A test!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Herm
  • Start date Start date
Herm

Herm

Well-known member
Ok if I could get a little help. I have posted two songs on my website of the same band but the two songs have been recorded with differant recorders. And would like some of you to listen to the songs and tell me which one and why you like the sound of one over the other or any other thing about it.
You will have to adjust volume on the two to match cause they are at differant levels. and there is only about a minute of each song but the bit rate is high in order to save quality.
I would like honesty and dont be afraid to get brutle. Its not my band!
Try to forget about the type of music or what the song is and just listen for what you like or dislike about the sound.
I will let you all know what the recording chain was after I get a few responses. This should be fun (I hope)
And thank you for your time.
Go here and click on tune 1 and tune 2
http://mysite.verizon.net/resopl6x/
 
this would be of corse just a bunch of pure subjective speculations....
so based on one listen through without repetitions (without "re-comparing", which always, imho, distorts the first impression). I can't really say for sure which one I like better overall. I'm leaning toward the first song, as I think (or feel) it sounds more like "band should sound", while the second recording sounds more isolated from reality. However, the vocal/singer on the second recording sounds rather pleasant, but the drums! - not to my taste.... well, I am not sure, how to describe it. How about this?: "When drums sound way too "clean" and I can visualize a drummer uses some sort of light-weight sharp very pointy plastic (or metal) rods instead of nice pair of drumsticks" ...heh hehe ;) does this make sense? lol

(btw, I was listening on small but pretty good Audio-Technica active two-way mini-monitors. So you know...nothing like something fancy monitoring or critical listening was performed ... :o )

/respects
 
I'll have to do this from work, but I'll bet my left nut that this is an analog vs. digital comparison. :eek: :D :cool:
 
MadAudio said:
...I'll bet my left nut that this is an analog vs. digital comparison. :eek: :D :cool:
Click to expand...
heh heh ... I would not, Herm may get tricky :D But I'll bet my both - this is what ever vs. what ever comparison in the form of comparing two mp3 files while playing them back on the mp3 play-back system of your "choice". :D :eek:
 
Herm said:
Ok if I could get a little help. I have posted two songs on my website of the same band but the two songs have been recorded with differant recorders. And would like some of you to listen to the songs and tell me which one and why you like the sound of one over the other or any other thing about it.
You will have to adjust volume on the two to match cause they are at differant levels. and there is only about a minute of each song but the bit rate is high in order to save quality.
I would like honesty and dont be afraid to get brutle. Its not my band!
Try to forget about the type of music or what the song is and just listen for what you like or dislike about the sound.
I will let you all know what the recording chain was after I get a few responses. This should be fun (I hope)
And thank you for your time.
Go here and click on tune 1 and tune 2
http://mysite.verizon.net/resopl6x/
Click to expand...

I tried not to read any other replies and listened to the 2 cuts as to do it in a completely impartial and objective way possible. From an audio quality perspective it sounded as if the first cut had loads of bottom end with all other frequencies being significantly more defined, but I'm not sure if this is due to a different recorder or outboard gear and eq or a combo of all these being used differently. It sounded "brighter" or "crispier" than the 2nd but not necessarily more natural. The first cut is very compressed and seems very "in your face" vs the 2nd track which seems to have a bit more dynamics and a bit more toned down or unhyped frequencies. I don't like the unnatural drums on the second but the overall song seems to possess more of a natural tone than the first. Don't know what else to comment on ... :confused:

~Daniel
 
The first song has some seriously ugly 250-350 Htz on the bass that seems to go away when the vocals hit. The drum machine is pretty hideously compressed more so on the second track. I can't tell if I'm imagining it or not, but I feel like there's some kind of weird breakup on the first. Could be compression, or a worn out tape. All the music on the second tune sounds like it all came out of the same cheap midi box. The first sounds older, the second sounds newer.

That's all I got.
 
I like the first track better. The drum machine does make me cringe but oh well. And the drums are farther back in the mix than I'd like on both tunes. Track one is just.....fatter.
 
I'm going to have to agree with cjacek. I think the second sounds more natural or I prefer the sound of the second one more. The high end on the first is a little too zingy. The second doesn't sound as sterile.

What did I win? :)
 
Last edited:
I would need the same song on each recording. Do it that way or slither away with your tail between your legs like the slimey dog you are... :D
 
I prefer the second one. IMHO the first recording has a kind of 'ragged' quality to it that I can't really define, and too much bass.
 
Ok here we go! First thanks for your remarks. And I agrees with everthing that has been mentioned here on most of the things like the low end problem.

Here is the run down on the gear and how thing where recorded.


First song

Tascam 38 with dbx, tascam 312b mixer, 2- alesis 3630 compressors, 1 fostex 3180 spring reverb. Lead vocal mic mxl v67, backup vocal mic audiotechnica 2020, Snare mic sm57. 1 oktava 012 for overhead drums. This was all of the recording gear.
Keys where Alesis qs7 and some kind of ensoniq keyboard 5 string bass ick!(never again)
Stratocastor run direct from a cheap as digital reverb built a long time ago.
Drums where the 5000.00 digital set by rolland but he only used the toms and the kick which had way way to much low in it with no mids or highend to get any definition. He would not reset the drums from his live settings.
Acoustic snare and cymbals and high hat.

Now for the second song.

Pro studio in a town near here with 24 track mci 2 inch machine big console
not sure of the brand but its the kind that runs around 200k. All top notch shit Neumann mics good effects and someone to run it that has been in the biz for many years.

The Only differance in instruments and players was the Bass player used a 4 string instead of a 5 and the studio was able to split drums out to more tracks where at my place we only had 3 tracks to work with so the kick and toms had to share a track.
The two songs where mastered by two differant places but the cd,s where made at the same plant.
I really dont have a point to make here exsept one thing is for sure if you ever send your stuff to a mastering house shop shop shop until you are sure you have found someone that will do what you want them to do to your mix.
Some of the problems you hear on the first song are form the mix that was done here but also alot of it was cause the mastering guy refused to listen to anything I told him. And one of those things was Its not a rap band, its not a heavy metel band and its not a modern coutry band its a 50,s band and it doesnt need to be loud. But oh well. :rolleyes:
 
MadAudio said:
I'll have to do this from work, but I'll bet my left nut that this is an analog vs. digital comparison. :eek: :D :cool:
Click to expand...


NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER take your left nut for granted!!!

I come from experience.


-callie-
 
24 track 2 inch?

Damn, keep on doing your own recordings, and save the money.
 
Herm said:
Ok here we go! First thanks for your remarks. And I agrees with everthing that has been mentioned here on most of the things like the low end problem.

Here is the run down on the gear and how thing where recorded.
Click to expand...

Herm: I think it is about HOW these were recorded and mastered than anything else. I've heard some of your inhouse produced tunes since I signed up with this forum and I liked them lots better than any of the 2 tracks provided for this "test". This goes to show that it's not nearly about an MCI and bunch of Neumann mics and "high end" outboard gear but it is about one's skills as musician and audio engineer and you have more of that then the fellow who run the "pro studio". It really was not a flattering showcase for the MCI and Neumann mics. I've heard better "Herm productions" in the past using your TASCAM 38 and none of that shitty mastering by that outside source. I really think that if you recorded that band, by yourself, exactly the same, in house, but piped it to the 38 and MCI (and Neumann mics), at the same time, you'd have definite sonic differences BUT the overall sound picture is defined mostly by HOW something is recorded (and mastered)than with what it is recorded. Case in point, I've heard more "50's" sounding recreations done on a 4 track cassette than what was recorded on that MCI/Neumann combo.

~Daniel
 
peopleperson said:
24 track 2 inch?

Damn, keep on doing your own recordings, and save the money.
Click to expand...

I agree, forget all else (Herm) and do your own recordings 'cause it just sounds a lot better.

~Daniel
 
Last edited:
This reminds me of a signature that Beck used at one time, something to the effect of ... "if you can't make a hit record on a TASCAM or Fostex, you will not do it on an Otari or Studer ..." .... I guess we can add the MCI 24 track 2" to that. ;)

~Daniel
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top