[Eeyore]

Meindert Sprang wrote:

"Ron Capik" wrote in message
"Roy W. Rising" wrote:

"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

Not always. Sometimes it's about artistic choices ...else
guitar amps and such wouldn't exist.

But it is a funny phenomenom though, that people are looking for absolutely
the lowest distortion figures yet at the same time love the "warm" sound of
certain pres, tube amplifiers and the like, caused by a distortion which is
apparently so big that it can be heard.....

It certainly amuses me, not least when ppl claim that the colouration is
'purer' !

Graham

[Eeyore]

Ron Capik wrote:

As Mr. Clinton might have put it, ...I have never made distortion with that
tube.

LMAO ! Maybe just a 'little bit' ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

hank alrich wrote:

Roy W. Rising wrote:

C'mon, folks ... let's get over distortion and do our best to make
recordings that convey the greatest purity of sound possible. That's what
we hear in acoustical performances ... and we do keep coming back for more.

There is a reason people want both Millenia and Doug Fearn pres.
Sometimes it's the choice of lens filter that allows the camera to
capture the desired detail.

Or smear it ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

Lorin David Schultz wrote:

Depending on the project, I think there's room for accepting some
deliberate tone-shaping in the role of audio engineer.

That's what we exist to do !

Graham

[Eeyore]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Ron Capik wrote:

Just what is it that made the old Mackie EQ such a dog?

It's designed to look good on paper ?


If you find out you can get a paper out of it. Why does a passive EQ network sound better to me
than the reversed-version of the same network in the feedback path of an op-amp?

Why is the 'best EQ' I know dependent on higher order filters than first ?

Graham

[Paul Stamler]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
. ..
Arny Krueger wrote:

I bought a set of his CDs. I found that relevant variables were not
controlled. For example, each of the tests I heard was a different
musical
performance.

I've suggested some ways around that in the past -- a music box as a
small-scall source, or a player piano as a wider-range one. Ideally, one of
the fancy Yamaha player grands.

It's an interesting testing problem, isn't it? There seems to be almost
no way to control _all_ variables at once.

It is tough, yes.

Peace,
Paul

[Paul Stamler]

"Mick" wrote in message
...
In article , says...
Try it with a shunt resistor in a barrel connector! The idea is Paul
Stamler's
and not mine, but it can make dynamics sound a whole lot better into
cheaper
consoles.

Are you talking about putting a 600-ohm resistor between the
+ and - terminals (not from + or - to ground)? I want to try
this and see what the difference is. It seems one might warn
against turning on phantom power with this here, though. I
understand this is for dynamics only; however, most cheap mixers
don't have a phantom power switch on each channel, and if you
have it turned on because of something in another channel, it'll
be applied to all of them.

It won't matter. Phantom is applied to the + and - terminals equally, and
the resistor's connected between the + and - terminals as well, so there's
no DC voltage difference between the two ends of the resistor. Therefore, no
current flows, and the resistor doesn't disrupt anything.

The two easiest ways to try it:

1) Get an XLR barrel connector, male at one end, female at the other, and
connect pin 1 F to pin 1 M, pin 2 F to pin 2 M and pin 3 F to pin 3 M, but
also connect the resistor between pins 2 & 3 M. (Why M? Because on some
connectors, particularly Switchcraft, it's easier.)

2) Get (or make) a short XLR cable, normal wiring, and add the resistor
between pins 2 & 3 at the M end.

You can do it for somewhere between 8 and 15 bucks depending on the
connectors you buy, if you make the cable yourself. Or you can do it for the
cost of the cable plus a minuscule cost for the resistor. Easy and cheap
enough to try, and I suspect you'll like the results.

Peace,
Paul

[Laurence Payne]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 03:44:38 GMT, (hank alrich)
wrote:


You get around it by having your own voice louder than I want mine in
the headphones. So you are confirming exactly what Mike said: you insist
it isn't a problem because that's the way you want to deliver headphone
mixes. If you were tracking me you would either get it right by figuring
out how to get around it, or you wouldn't get to track me, and I'd want
an immediate refund, because you would quite obviously not be the pro
you represented yourself to be.

It really is that simple. We have ****loads of people who seem to think
it's the engieers job to rule the ****ing recording roost. Wrong. It's
the engineer's job to work things such that talent is accomodated, even
if they aren't deaf enough to want your prefered headphone levels.


So you're a performer, and you prefer a low voice mix in the cans.
That IS what you're saying? You're not a recoding engineer supporting
a theoretical concept?

Of course I can feed a singer a mix in which his voice goes through no
digital stage at all. It's the way I always HAD to work, before
low-latency digital systems. If the problem arises, I will.

If you're not new here, you'll know me as a longstanding critic of
engineer-power :-) And of the sort of recording techniques that
require a vocalist to be in a different place (at a different time
even) to the other musicians.

[Mike Rivers]

Laurence Payne wrote:

So you're a performer, and you prefer a low voice mix in the cans.
That IS what you're saying? You're not a recoding engineer supporting
a theoretical concept?

Hank is both. When he's an engineer, he gives the clients what they
want. When he's an artist being recorded by someone else, he speaks up
if he hears something that bothers him. If it's a big deal and the
engineer can't fix it, then he finds someone or some place where he
doesn't have to put up with an inadequate system. Not everyone is that
fussy, and most are willing to be accommodating. But it becomes one
more "pretty good for the price" thing when the studio time is cheap
but there's just something not right.

Of course I can feed a singer a mix in which his voice goes through no
digital stage at all. It's the way I always HAD to work, before
low-latency digital systems. If the problem arises, I will.

Fine, but many facilities today simply don't have the hardware to do
that. And even if they do, without understanding the problem and the
reason behind it, they may not recognize that they have a solution but
just don't know (how) to use it.

[reddred]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
.. .
reddred wrote:

I just don't have a good recording environment.

Me neither. The cardioid dynamic is my best friend.

And a hypercard dynamic, such as the Senn MD441, might like you even
better. g

--
ha

Actually, sometimes, when the birds stop chirping, I pull out a condenser
g

jb

[Arny Krueger]

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message

"hank alrich" wrote in message
. ..
Arny Krueger wrote:

I bought a set of his CDs. I found that relevant
variables were not controlled. For example, each of the
tests I heard was a different musical performance.

I've suggested some ways around that in the past -- a
music box as a small-scall source, or a player piano as a
wider-range one. Ideally, one of the fancy Yamaha player
grands.

Or, a really good speaker playing a really good recording.

It's an interesting testing problem, isn't it? There
seems to be almost no way to control _all_ variables at
once.

It is tough, yes.

IME you can't make everybody happy.

It's also true that there is still enough fanciful thinking going around
that any really interesting test will rain on someone's parade and then some
will clutch at straws.

[Arny Krueger]

"Roy W. Rising" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote:
"hank alrich" wrote in message

Roy W. Rising wrote:

hank alrich wrote:
Roy W. Rising wrote:

OK. Let's say I have the setup to A/B identical
recordings made through Mackie preamps and some
highly acclaimed stand-alone preamps. Just what
differences would I be likely to hear?

Folks have actually done that. Look for Lynn Fuston's
preamp comparisons.

I bought a set of his CDs. I found that relevant
variables were not controlled. For example, each of the
tests I heard was a different musical performance.

So it's really no comparison test at all!

Let's put it this way - it is easy enough to hear differences among the
signal sources, which can obscure hearing differences among the various
signal paths.

[Scott Dorsey]

Eeyore wrote:

Why is the 'best EQ' I know dependent on higher order filters than first ?

Best for what? I like a nice wide filter for some things. Not everything,
but some things.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Roy W. Rising]

Eeyore wrote:
"Roy W. Rising" wrote:

Yup. EQ 'structure'. The precise phase and amplitude response of the
EQ. An area where digital really struggles to match analog.

Graham

So, as with so many other subjective issues in audio, the "sound" of an
EQ relates to its Electrical Phase Distortion. The purity of
zero-phase digital EQs can't be "heard". Rupert Neve mused that the
popularity of his channel strips was due to the Harmonic Distortion in
the transformers.

It's not distortion. I said phase and amplitude response. Also think of
the Q of the filters in the LF and HF as well as mid range.

Why do you think the classic 'British EQ' sound is so pervasive that
everyone is now copying it ? I don't know how well it's copied btw.

Graham

Unless the EQ introduces NO phase shift, it most certainly IS Electrical
Phase DISTORTION. It changes the relationship of the harmonics to the
fundamental. Calling it "phase response" doesn't correlate with "amplitude
response" ... an EQ's amplitude response, and the adjusment thereof, is
exactly what an equalizer is made to do. The Q simply determines the
slope, and with analog EQ, the EPD gets nasty when the slope exceeds
6dB/octave.

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Roy W. Rising]

Eeyore wrote:
Meindert Sprang wrote:

"Ron Capik" wrote in message
"Roy W. Rising" wrote:

"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

Not always. Sometimes it's about artistic choices ...else
guitar amps and such wouldn't exist.

But it is a funny phenomenom though, that people are looking for
absolutely the lowest distortion figures yet at the same time love the
"warm" sound of certain pres, tube amplifiers and the like, caused by a
distortion which is apparently so big that it can be heard.....

It certainly amuses me, not least when ppl claim that the colouration is
'purer' !

Graham
I use that saying because noticing "the sound" distracts from whatever the
program is meant to convey. When it's music, the artist usually wants the
listener to experience the whole, without being distracted from it by
singularities of the sound tapestry.

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Paul Stamler]

"Roy W. Rising" wrote in message
...

But it is a funny phenomenom though, that people are looking for
absolutely the lowest distortion figures yet at the same time love the
"warm" sound of certain pres, tube amplifiers and the like, caused by
a
distortion which is apparently so big that it can be heard.....

It certainly amuses me, not least when ppl claim that the colouration is
'purer' !

Graham
I use that saying because noticing "the sound" distracts from whatever the
program is meant to convey. When it's music, the artist usually wants the
listener to experience the whole, without being distracted from it by
singularities of the sound tapestry.

Depends on the artist. Most of the folks I work with prefer that, but some
embrace the recording technology as an extension of their instrument/voice,
including obvious manipulation. An example of such an artist would be John
Lennon, who included all sorts of obvious artifacts in his vocal recordings
because he liked them -- e.g., the deliberately overloaded preamp on "I Am
the Walrus".

Peace,
Paul

[Julien Bernier]

Paul Stamler wrote:
"Roy W. Rising" wrote in message
...

But it is a funny phenomenom though, that people are looking for
absolutely the lowest distortion figures yet at the same time love the
"warm" sound of certain pres, tube amplifiers and the like, caused by
a
distortion which is apparently so big that it can be heard.....

It certainly amuses me, not least when ppl claim that the colouration is
'purer' !

Graham
I use that saying because noticing "the sound" distracts from whatever the
program is meant to convey. When it's music, the artist usually wants the
listener to experience the whole, without being distracted from it by
singularities of the sound tapestry.

Depends on the artist. Most of the folks I work with prefer that, but some
embrace the recording technology as an extension of their instrument/voice,
including obvious manipulation. An example of such an artist would be John
Lennon, who included all sorts of obvious artifacts in his vocal recordings
because he liked them -- e.g., the deliberately overloaded preamp on "I Am
the Walrus".

Peace,
Paul

I totally agree on that. At some point, the engineer must do what the
artist wants. If an artist wants to have this kind of sound or another,
it's our job to make it sound good even with that. We can also suggest
alternatives though.

[iliace]

I bought a Behringer SL3242FX, which is in that price range. It works
great. No preamp noise to speak of, and fairly easy to set up and
manipulate i/o. I've used it with Firepod for recording, and it's
perfect for live mixing on a budget.

Julien Bernier wrote:
I currently own an Alto L-8 mixer
http://www.altoproaudio.com/html/details.php?ID=91&
(Which in fact I would not recommend to anyone... The preamps are bad
/very noisy)

So whatever, I now want to replace it, and I saw a Mackie Onyx 1220
that looks pretty good for the price. My budget is about 600$, what
would you recommend in this price range.

Do you like the Onyx 1220?
Thanks!

[Roy W. Rising]

"iliace" wrote:
I bought a Behringer SL3242FX, which is in that price range. It works
great. No preamp noise to speak of, and fairly easy to set up and
manipulate i/o. I've used it with Firepod for recording, and it's
perfect for live mixing on a budget.

Julien Bernier wrote:
I currently own an Alto L-8 mixer
http://www.altoproaudio.com/html/details.php?ID=91&
(Which in fact I would not recommend to anyone... The preamps are bad
/very noisy)

So whatever, I now want to replace it, and I saw a Mackie Onyx 1220
that looks pretty good for the price. My budget is about 600$, what
would you recommend in this price range.

Do you like the Onyx 1220?
Thanks!

Well ... at last someone who has no problem using a Behringer mixer! I
hope the boutique preamp snobs will take notice.

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[hank alrich]

Roy W. Rising wrote:

"iliace" wrote:
I bought a Behringer SL3242FX, which is in that price range. It works
great. No preamp noise to speak of, and fairly easy to set up and
manipulate i/o. I've used it with Firepod for recording, and it's
perfect for live mixing on a budget.

Julien Bernier wrote:
I currently own an Alto L-8 mixer
http://www.altoproaudio.com/html/details.php?ID=91&
(Which in fact I would not recommend to anyone... The preamps are bad
/very noisy)

So whatever, I now want to replace it, and I saw a Mackie Onyx 1220
that looks pretty good for the price. My budget is about 600$, what
would you recommend in this price range.

Do you like the Onyx 1220?
Thanks!

Well ... at last someone who has no problem using a Behringer mixer! I
hope the boutique preamp snobs will take notice.

Ain't seen a Beri analog desk yet that is anywhere near as useful as the
Mackie Onyx line. I have happily spec'd some little Beri boards in a few
installs, and they work fine for noncritical applications.

--
ha

[Lorin David Schultz]

Roy W. Rising wrote:

Well ... at last someone who has no problem using a Behringer
mixer! I hope the boutique preamp snobs will take notice.


Oh come on Roy, some people are perfectly happy with the sound of their
bookshelf stereo systems too. Does that mean there's no place for
higher quality speakers? It's a ridiculous conclusion.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)