Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default which way is cheaper...

I'm in the process of seting up a home based recording studio. I have a
simple question. In your opinion, is it cheaper and easier, to have a
analog based or digital recording studio, as far as. should I have a
mixer connected to my computer and have all plug-in's on a recording
program, or is it better to set every thing up, and have a room full of
racks.

thanks

  #2   Report Post  
Paul Stamler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message
ups.com...
I'm in the process of seting up a home based recording studio. I have a
simple question. In your opinion, is it cheaper and easier, to have a
analog based or digital recording studio, as far as. should I have a
mixer connected to my computer and have all plug-in's on a recording
program, or is it better to set every thing up, and have a room full of
racks.


What are you planning to record, how are you planning to record it (track at
a time or everyone playing at once), what is the intended product (demos,
CD-Rs to hawk at gigs, or fully-produced CDs)?

Peace,
Paul


  #4   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message
ups.com
I'm in the process of seting up a home based recording

studio.
I have a simple question. In your opinion, is it cheaper

and
easier, to have a analog based or digital recording

studio, as
far as.


Probably digital.

should I have a mixer connected to my computer and
have all plug-in's on a recording program,


Welcome to the 21st century!

or is it better to
set every thing up, and have a room full of racks.


Most people who have that, do so for historic reasons.


  #5   Report Post  
Zigakly
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'm in the process of seting up a home based recording studio. I have a
simple question. In your opinion, is it cheaper and easier, to have a
analog based or digital recording studio, as far as. should I have a
mixer connected to my computer and have all plug-in's on a recording
program, or is it better to set every thing up, and have a room full of
racks.


There are about 50,000 answers to that question, most starting with "Go with
digital, but..."

The three most important equipment categories to any recording studio are
the mics, preamps, and monitors. Generally those should represent about 80%
of your budget. If you go cheap on those, all the fancy hardware and pretty
software in the world won't fix what they lack.

Starting from scratch, look into Rode mics, FMR RNP preamps, and research
the hell out of monitors, find a set that lets you hear the most subtle
changes to a mix, not just a good sounding speaker. Some folks mix great on
a $300 set of Behringer Truth's, some can't settle for less than $1800
Dynaudio's. Find out where you fit on that scale.

Revisit the overall system configuration once you figure out how much money
you'll have left, and the types of recordings you'll be doing certainly
comes into play. Accommodating drums doubles the cost of the hardware, for
example.




  #8   Report Post  
Predrag Trpkov
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
ups.com



or is it better to
set every thing up, and have a room full of racks.


Most people who have that, do so for historic reasons.



Most people's favorite albums, soundwise, seem to be the ones recorded and
mixed that way, in the rooms full of racks. True, most of them were recorded
before the advent of modern integrated "in-the-box" all-digital technology.
However, the albums done the "traditional" way still represent the majority
of the comparatively rare recent examples of true sonic excellence.

Now you can call the reasons for that "historic" or even "nostalgic". I'd
personally rather use the terms "pragmatic" and "esthetic".

Predrag


  #9   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Predrag Trpkov" wrote
in
message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


wrote in message
ups.com


or is it better to
set every thing up, and have a room full of racks.


Most people who have that, do so for historic reasons.


Most people's favorite albums, soundwise, seem to be the

ones
recorded and mixed that way, in the rooms full of racks.

True,
most of them were recorded before the advent of modern
integrated "in-the-box" all-digital technology. However,

the
albums done the "traditional" way still represent the

majority
of the comparatively rare recent examples of true sonic
excellence.


Choices that are made in the absence of significantly
different alternatives, which is what all this history is,
aren't really choices at all.

Now you can call the reasons for that "historic" or even
"nostalgic". I'd personally rather use the terms

"pragmatic"
and "esthetic".


The pragmatism lies in the fact that so many of the modern
alternatives were simply not available, or in many cases not
even thought of when the recordings in question were made.

Contemplate what would have happened if a PC with an onboard
sound card and modern recording software had showed up in
1948.



  #10   Report Post  
Predrag Trpkov
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Predrag Trpkov" wrote
in
message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


wrote in message
ups.com


or is it better to
set every thing up, and have a room full of racks.


Most people who have that, do so for historic reasons.


Most people's favorite albums, soundwise, seem to be the

ones
recorded and mixed that way, in the rooms full of racks.

True,
most of them were recorded before the advent of modern
integrated "in-the-box" all-digital technology. However,

the
albums done the "traditional" way still represent the

majority
of the comparatively rare recent examples of true sonic
excellence.


Choices that are made in the absence of significantly
different alternatives, which is what all this history is,
aren't really choices at all.




You keep insisting on history, Arny. Let's talk about today. We have
significantly different alternatives today, don't we? One of them produces
exceptional, sweetest-sounding, sonically most pleasing results far more
consistently than the other(s). I believe that's what makes it the prevalent
choice of audio professionals in pursue of the ultimate in overall sound
quality. Not the historic reasons as you're trying to dismiss it.



Now you can call the reasons for that "historic" or even
"nostalgic". I'd personally rather use the terms

"pragmatic"
and "esthetic".


The pragmatism lies in the fact that so many of the modern
alternatives were simply not available, or in many cases not
even thought of when the recordings in question were made.




I think we are all fortunate for that. But that's history. We have
alternatives now. And yet most of the RNSA (Really Nice Sounding Albums) are
still produced using essentially the same technology as 20 years ago, using
the combination of analog and digital equipment and mixing through an analog
console. In spite of ever-increasing pressure on recording budgets and the
presence of already mature, widely-accepted, less costly and more
maintenance-friendly "in-the-box" alternative, the one you so passionately
promote.



Contemplate what would have happened if a PC with an onboard
sound card and modern recording software had showed up in
1948.



Music would have probably been the playground/battlefield of objectivists,
subjectivists, DBT-ists and other scientific types. As an art form it would
have been as exclusive and exciting as reading the telephone book.

Even if there would have been such thing as rec.audio.pro there's no way I
would have been here today. But you surely would have. Probably a much
happier person too.

I feel your pain.

Predrag




  #12   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Predrag Trpkov" wrote
in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...



Choices that are made in the absence of significantly
different alternatives, which is what all this history

is,
aren't really choices at all.


You keep insisting on history, Arny. Let's talk about

today.
We have significantly different alternatives today, don't

we?
One of them produces exceptional, sweetest-sounding,

sonically
most pleasing results far more consistently than the

other(s).

That would be your opinion, Predrag. Guess what, not
everybody agrees with you or I.

I believe that's what makes it the prevalent choice of

audio
professionals in pursue of the ultimate in overall sound
quality. Not the historic reasons as you're trying to

dismiss
it.


Well, anything that starts out "I believe" without any hard
data to back it up is like a religious belief. Far be it
from me to criticize your religion, Predrag.

Now you can call the reasons for that "historic" or even
"nostalgic". I'd personally rather use the terms

"pragmatic"
and "esthetic".


The pragmatism lies in the fact that so many of the

modern
alternatives were simply not available, or in many cases

not
even thought of when the recordings in question were

made.

I think we are all fortunate for that.


But that's history. We have alternatives now.


Alternatives are good. If nothing else they lead to choice
and choice is good.

And yet most of the RNSA (Really Nice
Sounding Albums) are still produced using essentially the

same
technology as 20 years ago, using the combination of

analog
and digital equipment and mixing through an analog

console.

And your independently-audited survey results are where,
Predrag?

In spite of ever-increasing pressure on recording budgets

and the
presence of already mature, widely-accepted, less costly

and
more maintenance-friendly "in-the-box" alternative, the

one
you so passionately promote.


Predrag, do you know the difference between an unfounded
assertion and a reliable fact, or do I need to help you
clarify that in your mind?

Contemplate what would have happened if a PC with an

onboard
sound card and modern recording software had showed up in
1948.


Music would have probably been the playground/battlefield

of
objectivists, subjectivists, DBT-ists and other scientific
types. As an art form it would have been as exclusive and
exciting as reading the telephone book.


I think this is a far better predictor of your religious
beliefs Predrag, than it is a prediction of what would
actually happen.

Even if there would have been such thing as rec.audio.pro
there's no way I would have been here today. But you

surely
would have. Probably a much happier person too.


Delusions of omniscience noted.

I feel your pain.


Then you feel very little, Predrag. Just because modern
technology is against your particular religion, doesn't mean
that we all agree.


  #14   Report Post  
Predrag Trpkov
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Predrag Trpkov" wrote
in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...



Choices that are made in the absence of significantly
different alternatives, which is what all this history

is,
aren't really choices at all.


You keep insisting on history, Arny. Let's talk about

today.
We have significantly different alternatives today, don't

we?
One of them produces exceptional, sweetest-sounding,

sonically
most pleasing results far more consistently than the

other(s).

That would be your opinion, Predrag. Guess what, not
everybody agrees with you or I.




I'm glad you realize that we're discussing opinions here.




I believe that's what makes it the prevalent choice of

audio
professionals in pursue of the ultimate in overall sound
quality. Not the historic reasons as you're trying to

dismiss
it.


Well, anything that starts out "I believe" without any hard
data to back it up is like a religious belief. Far be it
from me to criticize your religion, Predrag.




Just because you don't start your sentences with "I believe" does not make
it any more factual.



Now you can call the reasons for that "historic" or even
"nostalgic". I'd personally rather use the terms
"pragmatic"
and "esthetic".


The pragmatism lies in the fact that so many of the

modern
alternatives were simply not available, or in many cases

not
even thought of when the recordings in question were

made.

I think we are all fortunate for that.


But that's history. We have alternatives now.


Alternatives are good. If nothing else they lead to choice
and choice is good.

And yet most of the RNSA (Really Nice
Sounding Albums) are still produced using essentially the

same
technology as 20 years ago, using the combination of

analog
and digital equipment and mixing through an analog

console.

And your independently-audited survey results are where,
Predrag?




Several threads below, for starters. I'm sure they won't be independent
enough or blind enough or sufficiently scientific for your tastes, but who
cares. It's all about opinions anyway, as you correctly noticed at the
beginning of your reply (and then conveniently forgot about it).



In spite of ever-increasing pressure on recording budgets

and the
presence of already mature, widely-accepted, less costly

and
more maintenance-friendly "in-the-box" alternative, the

one
you so passionately promote.


Predrag, do you know the difference between an unfounded
assertion and a reliable fact, or do I need to help you
clarify that in your mind?




Oh, and a moment ago you said you wouldn't "criticize my religion". Ts,
ts...

Nevertheless, I can't refuse your generous offer. Please help me clarify the
difference between an unfounded assertion and a reliable fact. Let me
suggest an example. It's a recent claim by the great pro audio thinker A.
Krueger. When asked: "(Should I have a mixer connected to my computer and
have all plug-in's on a recording program) or is it better to set every
thing up, and have a room full of racks?" he promptly delivered one of his
anthological replies:

"Most people who have that, do so for historic reasons."

Now everybody knows all to well that A. Krueger would never spit out an
unfounded assertion. After all, he's the one who constantly accuses others
of doing exactly that. He himself deals exclusively with Hard Facts, doesn't
he? So please tell me where exactly the factual wisdom lies hidden in these
ten words and a comma.



Contemplate what would have happened if a PC with an

onboard
sound card and modern recording software had showed up in
1948.


Music would have probably been the playground/battlefield

of
objectivists, subjectivists, DBT-ists and other scientific
types. As an art form it would have been as exclusive and
exciting as reading the telephone book.


I think this is a far better predictor of your religious
beliefs Predrag, than it is a prediction of what would
actually happen.

Even if there would have been such thing as rec.audio.pro
there's no way I would have been here today. But you

surely
would have. Probably a much happier person too.


Delusions of omniscience noted.

I feel your pain.


Then you feel very little, Predrag. Just because modern
technology is against your particular religion, doesn't mean
that we all agree.



Modern technology is not against my particular religion, on the contrary,
but just because your premises are wrong, Arny, doesn't mean that you can't
draw a correct conclusion. Isn't logic beautiful?

Predrag


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
Searching for cheap(er) audio-codec Claudio Großner Pro Audio 3 April 8th 05 11:20 AM
is it cheaper to buy a new receiver or get it fixed? Rob High End Audio 1 January 11th 05 02:27 AM
is it cheaper to buy a new receiver or get it fixed? Rob Tech 1 January 9th 05 12:29 PM
is it cheaper to buy a new receiver or get it fixed? Rob Audio Opinions 3 January 9th 05 05:50 AM
cheaper PRo tools systems....when?????? Erik Gavriluk Pro Audio 7 November 19th 03 02:49 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:27 PM.

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"