> CDs are dead and 48KHz sounds better. Thanks for these tips on recording! I have been asking colleagues and random friends this question for years: "How long do YOU think it will be before CDs go the way of the Cassette?" I did a recording with my Celtic band, "Way Up North" in 1994 - 5. At the time cassettes were still holding their sales power against CDs at about 50%. The trend was obvious, though. We had an equal number of Cassettes and CDs printed. I still have Cassettes left over. (Anybody want one? - FREE!) Similarly, my newest acoustic folk trio, "Take 3", has completed a recording project, and one of our members insisted on getting 1000 CDs printed. I have a feeling that I may still have some of these in a closet 20 years from now ... I wanted to go with digital download cards and "print-on-demand" CDs, but agreed to printing 1000 CDs to keep the peace. The real death-knell for cassettes came when automobile makers stopped putting cassette players in vehicles. Automaker Ford has said that they will stop putting CD players in their cars: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/car-cd-players-obsolete/ ( Or, from Television Station CBS 2 in Los Angeles ) - "Ford will soon stop installing CD players in its new vehicles. The automaker is scrapping CD players in its new vehicle models and opting to instead install USB sockets for iPods and other digital music players. Ford says all of its new cars will have a computer hub, which will allow drivers to access their music libraries from the Internet." So, as recording artists trying to sell recorded music, where do we go from here? How long will MP3 last? Will FLAC become the format of choice? What do YOU think will be the next long-term viable media format for music sales? Or is there one? I'll look forward to all of your opinions. Tom Draughon http://www.heartistrymusic.com/artists/tom.html
From: David Tayler <vidan...@sbcglobal.net> > The dynamic range of digital exceeds the background noise in your > room. For example, if your DR is 110 dB, and your background is 45 > dB, you have only 65 dB range. A typical lute has DR of maybe 40 > dB. Recording in 24 bits, each "bit" is worth 6dB. So when > recording, set your levels high, but not at the very highest, > becasue your end result will be 16 bit or less. USe that extra > resolution to downsample and normalize at exactly the time of > output for the best result. Use 48 kH, not 44.1: CDs are dead and > 48 sounds better. Consider AAC 24 bit/48kHz for output--best kept > secret in audio. Most people not only throw away the bits, they use > a cheapo encoder that chops off all the high frequencies, even > though free or inexpensive ones are available and need only to be > set up once. dt > _________________________________________________________________ > _ > > From: Ed Durbrow <edurb...@sea.plala.or.jp> > To: Anthony Hind <agno3ph...@yahoo.com>; LuteNet list > <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> > Sent: Wed, April 11, 2012 3:48:35 PM > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Miking a lute/theorbo > On Apr 11, 2012, at 6:00 PM, Anthony Hind wrote: > > Ed > > Do I understand that you record in mono? I have often found > that mono recordings are more relaxing than stereo, and analog more > relaxing than digital; so mono analog is sometimes the easiest to > listen to. It is as though the brain has lesswork to do recreating > the sound image (trying to make the two sound images coincide). > Although you no longer have indications of instrument position. No, > I record in stereo if it is solo. Sometimes I record the lute in > mono if there is a voice or other instrument because I have just > one very expensive Neumann mic and I like to use it on the lute if > I can. What I was saying is that if you record in a coincident > pattern, there will be NO problems with phasing in mono playback. I > don't know who listens in mono anymore, but it could happen. My > main reason for using a coincident pattern though is that I can get > a consistent sound on different days and even in different > locations. I'm essentially lazy. > It used to be true that mono > tape had far more dynamic space than stereo (mono analog with Nagra > whole track, instead of stereo halftrack; although I suppose with > two Nagras synchronized for stereo, you would have the same dynamic > space); but is this still applicable with the newest digital > recording medium with various "lossless" compressing algorythms? > No, I'm pretty sure the dynamic range is the same for mono or > stereo in the digital domain. You choose the bit rate, after all. > Personally, I feel the recording capabilities today far exceed the > playback systems most people listen on. If I record at 24 bits 48k > or 44.1k (some record at double or quadruple that sample rate) with > nice mics, the advantages are more in the > manipulation/effect/processing domain than in the playback medium. > That is: GIGO. Put yet another way, start with lots of headroom and > high quality and by the time it is reduced down to AAC or mp3 for a > YouTube video and played on computer speakers, there still should > be some discernible difference from a recording made with a PCM/mp3 > recorder using its built in mics and recording in mp3 rather than > wave format. > ________________________________ > De : Ed Durbrow > <[1]edurb...@sea.plala.or.jp> > A : LuteNet list > <[2]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> > Envoye le : Mercredi 11 avril 2012 > 2h22 > Objet : [LUTE] Re: Miking a lute/theorbo > > Brad, > I favor > a coincident pair because there are no phase problems in mono, but > even more so because it is easy to recreate. I don't have a problem > with close miking (30-40cm). It is a matter of placement and mic > quality, though. Every environment and instrument is different. It > is probably safe to say that many engineers don't have a lot of > experience with lutes and don't know the sound to go for. S/He > might be able to fix the sound quite a bit after the fact, with > your guidance. Maybe the two mics are out of phase. That will give > a tinny sound. At any rate, s/he might be able to eq it to improve > it. > > >> On the weekend I recorded two pieces in a professional > recording >> studio. I was accompanying a singer on the theorbo. > The recording >> engineer aimed two mikes quite close to the body > of the theorbo. >> >> >> On the recording, the sound of the theorbo > is very tinny and distorted, >> and bears almost no similarity to > the natural/ acoustic sound of the >> instrument. >> >> >> Has > anybody had experience with miking a lute or theorbo for recording? > >> >> What mike placement gave you the best results so far as > concerned >> fidelity to the natural sound of the instrument? >> >> > >> Thanks, >> >> >> Brad >> >> >> >> To get on or off this list see > list information at >> > [3]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> >> >> > > -- > > References > > 1. mailto:edurb...@sea.plala.or.jp > 2. mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu > 3. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html > Tom Draughon Heartistry Music http://www.heartistrymusic.com/artists/tom.html 714 9th Avenue West Ashland, WI 54806 715-682-9362 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
