Looking at the recording gear in the typical catalogue - Sam Ash, Pro Sound
and Stage
Lighting, etc. it makes me wonder, what normally ends up being done with
this stuff? I wonder what percentage of their business is comprised of those
who've done careful research and make an educated purchase based on fitting
gear to a genuine need -vs- people with more cash than common sense and just
buying stuff without really having a handle on what they're buying?

Essentially every piece of gear is labeled as "Professional Quality". I
suppose you can't call them liars since there's no definitive definition of
what "professional" means, though there might be a certain concensus among
those who work in recording.

Take for example, a Korg D32XD 32-track digital recorder, one of the pricier
recorders in the Pro Sound and Lighting catalogue.

Do you feel someone who's competent could actually make a broadcast quality
top-40 recording with one of these? If not, why not? Is there some brick
wall shortcoming that something like this has that would prevent you from
making a top-notch recording, regardless of your skill or outboard gear
used? Are all releases by major labels recorded in a full-blown studio on a
board that you could land a small plane on, or not necessarily?

Or alternately, what do you feel would be an appropriate application for
something like this?

James wrote:

I wonder what percentage of their business is comprised of those
who've done careful research and make an educated purchase based on fitting
gear to a genuine need -vs- people with more cash than common sense and just
buying stuff without really having a handle on what they're buying?

No one will ever know, but you can get some idea by the number of "I
just bought a $$&&##@@. What's a good compressor to buy to go along
with it?" postings here and on onther "pro" audio forums.

Take for example, a Korg D32XD 32-track digital recorder, one of the pricier
recorders in the Pro Sound and Lighting catalogue.

Do you feel someone who's competent could actually make a broadcast quality
top-40 recording with one of these?

Of course, assuming he had the other needed accessores like
microphones, a decent sounding room, a good song, talent, and the
know-how. There's nothing in the hardware that would prevent a good
song with the proper marketing to make it to the Top 40.

Or alternately, what do you feel would be an appropriate application for
something like this?

Really, to be used by a musician, arranger, composer, producer to do
some portion of the job that can be done well in a small space that
isn't necessarily dedicated to being a recording studio. Or maybe in
the "B" room or pre-production room of a studio or rehearsal space. I
wouldn't spend half a million dollars on structure and put an
integrated recorder-mixer in there as the primary recording hardware
for several reasons, the most important of which being image and
compatibility with other studios. (Can you say "ProTools?")

"James" wrote in message
nk.net

Take for example, a Korg D32XD 32-track digital recorder,
one of the pricier recorders in the Pro Sound and
Lighting catalogue.

Do you feel someone who's competent could actually make a
broadcast quality top-40 recording with one of these?

If you look at history, any number of broadcast quality
top-40 recordings were made with equipment that is
technically inferior in most if not all ways. For example,
what sort of a market is there today for equipment working
at the performance level of the gear that Sam Phillips used
to record Elvis at Sun records in the 1950s? What about the
then-SOTA equipment that RCA used to record Toscanini? Would
you buy modern gear with *that* level of performance?

Or alternately, what do you feel would be an appropriate
application for something like this?

As the costs of powerful, efficient recording equipment
drops, people use it for more things that are in some sense
more and more trivial. I suspect someone someplace has done
a 32-track digital recording of their kid's eighth birthday
party with the finest mics.

Zillions of music enthusiasts are recording themselves and
their friends, but in truth not only are the musicians and
recordists not up to broadcast quality, they aren't even up
to satsifying the entertainment needs of a small cheap bar.
But who cares, they doing what they want to do!

I'm as bad as anybody, making 28 track digital recordings of
a church praise team that musically speaking barely
satisfies the needs of a church with only 250 members. The
musicians and I are all doing what we want to do, and modern
technology allows us to economically do a better job of it.

Arny Krueger wrote:

If you look at history, any number of broadcast quality
top-40 recordings were made with equipment that is
technically inferior in most if not all ways. For example,
what sort of a market is there today for equipment working
at the performance level of the gear that Sam Phillips used
to record Elvis at Sun records in the 1950s? What about the
then-SOTA equipment that RCA used to record Toscanini? Would
you buy modern gear with *that* level of performance?

I'd buy gear with *that* level of performance, but not with the
published specifications of the day. There's a difference.

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:

If you look at history, any number of broadcast quality
top-40 recordings were made with equipment that is
technically inferior in most if not all ways. For
example, what sort of a market is there today for
equipment working at the performance level of the gear
that Sam Phillips used to record Elvis at Sun records in
the 1950s? What about the then-SOTA equipment that RCA
used to record Toscanini? Would you buy modern gear with
*that* level of performance?

I'd buy gear with *that* level of performance, but not
with the published specifications of the day. There's a
difference.

Please explain further... ;-)

Consider the sound quality of live albums. Some of them are NOT studio
quality by any means, but they're good enough for the purpose.

Yes, better tools can produce better results. But "Top-40" should start
with a top-40 *performance*; the goal of the sound tech should be not to
ruin it.

(Yeah, I know, many top-40 performers these days couldn't do a live
performance if their lives depended on it. Then again, most of the
top-40 audience couldn't tell a bad recording if it bit them.)

James wrote:
Essentially every piece of gear is labeled as "Professional Quality".

Do you really expect a manufacturer or salesman to label something
"Inadequate Quality"? Assume advertising is hyped.

(It would be nice if more stores stocked only products they thought were
actually a good value for the money and helped folks pick their
trade-off point. Unfortunately that approach doesn't tend to make as
much money as just putting lots of stuff on the shelf and letting the
customer empty their wallet.)

Arny Krueger wrote:

I'd buy gear with *that* level of performance, but not
with the published specifications of the day. There's a
difference.

Please explain further... ;-)

Reliability, simplicity, ease of maintenance, just plain sounds good.
Hiss and pleasant forms of distortion are not considerd problems 'round
these parts. Others may prefer brittle but hissless sound out of
something that will be unsupportable in a few years. Take your pick.

The newest stuff that I own and actually use will probably last a long
time - mic preamps, recorders, mixers, compressors. I'm on my third
computer since I got my Mackie hard disk recorder, and the Otari MX-55,
Revox A-700, Ampex AG-440, and Soundcraft 600 are still working plenty
good enough. I could do with a little less hum, but that's fixable if I
bothered.

Arny Krueger wrote:

If you look at history, any number of broadcast quality
top-40 recordings were made with equipment that is
technically inferior in most if not all ways. For example,
what sort of a market is there today for equipment working
at the performance level of the gear that Sam Phillips used
to record Elvis at Sun records in the 1950s? What about the
then-SOTA equipment that RCA used to record Toscanini? Would
you buy modern gear with *that* level of performance?

I would. Come to think of it, I did...
--scott

I'll stay AWAY from that awful Presto lathe and junky broadcast console
at Sun, though.
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:

If you look at history, any number of broadcast quality
top-40 recordings were made with equipment that is
technically inferior in most if not all ways. For
example, what sort of a market is there today for
equipment working at the performance level of the gear
that Sam Phillips used to record Elvis at Sun records in
the 1950s? What about the then-SOTA equipment that RCA
used to record Toscanini? Would you buy modern gear with
*that* level of performance?

I would. Come to think of it, I did...

The whole enchelada or just some pieces?

I'll stay AWAY from that awful Presto lathe and junky
broadcast console at Sun, though.

My point.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

If you look at history, any number of broadcast quality
top-40 recordings were made with equipment that is
technically inferior in most if not all ways. For
example, what sort of a market is there today for
equipment working at the performance level of the gear
that Sam Phillips used to record Elvis at Sun records in
the 1950s? What about the then-SOTA equipment that RCA
used to record Toscanini? Would you buy modern gear with
*that* level of performance?

I would. Come to think of it, I did...

The whole enchelada or just some pieces?

Well, most of it. I used an Ampex 350 for many years, and to be honest
it's still one of the better sounding machines I've worked on, in spite
of the mechanical limitations. I'd gladly buy another one, if I didn't
already have the ATR-100 here.

I believe both RCA and Sun were using the 350 machines.... after the
RCA engineers refused to use the awful RCA tape machines.

I'll stay AWAY from that awful Presto lathe and junky
broadcast console at Sun, though.

My point.

Well, Sun was basically a bargain basement operation that was using
the cheapest stuff they could get away with. Most of the gear they
had was PA gear or broadcast gear that was never intended for high
grade recording stuff.

RCA, on the other hand, was using the best stuff they could get, and
most of that gear was great-performing equipment by any standards.
As those old recordings will indicate.
--scott

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

I've help 2 different people develope bills of material for home
studio's. In each case, these were hobbyists that wanted to record
themselves and friends. They could play instruments reasonably well.
In both cases, neither one of them ever actually recorded anything.
They both questioned me endlessly on my under $300 mic suggestions and
dug into the minutia on noise levels etc of the preamps.

I imagine professionals like yourselves probably account for only
fraction of the gear sold outside of big consoles and other super
expensive gear. Ebay brings it back to us for 75 cents on the dollar,
no tax. I'm ok with that. BTW, I used to have a Roland digital 8
track. It was a pretty cool little unit. Sounded one hell of a lot
better than the tascam cassette it replaced.

Tom

James wrote:

Looking at the recording gear in the typical catalogue - Sam Ash, Pro Sound
and Stage
Lighting, etc. it makes me wonder, what normally ends up being done with
this stuff? I wonder what percentage of their business is comprised of those
who've done careful research and make an educated purchase based on fitting
gear to a genuine need -vs- people with more cash than common sense and just
buying stuff without really having a handle on what they're buying?


To an extent. There are an awful lot of 30-50 y.o. ex-giggers who
"do stuff at home" now. Hey, I'm one of those!

Essentially every piece of gear is labeled as "Professional Quality". I
suppose you can't call them liars since there's no definitive definition of
what "professional" means, though there might be a certain concensus among
those who work in recording.


It's become a buzzword. It's a buzzword designed to attract
and reassure appliance* fetishists.

*these days, *cheap* appliances, not even serious Ampex level
appliances. Ho hum.

Take for example, a Korg D32XD 32-track digital recorder, one of the pricier
recorders in the Pro Sound and Lighting catalogue.

Do you feel someone who's competent could actually make a broadcast quality
top-40 recording with one of these? If not, why not?

I would hope so. But really, a great sewing machine is much
more important to Top-40 material than recording gear.

"The music industry is a haven for rejects from the garment
industry" - Billy Joel.

Is there some brick
wall shortcoming that something like this has that would prevent you from
making a top-notch recording, regardless of your skill or outboard gear
used?

Top-notch? Quality is for the thing *being* recorded, not
for the data gathering/manipulation process.

Gear (hopefully) just gets out of the way of the thing that's
flowing through it.

Are all releases by major labels recorded in a full-blown studio on a
board that you could land a small plane on, or not necessarily?


WGAF,A?

Or alternately, what do you feel would be an appropriate application for
something like this?



Dunno.

--
Les Cargill