Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
"philicorda" wrote in message
news Rather than thinking of home studios as competition though, I have been thinking about how to integrate what I can offer with the way people work at home. Namely, doing what is impractical for them. IMO that's a brilliant idea... you've probably heard the expression "there's riches in niches", and if you can create that niche for yourself in your area, you should do well. -- Neil Henderson Saqqara Records http://www.saqqararecords.com .. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Cain" wrote in message ... Paul Stamler wrote: "sycochkn" wrote in message k.net... A parametric equalizer on each mic before conversion would probably be a good idea. It'd help out the peakiness of the microphone, but not the high-frequency distortion, which is where some of the harshness comes from, and which stimulates more misbehavior down the line. How do you define high frequency distortion? Technically, I mean, not how it sounds. Nonlinearity in the circuit which causes high frequencies to cross-modulate one another, producing sum-and-difference frequencies. I hear it in a lot of cheap condenser microphones, more so in cheap mike preamps. Also in the EQ and summing stages of cheap mixers. Peace, Paul Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Cain" wrote in message ... Paul Stamler wrote: "sycochkn" wrote in message k.net... A parametric equalizer on each mic before conversion would probably be a good idea. It'd help out the peakiness of the microphone, but not the high-frequency distortion, which is where some of the harshness comes from, and which stimulates more misbehavior down the line. How do you define high frequency distortion? Technically, I mean, not how it sounds. Nonlinearity in the circuit which causes high frequencies to cross-modulate one another, producing sum-and-difference frequencies. I hear it in a lot of cheap condenser microphones, more so in cheap mike preamps. Also in the EQ and summing stages of cheap mixers. Peace, Paul Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
In article "Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com writes: I have a friend who's a music copyist for a living. I fully expected that story to end "so now she's using Sibelius and making even more money because she's more productive." But your ending is good too. Even with Finale's fancy fonts, it's not the same as what a good copyist does. Or a good draftsman or any other good artist. The key word being "art." Actually I think she's using Finale, but she goes through it and corrects it with her copyist's eye. Without some prodding, it doesn't make adjustments that a copyist would. By using Finale, she can produce output that the publishers can use directly rather than have to scan graphically, so in that sense, it improves her efficiency. I recently sent a resume to one of our favorite audio gear companies who was looking for a technical writer. They were looking for someone with experience using Word (reasonable for a writer) as well as Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop as well as some other tools. As it turned out, they wanted to hire someone at the entry salary level. I figure that there are more people with experience using graphics programs willing to work at an entry salary than there are people like you and me and a few others who can understand how things work and explain them in reasonably plain language. Similarly, there are more people who can play the guitar than can translate that into a well produced musical CD. -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over, lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
In article "Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com writes: I have a friend who's a music copyist for a living. I fully expected that story to end "so now she's using Sibelius and making even more money because she's more productive." But your ending is good too. Even with Finale's fancy fonts, it's not the same as what a good copyist does. Or a good draftsman or any other good artist. The key word being "art." Actually I think she's using Finale, but she goes through it and corrects it with her copyist's eye. Without some prodding, it doesn't make adjustments that a copyist would. By using Finale, she can produce output that the publishers can use directly rather than have to scan graphically, so in that sense, it improves her efficiency. I recently sent a resume to one of our favorite audio gear companies who was looking for a technical writer. They were looking for someone with experience using Word (reasonable for a writer) as well as Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop as well as some other tools. As it turned out, they wanted to hire someone at the entry salary level. I figure that there are more people with experience using graphics programs willing to work at an entry salary than there are people like you and me and a few others who can understand how things work and explain them in reasonably plain language. Similarly, there are more people who can play the guitar than can translate that into a well produced musical CD. -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over, lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
"Preben Friis" wrote:
"Harvey Gerst" wrote: For the millionth time, here is the start of the FAQ for this group. Please note the absence of the word "production": According to Google you are far from a million yet... - but I stand corrected. *bows to the pope* Preben, In the interest of reconciliation and world peace (and in an effort to get closer to my millionth post), I would suggest that "production" is an interegal part of our professional world, and is quite acceptable here as a subheading of the group's original intent. Harvey Gerst Indian Trail Recording Studio http://www.ITRstudio.com/ |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
"Preben Friis" wrote:
"Harvey Gerst" wrote: For the millionth time, here is the start of the FAQ for this group. Please note the absence of the word "production": According to Google you are far from a million yet... - but I stand corrected. *bows to the pope* Preben, In the interest of reconciliation and world peace (and in an effort to get closer to my millionth post), I would suggest that "production" is an interegal part of our professional world, and is quite acceptable here as a subheading of the group's original intent. Harvey Gerst Indian Trail Recording Studio http://www.ITRstudio.com/ |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
In the interest of reconciliation and world peace (and in an effort to get
closer to my millionth post), Yeah, yeah, reconciliation & world peace are nice, but the important thing here is getting to the millionth post. Can't it just be ordained as a Papal miracle? I would suggest that "production" is an interegal part of our professional world, and is quite acceptable here as a subheading of the group's original intent. Hear Hear! It hath been Papally spoke. OK everybody? Scott Fraser |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
In the interest of reconciliation and world peace (and in an effort to get
closer to my millionth post), Yeah, yeah, reconciliation & world peace are nice, but the important thing here is getting to the millionth post. Can't it just be ordained as a Papal miracle? I would suggest that "production" is an interegal part of our professional world, and is quite acceptable here as a subheading of the group's original intent. Hear Hear! It hath been Papally spoke. OK everybody? Scott Fraser |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 20:14:18 -0400, sycochkn wrote
(in article t): A parametric equalizer on each mic before conversion would probably be a good idea. Bob That's exactly what I want all my competition to do! And please follow it up with an Alesis 3060 compressor. The crucial issue here is right in the subject; "good enough." If you can't tell the difference, then It's good enough. If you can, well, that's a different story. If you're making simple recordings and you don't expect them to be of any major consequence in the future, what you use and how you record is also of no major consequence. I have had he pleasure of the company of a number of local small studio owners here at my place. We enjoy good fellowship. On any number of occasions they have brought their new chinese LD condensers to discuss and compare. As I show them the process I use to compare mics for articles I write, they quickly become aware of the differences because I show them what to listen for. The process is not a secret. I published it years ago on ProSoundWeb.com and those files are still up there last time I checked. Of course you need AT LEAST one very good mic and two good channels of preamp ( and a clean line to headphones and monitors afterwards) to make that sort of comparison. On the issue of two bads canceling each other; I've had a number of chinese condenser mics sound "less bad" through a Mackie 1604 than through GML, Aphex 1100 or Millennnia Media preamps. However, I haven't found that "two bads" get close to "two goods." Well that's not entirely true. When stuck in front of a guitar amp with half a dozen pedals (or even one amp with a nasty distortion setting (nasty being an unbiased descriptor) the right mic preamp combination becomes less of a factor. When recording pure sounds, especially those at low level, however, the "two bads" have yet to win against "two goods." Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 20:14:18 -0400, sycochkn wrote
(in article t): A parametric equalizer on each mic before conversion would probably be a good idea. Bob That's exactly what I want all my competition to do! And please follow it up with an Alesis 3060 compressor. The crucial issue here is right in the subject; "good enough." If you can't tell the difference, then It's good enough. If you can, well, that's a different story. If you're making simple recordings and you don't expect them to be of any major consequence in the future, what you use and how you record is also of no major consequence. I have had he pleasure of the company of a number of local small studio owners here at my place. We enjoy good fellowship. On any number of occasions they have brought their new chinese LD condensers to discuss and compare. As I show them the process I use to compare mics for articles I write, they quickly become aware of the differences because I show them what to listen for. The process is not a secret. I published it years ago on ProSoundWeb.com and those files are still up there last time I checked. Of course you need AT LEAST one very good mic and two good channels of preamp ( and a clean line to headphones and monitors afterwards) to make that sort of comparison. On the issue of two bads canceling each other; I've had a number of chinese condenser mics sound "less bad" through a Mackie 1604 than through GML, Aphex 1100 or Millennnia Media preamps. However, I haven't found that "two bads" get close to "two goods." Well that's not entirely true. When stuck in front of a guitar amp with half a dozen pedals (or even one amp with a nasty distortion setting (nasty being an unbiased descriptor) the right mic preamp combination becomes less of a factor. When recording pure sounds, especially those at low level, however, the "two bads" have yet to win against "two goods." Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 14:50:27 -0400, Mike Rivers wrote
(in article znr1094314712k@trad): In article . net writes: I wonder if anyone has done & published blind comparisons of recordings made on consumer/prosumer level gear -vs- high-end gear both recorded and listened to in the same environment by people who know what they're doing to see how many times out of x number of tracks that pro's a/or Joe Listener can tell the difference. I'm not sure what the point of that would be other than as an experiment. High end gear is used for high end projects involving high end musicians, high end engineers, and high end producers. While some of the High End Engineers or Producers use an M-box on their laptop at home or on an airplane to edit and do some rough mixes, that's not the final product, ever, unless it's one of those "the music is just so good we had to release it for the publicity" stunts. I've made those comparisons routinely in almost every mic review I've done. You don't need blind testing to hear selfnoise and distortion differences of that order. The difference is extremely obvious. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 09:41:35 -0400, Mike Rivers wrote
(in article znr1094382400k@trad): The problem is that some people think that boxes with knobs (or software) is what's necessary in order to make something better. Sometimes that's the case, but often it isn't. And it's so easy to go so far down the wrong path when you have all of that power that you don't realize that you're making things worse until you find that the pieces still don't fit togethe A verity! Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 09:41:35 -0400, Mike Rivers wrote
(in article znr1094382400k@trad): The problem is that some people think that boxes with knobs (or software) is what's necessary in order to make something better. Sometimes that's the case, but often it isn't. And it's so easy to go so far down the wrong path when you have all of that power that you don't realize that you're making things worse until you find that the pieces still don't fit togethe A verity! Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 15:34:32 -0400, Raglan wrote
(in article ): And so it is with audio. Instead of dissing the cheap gear to maintain their competitive advantage, I suggest the pros should consider embracing it, while emphasising what is their real selling point -- the skill and experience they bring to operating it. At the present time, the audio pros seem to be where the print compositors were in 1990 -- arguing endlessly about how many angels could dance on a 1200dpi imagesetter. Raglan Again, if you can't hear the difference, it doesn't really matter. If you can, it does. One might counter with tasking the "other than pros" (since that's who you are counter referencing) to improve the acuity of their listening so that they can hear the difference themselves rather than going on about how the difference is negligible. OTOH, please DO continue to use whatever you want. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 15:34:32 -0400, Raglan wrote
(in article ): And so it is with audio. Instead of dissing the cheap gear to maintain their competitive advantage, I suggest the pros should consider embracing it, while emphasising what is their real selling point -- the skill and experience they bring to operating it. At the present time, the audio pros seem to be where the print compositors were in 1990 -- arguing endlessly about how many angels could dance on a 1200dpi imagesetter. Raglan Again, if you can't hear the difference, it doesn't really matter. If you can, it does. One might counter with tasking the "other than pros" (since that's who you are counter referencing) to improve the acuity of their listening so that they can hear the difference themselves rather than going on about how the difference is negligible. OTOH, please DO continue to use whatever you want. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 00:50:13 -0400, Raglan wrote
(in article ): "J&L" wrote in message news:0Cm_c.144652$Lj.74165@fed1read03... This thread is horse ****. [snip] The review compareing a MXL gibson mic to a u87.. Nuff said.. Now for some U87 heresy. I've never had a chance to tinker with such a mic, but I suspect the situation is similar to the reverence that many electric guitarists have for the holy Gibson PAF pickup. There's nothing intrinsically great about a PAF. It's just that the sound of the PAF has become a familiar defining characteristic of a certain style of music, a certain guitar tone. But you don't actually need a vintage PAF to get that tone, or so close that it doesn't matter. A cheap copy, like a Duncan whatever-it-is or an Ibanez Super-58, will do the trick. There are more variances in guitars, amplifiers etc than there are between those two pickups. Raglan Until you do have the ability to "tinker" with a U 87 with the right preamp and in the right environment and used by someone who knows where to put it, you really shouldn't make any sort of parallels. That's a central issue in this string. You can't know if you haven't been there. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 00:50:13 -0400, Raglan wrote
(in article ): "J&L" wrote in message news:0Cm_c.144652$Lj.74165@fed1read03... This thread is horse ****. [snip] The review compareing a MXL gibson mic to a u87.. Nuff said.. Now for some U87 heresy. I've never had a chance to tinker with such a mic, but I suspect the situation is similar to the reverence that many electric guitarists have for the holy Gibson PAF pickup. There's nothing intrinsically great about a PAF. It's just that the sound of the PAF has become a familiar defining characteristic of a certain style of music, a certain guitar tone. But you don't actually need a vintage PAF to get that tone, or so close that it doesn't matter. A cheap copy, like a Duncan whatever-it-is or an Ibanez Super-58, will do the trick. There are more variances in guitars, amplifiers etc than there are between those two pickups. Raglan Until you do have the ability to "tinker" with a U 87 with the right preamp and in the right environment and used by someone who knows where to put it, you really shouldn't make any sort of parallels. That's a central issue in this string. You can't know if you haven't been there. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 23:49:51 -0400, Raglan wrote
(in article ): "Ted Lachance" wrote in message news:Nhn_c.290329$eM2.10508@attbi_s51... Excellent post, and one question: What are the special problems of digital you are referring to? First and most obviously, the problem of setting levels without clipping or, at the other extreme, wasting bits and getting a grainy result. Learning to judge according to source how much compression is the right amount to offset those difficulties without creating further problems. Then, maintaining a proper gain structure within the digital domain. It's all more critical than analogue; even brief peak overloads are ruinous. I agree Second, the rather audible degradation that results when you first go berserk with plugins and other digital processing in the naive belief that "there's no quality loss with digital". The rounding/truncation errors, I suppose they are, become troublesome surprisingly quickly, especially with dodgy software. I sprung for the Waves plugins and moved to 24-bit recording a couple of years ago and this problem has largely gone away, even with fairly heavy processing. But I've been meaning to run some 16-bit/24-bit tests to see whether the 24-bit part of the solution is just superstition. Still with you. Then there's the famous "brittleness" problem, which is at least partly just the lack of warmth produced by a recording medium lacking the pleasant distortions of tape. Now we diverge. The brittleness is a combination of many things. The two most obvious are; Overly bright mics and Poor quality A/D conversion. Following that are the unwise use of plugins and outboard devices. Finally, and related, the lack of flattery of the source produced by grimly accurate recordings. Microphone choice becomes more important, I think. We remain diverged. In cases where the job is to record a sound source with reasonably pure tones, one can not expect a brittle sounding mic to record anything but its brittleness. Another poster has mentioned that one shortcoming of cheap gear is an additive brightness/brittleness. This is true, to a degree, but it depends on your choices of gear. Which is one reason I rather like my cheap Chinese dbx compressor: it has the opposite effect. Raglan We remain diverged. The thought that two bad pieces of gear improve the sound falls apart quickly when the results are compared to that of two good sounding pieces of gear. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 23:49:51 -0400, Raglan wrote
(in article ): "Ted Lachance" wrote in message news:Nhn_c.290329$eM2.10508@attbi_s51... Excellent post, and one question: What are the special problems of digital you are referring to? First and most obviously, the problem of setting levels without clipping or, at the other extreme, wasting bits and getting a grainy result. Learning to judge according to source how much compression is the right amount to offset those difficulties without creating further problems. Then, maintaining a proper gain structure within the digital domain. It's all more critical than analogue; even brief peak overloads are ruinous. I agree Second, the rather audible degradation that results when you first go berserk with plugins and other digital processing in the naive belief that "there's no quality loss with digital". The rounding/truncation errors, I suppose they are, become troublesome surprisingly quickly, especially with dodgy software. I sprung for the Waves plugins and moved to 24-bit recording a couple of years ago and this problem has largely gone away, even with fairly heavy processing. But I've been meaning to run some 16-bit/24-bit tests to see whether the 24-bit part of the solution is just superstition. Still with you. Then there's the famous "brittleness" problem, which is at least partly just the lack of warmth produced by a recording medium lacking the pleasant distortions of tape. Now we diverge. The brittleness is a combination of many things. The two most obvious are; Overly bright mics and Poor quality A/D conversion. Following that are the unwise use of plugins and outboard devices. Finally, and related, the lack of flattery of the source produced by grimly accurate recordings. Microphone choice becomes more important, I think. We remain diverged. In cases where the job is to record a sound source with reasonably pure tones, one can not expect a brittle sounding mic to record anything but its brittleness. Another poster has mentioned that one shortcoming of cheap gear is an additive brightness/brittleness. This is true, to a degree, but it depends on your choices of gear. Which is one reason I rather like my cheap Chinese dbx compressor: it has the opposite effect. Raglan We remain diverged. The thought that two bad pieces of gear improve the sound falls apart quickly when the results are compared to that of two good sounding pieces of gear. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
And it's so easy to go
so far down the wrong path when you have all of that power that you don't realize that you're making things worse until you find that the pieces still don't fit together. Perfectly said Leon |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
And it's so easy to go
so far down the wrong path when you have all of that power that you don't realize that you're making things worse until you find that the pieces still don't fit together. Perfectly said Leon |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 09:52:25 -0400, Bob Olhsson wrote
(in article ): "Raglan" wrote in message m... "Ted Lachance" wrote in message news:Nhn_c.290329$eM2.10508@attbi_s51... ...Then there's the famous "brittleness" problem, which is at least partly just the lack of warmth produced by a recording medium lacking the pleasant distortions of tape. This is bullcrap. Cheezey analog tape recorders had the same problem, wimpy power supplies that crap out when hit with high powered low frequency signals such as kick drums. There's also a problem with cheezy digital converters that create artifacts that sound like a buzzsaw when you apply any high frequency eq. Adding "warmth" only adds to the mud. -- Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined! 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com Another set of valuable truisms. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 09:52:25 -0400, Bob Olhsson wrote
(in article ): "Raglan" wrote in message m... "Ted Lachance" wrote in message news:Nhn_c.290329$eM2.10508@attbi_s51... ...Then there's the famous "brittleness" problem, which is at least partly just the lack of warmth produced by a recording medium lacking the pleasant distortions of tape. This is bullcrap. Cheezey analog tape recorders had the same problem, wimpy power supplies that crap out when hit with high powered low frequency signals such as kick drums. There's also a problem with cheezy digital converters that create artifacts that sound like a buzzsaw when you apply any high frequency eq. Adding "warmth" only adds to the mud. -- Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined! 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com Another set of valuable truisms. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 18:09:52 -0400, dt king wrote
(in article Q2r_c.103595$9d6.666@attbi_s54): "Raglan" wrote in message m... If you're a home recordist, I have a suggestion -- stop stressing out about your gear. It's probably fine. The signal path is more than likely capable of getting fairly close to megastudio quality even if all your equipment is just prosumer-level stuff. If your recordings sound crap, the reason is probably your technique, not the shortcomings of the gear. The vast majority of my listeners are downloading MP3s. I could be tracking on a pocket dictation recorder and the difference would be barely audible. If audio quality was the first consideration for consumers, $30 blasters wouldn't have their own shelf at KMart. dtk Fine, then continue to work as you will. Just don't pee on my leg and try to tell me it's raining. Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 18:09:52 -0400, dt king wrote
(in article Q2r_c.103595$9d6.666@attbi_s54): "Raglan" wrote in message m... If you're a home recordist, I have a suggestion -- stop stressing out about your gear. It's probably fine. The signal path is more than likely capable of getting fairly close to megastudio quality even if all your equipment is just prosumer-level stuff. If your recordings sound crap, the reason is probably your technique, not the shortcomings of the gear. The vast majority of my listeners are downloading MP3s. I could be tracking on a pocket dictation recorder and the difference would be barely audible. If audio quality was the first consideration for consumers, $30 blasters wouldn't have their own shelf at KMart. dtk Fine, then continue to work as you will. Just don't pee on my leg and try to tell me it's raining. Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
This is simple.
You have a camera that is 1 mega pixel and built for cost effeciancy (makie-beringer) You have a camera that is 6 mega pixels and built to provide the most vibrant colors (great river/manley) When you try to publish a magazine to asume that your 1 mega pixel device is High enuff quality to make the entire magazine compete with the guys using the 6 mega pixels cams. is crazy. asuming both guys have the same amount of talent. It also can be compared to monitor resolution 640 in no way compares to 1024. maybe on a cheap tv but that is it. and if your watching on that cheap tv and say "it looks the same" your only getting half the picture and the guy with the hi-def tv is gonna be going "whats the hell is this crap? Telling people you can shoot a cinematica quality movie with your home video camera is in essence what this thread is trying to do. Regards Leon |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
This is simple.
You have a camera that is 1 mega pixel and built for cost effeciancy (makie-beringer) You have a camera that is 6 mega pixels and built to provide the most vibrant colors (great river/manley) When you try to publish a magazine to asume that your 1 mega pixel device is High enuff quality to make the entire magazine compete with the guys using the 6 mega pixels cams. is crazy. asuming both guys have the same amount of talent. It also can be compared to monitor resolution 640 in no way compares to 1024. maybe on a cheap tv but that is it. and if your watching on that cheap tv and say "it looks the same" your only getting half the picture and the guy with the hi-def tv is gonna be going "whats the hell is this crap? Telling people you can shoot a cinematica quality movie with your home video camera is in essence what this thread is trying to do. Regards Leon |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote
The problem was that people who had no experience with graphic design or layout started making flyers with every font in the list on them. Yes. I agree with Raglan's analogy, but you really nailed it. An amateur trying to produce a professional looking brochure or magazine ad and an amateur trying to produce a great recording is an exact parallel. Which further proves the notion that it's not the tools but the operator's talent. Exactly. And I did say as much, though not as clearly. Raglan |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote
The problem was that people who had no experience with graphic design or layout started making flyers with every font in the list on them. Yes. I agree with Raglan's analogy, but you really nailed it. An amateur trying to produce a professional looking brochure or magazine ad and an amateur trying to produce a great recording is an exact parallel. Which further proves the notion that it's not the tools but the operator's talent. Exactly. And I did say as much, though not as clearly. Raglan |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
J&L wrote: This is simple. You have a camera that is 1 mega pixel and built for cost effeciancy (makie-beringer) You have a camera that is 6 mega pixels and built to provide the most vibrant colors (great river/manley) Interesting analogy but not in the least bit appropriate. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
J&L wrote: This is simple. You have a camera that is 1 mega pixel and built for cost effeciancy (makie-beringer) You have a camera that is 6 mega pixels and built to provide the most vibrant colors (great river/manley) Interesting analogy but not in the least bit appropriate. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Ty Ford wrote: Fine, then continue to work as you will. Just don't pee on my leg and try to tell me it's raining. Ty, why do you need to be so derisive? The truth remains that a vanishing few in the target market are going to be able to discern a difference between the gear that mostly just presents a barrier to entry and the stuff that is near the sharp knee of diminishing returns, which is where well selected low cost gear is these days. I think this leaves things exactly where they belong, with the artistic sense of all the people involved rather than being a function of the depth of anyone's pockets. Anyone who doesn't think the playing field has been made remarkably level isn't listening to what is being produced on the lower cost gear. Why is it that people never comment on what mic was used on a recording unless they know it from some other way than listening? Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Ty Ford wrote: Fine, then continue to work as you will. Just don't pee on my leg and try to tell me it's raining. Ty, why do you need to be so derisive? The truth remains that a vanishing few in the target market are going to be able to discern a difference between the gear that mostly just presents a barrier to entry and the stuff that is near the sharp knee of diminishing returns, which is where well selected low cost gear is these days. I think this leaves things exactly where they belong, with the artistic sense of all the people involved rather than being a function of the depth of anyone's pockets. Anyone who doesn't think the playing field has been made remarkably level isn't listening to what is being produced on the lower cost gear. Why is it that people never comment on what mic was used on a recording unless they know it from some other way than listening? Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Cain" wrote in message
... J&L wrote: This is simple. You have a camera that is 1 mega pixel and built for cost effeciancy (makie-beringer) You have a camera that is 6 mega pixels and built to provide the most vibrant colors (great river/manley) Interesting analogy but not in the least bit appropriate. It was good when 4-tracks were popular. It's just a decade out of date now. dtk |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
F.S. tons of gear for sale, keys, modules, pro audio, etc | Pro Audio | |||
common mode rejection vs. crosstalk | Pro Audio | |||
Topic Police | Pro Audio | |||
Artists cut out the record biz | Pro Audio |