naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: moles and atrac

Subject: Re: moles and atrac
From: Klas Strandberg <>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 16:48:12 +0100
I agree with your observation. If ATRAC has some disadvantage, it is that
the final sounds, the last of a fading echo, will get slightly broken and
crispy, especially if you boost it, of course.

But:
How many loudspeakers/ headphones / humans ears will detect this "error"?
Very few.
And how "delicate" sounds is it realistic to work with, considering even
classical music today is recorded to fit a car stereo set-up?

I recently read an article about monitor loudspeakers for studios. They
claimed that a "good" studio should have average replay equipment, to make
the mixing "fit" for average hi-fi's. I see what they mean, but I don't
agree at all.

But they have a point:

The danger with HQ reference loudspeakers, they claimed - and here I agree
to some extent - is that you tend to work with too sophisticated effects, -
effects that will be lost or distorted, unless you use the very best of
loudspeakers.

It's like making a painting so sophisticated, that it has to be looked at
with the same kind of light as you have in your painting studio.

They took an example: Suppose you have a top class equipment, and when
listening through your reference loudspeakers, you find that the sounds of
running water drops make a beautiful background effect.
But replayed in average loudspeakers, those drops will just sound disturbin=
g
and far from "beautiful".

Okay, I would personally make a choise here: I would go for the best
recordings I could make, and then care only about the fans with equipment
good enough!

But it is a choise. That is what I want to say.

And what mic's do you use? In my experience, only Sennheiser MKH20 is silen=
t
enough to make MD "crispiness" audible. When using other mics, the
(possible) "crisp" gets lost in inherent noise. Or?

Klas.


........and what i
>felt with MD, is that some sounds that are at very low level, when they
>are pushed up with eq, are more "crispy", more "damaged" comparing with
>the use of DAT.
>i use oftenly binaural microphone (the sennheiser one). and the feeling
>of space, the relief seemed to be more flatten with MD.
>please tell me : are the more recent ATRAC much more precise for that ?
>(i have made these comparisons with first cheap MD recorders)
>i am still happy with my TCD-D8, but i would like to know...
>
>friendly,
>
>yannick.
>
>ps : sorry for the poor english writing, i am french...
>
>--
>.. yannick -> phonography/improvisation/composition/...
>.. kalerne -> http://www.kalerne.net/
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/=

>
>
>
Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
email: 
       




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU