I listened to the two recordings on my main system, via both speakers and headphones, after transferring them to CD-R. I also performed various analyses of their waveforms using Sony Sound Forge 9, a professional caliber audio editing program.
By far the most notable difference was in the volume levels. Would I be correct in assuming that you created both recordings with the same setting of the volume control on the amp, and the same setting of the recorder's level control? And would I be correct in assuming that if the recorder provides AGC (automatic gain control) and/or peak limiter functions, that you disabled them?
Before doing any analysis, I cut out dead times at the beginning and end of each recording, because those dead times were slightly different between the two recordings, and that difference might have introduced a small bias in the waveform analyses, in one direction or the other.
With 0 db representing digital full scale (the maximum possible instantaneous volume), I found that the maximum instantaneous volume that was present on the "good" recording was 0.0 db, and the rms average value across the entire recording was about -18.6 db (the two channels being slightly different, but both very close to that number).
On the "bad" recording, the maximum instantaneous volume was about -1.9 db (slightly different between the two channels), with the rms average value across the entire recording being about -21.7 db (again, the two channels being slightly different).
I then produced a CD-R containing (1)the "good" recording, (2)the "bad" recording, and (3)the "good" recording with a 3 db level reduction. The volume difference between (1) and the others was, of course, completely obvious. My wife commented on it immediately from another room in the house. (2) and (3) had some subtle differences, but nothing that I would remotely characterize as missing bass, or even a fundamental change in the character of the bass. And the differences between (2) and (3) were small enough that I suspect they might have disappeared if I had done enough trials to more precisely optimize the 3 db level reduction.
I also used the software to do waveform analyses after applying brickwall (essentially instantaneous cutoff) 300 Hz high pass and low pass filters to the "good -3db" and the "bad" recordings. The high passed content of those signals showed almost no difference in instantaneous peak level (0.2 db, with the "bad" recording being lower), and zero difference in rms level. The low passed content of those signals showed slightly greater but still small differences, about 0.7 and 0.4 db lower on the bad recording in peak and rms levels respectively.
I would agree, btw, with DRubin's characterization of the sound quality of the recording. Parts of the treble region are boosted excessively.
The bottom line: All of the differences, if any, were slight, except for the difference in volume, which on an rms basis across the entire track was about 3 db.
Regards,
-- Al
By far the most notable difference was in the volume levels. Would I be correct in assuming that you created both recordings with the same setting of the volume control on the amp, and the same setting of the recorder's level control? And would I be correct in assuming that if the recorder provides AGC (automatic gain control) and/or peak limiter functions, that you disabled them?
Before doing any analysis, I cut out dead times at the beginning and end of each recording, because those dead times were slightly different between the two recordings, and that difference might have introduced a small bias in the waveform analyses, in one direction or the other.
With 0 db representing digital full scale (the maximum possible instantaneous volume), I found that the maximum instantaneous volume that was present on the "good" recording was 0.0 db, and the rms average value across the entire recording was about -18.6 db (the two channels being slightly different, but both very close to that number).
On the "bad" recording, the maximum instantaneous volume was about -1.9 db (slightly different between the two channels), with the rms average value across the entire recording being about -21.7 db (again, the two channels being slightly different).
I then produced a CD-R containing (1)the "good" recording, (2)the "bad" recording, and (3)the "good" recording with a 3 db level reduction. The volume difference between (1) and the others was, of course, completely obvious. My wife commented on it immediately from another room in the house. (2) and (3) had some subtle differences, but nothing that I would remotely characterize as missing bass, or even a fundamental change in the character of the bass. And the differences between (2) and (3) were small enough that I suspect they might have disappeared if I had done enough trials to more precisely optimize the 3 db level reduction.
I also used the software to do waveform analyses after applying brickwall (essentially instantaneous cutoff) 300 Hz high pass and low pass filters to the "good -3db" and the "bad" recordings. The high passed content of those signals showed almost no difference in instantaneous peak level (0.2 db, with the "bad" recording being lower), and zero difference in rms level. The low passed content of those signals showed slightly greater but still small differences, about 0.7 and 0.4 db lower on the bad recording in peak and rms levels respectively.
I would agree, btw, with DRubin's characterization of the sound quality of the recording. Parts of the treble region are boosted excessively.
The bottom line: All of the differences, if any, were slight, except for the difference in volume, which on an rms basis across the entire track was about 3 db.
Regards,
-- Al