Confused by limiter vs. peak reduction (DR-22WL)
- Thread starter tmmlrd
- Start date
Guess who's back.
I just had another concert last night and used the DR-44WL. Does it matter where the microphones are placed, however? I noticed the recorder was tilted a SLIVER to the left instead of facing right toward the ensemble. The recordings came out fine, but my OCD is kicking in as to if there actually is a difference if the microphone placement is centimeters off...I'm sure there isn't but maybe there's an audiophile who knows...
I just had another concert last night and used the DR-44WL. Does it matter where the microphones are placed, however? I noticed the recorder was tilted a SLIVER to the left instead of facing right toward the ensemble. The recordings came out fine, but my OCD is kicking in as to if there actually is a difference if the microphone placement is centimeters off...I'm sure there isn't but maybe there's an audiophile who knows...
GTBecker
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2016
- Messages
- 125
- Karma
- 21
- Gear owned
- DR-44WL
> ...the recorder was tilted a SLIVER to the left instead of facing right toward the ensemble...
The DR-44WL microphone patterns are cardioids which are fixed at 90 degrees to one another and whose diaphragms share a common point in X/Y (the plane of the recorder's display). A few degrees of erroneous rotation in either X/Y, or Z (elevation) will have little effect on the recording. 10 or 15 degrees might be critically audible.
The DR-44WL microphone patterns are cardioids which are fixed at 90 degrees to one another and whose diaphragms share a common point in X/Y (the plane of the recorder's display). A few degrees of erroneous rotation in either X/Y, or Z (elevation) will have little effect on the recording. 10 or 15 degrees might be critically audible.
Good point. I was listening back to the recordings and they're fine. Plus, I realized the XY technique doesn't really give much of a "stereo" experience, as the mics are pretty close together, so if there really is a difference its barely noticed at all. They sure do a good job though of giving more clarity of what is in the center.
I'm sorry for all of the constant questions, but I do have to ask:
What is YOUR personal preference for recording? AB or XY? I like XY because it is able to capture more clarity in the center, but it does give a bit more of a mono sound due to the mics being close together. I would like to try AB for the more ambient sound and wider image but am worried about not getting a lot of clarity (and instead, more background noise).
And also, do you happen to know if the microphones on the 22WL are better than the ones on the 44WL? I know they were both released at the same time with updated microphones than past TASCAM recorders, but am unsure if they are the same exact microphones, but just the recorder layout and designs are different.
What is YOUR personal preference for recording? AB or XY? I like XY because it is able to capture more clarity in the center, but it does give a bit more of a mono sound due to the mics being close together. I would like to try AB for the more ambient sound and wider image but am worried about not getting a lot of clarity (and instead, more background noise).
And also, do you happen to know if the microphones on the 22WL are better than the ones on the 44WL? I know they were both released at the same time with updated microphones than past TASCAM recorders, but am unsure if they are the same exact microphones, but just the recorder layout and designs are different.
GTBecker
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2016
- Messages
- 125
- Karma
- 21
- Gear owned
- DR-44WL
> ... AB or XY?
For close subjects I prefer X/Y. I agree that X/Y often captures more detail than spaced mics do, but at the cost of less ambiance and an increased sensitivity to motion of the source. I haven't recorded acoustic guitar for some time but I recall that, if the performer moved the instrument, it was often audible. X/Y, though, is largely mono-compatible since the common capsule position lessens phase artifacts when the channels are combined. I also think X/Y is very good for voice, like an interview.
For more distant sources I like an ORTF-like configuration, which is essentially AB with ~seven inches of spacing and more than 90 degrees of angle (officially 110 degrees, I think). This apparently simulates the human ear spacing, not quite binaural. It works well in my field recordings.
For the DR-44WL you'll need external mics and cables, of course, and mounts. Experiment!
I don't know what microphone capsules are in the DR-22WL, but the service manual of the -44WL says the capsules are Primo EM182M1S10C1s.
For close subjects I prefer X/Y. I agree that X/Y often captures more detail than spaced mics do, but at the cost of less ambiance and an increased sensitivity to motion of the source. I haven't recorded acoustic guitar for some time but I recall that, if the performer moved the instrument, it was often audible. X/Y, though, is largely mono-compatible since the common capsule position lessens phase artifacts when the channels are combined. I also think X/Y is very good for voice, like an interview.
For more distant sources I like an ORTF-like configuration, which is essentially AB with ~seven inches of spacing and more than 90 degrees of angle (officially 110 degrees, I think). This apparently simulates the human ear spacing, not quite binaural. It works well in my field recordings.
For the DR-44WL you'll need external mics and cables, of course, and mounts. Experiment!
I don't know what microphone capsules are in the DR-22WL, but the service manual of the -44WL says the capsules are Primo EM182M1S10C1s.
When I selected my recorder I understood the only difference between DR-22 and DR-44 was the number of tracks and the possibility to use XLR connector for external microphones on DR-44. Those were not a real plus for me since I don't have the possibility to make a setup with external microphones during performances (since my main task is playing, not recording!) neither I'm interested in multi track recording.
This is why I selected the DR-22.
Are there any other differences between the two?
P.S: On the other hand I was really attracted by the Wi-Fi control of the recorder to be able to check e.g. recording level in real time from the stage, but unfortunately this feature turned out to be so unrealiable that I'm never using it :-( that's very bad from Tascam.
This is why I selected the DR-22.
Are there any other differences between the two?
P.S: On the other hand I was really attracted by the Wi-Fi control of the recorder to be able to check e.g. recording level in real time from the stage, but unfortunately this feature turned out to be so unrealiable that I'm never using it :-( that's very bad from Tascam.
I bought this on ebay two years ago and use every time I record outdoor:
https://www.ebay.it/itm/Gutmann-Mic...788517?hash=item58c54580a5:g:JJwAAOSwzXxaRN~G
I find it very useful. It fits perfectly the DR-22WL and reduces the wind noise effectively. Tried blowing directly into the recorder and almost nothing recorded! Moreover does not attenuate the sound at all. Kind of magic (although a little bit expensive)
Guess who's back again
I got a question about the Low Cut Filter. At band concerts, I use the 40hz LCF, and I've noticed that the audio from my Canon 80D seems to bring out more sound of the ensemble while the TASCAM recordings, while having reduced background noise, takes a step back on a few occasions (for example, an Oboe or Clarinet squeaked at one point, and it was crystal clear from the Canon audio, but was reduced a bit from the TASCAM audio)
There doesn't seem to be too much background noise in the auditorium besides hearing a pretty faint light noise from the stage (you know, the sound that lights or lightbulbs make when they're on?), so, is it necessary to use a Low Cut Filter? I've heard it can reduce bass noises, so I'm worried about that when it comes to certain instruments like Tympani, etc.
Or, maybe is it those two skinny barrier-like things on the Tascam 44-WL next to the mics? Do those affect anything or no?
I got a question about the Low Cut Filter. At band concerts, I use the 40hz LCF, and I've noticed that the audio from my Canon 80D seems to bring out more sound of the ensemble while the TASCAM recordings, while having reduced background noise, takes a step back on a few occasions (for example, an Oboe or Clarinet squeaked at one point, and it was crystal clear from the Canon audio, but was reduced a bit from the TASCAM audio)
There doesn't seem to be too much background noise in the auditorium besides hearing a pretty faint light noise from the stage (you know, the sound that lights or lightbulbs make when they're on?), so, is it necessary to use a Low Cut Filter? I've heard it can reduce bass noises, so I'm worried about that when it comes to certain instruments like Tympani, etc.
Or, maybe is it those two skinny barrier-like things on the Tascam 44-WL next to the mics? Do those affect anything or no?
Last edited:
New threads
-
-
-
Connecting external effects
- Started by MedievalMedodicer
- Replies: 2
-
Exporting individual stems to computer with compression, EQ and aux send FX? (MODEL 16)
- Started by etienne6
- Replies: 3
-
US-20x20 firmware update error
- Started by mathieujm
- Replies: 0