Digital....Disappointment

[hoth]

Alright, then, bad example.

No, I think what just happened is very good. It illustrates that there is SOME difference between your gear and the gear real pro houses use and it would be delusional to think otherwise.

That being said, as is often stated here, most of the cost of high-end gear is for that last 5% of performance. The problem, though, is that most of us aren't getting the 95% out of their existing gear that they should. The most important thing someone could do is be honest with themselves and assess their own abilities before mortgaging their house for a Lavry 4496 and Crane Flamingo. I bet I could find a way to consistently get terrible recordings with even those.

Damn I love these discussions!

 

[Bob's Mods]

I know that in the best studios that I have been in, the goal is to make the recording sound just like the source. So many bands are flustered, because they can't get the sound on albums where A. They have better musicians and B. They have great gear that gets the tone just the way that they want. I think alot of times in todays recordings people think they can just fix it in the mix, but all you get in the end is a synthetic sounding recording and none of the clarity of a vintage mix.

I agree boomster, I would like my mixes to better represent my actual gear. It does do that, but not to the degree really great recording boxes can make that happen. Now that I'm pullin out of my depression over this I'll just deal with it and make the best of it. My stuff is not bad, but I guess my expectations are high. Mods alone don't make high end gear, they just make what tools you already got better.

Some changes I've found help is removing my two acoustic guitars from my recording room. When I play the electric, they resonate in sympathy with the amp. They put out this low end drone. I knew it was happinin but never gave it much thought till now. I also have pulled my recording mic way back some five feet to reduce proximity effect to nothing and increase room ambience. Recording close to the source causes a proximity effect build up that can unbalance a track's EQ (I do not like low cut switches on mics). And they can sound more two dimemsional. Picking up more "room" helps a track sound more three D.

Maybe I should record in the kitchen to get that natural pots and pan effect. What if I put my amp in the oven for that metallic small room ambience?

Bob

 

[Han]

Well ...

So far in your post, I noticed you mentioned :

*mics
*tubes
*converters

and a brief mention of rooms.

Hell, you even mentioned mic stands, for cryin' out loud.

But I don't think I noticed even one mention about the source. Now I apologize in advance for making an example of your post, here -- so keep in mind this is just another one of my classic rants and it's nothing personal. But at times, I feel like there is a collective learning disability amongst the general amateur home recording enthusiasts.

Serious tweakheads like yourself, Bob, I imagine can literally spend hours (possibly even whole days) swapping out caps, chips, and transformers ... all the while playing hopeful delusions on your ears that they're going to somehow make a .00001% improvement in the sonic quality. God love you guys for it, because some of this stuff does make a difference, I'll admit. And I thank you for it.

Now I'm speaking from a certain amount of experience with this. There was a time when I was recording music close to full time. And I've tried tirelessly to help people to understand this, but most of the time, it's like I'm talking to a wall. Take this for whatever it's worth ... the quality of the instruments, amplfiers ... right down to the type of strings being used on a guitar for a particular session ... the type of heads used on a kit and expecially the kind of cymbals ...

These are what matter. Perhaps it's just difficult for some people to comprehend that the type of stick or beater used on a drum kit will have a far greater effect on the quality and fidelity of the recording than the type of converter used. It's a humbling thought, but I'm telling you now, it's probably true.

Now the mic stand thing is still kinda' iffy. Okay, I'll give you that much. Worry about the kind of converter chip being used before you worry about the metal used on the mic / boom ... although even that one might be iffy (particularly if it's a very reflective type of metal used in the contruction of the boom stand).

I think where the problem lies is that people separate recording quality and fidelity from quality of the sound source. As if it's somehow possible to have a great recording of a bad-sounding source or vice-versa. What I am proposing to some of you who still have this antiquated way of thinking is this: Has it ever occured to you that certain types of instruments or sources record better? To such an extent, in fact, that if you were to compare two different sources, the better-sonding source will trick your brain in to believing a better microphone or a better recording medium (or even mic stand) must have been used to capture that sound.

One of the things you mentioned was high end. Alright, let's go with an hypothetical example for this. Suppose on one of the sessions, Mick Fleetwood insists on using some run-of-the-mill Sabien hi-hat, ride, and crash cymbals. Furthermore, let's suppose that Lindsay Buckingham decided he liked the sound of heavier-guage strings and lost his favorite guitar pick so he grabs a super thick one. Now, suppose they're both in bad moods (Maybe one guy's pissed at the other guy for sleeping with Stevie) ... so they both start hitting their strings and smacking their cymbals really hard and rough.

What kind of an effect do think these things are going to have on the high end smoothness and fidelity of the finished recording? MULTITUDES. And ya wanna' know why? Because some mixing engineer is going to be pulling his hair out ... losing sleep due to ear fatigue, and probably making bad mixing decisions due to treble deafness and stress from trying to make the high end on final mix even passable so that guys like Bob's Mods can talk about how nice it all sounds decades later.

You would not be commenting on it, because it would sound like ass. And the majority of the home recording masses would be saying stuff like : "I'll bet they used really bad converters on that album."

The quality and fidelity of the high end on some of these records can certainly be improved / enhanced by a good mastering engineer -- I'll at least give you that much. I've heard it, in fact, myself. And they freakin' better, for the rates that some of them charge. But if you really want to know what good, quality, smooth high end / treble boils down to ... it's in the quality and technique of the instruments producing the higher frequencies. This includes the drum cymbals, the accoustic guitar, and some of the other little percussive pieces and odds and ends. Similarly, the secret to good, tight bass is going to lie mostly in the quality and technique of the bass guitar (including the type of strings used) and kick drum ... and very largely due to the bass response of the rooms being tracked in.

Amen! that's all I can say, great post.

 

[boomtap]

I agree boomster, I would like my mixes to better represent my actual gear. It does do that, but not to the degree really great recording boxes can make that happen. Now that I'm pullin out of my depression over this I'll just deal with it and make the best of it. My stuff is not bad, but I guess my expectations are high. Mods alone don't make high end gear, they just make what tools you already got better.

I hear you, that is the reason all of us home recorders are seraching for a way to get that big gear sound without the big gear. All the bands I work with though think that a 8"combo can be tweaked to sound like thier favorite 3 million copy band.

Wasn't it areosmith that recorded that pink album in thier house and got one of the dudes taking a dump on tape because they were recording some vocals in the bathroom earlier that day.

 

[chessrock]

... as is often stated here, most of the cost of high-end gear is for that last 5% of performance. The problem, though, is that most of us aren't getting the 95% out of their existing gear that they should. The most important thing someone could do is be honest with themselves and assess their own abilities before mortgaging their house for a Lavry 4496 and Crane Flamingo.

Great quote.

I think one should be able to count on a mastering engineer who can get you that extra 3% . But give him something to work with. Don't make his job more difficult than it has to be.

 

[bleyrad]

I don't get where this discussion went.

The original poster, unless I was mistaken, was talking SPECIFICALLY about how to achieve a particular amount of high-end extension and detail. That's it. This wasn't a "how do I get good recordings" thread, but rather, "how do I achieve this one element that I perceive to be missing in my recordings?"

Now everyone's bashing my converters idea and gear in general because they say it's all in the musicians and the instruments.
The specific problem of high-end detail has nothing to do with that. I offered a suggestion of where it might lie. Yeah, I 100% agree that musicians and their instruments will give you good or bad recordings. OK. Did I miss something? How does that relate?

 

[Bob's Mods]

I would also argue that pro recordings don't just capture what is there. It's very much like film--if you're into photography, you know that color has gotten greatly exaggerated in the last 15 years. The funny thing is the gold standard for 'natural' reproduction by comparison is good ol' Kodachrome--which is still an enhanced color film!

So I think a big part of pro recordings is exaggerating the high end, but it has to be done in a pristine way or it sounds like crap.

This is about the frosting thats put on the cake I suppose. The best frosting in the world won't fix a lousy cake. Those "highs" have to be moldable. I'm not sure mine are even good enough. May-be a good mastering house could make my mixes sound the next step up on the food chain. It's hard for me to believe though that a great mastering house could take my mixes and put then in the same league as Tango.
mshilarious, so you believe its a given, the highs are exaggerated in the mastering process and this accounts for the great clarity and detail that exists on Tango?

Bob

 

[Bob's Mods]

Overall high-end sharpness and focus often lies in the converter used. A $1K converter, as most of us are used to, just doesn't quite cut it there. Pretty astounding differences can result from moving from prosumer to truly top-notch A/D's like Lavry.


Mind you, if there's some specific element that's lacking air, you're very right when you say the mics may be at fault.

I have a hard time believing that you have even 1/20th the amount of money invested in your signal chain as your favourite recordings did when you mention things like a CAD M9, "exciters," etc. Just think about that. Their tape deck alone probably cost more than you make in a year... let alone the comparison between its cost and the cost of your A/D converters.
Move up the chain to their price level and you will be able to achieve their quality, digital or not.

Just make damn sure your musicians are worth it too

bleyrad, I read your post. You need to understand that like a father whose discovered his child has serious birth defects, he is in denial, he doesn't want to face the fact. Spendin big bucks to get that extra 5% is not part of the five year plan. (Bob turns head in disgust)

Bob

 

[tdukex]

I don't get where this discussion went.

The original poster, unless I was mistaken, was talking SPECIFICALLY about how to achieve a particular amount of high-end extension and detail. That's it. This wasn't a "how do I get good recordings" thread, but rather, "how do I achieve this one element that I perceive to be missing in my recordings?"

Now everyone's bashing my converters idea and gear in general because they say it's all in the musicians and the instruments.
The specific problem of high-end detail has nothing to do with that. I offered a suggestion of where it might lie. Yeah, I 100% agree that musicians and their instruments will give you good or bad recordings. OK. Did I miss something? How does that relate?

Chessrock addressed this specifically in his first post:

I think where the problem lies is that people separate recording quality and fidelity from quality of the sound source. As if it's somehow possible to have a great recording of a bad-sounding source or vice-versa. What I am proposing to some of you who still have this antiquated way of thinking is this: Has it ever occured to you that certain types of instruments or sources record better? To such an extent, in fact, that if you were to compare two different sources, the better-sonding source will trick your brain in to believing a better microphone or a better recording medium (or even mic stand) must have been used to capture that sound.

One of the things you mentioned was high end. Alright, let's go with an hypothetical example for this. Suppose on one of the sessions, Mick Fleetwood insists on using some run-of-the-mill Sabien hi-hat, ride, and crash cymbals. Furthermore, let's suppose that Lindsay Buckingham decided he liked the sound of heavier-guage strings and lost his favorite guitar pick so he grabs a super thick one. Now, suppose they're both in bad moods (Maybe one guy's pissed at the other guy for sleeping with Stevie) ... so they both start hitting their strings and smacking their cymbals really hard and rough.

What kind of an effect do think these things are going to have on the high end smoothness and fidelity of the finished recording? MULTITUDES. And ya wanna' know why? Because some mixing engineer is going to be pulling his hair out ... losing sleep due to ear fatigue, and probably making bad mixing decisions due to treble deafness and stress from trying to make the high end on final mix even passable so that guys like Bob's Mods can talk about how nice it all sounds decades later.

You would not be commenting on it, because it would sound like ass. And the majority of the home recording masses would be saying stuff like : "I'll bet they used really bad converters on that album."

...But if you really want to know what good, quality, smooth high end / treble boils down to ... it's in the quality and technique of the instruments producing the higher frequencies. This includes the drum cymbals, the accoustic guitar, and some of the other little percussive pieces and odds and ends. Similarly, the secret to good, tight bass is going to lie mostly in the quality and technique of the bass guitar (including the type of strings used) and kick drum ... and very largely due to the bass response of the rooms being tracked in.

 

[Bodhisan]

Tango in the Night was recorded at The Slope in Bel Air, California in...1986...I'm sure it was still analog, however.

 

[mshilarious]

mshilarious, so you believe its a given, the highs are exaggerated in the mastering process and this accounts for the great clarity and detail that exists on Tango?

No, not necessarily in mastering. It starts with the mics (OK, it starts with the singers. Let's stipulate we have a singer who has some grasp of diction and projection). Most of the LDCs we like have that high-end peak. There are a few notable exceptions, but that boost is what people seem to want in a mic.

Then you've got to get it through preamps without killing the highs, which you've probably strained for in modding gear. Next comes the converters--now I'm no genius of conversion theory, but I understand jitter manifests itself most noticeably at the very high end.

Back to your recording, if you've done everything you can think of to preserve highs, then yeah, try having it mastered. If that doesn't work . . .

 

[jake-owa]

I'm not reading all this garbage but those guys were recording in a nice room through a console with huge headroom and onto a 2 inch tape machine..or two.

Give up on the dream.

Do whatcha can and save your money.

 

[Guitar Jim]

Regarding comparing Fleetwood Mac and The Beatles to one's own recordings............................nobody, but nobody, is going to get the tone of Fleetwood Mac or The Beatles other than Fleetwood Mac and the Beatles.
Despite what many believe, the absolute best and most complex and most expensive gear in the world is not THE reason why a great performer sounds great...... it's "talent". End of story.
Sorry to be so blunt....... but it's true.

 

[Bob's Mods]

Tango in the Night was recorded at The Slope in Bel Air, California in...1986...I'm sure it was still analog, however.

You're right, my brain fart!

 

[Bob's Mods]

Regarding comparing Fleetwood Mac and The Beatles to one's own recordings............................nobody, but nobody, is going to get the tone of Fleetwood Mac or The Beatles other than Fleetwood Mac and the Beatles.
Despite what many believe, the absolute best and most complex and most expensive gear in the world is not THE reason why a great performer sounds great...... it's "talent". End of story.
Sorry to be so blunt....... but it's true.

Hi Jim,

I do not feel this about tone, instruments, or talent, or uniqiness of the artist.... its about "detail". Its simply incredible on this recording. Digital recording gives us a wide dynamic range but I get the feeling that the quality of this range is not being captured as accurately as we'd like to believe. Its a technical issue that people solve by pay big bucks for a very high grade convertor. At the rate technology is moving, in ten years? we'll be able to purchase gear that can resolve the low level high freq. transisents accurately enough so this kind of detail is available to all at current prices.

Bob

 

[D-Cipher]

I definitely get the feeling it's the oven, ya see, because my stuff always has this slightly over-cooked or slightly undercooked (in the middle) taste to it ... doesn't really cook evenly

restaurants use convection ovens ...theres ur answer



I just was reading this whole convo in brief and it strayed in so many directions.....

but the 2 cents i have to add is.....bob, when u were saying digital recordings arent representing the true sound ...or however u worded it .....I think ur whole problem is just in the digi dynamics....

I was reading the latest issue of scratch, and stumbled upon something that might factor into your problem...


if you record in a home studio , the power isnt conditioned , and everything plugged into your wall at home is muddying up your sound....

and im definately no pro at this....but it seems to me that that would directly effect the crisp and clear hi's ...

 

[Bob's Mods]

Yeah, this thread has been romin around some as normal conversation has a tendency to do as well.
To wrap this up what this really is about is Fidelity. Plain and simple. My digital rig and probably most of everyone elses in the home camp is no where near the best analog studio of recent years back was. How important is that in the world of MP3 and IPODs? Probably not very.
Now does NOT having the super analog fidelity as that on the Tango recording mean all is lost? Not at all. For instance, The Mamas And The Papas recordings were not really great fidelity wise. If you compare the M + Ps to Tango the difference is plainly there. Its the musical nature of the performance that shines through and no one cares about the fidelity. If you were listening to the Ms + Ps or Tango's Seven Wonders on your car AM radio you would enjoy them equally, even with some power line static in the background. The lack of pristine, mastered fidelity will not stop anyone from creating truly musical art or your listener from enjoying it. I was a little dissapointed that after my research and hard work with this, its still not even in the same sandbox as a good analog studio. Those guys that make the really high end gear know stuff about fidelity that has not leaked out into the main stream yet. Their monopoly on that and low volumes of hand made gear keep the cost of it high. As time goes on I believe the propietary tricks they apply to add that extra edge of fidelity will be common place. The fidelity of home recordings has gone up some from five years ago. It is difficult to overcome the cost of manufacturing great tube gear that operate at proper voltage levels so I don't forsee change there. I do expect the fidelity issue will end up improving on the semiconductor side similar to how other product areas of consumer electronics have improved as the technology evolved. And make no bones about it, home recording is swiftly becoming consumerized - gee..like the personal PC, once the domain of geeks who used slow and cryptic machines in college labs. This area is only getting better folks. We're going from the ice box age to the refrigerator age. And the things a refrig can do these days!

Keep trackin'
Bob the mod guy

 

[chessrock]

Still looking at this as a technology issue, aren't we? Oh well. I guess to a tweaker, the whole world is nothing but a big, spinning ball on which to store electronic toys of various sorts.

So basically, through the eyes of a tweaker, I can see where just about any problem or issue would be addressed in the context of, again, technology. Forget that Tango in the night is probably one of the cheesiest-sounding albums since Starship did "We Built this City." (Personally, I think any cheap digital multitracker with enough cheesy EQ and 80's style reverb presets could achieve that sound). No offense, because I think Fleetwood Mac were brilliant (Tusk is still one of my all-time faves).

To me, this is still about a left-brained thinker trying to comprehend something that, inherently, is a very right-brained phenomenon. Or that at least has a very large right-brained / artistic component to it. Like a mathematician or a scientist trying to comprehend, in logical terms, why women behave the way they do.

Even in something as seemingly quantifyable and technological as audio fidelity, and the ability of something mechanical being able to translate it (or more specifically, being able to translate the higher frequencies) ... yes, there is still an incomprehensibly vast creative and subjective component to it, and until you can understand this, you'll probably continue to obsess over converter chips and the like.

 

[PhilGood]

Just to throw in my 2 cents, I agree totally with chessrock in that the artistry of the person using the tools is more important than how many features the tool has.

But since this has branched into a technical discussion, let's not forget there are some advantages to analog audio. The sample rate for digital is still inferior in the upper registers. There are transients and harmonics digital will not even come close to capturing until we get more towards the megahertz sampling range. Tape also has a natural compression to it and you also don't have to deal with messy A/D D/A conversion. Only the most expensive D/A converters get close to representing the true signal. Digital sounds crisp and clean, but there is still alot missing.

 

[c7sus]

My biggest digital disappointment at the moment is that I tried to use an MPX1 in S/PDIF. Now the damned thing is locked up and I can't get in to change back to analog!!! The website is next to useless for user info.

I took the cover off to see about popping out the battery if that would reset the sw. But the battery mount is about the most fragile thing I've ever seen in my life. I think it's spun from unicorn spit or something, and the battery is of course wedged in there like a sophomore in the backseat of a Honda Civic.

Fuck. I now have a $500 doorstop.

Okay, back to the regular bickering.