Can one record a professional quality recording with the vs1680?

yeah man

just cause you made sucky recordings with it doesnt mean its no good!

hell i made very nice recordings with the original vs880.

what i learned tho is that i need to work on my musicianship skills!

it doesnt matter if the sound quality is great if your timing sucks and you play like a chimp.

:) :) :)
 
jeap said:
just cause you made sucky recordings with it doesnt mean its no good!...

...it doesnt matter if the sound quality is great if your timing sucks and you play like a chimp.
Click to expand...
Yep, what he said.
 
Along with several very valid and insightful comments, the German newbie wrote:
volltreffer said:
In a pro studio, nobody would wanna pay for that...

This is probably a valid point but it doesn't address the subject of the thread. It wasn't, "Is the 1680 useful as a recording device for a pro studio?" It was, "Can one record a professional quality recording with the vs1680?" The answer is yes.

...But it takes a LOT of time (ooh, why am I so lazy :( ) Some guys over there spent some 100h to do the mix of one song. Afterwards it was really nice. I also did one mix in approx 40h and the result was what I wanted it to sound like. But having only 8 scenes it is annoying, you can't even store all printing settings a.s.o. in a scene to easily redo everything, but you have to write it down :( ...

This is probably more attributed to lack of experience than the limitations of the machine. An experienced engineer gets what he wants going to tape, and he gets the mix he's looking for a lot easier than us wankers.

OK it's MUCH easier if you have some nice outboard gear, but with that you should even easier be able to get the 'pro' sound everyone is looking for. (A nice mic pre and comp/limiter should be the first thing IMO)

I agree with this, I can't imagine that the Grammy nominated album wasn't recorded without some good pre's and comps, not to mention some nice mics. That being said, the talent of the one using the machine definitely entered into the picture.
Click to expand...
 
jeap said:

it doesnt matter if the sound quality is great if your timing sucks and you play like a chimp.

:) :) :)
Click to expand...

Hey jeap/wascal:

If you want to establish two independent identities, you should try to avoid using the same exact catch phrases in each of your alter-egos, like "ppls" and "chimp". It makes it way too easy to tell you are one and the same person, and takes all the fun and mystery out of it for the rest of us "ppls" and "chimps"! :rolleyes:
 
High MrZekeMan!

I have to agree to you that some part of the tedious mixing process lies in my own missing capabilities. But I'm trying to improve...

I suffer from some problems with recording, that I simply am not able to fix soon. It's more of the attitude of my band. They always tend to become hysteric when it goes to recording... Everything has to be done fast. In addition, the room is far from being perfect... This way there is a lot to be fixed in the mix. I know that is not how it should be done, but at least I learn about mixing :D ...

Nevertheless I somehow have to disagree with you: it IS more complicated to achieve some results on these little machines. If you have VERY much experience you may be able to imagine how to overcome the restrictions that apply because of the machine. Then you may be really fast, but give up some degrees of freedom you might have in another studio...

Take the comps in the machines: they simply are restricted to a certain sound. In addition you don't have one per channel. That IS a restriction. Why would people otherwise use the high-end products?

Nevertheless I also think that you can do 'bought CD' or 'pro' like sound (I mean this whole discussion somehow might be ended by naming ONE 'pro' CD that was exclusively done on the VS - but maybe that'S a too 'mathematician' point of view ;) )

Ciao,

Axel
 
axel -

there is nothing to stop you from using an outboard preamp like the audiobuddy and an outboard compressor like a behringer autocom pro. i dont know what those cost over there but here its 160$ for both for two channels.

as far as i can see the way to improve on a 1680 would be to get a "modular" daw system like a tascam or mackie hard disk recorder and a seperate mixer and seperate effects.

the improvements may not be so great but the cost will be much higher. much more expensive and much more complicated.

with these digital systems like the 1680 you can listen to your input signal - a keyboard for instance - through your monitors and then record it and you can hear that they sound practically the same. whatever you put into them you get pretty much the same thing out.

its so easy with a system like this to make a good recording. all you have to do is make sure your input sounds good. as long as you dont mess it up its fine.

how much more can a "pro" do? give him the 1680 and he will make a pro recording with it.
 
volltreffer said:
High MrZekeMan!

I don't do that anymore. ;)

I have to agree to you that some part of the tedious mixing process lies in my own missing capabilities. But I'm trying to improve...

I suffer from some problems with recording, that I simply am not able to fix soon. It's more of the attitude of my band. They always tend to become hysteric when it goes to recording... Everything has to be done fast. In addition, the room is far from being perfect... This way there is a lot to be fixed in the mix. I know that is not how it should be done, but at least I learn about mixing :D ...

It sounds to me like you've just listed 3 things that are more prohibitive to getting pro results than your VS. They are, lack of skills on your part, lack of commitment by the band, and a room that doesn't sound good. I would rate your equipment as 4th among the 4. You would have to resolve those first 3 issues before you could get pro results even if you had a million dollars worth of recording equipment.

Nevertheless I somehow have to disagree with you: it IS more complicated to achieve some results on these little machines. If you have VERY much experience you may be able to imagine how to overcome the restrictions that apply because of the machine. Then you may be really fast, but give up some degrees of freedom you might have in another studio...

I never meant to imply that the VS machines are the best recording solution to achieve pro results. They very well might be the best solution for SOME people.

For example, they are portable. You don't have a good sounding room. Find one. Your recorder is portable, take it with you to a better recording environment, and do your tracking there. Try that with a 24 track 2 inch machine. ;)

No doubt it would be preferable to have the big analog deck with a huge Harvey Gerst style analog console in an excellent sounding room. But talented engineers get stunning results on much much less.

Take the comps in the machines: they simply are restricted to a certain sound. In addition you don't have one per channel. That IS a restriction. Why would people otherwise use the high-end products?

I wouldn't know about that. I have a 2480, so I have full dynamics on all 24 channels. :D However, I think you miss the point. I don't think anyone here is trying to argue that the VS is a top shelf recording medium. The point that others have tried to make in this thread, and many many other threads, is that once you reach a certain level of quality in your recording gear, your results are less dependent upon your gear, and more dependent upon other issues, such as the 3 prohibitive points you listed above.

Nevertheless I also think that you can do 'bought CD' or 'pro' like sound (I mean this whole discussion somehow might be ended by naming ONE 'pro' CD that was exclusively done on the VS - but maybe that'S a too 'mathematician' point of view ;) )

Well, I'm probably pretty dense. I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say here. Maybe you missed the posts about the Grammy nominated album that was recorded on the VS. Or maybe you are making light of the fact that only one recording has been presented as "evidence". Or maybe you are saying that since outboard gear is used with VS recordings that have achieved Pro results, it somehow diminishes the legitimacy of the VS. I can't tell for sure what you meant by your last comment, but let me address the possible interpretations I mentioned.

Only one recording has been mentioned, but there are doubtlessly more out there. Plus many more in the works since the release of the 2480. One such would be George Lynch of Dokken fame.

http://www.rolandus.com/community/rug/fall_01/rn_lynch.asp

Other users can be seen here:

http://www.rolandus.com/community/rug/fall_01/index.asp

Maybe this improves the mathematical odds a little bit?

Finally, if you want to discredit a recording medium because of having to use outboard gear with it, you must discredit almost every professional recording. How many pro systems don't use outboard pre's, outboard dynamics, or outboard effects?

If you want to use this criteria for judgement, the VS machines would have to rate extremely high on the list. While they don't do anything the "best", or even good by some peoples opinions, they do everything passably.
Click to expand...
 
I, for one, think that it is very possible to acheive the type of results on a VS, and the first reason for this is that just a couple of days after I bought a vs1824 I burned a cd of a quickly written and played song I did just to have something to play with as I learned my machine, and was astounded that it came off sounding better than anything I had ever done in any studio before. I'm certain that, given time to learn this machine and my outboard gear, and paying close attention to some of the issues the thread initiator mentioned, I can expect some very outstanding product. My setup is as follows:

Foundation: vs1824cd
Mixing: Soundcraft analog 20 channel console
Rack: Joe Meeks vc1q, alesis dm5, alesis ra150 monitor amp
Monitors: amr 8x6x1
Mics: sm57, rode nt1, marshall 2003, sm58
Additional preamps: dbx mini tube pre

For percussionI use an spd-6 roland triggering the aforementioned dm-5. I use the two dp-2 footpedals for kick and hihat...it's very much like having real drums without the micing hassles,and sounds very good if you are careful wih the sounds when recording (anyone interested I will provide details).

I record guitar live, and a typical setup is an '86 Ibanez roadstar into a Mesa boogie v-twin into a Randall 100w 2x12 miced with a 58. For acoustic I use the mini tube pre or the analog pres on my console.

Vocals....!!! well, I'm till experimenting, but I haven't been overly impressed with the dirwct-in mic modeling yet, but I'm going to give it time in order to see if it may be me, not the vs, that keeps me from being satisfied.

Bass, of course is treated to a mini pre or the console, usually the console, before going in.

When I get a keyboard (soon) I will let you know how I end up recording it too, if you like. I realllly want a Fantom, but who knows what I may end up dragging home
 
jo blo said:
I, for one, think that it is very possible to acheive the type of results on a VS, and the first reason for this is that just a couple of days after I bought a vs1824 I burned a cd of a quickly written and played song I did just to have something to play with as I learned my machine, and was astounded that it came off sounding better than anything I had ever done in any studio before.

That sounds great jo. I'm glad you are having some good results. Don't take this the wrong way, but your comments are really a sad commentary on the state of some so-called professional studios than they are good commentary on the VS machine. I've had a similar experience with my 2480. I did better work almost immediately compared to some of the work that had come out of a pro studio. There is no way we should be able to get better results while putzing around on a new recorder without any experience. But I do agree with you. Really good results can be had, and I'm sure both you and I will get even better and better as we learn our machines and gain more experience.

I'm certain that, given time to learn this machine and my outboard gear, and paying close attention to some of the issues the thread initiator mentioned, I can expect some very outstanding product. My setup is as follows:

Foundation: vs1824cd
Mixing: Soundcraft analog 20 channel console
Rack: Joe Meeks vc1q, alesis dm5, alesis ra150 monitor amp
Monitors: amr 8x6x1
Mics: sm57, rode nt1, marshall 2003, sm58
Additional preamps: dbx mini tube pre

I'm having a hard time figuring out why you would want to mix on the Soundcraft. I could understand if you were tracking with it because you liked the preamps in it. What is to be gained by doing an extra conversions to go to the analog desk when you have a complete integrated automix system at your fingertips?
Click to expand...
 
No, I don't mix down with the outboard mixer. I use it as you mentioned, for trackig, but not just for the preamps, but also because the console I chose has great eq w/sweepable mids. It's also handy to have for connecting peripheral stuff like my cassette recorder, etc. There are times when I expect to have a sit-in live drummer, hence the choice of a rather larger console than I would have gotten if I only expected to record alone with the hardware I listed.

I am in Southeast Texas, not far from the saltwater, but at the edge of the "big thicket" where it is so beautiful year 'round.

BTW, are you a multi-instrument guy such as myself, or a guitarist, or perhaps a keyboard dude? What level of musicianship would you consider yourself to be close to at this time? Do you sing? Some of the best laughs I get is trying to put together background vocals on my stuff...don't get me wrong, sometimes it works out, but then other cases have left my wife and I rolling on the floor
 
High! (Or Hi to those who don't ;) - actually, I neither, but try to achieve and give just a feeling a little more relaxed...)

Somehow everybody seems to get me wrong in this thread! I LOVE my vs880ex, and think it is a decent machine! I also think that you CAN get REALLY good sound (which is a property that I like better than PRO, as there are pros who do and sell BAD sound!)

I might nevertheless buy an aw workstation with waves card if I upgrade now, as this one seems to be just a step closer to what I want. Or a 2480 - not sure. But to me both seem to be in a different league than the 1680, simply due to channel dynamics, 4-band channel EQ and large number of scenes. But even then I would not wanna sell my vs880, as it is SO portable, it fits into a little suitcase and you can go everywhere with it... Just be careful not to switch off the current accidentally :D (but that seems to be even worse with the AWs)

I also know that my limitations lie more in the band, the room and my experience than in the workstation. I also learned a lot by using the MTK, which is an enormous plus on the vs880EX and newer workstations. And there is a lot of quite nice FX on the vs FX board, too.

In other BBS groups I read the same question from some people using the vs2480 or the AW4416. The funny thing is that some of those people who categorically denied the slightest possibility of producing 'pro' sound on a 2480 were asking really basic questions on EQ or compression or recording techniques some weeks later... (And now I don't wanna insult those people who don't share my opinion,it might also be that they simply have better ears than I do :))

Ciao,

Axel
 
MrZekeMan said:
No doubt it would be preferable to have the big analog deck with a huge Harvey Gerst style analog console in an excellent sounding room
Click to expand...

Harvey designs consoles? I had no idea! Which one(s) specifically?
 
jo blo said:
BTW, are you a multi-instrument guy such as myself, or a guitarist, or perhaps a keyboard dude? What level of musicianship would you consider yourself to be close to at this time? Do you sing?
Click to expand...
jo,

I play a little guitar. I'm not very versatile as a guitarist. What I play I can play well, but I'm not virtuoso by any sense of the word.

I sing a little bit. I used to sing when I was high school, and even earned a scholorship for it. I turned it down and have not sung much since, so I've lost a lot.

I seem to be pretty lazy. I can't motivate myself to work on either guitar or singing much lately for some reason.

Taylor
 
volltreffer said:
I might nevertheless buy an aw workstation with waves card if I upgrade now, as this one seems to be just a step closer to what I want. Or a 2480 - not sure. But to me both seem to be in a different league than the 1680, simply due to channel dynamics, 4-band channel EQ and large number of scenes.

You are right. These machines are in a different league. I've never had my hands on an AW, but I've heard some good things about it. The 2480 is all those things you describe and more. It just has better sound. It has better internal processing. People who upgrade from the 1680, are consistantly impressed with the sound quality, even saying their projects sound much better just by loading them into the 2480.

Rick Knepper is an engineer who is also very knowledgeable about VS gear.

Here are some things Rick Knepper listed that he liked about the 2480 when it was first released.

1.) 24 tracks
2.) 24bit/96k/88k
3.) 16 track simultaneous record
4.) 16 faders
5.) no stereo paired faders
6.) Motorized faders
7.) Uncompressed 24 bit recording
8.) better preamps
9.) better converters
10.) Pan knobs
11.) balanced outputs
12.) Word Clock
13.) 8 xlr inputs/16 TRS inputs/24 total inputs
14.) phantom power - on/off switch dedicated to each channel
15.) 20 db Pad on each input
16.) AES digital i/o option available
17.) TDIF digital i/o option available
18.) Additional 8 mic inputs option available
19.) Lightpipe digital i/o option available
20.) 2 headphone outputs
21.) VGA connection
22.) Mouse connection
23.) any standard PS/2 mouse can be used
24.) any PS/2 Keyboard
25.) larger drive capacity
26.) more replacement drive choices
27.) 10 Gig partitions (helpful in live recording)
28.) 8 AUX
29.) improved CD-R burning capability than the VS1680
30.) 56 bit internal processing
31.) 8 stereo/16 mono effects capable
32.) Meter Bridge option available
33.) PC card option available
34.) Gain in the track & input mixers are stepped in one/tenth increments
35.) Attenuation is stepped in one/tenth db increments
36.) 8 effects returns
37.) Channel EQ, Gate, & compressor on every channel
38.) Graphic representation of channel effects' parameters
39.) Real knobs for adjusting channel effects
40.) Low & High Pass filters on every channel
41.) 4 bands of channel EQ (the low & high pass don't count as a band, Laura
<g>)
42.) Two bands of channel EQ fully parametric
43.) Attenuator in the channel eq (can be used for makeup or subtractive
gain depending on what you do with the bands)
44.) Switchable automatic makeup gain on the channel compressor/limiter
45.) one/tenth incrementals on the manual makeup gain
46.) Undo: list by type in popup window edits/overdubs/copies/moves/erases
47.) Time Display has a new increment next to the Measure/beat called ticks
48.) Headphones outputs can be independently fed by the Master. Monitor, or
any of the AUX or direct out busses
49.) True Global EZ Routing user patches
50.) Fits nearly perfectly on my existing Quik Lok stand
51.) Mono switch on the effects return
52.) Tracks are deselected after use in Copy/Move/Erase
53.) Wavefrom is viewable during Copy/Move/Erase
54.) Surround mixing (at least some of us can play with this if for no other
reason than to familarize themselves with the concept)
55.) 100 Scenes
56.) Dedicated button for Patchbay
57.) Dedicated button for all CD-RW/CD player functions
58.) Knobs & Faders can be assigned for user definable tasks
59.) Frequency Analyzer
60.) STILL PORTABLE; looks impressive & professional; same color scheme as
an SM57

If I were setting in your shoes right now, I would also take a very close look at the Akai DPS24. It's getting some really good reviews from users. Some have said they like the sound better than the 2480. A poster on the DPS24 board compared the 2480 and the DPS24 before he made his purchase and this is what he said:

While the demos on both machines weren't very good (amazing) as far as I can recall, I did hear a difference in output on the same monitors (and I tried several). There was definitely more "air" in the DPS playback (probably everything above 10-12k) and I did'nt use any effects or dynamics processing. Both were set for the best quality (on the DPS there is no user setting for data compression since there is no data compression). The low end was also more "open" and "full". Several onlookers (including one Yamaha AW4416 owner) noticed the difference and commented.

Other people might have different view points, but If I were in your shoes, I would be giving the DPS a close look. I would be choosing between a 2480 and a DPS24.

In other BBS groups I read the same question from some people using the vs2480 or the AW4416. The funny thing is that some of those people who categorically denied the slightest possibility of producing 'pro' sound on a 2480 were asking really basic questions on EQ or compression or recording techniques some weeks later... (And now I don't wanna insult those people who don't share my opinion,it might also be that they simply have better ears than I do :))

That's an interesting observation.
Click to expand...
 
littledog said:


Harvey designs consoles? I had no idea! Which one(s) specifically?
Click to expand...
dog,

I know Harvey has had a role in the design of audio gear, but I have no specific knowledge of his involvement in the design of any consoles. It wouldn't surprise me to hear he has, I just have no knowledge of it.

By "Harvey Gerst style console" I was referring to the type of console he uses in the big room of his studio. He uses a big huge analog MCI console that originally sold for $100,000 + when new.

Taylor
 
Anytime you look for one box to do it all you will be making compromises. If you want a better shot at professional results just use the recorder and effects on a portastudio or DAW.

Whenever possible use external pres, DAC's, processors and yes even an analog mixer for mixing. I would rather mix on a better board even with the additional DAC if I get more headroom, seperation and depth in return.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top