[Gary Eickmeier]

Gareth Magennis wrote:

Blimey, an 8 year old child could tell you that an $8000 system is
going to perform better than a $400 dollar one.

In the world of audio, the 8 year old could be wrong.

Gary

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Gareth Magennis wrote:

Blimey, an 8 year old child could tell you that an $8000 system is
going to perform better than a $400 dollar one.

In the world of audio, the 8 year old could be wrong.

Gary

When talking awedeeoh phoolery, yes. When talking about Sound Devices
versus Zoom portables, no. Period.

Will we reach a point where you start talking about what you know? Or
are we going to float onward in a fog of delusional ignorance?

Reading about any work is not the same as doing the work.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[William Sommerwerck]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

In the world of audio, the 8 year old could be wrong.

In this case, I don't think so. Mr Rockwell is probably right about the Zoom's
failings not being easily audible -- but I would never record anything truly
important with -- what appears to be -- such a poorly designed and executed
product.

Mr Alrich puts it rather rudely -- but you ought to take what he says
seriously.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:

In the world of audio, the 8 year old could be wrong.

In this case, I don't think so. Mr Rockwell is probably right about the
Zoom's failings not being easily audible -- but I would never record
anything truly important with -- what appears to be -- such a poorly
designed and executed product.

Mr Alrich puts it rather rudely --

Not actually, no.

but you ought to take what he says
seriously.

--
Les Cargill

[Gary Eickmeier]

Jeff Henig wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:

In the world of audio, the 8 year old could be wrong.

In this case, I don't think so. Mr Rockwell is probably right about
the
Zoom's failings not being easily audible -- but I would never record
anything truly important with -- what appears to be -- such a poorly
designed and executed product.

Mr Alrich puts it rather rudely -- but you ought to take what he
says seriously.

One thing--among many--that Hank does well is to make a point vividly
enough that it doesn't want to leave the brain housing group.

OK, now that I have been solidly put in my place, I am here because I am
learning recording. I have purchased some good microphones in the form of
AT-2050 multi patterns and the stands and XLRs to go with them. I have
fabricated some mike brackets to hold them in a number of patterns, and
lately devised some patterns of my own to try. I have bought the book that
Scott recommended, which was good for describing all of the recording
techniques.

I am recording all that I can find that will let me record them, mainly a
concert band of old timers, but they are many and have all of the wind band
instruments, which is good for testing freq response and imaging. To record
their main live concerts I have to comply with their wishes and keep it to
one mike stand with bracket, raised as high as practical to be out of the
way, and I have to stay portable and flexible, so I use these battery
powered digital recorders. But I need to try more than a two mike technique,
so I need a multichannel recorder that can download to the computer in
separate files. The R16 could do that, but like the bunch of guys say it is
sort of a toy. I can work around its limitations with great stealth, but it
would be easier with some good meters.

Previously to get multichannel without using the R16 I had to use a small
Yamaha mixer. It has four powered XLR inputs, and I would mix down to 2
channel and record with the Tascam DR-07 - which has good, clean sound for
less than $200. I have taken the sound off the band's sound board to get
some additional clean sound, especially for vocals, but of late for a video
of a rock band. I have therefore experienced most of the problems and
solutions discussed in this group and come away with some quite successful
recordings.

This Zoom H6 caught my eye because of its extended capabilities that may
permit me to be even more portable and flexible in both my jobs (video) and
my learning curve with music recording. The "our needs" part referred to
multiple channels XLR inputs that are powered and individually adjustable
and all of the other features that I was wishing for. If you do not need
multiple channels and all of that, then just read it as "my" needs. The
reviews are starting to come in on the H6 and they are pretty good. They say
the mike preamps have been completely redesigned and are good. The
ergonomics are superb for both video and audio, and there is one clip on
YouTube with a sound track on it.

I am not lurking or kibitzing, I am doing the work. I enjoy it and I am
learning more from recording than I ever did just playing recordings that
were made by others. My remark abut how the 8 yr old may be wrong referred
to the expensive gear that audiophiles get sucked into that have no audible
benefit beyond the more reasonable equipment. I'm thinking that the engineer
that knows what he is doing can get the 95% solution compared to the rich
but clueless who can afford all the big stuff. Besides, you don't pay $8000
to record the local volunteer wind band.

Gary Eickmeier

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/30/2013 4:34 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
This Zoom H6 caught my eye because of its extended capabilities that may
permit me to be even more portable and flexible in both my jobs (video) and
my learning curve with music recording. The "our needs" part referred to
multiple channels XLR inputs that are powered and individually adjustable
and all of the other features that I was wishing for.

Technically and functionally, the H6 will meet your needs. Based on
having one in my hands (though not actually recording with it),
ergonomically it doesn't make very much sense. You're going to have
cables sticking out all over the place - three or more mic cables on two
or three planes, power supply (a good idea if you need phantom power),
headphones, and maybe the remote control cable. I found the controls for
the mixer to be pretty clumsy, and one of the things you'll need to do
is set up a reasonable mix of your mics when you're recording so you'll
have some idea of whether you have them placed correctly. Sure, you can
do it, but it's not very quick or accurate.

Like I said, spend some time on it, and if you find it as difficult to
operate quickly as I did, take it back and consider another approach. It
doesn't take too much of a computer to record four tracks (or six if you
can afford that many mics). A USB interface from Focusrite (for
example), a $150 used laptop computer (that really won't be so old), and
a copy of Reaper will give you a fine setup for that kind of recording.
You can make a rough mix quickly for the purpose of setting your mics,
and you'll have all the files on the computer so you can do a better mix
when you have a better monitoring situation.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Gary Eickmeier]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/30/2013 4:34 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
This Zoom H6 caught my eye because of its extended capabilities that
may permit me to be even more portable and flexible in both my jobs
(video) and my learning curve with music recording. The "our needs"
part referred to multiple channels XLR inputs that are powered and
individually adjustable and all of the other features that I was
wishing for.

Technically and functionally, the H6 will meet your needs. Based on
having one in my hands (though not actually recording with it),
ergonomically it doesn't make very much sense. You're going to have
cables sticking out all over the place - three or more mic cables on
two or three planes, power supply (a good idea if you need phantom
power), headphones, and maybe the remote control cable. I found the
controls for the mixer to be pretty clumsy, and one of the things
you'll need to do is set up a reasonable mix of your mics when you're
recording so you'll have some idea of whether you have them placed
correctly. Sure, you can do it, but it's not very quick or accurate.

Like I said, spend some time on it, and if you find it as difficult to
operate quickly as I did, take it back and consider another approach.
It doesn't take too much of a computer to record four tracks (or six
if you can afford that many mics). A USB interface from Focusrite (for
example), a $150 used laptop computer (that really won't be so old),
and a copy of Reaper will give you a fine setup for that kind of
recording. You can make a rough mix quickly for the purpose of
setting your mics, and you'll have all the files on the computer so
you can do a better mix when you have a better monitoring situation.

You've got one? Well, I will too in a couple of days. Two points: It has the
XLR power supplies built in, and I wonder if anyone makes some flatter, like
right angle XLR connectors. I noticed the positioning of the XLR jacks as
well, but I need to see if that could be a problem. What I do is mount the
mikes on the stand, attach and dress the cables, hoist the mikes as high as
they will go, and then set the recorder at the base of the stand with
headphones attached so that I can monitor it periodically.

The only other way to do it would be to mount it on the same mike bracket,
start it recording with the built in mikes as a backup and some very short
XLR cables attached to the mike inputs, and let it run for each half of the
concert. That would require a lot of faith on my part, but would keep it off
the stage and out of view.

Gary

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

OK, now that I have been solidly put in my place, I am here because I am
learning recording.

I accept that, and I note your considerable enthusiasm for the process.
I encourage that.

What I'm trying to get you to realize is that in my opinion, which may
or may not be shared by others here, is that years of enjoyment of a
particularly fetching but vastly distorted reproduction configuration,
coupled with your obvious intelligence, study, and appreciation of
theory have deluded you into thinking this somehow constitutes a body of
professional experience.

This leads you to want to argue instead of _listening_ to what you are
being told, much as you wish to look at waveforms to delude
yourself/reinforce your mix concept instead of closing your eyes and
listening.

Gerzon's work may well enjoy further develoopment, but the basics of it
have not been and likely will not be refuted. Accepting that and
therefrom working through your own invalid concepts in order to
understand the results of his work, the tools derived from that, and the
sonic results thereof, is crucial for you if your desire to learn is
sincere.

And that's just for the fancy part of this work. The simpler steps are
learning how to figure out where to put a mic or mics to capture as
closely as possible what is intended. I was not kidding in an earlier
post where I suggested giving up surround work right now, in favor of
first learning how to get _an excellent monaural recording captured with
a single mic_. Do some of that using different mics with a variety of
patterns, Then advance to an X/Y config and appreciate what that offers,
since you will have learned how to figure out where to put mics.

Please note that I am not saying you should "learn where to put mics".
That approach is for websites and magazines that will lead you to
purchase stuff, and are therefore happy to tell you where to put which
mic and when. Many people take that approach because it's a lot easier
than learning how to figure out where the mics ought to go in various
situations. They then accept that the sound, for better or worse, is
what it should be, because they put the mic where it should go. As a
result, mediocre work litters the landscape.

And so forth, _after you set up a reasonablly well controlled playback
room and system_. Get monitoring together, and then experiment one step
at a time. You don't need six tracks right now. You need to learn how to
get _one terrific track_. Stop listening to sound and start listening to
music. The music will tell you what's wrong with the sound, whereas the
sound will blame all its shortcomings on the music. Your job is to
prevent the sound from getting away with that bull****.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Gary Eickmeier]

hank alrich wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:

OK, now that I have been solidly put in my place, I am here because
I am learning recording.

I accept that, and I note your considerable enthusiasm for the
process. I encourage that.

What I'm trying to get you to realize is that in my opinion, which may
or may not be shared by others here, is that years of enjoyment of a
particularly fetching but vastly distorted reproduction configuration,
coupled with your obvious intelligence, study, and appreciation of
theory have deluded you into thinking this somehow constitutes a body
of professional experience.

This leads you to want to argue instead of _listening_ to what you are
being told, much as you wish to look at waveforms to delude
yourself/reinforce your mix concept instead of closing your eyes and
listening.

Gerzon's work may well enjoy further develoopment, but the basics of
it have not been and likely will not be refuted. Accepting that and
therefrom working through your own invalid concepts in order to
understand the results of his work, the tools derived from that, and
the sonic results thereof, is crucial for you if your desire to learn
is sincere.

And that's just for the fancy part of this work. The simpler steps are
learning how to figure out where to put a mic or mics to capture as
closely as possible what is intended. I was not kidding in an earlier
post where I suggested giving up surround work right now, in favor of
first learning how to get _an excellent monaural recording captured
with a single mic_. Do some of that using different mics with a
variety of patterns, Then advance to an X/Y config and appreciate
what that offers, since you will have learned how to figure out where
to put mics.

Please note that I am not saying you should "learn where to put mics".
That approach is for websites and magazines that will lead you to
purchase stuff, and are therefore happy to tell you where to put which
mic and when. Many people take that approach because it's a lot easier
than learning how to figure out where the mics ought to go in various
situations. They then accept that the sound, for better or worse, is
what it should be, because they put the mic where it should go. As a
result, mediocre work litters the landscape.

And so forth, _after you set up a reasonablly well controlled playback
room and system_. Get monitoring together, and then experiment one
step at a time. You don't need six tracks right now. You need to
learn how to get _one terrific track_. Stop listening to sound and
start listening to music. The music will tell you what's wrong with
the sound, whereas the sound will blame all its shortcomings on the
music. Your job is to prevent the sound from getting away with that
bull****.

Thanks for the considered reply, but I am not a novice. I am a 30 year
member of the AES. I know you don't agree with my audio theories on
reproduction, and that will have to be until you understand what I am
talking about.

I don't really think that learning recording is going to be as difficult as
you describe. Nor is placing microphones that big a mystery. I have learned
a great deal in this last year about coincident vs spaced, omni vs
directional, all of the various microphone positioning patterns such as MS
and XY and ORT-F and NOS. Just when I thought I had narrowed down my list of
acceptable techniques I observe a recording engineer friend of mine putting
his DPA omnis on a stand with a spacing of about 18 inches! And the sound he
gets is so rich, precise, and great stereo, that is the method that I copied
last season for the concerts, except I spaced mine more like 3 feet.

Scott and some others convinced me about cardioid techniques, and another
friend makes these superb, spacious recordings with his MS technique, so I
made a bracket for that as well.

However, the first rehearsal this season I got a hair up my ass and tried a
spaced cardioid technique that I described earlier as TCM, Three Card Monte.
It still seems to be working for me, and tonight I tried a variation on it,
recording four tracks so that I can mix it various ways to try some
patterns. Used the Zoom R16 for probably the last time.

I have this need to create and invent and explore. I have always tried
various new ideas and have invented several new ways of doing things in
photography, air navigation, stereo theory, double system film production,
video editing, designing my dedicated home theater and listening room.

That's a long way of saying, simply, that I am not going to try monophonic
recording for a while until I learn what sound is. I will never be able to
do what the New York studio photographers do with their images, or the
Hollywood studios can do with movies with a crew of 5000, and I will never
make the recordings that most of you guys do routinely for a living, but I
will study the bejeezus out of the subject until I learn the most important
parts. And I will probably do it my way.

Gary Eickmeier

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Thanks for the considered reply, but I am not a novice. I am a 30 year
member of the AES. I know you don't agree with my audio theories on
reproduction, and that will have to be until you understand what I am
talking about.

I am not likely to understand what you are talking about until you know
what you are talking about, and we're not getting close to that yet.

Being an AES member does not make one a recordist, or a mix engineer,
nor a mastering engineer.

This is the essence of your delusion. Reading the pamphlet is not the
same as doing the work.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Thanks for the considered reply, but I am not a novice. I am a 30 year
member of the AES.

That is plonkable.

I don't really think that learning recording is going to be as
difficult as you describe. Nor is placing microphones that big a
mystery.

I have learned a great deal in this last year about
coincident vs spaced, omni vs directional, all of the various
microphone positioning patterns such as MS and XY and ORT-F and NOS.
Just when I thought I had narrowed down my list of acceptable
techniques I observe a recording engineer friend of mine putting his
DPA omnis on a stand with a spacing of about 18 inches! And the sound
he gets is so rich, precise, and great stereo, that is the method
that I copied last season for the concerts, except I spaced mine more
like 3 feet.

Search term "The Stereophonic Zoom".

That's a long way of saying, simply, that I am not going to try
monophonic recording for a while until I learn what sound is.

First you learn to record mono, I by design started with that back when I
taught myself to record, next that using a spaced cardioids I needed to also
deploy a center omni. I got something right with those first recordings and
got seriously stung by an incompetent engineer who failed to grasp
Sennheisers diagrams for wiring a -N and a -HL so that I ended up recording
with one microphone out of phase.

Eventually I joined a tape recordists club and found out about how to deploy
closely spaced cardioids. Sat in on a lot of recordings and learned what
happens when you do what with the main pair and eventually also learned to
trust only myself. While I do think that you need to listen more, to your
setup and to suggestions, I also kinda think it is right that you do what
you durn well want. What I mean is that you need to learn what is good about
what other folks here advocate before you settle on your style of sound
reocrding.

Nuff' said.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[William Sommerwerck]

"hank alrich" wrote in message ...

A solid and sensible response from Hank. I concur.

I used to do live recording, and enjoyed it very much. My basic problem was
that I was never to make recordings, day-in and day-out, to learn the basics.
* I made a lot of decent recordings, but -- with one exception, an Ambisonic
recording -- never a great one. Theory is fine -- and you absolutely /have/ to
have it -- but it is the grounding point for practical knowledge.

* The suggestion that you learn how to make a good /mono/ recording is
excellent.

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

"hank alrich" wrote in message ...

A solid and sensible response from Hank. I concur.

I used to do live recording, and enjoyed it very much. My basic problem was
that I was never to make recordings, day-in and day-out, to learn the basics.
* I made a lot of decent recordings, but -- with one exception, an Ambisonic
recording -- never a great one. Theory is fine -- and you absolutely /have/ to
have it -- but it is the grounding point for practical knowledge.

* The suggestion that you learn how to make a good /mono/ recording is
excellent.

Being able to get a good mono recording proves one is able to figure out
where to put a mic.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Gareth Magennis wrote:

Blimey, an 8 year old child could tell you that an $8000 system is
going to perform better than a $400 dollar one.

In the world of audio, the 8 year old could be wrong.

Gary



Not when you understand various anthropic principles.


--
Les Cargill