Do you really need expensive stuff?

[Harvey Gerst]

So you are tracking post EQ? What is your reasoning for that versus recording whatever the mic gives you flat and EQing after the fact during mixing?

A few more words on this subject. You hafta remember that I come from an older school of engineers; I grew up tracking to one or two tracks. There was no "fixing it in the mix". The recording WAS THE FINAL MIX. You committed to using effects and EQ WHILE you did the recording.

The best you could do was record the music several times and then splice the best parts of each take together, using a razor blade and a splicing block. You didn't reuse a tape because it was cut to shreds. And pray for players that could hold time. On a lot of old hits, you'll hear the time vary, due to splicing different takes together for one song.

If I know what I want the finished product to sound like, I'll save some mixing time by committing certain stuff to tape during tracking; just nothing too drastic (like reverb or chorusing).

 

[ausrock]

I converted the mp3's to wavs, burnt to CD and listened through a reasonably good Kenwood stereo and didn't hear anything that couldn't be attributed to the multiple conversion processes.

Normally, I would be listening direct off the PC, through my Soundcraft/Tannoy combination but a little flood through the studio has disrupted things for a while

 

[chance]

A few years ago I went to an audioligist (is that the right word?) and he said that indeed I have lost some HF hearing, but he said that we adapt. What sounds natrual to us as we age, still sounds natrual to one with younger ears.
In the same theory, I have a salt crystal in my eye, I was told that it is normal for my age. It bothered me at first, but as the doctor stated, soon your mind will ignore it and block it out of your mind. Sure enough, it doesn't bother me anymore unless like now, when I am thinking about it.

 

[MCI2424]

even inexperienced ears can hear the difference between tape and digital given the opportunity. much like the difference between solid state and valve amps for guitar or a u87 and one of it's chinese clones. that's not to say there aren't ways to get in the ballpark using inexpensive gear.

Nah. I already tried that test and nobody got the digital and analog tracks right. Same for Pro sound web (at one point). Nobody got that right either. This digital vs. analog crap is only valid if you know which one is which. Then you can make up all kinds of reasons why the digital recording sucks.


As for tape adding that "warm" sound, if that is true, then I would definitely have that tape deck adjusted properly to do it's job. That is not be an "effect" and start being a transparent storage medium. Any difference in sound from the original source is by definition, distortion. That is not the job of the recording medium at all.,

 

[engine joe]

Any difference in sound from the original source is by definition, distortion. That is not the job of the recording medium at all.,

might not be the media's job but it is a desirable side effect (distortion). not to stray off topic.

 

[chance]

Nah. I already tried that test and nobody got the digital and analog tracks right. Same for Pro sound web (at one point). Nobody got that right either. This digital vs. analog crap is only valid if you know which one is which. Then you can make up all kinds of reasons why the digital recording sucks.


As for tape adding that "warm" sound, if that is true, then I would definitely have that tape deck adjusted properly to do it's job. That is not be an "effect" and start being a transparent storage medium. Any difference in sound from the original source is by definition, distortion. That is not the job of the recording medium at all.,

I'm not too sure about that. I have been recording to tape since 1970. The machines were always maintained. In 1999 I bought the Mackie HDR and was blown away at the clairity and the ease of use such as editing and manipulating the tracks. I have been using the HDR day in and day out ever since and sold my 2" machine because I never use it anymore. A short time ago I had to do some 2" transfers to the HDR for a client. We had to rent a 2" machine. We did the transfers just fine, but before I returned the rented 2" I thought I would do some transfers of tapes I did back in the 70's. I put on those old tapes and WOW. I thought to myself "what have I done?" I have gotten so used to the digital sound and those old analog tapes just sounded amazingly different. I guess when I made the switch to the HDR/protools, I was so overwellmed with all the perks, I never noticed the sonic differences.
Having not heard analog in all these years, and doing an immeadiate A/B, There is a big difference

 

[Harvey Gerst]

I think we gave up euphonics in favor of lower distortion, freedom from wow and flutter, flatter response, greater track counts, and ease and speed in editing. Was it a worthwhile trade? I'm still not 100% sure. We definitely lost something in the transition, which I miss.

 

[MCI2424]

I'm not too sure about that............" I have gotten so used to the digital sound and those old analog tapes just sounded amazingly different. ............................., There is a big difference

Exactly. There is a difference. There is also a difference between Studer and MCI and Ampex an TASCAM and Fostex etc.

And Pro tools and RADAR and Fostex and everything else.

My Fostex D2424LV hard disk recorder sounds like my MCI JH24 2" machine when I engineer the songs. I have a bunch of recordings that I placed on a CD and I have yet to have anyone be able to tell me which tracks were done on analog. The medium is not the point if they are on par with each other. It is the engineer's job to get the sound right. Analog and digital systems just store information. If a analog or digital system is changing the sound from the original source, it should be fixed. I have never heard of anyone telling me that the recording was so much better than the source material. If that was so, there would be no point to expensive equipment, you could just use a tape machine for it will make up for the lousy source material by itself.

It is the years of using tape machines that got us adjusting by nature the sound to a useable status. The digital kids of today are getting what they are happy with. Time marches on and so does technology. It is unfair to critzize the new generation with our views when we may not really understand their direction. Example: Downloading to a cell phone is top of the list and sound later on down the list. Try sending a tape to a cell phone.

What is important is relative.

 

[zbert]

A few more words on this subject. You hafta remember that I come from an older school of engineers; I grew up tracking to one or two tracks. There was no "fixing it in the mix". The recording WAS THE FINAL MIX. You committed to using effects and EQ WHILE you did the recording.

Harvey
This is what I meant in my earlier post about your ears. You can stand in front of the drummer, hear him play and you know where you want to be sonicly before you ever set up a mic. You can hear your end product from years of recording with limited tracks. None of us can really ever get that kind of education. Thanks for your notes on how you hear each mic on the set. Great stuff.

 

[omtayslick]

I think we gave up euphonics in favor of lower distortion, freedom from wow and flutter, flatter response, greater track counts, and ease and speed in editing. Was it a worthwhile trade? I'm still not 100% sure. We definitely lost something in the transition, which I miss.

Yes. And it's also a matter of economics and maintenance for us little guys.
Even the 4 track 1/4" reel to reel I recorded with beats digital for that indefinable musical "something". Analog tracks just seem to be more glued together.

 

[1tonio]

Harvey,
thank you for sharing your thoughts and expertise.

What monitors are you using?

T

 

[engine joe]

Yes. And it's also a matter of economics and maintenance for us little guys.
Even the 4 track 1/4" reel to reel I recorded with beats digital for that indefinable musical "something". Analog tracks just seem to be more glued together.

i think that's because with tape all the tracks are receiving the side effects like distortion, compression, wow and flutter, etc. whatever it is, it sounds really nice. not to say that digital doesn't but it's not the same. i've spent some time trying to simulate tape with plugins and it has been worth the effort.

 

[Harvey Gerst]

Harvey,
thank you for sharing your thoughts and expertise.

What monitors are you using?

T

In Studio B:

* JBL 4311-B Custom JBL 3-way Studio Monitors
* JBL PSW1200 Powered Sub-woofer
* Wharfedale 8.2 2-way Near-field Monitors

 

[engine joe]

In Studio B:

* JBL 4311-B Custom JBL 3-way Studio Monitors
* JBL PSW1200 Powered Sub-woofer
* Wharfedale 8.2 2-way Near-field Monitors

do you really mix on the wharfedales or do you use them as an alternate reference?

 

[DavidK]

Do you really need expensive stuff?

We just recorded the string section for my CD today, using Schoepps mics. I prefer them to my MXL990.

 

[mshilarious]

We just recorded the string section for my CD today, using Schoepps mics. I prefer them to my MXL990.

Did it bring out all the sonority of your Palatino?

 

[Harvey Gerst]

do you really mix on the wharfedales or do you use them as an alternate reference?

I pretty much just turn them on when I want to hear speakers at low levels.

 

[sweetnubs]

People get bent out of shape sometimes, especially around this middle-school, when you tell them your expensive equipment sounds better than their cheap equipment. Yet the same people will argue all day that the DMP3 sounds so much better than the mbox or vice versa. If you can hear a difference between the cheap stuff then guess what?!

 

[RightOnMusic]

what?!?
.......

 

[Harvey Gerst]

We just recorded the string section for my CD today, using Schoepps mics. I prefer them to my MXL990.

Yeah, for live strings, the Schoeps mics are hard to beat. I'da probably used the AEA R84 ribbon mics for live strings (since I don't have any Schoeps mics).
The Shoeps CMC6/MK41 is probably one of the best acoustic guitar mics I've ever heard, but the T.H.E. 1/2" condenser mic comes within spitting range of it, at 1/2 the price.

Like they say, "If ya got 'em, use 'em."

"If not, make do with what ya got."