SOS articles

S

Synkrotron

New member
Peeps,

I've just printed of each and every article about recording/mixing/mastering/compression/eq/the whole shebang

But with all the talk of "Myths" over the last couple of days, are the articles at Sound On Sound reliable reading and resource material? Do the guys at Sound On Sound know what they are talking about?

Although some of the articles are old, I'm hoping that, at least with most of the articles, they are still current. And even though I'm using software plugins for compression, eq, etc. I should be able to apply what is written?


Thanks
 
Synkrotron said:
Do the guys at Sound On Sound know what they are talking about?

Thanks
Click to expand...

No. Absolutely not. They're actually accountants that thought it'd be funny to publish a magazine unrelated to their field. :p The best way to get reliable information is by frequenting online BBS' that have anonymous morons like myself pretending that they know what they're talking about. :p


SOS is spot on, friend.
 
check out last months SOS cover DVD on the studio first aid section. Check out the bass trap they hang in the vocal booth that is covered ridgid fibreglass with PVC....no breathing or absorbing PVC....yes you heard me right.....???
 
LemonTree said:
check out last months SOS cover DVD on the studio first aid section. Check out the bass trap they hang in the vocal booth that is covered ridgid fibreglass with PVC....no breathing or absorbing PVC....yes you heard me right.....???
Click to expand...


I thought a Bass Trap was something sea fishermen used...



Seriously though, I wouldn't know if this was good or bad... and I've even read Mr Winer's article on acoustic treatments... twice... loses me every time.

I guess by your reply that you are suggesting that perhaps some of them don't know what they are talking about. I hoping that the particular articles that you can access via their site are written by experienced engineers in the field so to speak...
 
Paul White appears to be the main contributor in these articles with Craig Anderton, Dan Daley, Hugh Robjohns, Mike Senior, Roger Jackson & David Mellor also adding their "expertise" to the "mix".
 
LemonTree said:
check out last months SOS cover DVD on the studio first aid section. Check out the bass trap they hang in the vocal booth that is covered ridgid fibreglass with PVC....no breathing or absorbing PVC....yes you heard me right.....???
Click to expand...

If you wanted strictly as a bass trap, you'd cover it with a reflective material. The bass will make it through the plastic without much trouble.
 
Nobody is right 100% of the time. Very few are right 80% of the time. Hell, even the CIA and FBI can't get things right much of the time.

The SOS articles are in general quite good, but don't expect completly unimpeachable gospel from them all the time any more than you would from any other human beings running a rag with fact-checking editors that are often fresh out of college and who know less than the person writing the article, who need to put out a magazine under a tight deadline that will sell as many copies as possible.

However, if you read all those articles, remember half of them, and inadvertantly manage to suck up a couple of "myths" along the way, you'll still be better armed to go into the studio than most of the home recordists on this planet. Better to accidentally pick up a myth or mistake or two along with a pile of decent information than to pick up nothing at all. :)

G.
 
mshilarious said:
If you wanted strictly as a bass trap, you'd cover it with a reflective material. The bass will make it through the plastic without much trouble.
Click to expand...

Or the PVC structure is tuned to resonate at some specific frequency, which the fiberglass inside soaks up, thus sucking a lot of energy at that frequency out of the room.
 
drummerdude666 said:
Why not .
Click to expand...
Because the company's whos gear they're reviewing pay them lots of money in advertising. I'm not saying outright that they're dodgy or lying, I just think there's a conflcit of interest there so personally I'm a bit skeptical.

They also described the Samson CO1 microphone as "A stylish and nice-sounding budget capacitor microphone suitable for project studio close-miking applications." :confused:
 
thank you everybody :D

Looks like I've got some heavy reading to do.

Mind you... reading it is the easy part. And I've found that with everything I've taught myself over the years you really need the "hands on" part so I'll need to be applying what I learn along the way.


Wish me luck...


andy
 
Kevin DeSchwazi said:
Because the company's whos gear they're reviewing pay them lots of money in advertising. I'm not saying outright that they're dodgy or lying, I just think there's a conflcit of interest there so personally I'm a bit skeptical.

They also described the Samson CO1 microphone as "A stylish and nice-sounding budget capacitor microphone suitable for project studio close-miking applications." :confused:
Click to expand...

SOS reviews are complex issues. You're reading whats written - you need to read between the lines. See what they're trying to convey. They say "in critical applications where slightly higher self-noise may be problematic, it may be worth spending a little more on something quieter" and "the C01 would be less suitable for singers".

So yes, it is stylish (its not ugly) and its nice sounding but not brilliant sounding. And its perefectly usable for a project studio close miking something. You'll pick up on how they write their reviews.

They write a slightly better than average review for the SP B1 mic but when u look closer you read "but the B1 is one of the few mics that has made me sit up and take notice. In fact, I'm seriously thinking of adding one to my collection". These simple things will let you know how good this product is. In my opinion a hell of a lot better than some guy on a forum will.

I appriciate forums like these massivly and they've helped me a lot but Sound On Sound has shown me much much more, and you always know you can trust what they say.
 
Have you ever used a Samson CO1? It really is a crappy sounding mic in my opinion.

As to the rest of your post, fair enough, personally I don't want to "read between the lines" or decode or interpret what's written. And I certainly don't want "complexity". In a review i want a straight up, honest and most imprtantly objective opinion.

I'm not convinced that I get that when I read an SOS review.
 
Kevin DeSchwazi said:
Have you ever used a Samson CO1? It really is a crappy sounding mic in my opinion.

As to the rest of your post, fair enough, personally I don't want to "read between the lines" or decode or interpret what's written. And I certainly don't want "complexity". In a review i want a straight up, honest and most imprtantly objective opinion.

I'm not convinced that I get that when I read an SOS review.
Click to expand...
You don't seriously expect them to write overtly bad reviews, do you? That would be a little naive for someone as clued-up as you.

Go buy Music Tech or Computer Music and find out just how good you have it with SOS. :eek:
 
I think SOS is a great magazine, a bit of rubbish in there from time to time, the Studio SOS always makes good reading even though they don't always do the most superb jobs on them. There seem to be fewer 'technique' articles than there used to be, so printing those off their website is a great way of getting a lot of info for free.

Paul White is very knowledgable and is a very serious engineer too, rather than just a good writer.
Hugh Robjohns has a lot of technical knowledge and great ears, I have no clue whether his skills match that or not, but he contributes with articles that use his strengths anyway.
David Mellor is obviously highly intelligent, but I've never read one of his articles where he hasn't come across as an arrogant and obnoxious bore ... he knows his stuff but his writing can be quite patronising (see SOS Live article on monitor mixing).
Mike Senior ... an entertaining read but you get the impression that he's learning as he writes the articles, which can be a little disconcerting and so I trust his reviews less.
Craig Anderton has written a lot of books and his articles on Sonar and mastering have been invaluable to me.
Martin Walker knows his stuff with PCs, I'm never sure whether I trust his reviews though because I don't know his ears. I want to know what an interface sounds like and he doesn't usually mention it that much, except to say that it's 'fine' or 'ok'.

Those are all my opinions, of course. Within those limits I find SOS to be a really good read, and head and shoulders above the over-excited and dizzyingly-colourful magazines it 'competes' against.
 
Kevin DeSchwazi said:
No I don't, that's prezactly my point. ;)
Click to expand...
But you say it as though you CAN expect them elsewhere. I just wanted to clarify that as sycophantic and childishly enthusiastic reviews go, SOS scores pretty favourably.
 
noisedude said:
But you say it as though you CAN expect them elsewhere. I just wanted to clarify that as sycophantic and childishly enthusiastic reviews go, SOS scores pretty favourably.
Click to expand...
No I wasn't saying that at all. SOS is the only mag I read regularly that has anything to do with music production. It's a good mag (as I already said), i just don't read too much into the reviews; it would be the same with any of the other recording mags (if I read them).
 
I can't speak for SOS, but generally magazines that derive ad revenue from the products they review simply don't publish reviews on the really bad products.

Sort of from the "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all" school.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top