Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
anahata wrote:
wrote: 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. In order to even begin to answer the question, it would help tremendously to know what you are planning to record. The requirements are different if you a a) a singer/songwriter wanting to get your tunes down, b) a full band wanting to produce high quality demos, c) an electronica composer, d) a rapper/dj, e) a voice over actor...I think you can see what I'm getting at here. Define what you want to record, give us some specifics to work with and the folks around here can be very helpful. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"SSJVCmag" wrote in message
On 6/30/05 8:44 AM, in article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Contemplate what would have happened if a PC with an onboard sound card and modern recording software had showed up in 1948. " He's a witch! Burn 'im!" Actually, given the other potential uses for such a powerful tool at the time, the chance of it being used to record music would be pretty slim. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Searching for cheap(er) audio-codec | Pro Audio | |||
is it cheaper to buy a new receiver or get it fixed? | High End Audio | |||
is it cheaper to buy a new receiver or get it fixed? | Tech | |||
is it cheaper to buy a new receiver or get it fixed? | Audio Opinions | |||
cheaper PRo tools systems....when?????? | Pro Audio |