| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
|
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
On 2011-01-28 said: OR, more relevant to our discussion, you threw away your mixing console, all your audio processing, and the tape transport controls. NOw instead of paying attention to capturing audio and capturing good sounding audio you're concentrating on the tools, and learning to use them. WHere's that counfounded aux send again! All you want to do is fly in a slap echo on the last note the vocalist sings and you spend 45 minutes playing arrrgh. In large part this speaks to the primitive state of documentation. And when there is documentation, often it's stupidly skewed by a software engineering point of view that's irrelevant to the workflows of audio. INdeed, and at least for this old fart's brain, counterintiuitive. WAs talking to a guy the other day who was trying to sell me on his idea of the best digital console for the remote truck, the larger frame presonus. SO I ask him what hte digital interface is, and he keeps talking about if I need to fly in backing tracks from pt for the performers. I told him that boat wouldn't fly. Might be very analog-like, but the fw does me no good, I"ve still got to haul all that copper in snakes inside. NOw give me the ability to ship digital signals down cat and .. THen there's all the "pages" of faders. hmmm I sitll wonder if any of these folks with their pages of faders ever worked with two people at a console. What happens if your faders are on one "page" and mine are on another grin. Yeah I know, the theory is one guy can babysit the whole thing. I still maintain that a lot of the guys doing some of this stuff don't really understand the workflow for capturing 24 tracks, as it's happening right now. THeir tools work great for the guy writing songs and creating arrangements, or the smaller overdub session. LIke you I think the tools will get better over time as they always do, but I think we're forgetting to realy find out how us old guys use 'em. Richard webb, replace anything before at with elspider ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
In article , wrote:
WAs talking to a guy the other day who was trying to sell me on his idea of the best digital console for the remote truck, the larger frame presonus. SO I ask him what hte digital interface is, and he keeps talking about if I need to fly in backing tracks from pt for the performers. I told him that boat wouldn't fly. Might be very analog-like, but the fw does me no good, I"ve still got to haul all that copper in snakes inside. NOw give me the ability to ship digital signals down cat and .. Sounds like what you want is a Neve Capricorn. It's the right tool for the job, with a remote preamp and A/D rack that lets you run a very thin fibre cable from the splitter rack to the truck. THen there's all the "pages" of faders. hmmm I sitll wonder if any of these folks with their pages of faders ever worked with two people at a console. What happens if your faders are on one "page" and mine are on another grin. Yeah I know, the theory is one guy can babysit the whole thing. The pages are actually good for festival jobs; I tend to use them as one way of keeping two different configurations on the same console. But yes, they can be confusing and I have screwed up more than once. I still maintain that a lot of the guys doing some of this stuff don't really understand the workflow for capturing 24 tracks, as it's happening right now. THeir tools work great for the guy writing songs and creating arrangements, or the smaller overdub session. That's because what used to be the standard workflow is becoming increasingly rare, and fewer and fewer people are really used to working that way. And that is the biggest tragedy of the whole thing if you ask me. LIke you I think the tools will get better over time as they always do, but I think we're forgetting to realy find out how us old guys use 'em. They'll get worse before they get better, and while electronics get cheaper and cheaper every day, switches and faders and metalwork just go up. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , wrote: WAs talking to a guy the other day who was trying to sell me on his idea of the best digital console for the remote truck, the larger frame presonus. SO I ask him what hte digital interface is, and he keeps talking about if I need to fly in backing tracks from pt for the performers. I told him that boat wouldn't fly. Might be very analog-like, but the fw does me no good, I"ve still got to haul all that copper in snakes inside. NOw give me the ability to ship digital signals down cat and .. Sounds like what you want is a Neve Capricorn. It's the right tool for the job, with a remote preamp and A/D rack that lets you run a very thin fibre cable from the splitter rack to the truck. THen there's all the "pages" of faders. hmmm I sitll wonder if any of these folks with their pages of faders ever worked with two people at a console. What happens if your faders are on one "page" and mine are on another grin. Yeah I know, the theory is one guy can babysit the whole thing. The pages are actually good for festival jobs; I tend to use them as one way of keeping two different configurations on the same console. But yes, they can be confusing and I have screwed up more than once. I still maintain that a lot of the guys doing some of this stuff don't really understand the workflow for capturing 24 tracks, as it's happening right now. THeir tools work great for the guy writing songs and creating arrangements, or the smaller overdub session. That's because what used to be the standard workflow is becoming increasingly rare, and fewer and fewer people are really used to working that way. And that is the biggest tragedy of the whole thing if you ask me. LIke you I think the tools will get better over time as they always do, but I think we're forgetting to realy find out how us old guys use 'em. They'll get worse before they get better, and while electronics get cheaper and cheaper every day, switches and faders and metalwork just go up. --scott Yes. I bought three single rack space switching units around three years ago. They were quite inexpensive, and were made for 120 VAC. The switches in them were so bad that they only lasted around 25 - 50 transferrs per switch before they broke. And, when I tried to rebuild them, I would have had to pay more per switch than the units were worth just to buy the parts. This told me why the switches were so bad....:^) |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
On 1/28/2011 11:57 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
WHere's that counfounded aux send again! All you want to do is fly in a slap echo on the last note the vocalist sings and you spend 45 minutes playingarrrgh. In large part this speaks to the primitive state of documentation. And when there is documentation, often it's stupidly skewed by a software engineering point of view that's irrelevant to the workflows of audio. More the latter than the former, I think. If DAW programs were designed to do what mixing consoles did in the same way that mixing consoles do it, there would be less need for documentation, because the console paradigm just makes sense when you look at it, particularly if you have the console in one hand and the block diagram in the other hand. Practically nobody can give you a block diagram of a DAW because it changes every time you click on a button. For the time being, finding the appropriate aftermarket book might help. Do they still have those? I've seen Pro Tools for Dummies and a couple of others, but programs get updated so often that publishers (at least the ones that print real books) don't want to print a book because by the time it gets out it will be for an obsolete version. Probably the best place to get a question answered is a user forum. But if you're new to the concept or the program and don't really know what to ask, or how to ask it, if the manual doesn't get you at least thinking in the right direction, you're pretty much stuck. But what I've found is that once I've learned to get around on one DAW, I can usually bumble my way through another one. But I never really learn one well enough for things that I usually do to become second nature. But think back to the very first time you saw/sat in front of a large format console, and tried to devine its mysteries in the middle of paying session. You probably still weren't sure where everything was. Well, I don't think I ever sat behind a console for the first time for a paying session, but the thing is that most consoles are basically the same, at least recording consoles, once you figure out that in-line and split consoles do the same thing but with the controls in different places. There are differences in how automation works, but what you cant figure out immediately can usually be postponed until you have time to figure it out. I will certainly grant you that software-based tools can be a huge moving target, with some really stupid design decisions. Don't get me started.g But they will get better over time. I haven't seen that happening. They pile on more features, that's about it. And then they change the whole layout at some point. Consoles may have been around for about 50 years, but basically they all have the same channel strip and busing layout. What more do you need? And these days, about the only other things that you get are built-in effects and computer I/O. I don't see many questions about effects other than the usual pre-sale "Are the effects good enough?" as if this was going to make or break a deal, but I sure see lots of questions about getting the console and computer to recognize each other. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
On 1/28/2011 9:08 PM, wrote:
WAs talking to a guy the other day who was trying to sell me on his idea of the best digital console for the remote truck, the larger frame presonus. SO I ask him what hte digital interface is, and he keeps talking about if I need to fly in backing tracks from pt for the performers. I told him that boat wouldn't fly. Might be very analog-like, but the fw does me no good, The PreSonus StudioLive really isn't that bad as digital consoles go. When you select a channel, you have what's essentially the whole channel strip, only sideways instead of vertical. The Firewire I/O lets you use a computer as your recorder and editor and still mix on the console. It works pretty much line an in-line console in that mode. There are DB25 connectors for analog direct outputs from the mic preamps, and analog line inputs. The annoyance for studio use is that you can't have mic and line inputs physically connected at the same time. One overrides the other. This was one of my big complaints, but I guess they were too cheap (either dollar or space wise to put mic/line switches on it. The 24-channel version has the solo function right but they still haven't straightened it out in the 16-channel version. THen there's all the "pages" of faders.hmmm I sitll wonder if any of these folks with their pages of faders ever worked with two people at a console. The PreSonus has 24 channel faders and 24 input channels. No problems there, unless that isn't enough channels. I still maintain that a lot of the guys doing some of this stuff don't really understand the workflow for capturing 24 tracks, as it's happening right now. Capturing is no problem. That's what consoles like the PreSonus are good at. If you're mixing the PA for a live show and want to take home everything that came into the mic inputs, as long as you get it working right with your computer, it's a breeze. You can then play those tracks back into the console just as if the band was on stage and mix it again for a recording. Or those who choose to do so can leave the console in the trailer for the next show and import the track files into the DAW of their choice. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
On 2011-01-28 (ScottDorsey) said: copper in snakes inside. NOw give me the ability to ship digital signals down cat and .. Sounds like what you want is a Neve Capricorn. It's the right tool for the job, with a remote preamp and A/D rack that lets you run a very thin fibre cable from the splitter rack to the truck. OH yeah. Maybe someday. GOt to do some other improvements in the rig first for the small jobs, got some upgrades to do there as $$$ permits, but that's sure a thought too. IF money were no part of the equation and a gun was held to my head saying upgrade the console today I'd probably look very close at the Yamaha digital offerings and something such as that Audiorail system, iirc it runs down cat5 and the interface at each end is adat. FOlks have also done the heavy lifting with Yamaha's studio manager and the favorite windows screen access. I"m just glad that isn't a choice I"m forced to make today, because I think there's a whole lot more shaking out gonna happen in the next few years and every time I step out onto that leading edge I get left with something that's orphaned it seems. THen there's all the "pages" of faders. hmmm I sitll wonder if any of these folks with their pages of faders ever worked with two people at a console. What happens if your faders are on one "page" and mine are on another grin. Yeah I know, the theory is one guy can babysit the whole thing. The pages are actually good for festival jobs; I tend to use them as one way of keeping two different configurations on the same console. But yes, they can be confusing and I have screwed up more than once. Yep, that's how they're supposed to be used. But, and I"m sure you've done this too, you've watched the money channels while somebody else was needing to be elsewhere on the console, setting up to fly in an effect or something. CAn be fun. I still maintain that a lot of the guys doing some of this stuff don't really understand the workflow for capturing 24 tracks, as it's happening right now. THeir tools work great for the guy writing songs and creating arrangements, or the smaller overdub session. That's because what used to be the standard workflow is becoming increasingly rare, and fewer and fewer people are really used to working that way. And that is the biggest tragedy of the whole thing if you ask me. YEah I know, I'd agree with that. We lose a lot of value by losing sight of this too. THis could get way to deep for an old geezer with his first cup of coffee grin. LIke you I think the tools will get better over time as they always do, but I think we're forgetting to realy find out how us old guys use 'em. They'll get worse before they get better, and while electronics get cheaper and cheaper every day, switches and faders and metalwork just go up. INdeed, and nobody will care about them getting worse because it'll be cheaper, and you know as well as I do that cheaper is the holy grail in our throwaway consumer society. 'GIve me cheaper, I don't care if it's inferior, I"ll use it this week, replace it or move on." The diletantes will play with it and when the pros die off sooner or later there won't be a next generation of pros becuse nobody gives a **** anyway, capturing audio and video is something the hobbyist can do. WHO cares if it sounds bad? WHO cares if it looks bad? Watch it once, store it somewhere, yawn. Richard webb, replace anything before at with elspider ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
Mike RIvers writes: WAs talking to a guy the other day who was trying to sell me on his idea of the best digital console for the remote truck, the larger frame presonus. SO I ask him what hte digital interface is, and he keeps talking about if I need to fly in backing tracks from pt for the performers. snip The PreSonus StudioLive really isn't that bad as digital consoles go. When you select a channel, you have what's essentially the whole channel strip, only sideways instead of vertical. The Firewire I/O lets you use a computer as your recorder and editor and still mix on the console. It works pretty much line an in-line console in that mode. YEp, looked at one locally, but there again, the backing tracks from pt would be something happening from front of house, not from a remote truck. NOt something that really fits with our workflow. There are DB25 connectors for analog direct outputs from the mic preamps, and analog line inputs. The annoyance for studio use is that you can't have mic and line inputs physically connected at the same time. One overrides the other. This was one of my big complaints, but I guess they were too cheap (either dollar or space wise to put mic/line switches on it. The 24-channel version has the solo function right but they still haven't straightened it out in the 16-channel version. YEp, one of mine as well for my purposes. Having both connected and switchability is something I think is important as well. I still maintain that a lot of the guys doing some of this stuff don't really understand the workflow for capturing 24 tracks, as it's happening right now. Capturing is no problem. That's what consoles like the PreSonus are good at. If you're mixing the PA for a live show and want to take home everything that came into the mic inputs, as long as you get it working right with your computer, it's a breeze. You can then play those tracks back into the console just as if the band was on stage and mix it again for a recording. Or those who choose to do so can leave the console in the trailer for the next show and import the track files into the DAW of their choice. YEp, but for the most part, a lot of these tools I see aren't as versatile as they need to be. IF I were doing foh that might be a nice option for me, but I"m not doing foh and recording simultaneously, foh mix is somebody else's problem. IF I"m doing a mix for other than myself while it's happening it's not for the punters with butts in the seats grin. Regards, Richard webb, replace anything before at with elspider ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com |
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 21:58:33 +0000, Richard Webb wrote:
snip Yes, I know, there again, we've got the folks buying these things more hung up on the bs, until they actually get it then figure out that it can't talk to this device or that one. My old MCI iron can talk to any device that has analog audio i/o, no muss, no fuss, no problems!!! Like analog audio, Midi has also stayed compatible too. I have the very first midi instrument, a Sequential Prophet600 which is about 30 years old. It works perfectly with any modern sequencer or master keyboard. All it's midi functionality of notes, controllers, program changes and program dumps still work fine. |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
On Jan 29, 5:27*am, Mike Rivers wrote:
The PreSonus StudioLive really isn't that bad as digital consoles go. An OT remark: I wonder if this is wrong, but the first thing I do to evaluate a console is to move its faders. My reasoning is, if they can't even put a few faders with a substantial feel on a $$$$ mixer, how good might the rest of electronics be? The Presonus StudioLive faders felt like the trigger on a $3 plastic handheld toy. In league with the cheapest Allen & Heath budget mixers (MixWiz, Zed), the Yamaha MG's (124, 166), The Mackie ProFX, CFX (yes, Mackie makes some wonderful mixers with nice faders, it's just not these.) I tried all these mixers in the store, when I shopped for a keyboard mixer recently. Ultimately I bought a Tascam M-164... can't beat its simplicity. Now the fun part. The Tascam sounds great, I put up a mini-review with sound snippets at my Ableton hangout (http://forum.ableton.com/ viewtopic.php?f=1&t=156109&start=33) and now I'm getting ribbed how it's not on par with my keyboards. What is one supposed to get for a 30" max wide space, saw off two feet's worth from a SSL? :-) |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
Mike Rivers writes:
WHere's that counfounded aux send again! All you want to do is fly in a slap echo on the last note the vocalist sings snip In large part this speaks to the primitive state of documentation. And when there is documentation, often it's stupidly skewed by a software engineering point of view that's irrelevant to the workflows of audio. More the latter than the former, I think. If DAW programs were designed to do what mixing consoles did in the same way that mixing consoles do it, there would be less need for documentation, because the console paradigm just makes sense when you look at it, particularly if you have the console in one hand and the block diagram in the other hand. Practically nobody can give you a block diagram of a DAW because it changes every time you click on a button. YEah I know. That aux send might be located in a slightly different place on the channel strip, but an aux send does what an aux send does, and it's easy enough to wrap your brain around that channel strip when it's all laid out in front of you. snip again Do they still have those? I've seen Pro Tools for Dummies and a couple of others, but programs get updated so often that publishers (at least the ones that print real books) don't want to print a book because by the time it gets out it will be for an obsolete version. RIght, no sense trying to hit a constantly moving target. HEll you can't even get to the proofs stage with the publishing before the book's gonna be obsolete, cause even if the next version with more gewgaws bells and whistles is still in alpha test somebody leaked it. snip But think back to the very first time you saw/sat in front of a large format console, and tried to devine its mysteries in the middle of paying session. snip Well, I don't think I ever sat behind a console for the first time for a paying session, but the thing is that most consoles are basically the same, at least recording consoles, once you figure out that in-line and split consoles do the same thing but with the controls in different places. There are differences in how automation works, but what you cant figure out immediately can usually be postponed until you have time to figure it out. That's my point as well. PRetty much a channel strip is a channel strip, and you can get sound in and out usually manipulated well enough to suit right now and figure out the other stuff later, on somebody else's time, and not the customer's. snip I haven't seen that happening. They pile on more features, that's about it. And then they change the whole layout at some point. Consoles may have been around for about 50 years, but basically they all have the same channel strip and busing layout. What more do you need? And these days, about the only other things that you get are built-in effects and computer I/O. I don't see many questions about effects other than the usual pre-sale "Are the effects good enough?" as if this was going to make or break a deal, but I sure see lots of questions about getting the console and computer to recognize each other. Yes, I know, there again, we've got the folks buying these things more hung up on the bs, until they actually get it then figure out that it can't talk to this device or that one. My old MCI iron can talk to any device that has analog audio i/o, no muss, no fuss, no problems!!! Regards, Richard .... "In some hands, all the knobs are suck knobs." -- Jay Kadis -- | Remove .my.foot for email | via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site | Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own. |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
On Jan 29, 2:43*pm, Keoki wrote:
. Ultimately I bought a Tascam M-164... can't beat its simplicity. Now the fun part. The Tascam sounds great, I put up a mini-review with sound snippets at my Ableton hangout (http://forum.ableton.com/ viewtopic.php?f=1&t=156109&start=33) and now I'm getting ribbed how it's not on par with my keyboards. What is one supposed to get for a 30" max wide space, saw off two feet's worth from a SSL? :-) You're joking, of course, but I believe SSL sells something like that -- a few channel strips and a minimal master output section. I'm not surprised, though, that the Tascam sounds great. It's simple, without a lot of stages, and the less stuff the signal goes through, the fewer chances to mess it up. Assuming the stages are relatively nontoxic, a small mixer with few stages ought to indeed sound great. Peace, Paul |
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
philicorda writes:
Yes, I know, there again, we've got the folks buying these things more hung up on the bs, until they actually get it then figure out that it can't talk to this device or that one. My old MCI iron can talk to any device that has analog audio i/o, no muss, no fuss, no problems!!! Like analog audio, Midi has also stayed compatible too. I have the very first midi instrument, a Sequential Prophet600 which is about 30 years old. It works perfectly with any modern sequencer or master keyboard. All it's midi functionality of notes, controllers, program changes and program dumps still work fine. YEp, that it has, because Midi has been a stable standard now for decades, and was actually, iirc developed by multiple entities instead of one manufacturer basically foisting it on the rest of the community. Regards, Richard -- | Remove .my.foot for email | via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site | Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own. |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
Mike Rivers wrote:
[...] If DAW programs were designed to do what mixing consoles did in the same way that mixing consoles do it, there would be less need for documentation, because the console paradigm just makes sense when you look at it, particularly if you have the console in one hand and the block diagram in the other hand. Practically nobody can give you a block diagram of a DAW because it changes every time you click on a button. I'd be hesitant to generalize to the degree that you have since some DAWs probably were designed to do what mixing consoles did in much the same way. But many, if not most DAWs, were designed to get around the limitations of consoles. Hardware that approaches the flexibility of a DAW becomes just as obtuse and _still_ fall short of the mark. I recall working in some studios where there was a rack full of patch bays and a snake pit of cords to do what the DAW does with the click of the button. [...] I've seen Pro Tools for Dummies and a couple of others, but programs get updated so often that publishers (at least the ones that print real books) don't want to print a book because by the time it gets out it will be for an obsolete version. These days, books can be printed overnight, so I suspect that what prevents the publishing of aftermarket references is the lack of a market for them. There you go, Mike... you were looking for your next writing gig in another thread! Write the (Name your DAW) for Dummies, and offer it through Blurb or some other on-line printing house. [...] But what I've found is that once I've learned to get around on one DAW, I can usually bumble my way through another one. But I never really learn one well enough for things that I usually do to become second nature. [...] but the thing is that most consoles are basically the same, at least recording consoles, once you figure out that in-line and split consoles do the same thing but with the controls in different places. There are differences in how automation works, but what you cant figure out immediately can usually be postponed until you have time to figure it out. Has the DAW use interface stabilized to that point, yet? One roadblock may be copyright infringement lawsuits. If console user interfaces could have been copyrighted back "in the day", the same problem may have beset hardware. I'd say the world isn't as smart as it used to be. -- best regards, Neil |
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
On 1/30/2011 7:06 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
I'd be hesitant to generalize to the degree that you have since some DAWs probably were designed to do what mixing consoles did in much the same way. They were designed to do exactly what mixing consoles do, and most do it pretty well now that they've figured out summing algorithms and have learned to use enough "bit headroom." Where they fall down is in the user interface. Unless you have a monitor as large as a console, you don't have room on the screen for all the buttons at once, so you have to make them appear and disappear as you need them. That's what I find un-intuitive. I can't just grab a control, I have to create it first. But many, if not most DAWs, were designed to get around the limitations of consoles. What limitations? Of what consoles? What they try to do is pack an impossibly large console into a couple of hundred square inches. You can make as many routing paths in software as you want, but you're still limited in physical outputs and inputs to the number of jacks on your sound card. Hardware that approaches the flexibility of a DAW becomes just as obtuse and _still_ fall short of the mark. But it's not all about flexibility. And the flexibility is limited by the physical connections. Sure, you can have your choice of a couple of dozen different compressors and equalizers for less money than if you had to buy hardware, but does this really make your mixes better? Or does it just allow you to make more choices? I recall working in some studios where there was a rack full of patch bays and a snake pit of cords to do what the DAW does with the click of the button. What's harder? To find the button, or to find the jack and turn the knobs? For me, it's to find the button to insert the plug-in, then to figure out which plug-in I want to insert, then open the control panel for the plug-in. How many clicks of the button is that, really? These days, books can be printed overnight, so I suspect that what prevents the publishing of aftermarket references is the lack of a market for them. There you go, Mike... you were looking for your next writing gig in another thread! Write the (Name your DAW) for Dummies, and offer it through Blurb or some other on-line printing house. Well, I did that for the Mackie hard disk recorder, and after 7 years, that's still selling at the fabulous rate of about one or two copies a month. And I'm still pointing people who are having problems conceiving of how to hook things up to a couple of articles on my web page and the Mackie Compact Mixer Reference Guide. However, it's so much easier to describe hardware than software because of the limitations. There are only so many ways of doing something. I could write a book about input and output connections to a DAW that would be as big as the Mackie book. There would be little value in writing a "How I use Pro Tools" book because nearly everyone else would want to do something else, or do it in a different way. Has the DAW use interface stabilized to that point, yet? One roadblock may be copyright infringement lawsuits. If console user interfaces could have been copyrighted back "in the day", the same problem may have beset hardware. I'd say the world isn't as smart as it used to be. Good point. How many ways can you make the control panel for a console? How many consoles look and work just like the Mackie 1604? Other than ancillary controls and signal paths, how different can you make one? Behringer was accused of copying the Mackie layout, but more important, they copied the Mackie circuitry. Still, how many different ways can you make a mic preamp or an equalizer? There are clever ideas like the button and knob that routes an auxiliary return to an auxiliary send so you can send the output of an outboard reverb to a stage or studio monitor output. In hardware, it's difficult to be able to route any aux return to any aux send, so they make a couple of choices and that's what you have to live with. On a digital console, for example the PreSonus StudioLIve, you can indeed route any aux return to any aux send bus, but you need to do it from a setup menu and few people understand it. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
On 1/29/2011 3:43 PM, Keoki wrote:
On Jan 29, 5:27 am, Mike wrote: The PreSonus StudioLive really isn't that bad as digital consoles go. An OT remark: I wonder if this is wrong, but the first thing I do to evaluate a console is to move its faders. My reasoning is, if they can't even put a few faders with a substantial feel on a $$$$ mixer, how good might the rest of electronics be? The Presonus StudioLive faders felt like the trigger on a $3 plastic handheld toy. I think that's the first thing everyone does when seeing a console. My first impression of the StudioLive was that it felt a bit "plastic-y." My 20+ year old Soundcraft feels a lot better, as do all of my Mackies. But electronics are cheap and faders, being primarily mechanical devices, are expensive. In a world where the under-$1000 16-channel mixer is the big seller the only way you can do that is to use cheaper mechanical parts. Using THAT mic preamp chips and Burr-Brown ICs rather than cheaper components can make a marginal improvement in sound but probably add $200-350 to the retail cost of a 16-channel mixer. Using P&G faders would probably add $1,000. That's really important to a company founded on the principle of deciding on a price point and designing the console to meet it. The Midas Venice series is pretty much the same, layout and feature-wise, as what Mackie makes for about 40% less. They (to me) look better and feel better than the similar Mackie, and that's important to some, but not to the home recording musician or small band to which that $400 difference is better spent elsewhere (like food or rent, sometimes). I don't know the Midas track record in professional applications so maybe it's worth the extra cost and maybe not, but honestly, it would make me feel better to have a Midas than a Mackie unless I discovered some reason not to. Ultimately I bought a Tascam M-164... can't beat its simplicity. now I'm getting ribbed how it's not on par with my keyboards. What is one supposed to get for a 30" max wide space, saw off two feet's worth from a SSL? :-) Is this for live work, or in a studio? Or both? In what way is it not up to your keyboards? What should it do that your present TASCAM can't? Maybe you'd like a Speck Xtramix? Or if you want more sends, their LiLo is just under 30", though neither have EQ. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
Mike Rivers wrote:
I think that's the first thing everyone does when seeing a console. My first impression of the StudioLive was that it felt a bit "plastic-y." My 20+ year old Soundcraft feels a lot better, as do all of my Mackies. But electronics are cheap and faders, being primarily mechanical devices, are expensive. In a world where the under-$1000 16-channel mixer is the big seller the only way you can do that is to use cheaper mechanical parts. And that is the number one argument against the under-$1000 16-channel mixer. Cheap-feeling faders aren't fun to work with. Cheap-feeling faders break. I'd rather spend a few hundred dollars more to get better faders, rather than spend even more money later on down the road replacing failed faders. Using THAT mic preamp chips and Burr-Brown ICs rather than cheaper components can make a marginal improvement in sound but probably add $200-350 to the retail cost of a 16-channel mixer. Using P&G faders would probably add $1,000. That's really important to a company founded on the principle of deciding on a price point and designing the console to meet it. See, I think of the THAT preamps as the cheap components..... real consoles have transformers and big transistor arrays. But part of the problem here is that there is no middle ground. You can get crappy faders or P&G faders and there is seldom anything in-between. The whole middle-cost part of the market has fallen out. The Midas Venice series is pretty much the same, layout and feature-wise, as what Mackie makes for about 40% less. They (to me) look better and feel better than the similar Mackie, and that's important to some, but not to the home recording musician or small band to which that $400 difference is better spent elsewhere (like food or rent, sometimes). I don't know the Midas track record in professional applications so maybe it's worth the extra cost and maybe not, but honestly, it would make me feel better to have a Midas than a Mackie unless I discovered some reason not to. The pots on the Venice go intermittent and then the EQ sections start oscillating. You tweak the EQ and the noise goes away but then it comes back again someday. The Venice is a great example of aggressive cost-cutting gone way too far. The EQ on the Venice sure sounds a lot better than the EQ on the Mackie when it's not oscillating, though. Ultimately I bought a Tascam M-164... can't beat its simplicity. now I'm getting ribbed how it's not on par with my keyboards. What is one supposed to get for a 30" max wide space, saw off two feet's worth from a SSL? :-) Is this for live work, or in a studio? Or both? In what way is it not up to your keyboards? What should it do that your present TASCAM can't? Maybe you'd like a Speck Xtramix? Or if you want more sends, their LiLo is just under 30", though neither have EQ. I think you can order the LiLo with EQ. You can also get a short-frame API or Cadac.... Cadac will even sell you a 4-channel S-type. Oh, and the Trident guys (on both sides of the split) are making consoles in China now that are much nicer than Mackies but not in the SSL price range. I really, really like the LiLo. It's expensive but it's built like it costs. Which has not always been my experience with SSLs. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 1/30/2011 7:06 AM, Neil Gould wrote: I'd be hesitant to generalize to the degree that you have since some DAWs probably were designed to do what mixing consoles did in much the same way. They were designed to do exactly what mixing consoles do, and most do it pretty well now that they've figured out summing algorithms and have learned to use enough "bit headroom." Where they fall down is in the user interface. Unless you have a monitor as large as a console, you don't have room on the screen for all the buttons at once, so you have to make them appear and disappear as you need them. That's what I find un-intuitive. I can't just grab a control, I have to create it first. The DAWs that I use don't have console emulation UIs. Well, one does, but fortunately I don't have to use it, so I don't. I use the DAW mainly for remixing and mastering, so the hardware console paradigm would be a much slower and less accurate way to work (for me). But many, if not most DAWs, were designed to get around the limitations of consoles. What limitations? Of what consoles? Practical limitations, such as having a limited number of inserts, having only 3 or 4-band parametric EQs, having limited control over compression algorithms, etc. Compared to hardware, some DAWs offer a much greater level of control and flexibility. What they try to do is pack an impossibly large console into a couple of hundred square inches. You can make as many routing paths in software as you want, but you're still limited in physical outputs and inputs to the number of jacks on your sound card. Well, my soundcard has more channels of I/O than I've ever needed (24 channels of ADAT + S/PDIF), and I could expand it if I needed to. Even back when I owned a studio, it had far fewer channels, and only a 16 track recorder. Not that this was creatively limiting, but I don't see physical I/O as a real limitation these days. Sure, you can have your choice of a couple of dozen different compressors and equalizers for less money than if you had to buy hardware, but does this really make your mixes better? Or does it just allow you to make more choices? It allows for more appropriate choices to address particular problems. Sometimes, it's handy to have an 8-stage parametric EQ (I've done this to set up a harmonic notch filter, for example), and I much prefer the compression algorithms available in CoolEdit Pro / Audition to any hardware compressor that I've ever seen or used. I recall working in some studios where there was a rack full of patch bays and a snake pit of cords to do what the DAW does with the click of the button. What's harder? To find the button, or to find the jack and turn the knobs? For me, it's to find the button to insert the plug-in, then to figure out which plug-in I want to insert, then open the control panel for the plug-in. How many clicks of the button is that, really? Well, now we're back on topic. Advanced DAWs take a while to master, and once you do, you have to start from ground zero with the next "upgrade" of application, OS, or computer. There are clever ideas like the button and knob that routes an auxiliary return to an auxiliary send so you can send the output of an outboard reverb to a stage or studio monitor output. In hardware, it's difficult to be able to route any aux return to any aux send, so they make a couple of choices and that's what you have to live with. On a digital console, for example the PreSonus StudioLIve, you can indeed route any aux return to any aux send bus, but you need to do it from a setup menu and few people understand it. Those that don't understand it should hire someone who does to configure their presets so that all they need to do is recall scenes that they need by some easily recognizable name. But, noooooo, everyone thinks they're competent enough to roll their own, and then want someone else to untangle their mess for free. -- best regards, Neil |
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
On 2011-01-30 said: snip What limitations? Of what consoles? Practical limitations, such as having a limited number of inserts, having only 3 or 4-band parametric EQs, having limited control over compression algorithms, etc. Compared to hardware, some DAWs offer a much greater level of control and flexibility. Indeed, and often that's make or break for a project. big snip There are clever ideas like the button and knob that routes an auxiliary return to an auxiliary send so you can send the output of an outboard reverb to a stage or studio monitor output. In hardware, it's difficult to be able to route any aux return to any aux send, so they make a couple of choices and that's what you have to live with. On a digital console, for example the PreSonus StudioLIve, you can indeed route any aux return to any aux send bus, but you need to do it from a setup menu and few people understand it. Those that don't understand it should hire someone who does to configure their presets so that all they need to do is recall scenes that they need by some easily recognizable name. But, noooooo, everyone thinks they're competent enough to roll their own, and then want someone else to untangle their mess for free. A man after my own heart!!! In the days of analog hardware often my choice if I've got more than one place to send that signal from the reverb or whatever it is as in the above example my perferred m.o. is to route its output to a channel strip if I've one to spare. This gives me maximum control of everything possible about its sound. i want to feed it to a monitor mix for a performer, turn up that aux send on that channel. I want to or need to tweak the tone of the return signal at foh, use the channel strip eq. YOu wouldn't believe how many bar band guys I"ve turned onto that one who stood there doing the wtf when I first did it and then started doing that themselves. Given enough spare channel strips that's my preferred method of handling returns from such devices. Regards, Richard webb, replace anything before at with elspider ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com |
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
On Jan 30, 5:02*am, Mike Rivers wrote:
Is this for live work, or in a studio? Or both? In what way is it not up to your keyboards? What should it do that your present TASCAM can't? * I believe the guys became aghast that I'm running a studio's worth of high-ticket keyboards through a Tascam M-164 I got for $150. "It's still a tascam... when nothing else is around, why not... but in proportion to your investment in instruments you are saving money on the wrong spot." There are two major unknowns at play. The first one is, I never heard my nearly half-ton keyboard rig through a SSL or Toft Audio ATB16 (the recommended alternative) to tell, to what extent the result may sound better. The second one is, when I listen to examples of SSL processing online, e.g., the difference between the on and off sample doesn't even sound too major to me. One could say: "oh, you are just an upcoming composer, that's why. Go to a studio golden ears course." I could. Yet, there is a value in hearing music the way the untrained audience does. If the listeners cannot even notice the zing a $$,$$$ unit adds to the sound, I guess it's safe to skip it? Too bad no one ever published a Tascam vs. SSL listening test with samples. So the two unknowns in this Tascam equation are, 1.) I don't know what's the sonic difference, and 2.) I don't know how much it matters, if it's not just someone's GAS bubbling up in those remarks. What do you suggest? |
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
On Jan 30, 7:08*pm, Keoki wrote:
On Jan 30, 5:02*am, Mike Rivers wrote: Is this for live work, or in a studio? Or both? In what way is it not up to your keyboards? What should it do that your present TASCAM can't? * I believe the guys became aghast that I'm running a studio's worth of high-ticket keyboards through a Tascam M-164 I got for $150. "It's still a tascam... when nothing else is around, why not... but in proportion to your investment in instruments you are saving money on the wrong spot." There are two major unknowns at play. The first one is, I never heard my nearly half-ton keyboard rig through a SSL or Toft Audio ATB16 (the recommended alternative) to tell, to what extent the result may sound better. The second one is, when I listen to examples of SSL processing online, e.g., the difference between the on and off sample doesn't even sound too major to me. One could say: "oh, you are just an upcoming composer, that's why. Go to a studio golden ears course." I could. Yet, there is a value in hearing music the way the untrained audience does. If the listeners cannot even notice the zing a $$,$$$ unit adds to the sound, I guess it's safe to skip it? Too bad no one ever published a Tascam vs. SSL listening test with samples. So the two unknowns in this Tascam equation are, 1.) I don't know what's the sonic difference, and 2.) I don't know how much it matters, if it's not just someone's GAS bubbling up in those remarks. What do you suggest? If you're really concerned about it, I'd say do a straight-wire comparison between recording something directly and with the Tascam in- circuit. We did an experiment like this last semester in class. We set up an ORTF pair of Gefell M930s over a drum kit, and ran them through a pair of Little Labs LMNOPres with the preamps' output transformers bypassed. First we patched the preamps directly into the recorder and established a 0 VU level with a tone oscillator plugged into the preamp input (we used my little Shure mic-level tone generator). Then we patched the two preamps' outputs into the line inputs of a pair of channels on the SSL Duality, setting up the SSL to run the signal into the Mix A bus and thence to the Main Outs. We adjusted the trims on the channels to so that the recorders' meters when reading the tone signal were within 1 pointer width of 0 VU, which meant the two conditions (SSL in and out of circuit) were level-matched to within 0.1dB. We recorded the tracks and listened. The result: the SSL isn't transparent, but adds a bit of grunge and "roughness" to the sound, which wasn't an improvement. We tried the same experiment with a small Neve console that sits in the studio. It wasn't transparent either, but the coloration it added was on the euphonic side. I thought it was a useful experiment. If we'd had an automatic drummer beating the skins, to guarantee identical sonic inputs, it would have been even more useful, but as it was I think we got some interesting results. Oh, one thing: I specified that the output transformers on the LMNOPres were bypassed. That wasn't only to avoid possible colorations from the transformers, but also to avoid loading effects which might change the transformers' response, as we switched the LMNOPres' outputs to feed, alternately, the recorder input and the SSL input. See if you can set up a similar test for your Tascam. My own ideal for a console is that it doesn't do anything audible to signals which go through it (unless of course I tell it to do something, like some EQ). I don't expect, or want, a console to "add wonderful things" to the signal; what I want is something that doesn't take wonderful things away, or (worse) add unpleasant things. Peace, Paul |
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
On 1/30/2011 10:16 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
And that is the number one argument against the under-$1000 16-channel mixer. Cheap-feeling faders aren't fun to work with. Cheap-feeling faders break. One way that they manage to get away with this is that so many people who buy inexpensive mixers don't really mix on them. How many bands buy a mixer and "mix" themselves from the stage? They set up something that works and other than maybe tweaking someone's monitor mix (which they can hear from the stage) the mix never changes. And now, ferchrissake, they're going ga-ga over controlling their PreSonus StudioLive mixer with an iPad - talk about faders with no feel. See, I think of the THAT preamps as the cheap components..... real consoles have transformers and big transistor arrays. But cheap mixers don't have either transistors or transformers. They have ICs that are even cheaper than the THAT or TI mic preamp chips. But part of the problem here is that there is no middle ground. You can get crappy faders or P&G faders and there is seldom anything in-between. The whole middle-cost part of the market has fallen out. Doesn't Alps still make some decent faders at a modest price? One of the problems is that for some reason (I suspect related to the "mix from the stage" issue) people want to rack-mount their mixers. This makes short faders more attractive because the mixer can be shorter in the dimension that requires a bigger rack. And if you don't move the faders much anyway, I guess it doesn't matter that they have short travel. The pots on the Venice go intermittent and then the EQ sections start oscillating. You tweak the EQ and the noise goes away but then it comes back again someday. The Venice is a great example of aggressive cost-cutting gone way too far. Are they using something problematic? Or was the console on which you experienced this just worn out? Not even a big Midas is like they used to make any more. They're mostly making digital consoles these days. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
|
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
On 1/30/2011 8:08 PM, Keoki wrote:
I believe the guys became aghast that I'm running a studio's worth of high-ticket keyboards through a Tascam M-164 I got for $150. There's that perception. But then what do you use the mixer for? Do you use the EQ? That might be better, or at least more flexible, on a fancier mixer. But if you just use it as a router or a "funnel" for electronic instruments, it's probably just fine as long as it lasts. You can buy better construction and hence probable reliability, but there's a big jump in cost. Too bad no one ever published a Tascam vs. SSL listening test with samples. For a single electronic instrument passed through either, with EQ set flat, it would indeed difficult to tell a difference, or at least the significance of any difference that you hear. If you layer your keyboard and create a sound by mixing several keyboards playing the same notes together, you might find the difference in distortions when actually mixing several inputs to be more noticeable, but then you might prefer more distortion in your mix to add color. . So the two unknowns in this Tascam equation are, 1.) I don't know what's the sonic difference, and 2.) I don't know how much it matters, if it's not just someone's GAS bubbling up in those remarks. What do you suggest? I suggest that you continue using what you have until it breaks, and then consider higher quality alternatives. You might just feel better with better quality gear, though unless it's going to stay in a studio, I would recommend a Speck Xtramix over a Trident ATB. Again, consider what controls you need and use. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
|
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 1/30/2011 10:16 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote: But part of the problem here is that there is no middle ground. You can get crappy faders or P&G faders and there is seldom anything in-between. The whole middle-cost part of the market has fallen out. Doesn't Alps still make some decent faders at a modest price? One of the problems is that for some reason (I suspect related to the "mix from the stage" issue) people want to rack-mount their mixers. This makes short faders more attractive because the mixer can be shorter in the dimension that requires a bigger rack. And if you don't move the faders much anyway, I guess it doesn't matter that they have short travel. I've seen them in the Alps catalogue, but it's been a while since I have seen them in actual console. The pots on the Venice go intermittent and then the EQ sections start oscillating. You tweak the EQ and the noise goes away but then it comes back again someday. The Venice is a great example of aggressive cost-cutting gone way too far. Are they using something problematic? Or was the console on which you experienced this just worn out? Not even a big Midas is like they used to make any more. They're mostly making digital consoles these days. I've seen this on several of them so far. They were worn out, yes, but those pots wear out way, way too fast. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
On Jan 31, 3:59*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote: Doesn't Alps still make some decent faders at a modest price? I've seen them in the Alps catalogue, but it's been a while since I have seen them in actual console. The Mackie Onyx 2480, 3280, 4880, tt24 and Control Universal Pro use those, reportedly... |
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
On Jan 31, 3:18*am, Mike Rivers wrote:
For a single electronic instrument passed through either, with EQ set flat, it would indeed difficult to tell a difference, or at least the significance of any difference that you hear. My notion of high-dollar consoles was, they color the sound by making it - ballsier, larger-than-life, something special of this nature? It's this sonic "color" that I was curious about. So this is a myth? In terms of exact reproduction, most of my keyboards have digital outs. As I toyed yesterday with the idea of doing (or not doing) a Tascam vs SSL 9000 comparison test, I pondered how I could capture all my keyboards' tracks for the test into my Yamaha XS8 by connecting the digital ins and outs. Today it hit me: if I laid down my tracks this way by default, I might not even *need* a mixer in the first place. I could master my accumulated tracks to CD directly from the XS8. (I use a mixer only to sum my keyboards.) I know the mother of all inventions is to leave something out, but for the most accurate mixer to be using no mixer at all, it boggles my mind. I probably overlooked something, right? |
|
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
Keoki wrote:
On Jan 31, 3:18=A0am, Mike Rivers wrote: For a single electronic instrument passed through either, with EQ set flat, it would indeed difficult to tell a difference, or at least the significance of any difference that you hear. My notion of high-dollar consoles was, they color the sound by making it - ballsier, larger-than-life, something special of this nature? It's this sonic "color" that I was curious about. So this is a myth? This is the case for some kinds of consoles but not others. A lot of people like old Neve consoles that are full of transformers because they like the coloration. Other people hate old Neve consoles because they hate the coloration. In terms of exact reproduction, most of my keyboards have digital outs. As I toyed yesterday with the idea of doing (or not doing) a Tascam vs SSL 9000 comparison test, I pondered how I could capture all my keyboards' tracks for the test into my Yamaha XS8 by connecting the digital ins and outs. Today it hit me: if I laid down my tracks this way by default, I might not even *need* a mixer in the first place. I could master my accumulated tracks to CD directly from the XS8. (I use a mixer only to sum my keyboards.) Personally, I can't stand the way the SSL 9000 consoles sound. I think people use them because of the UI... everything is there and everything is convenient and you have extreme control on each channel strip... much more eq and dynamic control than a typical console, plus the fancy automation. I know the mother of all inventions is to leave something out, but for the most accurate mixer to be using no mixer at all, it boggles my mind. I probably overlooked something, right? Some folks want accuracy. Some folks want deliberate and controllable inaccuracy, but the people in the latter camp often want different kinds. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
On 1/31/2011 2:37 PM, Keoki wrote:
My notion of high-dollar consoles was, they color the sound by making it - ballsier, larger-than-life, something special of this nature? It's this sonic "color" that I was curious about. So this is a myth? It's usually the mic preamps and EQ that do that. And most of that comes from input transformers, good engineers, and good imagination. In terms of exact reproduction, most of my keyboards have digital outs. I know the mother of all inventions is to leave something out, but for the most accurate mixer to be using no mixer at all, it boggles my mind. I probably overlooked something, right? Well, that sure isn't going to give you any "color." -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
|
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
On Jan 31, 1:37*pm, Keoki wrote:
My notion of high-dollar consoles was, they color the sound by making it - ballsier, larger-than-life, something special of this nature? It's this sonic "color" that I was curious about. So this is a myth? No, it's not a myth; as Scott said, some high-dollar consoles (like Neves) do that, while others (like SSLs) don't. If you want to introduce that type of coloration, pick up a couple of channels of Neve preamp/EQ clones (1073, 1082) from one of several manufacturers, or build a couple of channels using one of the kits, and run your signal through them with the EQs set flat. You can also get software which claims to reproduce these effects from, among others, Universal Audio. It ain't cheap, though, and it needs to be used with their DSP hardware. Of course, there's other interesting stuff bundled with it, like simulations of compressors such as the LA2a and 1176. I haven't tried them, but people I know who have say UA's people have done a good job in replicating the gear's characteristics. Peace, Paul |
|
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
On 1/31/2011 11:44 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
The problem is that every block in the US has a garage band in one of the garages, and most of therm never make a dime. But most of them have problems recording, whether they realize it or not. But I suppose if they're not making a dime with what they're doing now, they aren't going to invest a dime either. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
|
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
On 2011-02-01 said: The problem is that every block in the US has a garage band in one of the garages, and most of therm never make a dime. But most of them have problems recording, whether they realize it or not. But I suppose if they're not making a dime with what they're doing now, they aren't going to invest a dime either. INdeed, but what many don't realize is that investing some time, and simplifying their process whilst putting the time in rehearsing a good arrangement would pay big dividends, both in the quality of the recordings and in their overall satisfaction. IT's often the little things that could be handled differently that make for a more pleasing sounding recording at that level. Richard webb, replace anything before at with elspider ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com |
|
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 1/31/2011 11:44 PM, Bill Graham wrote: The problem is that every block in the US has a garage band in one of the garages, and most of therm never make a dime. But most of them have problems recording, whether they realize it or not. But I suppose if they're not making a dime with what they're doing now, they aren't going to invest a dime either. I do see quite a few "folk groups" from 3 to 6 people performing at local fairs and Saturday markets, usually in the Summertime. Some of these sell CD's of themsilves, so they must record them somewhere, even if it's right at the market location where they perform. My wife buys these, and the audio usually isn't too bad. (at least to my 75 year old ears) Next Summer I will ask them where they recorded their stuff..... |
|
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
On 2/1/2011 10:21 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
I do see quite a few "folk groups" from 3 to 6 people performing at local fairs and Saturday markets, usually in the Summertime. Some of these sell CD's of themsilves, so they must record them somewhere, even if it's right at the market location where they perform. My wife buys these, and the audio usually isn't too bad. Most record at home with a computer. A friend who has a folk music radio show gets many hundred such home-recorded CDs each year from people who want air play. Some aren't too bad, some are pretty amateurish, technically, but the people who buy these recordings rarely care about technical quality. Mostly they buy to support the artist, and that's not such a bad thing. Because of the direct distribution and sales channel (web site and gigs), it's unlikely that paying for a higher quality studio recording or mastering job would result in greater sales, more or better paying gigs, or "getting discovered." I've done recording workshops at music camps in the past few years and it's amazing how little people understand about what they're doing. I had someone play me some perfectly wretched recordings that he made with his fairly new Zoom H4n. I looked at the files, looked at his recorder, changed the record setting from 32 kbps MP3 to 320 kpbs and showed him what the levels mean and what the record level knob did, and he was absolutely amazed at how good it sounded. They just don't know. (note my tag line) -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
|
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011 11:28:40 -0800, (hank alrich)
wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: hank alrich wrote: Mike Rivers wrote: I've done recording workshops at music camps in the past few years and it's amazing how little people understand about what they're doing. I was warend by a friend as I headed for the SWRFA conference last september that I was going to see a lot of established, experienced performers who were clueless about mic technique. Man, he wasn't kidding. I saw opportunity. g You know, doing a session on mike technique at an event can actually be remarkably good advertising. --scott Yes, but I'm about done with audio for others at this point. I've liquidated much of the live sound gear, keeping only waht I'll need for myself, and I'm in the process of doing that with recording kit, too.l My motto for a few years now has been "Behind the instrument and in front of the mic". I'm having a blast playing live again, and aiming to do as much of that as possible as long as I live. What became of the 4315's and the BX-20's? Rick Ruskin Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA http://liondogmusic.com http://www.myspace.com/rickruskin |
|
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011 14:03:19 -0800, (hank alrich)
wrote: Rick Ruskin wrote: On Wed, 2 Feb 2011 11:28:40 -0800, (hank alrich) wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: hank alrich wrote: Mike Rivers wrote: I've done recording workshops at music camps in the past few years and it's amazing how little people understand about what they're doing. I was warend by a friend as I headed for the SWRFA conference last september that I was going to see a lot of established, experienced performers who were clueless about mic technique. Man, he wasn't kidding. I saw opportunity. g You know, doing a session on mike technique at an event can actually be remarkably good advertising. --scott Yes, but I'm about done with audio for others at this point. I've liquidated much of the live sound gear, keeping only waht I'll need for myself, and I'm in the process of doing that with recording kit, too.l My motto for a few years now has been "Behind the instrument and in front of the mic". I'm having a blast playing live again, and aiming to do as much of that as possible as long as I live. What became of the 4315's They're here in spirit, but the surrounds have failed on every driver. Hell, I think I bought 'em in 1978 or so. I've been using Kurt A's Gennie 8040A's while he's rebuilding a hotel in Silver City. I like them pretty well. Mixes seem to be holding up. and the BX-20's? They're here, and I'll probably sell one, the one with the dead channel, for parts. I'll keep the other because it's just too much fun. Let me know if you decide to shed the JBL's. I had mine re-coned about 10 years ago after the surrounds turned to powder. The rebuild cost as what I originally paid but was worth it. I've since bought a spare pare of 5" drivers. The dead AKG channel is probably due to a bad card. You probably know that already. Rick Ruskin Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA http://liondogmusic.com http://www.myspace.com/rickruskin |
|
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 2/1/2011 10:21 PM, Bill Graham wrote: I do see quite a few "folk groups" from 3 to 6 people performing at local fairs and Saturday markets, usually in the Summertime. Some of these sell CD's of themsilves, so they must record them somewhere, even if it's right at the market location where they perform. My wife buys these, and the audio usually isn't too bad. Most record at home with a computer. A friend who has a folk music radio show gets many hundred such home-recorded CDs each year from people who want air play. Some aren't too bad, some are pretty amateurish, technically, but the people who buy these recordings rarely care about technical quality. Mostly they buy to support the artist, and that's not such a bad thing. Because of the direct distribution and sales channel (web site and gigs), it's unlikely that paying for a higher quality studio recording or mastering job would result in greater sales, more or better paying gigs, or "getting discovered." I've done recording workshops at music camps in the past few years and it's amazing how little people understand about what they're doing. I had someone play me some perfectly wretched recordings that he made with his fairly new Zoom H4n. I looked at the files, looked at his recorder, changed the record setting from 32 kbps MP3 to 320 kpbs and showed him what the levels mean and what the record level knob did, and he was absolutely amazed at how good it sounded. They just don't know. (note my tag line) Yes. One of these days I will buy myself a digital video recorder and try to capture some of these guys myself. Right now, I am still trying to get good pictures with my Nikon D700 still camera. |
|
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 2/3/2011 8:03 AM, hank alrich wrote: I've been using Kurt A's Gennie 8040A's while he's rebuilding a hotel in Silver City. The hotel has this wonderful old ballroom in which many artists of the late 30's onward played. They're looking to bring that live music action back, and I'm hoping to be part of it. Cool. I've never been in that part of the country, but as I recall from looking at a map when Kurt first mentioned the project, that it's not too far from Lake Tahoe. I suppose that could be an attraction. Too bad about the erosion, but I guess by now they've figured out what to do with the town. No, that's where they used to live. Silver City is in NM, a slight drive from Tahoe, like about 1200 miles. g The headquarters for THAT Corp. in the Boston area used to be a big night club where all the major jazz acts of the 30s through the 50s played. The workers play music there for themselves and friends but not for the public. The walls are lined with autographed photos of the jazz greats. Nice. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman |
|
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
On 2/3/2011 10:44 AM, hank alrich wrote:
No, that's where they used to live. Silver City is in NM, a slight drive from Tahoe, like about 1200 miles.g Oh. I didn't realize he had gone so far from his former home. Still not near anyplace that I go. Probably not very near where anyone goes. About the closet I've been to there was El Paso. They used to have a folk festival there that I used to work on back when the National Park Service had money for things like that. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
|
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Toss your creative tool after 10 years?
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 2/3/2011 10:44 AM, hank alrich wrote: No, that's where they used to live. Silver City is in NM, a slight drive from Tahoe, like about 1200 miles.g Oh. I didn't realize he had gone so far from his former home. Still not near anyplace that I go. Probably not very near where anyone goes. About the closet I've been to there was El Paso. They used to have a folk festival there that I used to work on back when the National Park Service had money for things like that. Was that The Border Folk Festival, Mike? -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Toss your creative tool after 10 years? | Pro Audio | |||
| Repair or toss Onkyo receiver? | Tech | |||
| Wanted to toss.... Mix Magazines.... | Pro Audio | |||
| Do I toss this away or upgrade it? | Car Audio | |||
Linear Mode
