Why the old digital units in some studios?

E

expatguy

New member
If you check out the webpages of more than a few respected professional studios that offer digital recording (even though they may also provide analog) you'll often see that the studios' equipment lists include rather old but respected 16-bit/44.1 mHz digital effects units like the R-7, Rev-7, Yamaha SPX [fill-in-model-number-here] and so on.

Logically, I would assume that running, say, a 24 bit/96kHz recording through a low-bitrate/low sample-rate effects box would have the undesirable effect of degrading the quality of the signal. On the other hand, I am sure these units are in the studios for a good reason. So my question to you studio hands is: When would you use these older units?

Only for analog recordings?
Just to add effects to a headphone mix?
Effects routed in side-by-side with a dry track and then mixed to taste?
Applied only if mixing down to 44.1 kHz?

Basically, I see a lot of these units on auctions and, as a digital recorder, I'm wondering if I would be doing myself any favors by getting one. Keep in mind that any answers could make or ruin the day of someone on eBay. :eek:
 
Last edited:
This is a good question. Early digital was designed and built long ago enough that it now can be considered "vintage digital".

I can't speak for any of those studios who are still using REV5's, SPX90's, and other older digital gear like AMS and Klark Teknik, but I can say why I have added a few early digital units to my studio.

First, just because they are old doesn't mean they have somehow gone bad. If they are still working properly then they are capable of making the same sounds they always did. Newer is not always better. Some of that older gear sounds great, even if it is 16 bit and has a frequency range of 20hz to 16k or 18k.

Second, some of that older digital gear has a distinct and/or unique sonic signature. It can do something nice to a track that newer super-clean 24 bit machines can't. So studios will keep SPX90's around just to use them for very specific things.

I have picked up a few vintage digital pieces, and really love them. One of my favorites is the Klark Teknik DN780 reverb. This was originally built to compete with the AMS reverb and KT went all out on it's design. It still sounds incredible, even though the specs are obviously not up to modern standards regarding bandwidth and noise. I also have a couple Deltalab Effectron II's, Roland SDE-3000A's, and a Roland SRV-2000. All have their uses.

The Roland SRV-2000 can be really nice on drums and percussion loops, although I wouldn't use it as an general reverb. Almost any more modern reverb box would be better for that.

There's another reason why I think some of these big studios keep the older gear. Basically, they've made the investment and the gear is paid off, so why not keep using it?

One mistake I see a lot of people make is that when something new comes out or technology changes, they seem to take the attitude of "the new gear is better, now I have to get rid of all my old stuff". So they dump their old gear and replace *the same function* in their studio with new gear.

While this is great to do with some things, like converters, it is not necessary to totally replace a studio when the technology turns over. I personally take the philosophy of hanging on to my older gear that I like and am comfortable with, and add new gear to it. Only replacing what is truly outmoded. I think a lot of studios do that. It's not like equipment has an expiration date on it!
 
What they said.

We have a tendancy to think last years model suddenly sucks as soon as this years model of something comes out, and we've applied that to 16 bit recording in a big way. 24 bits buys us a lot of headroom in recording, but it doesn't instantly and by itself sound vastly superior to carefully recorded 16 bit with good, low jitter converters.
And to expound on Chessrock's brief answer, the most common application for outboard effects processors (not dynamics processors) is on an aux buss. Since you can't just click on a hardware unit for more instances (that would be cool), one unit can serve multiple tracks this way. Even if you had a truck load of them, aux bussing is often the way to go for other reasons, and SW plugins are often used that way, regardless of resource constraints.
Lastly, like a seasoned fisherman often reaches into his tackle box and pulls out the old plug that doesnt look like much, but he's caught a lot of fish with it, seasoned engineers get very familiar with a piece of gear, and know how to get sounds that work out of it. At the end of the day, that matters more than the spec sheet.
 
A lot of the older effects processors sound more accurate. Rather than focusing on a 20 hz to 20 khz frequency range, a lot of the reverbs only went up to 15 khz. They did this because actual reverb (like from a hall or room or whatever) doesn't actually go all the way up to 20 khz like these new digital reverbs do. As a result, many people complain that new digital effects, particuarly reverb, sound too bright.

The older digital effects processors also didn't convert the entire signal into digital like most of the new ones do. Instead, it only converted the effected (mixed) signal, bypassing the rest of it without encoding and then decoding the "uneffected" signal.

-MD
 
SonicAlbert said:
This is a good question. Early digital was designed and built long ago enough that it now can be considered "vintage digital".

I can't speak for any of those studios who are still using REV5's, SPX90's, and other older digital gear like AMS and Klark Teknik, but I can say why I have added a few early digital units to my studio.

First, just because they are old doesn't mean they have somehow gone bad. If they are still working properly then they are capable of making the same sounds they always did. Newer is not always better. Some of that older gear sounds great, even if it is 16 bit and has a frequency range of 20hz to 16k or 18k.

Second, some of that older digital gear has a distinct and/or unique sonic signature. It can do something nice to a track that newer super-clean 24 bit machines can't. So studios will keep SPX90's around just to use them for very specific things.

I have picked up a few vintage digital pieces, and really love them. One of my favorites is the Klark Teknik DN780 reverb. This was originally built to compete with the AMS reverb and KT went all out on it's design. It still sounds incredible, even though the specs are obviously not up to modern standards regarding bandwidth and noise. I also have a couple Deltalab Effectron II's, Roland SDE-3000A's, and a Roland SRV-2000. All have their uses.

The Roland SRV-2000 can be really nice on drums and percussion loops, although I wouldn't use it as an general reverb. Almost any more modern reverb box would be better for that.

There's another reason why I think some of these big studios keep the older gear. Basically, they've made the investment and the gear is paid off, so why not keep using it?

One mistake I see a lot of people make is that when something new comes out or technology changes, they seem to take the attitude of "the new gear is better, now I have to get rid of all my old stuff". So they dump their old gear and replace *the same function* in their studio with new gear.

While this is great to do with some things, like converters, it is not necessary to totally replace a studio when the technology turns over. I personally take the philosophy of hanging on to my older gear that I like and am comfortable with, and add new gear to it. Only replacing what is truly outmoded. I think a lot of studios do that. It's not like equipment has an expiration date on it!
Click to expand...

SonicAlbert - you just made a friend!

I had the Effectron II's back in the mid 80's, and that is an incredible Delay unit. I love them. I often look through pictures of racks of gear online just to see if I can spot them.
And they sell for relatively cheap on E-bay.

I also like the older Roland models - I also had the SDE 3000 - it cost me an arm and a leg at the time. When I got out of live sound, I sold the delays with my system, but now I wish I hadn't.

For Reverb I had an Ursa Major Stargate 626.


Tim
 
quick note. If you were a producer say 50 years old and grew up using a spx90 and were costantly going from room to room. You would know exactly what to expect from one of these things. for example a yamaha NS10 not the most amazing sounding speaker but everyone knows what their mix is going to sound like because they are used to them.
 
I *think* I've got it!

So, to briefly summarize the responses so far (thanks for all of them), the reasons for using the older, lower bit rate/sample rate units are:

* What sounds good is good, so sample-rate be damned!
* Familiarity does *not* breed contempt (at least when it comes to recording equipment).
*Newer isn't always better. Better isn't always newer.
*Variety is the spice of sound OR You can never have enough of this stuff.

themaddog said:
The older digital effects processors also didn't convert the entire signal into digital like most of the new ones do. Instead, it only converted the effected (mixed) signal, bypassing the rest of it without encoding and then decoding the "uneffected" signal.
Click to expand...

This is a real eye opener. I assumed a 100% digital process from higher-rate beginning to cut-rate end. I like the idea of bypassing the non-effected signal. Now if I only new which units work this way...

Now, for argument's sake, let's say that high-bit/high-sample rate (Bob Katz <http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule_id=11/pmdmode=fullscreen/pageadder_page_id=35> makes a strong case for it) is the way to go. (I know opinions are across the board on this topic, but humor me.) However, because the aux in wet signal exists along with the still untouched high-rate dry track, bit-depth/sample rate is essentially irrelevant for the wet track. So, no one here feels uncomfortable using a unit that, in effect can only sample roughly half of what is being sent to it.

Have I got this right? If so, I'm off to Yahoo Auctions. (No eBay in Japan) Lots of Yamaha, Roland, Maxon and Sony units going every day. And as Sonic Albert already knows, I've already got my Sony MP5 to use. :)
 
In all honesty, I have no idea what themaddog is talking about. That jsut doesn't make sense to me, a little more explanation would be good, at least for my sake.

The thing is, the fx unit doesn't know what's effected and what isn't until it has converted the entire signal. It is only at that point that it effects the signal and sends it to its outputs.

If you set any fx processor to 100% wet it will only send out the effected signal, no dry.
 
I'm thinking he meant that the Dry signal was passed through as unprocessed analog and wasn't combined with the wet signal until after conversion, and then mixed... so 100% dry would be be essentially a bypass state, 100% would be entirely processed...

Your dry side of the effect mix remains analog.

As opposed to some units on the market today that convert at the input and output don't even have an analog path through the effect
 
Okay, I got it, that makes sense. I actually like that approach very much.

But it really wouldn't mean much to anyone using the fx box with their mixer, since that would be run 100% wet anyway. Only instrumentalists running directly through the box would be using the analog signal path.
 
Other "vintage" digital recommendations?

Sonic Albert kindly pointed out some "vintage" units he prefers (and details about their best uses, which is *always* useful information). Would anyone else care to chime in to close out this thread? Is there anything you'd buy again in a minute, even as bits and sample rates are increasing exponentially? Any unit you wouldn't even pawn off on your worst enemy?

Yes, I know the search button has its uses, but results tend to be along the line of "I have the **** and I love/hate it!" You have to love the passion, but these posts are a tad shy on detail. And the author of a 10-year old review could well be more/equally/less enthusiastic about a product today precisely because recording technology is always evolving, for better or worse. So, to you experienced equipment hounds, if you have a recommendation, I'm willing to wager the world is all ears.

P.S. Being in Japan, any opinion on older Yamaha, Sony, Roland, Maxon, or Boss units would be of great use to me personally, since that's about all I come across in my corner of the world.
 
MOFO Pro said:
I'm thinking he meant that the Dry signal was passed through as unprocessed analog and wasn't combined with the wet signal until after conversion, and then mixed... so 100% dry would be be essentially a bypass state, 100% would be entirely processed...

Your dry side of the effect mix remains analog.

As opposed to some units on the market today that convert at the input and output don't even have an analog path through the effect
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I meant. It is difficult to tell which of the old and new units do this, but I know that the Alesis Midiverb II and III both put an analog dry signal.

-MD
 
expatguy, here are some more recommendations for you, with a focus on Japanese units.

Yamaha REV5. These are going really cheap now and are still a great pro piece of gear. The REV7 would be the cheaper alternative to consider.

Korg A1 or A2. The A1 is the two space studio unit, and the A2 is the one rack space piece that is usable as a studio piece or guitar fx box. There's also an A3, but that is the one that is really just for guitar. The A2 is a very nice studio fx box and is quite easy to use. Just a tad on the noisy side, but a nice flavor.

Korg also built the DRV series. I have no experience with them, but based on how well Korg did with their other fx boxes, I suppose the DRV's would be worth taking a look at. Korg no longer makes fx boxes, but the ones they did make were excellent. At least every one I had a chance to use was.

The Ensoniq DP/4 (American made) probably now fits into the vintage digital category, and is a great unit to have because it definitely has a different flavor than the newer 24 bit clean boxes.

Roland made the SRV-2000 or course, but also made one of the kings of all reverbs, the R880. This was an attempt to compete with the Lexicon 480, and many think they succeeded.

Hope these suggestions help. At the very least you have a lot more research to do!
 
SonicAlbert said:
expatguy, here are some more recommendations for you, with a focus on Japanese units.

Yamaha REV5. These are going really cheap now and are still a great pro piece of gear. The REV7 would be the cheaper alternative to consider.
Click to expand...

Thanks, as always, for the inside scoop, Sonic Albert. I always learn something useful from your posts. I have heard about the REV-7 for years with nary a mention of the REV-5, so I assumed that the REV-5 was not as good. I assumed through simple mathematical deduction that the "7" was an improvement on the "5". Interesting what you can learn on these discussion boards.

Korg (...)
Click to expand...
I've always associated Korg with keyboards and not paid attention to their rack units, assuming the run-of-the-mill names were going to be better. Another myth busted. I'll keep an eye out for these.
Roland made the SRV-2000 or course, but also made one of the kings of all reverbs, the R880. This was an attempt to compete with the Lexicon 480, and many think they succeeded.
Click to expand...

Again, I stand enlightened. The R880 is one I haven't seen before, although I see the SRV-2000 and 3000 available regularly.

Sonic Albert (or anyone else, of course!), would you happen to have any insights on Sony equipment, specifically the MUR-201 reverb unit. It routinely goes for a higher price than similar equipment here in Japan. Brand loyalty at work, or is it really better than similar units of its day, I wonder?


Hope these suggestions help. At the very least you have a lot more research to do!
Click to expand...

Your suggestions are always help. :)
 
SonicAlbert said:
But it really wouldn't mean much to anyone using the fx box with their mixer, since that would be run 100% wet anyway. Only instrumentalists running directly through the box would be using the analog signal path.
Click to expand...
True in the traditional use of the effects bus... to use the same effect in varying degrees across mutiple channels...

But you could run your channel effects mix at 100% and control your wet/dry for the channel from the box... this is extremely limiting on your options for other channels through the same effects bus... but would enable you to exploit the anolog features of the outboard effect through the board bus....
 
The Alesis stuff certainly has "a sound". My Microverb 2 one of those twitchy units you'd never imagine using on anything, but some of the gated reverbs do well on kick and snare.

I'm a big fan of the Boss SE50 multi effects unit. Nice reverbs, especially the rooms and a decent delay. What's more, if you get bored there is a vocoder, phaser, flanger, chorus, rotary speaker....

I think I'll probably get myself another one of these, they are pretty underated and dirt cheap.
 
I keep thinking about picking up an SE50. Just never quite made the jump and did it. At this point I'm kind of maxed out on outboard fx anyway, and have more fx boxes than I have aux sends anyway! So I just have to control the spending urges...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top