"philicorda" wrote in message
news
Rather than thinking of home studios as competition though, I have been
thinking about how to integrate what I can offer with the way people work
at home. Namely, doing what is impractical for them.

IMO that's a brilliant idea... you've probably heard the expression
"there's riches in niches", and if you can create that niche for yourself
in your area, you should do well.
--


Neil Henderson
Saqqara Records
http://www.saqqararecords.com


..

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...


Paul Stamler wrote:

"sycochkn" wrote in message
k.net...

A parametric equalizer on each mic before conversion would probably be a
good idea.


It'd help out the peakiness of the microphone, but not the
high-frequency
distortion, which is where some of the harshness comes from, and which
stimulates more misbehavior down the line.

How do you define high frequency distortion? Technically, I
mean, not how it sounds.

Nonlinearity in the circuit which causes high frequencies to cross-modulate
one another, producing sum-and-difference frequencies. I hear it in a lot of
cheap condenser microphones, more so in cheap mike preamps. Also in the EQ
and summing stages of cheap mixers.

Peace,
Paul



Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...


Paul Stamler wrote:

"sycochkn" wrote in message
k.net...

A parametric equalizer on each mic before conversion would probably be a
good idea.


It'd help out the peakiness of the microphone, but not the
high-frequency
distortion, which is where some of the harshness comes from, and which
stimulates more misbehavior down the line.

How do you define high frequency distortion? Technically, I
mean, not how it sounds.

Nonlinearity in the circuit which causes high frequencies to cross-modulate
one another, producing sum-and-difference frequencies. I hear it in a lot of
cheap condenser microphones, more so in cheap mike preamps. Also in the EQ
and summing stages of cheap mixers.

Peace,
Paul



Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

In article "Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com writes:

I have a friend who's a music copyist for a living.

I fully expected that story to end "so now she's using Sibelius and making
even more money because she's more productive." But your ending is good too.
Even with Finale's fancy fonts, it's not the same as what a good copyist
does. Or a good draftsman or any other good artist. The key word being
"art."

Actually I think she's using Finale, but she goes through it and
corrects it with her copyist's eye. Without some prodding, it doesn't
make adjustments that a copyist would. By using Finale, she can
produce output that the publishers can use directly rather than have
to scan graphically, so in that sense, it improves her efficiency.

I recently sent a resume to one of our favorite audio gear companies
who was looking for a technical writer. They were looking for someone
with experience using Word (reasonable for a writer) as well as Adobe
Illustrator and Photoshop as well as some other tools. As it turned
out, they wanted to hire someone at the entry salary level. I figure
that there are more people with experience using graphics programs
willing to work at an entry salary than there are people like you and
me and a few others who can understand how things work and explain
them in reasonably plain language.

Similarly, there are more people who can play the guitar than can
translate that into a well produced musical CD.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article "Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com writes:

I have a friend who's a music copyist for a living.

I fully expected that story to end "so now she's using Sibelius and making
even more money because she's more productive." But your ending is good too.
Even with Finale's fancy fonts, it's not the same as what a good copyist
does. Or a good draftsman or any other good artist. The key word being
"art."

Actually I think she's using Finale, but she goes through it and
corrects it with her copyist's eye. Without some prodding, it doesn't
make adjustments that a copyist would. By using Finale, she can
produce output that the publishers can use directly rather than have
to scan graphically, so in that sense, it improves her efficiency.

I recently sent a resume to one of our favorite audio gear companies
who was looking for a technical writer. They were looking for someone
with experience using Word (reasonable for a writer) as well as Adobe
Illustrator and Photoshop as well as some other tools. As it turned
out, they wanted to hire someone at the entry salary level. I figure
that there are more people with experience using graphics programs
willing to work at an entry salary than there are people like you and
me and a few others who can understand how things work and explain
them in reasonably plain language.

Similarly, there are more people who can play the guitar than can
translate that into a well produced musical CD.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

(Mike Rivers) wrote in message news:znr1094342991k@trad...

Before the advent of DTP, "professional-looking" documents could only
be produced on specialised equipment by skilled operators at vast
expense. When DTP came along, the skilled operators pooh-poohed it. At
first, they were right. But any fool could see that the potential was
there.

The problem was that people who had no experience with graphic design
or layout started making flyers with every font in the list on them.
They had the tools and learned to use them fairly quickly, but didn't
know the principles that made those tools necessary. Today people list
microphones and software that they have, and, although they've been
playing music for years, have "only just" started recording. But with
all of those great tools, surely their recordings ought to sound
better.

No disagreement here, Mike. In fact I went on to say as much. The
point I'm trying to make is that amateurs are usually mistaken if they
think their gear is the limiting factor. Like newbie DTP operators,
they should learn the principles and the techniques before they blame
their gear for their failures. Consumer gear nowadays can give
astonishingly good results, used properly.

Raglan

(Mike Rivers) wrote in message news:znr1094342991k@trad...

Before the advent of DTP, "professional-looking" documents could only
be produced on specialised equipment by skilled operators at vast
expense. When DTP came along, the skilled operators pooh-poohed it. At
first, they were right. But any fool could see that the potential was
there.

The problem was that people who had no experience with graphic design
or layout started making flyers with every font in the list on them.
They had the tools and learned to use them fairly quickly, but didn't
know the principles that made those tools necessary. Today people list
microphones and software that they have, and, although they've been
playing music for years, have "only just" started recording. But with
all of those great tools, surely their recordings ought to sound
better.

No disagreement here, Mike. In fact I went on to say as much. The
point I'm trying to make is that amateurs are usually mistaken if they
think their gear is the limiting factor. Like newbie DTP operators,
they should learn the principles and the techniques before they blame
their gear for their failures. Consumer gear nowadays can give
astonishingly good results, used properly.

Raglan

"Preben Friis" wrote:


"Harvey Gerst" wrote:
For the millionth time, here is the start of the FAQ for this group.
Please note the absence of the word "production":

According to Google you are far from a million yet... - but I stand
corrected.

*bows to the pope*

Preben,

In the interest of reconciliation and world peace (and in an effort to get
closer to my millionth post), I would suggest that "production" is an interegal
part of our professional world, and is quite acceptable here as a subheading of
the group's original intent.

Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/

"Preben Friis" wrote:


"Harvey Gerst" wrote:
For the millionth time, here is the start of the FAQ for this group.
Please note the absence of the word "production":

According to Google you are far from a million yet... - but I stand
corrected.

*bows to the pope*

Preben,

In the interest of reconciliation and world peace (and in an effort to get
closer to my millionth post), I would suggest that "production" is an interegal
part of our professional world, and is quite acceptable here as a subheading of
the group's original intent.

Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/

In the interest of reconciliation and world peace (and in an effort to get
closer to my millionth post),

Yeah, yeah, reconciliation & world peace are nice, but the important thing here
is getting to the millionth post. Can't it just be ordained as a Papal miracle?

I would suggest that "production" is an interegal
part of our professional world, and is quite acceptable here as a subheading of
the group's original intent.


Hear Hear! It hath been Papally spoke.
OK everybody?
Scott Fraser

In the interest of reconciliation and world peace (and in an effort to get
closer to my millionth post),

Yeah, yeah, reconciliation & world peace are nice, but the important thing here
is getting to the millionth post. Can't it just be ordained as a Papal miracle?

I would suggest that "production" is an interegal
part of our professional world, and is quite acceptable here as a subheading of
the group's original intent.


Hear Hear! It hath been Papally spoke.
OK everybody?
Scott Fraser

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 20:14:18 -0400, sycochkn wrote
(in article t):

A parametric equalizer on each mic before conversion would probably be a
good idea.

Bob

That's exactly what I want all my competition to do!

And please follow it up with an Alesis 3060 compressor.

The crucial issue here is right in the subject; "good enough." If you can't
tell the difference, then It's good enough. If you can, well, that's a
different story.

If you're making simple recordings and you don't expect them to be of any
major consequence in the future, what you use and how you record is also of
no major consequence.

I have had he pleasure of the company of a number of local small studio
owners here at my place. We enjoy good fellowship. On any number of occasions
they have brought their new chinese LD condensers to discuss and compare.

As I show them the process I use to compare mics for articles I write, they
quickly become aware of the differences because I show them what to listen
for. The process is not a secret. I published it years ago on ProSoundWeb.com
and those files are still up there last time I checked. Of course you need AT
LEAST one very good mic and two good channels of preamp ( and a clean line to
headphones and monitors afterwards) to make that sort of comparison.

On the issue of two bads canceling each other; I've had a number of chinese
condenser mics sound "less bad" through a Mackie 1604 than through GML, Aphex
1100 or Millennnia Media preamps. However, I haven't found that "two bads"
get close to "two goods."

Well that's not entirely true. When stuck in front of a guitar amp with half
a dozen pedals (or even one amp with a nasty distortion setting (nasty being
an unbiased descriptor) the right mic preamp combination becomes less of a
factor.

When recording pure sounds, especially those at low level, however, the "two
bads" have yet to win against "two goods."

Regards,

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 20:14:18 -0400, sycochkn wrote
(in article t):

A parametric equalizer on each mic before conversion would probably be a
good idea.

Bob

That's exactly what I want all my competition to do!

And please follow it up with an Alesis 3060 compressor.

The crucial issue here is right in the subject; "good enough." If you can't
tell the difference, then It's good enough. If you can, well, that's a
different story.

If you're making simple recordings and you don't expect them to be of any
major consequence in the future, what you use and how you record is also of
no major consequence.

I have had he pleasure of the company of a number of local small studio
owners here at my place. We enjoy good fellowship. On any number of occasions
they have brought their new chinese LD condensers to discuss and compare.

As I show them the process I use to compare mics for articles I write, they
quickly become aware of the differences because I show them what to listen
for. The process is not a secret. I published it years ago on ProSoundWeb.com
and those files are still up there last time I checked. Of course you need AT
LEAST one very good mic and two good channels of preamp ( and a clean line to
headphones and monitors afterwards) to make that sort of comparison.

On the issue of two bads canceling each other; I've had a number of chinese
condenser mics sound "less bad" through a Mackie 1604 than through GML, Aphex
1100 or Millennnia Media preamps. However, I haven't found that "two bads"
get close to "two goods."

Well that's not entirely true. When stuck in front of a guitar amp with half
a dozen pedals (or even one amp with a nasty distortion setting (nasty being
an unbiased descriptor) the right mic preamp combination becomes less of a
factor.

When recording pure sounds, especially those at low level, however, the "two
bads" have yet to win against "two goods."

Regards,

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 14:50:27 -0400, Mike Rivers wrote
(in article znr1094314712k@trad):


In article . net
writes:

I wonder if anyone has done & published blind comparisons of recordings made
on consumer/prosumer level gear -vs- high-end gear both recorded and
listened to in the same environment by people who know what they're doing to
see how many times out of x number of tracks that pro's a/or Joe Listener
can tell the difference.

I'm not sure what the point of that would be other than as an
experiment. High end gear is used for high end projects involving high
end musicians, high end engineers, and high end producers. While some
of the High End Engineers or Producers use an M-box on their laptop at
home or on an airplane to edit and do some rough mixes, that's not the
final product, ever, unless it's one of those "the music is just so
good we had to release it for the publicity" stunts.

I've made those comparisons routinely in almost every mic review I've done.
You don't need blind testing to hear selfnoise and distortion differences of
that order. The difference is extremely obvious.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 14:50:27 -0400, Mike Rivers wrote
(in article znr1094314712k@trad):


In article . net
writes:

I wonder if anyone has done & published blind comparisons of recordings made
on consumer/prosumer level gear -vs- high-end gear both recorded and
listened to in the same environment by people who know what they're doing to
see how many times out of x number of tracks that pro's a/or Joe Listener
can tell the difference.

I'm not sure what the point of that would be other than as an
experiment. High end gear is used for high end projects involving high
end musicians, high end engineers, and high end producers. While some
of the High End Engineers or Producers use an M-box on their laptop at
home or on an airplane to edit and do some rough mixes, that's not the
final product, ever, unless it's one of those "the music is just so
good we had to release it for the publicity" stunts.

I've made those comparisons routinely in almost every mic review I've done.
You don't need blind testing to hear selfnoise and distortion differences of
that order. The difference is extremely obvious.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 09:41:35 -0400, Mike Rivers wrote
(in article znr1094382400k@trad):

The problem is that some people think that boxes with knobs (or software) is
what's necessary in order to make something better. Sometimes that's the
case, but often it isn't. And it's so easy to go so far down the wrong path
when you have all of that power that you don't realize that you're making
things worse until you find that the pieces still don't fit togethe

A verity!

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 09:41:35 -0400, Mike Rivers wrote
(in article znr1094382400k@trad):

The problem is that some people think that boxes with knobs (or software) is
what's necessary in order to make something better. Sometimes that's the
case, but often it isn't. And it's so easy to go so far down the wrong path
when you have all of that power that you don't realize that you're making
things worse until you find that the pieces still don't fit togethe

A verity!

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 15:34:32 -0400, Raglan wrote
(in article ):

And so it is with audio. Instead of dissing the cheap gear to maintain their
competitive advantage, I suggest the pros should consider embracing it, while

emphasising what is their real selling point -- the skill and experience they

bring to operating it.

At the present time, the audio pros seem to be where the print compositors
were in 1990 -- arguing endlessly about how many angels could dance on a
1200dpi imagesetter.

Raglan

Again, if you can't hear the difference, it doesn't really matter. If you
can, it does.

One might counter with tasking the "other than pros" (since that's who you
are counter referencing) to improve the acuity of their listening so that
they can hear the difference themselves rather than going on about how the
difference is negligible.

OTOH, please DO continue to use whatever you want.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 15:34:32 -0400, Raglan wrote
(in article ):

And so it is with audio. Instead of dissing the cheap gear to maintain their
competitive advantage, I suggest the pros should consider embracing it, while

emphasising what is their real selling point -- the skill and experience they

bring to operating it.

At the present time, the audio pros seem to be where the print compositors
were in 1990 -- arguing endlessly about how many angels could dance on a
1200dpi imagesetter.

Raglan

Again, if you can't hear the difference, it doesn't really matter. If you
can, it does.

One might counter with tasking the "other than pros" (since that's who you
are counter referencing) to improve the acuity of their listening so that
they can hear the difference themselves rather than going on about how the
difference is negligible.

OTOH, please DO continue to use whatever you want.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 00:50:13 -0400, Raglan wrote
(in article ):

"J&L" wrote in message
news:0Cm_c.144652$Lj.74165@fed1read03...
This thread is horse ****.

[snip]

The review compareing a MXL gibson mic to a u87.. Nuff said..

Now for some U87 heresy. I've never had a chance to tinker with such a
mic, but I suspect the situation is similar to the reverence that many
electric guitarists have for the holy Gibson PAF pickup.

There's nothing intrinsically great about a PAF. It's just that the
sound of the PAF has become a familiar defining characteristic of a
certain style of music, a certain guitar tone.

But you don't actually need a vintage PAF to get that tone, or so
close that it doesn't matter. A cheap copy, like a Duncan
whatever-it-is or an Ibanez Super-58, will do the trick. There are
more variances in guitars, amplifiers etc than there are between those
two pickups.

Raglan

Until you do have the ability to "tinker" with a U 87 with the right preamp
and in the right environment and used by someone who knows where to put it,
you really shouldn't make any sort of parallels.

That's a central issue in this string. You can't know if you haven't been
there.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 00:50:13 -0400, Raglan wrote
(in article ):

"J&L" wrote in message
news:0Cm_c.144652$Lj.74165@fed1read03...
This thread is horse ****.

[snip]

The review compareing a MXL gibson mic to a u87.. Nuff said..

Now for some U87 heresy. I've never had a chance to tinker with such a
mic, but I suspect the situation is similar to the reverence that many
electric guitarists have for the holy Gibson PAF pickup.

There's nothing intrinsically great about a PAF. It's just that the
sound of the PAF has become a familiar defining characteristic of a
certain style of music, a certain guitar tone.

But you don't actually need a vintage PAF to get that tone, or so
close that it doesn't matter. A cheap copy, like a Duncan
whatever-it-is or an Ibanez Super-58, will do the trick. There are
more variances in guitars, amplifiers etc than there are between those
two pickups.

Raglan

Until you do have the ability to "tinker" with a U 87 with the right preamp
and in the right environment and used by someone who knows where to put it,
you really shouldn't make any sort of parallels.

That's a central issue in this string. You can't know if you haven't been
there.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 23:49:51 -0400, Raglan wrote
(in article ):

"Ted Lachance" wrote in message
news:Nhn_c.290329$eM2.10508@attbi_s51...
Excellent post, and one question:

What are the special problems of digital you are referring to?


First and most obviously, the problem of setting levels without
clipping or, at the other extreme, wasting bits and getting a grainy
result. Learning to judge according to source how much compression is
the right amount to offset those difficulties without creating further
problems. Then, maintaining a proper gain structure within the digital
domain. It's all more critical than analogue; even brief peak
overloads are ruinous.

I agree

Second, the rather audible degradation that results when you first go
berserk with plugins and other digital processing in the naive belief
that "there's no quality loss with digital". The rounding/truncation
errors, I suppose they are, become troublesome surprisingly quickly,
especially with dodgy software. I sprung for the Waves plugins and
moved to 24-bit recording a couple of years ago and this problem has
largely gone away, even with fairly heavy processing. But I've been
meaning to run some 16-bit/24-bit tests to see whether the 24-bit part
of the solution is just superstition.

Still with you.

Then there's the famous "brittleness" problem, which is at least
partly just the lack of warmth produced by a recording medium lacking
the pleasant distortions of tape.

Now we diverge. The brittleness is a combination of many things. The two most
obvious are; Overly bright mics and Poor quality A/D conversion. Following
that are the unwise use of plugins and outboard devices.

Finally, and related, the lack of flattery of the source produced by
grimly accurate recordings. Microphone choice becomes more important,
I think.

We remain diverged. In cases where the job is to record a sound source with
reasonably pure tones, one can not expect a brittle sounding mic to record
anything but its brittleness.


Another poster has mentioned that one shortcoming of cheap gear is an
additive brightness/brittleness. This is true, to a degree, but it
depends on your choices of gear. Which is one reason I rather like my
cheap Chinese dbx compressor: it has the opposite effect.

Raglan

We remain diverged. The thought that two bad pieces of gear improve the sound
falls apart quickly when the results are compared to that of two good
sounding pieces of gear.

Regards,

Ty Ford




-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 23:49:51 -0400, Raglan wrote
(in article ):

"Ted Lachance" wrote in message
news:Nhn_c.290329$eM2.10508@attbi_s51...
Excellent post, and one question:

What are the special problems of digital you are referring to?


First and most obviously, the problem of setting levels without
clipping or, at the other extreme, wasting bits and getting a grainy
result. Learning to judge according to source how much compression is
the right amount to offset those difficulties without creating further
problems. Then, maintaining a proper gain structure within the digital
domain. It's all more critical than analogue; even brief peak
overloads are ruinous.

I agree

Second, the rather audible degradation that results when you first go
berserk with plugins and other digital processing in the naive belief
that "there's no quality loss with digital". The rounding/truncation
errors, I suppose they are, become troublesome surprisingly quickly,
especially with dodgy software. I sprung for the Waves plugins and
moved to 24-bit recording a couple of years ago and this problem has
largely gone away, even with fairly heavy processing. But I've been
meaning to run some 16-bit/24-bit tests to see whether the 24-bit part
of the solution is just superstition.

Still with you.

Then there's the famous "brittleness" problem, which is at least
partly just the lack of warmth produced by a recording medium lacking
the pleasant distortions of tape.

Now we diverge. The brittleness is a combination of many things. The two most
obvious are; Overly bright mics and Poor quality A/D conversion. Following
that are the unwise use of plugins and outboard devices.

Finally, and related, the lack of flattery of the source produced by
grimly accurate recordings. Microphone choice becomes more important,
I think.

We remain diverged. In cases where the job is to record a sound source with
reasonably pure tones, one can not expect a brittle sounding mic to record
anything but its brittleness.


Another poster has mentioned that one shortcoming of cheap gear is an
additive brightness/brittleness. This is true, to a degree, but it
depends on your choices of gear. Which is one reason I rather like my
cheap Chinese dbx compressor: it has the opposite effect.

Raglan

We remain diverged. The thought that two bad pieces of gear improve the sound
falls apart quickly when the results are compared to that of two good
sounding pieces of gear.

Regards,

Ty Ford




-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

In article writes:

...Then there's the famous "brittleness" problem, which is at least
partly just the lack of warmth produced by a recording medium lacking
the pleasant distortions of tape.

This is bullcrap. Cheezey analog tape recorders had the same problem, wimpy
power supplies that crap out when hit with high powered low frequency
signals such as kick drums. There's also a problem with cheezy digital
converters that create artifacts that sound like a buzzsaw when you apply
any high frequency eq.

What people don't realize today is that recording using a $200 sound
card through a $300 mixer with a $100 mic is just the modern day
equivalent of recording with the $500 Wollensak and the mic that came
with it. Great for learning and experimenting, but you wouldn't make a
for-sale product on it.

You can quote distortion and frequency response and signal-to-noise
ratio all you want, and demonstrate that today's home recording setup
is many times better than home recording in 1955, but home recording
is still home recording.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

...Then there's the famous "brittleness" problem, which is at least
partly just the lack of warmth produced by a recording medium lacking
the pleasant distortions of tape.

This is bullcrap. Cheezey analog tape recorders had the same problem, wimpy
power supplies that crap out when hit with high powered low frequency
signals such as kick drums. There's also a problem with cheezy digital
converters that create artifacts that sound like a buzzsaw when you apply
any high frequency eq.

What people don't realize today is that recording using a $200 sound
card through a $300 mixer with a $100 mic is just the modern day
equivalent of recording with the $500 Wollensak and the mic that came
with it. Great for learning and experimenting, but you wouldn't make a
for-sale product on it.

You can quote distortion and frequency response and signal-to-noise
ratio all you want, and demonstrate that today's home recording setup
is many times better than home recording in 1955, but home recording
is still home recording.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

And it's so easy to go
so far down the wrong path when you have all of that power that you
don't realize that you're making things worse until you find that the
pieces still don't fit together.



Perfectly said


Leon

And it's so easy to go
so far down the wrong path when you have all of that power that you
don't realize that you're making things worse until you find that the
pieces still don't fit together.



Perfectly said


Leon

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 09:52:25 -0400, Bob Olhsson wrote
(in article ):

"Raglan" wrote in message
m...
"Ted Lachance" wrote in message
news:Nhn_c.290329$eM2.10508@attbi_s51...
...Then there's the famous "brittleness" problem, which is at least
partly just the lack of warmth produced by a recording medium lacking
the pleasant distortions of tape.

This is bullcrap. Cheezey analog tape recorders had the same problem, wimpy
power supplies that crap out when hit with high powered low frequency
signals such as kick drums. There's also a problem with cheezy digital
converters that create artifacts that sound like a buzzsaw when you apply
any high frequency eq. Adding "warmth" only adds to the mud. --
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com

Another set of valuable truisms.

Regards,

Ty Ford





-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 09:52:25 -0400, Bob Olhsson wrote
(in article ):

"Raglan" wrote in message
m...
"Ted Lachance" wrote in message
news:Nhn_c.290329$eM2.10508@attbi_s51...
...Then there's the famous "brittleness" problem, which is at least
partly just the lack of warmth produced by a recording medium lacking
the pleasant distortions of tape.

This is bullcrap. Cheezey analog tape recorders had the same problem, wimpy
power supplies that crap out when hit with high powered low frequency
signals such as kick drums. There's also a problem with cheezy digital
converters that create artifacts that sound like a buzzsaw when you apply
any high frequency eq. Adding "warmth" only adds to the mud. --
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com

Another set of valuable truisms.

Regards,

Ty Ford





-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 18:09:52 -0400, dt king wrote
(in article Q2r_c.103595$9d6.666@attbi_s54):

"Raglan" wrote in message
m...
If you're a home recordist, I have a suggestion -- stop stressing out
about your gear. It's probably fine. The signal path is more than
likely capable of getting fairly close to megastudio quality even if
all your equipment is just prosumer-level stuff. If your recordings
sound crap, the reason is probably your technique, not the
shortcomings of the gear.

The vast majority of my listeners are downloading MP3s. I could be tracking
on a pocket dictation recorder and the difference would be barely audible.
If audio quality was the first consideration for consumers, $30 blasters
wouldn't have their own shelf at KMart.

dtk



Fine, then continue to work as you will. Just don't pee on my leg and try to
tell me it's raining.

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 18:09:52 -0400, dt king wrote
(in article Q2r_c.103595$9d6.666@attbi_s54):

"Raglan" wrote in message
m...
If you're a home recordist, I have a suggestion -- stop stressing out
about your gear. It's probably fine. The signal path is more than
likely capable of getting fairly close to megastudio quality even if
all your equipment is just prosumer-level stuff. If your recordings
sound crap, the reason is probably your technique, not the
shortcomings of the gear.

The vast majority of my listeners are downloading MP3s. I could be tracking
on a pocket dictation recorder and the difference would be barely audible.
If audio quality was the first consideration for consumers, $30 blasters
wouldn't have their own shelf at KMart.

dtk



Fine, then continue to work as you will. Just don't pee on my leg and try to
tell me it's raining.

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

This is simple.


You have a camera that is 1 mega pixel and built for cost effeciancy
(makie-beringer)

You have a camera that is 6 mega pixels and built to provide the most
vibrant colors (great river/manley)

When you try to publish a magazine to asume that your 1 mega pixel device is
High enuff quality to make the entire magazine compete with the guys using
the 6 mega pixels cams. is crazy. asuming both guys have the same amount of
talent. It also can be compared to monitor resolution 640 in no way
compares to 1024. maybe on a cheap tv but that is it. and if your watching
on that cheap tv and say "it looks the same" your only getting half the
picture and the guy with the hi-def tv is gonna be going "whats the hell is
this crap?

Telling people you can shoot a cinematica quality movie with your home video
camera is in essence what this thread is trying to do.



Regards

Leon

This is simple.


You have a camera that is 1 mega pixel and built for cost effeciancy
(makie-beringer)

You have a camera that is 6 mega pixels and built to provide the most
vibrant colors (great river/manley)

When you try to publish a magazine to asume that your 1 mega pixel device is
High enuff quality to make the entire magazine compete with the guys using
the 6 mega pixels cams. is crazy. asuming both guys have the same amount of
talent. It also can be compared to monitor resolution 640 in no way
compares to 1024. maybe on a cheap tv but that is it. and if your watching
on that cheap tv and say "it looks the same" your only getting half the
picture and the guy with the hi-def tv is gonna be going "whats the hell is
this crap?

Telling people you can shoot a cinematica quality movie with your home video
camera is in essence what this thread is trying to do.



Regards

Leon

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote

The problem was that people who had no experience with graphic design or
layout started making flyers with every font in the list on them.

Yes. I agree with Raglan's analogy, but you really nailed it. An amateur
trying to produce a professional looking brochure or magazine ad and an
amateur trying to produce a great recording is an exact parallel. Which
further proves the notion that it's not the tools but the operator's talent.

Exactly. And I did say as much, though not as clearly.

Raglan

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote

The problem was that people who had no experience with graphic design or
layout started making flyers with every font in the list on them.

Yes. I agree with Raglan's analogy, but you really nailed it. An amateur
trying to produce a professional looking brochure or magazine ad and an
amateur trying to produce a great recording is an exact parallel. Which
further proves the notion that it's not the tools but the operator's talent.

Exactly. And I did say as much, though not as clearly.

Raglan

J&L wrote:

This is simple.


You have a camera that is 1 mega pixel and built for cost effeciancy
(makie-beringer)

You have a camera that is 6 mega pixels and built to provide the most
vibrant colors (great river/manley)

Interesting analogy but not in the least bit appropriate.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

J&L wrote:

This is simple.


You have a camera that is 1 mega pixel and built for cost effeciancy
(makie-beringer)

You have a camera that is 6 mega pixels and built to provide the most
vibrant colors (great river/manley)

Interesting analogy but not in the least bit appropriate.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Ty Ford wrote:


Fine, then continue to work as you will. Just don't pee on my leg and try to
tell me it's raining.

Ty, why do you need to be so derisive? The truth remains
that a vanishing few in the target market are going to be
able to discern a difference between the gear that mostly
just presents a barrier to entry and the stuff that is near
the sharp knee of diminishing returns, which is where well
selected low cost gear is these days.

I think this leaves things exactly where they belong, with
the artistic sense of all the people involved rather than
being a function of the depth of anyone's pockets. Anyone
who doesn't think the playing field has been made remarkably
level isn't listening to what is being produced on the lower
cost gear.

Why is it that people never comment on what mic was used on
a recording unless they know it from some other way than
listening?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Ty Ford wrote:


Fine, then continue to work as you will. Just don't pee on my leg and try to
tell me it's raining.

Ty, why do you need to be so derisive? The truth remains
that a vanishing few in the target market are going to be
able to discern a difference between the gear that mostly
just presents a barrier to entry and the stuff that is near
the sharp knee of diminishing returns, which is where well
selected low cost gear is these days.

I think this leaves things exactly where they belong, with
the artistic sense of all the people involved rather than
being a function of the depth of anyone's pockets. Anyone
who doesn't think the playing field has been made remarkably
level isn't listening to what is being produced on the lower
cost gear.

Why is it that people never comment on what mic was used on
a recording unless they know it from some other way than
listening?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...


J&L wrote:

This is simple.


You have a camera that is 1 mega pixel and built for cost effeciancy
(makie-beringer)

You have a camera that is 6 mega pixels and built to provide the most
vibrant colors (great river/manley)

Interesting analogy but not in the least bit appropriate.

It was good when 4-tracks were popular. It's just a decade out of date now.

dtk