Help with digital

R

raddo

New member
I love the ease that I get with digital, but the tradeoff seems to be a "sterile" sound. I record to a Korg D1600 and mainly go direct from my f/x boxes or Zoom guitar modeler. Does anybody have any secrets to get a sound with more "life" to it while in the digital domain? I've tried micing my amp, but haven't had much success. Do I just need to save up and buy some more equipment? I've got an eq and a compressor.

Thanks
 
"Sterile Digital" is a myth - there's no such thing... given good A/D converters and high-enough resolution, you get out what you put in.

If you're not able to get clean results you either have really bad converters (a strong possibility on cheap gear), or you need to work on your recording techniques. Or possibily a bit of both....

However, anytime I've ever seen someone post on sterile digital, it's because they haven't paid enough attention to recording technique.

Grab yourself a couple of books and brush up - a couple of suggestions:
- Modern Recording Techniques - Huber & Runstein
- Total Recording - Dave Moulton

Bruce
 
Last edited:
Bruce is right.....

There should be no sterileness in digital... The only thing I noticed was that tape has a slightly fatter bottom end.

I actually noticed that Digital sounds more accurate and clear to me.... I always hear a very mild compression sort of (maybe it's just me) when I record to tape....

I think tape exagerates the bottom end (just speculation on my part)... Cause, when I record digital (Pro Tools), Like Bruce said, I get back EXACTLY what I put in....


Tape seems to always add a bit of bottom end...

Of course this is a great debate, so Im just posting what I think, Im not saying it's the gospel
 
raddo,

> I love the ease that I get with digital, but the tradeoff seems to be a "sterile" sound. <

As others have told you, that's a myth. Digital is a far better and more accurate recording medium than analog tape could ever hope to be. That said, I suspect what you really need is a bit of ambience. If you are miking your guitar amp, try putting the mike a few feet away from the front of the speaker grill. Or (either miked or direct) use a reverb plug-in set to a "stage" or "small room" preset and apply the effect in small increments to increase the presence on the guitar. When done properly, a small amount of ambience can make it sound like the instrument is right there in the room with you.

--Ethan
 
Thanks for the help guys. I'm an amatuer music producer (just learning as I go, so any help is greatly appreciated. I just record my own songs). With more practice and tips from the people who know, I should be well on my way to creating great sounding music. The Korg has loads of effects, but knowing when to and when not to use them seems to be the trick. As always, my playing could stand improvement. I'll keep trying.

Thanks again
 
Reply to Lucid

Lucid,


I won't mention the name, but let's just say that they weren't very expensive. I tried miking from the front and back and even mixing the two sounds together and still had no luck. Would an SM57 or other mic help?
 
Hi Bruce

Did a search for those book son the web and found them, but they are quit expensive. Are they worth the money, and is there a difference between the edition besides lay out? Or did they really changed the contenence as well?
 
when micing the front and back at the same time you have to reverse the phase of one of the mics

an sm57 would be good. i have gotten great guitar sounds from them...
 
Digital is a far better and more accurate recording medium than analog tape could ever hope to be.
Click to expand...
OK, there's this newbie coming to us for help, and you come out and say a very misleading thing: that digital is "better" than analog. People get stomped on in this forum for saying that one mic is "better" than another mic, but yet no one stands up to challange this statement of Ethan's. In any case, digital is not better than analog and analog is not better than digital. They are different and they are ideal in different situations. It is probably true that that digital is more accurate than analog, but to say that it's better is like saying that blue is better than red.
 
CIS,

> People get stomped on in this forum for saying that one mic is "better" than another mic ... digital is not better than analog and analog is not better than digital. They are different and they are ideal in different situations. It is probably true that that digital is more accurate than analog <

Those are good points, and worthy of further discussion.

The difference between microphones often is a matter of taste, though I think in most cases you can in fact proclaim one mike to be better than another. The primary variables in microphones are frequency response, self-noise level, and distortion. The same things that vary between other audio devices. For microphones you can also add output level, off-axis frequency response and attenuation, and amount of proximity effect versus distance when considering directional mikes. Based on these factors I will take, for example, an audiotechnica 4033 over an SM57 or SM58 any day of the week. The 4033 is simply a better mike for anything you want to record.

Now for analog versus digital. You summed it up yourself when you said that digital is probably more accurate than analog. Make no mistake about it, modern digital is definitely more accurate than analog. And when deciding which is "better," accuracy is the only thing to consider.

If you've never set the bias on an analog tape recorder it is a real eye-opener. Briefly, you record a 10 KHz. sine wave on a track, and adjust the bias while watching the playback level coming off the tape. But just watching the playback meters shows you the enormous number of high-frequency dropouts that occur constantly. I am not talking about a junky old Tascam deck that packs 8 tracks onto 1/4-inch tape. These severe dropouts occur with the most expensive professional 16- and 24-track recorders using 2-inch tape. And people argue that digital jitter compromises stereo imaging! That's nothing compared to the constant drop-outs on analog tape, and all the constantly changing phase shift caused by the tape wiggling around as it travels past the heads.

Perhaps you like the sound of analog tape. In that case you like the effect analog tape adds. The same is true of vinyl records, which some people refuse to give up. But to say you find the effect pleasing does not make analog tape or vinyl a better recording medium than digital. It just means you like that effect. Me, I want my recording medium to play back sounding exactly like what went in. If I need any special effects I'll add them separately.

--Ethan
 
Look, the SM-57 has a way bigger track record for great guitar sounds, than any other mic around, Period. You speak of preference. Your preference is Audio technica.
Don't tell me it's the best, cuz my Van Halen One album is all SM-57....what's with everyone claiming there preference as the best?

I can't say Creed's album is the best cuz it's digital, when it has Led Zeppelin's first album done on analog to compare.

I think every abum ever recorded on analog stands as heavy competition before someone claims digital as the best.

It's all preference. When somoeone on here producess an album as legendary as Meet The Beatles, Lez Zep, Pink Floyd,
with that kind of longevity, theycan hold a valid opinion of digital over analog. Till then, it's all preference dude.

You could make a groundbreaking album tomorrow on analog gear. It's not obsolete. It will always exist
 
Ethan Winer said:
CIS,
The difference between microphones often is a matter of taste, though I think in most cases you can in fact proclaim one mike to be better than another....
--Ethan
Click to expand...

I think that it's important to note that you are talking about 2 completely different forms of analysis - subjective and objective....you can't really compare the two since one is based on concrete variables (eg. frequency response) and one is based on subjective Opinion (eg. I like it...). So it's fine for you to say 'digital IS better than analog...' or 'one mike is better than the other' as long as you specify that your statement is based on the 'scientific' or measurable variables.

I, personally, think that sometimes something recorded to tape sounds better than someting recorded digitally (or something on vinyl vs. cd, etc.) - but that's my SUBJECTIVE opinion...sure you can say that the digital recording has better fidelity or is more accurate (I guess maybe that's the same thing)....but I can still say that I THINK that the analog recording sounds better...

I just thought that it was important to point out the semantics involved here...before everyone starts yelling 'you're wrong, no you're wrong, etc., etc., ad nauseum'.
 
Pratt,

> I think that it's important to note that you are talking about 2 completely different forms of analysis - subjective and objective <

Yes, good point. But understand that preferring analog tape over digital means you like the effect analog tape adds, not that it's a better recording medium.

> I, personally, think that sometimes something recorded to tape sounds better than someting recorded digitally <

Me too. I have made mixes of all-digital songs to a DAT or wave file, and then put them onto a cassette. Sometimes the cassette sounds better. But I know it's an effect, and I've used DirectX tape simulating plug-ins to achieve the exact same effect.

--Ethan
 
Ace,

> the SM-57 has a way bigger track record for great guitar sounds, than any other mic around, Period. <

Probably so, but technically speaking that doesn't make it a better mike. For hundreds of years, blood-letting as a cure for disease had a better "track record" than antibiotics.

An electric guitar playing through an amp is not very demanding of a microphone. There are no extreme lows or extreme highs that need to be captured, and guitar amps can go so loud that the relatively low output level of a 57 is not a factor. If you happen to like the frequency response of a 57 that's fine, but you can EQ any decent condenser mike to achieve the exact same response.

--Ethan
 
Mr. Winer,
You're out of your league here. Go back to writing articles for "R-e/p", "Recording", "Electronic Musician", "PC Magazine",
"Strings", "Audio Media", and all those other low-life publications you somehow manage to work your way into.

Thanks for a significant post. I know because I "read" it.

I've thought for a long while now that anti-biotics are over-rated. You can be sure I'll be miking my next blood-letting with a 4033.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top