K
Kasey
New member
Autist said:
I did, and I take full responsibility for my actions.
sheesh... i just wanted to know how studios have changed... thats all... just curious...
I did, and I take full responsibility for my actions.
sheesh... i just wanted to know how studios have changed... thats all... just curious...
Supercreep
Lizard People
RICK FITZPATRICK said:Modern recording enthusiasts who think that all they have to do to be an audio engineer is buy a PC and a couple of mic's and VOILA!! are an insult to the term. So is this thread. fitZ
Have a Zoloft, bro. It was a good question. You clicked the link, didn't you?
Just cause we're all here to learn dosen't mean we can't ask questions......right? Even if you think they're dumb?
No offense - But I don't think Kasey or Autist are deserving of your scorn, Rick.
-C
K
Kasey
New member
yes, i am.jonnyc said:
What i said was indeed a slight exaggeration, i will admit. it is also true that the analog sound does do it for me, i'm very much a fan of analog and if i could afford it at the moment i would trade every bit of digital equipment (which, actually, is just a single ADAT, i dont even have a PC) that i have out for analog equipment. So you caught me there, I am old fashioned and opinionated (which i suppose is ironic because I'm only 16 to be honest, and i've only been recording for 4 years).jonnyc said:
The music is undoubtedly better on average, i dont think many people will argue against me on that.
Allow me to express my views on recording today - people are so worried about recording being 'perfect'. They use the digital medium, (which i know has several advantages, but those advantages can be over done) to cut and edit away any imperfections of the original performance. Everything today sounds so processed, to the point that the original performance is sterilized and thus loses its impact. I prefer my soundwaves to still, on a graph, look like soundwaves, not stairs after being chopped up by converters.
The recording techniques of today also bother me a little. Today, every microphone has to be isolated, its almost blasphemy to suggest otherwise. We isolate every microphone, and then put each signal back together electronically using a mixer... why not just let the sounds blend in the air the way they do naturally, the way they would if you were in the room listening to the instrument??? On drums, everything absolutely has to be close-mic'd(although recently this technique is changing back). Whats the point in that? Would you put a mic for each string on a guitar? A drumset is a single instrument just like anything else. I personally see no reason to use more than three mics on a drumset.
i could go on, but i'm glad to get that off my chest. now i get dodge bricks.
I understand and you make a valid point. I guess i sort of already said it, the industry made a change for the worse because they had this messed up vision of virtually creating 'flawless performances' and because its easier to record the way they do now. easier is not always better.jonnyc said:
I know i'm going to get a lot of crap for all that. I'm not saying that my opinion is the only one that matters or even that I'm right, i'm merely expressing my opinion.
... i can do that right?...no KGB police or anything?
P.S. hopefully i'm not coming off as an ass either.
J
jonnyc
New member
I like your explanations, it gives me more insight into your views of the industry. One thing to remember though is not every studio over processes what it does. There are still studios that'll stick 3 mics on a kit and thats fine, there are still guys that do a lot of stuff in analog. I personally like the way a fully mic'd kit sounds, and if the proper guy is behind the computer/mixer you can get a great drum sound that doesn't sound "fake" and the reason you need 8 to 12 mics on a kit is to tweak everything to sound good but you already know that. Also its nothing like micing all the strings on a guitar i could see doing that if a guitar was 6 to 8 feet wide and took both arms and legs to operate but fortunately the strings are close enough to pick out every note with just one or two mics. Ive mic'd drums with 3 mics, i've done it with 1 mic and now I currently use 9 mics. I love the sound with 9 mics much more than 3, but thats just me.
K
Kasey
New member
jonnyc said:
thank you for understanding my view point. yes, i know many people still do things the way i talked about, but i was generalizing, i'd have to say that most pro studios these days do it the other way. The analogy of micing each guitar string is far fetched i know, but is still a somewhat accurate representation of how I view clost micing everything on a drum set. there are advantages and disadvantages to each approach, i simply prefer a more minimalistic approach.
R
Rod Gervais
New member
HapiCmpur said:
Hapi,
Nothing could be further from the truth than that statement.
Pro studios take the room into the equation big time - believe me - when you spend maybe 1/2 million dollars on a room (and this cost does not include the building it's inside of - the low voltage wiring - or any of the gear) the room - it's sound - is one very large piece of what it's all about.
You cannot equate what has to be done with home studios to make them workable with anything that has to do with pro facilities.
By the way - just for the record - with some very special exceptions - the studios of yester-year were not all that hot acoustically - and the sounds that came out of them were actually a pretty good example of making great music in bad rooms.
It spoke more of the abilities of the engineers and producers than it did of the studios themselves.
Sincerely,
Rod
R
Rod Gervais
New member
Innovations said:
Slow down here - what do you mean "used to be involved"?
We have 2 of these sitting in a seperate room at Power Station New England - 3 of them in Power Station New York -
What makes you think these aren't being used in world class studios today?
Rod
mshilarious
Banned
jonnyc said:
Difficult to answer.
The original Pet Sounds was mono; Brian Wilson never preferred stereo largely because he is deaf in one ear, but also because he worried about the quality of home stereo.
In 1999 Mark Linnett did a stereo remix of Pet Sounds which was released on the same CD as the mono original. It sounds great and I rarely listen to the mono version anymore (although a few missing vocal bits make the stereo not quite the equivalent of the mono original).
In 2004 Brian Wilson recorded Smile using the best of vintage and modern gear (U47s and ProTools, etc.) It was mixed by Linnett again, and very well might be the best engineered recording I own. Unlike Pet Sounds, which was very much an assembled multitrack recording, Smile was mostly cut live with vocal overdubs, which is a tremendous feat of musicianship I witnessed live last October. So is Smile less 'advanced' than Pet Sounds
I would submit that modern recordings in a modern professional studio SHOULD exceed the sound quality of old recordings, given the availability of the best modern and vintage gear. But trends in masterings and the general poorer quality of much modern music make such recordings the exception.
Of course, the problem is there are so few examples that provide a direct comparison. Wilson's efforts of late are a good case study. You can put his 2004 "Good Vibrations" head to head with 1966 and see what you think.
Innovations
New member
Maybe I should have said 'used to be required' or 'used to be necessary'. Now days the typical recorder, particularly the typical home recorder, thinks of something like reverb as a plugin that they can play around with the setting with just a click of the mouse.Rod Gervais said:
With so much, so easliy, added and altered in the postprocessing there is more desire in getting an uncolored original track to work from. That has affected the goals of studio design.
H
HapiCmpur
New member
I think we may be talking about two different things here, Rod. Help me understand this. You mentioned how much money pro studios spend on the room, but what's all that money being spent on? Isn't the vast majority of it going toward constructing rooms with absorption, diffusion, and isolation that's primarily intended to keep the room itself from adding to the sonic equation?Rod Gervais said:
R
Rod Gervais
New member
Innovations said:
I'm glad you present this in that manner - you prove my point. You are absolutely correct when you present this as it relates to the "typical home recorder", which has nothing at all to do with the manner in which pro studios are designed.
Simply put - you are mistaken. From where do you gather the data that leads you to this conclusion?
Rod
R
Rod Gervais
New member
HapiCmpur said:
No it isn't........
I'll give you an example -
The main room of studio "A"........ mic at floor level - fairly dead - get just the instruments - raise the mics in the room for room sound - the higher you get - the more active (by design) the recording becomes.
Mic in the coffin located at the top of the room - and it sounds as if it was recorded in a night club.
This change in room ambiance is by design - allowing you to add the room to the mix as you wish.
You are simply designing a room that allows you to add it as you wish........
Rod
Attachments
Ethan Winer
Acoustics Expert
Rick,
I agree with the others that your tone was a bit harsh. But you brought up an excellent point:
> What if YOU had to design and build the equipment to record ... Where did you think the term Audio "Engineer" came from? ... early engineers were EXACTLY that. Electrical and mechanical engineers <
In fact, you can go back even farther and see that the term "engineer" was originally derived from the word engine. As in steam engines, where the guys who drove the trains were real engineers. They had to know how the engines really worked, to keep them running and be able to repair them when needed.
Likewise, as you pointed out, early recording engineers. These guys (and maybe some gals too) designed circuits and front panel layouts, and they soldered all the components together. Even as recently as the 1970s many studio designers built their own consoles. Sometimes using modules, but just as often designing everything including the preamps and equalizers.
I'll risk taking some heat for this statement: Much of the audio pseudo science which is now rampant is due to recordists and mixers today not understanding how electronics really works. Most people who know enough to successfully design audio circuits know that audiophile tweaks like oxygen free copper speaker wire, ultra-high sample rates, and magic isolation pads work entirely on the placebo effect. Sure, you'll find the occasional electronics engineer who specializes in designing vacuum tube gear. But the vast majority of designers understand that 5 percent distortion is not a worthwhile goal.
--Ethan
I agree with the others that your tone was a bit harsh. But you brought up an excellent point:
> What if YOU had to design and build the equipment to record ... Where did you think the term Audio "Engineer" came from? ... early engineers were EXACTLY that. Electrical and mechanical engineers <
In fact, you can go back even farther and see that the term "engineer" was originally derived from the word engine. As in steam engines, where the guys who drove the trains were real engineers. They had to know how the engines really worked, to keep them running and be able to repair them when needed.
Likewise, as you pointed out, early recording engineers. These guys (and maybe some gals too) designed circuits and front panel layouts, and they soldered all the components together. Even as recently as the 1970s many studio designers built their own consoles. Sometimes using modules, but just as often designing everything including the preamps and equalizers.
I'll risk taking some heat for this statement: Much of the audio pseudo science which is now rampant is due to recordists and mixers today not understanding how electronics really works. Most people who know enough to successfully design audio circuits know that audiophile tweaks like oxygen free copper speaker wire, ultra-high sample rates, and magic isolation pads work entirely on the placebo effect. Sure, you'll find the occasional electronics engineer who specializes in designing vacuum tube gear. But the vast majority of designers understand that 5 percent distortion is not a worthwhile goal.
--Ethan
D
Dani Pace
New member
Here is my take on this.... Back in "the good old days," recording equipment had more limitations so the sonic quality of the space used to record played a more important roll than is nessassary with modern gear and aplications. People were used to hearing music played in large halls and the easiest way to get a similar type of sound was to record in large rooms, I refer to this as the "empty wearhouse effect." As the recording process evolved, along came better equipment and the industry began to move from the isolated big building into more populated areas and smaller buildings. As the locations changed the need for more soundproofing became more important, both to keep the sound in and to keep unwanted sounds out. I don't expect to win any awards for my theory of studio evolution, this is just an observation of the obvious.
I must admitt, with the advent of modern processing it is easy to overdo and loose some of the spontainious feel that analog recordings often seem to have. Yes I prefer analog but as preformers and producers of a product (music) we have to customize our product to suit the buying public, even if they want what we feel is an inferior product. It's like the old saying, "You get what you pay for." If they want a turd.......sell them one.
I must admitt, with the advent of modern processing it is easy to overdo and loose some of the spontainious feel that analog recordings often seem to have. Yes I prefer analog but as preformers and producers of a product (music) we have to customize our product to suit the buying public, even if they want what we feel is an inferior product. It's like the old saying, "You get what you pay for." If they want a turd.......sell them one.
H
HapiCmpur
New member
Cool. I get it now. Thanks, Rod.Rod Gervais said:
Innovations
New member
I get it merely by inference to the recently built studios that I have been around. Now admittedly what I have been mostly involved in is not accoustic instrument recording but voice, ADR, and Foley recording. When you get to a lot of what is recorded out there the various tracks are not recorded in the same room so you don't want the room to be an obvious participant. The room definitly is a participant, they just don't want it to be an obvious one. I have been in rooms that are so dead I am wondering if I am still speaking the sound is swallowed up so completely.Rod Gervais said:
R
Rod Gervais
New member
Innovations said:
Sorry - but you can't equate a post production studio producing Foley effects (for those of you who might not know - Foley is sound made by humans: footsteps, clothing rustles, the manipulation of props and tools) - or ADR to a recording studio designed for music alone.
The movie studio I was involved in had a completely different set of acoustic requirements than a recording studio - that doesn't mean that recording studios should be designed like movie studios.
I would also point out that recording studios have different design requirements than mastering studios. Once again - that doesn't change design requirements for recording studios.
Sincerely,
Rod