VTB-1 vs. Avalon 737

The camera analogy is a good one. I think there are at least two major factors where better gear yields better results:

1) Time - Better gear needs less tweaking. It's like having the right tool when you need it instead of using a wrench as a hammer. The wrench will work, but the hammer would be better.

2) The Style of Music - Disagree if you like, but the minute you add a bunch of distorted guitar(s) and screaming vocals, the subtle differences in gear will diminish. Classical music, solo voice or books on CD, small Jazz combos, etc. need quiet, detail-revealing gear.

Any of you folks able to get killer results on delicate material with budget gear? I'd love to hear about it.
 
billisa said:
My own opinion is that with something like the VTB1, under fairly average circumstances, if you can't make an excellent recording, it's your fault, and an Avalon probably wouldn't make it "better".
Click to expand...

That's the type of input I was looking for when I made this topic.

And compared to my old Samson mixer's preamps, the VTB-1 is roughly 10000000 times better. I am now disgusted with myself that I used that Samson :D
 
leddy said:
Any of you folks able to get killer results on delicate material with budget gear? I'd love to hear about it.
Click to expand...

define "killer" and "budget" , and i may have something to add. i don't like the super slick, overcompressed stuff that seems to be the major label standard these days, so that's why i ask about "killer". as for budget, would you consider 4 trk reel to reel and an old tascam board with an at 4050, akg c100's and a few sm57's budget gear?

listen to elliott smith's first record, "roman candle"... 4trk cassette deck... i think that sounds killer... but then again, he was brilliant.
 
A few recording benchmarks for me are:

Tony Rice - Church Street Blues
David Grier - Whole House to Myself
Leo Kottke - Try and Stop Me
David Grisman - The Tone Poems Series
The Beatles - Revolver
Diana Krall - The Girl In the Next Room

I'd be willing to pay someone a lot of money for recording lessons if they could teach me how to attain the recorded quality of these fine records with inexpensive consumer gear (since that's what I have :D)

Regards,
Terry
 
tkingen said:
A few recording benchmarks for me are:

Tony Rice - Church Street Blues
David Grier - Whole House to Myself
Leo Kottke - Try and Stop Me
David Grisman - The Tone Poems Series
The Beatles - Revolver
Diana Krall - The Girl In the Next Room

I'd be willing to pay someone a lot of money for recording lessons if they could teach me how to attain the recorded quality of these fine records with inexpensive consumer gear (since that's what I have :D)

Regards,
Terry
Click to expand...

first off, the tone of guys like tony rice, leo kottke, david grisman, etc, lies in their fingers more than anything else. granted, they capture these recordings with great gear and great engineers most of the time, but you can't discount the talent you're talking about. hell, chris whitley recorded songs on a minidisc recorder under a bridge on his new record, and it sounds great, because of his performances and ability. it has to be first and foremost about the performance and the songs, especially if you are an artist. who would listen to an album of crappy well recorded music. there is nothing better than a well recorded and mixed album of great music performances, but without great stuff to record, who cares. a polished turd still stinks.
so, what kind of budget gear do you have? i'm betting you have enough to make a good sounding record. above a certain level it ain't about the gear... it's just the talent and skills of the artist and engineer.
 
tkingen said:
I'd be willing to pay someone a lot of money for recording lessons if they could teach me how to attain the recorded quality of these fine records with inexpensive consumer gear (since that's what I have :D)

Regards,
Terry
Click to expand...

hey, now that you mention it, and since you live in the NW... maybe you should attend one of those hands on recording seminars that larry crane (tapeop, producer, engineer) holds once a month at jackpot in portland. i think it's $300 for two days, 10 hours each day in the studio, with lunch provided. i am gonna try to save up and attend one myself. he's awesome, and knows where to put a mic like nobody's business. nice guy as well.
 
Even heavy distorted guitars can benefit from killer equipment. Try the difference between an sm57 and a Mackie preamp, then compare that to the same track recorded with a Royer 121 and my Chandler TG2. There is WORLDS of difference.
 
I think I am getting a handle on what makes the big boys sound good from a design standpoint..first up is transformers...good pres all have them (and more than 1)and they are expensive (some over 100$ a piece)...second is voltage (like I said before)...good stuff runs on higher internal dc voltages...just like a car, more power means quicker 0-60..in pre terms that means it can more accurately handle transients, however, bigger, cleaner and better power supplies also cost $..that is the clarity that these guys have..no cheap capacitors in the signal path..if there are tubes in it they are run at proper voltages (300 volts or so)...The diffrences are amazing sonically. Like I said before you don't have to reach for the eq...stuff loses that annoying fuzziness around the fundamental (256 htz) and that brittle high end..when I have the opportunity to use some good stuff I find way less need to reach for the de-esser. I also find you can bump 12k up a bit without any harshness..I always heard about this trick for vocals but when I tried it it sounded harsh or unnatural...good mic and pre and you can do it with ease and it does add that "air" all those other guys talk about.
So my solution to this has been to apply myself in DIY stuff...I can't afford a lunchbox of API's (and remain married) so I am learning to build things...I am racking some vintage console modules which is another good way to get nice pre's without the big price tag and you learn something as well...

Ray
 
xstatic said:
Even heavy distorted guitars can benefit from killer equipment. Try the difference between an sm57 and a Mackie preamp, then compare that to the same track recorded with a Royer 121 and my Chandler TG2. There is WORLDS of difference.
Click to expand...

... in YOUR experience, on YOUR rig, in YOUR room there is a world of difference. there are times when a 57 is the right mic combined with a cheaper preamp. i'm happy that you've found gear that works for you in your situation, but there are too many variables to make broad sweeping statements like that. i am just trying to make a point, and i mean no disrespect.
i think since many of us can't afford an extensive mic cabinet and a varied selection of pre's, we just try to find stuff that works for a lot of different applications. there is defintely some less expensive stuff that will do this job. after that, there is a good joel hamilton quote that applies well:
"When you outgrow something, get the next "size up" and record with it... repeat for a lifetime...... "
in the meantime, have fun recording some music and don't worry so much about this vs. that and the other thing. there are some great folks on here to help make informed decisions on what seems to work ok and hold up over time. get something you can afford and get to it. i'm starting to sound like a broken record... so i'll leave it alone now.
peace - jv
 
To me, my statement wasn't that "broad" or "sweeping". To me the statement that was "broad" and "sweeping" was... "2) The Style of Music - Disagree if you like, but the minute you add a bunch of distorted guitar(s) and screaming vocals, the subtle differences in gear will diminish."

I record a lot of stuff that is like that. I agree that in my experience my statment was correct. However, the rig and the room aren't much of an issue. I stuff my Royer right up in the cab. The room doesn't have a lot of effect on a high gain guitar stack at high volume when you are close mic'ing. I am not anti sm57 at all. In fact, until I got my Royer i experiented with lots of different mics, pre's and placements. The one thing that was ALWAYS in common was that there was always an uncompressed sm57 close micing the cab. More often than not, no matter what else I used, the sm57 ended up there during the mixdown as well. Often times as the primary mic. It always took a little EQ, but thats OK with me. I have tried 57's, 609's, PL20's, 414's, KSM32's, 4050's, TLM103's, 451's, Blueberry's and many more mics. I have tried many different cab and mic placements with many different EQ's. I still like the sound of an sm57 close mic'ed with my Tridents as well. However, since I got the Royer, I no longer feel the need to have the sm57 out there as well.

Expensive gear is certainly not a requirement for good sound. The most important things are good musicianship and writing, proper guitar and amp selection, and good engineering. However, there is no doubt in my mind that a good preamp and a good mic will sound better in the majority of situations. Even with screaming vocals and heavy distorted guitars. That doesn't mean everyone should sell their souls and go buy all this stuff. We should only do what is within our means. My means may be different than others, and for that I am blessed. It doesn't do anyone any good though to pretend that a Crate will sound like a Marshall. There definately are times though when even the most meager of gear fits the bill. The best albums are done when everything is put into perspective and the right choices are made. Thats why I still have my old Alesis Microverb. I rarely use it, but there are a few things that i really like on it for certain things:)

For me the recording process is about progression. When that stops, than so should I. My progression has demanded that I release certain pieces of equipment and purchase others to help me realize my full potential. I enjoy learning, I love progressing, and I don't mind buying new toys.
 
xstatic said:
Expensive gear is certainly not a requirement for good sound. The most important things are good musicianship and writing, proper guitar and amp selection, and good engineering. However, there is no doubt in my mind that a good preamp and a good mic will sound better in the majority of situations.
For me the recording process is about progression. When that stops, than so should I. My progression has demanded that I release certain pieces of equipment and purchase others to help me realize my full potential. I enjoy learning, I love progressing, and I don't mind buying new toys.
Click to expand...

sounds like you've got a good handle on the big picture, and are letting your gear grow with your skills. i think that's really smart, if folks can afford to do so. there is a lot to be learned by starting out on a piece of gear and learning to use it to it's full potential (or getting around it's limitations), and moving on to something that will allow you to grow even more, and so on. i have way more experience on the artist side of the signal chain, but i enjoy learning as much as i can about recording, and talking with engineers about their process. i apologize if i get a bit annoyed when i think folks are worrying too much about their gear, but i guess that's just a pet peave of mine that doesn't apply to everyone, and i shouldn't generalize. i think it's great that you can afford some nice gear and you take the time to learn how to use it. i'm not so lucky with my humble home rig, but i am sometimes spoiled by great gear and engineers when i make a record. i appreciate these tools in the right hands very much.
peace - jv
 
xstatic said:
To me, my statement wasn't that "broad" or "sweeping". To me the statement that was "broad" and "sweeping" was... "2) The Style of Music - Disagree if you like, but the minute you add a bunch of distorted guitar(s) and screaming vocals, the subtle differences in gear will diminish."
Click to expand...

Sorry if that statement offended, I was concerned about making it which is why I added the "disagree if you like" part.

I still think the statement is true in more circumstances than not, though,
but that's only my opinion. :)
 
johneeeveee said:
first off, the tone of guys like tony rice, leo kottke, david grisman, etc, lies in their fingers more than anything else. granted, they capture these recordings with great gear and great engineers most of the time, but you can't discount the talent you're talking about. hell, chris whitley recorded songs on a minidisc recorder under a bridge on his new record, and it sounds great, because of his performances and ability. it has to be first and foremost about the performance and the songs, especially if you are an artist. who would listen to an album of crappy well recorded music. there is nothing better than a well recorded and mixed album of great music performances, but without great stuff to record, who cares. a polished turd still stinks.
so, what kind of budget gear do you have? i'm betting you have enough to make a good sounding record. above a certain level it ain't about the gear... it's just the talent and skills of the artist and engineer.
Click to expand...

Oh, I absolutely agree with you about the hands and fingers of talent...as well as the other observations in your post. However, from the lense that I'm looking through in this discussion, all of that is a different discipline. There is the discipline of the artistry of musicianship, and there is the discipline of capturing the artistry of musicianship through recording it. I view these as two seperate disciplines, although the lines of distinction can blur at times. You have given excellent examples of the blurred lines with some of the artists that you have mentioned.

One of the most revered recordings of flatpick guitar is Clarence White's collection of songs for bluegrass guitar (the name of it escapes me at the moment.) The recordings were made with a consumer grade reel to reel recorder in living rooms. The musicianship and imagination of his playing were unparalled at the time. In many ways, even unparalled in todays standards. His techniques are still regarded as benchmarks of flatpicking 40 years later. I marvel at it everytime I listen to it.
However, I would love to hear it recorded with the same skill and fidelity that George Martin did with the Beatles in that same time period. Or, with what Al Schmidt did with Frank Sinatra, or even with the fidelity that John Fahey was recording his early albums on his Takoma label in that same time period.

A talented artist can make lo-fi recordings sound cool. Especially artists with lots of vibe and imagination. The artistry of performance cannot be disputed. But, if we look at the Clarence White's recordings mentioned above (in which he used the consumer gear of his time) the science of the recording cannot match the science of what it would've sounded like if George Martin had recorded the exact same performances in Abbey Road Studio.

Yes, the science/artistry of performance, the science/artistry of hi-fi recording, and the science/artistry of lo-fi as a colorful pallette/crayon box are different issues or disciplines. In higher analysis I think it's undisputable that someone can excell or falter on any or all of them. The fact does remain, however, that there are distinctions.

Regards,
Terry
 
tkingen said:
A talented artist can make lo-fi recordings sound cool. Especially artists with lots of vibe and imagination. The artistry of performance cannot be disputed. But, if we look at the Clarence White's recordings mentioned above (in which he used the consumer gear of his time) the science of the recording cannot match the science of what it would've sounded like if George Martin had recorded the exact same performances in Abbey Road Studio.
Click to expand...

good points, and if you read my posts you'll see that i said the same thing. when music is self actualized through talent, material, recording, mixing, production, etc, it can usually be the "best" it can be (whatever that means). however, that is not always the case. it's interesting to discuss this because there are SOOOO many variables involved. some stunning, compelling performances recorded on lesser gear just might not have the same "charm" or be as effective if they were recorded in abbey road with george at the helm. there is a popular indie artist named devendra banhart who's debut record was recorded really, really poorly on a 4 trk cassette. tape hiss and wobble like i've never heard before, but somehow that added to the mystery and vibe of the recording, and lots of people bought it. after that success, he has now recorded in proper studios, and it somehow doesn't work as well... the tones and performances are good, but it lacks the vibe. could be the environment of being in a studio with some pressure and expectations (which is definitely something to be said for home studios), i dunno. for me records are a little chunk of life and time, and i can't listen to something and wonder what it would sound like on better gear, etc. it is what it is... but that's just me. i think the "magic" happens when it does, regardless of what type of studio is present. the amazing beatles records with george are as much a product of the creative energy of that time period in their lives as it was about the gear (although we're all glad it happened in that studio). they were on fire, and the combination of people involved was like a bomb going off. something that may never be repeated again.
i agree that some great records may have even been "better" with better studios and engineers... but some great records may have even had better performances on them if the artists recorded them in their own bedrooms.
this has turned into a great thread for me, as i have really enjoyed hearing all the different views on this subject. i guess "vtb-1 vs avalon" is a really good analogy for where we've gone with this, and it's not really a "hijacking" after all (i was feeling a bit guilty). some really good insightful stuff on here, which is a welcome change from the... "this or that sucks" thang that goes on a lot.
thanks - jv
ps- broke my heart when fahey died... man, he was somethin'else
 
the analogy of a good pre and a budget always seems to get the same answers all over so generically lately. it usually goes something like this>"the more expensive one only sounds a little better smoother or whatever but where you really will hear it is when you add and stack many tracks together". if this is the case id like to know if im doing a minimalist 4 or 8 track song will it be any more pro sounding with the budget pre(vt-b1) given great talent 'equipment'and engineering?i rarley use more than 16 to 20 tracks. at what point then is the cut off?i just get the feeling that i can use any cheapo pre as long as i dont stack a ton of tracks.
 
The difference can't be quite noticable just by adding a second track. A lot depends on the quality of everything from the engineer and the performer, the mics, mix technique etc... The quality will always have to do more the feeling and emotion put out by the musicain and how well that is captured and reproduced by the engineering stage. More often than not though, the better equipment will just add another dimension to that better performance. How much of that difference that is apparent often times is judged differently by the listener. For me, I now use the best equipment that I have available to me and combine that with what I feel is the best equipment choice to reproduce that sound. I can't tell you how many artists have come into my place and been stunned at the quality difference in just the unmixed raw tracks. It's always funny to me. They are always excited and impressed by the level of detainl and energy that the raw tracks have, while meantime I am sitting there thinking I can't wait until mixdown so I can stop listening to the raw tracks. Maybe just because I already have a vision of how they could sound while what they are hearing already sounds better than what they have previously attempted:)

I guess if a person is not sure whether they should get an Avalon or a VTB-1, than they probably don't need the Avalon. At least not yet, but hopefully that day will come:)
 
xstatic said:
I guess if a person is not sure whether they should get an Avalon or a VTB-1, than they probably don't need the Avalon. At least not yet, but hopefully that day will come:)
Click to expand...
There is the final answer:) can we please put this to rest? lol So I can start a thread called is my Rnc's as good as my DBX 160sl?? :eek:
 
who crapped

Bodhisan said:
"Chinese Crap"?

Lay off the Chinese, you idgit. They consistently build to American specs (including choice of parts). The same thing would be churned out in America with the same specs/parts.
Click to expand...

i don't blame the nation, but certain mfg. exec's jobs are to "cut costs"...
and believe it or not parts/raw materials is always on the chopping block.

so from seeing this first hand in mfg., beware...oh friendly gearheads...

there is a "reality" to the "vintage gear"...
or example: when you see posts like
"hey, my 2000 DXXY MIC sounds better than the 2010 MODEL??
or "the older model is a metal case with ELCAN Capacitors...the new model is made of re-cycled McDonalds cardboard..and Wal Mart capacitors.."

yeah, they (offshores) build to "the specs" and do it well.
but the specs change all the time and parts suppliers change and availability of BurrBrown chips can change...
the fhkng metal used to make the pins on the chips change! the solder...

some peoples #1 goal in life is to CUT COSTS.

Some Chineese Fenders have plastic,poorly painted chrome tuning pegs.
Is this Chinas fault or the bean counters at Fender??
FENDERBeanHeads who have probably never fhkng touched a fhkng guitar in their life and could give a sht if it breaks 2days following end of warranty....in the end, as the product gets horrible in quality, no one will buy it.
Thank the Bean-counters for your plastic potentiometers that break off right before the gig, and the 7.1 $39 surround sound stereos.


Please send me money
TO: BASH THE BEAN COUNTERS pobox99991
 
Avalon. ==I wouldnt use one of those damn things ive someone gave it to me. looks is the only thing that preamp has going for it, but who cares about looks? I would however, like to video myself smashing one with a ball pein hammer. :D Really, of all the preamps I have heard(and ive heard many..) ,the avalon, RNP, and the DBX 786 are 3 I dont care if I ever see again. Nails on a chalkboard. On every source. I normally wont rule preamps out, because they normally sound decent (to me) on something or other, but not those 3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top