Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
On Feb 22, 3:06*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
wrote: On Feb 19, 2:51=A0pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: No, actually that's not what they are trying to tell you. =A0They're trying to tell you that there is no absolute reference to judge anything by. And, except in the special case of classical music and other acoustic music for which you have a concert hall reference, that is the case. That leaves me quite disenfranchised, espescially coming from the likes of you, whose input on these boards I regard higher than that of most contributers here. *Sighhhh. *No absolutes, no benchmarks. *Lets just throw all systems of mesurement, of height/length, of temperature - and loudness. Throw it all out!! *Eveything is personal preference. If. a $15 Fisher Price record player with 3-inch mono speaker moves one to tears while a $5,000 rack of components does nothing for them, that's A-OK! Frankly, this sounds to me more to be a good argument for listening to classical music than for buying crappy equipment. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." _________ Not just classical. Jack Johnson, Dennis Chambers and Grover Washington Jr still care(d) what their product sounds like. They're all filed in my 'Reference' playlist. -CC |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
ChrisCoaster wrote:
Not just classical. Jack Johnson, Dennis Chambers and Grover Washington Jr still care(d) what their product sounds like. They're all filed in my 'Reference' playlist. Right, but none of them sound realistic, they aren't supposed to sound like they do in the studio. All the Grover Washington stuff I know, at least the later stuff, sounds very close-miked. The horn is in your face and you can hear the valve noise. Doesn't sound like that in a concert hall. It is a very artificial sound environment. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
Scott Dorsey wrote:
ChrisCoaster wrote: Not just classical. Jack Johnson, Dennis Chambers and Grover Washington Jr still care(d) what their product sounds like. They're all filed in my 'Reference' playlist. Right, but none of them sound realistic, they aren't supposed to sound like they do in the studio. All the Grover Washington stuff I know, at least the later stuff, sounds very close-miked. The horn is in your face and you can hear the valve noise. Doesn't sound like that in a concert hall. It is a very artificial sound environment. --scott Didn'y Winelight boast use of the (then new) Aphex Aural Exciter ? Did he manage to kick the habit ? geoff |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
On Feb 23, 9:37*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
wrote: Not just classical. *Jack Johnson, Dennis Chambers and Grover Washington Jr still care(d) what their product sounds like. *They're all filed in my 'Reference' playlist. Right, but none of them sound realistic, they aren't supposed to sound like they do in the studio. All the Grover Washington stuff I know, at least the later stuff, sounds very close-miked. *The horn is in your face and you can hear the valve noise. *Doesn't sound like that in a concert hall. *It is a very artificial sound environment. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ______ At least it sounds as though it's never been near a compressor. . Dynamic range and fidelity do count for a lot. A little clinical, yes. Would be interesting to hear a coincident pair of that same performance in a decent sized hall. -CC |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
On Feb 23, 9:37*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
wrote: Not just classical. *Jack Johnson, Dennis Chambers and Grover Washington Jr still care(d) what their product sounds like. *They're all filed in my 'Reference' playlist. Right, but none of them sound realistic, they aren't supposed to sound like they do in the studio. All the Grover Washington stuff I know, at least the later stuff, sounds very close-miked. *The horn is in your face and you can hear the valve noise. *Doesn't sound like that in a concert hall. *It is a very artificial sound environment. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ______ And also speaking of close-miked: Do you have a technique for keeping performers' lips off the microphones? LOL. I'm thinking about dipping a few screens in deer or skunk scent. Seriously! CC |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
On 2/24/2012 7:31 AM, ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Feb 23, 9:37 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: ChrisCoaster wrote: Not just classical. Jack Johnson, Dennis Chambers and Grover Washington Jr still care(d) what their product sounds like. They're all filed in my 'Reference' playlist. Right, but none of them sound realistic, they aren't supposed to sound like they do in the studio. All the Grover Washington stuff I know, at least the later stuff, sounds very close-miked. The horn is in your face and you can hear the valve noise. Doesn't sound like that in a concert hall. It is a very artificial sound environment. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ______ And also speaking of close-miked: Do you have a technique for keeping performers' lips off the microphones? LOL. I'm thinking about dipping a few screens in deer or skunk scent. Seriously! Poor grounding? Foam windscreen? |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
ChrisCoaster wrote:
And also speaking of close-miked: Do you have a technique for keeping performers' lips off the microphones? LOL. I'm thinking about dipping a few screens in deer or skunk scent. Seriously! 1. Get them monitors so they can hear what is really going on when they get up close. 90% of the bad mike technique is a side effect of bad monitoring (and sometimes many years of bad monitoring). And get the backline levels down. 2. Yell at them in rehearsal a lot. 3. If all else fails, get one of the huge pop screens from Olsen, which are about half a foot in diameter. You just plain cannot get close enough to the mike to pop it. 4. Give them a crappy vocal mike and then put a 441 about a foot away. Use the 441 feed in the mains. Note that this only works for groups with sane backline levels. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 04:31:20 -0800, ChrisCoaster wrote
(in article ): And also speaking of close-miked: Do you have a technique for keeping performers' lips off the microphones? LOL. I'm thinking about dipping a few screens in deer or skunk scent. Seriously! ------------------------------snip------------------------------ I know of people who have literally gaffer-taped pencils to the grill, so that performers will poke themselves in the mouths if they get too close. Realistically, a pop-stopper would probably be the best way. The trick for me is to get inexperienced people not to weave back and forth, and stay on-mike 100% of the time. I've thought of using nails to pound their feet to the floor, but haven't done that yet. --MFW |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Industry rags
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 17:10:07 -0500, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 2/12/2012 11:41 AM, philicorda wrote: Sound on Sound is great, and has some very interesting original articles. I particularly enjoy the 'classic tracks' thing they have been doing recently. They take a famous song or album and analyse it from a recording point of view, including new interviews with the original engineers, producers and artists. Mix has been doing "Classic Tracks" for years, but Sound on Sound's goes into a lot more detail about the sessions whereas the Mix version is stronger on history. The Sound on Sound one on The Special's 'Ghost Town' was brilliant. I don't enjoy reading the reviews of music gear though. Software and equipment is often so complicated nowadays that most of the article is often just spent explaining what it does. This is why I enjoy reading some reviews - because it explains what something that I don't know about does. I don't usually bother to read reviews of mics or compressors or preamps because I'm not in the market for any more of them. But since it seems that every new computer audio interface has a little different schtick, I like to read those to see why this one is different from the last one - and they often really are. It's more that I can easily download the manual and get a description from a manufacturer's web-site, and generally hear sound examples too. So anything I can learn there is a bit redundant in a review. This wasn't the case when I started out, but the reviewing style hasn't changed all that much. I agree that explaining how a product differs from what has gone before is useful. Saying how the product differs from the manufacturer's description is important too. Sometimes you can get something out of a review that's useful general knowledge, perhaps as a technique. For example, a lot of these new dynamics processing boxes are coming out with a parallel unprocessed signal path that can be mixed in with the processed path. A few sentences of how that can be useful can teach the reader that he can do the same thing with the stuff that he already has, and that it might be worth a try some time. That is certainly useful, but it doesn't tell me much about the product being reviewed. I would say though that most of what I actually need to buy for my studio at the moment is pretty boring, so I do perhaps read reviews for entertainment and enlightenment. Tape-Op tends to assume the reader already has some idea, which makes the reviews more interesting. Sometimes, though, they assume too much, particularly assuming that people recognize names, often nicknames, of programs, plug-ins, and even hardware. I usually know what they're talking about when they write "We used a 57 3 inches off center" (a Shure SM-57 in front of the speaker of an instrument amplifier) but a novice might need all the words. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
industry stats ...? | Pro Audio | |||
samplitude in the industry? | Pro Audio | |||
Industry Resources | Pro Audio | |||
Some Industry News | Pro Audio | |||
Music Industry in UK | Pro Audio |