It just cracks me up....

[Bigus Dickus]

How did this thread go so horribly off the edge? It started innocently enough.

 

[chessrock]

I EXPECT to read rediculous, uninformed, statements based upon experience that is limited to a Roland VS unit, or a Delta 1010 card and some Mackie pre's and a Studio Projects mics. I EXPECT that most around here have had little dealings with "the real deal" type of gear.

You mean like those ART Toob gizmos you're so fond of ? ? Sorry, couldn't resist that one, Ed. Don't mind me. Carry on.

 

[mixmkr]

it's hard not to jump in here and commend the attitude that two "pros" are exhibiting here..

that's the kinda "pro" attitude I wanna see when I go to a 'big boy' studio...

This crap seems to happen so often... and I'm a sucker for wanting to kick out the pedistals

hey chess....shit just draws us two flys....eh?? good one on the tube boob... Naw...I think the Ghost is the real deal...

 

[jake-owa]

And I will continue to post MY OPINION ---- especially to trash a lot of the nonsense I see being posted........

Don't like it?? THEN DON'T FUCKIN' READ IT.............

Might I suggest you stick to posting in the Cave instead....

Yes you may suggest anything you like.
And I will continue to counter your bullshiet with my opinion.

May I suggest prosoundweb?

 

[sonusman]

Funny pokes there chessrock and mixmkr.

But what insinuation should I draw from these comments? Are you prepared to go there?

Ed

 

[chessrock]

But what insinuation should I draw from these comments?

That sonusman is a sphinkterboy.

 

[M.Brane]

Why not? You just said you're cheapo 4-track sounds so much better, and all that "dollar-for-dollar" stuff. I'm confused!

Well, lets see....

My "cheapo" 4-track cost me about $350, and I've got about $1K into my DAW. The 4-track does sound better, but the difference isn't glaring. It's not even something you notice right away. At first listen the DAW sounds much cleaner but after an hour or so becomes very tiring and I feel the need to step outside and have a smoke, play with the dog , etc.

When I work on the 4-track I can record/mix for hours and not even realise it. Of course a lot of that time is spent winding tape. That's one area where digital definately has the edge, and it's a big one. Especially if you have limited time to work.

Don't you find it interesting that back in the days when analog was king much time and effort was spent trying to reduce noise in recordings, and now that digital is the way we have to add noise to our audio to make it sound better?

There is more to good sound than a black background.

 

[sjoko2]

somehow..somewhere...I think some people are talking about somewhat different things here.
I used to have a boombox with a cassette player

 

[knightfly]

Now that the Jerry Springer show is dead, I'm sure glad we get threads like this - I really missed the senseless fights and cheap setups... :=)

 

[volltreffer]

What I read here is a bunch of morons who underestimate the power of sound, and the ears ability to hear minute detail.
.
.
.
You same guys who claim all this crap gear is so "capable" are the same one's who start in on the ol' "why don't I get the same "depth" and "warmth" as big time recordings?" and the like. It is basically pathetic. It is not JUST the gear, it is your limited experience hearing anything that actually sounds good! But here you go discounting what professionals, LONG TERM professionals in the field say about audio.



Long before I ever read anything ol' Rubert had to say about higher sampling rates, I had discussions on this board about how I felt the audio just sounded more "natural" at higher sampling rates. Everyone argued that higher bit depth was the key. Great, now you all have "supposed" 24 bit capabilities in your garbage gear. You know what? The mp3's I am hearing don't sound 8 bits better!

Maybe I am just too cynical these days reading this crap on these boards! Oh well, I read your guys crap, you can read a little of mine now. Mock what professionals who have worked in this field (some of who have worked in this field than some of you who mock them have been alive!) if you will. You lose my respect (I know, like you care...)

Digital sucks ass. The "good" digital is as out of your price range as the supposed "good" analog is. Given the lower end choices, I will pick most analog any day of the week. Most chicks agree!

Ed

Jeez...

If you compare what you get in the area people talk about when they talk about cheap digital stuff is a used vs880, vf08 or something like that. I don't know if you know, but you can get these thingies for something like 300 bucks. If you wanna buy an analog recorder plus some effects for the same price, you'll prolly end up with a used 8track cassette thing - if you're lucky. I assume you'll get a used porta 05, one cheap verb and a behringer EQ... Yeah you won't need any compression as you drive the thingy into saturation... Alas prolly the heads will be completely ruined, but who cares... I would not wanna record with this equipment, but I did with a 880ex... You may laugh at me, but I think that it's much easier to learn what you're doing, as you have the UNDO... I'm not really sure whether you even had contact with these guys who stand out with completely muffled mid-range-only records who state that thats the cool 'phat analogue sound'. Why don't they record through phone lines? Would give the fat analogue, too. I own a tascam and have always had problems to get a decent sound with it. Now I own a vs and it is MUCH easier... Sure, you have a kind of 'earthy' sound, but I the impression that everything above 6-8k is lost at least after one bounce... I have to admit that I might be getting on with it much better now, as some ideas like getting some depth by bouncing the 'farer' tracks at first may even help in this... But I think that a lot of the 'less tiring' that many people hear in CHEAP (<500$) analog gear is just the using too much high end on analog, that is so easy.

I have also heard stuff done on four tracks that was incredibly good, but alas, I'm not capable of this... You have to know too much what to do from the first moment...

I totally agree with you on one thing - the ignorance of people who are laughing about everything they don't understand (which may be much) is annoying... I'm not sure whether I would hear a difference to standard cd, but 'my ear is my concern'... But hey there were normal jokes there.. I don't think these people try to throw shit on these engineers...

Ciao,

aXel

 

[James Argo]

...damn, every engineer in town I asked what's differences between analog & digital ? You know what they said...?


...if it sounds HISSSSS.....

and HUMMMMM.....

simply it's analog.

Otherwise, it's digital.

 

[chessrock]

You want a quick, easy way to make a digital mix sound "analog?"

Pull out your EQ, set it at 2,000 hz with a very wide Q setting . . . as wide as you can get, and cut 2-3 db.

Better yet, multiband compress the same range; very short attack and a little longer release. Total reduction of no more than 2-3 db.

Pow! Instand analog.

That's a very oversimplified version of how analog tape tends to compress some of the higher mid frequencies, particularly on the transients (snare, attack of guitar pick, hi-hat, etc) in order to smoothen out some of the rough sonic edges and lessen ear fatigue.

There, I just saved you thousands of dollars you would have spent on that Fatso Jr.

 

[jet-rocker]

I just felt the need to add that I am firmly entrenched in Suck Ass Audio.

P.S. Chess-don't you have any work to do during the day.
I'm telling your boss.

-Jett

 

[pipelineaudio]

boy oh boy! you are gonna make sonusman go ballistic I think chessrock.

How about when an arrogant sweetwater salseman, Nika Aldrich called Rupert Neve's stuff into question huh ? According to Nika, 44k 16 bit digital is perfect, 100 % nothing to be gained by higher sampling rates

somehow I dont see anyone buying Nika Brand Mic pre's 40 years from now but my Neve 1081's are just fine thank you

 

[sonusman]

That sonusman is a sphinkterboy.

Is that all? I am disappointed....

I want to hear some recordings where you just put a MB comp on the audio like you described! LOL....that is rich!!! In the spirit of santamas, hohohohohohohohohoho....

Nika is an idiot....so is what's his name...oh yeah, Roger Nichols....

Ed

 

[Gidge]

Bruce, for once I understand your point...and actually agree......

I dont see how this thread turned into this clusterfuck.....

 

[Sennheiser]

I understood his point about six months ago. That's why I ditched the Porta and moved up to something better.

Not 2" better, but heading in the right direction.

 

[mixmkr]

Funny pokes there chessrock and mixmkr.

But what insinuation should I draw from these comments? Are you prepared to go there?

Ed

Ed...I am prepared to go anywhere with a good "discussion".

I personally thought those equipment remarks kinda hit home a little bit, but we both know that the equipment is secondary.

but lemme ask you...

1. Have you ever patched an Arp 2600?
2. Can you tell me the difference between the 2500 and 2600 as far as patching?
3. Have you ever recorded a Minimoog?
4. Have you ever aligned a 2" multitrack?
5. Have you ever switched headstacks on a multitrack?
6. Have you ever sync'd two analog multi's together?
7. Can you tell me the freq. of a slate tone and where it might be found on a "real" board?
8. Can you tell me how an 1176 physically hooks up?
9. Have you ever used more than 2 1176's at once?
10. Have you ever used a C12?...and experimented with the polar patterns?
12. Who makes a 666 mic?

etc, etc... probably very easy questions and situations you might have been in and also, very dated questions, but certainly still state of the art. However, I would tend to think that you would have a tough time answering with a "yes", or the answer with most of these questions, but I can tell I've "been" there too... so climb off your self assumed God-like posture. You are not there yet. If you wanna dish out shit, are YOU prepared to go there? You're good at what you do, I've liked much of the stuff I've heard from you (although not that much material actually), but your head is getting bigger than your ass. When you think about it, we're all smucks in this recording game, you and me included, and you have a right to be proud of what you have done. To start telling people that they have cinder blocks for ears, and implying we are all dumb shits... well.... so we all are..including yourself.

 

[chessrock]

I want to hear some recordings where you just put a MB comp on the audio like you described!

Yea, I'll post some examples for ya . . . after I hear how much better your next job sounds mastered to 1/8" memorex on a Realistic cassette deck. That'll be even richer,

. . . Sphincterboy.

 

[junplugged]

I once asked a question whether nor not one could hear the difference between recorded, mixed and mastered audio that was then converted to CD quality vs. all digital. Some kind folks said that they could. Then there's that massive thread on that other board getting into the nitty gritty about the details and human response, etc. Well, one thing we could all probably agree on is how much worse must it be to go from analog to digital wave file and then, hold on, to mp3. Or, anything from .wav to .mp3. And all it's dirty little flavors. Or rates down from 256 or whatever. In a world where so many people are listening to mp3's in their cars, no wonder the roads are so unsafe these days. Ok, now lets go to radio. FM vs. AM, ouch. Remember AM? Is there any way to get good analogue in the car?

It's Friday night, no one should be posting. Go out and support local music. I am on my way, bye.