Meanwhile, some of us may become used to the low level lossy compressed format of Mpeg and Jpeg on computers and i-pods, but they are just convenience formats, for "note jottings" and "snap shootings" and as David says should never be "enlarged". CD is bad enough, but I think these compressed formats are actually beginning to degrade the public expectation of what a good recording or image might be.
Please remember that a good analog recording or photo is often equal and even, in some cases , well ahead in quality over digital recordings, albeit at a high price. Take an analog photo on a Linhoff plate camera, or make a lute recording on two synchronized Mono Nagra tape recorders, if you have chosen the right lens and microphone, you will find out what I mean.
http://tinyurl.com/24kfdrRight there is the price and convenience to consider, but the high quality results this sort of equipment can attain should be the target that professional photographers and sound engineers should be aiming for.
Of course equipment is not everything. As David implies, the skill of the sound engineer in knowing how to place the microphones, and to find the best settings for the recording venue, which should mean a minimum of post recording tweaking, and so a better result even from a not so good recording system.You can even tweak the recording colour by choosing a particular mic, but you can not expect an amateur to be able to do that.
On the other hand, we have all heard those hifi recordings of second- rate orchestras, marvellous sound, but uninteresting music; a musician will no doubt prefer the appalling sound of a "Robinhood record", recorded directly from the speaker of some radio loudspeaker during a live performance of an exceptional orchestra and conductor at one of their moments of greatness.
It is good to have the best of both worlds, however.Keep those Zoom H2s rolling, but please no H2 CDs, unless, of course, your performance has just reached that "Robin-Hood" status and you think that you may have peaked, or worse. One lutist on the French lute list has a personally made live recording of Michael Schäffer in concert (who sadly died so young), perhaps this is the sort of historic lute candidate for a Robin Hood recording?
AnthonyPS David is right to give us the minimum quality equipment for a reasonable CD or DVD quality, but I fear many will settle for this minimum quality. That is obviously why it is sometimes better to hire the competence of a sound engineer who has very good equipment and knows how to use it. Although, how many are really capable of making good lute recordings and have that sort of equipment, I sometimes doubt. Perhaps David could comment on that.
Just one other question: in the case of a digital camera all megapixels are not equal. The size of the sensor determines that too many pixels on too small a sensor will make more noise.
Is there an equivalent problem on Digital sound recordings? Le 15 mars 08 à 22:33, David Tayler a écrit :
Sorry... When you buy a flash audio recorder--a great teaching/learning tool-- you have to decide in the settings how much resolution to use. There's lots of settings, and the manufacturers are not helpful. The bits is like (but not exactly like) the number of megapixels on a camera, more megapixels means you can enlarge the photo more, or have more detail. When you listen to a CD you are hearing 16 bits of resolution, that is like say a two megapixel camera in terms of history and quality. If you were to try to make the volume louder, so that it would be at"internet volume", and you had a very soft source (like a lute or a clavichord)you might start to notice the sound break up if the recording has not enough detail, or bits. Leanardo da Vinci said let the mirror be your master. So it is kind of a good idea, either with a real or digital mirror, to take that awful jump towards self reflection once in a while. Like a camera, the increase in the sensor megapixels can sometimes create more noise. So there is a point of diminishing returns. Also, if you are not making a poster but a postcard (as in MP3s or youtube), you don't need to waste the storage space with huge file, but some extra resolution will be helpful. I will be offering starting in the fall classes in home recording of early music for people who are interested in the gory details, but for most players it is nice to have a way to listen to their playing or record lessons, concerts, events, etc. And the new silent Flash recorders, such as the Fostex FR2LE or the Zoom and Korg versions, are excellent for this purpose. dt t 02:16 PM 3/15/2008, you wrote:I wish I could understand any of this...... P : ) On 15/03/2008, David Tayler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Absolutely, yes, it is better to have more bits. I'm just saying the primary advantage, one of many, for the 24 bits is the depth of the sound and the easy volume changes. When presented with the long list of choices, unless disk space is really an issue, you are looking at 44/24 for CD, 48/24 everything else including MP3, MP4 output. You can certainly use 44.1 for MP3 if your software/reverb package is set up for it--and some are optimized for it.And you can experiment with 88.2/24, 96/24 if you wish! Or 192/24.....Most effects are not optimized for higher sampling sampling rates, but are optimized for higher bit depths.The main issue with lute recordings is the gain and the mic/ convertersound.And how to make an edit. On the lute, you can basically edit on everynote. And some people do! The workflow is important--don't start in 48 and convert to 44.1 forCD, or start in 44.1 and convert to 48 for video. Don't put dither ontop of dither (the most common mistake).I mainly use mics for EQ so that is less of a consideration, but some people use eq a lot. I think most ppl use too much compression and itmakes the sound worse-- Use manual compression with crossfades and 24 bit gain! That is the real secret. Most recordings I make really have either minimal or zero effects processing--but if something needs fixing, I want to have that option. And it's all in 24 bit for the gain & resolution issues. And if recording at home, you will need some kind of effects to take the edge off. So here you have to be practical and decide if it sounds better or just looks better. And when auditioning gear you have to have a friend set it up, so you don't know what is what :) Never record in less than 24 bits, for whatever reason you like! You can always trim the extra bits, but not the other way. Mainly, recordings invariably have One Big Mistake. For example you have a really fine firewire interface, Canare Starquad or Mogami cable, quiet studio, great lute. excellentperformance, and a budget mic that the salesperson strongly recommended.Sennheiser shock mounts.But the mic was made in China for $7, the Megastore bought it for $45 and it sold for $200. And the recording sounded bright and hissy.......And just try to get someone to part with their $7 mic. Or you have a nice mic and a ten dollar cable, and the recording has a buzz on it or a local radio station. Or you have the most expensive equipment in the world and the phase is reversed. Or the mic is too close and there is a lot of bass boom & finger noise. Hey it is really hard to make a good lute recording, why else would they have a thousand edits in them? People rarely use 88.2 even though it is better for CD mastering.(assuming the converters are optimized properly--not always the case!)Higher sampling rates, these can sound better if handled correctly, but can easily sound worse. But, absolutely, yes, it is better to have more bits. And in video, always use high definition, even if the end result is youtube. I suspect in a few years you will be able to get a really good flash recorder for under $100---and they really are very cool. dt At 08:42 AM 3/15/2008, you wrote:Hi David,I thought that one benefits in high resolution recording because there is some room left for mastering like reverb etc...so that we don't loose quality in the end. Obviously this is more important when we deal withrockor pop music where we have lots of effects involved, but still unless one records just the dry signal I think it's better to have some more bits inthe beginning.... don't you? Do correct me if I am wrong. Best Jaroslaw __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virussignaturedatabase 2949 (20080315) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html-- Peter Martin Belle Serre La Caulie 81100 Castres France tel: 0033 5 63 35 68 46 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: www.silvius.co.uk http://absolute81.blogspot.com/ www.myspace.com/sambuca999 www.myspace.com/chuckerbutty --
