Zoom H6
"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
But, you're doing precisely what is friend is doing: making
recordings without
a standardized reference.
--scott
OK, as I just told George, I have made the statement a few times here
and elsewhere that it ain't a recording until it gets played back,
and you can't tell what someone else that you send it to will hear on
it. This could open up a whole nuther side discussion, describing the
sound of a recording or the sound of some particular system.
Gary, I think you may be missing the point. Monitoring for recording has
one
objective, ergo there are speakers that are optimized for that process.
Monitoring for mastering (e.g. your concept of "playback") has another.
Those with a lot of experience can extrapolate what they hear on the
recording monitors to get very close prior to mastering, because they know
what the mics they've chosen, placement they've used, etc. will deliver.
In
the days of tape machines, you can add tape formulations, machine quirks,
etc. into that process.
I suspect that it is that level of experience that others have suggested
that you have yet to acquire.
Yes, I do the same thing, but after it's all over with I take the finished
product out into the listening room and listen for the effects that I think
my techniques should have in the mike placement etc. In particular, I love
the sense of space that the best recordings can relate. I also understand a
recording engineer's need to hear only what the channels are doing and
balance them by listening to more nearfield monitors so you can better "hear
the microphones." Don't know if there is a term for it, but that is how I
would describe the process. It doesn't tell you how it will sound on the
best home systems, but if your experience is of any benefit, you know what
will happen thru the various playback systems, including iPods and cars.
Gary Eickmeier
|