Obviously, the people at this forum have differing incomes and equipment. Some people are producing commercial recordings with equipment that makes me drool. Some people have the soundcard that came bundled with their computer. Still others push certain brands of equipment to such an extent that one can't help but question their economic relationship with their supplier (and I do NOT mean the people who take pains to explain that they are not affiliated with the product).
And it seems obvious that better equipment gives a better result. Buy cheap twice, buy wisely once - isn't that the phrase that I learned the hard way?
Some facts that amuse me:
'Southern Man' by Neil Young has a huge tape-edit noise in the beginning - that hasn't stopped from it from 30 years of daily rotation on classic rock stations.
'Sgt. Peppers' was recorded on mono(?) four track. Of course, we don't all have George Martin and Abbey Road at our beck and call.
'Nebraska' was recorded on a tascam cassete four-track. Michelle Shocked's first record was done with a walkman!
'Dark Side of the Moon' - all the tape echoes (especially 'Us and Them') was done with tape loops, with brooms and stools used as reels. All synched by hand!
'Heart of Glass' by Blondie. All those guitars and synth reverbs were synched by hand and ear!
Do we really need all this bickering over equipment and bit/sample rates? The people with the better toys have the POTENTIAL to make higher fidelity recordings.
It's not that I don't appreciate this forum, I really do. I have learned a tremendous amount, and I have a good idea as to what equipment is a better bargain than others. If I had the money, I'd buy a digidesign 001. But I don't.
I have a cheapo computer, with an Ensoniq Audio PCI sound card. And guess what, with that equipment, and with the shareware/freeware that I can get for free, I have the equivalent of a $10,000 synth system, circa 1986. And that is good.
Why can't we celebrate how good this equipment is? 15 years ago, I was editing sound effects with a reel-to-reel, scrubbing by ear, and cutting and pasting with a razor blade and tape. My inadequate computer serves me just fine, now.
Peace, and please do not be offended by anything I have said.
And it seems obvious that better equipment gives a better result. Buy cheap twice, buy wisely once - isn't that the phrase that I learned the hard way?
Some facts that amuse me:
'Southern Man' by Neil Young has a huge tape-edit noise in the beginning - that hasn't stopped from it from 30 years of daily rotation on classic rock stations.
'Sgt. Peppers' was recorded on mono(?) four track. Of course, we don't all have George Martin and Abbey Road at our beck and call.
'Nebraska' was recorded on a tascam cassete four-track. Michelle Shocked's first record was done with a walkman!
'Dark Side of the Moon' - all the tape echoes (especially 'Us and Them') was done with tape loops, with brooms and stools used as reels. All synched by hand!
'Heart of Glass' by Blondie. All those guitars and synth reverbs were synched by hand and ear!
Do we really need all this bickering over equipment and bit/sample rates? The people with the better toys have the POTENTIAL to make higher fidelity recordings.
It's not that I don't appreciate this forum, I really do. I have learned a tremendous amount, and I have a good idea as to what equipment is a better bargain than others. If I had the money, I'd buy a digidesign 001. But I don't.
I have a cheapo computer, with an Ensoniq Audio PCI sound card. And guess what, with that equipment, and with the shareware/freeware that I can get for free, I have the equivalent of a $10,000 synth system, circa 1986. And that is good.
Why can't we celebrate how good this equipment is? 15 years ago, I was editing sound effects with a reel-to-reel, scrubbing by ear, and cutting and pasting with a razor blade and tape. My inadequate computer serves me just fine, now.
Peace, and please do not be offended by anything I have said.
