>>>
>>>> In the end, I will reveal what three often discussed
>>>> pieces of equipment were involved.
>>>>
>>>> http://tobiah.org/tester1.mp3
>>>> http://tobiah.org/tester2.mp3
>>>>
>>>> Tobiah
>>> Nope, can't hear a difference - they are very, very similar. I can see
>>> some differences on my DAW, but that really doesn't count.
>>>
>>> d
>>>
>> That's odd... to me they are like night and day. Boost the
>> treble.
>
> OK, that'll teach me not to listen from 45 degrees off my speakers'
> axes, half buried in a settee. Not treble, perhaps, but the upper mids
> are much brighter in No. 1.
>
> d
Yes, number 2 is muffled by comparison but I was thinking more
of the unacceptable noise level in number 2.
Peter Larsen
>>> Nope, can't hear a difference - they are very, very similar. I can see
>>> some differences on my DAW, but that really doesn't count.
>>That's odd... to me they are like night and day. Boost the
>>treble.
Not required.
> OK, that'll teach me not to listen from 45 degrees off my speakers'
> axes, half buried in a settee. Not treble, perhaps, but the upper mids
> are much brighter in No. 1.
Yes, prominent even. Imo version two is best, assuming the intent is
that a recording of a guitar should sound like one.
One explanation of the tonal difference could be that 1 is recorded with
cardioids and 2 with omnis in approximately the same distance and
position. What also suggest cardiods is that the bass range in 1 is
wrong, just wrong, sounds like plastic.
1 may however work best in a mix, as just a recording of the instrument,
2 is the obvious winner.
Monitoring equ1ipment used: Cool Edit 2000 and Audition 1.0, Midiman
2448, Rotel RC 972, Sentec x-over (18/18 @115), pair of Kef Coda's (Mk1,
1977) on a Cambridge dual 50 watts, pair of 1980-something ATC 9" on a
Sentec PA77 dual 30 watts. SPL used for playback: modest due to hour of
day.
> d
> --
> Pearce Consulting
> http://www.pearce.uk.com
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Peter Larsen
> Yes, number 2 is muffled by comparison but I was thinking more
> of the unacceptable noise level in number 2.
The instrument sounds probable in that one, it does not so so in 1.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Boris Lau
> http://tobiah.org/tester1.mp3
> http://tobiah.org/tester2.mp3
To me both sound a bit overly fat. I find both pretty similar, besides
the obvious loud noise in the second one. Maybe the second sounds a bit
more natural, but I find it hard to compare given the noise.
Boris
--
http://www.borislau.de - computer science, music, photos
Arny Krueger
"Don Pearce" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:46e40e72....@news.plus.net...
The most obvious technical difference is the vastly raised noise floor below
70 Hz on tester1. Overall spectral balance is pretty similar.
There's a 0.3 dB overall-level difference, and a 0.1 dB channel balance
difference.
Even with the level differences corrected, they easily ABX as being
significantly different.
The big sonic difference for me was soundstaging. tester1 has a strong
central image while tester 2 is more diffused.
Mt first guess would be tester1 is coincident-miced and tester2 is miced
with non-coincident mics.
The difference in the noise floor below 70 Hz may be due to the lack of bass
coherence inherent with spaced mics, or it might be something else.
Boris Lau
> The most obvious technical difference is the vastly raised noise floor below
> 70 Hz on tester1. Overall spectral balance is pretty similar.
now that's funny. To me the higher noise level well above 70 Hz on
tester2 a lot more obvious...
Arny Krueger
"Boris Lau" <bori...@stud.tu-ilmenau.de> wrote in message
news:fc0p10$ech$1...@inn-newsserver.rz.tu-ilmenau.de...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> The most obvious technical difference is the vastly raised noise floor
>> below 70 Hz on tester1. Overall spectral balance is pretty similar.
>
> now that's funny. To me the higher noise level well above 70 Hz on tester2
> a lot more obvious...
I agree. I mistakenly transposed the names. Agreed that tester2 has more
noise.
I went in and measured the size of L-R for the two files:
tester1 L-R has an average amplitude of -35 dB
tester2 L-R has an average amplitude of -29 dB
As I said, while both files have well-developed L+R information, tester2 has
far more L-R information.
Tim Padrick
Both are so unnaturally "thick" that I can hear the quantitative differences
in the rest of the spectrum, but I cannot make a judgement as to the
qualitative differences. Neither is acceptable.
Mark
added a 15 dB notch at about 200 H Q=1.5 and it sounds better.
I don't think that boomyness is from any electronics or mic but
probably from mic placement relative to the instrument.
Mark
Peter Larsen
I agree - too much box tone, the question however was about the
qualities, if any, of the technology used, not about the mic positioning
technique. Example 2 sounds like a wooden guitar and example 1 like a
plastic guitar.
> Mark
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Mark
> qualities, if any, of the technology used, not about the mic >positioning technique.
Here is a copy/paste of the OP......
"I thought it might be fun, as has been done in the past, to
take comments on what equipment, procedures, instrument, piece,
setting, etc. was used."
thanks
Mark
Tobiah
> Both sounded very boomy or boxy to me. Much too much mid bass. I
> added a 15 dB notch at about 200 H Q=1.5 and it sounds better.
This is something that I have known about my present guitar
since I have owned it. There is a troublesome resonance at
just over 200 Hz. When recording, I see the meters jump
wildly when I play the A on the third string. I have a feeling
that most of the negative comments on the sound are due to
this, #1 getting most of the blame because it more accurately
portrays the unfortunate character of the instrument.
Tobiah
> I recorded a piece using two different setups simultaneously.
> I'll just post them first, without revealing the equipment.
> I thought it might be fun, as has been done in the past, to
> take comments on what equipment, procedures, instrument, piece,
> setting, etc. was used.
>
> In the end, I will reveal what three often discussed
> pieces of equipment were involved.
>
> http://tobiah.org/tester1.mp3
> http://tobiah.org/tester2.mp3
>
> Tobiah
>
So, #1 was a pair of NT1-A's into a Tascam HD-P2. The mics
were placed side by side, about a half-inch apart, pointed
in toward each other 30 to 45 degrees.
#2 was the front pair of elements on a Zoom H2. Both mic
pairs were about a foot and a half away from the guitar,
more or less pointed near the sound hole. That might explain
the boominess as well - I know that people recommend pointing
at the twelfth fret.
I was just sitting on a couch in a small room with the equipment
on a coffee table in front of me.
It's interesting that the #2 recording was preferred by many
as being more natural. I found it to be lifeless, lacking
detail, muffled, and terribly noisy. Unless I can think of
a use for it, the H2 will be seen on ebay soon.
As for the NT1-A's and the Tascam, I think that both were
worth the money spent on them. The #1 recording is representative
of what I was hearing during the performance. Both sound
quite transparent to me, which is all I ask of any audio
equipment. I think that I will have to look at the guitar,
and perhaps my right-hand technique in order to achieve a
more pleasing recording, although I'm actually happy with
the results.
I wonder if some sort of dampening might be used in order to
cut the ~210Hz peak that my guitar exhibits.
Mike Rivers
> It's interesting that the #2 recording was preferred by many
> as being more natural. I found it to be lifeless, lacking
> detail, muffled, and terribly noisy. Unless I can think of
> a use for it, the H2 will be seen on ebay soon.
Both of those are interesting observations. I had an H2 around here
for a few days and, although I never would have guessed that it was
what recorded one of your examples, I thought it was "just OK" when
recording my guitar, but pretty decent on banjo. But in either case,
there was a fair amount of "room" in the recording.
I certainly wouldn't use the H2 as a serious recording microphone for
either guitar close up or concert from a distance, but it's fine for
practice, writing, or interviews. I didn't have a chance to try it in
a living room jam session, but I suspect that it would do OK for that
task - not to make a recording that I'd want to listen to over and
over and cherish, but to learn a tune or remind me of a fun time. You
don't buy a recorder like that for how good its mics are, you buy it
for how handy it is.
Tobiah
> You
> don't buy a recorder like that for how good its mics are, you buy it
> for how handy it is.
>
Yeah, in reality I will probably keep it around. If you think of
it as a voice recorder on steroids, it could have some useful applications.
It has a feature that allows it to record only when there is some
threshold of sound around. That could be useful in a few different
contexts.
I knew that it wasn't going to replace the HD-P2, but I am
still disappointed with the noise level, and slightly less
disappointed with the reproduction quality. I think it
was marketed far too heavily as a recorder that could be
used to capture music performances, although I do think
it would be great for a garage rock band; the noise
level would not be a problem.
Anahata
[re: H2]
> I think it
> was marketed far too heavily as a recorder that could be
> used to capture music performances
That's marketing for you.
But what else would you say, if you were trying to market it?
Anyway, many live performances are louder than a single acoustic guitar
and wouldn't present a noise problem.
Anahata
Arny Krueger
"Tobiah" <to...@tobiah.org> wrote in message
news:46e58134$0$16279$8826...@free.teranews.com...
> Tobiah wrote:
>> I recorded a piece using two different setups simultaneously.
>> I'll just post them first, without revealing the equipment.
>> I thought it might be fun, as has been done in the past, to
>> take comments on what equipment, procedures, instrument, piece,
>> setting, etc. was used.
>>
>> In the end, I will reveal what three often discussed
>> pieces of equipment were involved.
>>
>> http://tobiah.org/tester1.mp3
>> http://tobiah.org/tester2.mp3
>>
>> Tobiah
>>
>
> So, #1 was a pair of NT1-A's into a Tascam HD-P2. The mics
> were placed side by side, about a half-inch apart, pointed
> in toward each other 30 to 45 degrees.
Coincident pair, more or less.
> #2 was the front pair of elements on a Zoom H2.
I'm surprised that they sounded (and measured) so much like they were
non-coincident.
> Both mic
> pairs were about a foot and a half away from the guitar,
> more or less pointed near the sound hole. That might explain
> the boominess as well - I know that people recommend pointing
> at the twelfth fret.
> I was just sitting on a couch in a small room with the equipment
> on a coffee table in front of me.
> It's interesting that the #2 recording was preferred by many
> as being more natural.
There was more phasiness.
> I found it to be lifeless, lacking
> detail, muffled, and terribly noisy. Unless I can think of
> a use for it, the H2 will be seen on ebay soon.
H2's can't be used with external mics?
> As for the NT1-A's and the Tascam, I think that both were
> worth the money spent on them.
A rather signficiant size and cost difference - like 7:1?
> The #1 recording is representative
> of what I was hearing during the performance.
That would be from the performer's viewpoint?
> Both sound quite transparent to me, which is all I ask of any audio
> equipment. I think that I will have to look at the guitar,
> and perhaps my right-hand technique in order to achieve a
> more pleasing recording, although I'm actually happy with
> the results.
> I wonder if some sort of dampening might be used in order to
> cut the ~210Hz peak that my guitar exhibits.
First cut - try a parametric eq.
Mike Rivers
> H2's can't be used with external mics?
Sure - stereo mini jack with plug-in-power if you want it, or switch
it off if you don't. But if you want to use it with a pair of KM84s,
you'd probably want to BYOP and that defeats the notion of a
"Handy" (what the H stands for) recorder.
I was thinking that this would be something that I'd carry in my banjo
case at a music camp, or even in a pocket. If I want to record some
tunes at a jam session, I don't have to be "that guy with all the
wires and electronic stuff." I'd rather be just like everyone else who
set out their Zooms and Edirols and M-Audios (and there's always
someone with a gold plated Tu-Ba-Phone and a Sony PCM-D1).
jas...@gmail.com
> as being more natural. I found it to be lifeless, lacking
> detail, muffled, and terribly noisy. Unless I can think of
> a use for it, the H2 will be seen on ebay soon.
I'd be willing to bet you didn't use the low-cut on the H2. Try it,
it will make a difference.
Tobiah
to turn the low-cut on, but I forgot to turn it off after recording
some speech. The low-cut starts rolling off at 100Hz. Now, normally
I should think that this would be a mistake, in that the fundamental
of the low E string on the guitar is ~82Hz, however, I had a capo
at the third fret (for lute tuning) so the low fundamental was
~98Hz. The low-cut is probably not a threat here. I suppose in
this case, the low-cut would simply serve to cut some of the noise
of trucks driving around my neighborhood. Any more thoughts?
Mark
So are you saying (in a previous post) that the 210 Hz resonance
boomy boxy sound is a feature of your guitar and not an artifact of
mic placement?
Mark
Tobiah
made with any equipment over the last 7 years or so that I
have owned the guitar. In fact, I can hear it just by playing
a chromatic scale up the third string.
Toby
Scott Fraser
I would very much expect unnatural response from any acoustic guitar
in the 150 to 250Hz range given the mic placement Tobiah indicated.
For a near-coincident (side by side) placement, I'd angle them
outward, not inward, at much closer to 90 degrees, & pulled back to
around 3 feet.
Scott Fraser
Truth
A guitar is a mini room so it's going to have modes. Those problem
frequencies are likely the modes of the guitar. You just have to
compensate with mic position and equalization if the guitar has bad
mode problems.