I have analyzed and listened to "good" and "bad" recordings which Fishing created of Dawn's "Candida," in similar fashion to what I previously reported doing with a recording of "Respect Yourself."
It appears that the recordings of "Candida" were done with reasonable level settings, and with ALC and peak limiting properly disabled. I found that the "good" recording was about 0.4 or 0.5 db lower in both peak and rms volumes than the "bad" recording. Essentially the same 0.4 or 0.5 db difference existed between the volumes the two recordings when frequencies above 300 Hz were filtered out, and also between the volumes of the two recordings when frequencies below 300 Hz were filtered out.
The sound quality was generally very poor in both recordings. I suspect that the major reason for that was the low quality of the recorder's built-in mic. The single built-in mic, of course, also resulted in the sound being monophonic. Nevertheless, I sensed a VERY slight loss of definition in the bass on the "bad" recording. Not looseness, not weakness, just an almost unnoticeable loss of definition. Presumably the difference would have been much more apparent if the recorder and its built-in mic had not been in the loop.
Fishing also provided yesterday a "good" and "bad" re-recording of "Respect Yourself." I did not listen to those, but my software revealed nothing more than about 0.2 or 0.3 db differences in volume, frequency content above 300 Hz, and frequency content below 300 Hz. As with "Candida," the "bad" recording was the (VERY slightly) louder of the two.
Finally, today he provided a second set of re-recordings of "Respect Yourself." However, the recording level on these apparently was set too high, and the waveforms were clipped in numerous places, so I didn't do anything further with them.
FWIW.
Regards,
-- Al
It appears that the recordings of "Candida" were done with reasonable level settings, and with ALC and peak limiting properly disabled. I found that the "good" recording was about 0.4 or 0.5 db lower in both peak and rms volumes than the "bad" recording. Essentially the same 0.4 or 0.5 db difference existed between the volumes the two recordings when frequencies above 300 Hz were filtered out, and also between the volumes of the two recordings when frequencies below 300 Hz were filtered out.
The sound quality was generally very poor in both recordings. I suspect that the major reason for that was the low quality of the recorder's built-in mic. The single built-in mic, of course, also resulted in the sound being monophonic. Nevertheless, I sensed a VERY slight loss of definition in the bass on the "bad" recording. Not looseness, not weakness, just an almost unnoticeable loss of definition. Presumably the difference would have been much more apparent if the recorder and its built-in mic had not been in the loop.
Fishing also provided yesterday a "good" and "bad" re-recording of "Respect Yourself." I did not listen to those, but my software revealed nothing more than about 0.2 or 0.3 db differences in volume, frequency content above 300 Hz, and frequency content below 300 Hz. As with "Candida," the "bad" recording was the (VERY slightly) louder of the two.
Finally, today he provided a second set of re-recordings of "Respect Yourself." However, the recording level on these apparently was set too high, and the waveforms were clipped in numerous places, so I didn't do anything further with them.
FWIW.
Regards,
-- Al