how am I doing?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jinxed
  • Start date Start date
J

Jinxed

New member
Hey I just finished recording a CD with my band. We recorded 12 songs using a Yamaha MD8 and mixed down on to a computer to allow us to use more than 8 tracks. We used Cubase VST 32 to mix it and compress/limit. Go to www.mp3.com/jinxed to listen to 2 of our new tracks (It's About That Time and Twilight). Let me know how what you think of it. Thanks. Later.

joey hack
~jinxed

www.jinxed.ca
 
Joey, sounds good. I particularly like the kick drum sound on "It's about that time". It's really punchy. Nice tunes, I use an md8 also but the recordings arent' as good as what you guys are doing. Is the heavy rythmn guitar in "Twilight" doubled or triple tracked?

Ray J
http://www.mp3.com/RJohnson
 
I also used MD8

Joey,

I am a MD8 user and I'm really happy with the unit, but I found that when it came time to record a full-out CD, my MD8 just wouldnt have cut it. I dont own any gadgets or gizmos like compressors, effects processors, or any of that stuff. The unit is great for making rough drafts of recordings, home demos, and recording my band when we play live, though. Do you guys find that the MD8 (when souped up with all the gadgets and stuff) really makes "studio-quality" recordings?

Peace,
Jer
 
Greetings,

I have been doing amature stuff on my MD8 for a while and I just wanted to ask why everyone says you can't produce "Pro" stuff on it. It has the recording bitrate of CDs. So theoretically, if you got good quality mics and digital effects (computer) it can make "pro" sounding stuff.

It just doesn't make sense. I don't think there is one person onthis board who in a real blindfold test could identify an MD8 recorded song vs a Studio recorded song all other things being equal.

is there some flaw in this logic?

SirRiff
 
Very flawed... the minidisc format uses a form of lossy data compression to store the digital information. The algorithms literally throw away a portion of your signal it deems unnecessary. It does quite a decent job, but can't compete with CD quality (since, by definition, a lossy compression format CANNOT be equal to a format that fully retains the original signal).

So although it is much better than cassette quality for the most part, it is not viable for release recordings, nor is it of sufficient calibre for mixdown, much less mastering...

Bruce
 
When you say a "doubled track" is that where you record onto two separate tracks, so when you play it back, it sounds like two people playing the same music?

This is something I want to try to "thicken" my guitar work.
 
Ive been using the Yamaha MD8 for about 2 years now and Ive had fewer glitches with it than when I worked part time in a recording studio in the early 90's. Ive had maybe 8 disk errors from running it too long without proper cooling but nothing worse than what happens when you get a bad reel. As far as the ATRAC (Adaptive Transform Acoustic Coding) issue that keeps popping up, you have to remember that the compression is post converter and at that point the music has already been quantized to match CD quality. Compressing is not a bad thing as some have proposed, analog compressors are very similiar in nature by filtering certain frequencies, gating, EQ's etc.. all modify,strip, reduce the total audio you begin with. ATRAC takes advantage of the limitations of human hearing by removing only the information that lies outside of what typical people can hear. Since its based around that concept, those people with great hearing (wide freq recognition) they might notice a difference, but average listeners might not. Ive used 2 inch tape, 1/2 inch tape, 4 tracks and hard disk recorders, and Minidisk fairs better for premastering small to average jobs because there are no wow and flutter issues or bias. Mastering should be left to someone with the proper ears and equipment (IMO). I realize not everyone has the same luck with some equipment, Ive spent many a day talking to tech support on some device and why mine doesn't work... Peace
 
Call it a rose if you like... but after the compression algorithm is applied, the signal is NOT comparable to even the modest CD-quality (16bit/44.1Khz spec). What the signal was before the algorithm is applied is irrelevant, since it can never be accessed or used in practical application.

The minidisc is usable, but you would not want to use it for serious work as a 2-track or mastering unit.

Bruce
 
Your correct, the signal before the algorithm is irrelevent, because the portions being stripped during the
ATRAC 4.5 compression are masked i.e. inaudible frequencies to the human ear which are usless in any application. Since both MD DATA and CD formats are written at 16bit/44.1Khz (max of 1411200 bits)how can it not compare? If I record a something using the range of 20Hz to 20Khz with a A/D conversion of 16bit/44.1Khz and the inaudible (masked) frequencies have been stripped, you only get what you can hear anyway. I mean how can you hear something you can't hear? What happens to samething recorded at 24bit/96Khz and you run put it onto a 16bit/44.1Khz CD? Now youv'e taken 4608000 and stripped it into 1411200, a total loss of 3196800, with no real control of whats getting quantized, audible or inaudible. Sure you can mix preconverter and monitor the post conversion to your liking during Mastering (dithering ,sweetening )but why not just hang with straight conversions? Why buy sunglasses that filter harmless non visible light right. Correct me please on what Im missing?

Peace
 
"How can you hear something that you can't hear?"

...that is the basis for people who are that 16-bit/44.1khz is "good enough" and that there is no need to use the higher resolutions now available.

The truth is, 16/44 was hardly adequate for hi-fidelity, but the advantages of no added media noise, and high dynamic range made the format acceptable.

As the technology improved, we found more and more how inadequate 16/44 really was (and that was without the additional filtering added by ATRAC algorithms in the MD format!)

So no...... if full-storage 16/44 digital recording is not quite good enough, then lossy-compression 16/44 digital is even worse.

As I said, it is a usable tool - certainly outperforms analog cassette - but is not, nor ever will be considered a "serious" or professional recording format.

Doesn't mean it shouldn't be used, just means it's not a acceptable as, nor even considerd to be, "pro" gear.

Bruce
 
So at what point shall something be considered "Pro" ? I mean with so many type of recorders out there where is the crossover point from enthusiast to Professional,l and what are the requirements used for detemining "pro" equipment. Sample Rate or Bit Rate, magnetic tape, 2 inch analog, 15 IPS, 30 IPS, hardisk, 10,000 rpm or 5400 rpm? How many inputs or buss' does a console need to be "pro"? How many inserts, aux sends, what kind of eq's, how many subs, automated or not? Wouldn't having Pro gear have to be widened into outboard gear as well since coupling a "pro" recorder with footpedal style processors circumvents the quality usually found at "pro level" studio's? If I wanted to be a pro, where is my checklist of minimum requirements? Do have this list so I can have one?

Thanks
 
If a professional uses it, it can be called "pro". Pros use tools, but they generally know what they can and can't do with the tools they use.

I have both a portable minidisc unit and a rack mount unit in my studio - they have their place and their use. But I would never ever consider it viable as a mix-down unit.

In addition, there is a level of gear standard that most professionals require before considering the gear "pro". In addition to the obvious sonic specifications required, features like balanced connections, handling the +4dbU gain structure, well-designed circuitry that is easily maintained, good interface design, robust housing are among characteristics pros look for in any piece of gear.

And as is typical in the recording industry, there are no rules, only guidelines, so a there is a lot of gear that doesn't follow these "requirements" yet still get "pro" attention.

But specifically regarding minidisc, the bottom line is that it has an inherent sonic deficiency making it unusable for serious recording purposes. The requirements for the average demo or homerecording purposes are quite different, increasing the minidisc's viability.

Bruce
 
Ok, sounds good, but what do you do when its time to move upto" Pro" and you have all these MD-Data disks? I can't imagine thowing it all away and starting over on a new machine, could you tranfer the data to a "better sytem" if needed? What do you use as a viable mix down unit?
 
I would say it depends on how the tracks sound. If they are usable even considering the ATRAC "damage", they could probably be transferred to another more preferable format.

It all depends on the situation, and who's footing the bill!

For example, this newly signed up-and-coming band has a demo tape done of their stuff on minidisc.
DO you think the record label will bother transferring their tracks over to something more pro? Not a chance, they're far more likely to scrap them completely and throw the band into the studio with a producer (who would've changed the original tracks anyways, had he been there when they recorded them!) to re-cut everything from scratch!
 
Last edited:
I probably wouldn't just start over since the information is digital. Using the MD8 as an example it has MMC and MIDI already so it would be easier to sync it to another digital system. The MD8 has 8 analog outputs for each individual track so since its analog at the point you can direct out to the inputs of your Mac console and onto ADAT onto a group of 4 or at least a stereo. This is especially nice if you used something like the SR16 because you can laydown new drum tracks at the sametime same with MIDI keyboards. So you get new drums and at least a stereo scratch to start off with. Since the outputs on the MD8 are analog you don't suffer the added noise an up-conversion sampling would cause going from 16 to 20 or 24 bit. This is actually the reason I bought the MD8, it gave me what I needed as a writing tool, if I write something that sucks (never) then it stays on a disk verses an ADAT, if its good material I can move it with the above process to a number of systems including 2 inch analog. The owner of the studio I used to work for were looking for something simple and less cumbersome as a writing tool and easily transferable to his equipment. When I was actually recording my own stuff at his studio I hated paying for rewind time when trying out a different solo or any new idea, with the MD8 I work it all out and keep track sheets on effects eq's and fader info to minimize the waste that can happen in a studio, even the owner thought about getting one for his own use when on business trips or at home, his studio is in a business park. Bruce is entirely correct in his thoughts on the MD8 being used for commercial ventures. Even if you put aside the ATRAC issue for a moment, the MD8 lacks the flexibility a larger console has, as well as the number of inputs, tracks and channels used in "pro" facilities. I have even run out of room on a 24 track, big drum sets...6 tracks+safety, vocal... 6 tracks+safety, bass... 3 tracks, guitar.... 2 to 4 tracks usually 4 to 8 really, keys....3 tracks..were done, want something other than that..sorry...

P.S. Bruce, if you ever come to Seattle you need to set up an appointment to tour Bad Aminals Studio

Peace,
Dennis
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top