A couple of newbie questions

[Guitar55]

Hi, this is my first post here. I have a couple of questions. I did search the forums first, which helped, but could still use some clarification...

I use a Sony MZ-R37, which is several years old and a Sony ECM-717 stereo condensor mic. (Is this a reasonable quality mic?)

My primary goal is making live recordings of my band. When we play large venues, I take a direct output from the mixing board, otherwise I'll use the mic.

First of all, I have no major complaints, the auto level control works great, never any distortion or jumps in the recorded level. The quality is pretty decent.

The only way I have to get the recording on my computer is through the Line Out, so I'm doing a D/A conversion at that point and losing some quality, right? Is there a way for me to digitally transfer the recordings? Is there some sort of (inexpensive) MD Reader for the computer?? Or do I just need a new recorder?

I thought the this recorder sampled at lower than CD-quality, but the manual says the Sampling Frequency is 44.1 kHz. That's CD quality, right? Is that the same as PCM?

Any help is greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Dennis

[bobt]

You can use any of the Hi-MD recorders with a line in or Mic in, but to upload your older recordings digitally you will need the RH1.

Good luck,

Bob

[Guitar55]

You can use any of the Hi-MD recorders with a line in or Mic in, but to upload your older recordings digitally you will need the RH1.

Good luck,

Bob

Thanks for the response, what about the sampling rate question?

[boojum]

The magic of Yahoo:

# Sampling frequency: 44.1 kHz

# Sampling rate converter: Input: 32 kHz/44.1 kHz/48 kHz

# Coding: Adaptive transform acoustic coding (ATRAC)

Same sampling frequency as PCM, not the same format and compressed.

[Strungup]

Hi, this is my first post here. I have a couple of questions. I did search the forums first, which helped, but could still use some clarification...

I use a Sony MZ-R37, which is several years old and a Sony ECM-717 stereo condensor mic. (Is this a reasonable quality mic?)

My primary goal is making live recordings of my band. When we play large venues, I take a direct output from the mixing board, otherwise I'll use the mic.

First of all, I have no major complaints, the auto level control works great, never any distortion or jumps in the recorded level. The quality is pretty decent.

The only way I have to get the recording on my computer is through the Line Out, so I'm doing a D/A conversion at that point and losing some quality, right? Is there a way for me to digitally transfer the recordings? Is there some sort of (inexpensive) MD Reader for the computer?? Or do I just need a new recorder?

I thought the this recorder sampled at lower than CD-quality, but the manual says the Sampling Frequency is 44.1 kHz. That's CD quality, right? Is that the same as PCM?

Any help is greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Dennis

Depends on the Quality of the souncard your running into. Todays soundcard are 24 bit 96khz capable most of them which is higher than what you initially recorded at , then what software you use to record the MD on,

Download Audacity , Hook the MD ( I used to have the 37 as well, I like the MZ-R50 better ) to the computer start audacity, set the preferences in audacity to record from line in , and set the quality you want it to record at , ( if your computer is capable of 24/96 you can use that , if it isnt set it at 16/48 or 44.1).

Close Audacity after saving the settings then restart it, ready to go .

Md at ready and paused Audacity open , klik the input meters (upper right corner ) and they should become active. start the MD and watch the meters ,if you have good levels pause the MD back up to beginning of track , hit the record button in Audacity and play on MD let it roll. You will see the waveform going across the screen letting you know its capturing.

After the track is in , hit stop , then the editing fun begins , Fadins/outs, compression EQ , reverb, etc the noise removal isnt the best , you could end up with a wierd whining noise, just UNDO if you do ,

I have the RH1 , but I find myself using the older recorders I have a lot more than the RH1 , and even though it isnt a Direct transfer, your ears wont really notice if your initail recording is very clean , once it is in the comp , your in the digital domain .

Edited March 19, 2007 by Guitarfxr

[Guitar55]

Depends on the Quality of the souncard your running into. Todays soundcard are 24 bit 96khz capable most of them which is higher than what you initially recorded at , then what software you use to record the MD on,

Download Audacity , Hook the MD ( I used to have the 37 as well, I like the MZ-R50 better ) to the computer start audacity, set the preferences in audacity to record from line in , and set the quality you want it to record at , ( if your computer is capable of 24/96 you can use that , if it isnt set it at 16/48 or 44.1).

Close Audacity after saving the settings then restart it, ready to go .

Md at ready and paused Audacity open , klik the input meters (upper right corner ) and they should become active. start the MD and watch the meters ,if you have good levels pause the MD back up to beginning of track , hit the record button in Audacity and play on MD let it roll. You will see the waveform going across the screen letting you know its capturing.

After the track is in , hit stop , then the editing fun begins , Fadins/outs, compression EQ , reverb, etc the noise removal isnt the best , you could end up with a wierd whining noise, just UNDO if you do ,

I have the RH1 , but I find myself using the older recorders I have a lot more than the RH1 , and even though it isnt a Direct transfer, your ears wont really notice if your initail recording is very clean , once it is in the comp , your in the digital domain .

Thanks for the response. I do understand the basics of recording to the computer. I've been using Goldwave to record from the Line Out of my MDR, which means I'm doing a digital to analog conversion. I've been recording at 44.1, but I have an SB Audigy Pro, so I can go to 96. Will I hear that much of a difference? I will have to do a test.

BUT if I had a newer unit, recording in uncompressed PC, and digitally transfering to the computer, it seems I should notice a HUGE difference. Do you agree?

[Strungup]

Then you would hear a difference , PCM is Wav , no compression at all.

There would be a noticeable difference in what is called "Air" or High frequency spaciallity it would depend on exactly what you are recording as to what you would hear . Acoustic Guitar , solo w/ ambience . Much bigger stereo image, and depth .

Piano solo , Brighter , cleaner attack on the notes. Loud rock band , Some high freq. clarity and "Air" but the depth wont change much. The delicate areas are where that change is most notable

Micheal Hedges "Aerial Boundaries " was done on a Tascam 16 track board with Sennheiser mics,and Sunrise pickup system on the guitar, everything was on 2 inch tape and post processing , Listen to that albumn , is the really a need for it to be "cleaner"

Perfect numbers isnt what good sound is about.

Edited March 19, 2007 by Guitarfxr

[Guitar55]

I did a short test...recorded the same piece of music off the MDR at both 44.1 and 96 and all I can say is WOW!!! WHat a difference. 44.1 sounds dull and muffled while 96 is clear, crisp and deep!

Obviously the files are twice as large, but I think my best bet would be to burn them to CD for storage, right?

Also, even if I convert files to MP3 or WMA, I will end up with better versions than if I had reocred at 44.1, right?

Edited March 19, 2007 by Guitar55

[Strungup]

I did a short test...recorded the same piece of music off the MDR at both 44.1 and 96 and all I can say is WOW!!! WHat a difference. 44.1 sounds dull and muffled while 96 is clear, crisp and deep!

Obviously the files are twice as large, but I think my best bet would be to burn them to CD for storage, right?

Also, even if I convert files to MP3 or WMA, I will end up with better versions than if I had reocred at 44.1, right?

ther is that AIR i was mentioning

[Guitar55]

I downloaded Audacity. One difference I see from Goldwave is that Audacity seems to let you export to WAV only at 16-bit, where GW gives you the choice of 16, 24- or 32 bit.

[Strungup]

I downloaded Audacity. One difference I see from Goldwave is that Audacity seems to let you export to WAV only at 16-bit, where GW gives you the choice of 16, 24- or 32 bit.

on the tool bar you will see at the top left "Audacity" klik it and open preferences, another window will open where you can set whatever audio device, file quality , etc, etc, ....for mp3 you will need the LAME encoder , or you can use a prog called "Switch " from NCH Sound, its also a freebie

Audacity does 16/24/32 (float) Mine is set for 32 , never changes

[Guitar55]

I see those settings but the UI looks different. Are you using the Beta version? If so, how stable is it?

Edited March 19, 2007 by Guitar55

[boojum]

I did a short test...recorded the same piece of music off the MDR at both 44.1 and 96 and all I can say is WOW!!! WHat a difference. 44.1 sounds dull and muffled while 96 is clear, crisp and deep!

You are suffering from the placebo effect. A copy can never sound better than the original. Same as a Xerox copy. Take a fuzzy copy, put it in the best Xerox and you will get a very good copy of a fuzzy original, fuzzy in all the same ways, almost exactly the same. Bit it will never be crisper than the original. Just sit down and think about it. Another way to conceptualize it is to think of a digital copy of a wax cyclinder recording. Do you think the digital copy will sound better??

Try and ABX the two samples and see how accurate you are in a double blind attempt of identifying which is which.

You can pursue this further at hydrogenaudio.org where this has been a topic of discussion for a while. The result is always the same. Physics remains the law: the copy cannot be better than the original.

Edited March 19, 2007 by boojum

[raintheory]

I've been using the beta version of Audacity for quite some time (on WinXP and Ubuntu Linux) with no problems.

[fishstyc]

You are suffering from the placebo effect. A copy can never sound better than the original.

If I understood correctly he compared the two copies! Not the copy and the original...

This means that he is able to capture more of the detail that the MD outputs via the line-out, when he records with a higher bitrate (if you copy a fuzzy original with a good copy machine, the copy will be closer to the fuzzy original than the copy made by the bad copy machine .

[Guitar55]

If I understood correctly he compared the two copies! Not the copy and the original...

This means that he is able to capture more of the detail that the MD outputs via the line-out, when he records with a higher bitrate (if you copy a fuzzy original with a good copy machine, the copy will be closer to the fuzzy original than the copy made by the bad copy machine .

That's correct. I was comparing the two copies.

[boojum]

That's correct. I was comparing the two copies.

If you have not ABX'ed then you are quite possibly falling prey to the placebo effect. You know each sample you are playing. Ergo you are biased. If it were double blind I would be persuaded. As it is what you have done is create some anecdotal evidence. We are already awash in it. Try to ABX them. You can use foobar2000 to do this, if you care to.

Cheers

l'esprit d'escalier - this came to me.

Take a digital photo of something at 24dpi.

Print it out. Now it is analog.

Take a photo of the print at 24dpi and another at 96dpi.

They will be identical because the original is 24dpi and even if you photograph it again at a million dpi it is a picture of something 24dpi. It cannot get better. It can be the same or worse only. I hope this helps. If not, pose it at hydrogwenaudio.org. The propeller heads there are way smarter than I.

Edited March 20, 2007 by boojum