Confused by limiter vs. peak reduction (DR-22WL)

[GTBecker]

> ... I would like to know what is best...

Well, there is no best unless you have also found worse and even worser. You must experiment - and, perhaps second only to listening to a pristine recording you've made, that's much of the fun.

I had a DR-07 for a few months, but I never warmed up to either of its mic positions, coincident XY and spaced A-B. XY, at least at the 90° used in Tascams, doesn't provide sufficient separation for my preference although its convenience makes it handy to capture candid sound. And the DR-07's A-B spacing of ~3" was also too small for my taste. Of course, you might hear things differently, and the MKII version might behave differently.

I've found that I prefer wider angling and wider spacing so I often use ORTF, which is just a French version of A-B with 110° angling and 17cm (~6.5") spacing of cardioids. Of course, that means using external mics and appropriate mounting and cabling. Achieving an ORTF configuration with pencil mics requires some creative mount manipulation, too, I've found; the mic barrels or XRLs want to bang into each other.

You might consider upgrading to four channels, too, where you can use the XY pair of a DR-44WL and two additional cardioids on either side of center. If the recorder is, say, 20' back from the stage, try placing the side mics five feet or so to each side of center.

I also like MS but, with a bidirectional mic and a cardioid, even more mount work is needed. Still, the advantage of post-recording separation adjustment is satisfying.

Elevate everything, too.

What concert band are you able to record?

 

[Dan Finnegan]

You do have a point. I record three ensembles. Concert Band, Symphonic Band, and Wind Ensemble.

My main focus that I am trying to say is that I would like recordings that record mostly the entire band sound and reduce the amount of background noise from the audience (coughs, etc). In this case, I may want to stick with XY, however, I would like to experiment with the mics “straight on” or in a 180 degree pattern (or, the mics facing straight ahead, so in between xy and ab but still being unidirectional.) I hope you can understand what I mean

 

[GTBecker]

I think the ambiance of the room is an important component of a recording - particularly under headphones. I used to record with a binaural head to approximate being there. Today, I usually try to use mic type and placement as I would use lenses to photographically capture an environment.

I'm not certain that you should try to entirely isolate the band from the audience and room, Dan. A bit of a reverberant cough can expose the hall very well and add to the experience. Certainly you should try whatever your hardware allows. If it works, stick with it.

 

[Dan Finnegan]

Good idea. Sorry if it sounds like I am ignoring your advice. It can just be hard for me to understand what you mean since I have a hard time with that.
I have posted a picture of the different patterns I am referring to, including the "straight on" position. I am most likely going to go with either the XY or straight on pattern. I just feel like AB may be to ambient for me (and won't give as good of a sound as expected)
I do plan to test the recorder out once the ensembles move to the auditorium when our final concert is fast approaching

 

[Dan Finnegan]

Also, what is bad about "auto level?" I know you mentioned that it will raise the input level when there are quiet parts, but how is that a bad thing? Will there be more noise if the input level is raised? I just think there will be more noise if the input level is LOWERED, not raised.

 

[GTBecker]

Dan, I expect that your position "B" (both elements pointed straight forward) will yield an essentially-monaural recording since the cardioid patterns of each will see the same field. I doubt you'll be happy with the result. Nevertheless, I encourage you to try it. Record a few minutes or so of the rehearsal in each of the three configurations, then play them back, switching from one to another quickly to "A/B" (compare) each against another. Choose the one that you like best. I expect you'll choose "A" (spaced A-B), maybe "C" (coincident XY), but probably not "B".

One potential difficulty with "B", too, is that the DR-07Mk2 recorder swaps channels when you move the left-side mic from XY to A-B and vice versa. The left-side mic becomes the right channel in XY while it becomes the left channel in A-B; the opposite happens to the right-side mic. What happens when you have the left-side mic in between XY and A-B is unknown (although I still think it will make little difference in the resulting mono I expect you'll hear).

> ... I do plan to test the recorder out once the ensembles move to the auditorium...

Good. Allow yourself as much time as you can setting up and testing. Remember fresh batteries, too.

> ... what is bad about "auto level"?

We usually want music recordings - particularly large band and orchestra - to convey as much of the live performance dynamics as possible. Your rehearsal recording tests will find the loudest expected passages and you will set the recorder input level so that the loudest passage is well matched to the maximum level the recorder can capture without distortion. If AUTOLEVEL is enabled the recorder will increase the record level during softer passages, decreasing the recorded dynamic range. That is usually a bad thing in music.

Increasing the record level will also raise the level of background "noise", like audience coughs, chair squeaks and parental cheers of "That's my boy!".

> ... there will be more noise if the input level is LOWERED...

No, that's probably not correct. Remember that you are recording on a digital machine - theoretically noise-free; if you reduce the input to zero the recording playback should be pragmatically silent. If you increase the record level very high, however, you might hear some electronics noise, usually a hiss, from the microphone elements and their preamps which are both analog and not noiseless. The headphone amplifier, too, can be a little noisy.

Another concern is this: clipping distortion artifacts in a recording cannot be removed; if the input level is too high the recording quality is in jeopardy. An input level that is too low is a better error. Professionals usually record low by an amount called "headroom" to provide latitude for unexpected peaks.

 

[Dan Finnegan]

Thank you again. I will keep this in mind.

I do have one unrelated question. I have bought a 32gb microSDHC card for the DR07MKII. When I inserted it, it shows the recorder size can only go up to 2gb. I checked on the TASCAM website and the SDHC card I bought is compatible with the recorder. Do you know on how to fix this?

 

[GTBecker]

Try formatting the card in the recorder. You can probably use either QUICKFORMAT or FULLFORMAT. FULLFORMAT will also do a memory check so it will be slower but it's probably a good idea to do that at least the first time.

Both format functions will erase any existing files and build a basic file structure on the card; copy any files you might have put on the card before formatting it.

 

[Dan Finnegan]

I just tried both ways, but no luck :/

 

[GTBecker]

Then first try formatting the card in a PC., then the recorder.

Worst case, might the card be counterfeit? I have a card that is exactly that, a 2GB that is labelled 32GB.

 

[Dan Finnegan]

I am going to try the former

For the latter, I put the micro sd into the 22WL and it identified as a 32gb card, so it looks like it is not a counterfeit

 

[Dan Finnegan]

To be honest, it probably isn’t a big deal. Will recording in 44.1k 16 bit still give you good audio? Or if you have a preference that is not 96k 24bit?

 

[Dan Finnegan]

UPDATE: It looks like it may be an issue with the recorder itself and not with the cards.

When I got the unit, it came with a 4gb micro sdhc card, and even with THAT card inserted, the recorder still only went up to 2gb. So because of this, it is most likely something with the recorder. If you have any ideas, feel free to let me know

Thank you again for your help. You sure do know a lot about this kind of stuff

 

[GTBecker]

Glad to help.

I would use 48kHz/16bit. 96kHz or 24-bit probably won't bring audible improvement and will eat more storage space.

Is the recorder firmware current?

 

[Dan Finnegan]

If you are asking if the recorder is up to date
in its firmware, yes it is

 

[GTBecker]

Dan, I have one more suggestion: make a test run of the recorder for at least as long as your formal recording is expected to be. Set it to the mode you'll use, like 48kHz/16bit, and let it record for 90 minutes or whatever and press Stop. Check to make sure you have a 90-minute recording on the card.

I have occasionally encountered a card error ("Write Timeout", if I recall correctly) on the DR-44WL during long recordings. I haven't determined the cause and it's unclear if it happens only on SanDisk (most of my cards are), but it terminates recording prematurely.

Enjoy your session.

 

[Dan Finnegan]

I will try it out. Thank you very much.

However, will recording in 48k/16bit make a HUGE difference over recording in 96k/24bit? I’m just worried to produce low quality recordings, or is 48k/16bit still high quality audio?

 

[GTBecker]

> ... will recording in 48k/16bit make a HUGE difference over recording in 96k/24bit...

Each 16-bit sample will use two bytes per channel, i.e. four bytes for a stereo sample. Each 24-bit sample would consume three bytes per channel, six bytes per stereo sample. Each 24-bit stereo sample uses (6/4)=1.5 times the storage used by a 16-bit stereo sample. 96kHz sampling uses twice the storage used by 48kHz sampling. 96kHz/24-bit recording, then, uses (2*1.5)=3.0 times the storage of a 48kHz/16-bit recording of the same length. Here's a file size calculator: http://www.theaudioarchive.com/TAA_Resources_File_Size.htm

"CD quality" recordings use 44.1kHz/16-bit, a little less resolute than 48kHz/16-bit. If you aren't going to be post-processing your recording (that is, more sophisticated than simple cut/paste editing), 48kHz/16-bit will very likely be sufficient; but if you plan to massage your recording with DAW software, a 24-bit original recording will be useful - but your final product will likely still be 48 or 44.1kHz at 16-bits.

So, will there be a huge difference between 96kHz/24-bit and 48kHz/16-bit? That is, is the file size (and consequent slower file handling) worth whatever sonic improvement might result? I think no. Here's what other people think: https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

 

[stereoMike]

UPDATE: It looks like it may be an issue with the recorder itself and not with the cards.

When I got the unit, it came with a 4gb micro sdhc card, and even with THAT card inserted, the recorder still only went up to 2gb. So because of this, it is most likely something with the recorder. If you have any ideas, feel free to let me know

Thank you again for your help. You sure do know a lot about this kind of stuff

I think you are confusing the card capacity with the maximum file size per recording. I have the the DR07mk2, also came with 4gb card. If I read the manual correctly, it only says that the maximum file size it will create is 2gb. It can record to a larger card but if a single recording goes higher than 2gb of data, the recorder will just start a new file at that point which can then be up to another 2gb if you have a big enough card. Look at page 52 in the DR07mk2 manual.

 

[GTBecker]

Dan, did you have your event? How well did your recording work?

Tom