Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
ChrisCoaster ChrisCoaster is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 409
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,481
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
ChrisCoaster ChrisCoaster is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 409
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
ChrisCoaster ChrisCoaster is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 409
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
mcp6453[_2_] mcp6453[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 749
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Marc Wielage[_2_] Marc Wielage[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 249
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
philicorda[_9_] philicorda[_9_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 61
Default 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

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
industry stats ...? daz diamond Pro Audio 0 October 12th 05 11:22 AM
samplitude in the industry? jdobb2001 Pro Audio 19 January 16th 05 01:58 PM
Industry Resources [email protected] Pro Audio 0 December 18th 04 09:48 PM
Some Industry News ryanm Pro Audio 1 April 1st 04 10:01 PM
Music Industry in UK Kortex3 Pro Audio 7 October 6th 03 04:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:26 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"