P.12 of latest Sound On Sound

www.soundondsound.com

geoff

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message
...
P.12 of latest Sound On Sound

www.soundondsound.com

geoff

That link doesn't work Geoff??
--
John Cafarella
End Of the Road Studio
Melbourne, Australia

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote in message
...

"John Cafarella" wrote in message
...
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message
...
P.12 of latest Sound On Sound

www.soundondsound.com

geoff

That link doesn't work Geoff??
--
John Cafarella


Remove the 2nd 'd'

Thanks. I'll capitalize it and use it in my D'oh !

Now I get a username/password dialog box that tells me "New server coming
soon, authorised testers only at the moment"
--
John Cafarella
End Of the Road Studio
Melbourne, Australia

"John Cafarella" wrote in message ...
"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote in message
...

"John Cafarella" wrote in message
...
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message
...
P.12 of latest Sound On Sound

www.soundondsound.com

geoff

That link doesn't work Geoff??
--
John Cafarella


Remove the 2nd 'd'

Thanks. I'll capitalize it and use it in my D'oh !

Now I get a username/password dialog box that tells me "New server coming
soon, authorised testers only at the moment"
--
John Cafarella


Try this one then... should be fine. http://www.sospubs.co.uk/index.htm
(Obviously, I have my own D'oh! to add now).

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s.com
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

"John Cafarella" wrote in message news:be38m5

Now I get a username/password dialog box that tells me "New server coming
soon, authorised testers only at the moment"


OK, try the old one - that definitely works:

http://www.sospubs.co.uk/html/splash1.htm

but you need an 'Esub' to read the current issue, or a 'p-sub' (physical
sub ? Paper-sub ? ;-) )

geoff

Why don't you try
http://www.sospubs.co.uk
instead? Only subscribers can read the latest stuff though.

In article writes:

Only subscribers can read the latest stuff though.

So why doesn't the person who first posted the link (that's useless to
those who don't have a subscription) tell is what the reviewer said?

Or maybe he didn't read it yet.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

David Morley ) wrote:

They like it!

Here is a summary
+
low distortion/wide audio bandwidth
clear natural sound
Plenty of headroom for driving level hungry soundcards
snip


I'm curious, in the context of feeding a soundcard's input -- how common
is the problem of a preamp/device (especially a +4dBu one) lacking
'headroom', and for -which- sound cards? Or did the author mean 'plenty
of gain for accommodating low level sources'?

A related question, on digital devices with analog inputs (-10dBv or +4
dBu) -- Is there a standard (or common practice) for the specification
of what input level converts to 0 dBFS (not clipped)?

Just wondering,
- Brian

Gantt Mann Kushner wrote in message ...
Since you have to be a subscriber to read it, perhaps you could paraphrase the

review...

Thanks,

Gantt

Geoff Wood wrote:

"John Cafarella" wrote in message news:be38m5

Now I get a username/password dialog box that tells me "New server coming
soon, authorised testers only at the moment"

OK, try the old one - that definitely works:

http://www.sospubs.co.uk/html/splash1.htm

but you need an 'Esub' to read the current issue, or a 'p-sub' (physical
sub ? Paper-sub ? ;-) )

geoff

got my copy in the mail yesterday.
the reviewer seems to 'get' what the RNP is all about...although
unfortunately not *too* much detail in the review regarding actual
usage (no sweat for me, since i already own one, but for potential
buyers that sucks). the reviewer compares it with a low-noise, budget
mixer pre (presumably Mackie or Soundcraft) and decides that the RNP
sound great and 'open' versus the budget pre which makes his 4033
sound (and i quote) "honky"...hehehe

in the summary box:

Pros:
-very low distortion with wide audio bandwidth
-clear, natural sound
-plenty of headroom for driving level-hungry soundcards
-inexpensive

Cons:
-external PSU
-fairly basic level metering
-no low-cut switch

Summary:
i think the right compromises have been made to deliver truly
professional audio quality in a no-frills, low-cost package.

all in all, this review seems like a paraphrase of the RNP manual,
which pains me to say, as i love SoundOnSound...this review just
seemed a little lazy. however it is a favorable review and that's
good.

however, after the RNC and considering the price/performance ratio of
the RNP itself, it sort of sells itself, i think.

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1057327838k@trad...

In article
writes:

Only subscribers can read the latest stuff though.

So why doesn't the person who first posted the link (that's useless to
those who don't have a subscription) tell is what the reviewer said?

Or maybe he didn't read it yet.

Not useless to those who can a) read ans b) stagger down to a newsagent.

I did (read it). The summary said it was a great little mic pre,
especially for the money. Can't do better than that, 'cos I left it at
work.....

geoff

"Gantt Mann Kushner" wrote in message
...
Since you have to be a subscriber to read it, perhaps you could paraphrase
the

review...

Thanks,



Should be at newsagent soon, if not alredy. it's only 2 pages so you
possibly get by without buying anything - although it's a good mag to buy
IMO.

geoff

In article -nospam writes:

Not useless to those who can a) read ans b) stagger down to a newsagent.

I did (read it). The summary said it was a great little mic pre,
especially for the money.

For that, I don't need to buy an expensive imported magazine. But
thanks for trying.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

""all in all, this review seems like a paraphrase of the RNP manual,
which pains me to say, as i love SoundOnSound...this review just
seemed a little lazy. however it is a favorable review and that's
good.""

Well, it´s a pretty simple box, so I can´t agree that the review was
lazy.
I assume he plugged some mics in, found it sounded neutral and clean and
noted that the metering was basic and no lo cut switch but at this
price, it´s a great unit.
Not being funny, but what else can one say if a unit does what it´s
designed to do.
If it was a unit that was designed to be coloured, I guess he could have
gone on and compared it to this that and the other, but it does what it
should without fuss.
David

In article ,
(transducr) wrote:


i also love my (rather expensive) subscription to SOS (it was a
christmas present, ok!? )...however, i think a useful review
generally tends to involve a fairly good balance between a rundown of
the technical details of the product and the, albeit more subjective,
practical experience of the reviewer with the product.

Me too!

I think we both agree!

I find SOS reviews variable. I hate Future music. Everything is cool and
a must have when they review it. At least SOS criticizes when it needs
too, but their reviews are pretty safe ultimately.
Still, it´s a lot of mag for the money...
Cheers
David

transducr wrote:

in this particular case, Mark McQ wrote a very good and very
conversational manual aimed square at his user base...even going so
far as to add two bulleted lists of what, in his opinion as designer
and end-user, was good about the unit and what "suck[ed]" about
it....something like a 'pros' and 'cons' rundown (sound familiar?).
the reviewer basically paraphrased each of these points through the
course of the review and added one paragraph's worth of actual review.

You gotta keep McQ in context, because not only is he an inventive
designer with a cost-effective mission statement, he is a truly
outstanding recordist and mixer, way above average, and on top of that,
he is as articulate as the very best reviewers.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

"Brian Takei" wrote in message
.net
David Morley ) wrote:

They like it!

Here is a summary

+

low distortion/wide audio bandwidth
clear natural sound
Plenty of headroom for driving level hungry soundcards
snip

I'm curious, in the context of feeding a soundcard's input -- how
common is the problem of a preamp/device (especially a +4dBu one)
lacking 'headroom', and for -which- sound cards?

I can hang a number on this. FS for your typical pro sound card input is set
for +4 is generally 10-12 dB above +4. IOW it can take up to +16 to drive a
sound card to FS.,

This roughly corresponds to headroom in analog recorders.

Sound card outputs are more variable as there are some who set levels based
on one of the two poles of the balanced outputs, while others set levels
based on the difference between them. So you might see voltages 6 dB higher
at the output, depending on how you measure that voltage.

Most of the +4 analog hardware in my inventory seems to be able to go there,
and in many cases well beyond. I think that +18 is a low number for maximum
undistorted output, while +22 is not really all that that unusual.

Or did the author mean 'plenty of gain for accommodating low level
sources'?

A related question, on digital devices with analog inputs (-10dBv or
+4 dBu) -- Is there a standard (or common practice) for the
specification of what input level converts to 0 dBFS (not clipped)?

Not that I know of. Hence my statement saying that pro sound cards have
10-12 dB headroom above +4.

In article writes:

I'm curious, in the context of feeding a soundcard's input -- how common
is the problem of a preamp/device (especially a +4dBu one) lacking
'headroom', and for -which- sound cards? Or did the author mean 'plenty
of gain for accommodating low level sources'?

No, he meant plenty of output capablity (lots of volts) which some
digital equipment takes in order to reach full scale level. It doesn't
matter how much gain you have. If it takes 5 volts in order to reach
full scale digital level and the preamp clips at 4 volts output, it has
insufficient headroom for the application. If it took only 2 volts to
reach full scale, then it would be adequate.

A related question, on digital devices with analog inputs (-10dBv or +4
dBu) -- Is there a standard (or common practice) for the specification
of what input level converts to 0 dBFS (not clipped)?

No. This is why there are so many questions about it. They seem to
range from -20 dBFS to -12 dBFS for whatever the nominal (+4 or -10)
input level is. If +4 dBu gives a level of -20 dBFS, you'd need a
preamp that could put out at least +24 dBu in order for the recording
to reach full scale. Of course you need as much gain as is necessary
to get the input up to +24 dBu, but that's a different issue than
headroom.

If these things had input level controls like any civilized tape
recorder, you could set it up to whatever worked for you, but since
they don't, you have to make whatever you have work.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

Arny Krueger ) wrote:
"Brian Takei" wrote in
I'm curious, in the context of feeding a soundcard's input -- how
common is the problem of a preamp/device (especially a +4dBu one)
lacking 'headroom', and for -which- sound cards?

I can hang a number on this. FS for your typical pro sound card input is set
for +4 is generally 10-12 dB above +4. IOW it can take up to +16 to drive a
sound card to FS.,

This roughly corresponds to headroom in analog recorders.

Sound card outputs are more variable as there are some who set levels based
on one of the two poles of the balanced outputs, while others set levels
based on the difference between them. So you might see voltages 6 dB higher
at the output, depending on how you measure that voltage.

Most of the +4 analog hardware in my inventory seems to be able to go there,
and in many cases well beyond. I think that +18 is a low number for maximum
undistorted output, while +22 is not really all that that unusual.


Thanks for the numbers. So, it's not a common problem. That is, it's
much more common for an analog device to be capable of putting out a
clean signal that will clip a digital recorder's input, than the
opposite (i.e. that its maximum undistorted output will -not- reach 0
dBFS, and thus it's unable to use all the bits (which isn't really a
"problem" when tracking, at least where I sit)).

- Brian

Mike Rivers ) wrote:
If these things had input level controls like any civilized tape
recorder, you could set it up to whatever worked for you, but since
they don't, you have to make whatever you have work.

I assume you're suggesting the ability to calibrate the 0 dBFS setting
of the ADC (as opposed to an adjustable pad and/or bump box on the
inputs). I don't have knowledge of ADC design to guess what it would
cost to add the functionality of fine calibration of 0 dBFS, though I
know some interfaces can be toggled to generally accomodate -10 or +4
gear. Speaking of which, I just remembered (doh) that the RME Multiface
allows one to make similar changes via internal jumpers. looking it
up Each analog input and output can individually be configured to one
of three settings of 0 dBFS:

19 dBu
13 dBu [default]
2 dBV (4.2 dBu)

I don't have equipment to verify this.

- Brian

In article writes:

Thanks for the numbers. So, it's not a common problem. That is, it's
much more common for an analog device to be capable of putting out a
clean signal that will clip a digital recorder's input, than the
opposite (i.e. that its maximum undistorted output will -not- reach 0
dBFS, and thus it's unable to use all the bits (which isn't really a
"problem" when tracking, at least where I sit)).

Actually it IS a common problem, I'm just not sure how common. Arny
has set up far more different sound cards than I have. Personally I
wouldn't calibrate a digital recorder at -12 dBFS for the nominal
input level. That's not enough "digital headroom" for me. However it
probably works pretty well for modern music where you're recording
samples that are already compressed, or you put fairly heavy
compression between the live source and the recorder. I'd much rather
have 20 dB of headroom built in and still stay on the conservative
side.

People have problems in both directions. There's the preamp with a
nominal output level of +4 dBu and maximum output of +28 dBu "easily
overloading" a sound card input that's set up for a nominal input of
-10 dBV and 12 dB of headroom. And then there's the preamp with a
nominal -10 dBV output going into a sound card that has a nominal
+4 dBu for -20 dBFS which makes recordings that aren't "hot enough."

Then it's further complicated when connecting an electronically
balanced output to an unbalanced input in a way that only gives half
the nominal output voltage. This drops the record level by 6 dB, which
on most waveform displays, is half the waveform area, which worries
people a whole lot. It also means that there may be more gain required
on playback, but I've rarely found this to be a technical problem,
only one of perception. People are afraid of boosting gain for fear of
increasing noise. On some equipment it's a problem but that should
tell you to get better equipment, not to agonize over recording levels.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

In article znr1057584387k@trad, Mike Rivers
wrote:

Personally I
wouldn't calibrate a digital recorder at -12 dBFS for the nominal
input level. That's not enough "digital headroom" for me.

People do this in order to operate the console with more headroom. Many
consoles simply don't have 18-20 dB of headroom available in the real
world.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery Recording Project Design and Consulting
Box 90412, Nashville TN 37209 Tracking, Mixing, Mastering, Audio for Picture
615.385.8051 FAX: 615.385.8196 Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
40 years of making people sound better than they ever imagined!

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1057584387k@trad
In article
writes:

Thanks for the numbers. So, it's not a common problem. That is,
it's much more common for an analog device to be capable of putting
out a clean signal that will clip a digital recorder's input, than
the opposite (i.e. that its maximum undistorted output will -not-
reach 0 dBFS, and thus it's unable to use all the bits (which isn't
really a "problem" when tracking, at least where I sit)).

Actually it IS a common problem, I'm just not sure how common.

OK, so its questionable exactly how common it is because we don't know how
common it is. BTW, is that glass half empy or half full? ;-)

Arny has set up far more different sound cards than I have. Personally I
wouldn't calibrate a digital recorder at -12 dBFS for the nominal
input level. That's not enough "digital headroom" for me.

Agreed.

However it
probably works pretty well for modern music where you're recording
samples that are already compressed, or you put fairly heavy
compression between the live source and the recorder.

Is that really all that common?

I'd much rather
have 20 dB of headroom built in and still stay on the conservative
side.

Agreed.

People have problems in both directions. There's the preamp with a
nominal output level of +4 dBu and maximum output of +28 dBu "easily
overloading" a sound card input that's set up for a nominal input of
-10 dBV and 12 dB of headroom.

An obvious mismatch that requires mixing equipment rated at -10 with
equipment rated at +4. Many sound cards have switchable input sensitivity so
this is a misunderstanding, not a permanent problem.

And then there's the preamp with a
nominal -10 dBV output going into a sound card that has a nominal
+4 dBu for -20 dBFS which makes recordings that aren't "hot enough."

Frankly, I know of no sound cards with 20 dB worth of headroom. 12 dB seems
to be a VERY typical number.

Then it's further complicated when connecting an electronically
balanced output to an unbalanced input in a way that only gives half
the nominal output voltage. This drops the record level by 6 dB, which
on most waveform displays, is half the waveform area, which worries
people a whole lot. It also means that there may be more gain required
on playback, but I've rarely found this to be a technical problem,
only one of perception.

I agree with you that this is a problem of perception. You've scoped it out
perfectly - many people are too sensitive to appearances without considering
what those appearances actually mean.

People are afraid of boosting gain for fear of
increasing noise. On some equipment it's a problem but that should
tell you to get better equipment, not to agonize over recording
levels.

IME far more recordings have been damaged by audible clipping than audible
noise floors. These days even relatively cheap consumer cards have noise
floors that are 80 dB or more down.

(Mike Rivers) wrote in message news:znr1057366978k@trad...
In article -nospam writes:

Not useless to those who can a) read ans b) stagger down to a newsagent.

I did (read it). The summary said it was a great little mic pre,
especially for the money.

For that, I don't need to buy an expensive imported magazine. But
thanks for trying.


Gee Mike,

Lots of people here could have said the same about your articles in
Recording..."good read but I don't want to buy the mag", now tell me
what it says for free....and oh can I get some free software cracks
and some Brittany MP3 downloads with that g

Analogeezer

In article writes:

wouldn't calibrate a digital recorder at -12 dBFS

People do this in order to operate the console with more headroom. Many
consoles simply don't have 18-20 dB of headroom available in the real
world.

Sad but true today. And you can get away with it because tracking in a
lot of contemporary music doesn't require any more than a few dB of
headroom because of the heavy use of compression. Once you limit the
dynamic range, you know how much dynamic range you need and can adjust
gain accordingly. Still it would be nice to have an input level
control on our sound cards.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

Brian Takei wrote:

Kurt Albershardt ) wrote:

I recommend Bob Katz's excellent writing on the subject
http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule...er_page_id=59/


Thanks for the reference. I had some exposure to his K-System at AES
2001 in NYC, where he chaired the workshop 'The Changing Role of The
Mastering Engineer'. The article was a good read, though it is
addressing mixing/mastering issues and applications, as opposed to
tracking. Do you know if his K-System being widely adopted?


Not widely enough IMO ; Coming from a video and film background I got
used to calibrated monitors and never understood why the music rooms
didn't have the same luxury.

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message

gain accordingly. Still it would be nice to have an input level
control on our sound cards.

Depends on the driver/mixer applet that comes with the card.

geoff

In article -nospam writes:

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
Still it would be nice to have an input level
control on our sound cards.

Depends on the driver/mixer applet that comes with the card.

That's where the "knob" is, but it really depends on the hardware. You
can change the record gain, but this is a digital scaling, so you lose
resolution when you drop it and increase noise (and possibly run out
of analog headroom) if you raise it.

What they need to do if they don't want to put a pot on the box (Echo
used to have one box with real pots, the Mona perhaps?) is to put a
digital attenuator ahead of the A/D converter, and control that with
the sound card mixer applet. The argument that the manufacturers who
have answered to that is that they can't find an attenuator that's
quiet enough, and putting one in would decrease the card's
signal-to-noise ratio.

As for me, I'd rather have the noise increase a couple of dB down at a
level that I can't hear anyway and have a way to control the gain
structure of the system. However the marketing department knows that
people will compare this figure and buy the card for which it's the
lowest. They see this as losing more sales than it would gain, and as
we all know, it's not as much about sound as it is about sales.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

I, too, have been recommending people pay attention to Bob's writings about
studio calibration. It's a pretty simple setup to do and it tells one scads
about how their work is stacking up to released product without any
guesswork at all. As to the K-System metering, that's something a lot of
people simply aren't going to understand right up front, but I don't believe
that Bob really has the "right" to name it either. It's not like he
actually came up with a dynamite metering system, just expounded on it
pretty well.

The problem I've seen with a lot of us little studios is that the ins and
outs of the system aren't properly understood, therefore making calibration
an almost impossible task. Then again, more often than not, gain staging
isn't understood in itself, and if you can't START with a good sound and
proper recording levels, you'll never get an END product that sounds like
you want it to.

Bob Katz' writings should be prerequisites listed in the FAQ, if you ask me.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

301-585-4681




"Kurt Albershardt" wrote in message
...
Brian Takei wrote:

Kurt Albershardt ) wrote:

I recommend Bob Katz's excellent writing on the subject

http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule...er_page_id=59/


Thanks for the reference. I had some exposure to his K-System at AES
2001 in NYC, where he chaired the workshop 'The Changing Role of The
Mastering Engineer'. The article was a good read, though it is
addressing mixing/mastering issues and applications, as opposed to
tracking. Do you know if his K-System being widely adopted?


Not widely enough IMO ; Coming from a video and film background I got
used to calibrated monitors and never understood why the music rooms
didn't have the same luxury.

Roger W. Norman wrote:
The problem I've seen with a lot of us little studios is that the ins and
outs of the system aren't properly understood, therefore making calibration
an almost impossible task. Then again, more often than not, gain staging
isn't understood in itself, and if you can't START with a good sound and
proper recording levels, you'll never get an END product that sounds like
you want it to.

OK... time to rant a bit... not even sure whyG...

Has anyone else noticed that it is now possible to walk into a
"recording studio" and not find a single piece of test equipment? True,
unless you have analog tape decks you really no longer need an
oscilloscope, but how in the world does one manage all that gear, and
all those gozintaa and gozoutas without at least a stable sine wave
generator and an AC voltmeter?

I just don't get it!!! Especially since the Loftech TS-1 is what, $500?
And the little Neutrik instruments probably aren't a lot more. And then
there is the Terrasonde Audio Toolbox. for not a whole lot more, which I
really like, and which will tell you why it's a really bad idea to stick
diffusors on one side wall, just in case your ears aren't being
completely candid with youG!

This isn't rocket science... you have to have at least one trusted
reference, and while I suppose it's nice, I'll admit it's been quite a
while since any of my gear has seen an NBS stickerG.

OK, enough ranting...

Bob Katz' writings should be prerequisites listed in the FAQ, if you ask me.

Agreed! I'd also add a couple of documents from Rane's library and a
couple of Jensen whitepapers to that list.

Bill

In article writes:

Has anyone else noticed that it is now possible to walk into a
"recording studio" and not find a single piece of test equipment?

Well, I feel a little inadequate because I don't have any DIGITAL test
equipment other than a scope that's just barely fast enough to look at
a 48 kHz clock. I don't have very much digital gear yet, so it's not a
big deal, but I'd like to be able to look at data coming out of a port
to see if it's really 24-bit, if dither is working right, if the
channel status bits are set the way I think they are, etc.

I want a Neutrik Digilizer. I've been trying to get one to review ever
since they came out, but I guess the magazine I write for isn't
interested in reviewing something that makes you think very hard.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

Mike Rivers wrote:

Well, I feel a little inadequate because I don't have any DIGITAL test
equipment other than a scope that's just barely fast enough to look at
a 48 kHz clock. I don't have very much digital gear yet, so it's not a
big deal, but I'd like to be able to look at data coming out of a port
to see if it's really 24-bit, if dither is working right, if the
channel status bits are set the way I think they are, etc.

Interesting observation... I'm in the same boat. I still have a couple
of logic probes, but like you my o'scope really isn't up to the task for
modern digital interfaces.

I want a Neutrik Digilizer. I've been trying to get one to review ever
since they came out, but I guess the magazine I write for isn't
interested in reviewing something that makes you think very hard.

I'm torn actually... the Digilizer looks cool, and CRL labs had a little
digital audio analyzer that looked neat at a recent tradeshow... and the
nice thing about these specialized test sets is that they already know
how to recognize the necessary patterns, and do the math.

On the otherhand, a nice logic analyzer would be a lot of fun to play
withG...

However... even if you had an all digital studio do you think a
Digilizer would be as essetial as a signal generator and a meter are in
an analog studio? I suppose the day will come when they are.

Bill

In article ,
Bill Thompson wrote:

Mike Rivers wrote:

I want a Neutrik Digilizer. I've been trying to get one to review ever
since they came out, but I guess the magazine I write for isn't
interested in reviewing something that makes you think very hard.

I'm torn actually... the Digilizer looks cool, and CRL labs had a little
digital audio analyzer that looked neat at a recent tradeshow... and the
nice thing about these specialized test sets is that they already know
how to recognize the necessary patterns, and do the math.

I have a problem or three with all the boxes that don't know if they want
to grow up to be a mobile phone or not. (Not grow up that is.)
1) They ought to be able to survive a fall to the ground (just like, say,
a Fluke DMM) and when you see plastic pcb mounted connectors you know it
won't.
2) They ought to be able to communicate with a computer at least as on
option (just like a Fluke DMM).
3) A display that you cannot read across a room is of limited use.

I know all the cost/market size size considerations, but at the price they
come in at they are too limited and simply don't get bought.

Graham Hinton wrote:
Bill Thompson wrote:

OK... time to rant a bit... not even sure whyG...

Because you can and why not? Call that a rant? This is a rant:

Hello GrahamG...

Has anyone else noticed that it is now possible to walk into a
"recording studio" and not find a single piece of test equipment?

Noticed? It really ****es me off having to lug all my gear over just
because they are too cheapskate to get some half decent test gear. Even off
eBay.

but then you get to charge more for your services... right???

True, unless you have analog tape decks you really no longer need an
oscilloscope,

You always need a 'scope and are blind without one.

Hmmm... guess you are right... but for basic alignment, excepting tape
decks, I think one can get away with a signal generator and a meter.

but how in the world does one manage all that gear, and
all those gozintaa and gozoutas without at least a stable sine wave
generator and an AC voltmeter?

Manage if the operative word now. Everybody is a manager, monkeys swinging
from tree to tree with no knowledge of the ground below.

Now that's a rantG...

I just don't get it!!! Especially since the Loftech TS-1 is what, $500?
And the little Neutrik instruments probably aren't a lot more. And then
there is the Terrasonde Audio Toolbox.

Nobody has really come out with the right box yet. Too expensive or too
cheap, solutions looking for a problem and definitely not designed by
people with studio experience. Looks like I'll have to do one...

I do have to disagree here... I think the little Loftech is a great
product... easy to use, flexible enough to be usable in different
environmets, good documentation, the right features except I wish it had
a monitor speaker (mine doesG), and at $500 USD I think it is a
remarkable good value. The Portable One Dual Domain does everything, and
is a lot more accurate/quiet, and is programmable, but it also costs
upwards of $8K.

Now if you really want to build one combine the Amber 4400 with the
Portable One and sell it for $1k and you have a winner!!!!

Just out of curiousity... how would you describe the ideal studio test
set???

Never mind test gear, a lot of studios don't even have a soldering iron
now, wouldn't know which end to hold if they did and couldn't use it to
make up a mic cable if their careers depended on it (which in fact they do
).

Soldering irons... heck, I know of at least two studios in the area
where there are NO tools whatsoever... not even a screwdriver. Needless
to say I don't let them know that I know which end of the soldering iron
hurtsG!

It is, sadly, a very different world.

In article writes:

I have a problem or three with all the boxes that don't know if they want
to grow up to be a mobile phone or not. (Not grow up that is.)
1) They ought to be able to survive a fall to the ground (just like, say,
a Fluke DMM) and when you see plastic pcb mounted connectors you know it
won't.
2) They ought to be able to communicate with a computer at least as on
option (just like a Fluke DMM).
3) A display that you cannot read across a room is of limited use.

Has anyone played with that Phonic portable analyzer? It doesn't do
digital, but it does about everything else that the Minilizer does and
it's half the price. It also has a computer port. I saw it at NAMM at
least a year ago, and I see that they're advertising them in the
magazines now, so they must have some stock, finally.

They should give me one.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

Hey, I resemble that remark!

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

301-585-4681




"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1057838889k@trad...

In article
writes:

Never mind test gear, a lot of studios don't even have a soldering iron
now, wouldn't know which end to hold if they did and couldn't use it to
make up a mic cable if their careers depended on it (which in fact they
do
).

How many times have we seen someone asking here about how to
construct, repair, or modify a cable? They usually qualify their
question with "I'm a musician, not an engineer." I guess they should
take some small degree of satisfaction knowing that many who call
themselves "engineer" don't know the answers either.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

In article ,
Bill Thompson wrote:


but then you get to charge more for your services... right???

Only for a while. As soon as a studio starts skimping on maintenance it is
only a matter of time before they go out of business.
Ten years ago all the big studios here (UK) had full time maintenance staff
with standbies. Most producers would refuse to do a session without
technical backup on site. That was the first thing to go when the going
got tough. Now most of the famous residentials have gone, the big artists
that used to support them have consoles in their garden sheds, division 2
studios have second hand consoles and go out for 300 quid a day or less and
maintenance is unheard of even as an abstract concept. Don't know if you
heard Frank Andrews' tirade against the record companies when Ridge Farm
closed earlier this year?


Hmmm... guess you are right... but for basic alignment, excepting tape
decks, I think one can get away with a signal generator and a meter.

For tape alignment I wouldn't use a scope as I normally have a phase meter
on the console.
I meant more for checking all sorts of signals. Too many other indicators
are interpretive, even a DMM, but a scope shows you exactly what is there
with lots of tiny subtleties.


Now if you really want to build one combine the Amber 4400 with the
Portable One and sell it for $1k and you have a winner!!!!

That is just about what I was thinking of
The 4400 is still the standard I compare others to in terms of ease of use.
Not accuracy though.

Just out of curiousity... how would you describe the ideal studio test
set???

Fast and relevant to the job in hand, ie not based on the old paradigm.
Wait till I write the brochure.


It is, sadly, a very different world.

It gets more like Soylent Green everyday - the bit about finding someone
who can still repair a watch.

Graham Hinton wrote:

For tape alignment I wouldn't use a scope as I normally have a phase meter
on the console.

That's funny... cause I'm just the opposite... I like the squiggly lines
more than a moving needle for this particular task...

I meant more for checking all sorts of signals. Too many other indicators
are interpretive, even a DMM, but a scope shows you exactly what is there
with lots of tiny subtleties.

Agreed.

That is just about what I was thinking of
The 4400 is still the standard I compare others to in terms of ease of use.
Not accuracy though.

We seem to agreeG...

Just out of curiousity... how would you describe the ideal studio test
set???

Fast and relevant to the job in hand, ie not based on the old paradigm.

That's the ticket... identify the tasks that need to be done and then
figure out the best way to do them. I started this project once upon a
time, but it definately wasn't going to work as a one-off!

Wait till I write the brochure.

Send it on!!!

It is, sadly, a very different world.

It gets more like Soylent Green everyday - the bit about finding someone
who can still repair a watch.

Lovely referenceG...

Bill

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1057858737k@trad...

Has anyone played with that Phonic portable analyzer? It doesn't do
digital, but it does about everything else that the Minilizer does and
it's half the price. It also has a computer port. I saw it at NAMM at
least a year ago, and I see that they're advertising them in the
magazines now, so they must have some stock, finally.



A Google search turned up nothing. Got any idea where I might check it
out?

--
"I got into audio because I like pushing buttons...
...never figured on all this freakin' wire!"
- Lorin David Schultz

Lorin David Schultz ) wrote:
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1057858737k@trad...

Has anyone played with that Phonic portable analyzer? It doesn't do
digital, but it does about everything else that the Minilizer does and
it's half the price. It also has a computer port. I saw it at NAMM at
least a year ago, and I see that they're advertising them in the
magazines now, so they must have some stock, finally.

A Google search turned up nothing. Got any idea where I might check it
out?


http://www.google.com/search?as_q=phonic+paa2


- Brian

In article ,
says...
Graham Hinton wrote:

For tape alignment I wouldn't use a scope as I normally have a phase meter
on the console.

That's funny... cause I'm just the opposite... I like the squiggly lines
more than a moving needle for this particular task...

I meant more for checking all sorts of signals. Too many other indicators
are interpretive, even a DMM, but a scope shows you exactly what is there
with lots of tiny subtleties.

Agreed.

That is just about what I was thinking of
The 4400 is still the standard I compare others to in terms of ease of use.
Not accuracy though.

We seem to agreeG...

Just out of curiousity... how would you describe the ideal studio test
set???

Fast and relevant to the job in hand, ie not based on the old paradigm.

That's the ticket... identify the tasks that need to be done and then
figure out the best way to do them. I started this project once upon a
time, but it definately wasn't going to work as a one-off!

Wait till I write the brochure.

Send it on!!!

It is, sadly, a very different world.

It gets more like Soylent Green everyday - the bit about finding someone
who can still repair a watch.

Lovely referenceG...

Bill


Speaking as a freelance maintenance engineer in England I have to say it
is all over. There are perhaps a dozen of us left working in the U.K. and
only two or three will attempt tape machine repairs! It is hard to find a
recording studio left, let alone one with maintenance!!
Anyone with half-a-brain has gone to find something else to do!

Still it was better than working!
Pip pip
--
Chris Notton
Replace "nospam" with my surname to reply by email
Sostituisca il "nospam" con il mio cognome per rispondere
}////(*