TerraMortim
New member
Beck...here's why no matter how many quotes, no matter how many I've been doing it forever dick waving you do, you will be wrong...
IT IS.... SUBJECTIVE... AND....IT DEPENDS ON......THE ....... MOOD OF....THE...SONG!!!!
Pretty much everyone that you quote from has a certain type of sound, a sound, that if I were in the studio with those particular artists and had the option, I'd definitely choose to go mostly analog (aside from mr sMear..he's just batty, I think...or he at least lies about his credit list, or doesn't remember what he used for certain artists). This is a thing called bias (and I'm not talking about the audio term)...you can prove...ANYTHING if you really want to, just by selectively seeking out quotes, and articles that prove your point, while ignoring anything else. Look at these ultra conservative Christian groups such as Focus on the Family...they know this, and use it as their primary tactic in trying to get their "message out". I've read plenty to say that such and such prefers analog, and plenty to say that such and such prefers digital, or this guy likes all the state of the art top dollar gear, or this one likes all vintage stuff...this person likes expensive instruments, and the guy over there likes to make music with pawn shop instruments...this guy over here wants everything pristine, and that guy over there loves to distort and layer things untill it becomes a bit of a audio textural painting. Why is that? I'll tell you why...there is no one answer... maybe this song would sound like ass if I used really expensive instruments on it... maybe if it was too pristine it would lose it's charm, or it's emotion... on the flip side...maybe if it was too layered on a song, maybe I might lose important bits, or distract from the point of the song. One record will do good to be warm and pleasant sounding, another should be really abrasive and "edgy" sounding. Hell, I mean..it's very possible to turn even digital artifacts into art. One of the plugins I use very frequently is called bit crusher...in which it lowers the bit depth to where you want it all the way down to 1bit and applies distortion and aliasing to the signal...and you know, it can produce some really interesting sounds sometimes (and can REALLY add to a kick drum's ability to murder you with it's sound, btw)
If there is anyone who says this way is better than that way, or there is only one way that sounds better for everything, they're missing the entire point of music, and ...recording. These are all tools, that we can use to aurarly sculpt the audio...these different tools are not in themselves anything, without someone to use them...just as a chisel is just a sharp object unless a sculptor puts it to good use. Is there any right or wrong? no. Are there any "better methods" nope. Your result is all that matters, or all that anyone outside of the AES Dicksucking Dildofest Alaskan cruise and circle jerk Extravaganza 2008(enough phalic references in that one?) will not give a shit about.
At the end of the day, after you attempt to wave your prick around, saying look at me... I am elite, I have the best gear...you have your body of work to show.. Will it be great? Will it be shit? Your gear certainly won't make any difference in deciding that. You see..that's why audio is filled with all these people fighting against each other about the right way to do everything...and EVERYONE can literally pull some stories out of their ass to prove their point...because there are a million ways to do things, and if one knows their shit, they can make any way of doing it sound like gold. Different gear will maybe give you an easier time with one certain thing...sure, it's easier to get a smooth high end, or even a very nice saturation with tape...but you can get it elsewhere if you really try...or even utilize it where needed, and utilize other tools when they are needed.
When it comes down to it, you can either be like Sweet "25 years" Nubs, and have bragging rights to what kind of awesome gear you have, or you can have bragging rights to what kind of awesome music you've done. Which will it be?
IT IS.... SUBJECTIVE... AND....IT DEPENDS ON......THE ....... MOOD OF....THE...SONG!!!!
Pretty much everyone that you quote from has a certain type of sound, a sound, that if I were in the studio with those particular artists and had the option, I'd definitely choose to go mostly analog (aside from mr sMear..he's just batty, I think...or he at least lies about his credit list, or doesn't remember what he used for certain artists). This is a thing called bias (and I'm not talking about the audio term)...you can prove...ANYTHING if you really want to, just by selectively seeking out quotes, and articles that prove your point, while ignoring anything else. Look at these ultra conservative Christian groups such as Focus on the Family...they know this, and use it as their primary tactic in trying to get their "message out". I've read plenty to say that such and such prefers analog, and plenty to say that such and such prefers digital, or this guy likes all the state of the art top dollar gear, or this one likes all vintage stuff...this person likes expensive instruments, and the guy over there likes to make music with pawn shop instruments...this guy over here wants everything pristine, and that guy over there loves to distort and layer things untill it becomes a bit of a audio textural painting. Why is that? I'll tell you why...there is no one answer... maybe this song would sound like ass if I used really expensive instruments on it... maybe if it was too pristine it would lose it's charm, or it's emotion... on the flip side...maybe if it was too layered on a song, maybe I might lose important bits, or distract from the point of the song. One record will do good to be warm and pleasant sounding, another should be really abrasive and "edgy" sounding. Hell, I mean..it's very possible to turn even digital artifacts into art. One of the plugins I use very frequently is called bit crusher...in which it lowers the bit depth to where you want it all the way down to 1bit and applies distortion and aliasing to the signal...and you know, it can produce some really interesting sounds sometimes (and can REALLY add to a kick drum's ability to murder you with it's sound, btw)
If there is anyone who says this way is better than that way, or there is only one way that sounds better for everything, they're missing the entire point of music, and ...recording. These are all tools, that we can use to aurarly sculpt the audio...these different tools are not in themselves anything, without someone to use them...just as a chisel is just a sharp object unless a sculptor puts it to good use. Is there any right or wrong? no. Are there any "better methods" nope. Your result is all that matters, or all that anyone outside of the AES Dicksucking Dildofest Alaskan cruise and circle jerk Extravaganza 2008(enough phalic references in that one?) will not give a shit about.
At the end of the day, after you attempt to wave your prick around, saying look at me... I am elite, I have the best gear...you have your body of work to show.. Will it be great? Will it be shit? Your gear certainly won't make any difference in deciding that. You see..that's why audio is filled with all these people fighting against each other about the right way to do everything...and EVERYONE can literally pull some stories out of their ass to prove their point...because there are a million ways to do things, and if one knows their shit, they can make any way of doing it sound like gold. Different gear will maybe give you an easier time with one certain thing...sure, it's easier to get a smooth high end, or even a very nice saturation with tape...but you can get it elsewhere if you really try...or even utilize it where needed, and utilize other tools when they are needed.
When it comes down to it, you can either be like Sweet "25 years" Nubs, and have bragging rights to what kind of awesome gear you have, or you can have bragging rights to what kind of awesome music you've done. Which will it be?
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Sorry, Beck, but that second paragraph is simply untrue. I can't put it any more plainly than that. I don't mean this to sound insulting, but it's one of those incorrect statements that sounds a lot like paragraph one.
OK, Nyquist didn't address the subjective quality of sound; in fact he barely addressed sound at all. But the purpose of the Nyquist frequency is NOT to define a non-aliasing barrier frequency; that's so off target that I'm suprised that it comes from you, my friend.
On that we agree; that whole Nyquist reconstruction mini-thread was just technical sidebar to the discussion. I enver meant it to have anything to do with your main argument (which is itself in fact is only a small sidebar that has little to do with the OT of this thread. So that was a sidebar to a sidebar
)
That stuff sucks. Rum is supposed to taste good as rum, not doped up like some Christmas drinkCaptain Morgan?
. You want REAL rum, you need to ditch that fake candy and try Appleton Farms 
And sonic excellence means analog, right? C/mon, Beck, let's be honest here. You believe that analog is a sonically superior technology to digital, that it needs to come back and replace digital to save the future of music quality, and are evangelistic about that viewpoint. That pretty much sums up the definition of "analo-phile." And no, Dave, it has nothing to do with "anal" and everything to do with "analog"
C'mon, man, you are being disingenuous now. You launch false accusations against digital and make biased claims about analog, and if anyobdy points out the innaccuracies in the former or disagrees with the later, *they* are taking political sides, and you are only talking the truth? If that's not an evangelical attitude, nothing is.
It has *everything* to do with it, and it has nothing to do with putting anybody in a box. In that Interview I read (and it was a loooooong time ago, and I don't remember where it was I read it, so no I can't cite it. I'll just have to live with that) Shcoltz went on and on about that FFT, it wasn't an obscure reference, and he made a major point about it being the key to engineering a mix. He said that, not me. He also spent the majority of the interview self-admitting that he basically was a blind newb who knew nothing about engineering, and that is why it took him so damn long. He had to try and learn everything from scratch himself.
I am not prejudging him based upon some form of bias and I resent that you even make such a suggestion. I am only saying what he himself said; that he was no engineer by any stretch of the imagination and really had no idea what he was doing or talking about. If his comments about the FFT aren't a dead giveaway about that, then I don't know what is. My only point was that to cite someone of those self-admitted newbish credentials to use as a support for your defense of analog and attack of digital is not exactly the most convincing of arguments
.
My point exactly!it’s just bad argumentation.
Oh, would you please stop regurgitating that nonsense. Any such effect, if it happens - and that is questionable - has absolutely ZERO to do with the digital format itself. It's been explained here over and over.
That's no different than saying that a vinyl record is a stereo image drawn from a single groove, or that a cassette tape is a stereo image drawn from a single piece of vinyl, and is an absolutely ridiculous statemet to make. Your claims about how digital filess work are waaaay off. I swear beck, you should quit while you are behind, the more you bring up, the more you are demonstrating a total lack of ignorance of how digital works.
The fact that it's a single digital audio file means nothing. There are still two distinct channels of information within a stereo WAV or CDA file. While the data may be physically interleaved, they are 100% discreet and seperate channels of information. Which is more than can be said for vinyl, where physical movenemt from one groove can color the movement from the opposing groove, especially in the bass frequencies, or the crosstalk and bleed between bands or even between layers on an analog tape.
Spacial and locational information in the stereo image is 100% dependant upon the amplitude and phase relation of information in the two channels. That is the very definition of stereophonic. If anything, the alleged "wider" image claimed by analog (one which I have never noticed to be more prominant on one format over another, nor has any other unbiased pro engineer I have known or worked with) is due to the *unnatural injection* of phase complications due to the very lack of isolation between the two stereo channels that analog media provides. To put in an oversimplified kind of way, the analog format may be doing to the stereo image what a digital stereo field enhancer does. If you fell that sounds better, more power to you. I would consider that an artifact I'd rather put in or leave out at my choice.
And you can dispense with the quotes. That's a useless courtroom tactic. For every expert you can quote I can find an expert to quote that will say something different. And vice versa. What I would recommend instead would be, instead of letting others do your thinking for you, do it yourself. Actually take the time to learn your enemy before you attack it. I mean, that argument about digital file formats being the cause of a narrowing of a stereophonic field has just left me flabbergated in it's lunacy and basis in misinformation. That makes the early statement about Nyquist as defining alias sound almost reasonable, even though that one is a complete misunderstanding of the facts as well.
G.
mshilarious
Banned
OK, right now we are arguing issues with CD quality, are we not?
Try this:
So take two mono 16/44.1 files, render as a stereo file, burn to CD, rip, extract mono from left-right, and compare with the source file. Watch them null completely. A trivial test that completely refutes your assertions.
In fact, I just did that test. I burned a stereo file compiled from two mono files without further processing onto a CD. Then, in perhaps the great flaw of my test, used WMP to rip that track to .wav. Wavelab then extracted left and right channels from the ripped track.
In thirty seconds of audio, the resulting file completely nulled except for two points: one click that peaked at -73dBFS, and lasted about 10ms (null to peak to null), and about 27 seconds later, one click that peaked at -80dBFS, and also lasted 10ms. These could be from CD burning errors. Or it could be from WMP's high quality ripping
Give me a minute to reboot the PC, and I'll tell you.At any rate, it's certainly not affecting stereo imaging. Thus, we can analyze the performance of the media in mono.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Ah, MS, you beat me to it, I was going to suggest something very similar . Since he's actually talking about digital *file* formats and not necessarily the storage media itself - the implication there being that it doesn't matter whether the 44.1/16 file is on a HD or a CD - here's an even easier test that should avoid the pops you're getting:
Just take two mono digital tracks from your editor and export them to a stereo interleaved WAV file. Then take that WAV file and split it back into two new mono tracks. The before and after pairs of tracks will be identical.
There is no loss of, mixing of, digital incest between, or any other corruption of the individual left and right channels of information when brought together into a stereo file and then played back from that file.
It's no different on CD either, the program content of a WAV file on HD and a CDA file on audio CD is identical.
---
Now, as far as the whole width-of-image thing, that is determined by the stereophonic image as automatically (phychoacoustically) constructed from the information contained in the two mono channels. If one is, say, recording someone using a stereo pair mic setup, the width of that image will automatically be "encoded" into the stereophonic tracks by the nature of that setup. While there will be difference in the coloration of the sound dependant upon the signal path and storage medium used, any such coloration will have very little effect upon the apparent reconstructed width of the image.
What it would take to have such an effect is for something to be playing around in a specific way with phase and delay relationships between the two mono program sources. This is how digital stereo enhancement plugs work, and this is how, on the analog side, devices like the Carver Sonic Holography system works. There is not only nothing in the methods of digital encoding/decoding or file formatting that has such an effect on the phase relationship between the two program channels, let alone one which specifically performs the algorithmic change necessary to actually collapse an image.
Yes there are arguably things such as jitter and clocking issues that can arguably "smear the pinpointedness" of an image (though even that is hotly debated as a reality or not), but to collapse the naturally encoded stereo information would require either a deliberate algorithm designed do so, or a random distortion that that coincidentally did so at astronomical odds.
And to take it a step further, the analog spread, if it is wider than the digital one, just to play along for a sec, is not necessarily a natural one. It's not like it's actually accurately reporducing the real physical soundstage except by occasional coincidence. Here's a real life expiriment: Set up a stereo pair 5 feet apart on a 20 foot wide stage. Place a sound source 10 feet to the left of the left side of the stereo pair. Now play back that recording through a set of stereo speakers set exactly as far apart as the mics were (with no holography or other decoder/enhancement). Where is the sound source going to sound like it's coming from? It is almost definitely not going to sound like it's coming from 10 feet to the left of the left speaker. Chances are, it's not even going to sound like it's coming from 10mm to the left of that speaker, unless there are some acoustical factors either from the stage itself or form the playback room that are playing some tricks.
Stereophonic images create a synthetic image of reality, they do not reproduce the original image. This is true in analog and in digital.
G.
. Since he's actually talking about digital *file* formats and not necessarily the storage media itself - the implication there being that it doesn't matter whether the 44.1/16 file is on a HD or a CD - here's an even easier test that should avoid the pops you're getting:Just take two mono digital tracks from your editor and export them to a stereo interleaved WAV file. Then take that WAV file and split it back into two new mono tracks. The before and after pairs of tracks will be identical.
There is no loss of, mixing of, digital incest between, or any other corruption of the individual left and right channels of information when brought together into a stereo file and then played back from that file.
It's no different on CD either, the program content of a WAV file on HD and a CDA file on audio CD is identical.
---
Now, as far as the whole width-of-image thing, that is determined by the stereophonic image as automatically (phychoacoustically) constructed from the information contained in the two mono channels. If one is, say, recording someone using a stereo pair mic setup, the width of that image will automatically be "encoded" into the stereophonic tracks by the nature of that setup. While there will be difference in the coloration of the sound dependant upon the signal path and storage medium used, any such coloration will have very little effect upon the apparent reconstructed width of the image.
What it would take to have such an effect is for something to be playing around in a specific way with phase and delay relationships between the two mono program sources. This is how digital stereo enhancement plugs work, and this is how, on the analog side, devices like the Carver Sonic Holography system works. There is not only nothing in the methods of digital encoding/decoding or file formatting that has such an effect on the phase relationship between the two program channels, let alone one which specifically performs the algorithmic change necessary to actually collapse an image.
Yes there are arguably things such as jitter and clocking issues that can arguably "smear the pinpointedness" of an image (though even that is hotly debated as a reality or not), but to collapse the naturally encoded stereo information would require either a deliberate algorithm designed do so, or a random distortion that that coincidentally did so at astronomical odds.
And to take it a step further, the analog spread, if it is wider than the digital one, just to play along for a sec, is not necessarily a natural one. It's not like it's actually accurately reporducing the real physical soundstage except by occasional coincidence. Here's a real life expiriment: Set up a stereo pair 5 feet apart on a 20 foot wide stage. Place a sound source 10 feet to the left of the left side of the stereo pair. Now play back that recording through a set of stereo speakers set exactly as far apart as the mics were (with no holography or other decoder/enhancement). Where is the sound source going to sound like it's coming from? It is almost definitely not going to sound like it's coming from 10 feet to the left of the left speaker. Chances are, it's not even going to sound like it's coming from 10mm to the left of that speaker, unless there are some acoustical factors either from the stage itself or form the playback room that are playing some tricks.
Stereophonic images create a synthetic image of reality, they do not reproduce the original image. This is true in analog and in digital.
G.
Last edited:
mshilarious
Banned
Right, that's why I supposed he must have meant a CD quality issue.
Heehee, I just realized why I had those two clicks . . . because the ripped CD track was slightly longer than the original (the CD inserted pauses), and I sample-aligned the shorter original .wav. When the original was summed with the out-of-phase ripped track, there was a click when it started and stopped. Not exactly sure why, but it doesn't matter.
Therefore, the portion with actual audio did completely, 100% null.
BeniRose
New member
I'm often dissapointed with my quality, but it's not because I'm expecting it to sound like commerical stuff. It's because sometimes people with less skill (and passion), and cheaper equipment send me stuff that sounds better than mine. And that just hurts my feelings =(
NL5
Unpossible!
Dammit!
How did I miss the monthly 44.1 isn't enough info to accurately reproduce the audible range thread?!?!?!?!?
I wonder how many people hear can even hear above 16k? You over 30? Ever play in front of a loud amp for hours? You probably can't hear above 16, and for sure not over 18k.
Anyway, I'll let you all at the argument again. It's futile. 44.1 is capable of recreating the audible frequency 100% accurately. As stated above, to make up for the filter's deficiencies, you may need as high as ~60khz. Everything after that is utterly pointless. Hell, I record at 44.1 and it sounds absolutely fantastic. If I ever get good enough that the tiny bit of attenuation/artifacting that's going on at 18-20k is what's dragging down my recordings, I will die a happy man........
How did I miss the monthly 44.1 isn't enough info to accurately reproduce the audible range thread?!?!?!?!?
I wonder how many people hear can even hear above 16k? You over 30? Ever play in front of a loud amp for hours? You probably can't hear above 16, and for sure not over 18k.
Anyway, I'll let you all at the argument again. It's futile. 44.1 is capable of recreating the audible frequency 100% accurately. As stated above, to make up for the filter's deficiencies, you may need as high as ~60khz. Everything after that is utterly pointless. Hell, I record at 44.1 and it sounds absolutely fantastic. If I ever get good enough that the tiny bit of attenuation/artifacting that's going on at 18-20k is what's dragging down my recordings, I will die a happy man........
Last edited:
B
Beck
Guest
Hehe, great thread.
Beck: I've been doing some searching, but am having a hard time finding much substantial in the way of reel to reel decks. I want a simple stereo setup to copy mixes or even single tracks to as an effect. What should I be looking for?
A half-track (2-track) mastering deck can add a nice quality if you use it for stereo mixdown of your digital tracks.
A couple common reel-to-reel units you’ll see for mastering are the Tascam 32 and the Otari MX5050. I’m also very partial to the little brother of the 32… the Tascam 22-2. The 22-2 is light and compact. It is very basic… no bells and whistles, but sounds great. Tapes that work well with the 22-2 include Ampex/Quantegy 407 and 457; 3M/Scotch 207; Maxell XL 35-90B and RMGI LPR35. The 22-2 only takes 7” reels. Tape costs are reasonable. With the recommended tape (any of the above listed) you get about 22.5 minutes of record time @ 15 ips speed. You can also select 7.5 ips speed, which of course gives you twice the record time and a grittier sound. The 7.5 ips speed will give you a more exaggerated analog sound that people associate with an effect.
Another compact unit to look for with more features is the Fostex Model 20.
One thing nice about the Tascam 22-2 is that the parts, including heads are still available new from Tascam Parts Dept. You’ll want to try and find a low-use machine, but if you have to replace something… Tascam has it.
You can go for the top of the line Tascam and get something like a BR-20, which is still available new.
Here are some sources for reel-to-reel:
eBay
http://www.musicgoround.com
http://www.craigslist.org/about/sites.html
http://www.angelfire.com/electronic2/vintagetx/
Have fun and feel free to drop by the analog forum for more info. Other members may have other recommendations and sources. There are lots of models and options.
TerraMortim
New member
That's not even what I was saying. I said there is a difference to some people between 44.1 and higher sample rates...
They're called ear plugs Great for saving your hearing. No, I'm not over 30.
They're called ear plugs
Great for saving your hearing. No, I'm not over 30.
TerraMortim
New member
A half-track (2-track) mastering deck can add a nice quality if you use it for stereo mixdown of your digital tracks.
A couple common reel-to-reel units you’ll see for mastering are the Tascam 32 and the Otari MX5050. I’m also very partial to the little brother of the 32… the Tascam 22-2. The 22-2 is light and compact. It is very basic… no bells and whistles, but sounds great. Tapes that work well with the 22-2 include Ampex/Quantegy 407 and 457; 3M/Scotch 207; Maxell XL 35-90B and RMGI LPR35. The 22-2 only takes 7” reels. Tape costs are reasonable. With the recommended tape (any of the above listed) you get about 22.5 minutes of record time @ 15 ips speed. You can also select 7.5 ips speed, which of course gives you twice the record time and a grittier sound. The 7.5 ips speed will give you a more exaggerated analog sound that people associate with an effect.
Another compact unit to look for with more features is the Fostex Model 20.
One thing nice about the Tascam 22-2 is that the parts, including heads are still available new from Tascam Parts Dept. You’ll want to try and find a low-use machine, but if you have to replace something… Tascam has it.
You can go for the top of the line Tascam and get something like a BR-20, which is still available new.
Here are some sources for reel-to-reel:
eBay
http://www.musicgoround.com
http://www.craigslist.org/about/sites.html
http://www.angelfire.com/electronic2/vintagetx/
Have fun and feel free to drop by the analog forum for more info. Other members may have other recommendations and sources. There are lots of models and options.
see? now that's much more useful. Mastering to 2 track tape is very nice... It's all about using whatever tools to your advantage, regardless if it's recordied by a trained monkey who is chiseling the waveform into a slab of granite, or some new form of telepathically imprinting the waveform in t he listeners brain (heh)
elly-d
Member
god, i just read all of this thread. it took hours. i started with a fostex X-26, moved to a fostex FD-4, then to cubase (an old version, you know when it made sense and didn't look shit) then to a fostex e-16. i also use cubase a bit although i hope to be purely analogue when i can afford it.
i don't want to sound like modern commercial recordings, i hate them, i think it sounds so unnatural. i'm quite into lo-fi both recording and performing so i am getting a better sound all the time. when i say lo-fi i mean that i like coughs, fret noise, dropped sticks all recorded with lovely warm quality, not MP3 compression and all that.
i don't want to sound like modern commercial recordings, i hate them, i think it sounds so unnatural. i'm quite into lo-fi both recording and performing so i am getting a better sound all the time. when i say lo-fi i mean that i like coughs, fret noise, dropped sticks all recorded with lovely warm quality, not MP3 compression and all that.
NL5
Unpossible!
That's not even what I was saying. I said there is a difference to some people between 44.1 and higher sample rates...
They're called ear plugs
If this is directed at me, my post was not directed at you - or anyone in particular for that matter.......
B
Bob's Mods
New member
I don't know guys. I do not share your views here. The system that created mega stars and mega bands is way broken. Live is way down. The radio sytem is totally advertiser driven, more so than in the past when the FCC better regulated the industry. The major labels have lost their power. Pay for live music outside of core large cities is horrible. Labels churn an burn artists. In the old days, many top artist had their first and even a second album fail but ultimately succeeded. Today, if your first one fails your history. No other label will sign you. Its just a different world today. The odds against another Beatles or Elvis are greater then ever...even with the internet.
Bob
B
Bob's Mods
New member
And the answer is.........
I've been hopeing one or more of you studio gurus would answer the above question(s). If you could pin point the source or sources of the commercial studio's advantage over the modest to moderate home recorder rigs, for those home wreckers that have been following this long and winding road of a thread....that would be super. For most of us, bits and bytes is all we got. Do those expensive and fancy consoles play a big role? Please enlighten us oh wise ones. All my modding certainly hasn't done the trick.
Bob
I've been hopeing one or more of you studio gurus would answer the above question(s). If you could pin point the source or sources of the commercial studio's advantage over the modest to moderate home recorder rigs, for those home wreckers that have been following this long and winding road of a thread....that would be super. For most of us, bits and bytes is all we got. Do those expensive and fancy consoles play a big role? Please enlighten us oh wise ones. All my modding certainly hasn't done the trick.
Bob
NL5
Unpossible!
It's not the console - although that may help. I think you have things in just about the complete opposite order. The room makes the biggest difference. Well, beside the one thing you left out. Who do commercial studios record? The best of the best bands. That's the #1 reason they sound better. The engineer, the room, the mics, the outboard, the preamps, and to some extent maybe the console all make some differences. I think use of a console is getting closer and closer to being more of a workflow thing. I've got a great console, but find I mix ITB more just because I work on sessions bit by bit.
DavidK
New member
You are completely ignoring 500+ years of musical history. I recommend a music history book, seriously. Very interesting stuff: lots of composers dealt with the same stuff we do today. Handel was caught up in publishing lawsuits, most of them were.
EVERY generation falls into the same trap that you do. The piano was going to kill music, so was the invention of recording. People in 1820 thought Beethoven Symphony #9 was a piece of crap. The critic at the premiere of the Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto said " This is music that stinks to the ear".
As I said earlier, Bach was completely forgotten until the mid 1800s. Umm, he was born in 1685.
The golden age of Television? Seinfeld is as good as all the shows, whether one sees it or not. There will always be good Movies, Music, Artists, plays, musicals. From now until the end of time. The older generation HATED Elvis and the Beatles. They thought it was the death of music and nobody could hold a candle to Sinatra. They were wrong. They always are.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
In order of importance (IMHO), more or less, from most important at the top to least important at the bottom:
1. The performer/performance quality
2. The quality of the engineers/producers
3. Acoustic quality of the recording spaces
4. Microphone quality/selection
5. Preamp quality/selection
6a. Recorder quality (if going analog)
6d. Converter quality (if going digital)
7. Monitoring chain quality
8. Everything else
YOMV
G.
DavidK
New member
You missed one:
Quality of composition and arrangement.
Its not quite the same as your #1, you could have an awesome instrumentalist playing a really bad song.