L
LTG
New member
I compared my computer recording to a cd and the cd sounds a lot better. My friend told me i need an expander. Is this true? If so what expander should I get?
sonusman
Banned
In the whole world of better, what part of that do you mean? Is the CD louder? Does it have a better frequency response? What CD did you compare your Computer recording to? What did you record on your computer? Why is the sky blue?
You may need to supply a few details about what you are doing, and what you are doing it with for any one of the certified opinion junkies on here to advice you (that is all of us by the way).
Good luck.
Ed Rei
Echo Star Studio www.echostarstudio.com
You may need to supply a few details about what you are doing, and what you are doing it with for any one of the certified opinion junkies on here to advice you (that is all of us by the way).
Good luck.
Ed Rei
Echo Star Studio www.echostarstudio.com
drstawl
Banned
Thanks, Ed. That sums it up. The opinionated peanut gallery here is not in the practice of sending people out looking for a left-handed wind shifter. But if you can describe the wind shifter you're looking for, you can find some help here without too much trouble.
L
LTG
New member
Sorry....the CD was Blink 182.
It is much louder, has more response, and just seems much clearer and brighter. Mine sounds flatter. When I turn up the volume more it just distorts stuff. How is theirs so clear and loud still? What do I need?
I have a mixer running into a SBLive card.
Thanks
It is much louder, has more response, and just seems much clearer and brighter. Mine sounds flatter. When I turn up the volume more it just distorts stuff. How is theirs so clear and loud still? What do I need?
I have a mixer running into a SBLive card.
Thanks
drstawl
Banned
Ah- a bad case of notenough signalitis compounded by a soundcard without any decent headroom. So, to clarify: by paying attention to details on the input side of the recording chain you can get better recordings than you have so far, but maybe not better enough to impress you. Only you can tell whether a $400 soundcard is justified. Please don't run out and buy one until you've gotten a noticeably cleaner/louder/clearer recording out of the card you're presently using.
sonusman
Banned
Right on. Now we can get somewhere.
drstrawl is definately heading in the right direction here.
It is really hard to compare your macaroni and cheese recording with a Filet Mignon. (I must be hungry again, not enough pizza earlier)
Just think, in the average big boy studio, they would use like a Nuemann U-87 mic and a Neve pre-amp just to do one track. With the U-87 currently going for around $2500, and the Neve going for at least $2000, you can see that just those two things alone probably equal what you have all together into your studio. Let's include the mic cable which will be something like a Monster Studio Link 1000, going for about $5 a foot, so for a 25 foot cable, wow, $125!!!
Okay, lets talk about those $60,000 monitor systems that they use.
No, lets not because it makes me cry.
Let's see, recorded on a Studio 2" 24 track with some Dolby SR, about $75,000 right there. Mixed on a SSL console, starts at about $800,000. Mixed to like a Studer Half Track machine, about $8,000.
I am imagining that the recording engineer is one of the big names. Some guy who has forgot more tricks then we collectively know. Not to mention some big named producer who has done everybody.
Probably mastered by Bob Ludwig. That goes for around $3,000.
I think that maybe you might be expecting a bit much from your home recording set up by comparing the work you do on it to CD's that where done on a budget of over $100,000, and had the benefit of some of the best people in the business working on it. Now I have been recording for some time now. I think I know how to do it fairly well, but I just can't compete with the big boys yet. Maybe when my rack is full of $2000 boxes, and a $500,000 mixer, with state of the art recording machines. But for now, I will just have to settle for recordings that are a bit less in quality than the stuff that I hear that was done in better facilities. Along the way, I will learn more and more of the tricks that really make a difference.
So, I haven't answered anything here. Really, I hopefully have given you something to think about concerning the setup you currently use. If you are looking for a sound that compares with the big boys, well, go to where the big boys record. There is a very good reason why those studios go for anywhere from $2000-$5000 a day. You are not going to get that kind of sound out of a little PC system. Sorry.
Good luck.
Ed Rei
Echo Star Studio www.echostarstudio.com
drstrawl is definately heading in the right direction here.
It is really hard to compare your macaroni and cheese recording with a Filet Mignon. (I must be hungry again, not enough pizza earlier)
Just think, in the average big boy studio, they would use like a Nuemann U-87 mic and a Neve pre-amp just to do one track. With the U-87 currently going for around $2500, and the Neve going for at least $2000, you can see that just those two things alone probably equal what you have all together into your studio. Let's include the mic cable which will be something like a Monster Studio Link 1000, going for about $5 a foot, so for a 25 foot cable, wow, $125!!!
Okay, lets talk about those $60,000 monitor systems that they use.
No, lets not because it makes me cry.Let's see, recorded on a Studio 2" 24 track with some Dolby SR, about $75,000 right there. Mixed on a SSL console, starts at about $800,000. Mixed to like a Studer Half Track machine, about $8,000.
I am imagining that the recording engineer is one of the big names. Some guy who has forgot more tricks then we collectively know. Not to mention some big named producer who has done everybody.
Probably mastered by Bob Ludwig. That goes for around $3,000.
I think that maybe you might be expecting a bit much from your home recording set up by comparing the work you do on it to CD's that where done on a budget of over $100,000, and had the benefit of some of the best people in the business working on it. Now I have been recording for some time now. I think I know how to do it fairly well, but I just can't compete with the big boys yet. Maybe when my rack is full of $2000 boxes, and a $500,000 mixer, with state of the art recording machines. But for now, I will just have to settle for recordings that are a bit less in quality than the stuff that I hear that was done in better facilities. Along the way, I will learn more and more of the tricks that really make a difference.
So, I haven't answered anything here. Really, I hopefully have given you something to think about concerning the setup you currently use. If you are looking for a sound that compares with the big boys, well, go to where the big boys record. There is a very good reason why those studios go for anywhere from $2000-$5000 a day. You are not going to get that kind of sound out of a little PC system. Sorry.
Good luck.
Ed Rei
Echo Star Studio www.echostarstudio.com
D
Dragon
Large and Scaly Mixing Maniac
Don't let him discourage you, though...you can do damn good at home! And remember one last thing: it ain't just the sound, it's the music!
L
LTG
New member
I understand that I won't get the same sound. I'm not saying it sounds bad, I'm just saying I want to make it a little more brighter. Would an expander help me at all?
sonusman
Banned
Very good point by Dragon here.
But as a studio owner here in Portland likes to say to me, "Well, you can get excellent sound from project studios by utilizing the equipment to it's fullest, but you gotta know all the tricks". This guy of course has an Otari 2" machine with Dolby SR, an DDA AMR-24 console with Uptown automation. A whole slew of really great processing, including a Crainsong STC-8 compressor, a Lexicon 480-L, an Eventide Harmonizer, etc.....So you can see that getting great sound for tape for him is a snap.
I use ART mic pre's, ADAT's, Alesis Quadraverbs, LXP 1's and 5's, Behringer processors, etc.....Get good sound to tape for me requires much more attention to optimizing the signal to tape. There is nothing in this signal chain that is gonna give me anything, I have to work for it. But a great sound IS quite possible. You can hear some of my mixes that are posted on my website. They more or less stand up quite well to the big boy stuff. But, they are still a bit shy of the real deal. Only an investment into Class A gear will deliver that sound. Bottom line.
So what to do.
First, it all starts with a basic understanding of sound. Things like the Fletcher/Munson relative loudness curve, and what a signal to noise ratio is are musts. Next, having competent tools to do the job. Next. Understanding the concept of making a recording that represents what is actually there, rather than what you think it should sound like. I say this because I hear mixes all the time from those with less that are trying to make the equipment do things to the music that is just not possible. If something doesn't sound almost exactly like you want it to without any EQ, compression, effects, etc....there really isn't any equipment that will make it sound the way you want without making it sound phony. I sometimes think that people are trying to make the Mona Lisa from a Peanuts comic strip. Catch my meaning here? Make what is there sound like what it really sounds like. If you don't understand what I am saying, then just spend the next 5 years working the hell out of your mixes, you will understand what I mean eventually....
So, I am just trying to say that you should be realistic concerning your setup. You CAN get some great sounds from it. But you need to really get down and start studying basic things about sound. There are many good recording books at any city library. I have read about 10 different ones. They all basically say the same thing. And not one of them told me how to actually DO this stuff. LOL But the authors have steered very wide of telling anything specific because they know for a fact that every engineer is just going to have to experiment with a million things before they start finding a few things that work really well.
Now, you are recording in the digital realm. My first advice is going to be to record with a lot less low end on the input to tape (or hard drive) then what really sounds good to your ears. Remember that home electronics are not going to play back that really detailed high end that you really nice D/A converters will. Also, bass fequencies eat up record levels in a hurry,and most near field monitors don't re-create low end anything like what a home stereo speaker does. So, you gotta make some adjustments. You might be surprised at how some of these big time mixes sounded in the studio. I can guarantee it sounds much different than it does on your home stereo.
Also, pay very close attention to microphone placement. If you are not hearing a very detailed, natural sound coming out of the speakers, then it will be mud in the mix. If things sound rounded, and boomy on the recording machine, they will sound like mud on regular play back systems. Go for very tight, articulate sounds going to tape.
I have also found that most people monitor WAY TOO LOUD while recording and mixing. As a rule, you should mix at no louder than 80db C weighted. When you think that you have a great mix, then turn it up for a listen. But not for too long. You are gonna need those ears. NEVER forget the ear fatigue factor while tracking and mixing. If your ears are tired, you will tend to downplay upper mid-range frequencies that are vital to a detailed, articulate sound. Another trick I use a lot is to mix in mono right up to the point that I am ready to burn to tape. If the mix sounds killer in mono, it is going to blow your mind in stereo.
That is all from me. Don't want to give away too many secrets.....
Ed Rei
Echo Star Studio www.echostarstudio.com
But as a studio owner here in Portland likes to say to me, "Well, you can get excellent sound from project studios by utilizing the equipment to it's fullest, but you gotta know all the tricks". This guy of course has an Otari 2" machine with Dolby SR, an DDA AMR-24 console with Uptown automation. A whole slew of really great processing, including a Crainsong STC-8 compressor, a Lexicon 480-L, an Eventide Harmonizer, etc.....So you can see that getting great sound for tape for him is a snap.
I use ART mic pre's, ADAT's, Alesis Quadraverbs, LXP 1's and 5's, Behringer processors, etc.....Get good sound to tape for me requires much more attention to optimizing the signal to tape. There is nothing in this signal chain that is gonna give me anything, I have to work for it. But a great sound IS quite possible. You can hear some of my mixes that are posted on my website. They more or less stand up quite well to the big boy stuff. But, they are still a bit shy of the real deal. Only an investment into Class A gear will deliver that sound. Bottom line.
So what to do.
First, it all starts with a basic understanding of sound. Things like the Fletcher/Munson relative loudness curve, and what a signal to noise ratio is are musts. Next, having competent tools to do the job. Next. Understanding the concept of making a recording that represents what is actually there, rather than what you think it should sound like. I say this because I hear mixes all the time from those with less that are trying to make the equipment do things to the music that is just not possible. If something doesn't sound almost exactly like you want it to without any EQ, compression, effects, etc....there really isn't any equipment that will make it sound the way you want without making it sound phony. I sometimes think that people are trying to make the Mona Lisa from a Peanuts comic strip. Catch my meaning here? Make what is there sound like what it really sounds like. If you don't understand what I am saying, then just spend the next 5 years working the hell out of your mixes, you will understand what I mean eventually....
So, I am just trying to say that you should be realistic concerning your setup. You CAN get some great sounds from it. But you need to really get down and start studying basic things about sound. There are many good recording books at any city library. I have read about 10 different ones. They all basically say the same thing. And not one of them told me how to actually DO this stuff. LOL But the authors have steered very wide of telling anything specific because they know for a fact that every engineer is just going to have to experiment with a million things before they start finding a few things that work really well.
Now, you are recording in the digital realm. My first advice is going to be to record with a lot less low end on the input to tape (or hard drive) then what really sounds good to your ears. Remember that home electronics are not going to play back that really detailed high end that you really nice D/A converters will. Also, bass fequencies eat up record levels in a hurry,and most near field monitors don't re-create low end anything like what a home stereo speaker does. So, you gotta make some adjustments. You might be surprised at how some of these big time mixes sounded in the studio. I can guarantee it sounds much different than it does on your home stereo.
Also, pay very close attention to microphone placement. If you are not hearing a very detailed, natural sound coming out of the speakers, then it will be mud in the mix. If things sound rounded, and boomy on the recording machine, they will sound like mud on regular play back systems. Go for very tight, articulate sounds going to tape.
I have also found that most people monitor WAY TOO LOUD while recording and mixing. As a rule, you should mix at no louder than 80db C weighted. When you think that you have a great mix, then turn it up for a listen. But not for too long. You are gonna need those ears. NEVER forget the ear fatigue factor while tracking and mixing. If your ears are tired, you will tend to downplay upper mid-range frequencies that are vital to a detailed, articulate sound. Another trick I use a lot is to mix in mono right up to the point that I am ready to burn to tape. If the mix sounds killer in mono, it is going to blow your mind in stereo.
That is all from me. Don't want to give away too many secrets.....
Ed Rei
Echo Star Studio www.echostarstudio.com
sonusman
Banned
Not necessarily. I would favor some very soft compression on the whole mix. Also a peak limiter after the compression. This way you can maximize the record levels to the mix down deck.
Good luck.
Ed
Good luck.
Ed
dobro
Well-known member
I was impressed by two things in this thread - LTD's patience in getting his question answered, and Sonusman's clarifying the limitations of home recording.
Now, I want to talk about wine. I drink pretty cheap wine a lot of time (at the time, it usually seems like I have pretty good reasons for doing this) - here in Singapore, that means about $17 (Singbucks) a bottle. But if I kick in another five dollars, the improvement in taste is obvious, and pleasant. And on the occasions I pay $27 a bottle, the improvement in taste is spectacular and very pleasant. Now, at some point, adding more money to wine purchase doesn't yield a whole lot more taste. If I had enough money, that would be the type of wine I'd buy most of the time. I'm not a perfectionist - I want it to taste good and get me drunk.
Apply the analogy to home recording. That's the same level I'm aiming at - the point where investing more money isn't matched by proportionately better sound. In other words, if alcohol was sound, I want it to taste good and get people drunk.
Alternately, I could just jack it all in, sell the gear and buy a wine-making kit.
Now, I want to talk about wine. I drink pretty cheap wine a lot of time (at the time, it usually seems like I have pretty good reasons for doing this) - here in Singapore, that means about $17 (Singbucks) a bottle. But if I kick in another five dollars, the improvement in taste is obvious, and pleasant. And on the occasions I pay $27 a bottle, the improvement in taste is spectacular and very pleasant. Now, at some point, adding more money to wine purchase doesn't yield a whole lot more taste. If I had enough money, that would be the type of wine I'd buy most of the time. I'm not a perfectionist - I want it to taste good and get me drunk.
Apply the analogy to home recording. That's the same level I'm aiming at - the point where investing more money isn't matched by proportionately better sound. In other words, if alcohol was sound, I want it to taste good and get people drunk.
Alternately, I could just jack it all in, sell the gear and buy a wine-making kit.
dobro
Well-known member
What? Nobody likes wine? Or analogies? Perhaps I should have tried a digitology?
sonusman
Banned
Perhaps dobro you could have used micro-brew instead....
Being from the Pacific Northwest, THE land of micro's, that is biased. Maybe people from other places would relate better to grape juice, or lemonade, of vodka.
Ed
Being from the Pacific Northwest, THE land of micro's, that is biased. Maybe people from other places would relate better to grape juice, or lemonade, of vodka.
Ed
C
Cazzbar
Throbbing Member
Dobro, I enjoyed your wine analogy to home recording, it was very good. It could have been improved somewhat by spending around 100 dollars on a high quality dictionary and thesaurus but not really comparable to what's achievable if you visited a top University's library, where they've probably spent around 10000 dollars on dictionaries alone, not to mention the many English language graduates there to work with you. Still, this shouldn't discourage further analogy attempts as you must remember, it's the message that matters, not the words.
Cheers,
Cazzbar.
(anybody taking any bets when Dragon will close this thread???!)
Cheers,
Cazzbar.
(anybody taking any bets when Dragon will close this thread???!)
dobro
Well-known member
Sonusman - beer's a good symbol for homerecording - it's easier to make your own beer that tastes good than it is to make your own wine.
Cazzbar - yes, you know how to do it too.
Now, as for the idea which the analogy was meant to illustrate...?
Cazzbar - yes, you know how to do it too.
Now, as for the idea which the analogy was meant to illustrate...?