have audiophiles taken over home recording?

[ecc83]

I subscribe to the Tony Maserati gear guy who says, "If it sounds right, it is right." I do radio shows, not music, so my needs are far more simple.

But I do question the (sometimes) snide remarks about how ALL USB MICs are only for podcasts. So, when you plug in your analog Neumann or whatever, and you want to get the sound into your PC or recorder, you use a ----what? Let me guess: an analog to digital converter which likely uses USB or Firewire, etc. Aside from the better performance of the mic itself, how much better is the digital conversion versus the circuit in a good quality USB mic?

Well, all the USB mics I am aware of but one* are only 16bit and whilst FINISHING at 16bits is fine it does limit one at the front end. Then, how many USB mics have gain controls? Without same the only ways to control level are physically moving the mic or in software, neither seem very practical.

I have never used a USB mic (nearly bought one the other day but it has been a tough couple of months and the car is due an MOT, so prudence prevailed!) but I cannot see them being optimized other than for close sources at modest SPLs?

*AKG make a 24bit jobbie, no gain control AFAIK but it does have a 20dB pad!

Dave.

 

[acousticvillage]

I don't think there is anything wrong in trying to make your recording environment the best it can be. Sgt Pepper and Dark Side of the moon may have been recorded on less than 16 tracks but are classic examples of beautiful productions. You can bet your life that The Beatles and Floyd recorded in an an environment that was as acoustically perfect as you could get. Tom Waits on the other hand produces some of the most creative albums, often deliberately recorded in surroundings that would be considered less-than-perfect.

So while I don't think it is necessary that the environment is everything, or that the most advanced techniques or equipment is necessary, each one of us has to try to make the best of what we have to get what's in our head onto a cd. Making sure my room is treated properly and my gear is calibrated and my mic placement and gain staging is as good as I can get can be tedious, but I think it's a good thing to do the best with what you have.

 

[Nymphadora]

For my tupence worth....Two of my favourite albums, on vinyl:#1 Live at Leeds, by The Who...leave crackling in, play as loud as possible. They are live cuts, cobbled together, sorta lo-fi, and sound great. The Who SHOULD be played that way. I've heard 'cleaned up' versions but I like the original best.
#2 Aqualung by Jethro Tull....worst mix I've ever heard. I've even tried re-recording it, comb filtering it, exciting it, to no avail. Both albums are from within 3 years of each other, or so, but the live Who, on two track tape (okay, Entwhistle DID re-dub some missing bass on mixdown) sound so much better than Tull in the studio with at least 4 track, perhaps eight track. Which is lo-fi or hi-fi, better or worse..? This is why I simply 'run what I brung'.... I ENJOY 4 track tape, and the equipment, such as the 3340S or the Otari 5050, and a Yamaha cassette 4 track MT1X. For me, half the fun of music is the equipment. I have less trouble with old analogue than I do with new digital. I love working with the older equipment. Remarkable things can be done with old equipment. Just look at what is being bought on ebay. I don't believe all the old 4 track cassettes are being purchased by teenagers. Some people are going back to it. Just my humble opinion... Hugs...Nymphadora

 

[Seafroggys]

I have both of those albums. I think Aqualung is just sparse sounding, whereas Live at Leeds is IN YO FACE! Apples and oranges. I wouldn't call Aqualung bad. A poorly recorded album at that same time that has absolutely kickass music? Deep Purple's In Rock. One of my five favorites, yet has pretty shoddy fidelity.

 

[Rod Norman]

An audiophile is someone who listens to music. They strive for a system that will give them the perfect listening environment. no connection to recording at all.
Rod Norman
Engineer

just watching youtube and reading forums, people seem obsessive about having perfectly clean signals with perfect speakers in a perfectly soundproof room. just wondering why this is considered musical nirvana. delta blues, 90s lo-fi, etc to me show that the song is all that matters. can you imagine delta blues on hi-fi gear? i bet it would lose a lot. people obsess over this stuff, imo. just wondering if it bugs anyone else.

 

[radi0j0hn]

how many USB mics have gain controls

Well, all the USB mics I am aware of but one* are only 16bit and whilst FINISHING at 16bits is fine it does limit one at the front end. Then, how many USB mics have gain controls? Without same the only ways to control level are physically moving the mic or in software, neither seem very practical.

I have never used a USB mic (nearly bought one the other day but it has been a tough couple of months and the car is due an MOT, so prudence prevailed!) but I cannot see them being optimized other than for close sources at modest SPLs?

*AKG make a 24bit jobbie, no gain control AFAIK but it does have a 20dB pad!

Dave.

This is a limitation, something the do just to save money. Just like digital cameras with no optical viewfinder. But I suspect we will more and better ones. But I still question if the mic is capable of 24 bit and you jam it into a USB adapter or mic socket, where in the conversion process do you lose the analog advantage?

 

[ido1957]

Most people nowadays start recording on their crappy phones. If they make it a hobby, they will eventually buy the best gear they can afford (or justify to their wife) and strive for better sounding recordings. I started on cassette but moved ahead so my recording get better and better...

 

[wavewarrior]

Cut my teeth back in the early 80’s on an old MCI 400 desk & a 16 track 2” tape machine.

Then, moved up to a Trident 80B & Studer A800 with Dolby SR on each channel. The quality of the recordings did improve greatly and then digital emerged and it was easy want to embrace new technology, but there are times where old analog still sounded magical.

A lot of old recordings have a special type of “mojo” that can’t be recreated unless the entire environment is perfect. Take into consideration some of the rooms they were recorded in for example. Some of the rooms were huge sound stages, as opposed to many of the small rooms found today.

I remember a session at “The Castle” in Franklin Tennessee. For those that don’t know, the place was originally built as a “hide out” for Al Capone back in the day; nice place to visit for any producer/engineer. Anyway, they have a stone room that’s incredible; like wow!

Then talk about the equipment used, Telefunken, Norelco, Neumann to name a few, beautiful sounding tubes, Tektronix LA2A’s, real plate reverbs, tape delays… forget about it.

Things like Tektronix LA2A’s, real plate reverbs, tape delays… forget about it, you gotta have deep pockets for that stuff these days. If you ever get to record a sax and the studio has an old tube “Cooper Time Cube”, you would be amazed at how sweet they sound. Plug in’s are really cool and I do use them, but they ain’t nothing like the real thing.

What I’m trying to get at is, today’s digital equipment is great and can produce or capture great performances, but while old recordings had tape hiss, the rooms and equipment used had “mojo” that helped create a vibe that can still inspire all of us for years to come.

A good blend of old and new is the way to go.

 

[ecc83]

This is a limitation, something the do just to save money. Just like digital cameras with no optical viewfinder. But I suspect we will more and better ones. But I still question if the mic is capable of 24 bit and you jam it into a USB adapter or mic socket, where in the conversion process do you lose the analog advantage?

Sorry John, don't get you?
The best noise floor a 16 bit converter can manage is around 96dB. There is thus no incentive to make a really quiet mic.
24bits is of course way below any achievable analogue noise floor at -144dB which means the dynamic range of a 24 bit USB mic is only defined by the excellence of its electronics.

Dave.

 

[Lt. Bob]

But why is it the gold standard and why obsess over it? That's what I don't understand.

because ideally a recording should be as close to the thing being recorded as possible in general. An old delta blues player doesn't sound grungy because the gear used to record him was crap.
He sounds that way because of the gear he uses to play thru and because of his style. VERY few of those old recordings were dirty because of the recording gear. All that old recording gear sounds great with fairly low noise.

Yes, there are recordings where the recording process adds some dirt but, in general, the goal of a recording is to accurately capture what was being played by the player at the time they were playing it ..... to be 'in the room with them' so to speak. And the more transparent the recording process is, the better it accomplishes that.

Also ..... number of tracks does not mean the same same as quality of recording. Plenty of old 4 track machines make extremely high quality recordings ..... a half track mastering machine is about as good as it gets as it only has 2 tracks.

 

[Lt. Bob]

An audiophile is someone who listens to music. They strive for a system that will give them the perfect listening environment. no connection to recording at all.
Rod Norman
Engineer

yeah ..... a decent definition but not totally.

Audiophiles are in general, obsessed with sound quality itself over and beyond the music.
That's why it's pretty common with an over the top audiophile, to never actually listen to an entire record or even a song.

A good friend of mine who occasionally writes for audiophile magazines has a 100,000 dollar system.
Holy crap it sounds good!
Every tiny detail is revealed and even with old recordings it truly sounds like the singer is standing right there in front of you.
Absolutely stunning sound..

However, he tends to go, "Listen to these bells!" and then plays a 30 second snippet and then yanks it off and puts another record/CD on and then it's ... "Listen to the background vocals!" and so on.
I just about have to fight him to get him to shut up and let the song play through.
That's just silly to me.

I'm actually a bit of an audiophile myself although I don't go nuts about it.
No $3000 patch cords for me!
But I am VERY picky about sound quality and having a top shelf playback system for just listening to even though I don't let that determine whether I'll like something or not when the music's good but the recording isn't.