Login / Register
 
New Sound FX Library releases
New Reply
Subscribe
#31
12th July 2010
Old 12th July 2010
  #31
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,462

apple-q is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by houseplant View Post
First off ALL of Chuck's Libraries ROCK! Kudos man for sharing with all of us at such great prices. I've bought every one of Tim's and Chuck's libraries to date and use them extensively.

96k: I've found that when your out in the field recording its usually best to capture at the highest possible resolution your recorder is capable of. Its going to offer the highest flexibility after the fact. You usually only get one chance to capture the perfect sound, or your on an expensive recording session (guns/cars/etc). So why not capture at the best you can regardless of the frequency response of your mics.

I also think that if you plan on pitch shifting, or running your recorded FX through your arsenal of sound design tools its best to start at the highest resolution to help retain/maintain your "money" frequencies (low end/high end detail) present in the original recording.

Certainly 96k..192k eat a ton of drive space however space is soo ridiculously cheap nowadays it only makes sense to capture at the best our devices can.

I'm sure Chuck has more to say about his specific philosophy.

-Chris
I´m aware of the options of pitch-shifting 96k material. But if the mic doesn´t "hear" anything above 20k there won´t be any content to pitch-shift up there.

Hence my question. I wasn´t saying that the quality is bad. I was asking out of interest why record at 96k when the mic is "deaf" for high frequencies.


Thanks.
#32
12th July 2010
Old 12th July 2010
  #32
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,699

JSt0rm is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by apple-q View Post
I´m aware of the options of pitch-shifting 96k material. But if the mic doesn´t "hear" anything above 20k there won´t be any content to pitch-shift up there.

Hence my question. I wasn´t saying that the quality is bad. I was asking out of interest why record at 96k when the mic is "deaf" for high frequencies.


Thanks.
Well when doing design type stuff you can import the sounds without sample rate converting them and have them at half speed without aliasing. This works really well at 192khz. If you took a 48khz file and slowed it down that much (25% of original speed) it would start to break apart.
#33
12th July 2010
Old 12th July 2010
  #33
Gear nut
 
crussom's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: Pasadena, CA
Posts: 79

crussom is offline
I can definitely hear a difference in sounds recorded at 96K vs 48K, regardless of the microphone I use. I also hear a difference in 192K vs 96K (I now record most everything at 192K). Things sound fuller at higher rates, and not just the high frequencies. I can also hear a big difference when pitching/slowing a 192K/96K sound vs a 48K sound. If someone doesn't need the hires stuff, it is easy enough for them to batch convert the files down to 48K.

I will sometimes use mics with extended frequency ranges, if they are the right mic for the material I am recording. On my Metal FX and Rock libraries, I used a Sennheiser MKH800 (which captures up to 50Khz). I also used the 191 and a 416 on some of the rock stuff

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple-q View Post
I have one question out of curiosity: Why do you record @96k? I read that you use a neumann RSM wich doesn´t really have a response beyond 20k (actually it´s already at -10dB at 20k and falls off pretty steep from 10k at 10dB/Oktave. It acts like a steep low-pass @10k ).

Isn´t that a waste of space since the RSM doesn´t pick up things beyond 20k?

Thanks!
__________________
Chuck Russom: Sound Desginer and Recordist

http://chuckrussom.com
#34
12th July 2010
Old 12th July 2010
  #34
Gear nut
 
crussom's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: Pasadena, CA
Posts: 79

crussom is offline
I do a lot of this in my design work, importing sounds without changing sample rate. I'll often slow stuff to 50% speed and sometimes to 25%. Sometimes I go the other way and speed stuff up too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSt0rm View Post
Well when doing design type stuff you can import the sounds without sample rate converting them and have them at half speed without aliasing. This works really well at 192khz. If you took a 48khz file and slowed it down that much (25% of original speed) it would start to break apart.
#35
12th July 2010
Old 12th July 2010
  #35
Gear nut
 
crussom's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: Pasadena, CA
Posts: 79

crussom is offline
I had to compress these after the fact. They really are not that loud. Now, those Piccolo Petes, wow, those things are loud!

Quote:
Originally Posted by renec View Post
Hey Chuck,

the ground bloom flower stuff in the fireworks library is flat out awesome!

how did you approach controlling dynamic range with some of these? They really sound great.
#36
19th July 2010
Old 19th July 2010
  #36
Gear Head
 
sepulchra's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 73

sepulchra is offline
New Library on the Block

Hey Folks,

I just wanted to introduce myself. My name's Michael Raphael and I've been running this blog: fieldsepulchra for over two years and thanks to the work of Tim and Chuck, I've decided to throw my hat into the ring of SFX creation. My library is full of rockets. Lots and lots of Rockets!

REA001 Rockets | Rabbit Ears Audio


Thanks!
#37
19th July 2010
Old 19th July 2010
  #37
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,699

JSt0rm is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by sepulchra View Post
Hey Folks,

I just wanted to introduce myself. My name's Michael Raphael and I've been running this blog: fieldsepulchra for over two years and thanks to the work of Tim and Chuck, I've decided to throw my hat into the ring of SFX creation. My library is full of rockets. Lots and lots of Rockets!

REA001 Rockets | Rabbit Ears Audio


Thanks!

Cool. I needed these over the weekend lololol. I'm sure they will come in handy thumbsup
#38
19th July 2010
Old 19th July 2010
  #38
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,699

JSt0rm is offline
the rockets are really good.

rockets 15 16 and 17 are wonderful. Is there any chance there are more in this series?
#39
20th July 2010
Old 20th July 2010
  #39
Gear Head
 
sepulchra's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 73

sepulchra is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSt0rm View Post
the rockets are really good.

rockets 15 16 and 17 are wonderful. Is there any chance there are more in this series?
Which Library did you buy? If you bought the 96 kHz library, I might have to back for part II!
#40
20th July 2010
Old 20th July 2010
  #40
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,699

JSt0rm is offline
I got the 96khz library
#41
20th July 2010
Old 20th July 2010
  #41
Gear nut
 
idahorecordist's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Location: Sandpoint, Idaho
Posts: 125

idahorecordist is offline
My Ultimate Concrete Sound Effects Library is now available: The Recordist

Contains 662 24-Bit 96kHz cinderblock, brick, ceramic, sidewalk slab and concrete debris sounds.

Next up: Ice.... lots of ice!

-Frank
#42
20th July 2010
Old 20th July 2010
  #42
Gear Head
 
sepulchra's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 73

sepulchra is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSt0rm View Post
I got the 96khz library
Let me look, but I that seres just launched that once
#43
20th July 2010
Old 20th July 2010
  #43
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,699

JSt0rm is offline
Thanks for looking

Oh and Tim it looks like you have created a cottage industry

I wonder what the big boys think of this hahahahah.
subbasshead
Thread Starter
#44
20th July 2010
Old 20th July 2010
  #44
Gear maniac
 
subbasshead's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Location: wellington, new zealand
Posts: 232

Thread Starter
subbasshead is offline
In hindsight this new cottage industry was well overdue - when you look at the great work done for music producers by the likes of Sonic Couture, ToneHammer, GoldBaby etc it was inevitable!

Great work Michael - can't wait to use your rockets in a project!
__________________
i am in love with vibrating air molecules
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0695670/ IMDB credits
http://hissandaroar.com Sound FX Libraries
#45
20th July 2010
Old 20th July 2010
  #45
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,699

JSt0rm is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by idahorecordist View Post
My Ultimate Concrete Sound Effects Library is now available: The Recordist

Contains 662 24-Bit 96kHz cinderblock, brick, ceramic, sidewalk slab and concrete debris sounds.

Next up: Ice.... lots of ice!

-Frank
Hi there. Would it be possible to get your ice library in 192khz? This kind of stuff is great slowed down that much! Thanks.
#46
20th July 2010
Old 20th July 2010
  #46
Lives for gear
 
PoxyMusic's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Location: The OC
Posts: 666

PoxyMusic is offline
I gotta say, I really like where this is going. You guys are making really useful stuff and I like knowing that my money is going directly to the people working hard to create it.

Keep em coming!
#47
20th July 2010
Old 20th July 2010
  #47
Gear Head
 
sepulchra's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 73

sepulchra is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by subbasshead View Post
In hindsight this new cottage industry was well overdue - when you look at the great work done for music producers by the likes of Sonic Couture, ToneHammer, GoldBaby etc it was inevitable!

Great work Michael - can't wait to use your rockets in a project!
Thanks Tim! Here's to many more independent libraries!
#48
21st July 2010
Old 21st July 2010
  #48
Gear nut
 
idahorecordist's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Location: Sandpoint, Idaho
Posts: 125

idahorecordist is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSt0rm View Post
Hi there. Would it be possible to get your ice library in 192khz? This kind of stuff is great slowed down that much! Thanks.
I wish I had recorded at 192k. Most of it was recorded from 2007 to January of this year. 50% of the ICE was recorded with a PCM-D1 because it worked great at 5 degrees on early mornings in frakkin' cold North Idaho and only records up to 96k. I do record a majority of my sounds now at 192k.
#49
22nd July 2010
Old 22nd July 2010
  #49
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,699

JSt0rm is offline
Is it bad form for me to call out Charles Maynes to make a firearm library?
#50
22nd July 2010
Old 22nd July 2010
  #50
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,699

JSt0rm is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by idahorecordist View Post
I wish I had recorded at 192k. Most of it was recorded from 2007 to January of this year. 50% of the ICE was recorded with a PCM-D1 because it worked great at 5 degrees on early mornings in frakkin' cold North Idaho and only records up to 96k. I do record a majority of my sounds now at 192k.
Just got into the concrete sounds. Really great detail and I like the stereo channels. Sometimes you need this kind of stuff in stereo.

I think I need to get a sanken css5 they sound REALLY good. I have an idea for a library of my own too
#51
23rd July 2010
Old 23rd July 2010
  #51
Gear nut
 
idahorecordist's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Location: Sandpoint, Idaho
Posts: 125

idahorecordist is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSt0rm View Post
Just got into the concrete sounds. Really great detail and I like the stereo channels. Sometimes you need this kind of stuff in stereo.

I think I need to get a sanken css5 they sound REALLY good. I have an idea for a library of my own too
Glad you like my concrete sounds. I like using stereo also. I do some in mono, depends on the environment and what I'm trying to accomplish. While recording my next library Ultimate Rockslide I experimented with mono recordings and it worked great for some of the smaller rock debris tracks. It will be 95% stereo when done..... and it will be A LOT of rocks.

I love my CSS-5, very smooth on most stuff. My PCM-D1 is bright, which I like sometimes but I always seem to like the Sanken better for rocks, etc.

By the way, it's easier to carry a PCM-D1 when I'm on a steep rock pile and pushing rocks over, I did not want to fall.

-Frank
#52
26th July 2010
Old 26th July 2010
  #52
Gear nut
 
Joined: Jun 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 118

breaktheory is offline
New Sound FX Library releases

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSt0rm

Just got into the concrete sounds. Really great detail and I like the stereo channels. Sometimes you need this kind of stuff in stereo.

I think I need to get a sanken css5 they sound REALLY good. I have an idea for a library of my own too
When making field recordings how do you decide whether a sound (aside from AMB and BGs) is going to work better as stereo or mono?
#53
27th July 2010
Old 27th July 2010
  #53
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,699

JSt0rm is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by breaktheory View Post
When making field recordings how do you decide whether a sound (aside from AMB and BGs) is going to work better as stereo or mono?
It depends on what the picture is doing. For instance lets take a rock slide sound.

Do you see the rock slide from the perspective of someone IN it? Then a stereo file would be good as it would be the same pebbles flowing around you.

Or do you see the rock slide from someone down the hill a bit? Then you would use a mono file.

There are no rules of course and this is only a example as to how I would cut it.
#54
27th July 2010
Old 27th July 2010
  #54
Gear nut
 
Joined: Jun 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 118

breaktheory is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSt0rm View Post
It depends on what the picture is doing. For instance lets take a rock slide sound.

Do you see the rock slide from the perspective of someone IN it? Then a stereo file would be good as it would be the same pebbles flowing around you.

Or do you see the rock slide from someone down the hill a bit? Then you would use a mono file.

There are no rules of course and this is only a example as to how I would cut it.
The example makes sense but I'm not 100% sure of your reasoning. Is a stereo recording going to contain more spatial information so the applications are more limited? Is a mono file better for panning and using reverb to fake the source of the sound?

Also - I'm just getting into recording with a field recorder and I use a PCM-M10 - it will only record in stereo...if I want a mono file would converting a stereo recording do it or is it just not the same?
#55
27th July 2010
Old 27th July 2010
  #55
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,699

JSt0rm is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by breaktheory View Post
The example makes sense but I'm not 100% sure of your reasoning. Is a stereo recording going to contain more spatial information so the applications are more limited? Is a mono file better for panning and using reverb to fake the source of the sound?

Also - I'm just getting into recording with a field recorder and I use a PCM-M10 - it will only record in stereo...if I want a mono file would converting a stereo recording do it or is it just not the same?
honestly if I need it mono I just delete the side I dont want.
subbasshead
Thread Starter
#56
27th July 2010
Old 27th July 2010
  #56
Gear maniac
 
subbasshead's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Location: wellington, new zealand
Posts: 232

Thread Starter
subbasshead is offline
How you capture a sound and how you use a sound are two different scenarios, each with their own contexts...

As far as capturing a sound; if there is any discernible/useable stereo image at all, I would prefer to capture it and thereby have the option of whether you use it in stereo or mono or vary the divergence or whatever based on what best suits the image (perspective, point of view, proximity etc)
#57
27th July 2010
Old 27th July 2010
  #57
Gear nut
 
Joined: Jun 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 118

breaktheory is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by subbasshead View Post
How you capture a sound and how you use a sound are two different scenarios, each with their own contexts...

As far as capturing a sound; if there is any discernible/useable stereo image at all, I would prefer to capture it and thereby have the option of whether you use it in stereo or mono or vary the divergence or whatever based on what best suits the image (perspective, point of view, proximity etc)
By that thinking I'd record everything in stereo to always leave the option open and just delete the right side.

I have heard some people making the argument that a flattened stereo file is not the same as a file that's mono from the source - is this an audio purist issue?
#58
27th July 2010
Old 27th July 2010
  #58
Lives for gear
 
ggegan's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: The Heart of Screenland
Posts: 2,068

ggegan is offline
While it is very simple to import stereo files into a workstation in mono using Sound Miner, I tend to record sounds that will be mixed point source or panned, like car byes or a clock ticking, in mono and sounds that will be mixed with a spread, like ambiences or car interiors, in stereo. The primary reason I record sound fx in mono is because a shotgun mic can better isolate the target sound than a stereo mic setup, which has a wider field and will pick up more extraneous off axis sound. If you are recording in a very quiet environment then it really doesn't matter, but the world is a very noisy place where many of us live, so anything that helps isolate the target sound is a big plus.
__________________
Gary Gegan
#59
27th July 2010
Old 27th July 2010
  #59
Gear nut
 
Joined: Jun 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 118

breaktheory is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by ggegan View Post
The primary reason I record sound fx in mono is because a shotgun mic can better isolate the target sound .
Since I am just getting into field recording my rig consists of a sony pcm-m10 a windscreen and some earphones...next up would be a fostex and a nice shotgun but for now this is what I have to work with.

The mics are arranged on the left and right side of the head of the m10.

If I really want to focus on a sound like you do with a shotgun, would pointing just the left mic at my source then stripping the right channel later give me similar focused results with minimum background noise?

It's amazing the sounds that start coming through as you turn up the input gain (like the bus coming down the street 3 blocks away!)
#60
27th July 2010
Old 27th July 2010
  #60
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,699

JSt0rm is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by breaktheory View Post
Since I am just getting into field recording my rig consists of a sony pcm-m10 a windscreen and some earphones...next up would be a fostex and a nice shotgun but for now this is what I have to work with.

The mics are arranged on the left and right side of the head of the m10.

If I really want to focus on a sound like you do with a shotgun, would pointing just the left mic at my source then stripping the right channel later give me similar focused results with minimum background noise?

It's amazing the sounds that start coming through as you turn up the input gain (like the bus coming down the street 3 blocks away!)
look at the neumann 181 or sanken css5 m-s mics. These will allow you to play with the level of stereo at a later date. This seems to be the pro way of getting good isolated effects in the field.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
benoïde / Product Alerts older than 2 months
55
AcousticsampleS / Product Alerts older than 2 months
4
equinoxsounds / Product Alerts older than 2 months
0
equinoxsounds / Product Alerts older than 2 months
0
equinoxsounds / Product Alerts older than 2 months
0

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.