Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I knew there would be blood, but this much?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
August 21, 2004 1:50:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I ended up stabbing and cutting myself with a nail clipper, because
that was less painful than the 7 days of 24/7 research I've been doing
on what combination of soundcard/mixer/preamp/ or all in one sound card
solution to use for a new DAW.

One possible config would be Mackie 1202 vlz Pro Mixer with awesome XDR
mic pres, and cheap, ie audiophile 24/96. Or one could choose an all in
one solution, ie a Motu 828 MKII.

Or for a ton of mixer featuers, one could use the Behringer UB2222FX Pro
Eurorack 22 Input Mixer with FX (http://www.zzounds.com/item--
BEHUB2222FXP) with audiophile 24/96.

Could the MOTU 828 MKII mic pre's be as good as the Mackie 1202 VLZ Pro?
If not...than why bother spending all that money on a MKII, if an
expensive preamp or mixer is still needed?

Or I could just get an E-MU 1212m, which is supposedly great, and
combine this with a Art or Presonus tube mic preamp, and phantom power
jack.

For 200 bucks, a mixer with all those inputs, effects, eq's, preamps,
and more...that seems like more bang for the buck than one big fancy
sound card, like the M-audio firewire 410 - which many say has big
problems and so so mic preamps.

So is the best plan to go with a reputable mixer with excellent preamps
and a less featureless but high quality EMU 1212m? This soundcard seems
to be the best quality for the best price?

I would love firewire/usb 2.0 portability, but am not married to it if
the qaulity of a pci is noticably better by most listeners, which seems
to be debatable.

One reviewer on zzounds said he could produce quality as good as the big
east and west coast studios using a MOTU 828MKII and Behringer UB2222FX
Pro Eurorack 22 Input Mixer with FX.

Well, I have to say...since writing this article, I bought a Mackie 1202
VLZ pro with the xdr mic preamps. But would it be a better idea to sell
it and just go with a Motu 828MKII?

My budget is about 1,000...though I could stretch it. and I could easily
sell the Mackie if someone gave me a better setup idea. My system is
Cubase SX 2 and Windows XP, 1700 cpu.

I will be eternally grateful for your suggestions!!!

Thank you very much,

Mike

More about : knew blood

Anonymous
August 21, 2004 1:50:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike,

> I ended up stabbing and cutting myself with a nail clipper <

You're over-thinking this. I also agree with Tony that you should determine
what you need before going shopping.

Look, ALL semi-pro gear is pretty darn good these days. Though as Tony said,
with sound cards it's the drivers that separate the men from the boys. I'll
make it easy for you:

> One possible config would be Mackie 1202 vlz Pro Mixer with ... audiophile
24/96 <

Yes, that will work very well. If you need more sound card input channels
M-Audio makes the Delta series with equally solid drivers.

The advantage of a mixer over separate preamps is it's less wires to deal
with, fewer chances for ground loops, and you get preamps AND a monitor
section. And you can put a cheap hardware reverb box on an Aux bus to
monitor with reverb for inspiration. That's a lot harder to do with separate
pres.

For more on how to connect these things together, see "Using a Mixer With a
DAW," first in the list on my Articles page:

www.ethanwiner.com/articles.html

--Ethan
Anonymous
August 21, 2004 2:08:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <MPG.1b90e541a51f281d9896be@news.easynews.com> MichaelDouglas@sprintnethome.com writes:

> I ended up stabbing and cutting myself with a nail clipper, because
> that was less painful than the 7 days of 24/7 research I've been doing
> on what combination of soundcard/mixer/preamp/ or all in one sound card
> solution to use for a new DAW.

You didn't have to do that much research. All you had to do is realize
that it makes very little difference, go to your local music store,
buy what they have in stock, and use it for a while.

> One possible config would be Mackie 1202 vlz Pro Mixer with awesome XDR
> mic pres, and cheap, ie audiophile 24/96. Or one could choose an all in
> one solution, ie a Motu 828 MKII.

Those are two very different things and while they both have mic
inputs, computer interface outputs and do some mixing, they work in
different ways.

> Or for a ton of mixer featuers, one could use the Behringer UB2222FX Pro
> Eurorack 22 Input Mixer with FX (http://www.zzounds.com/item--
> BEHUB2222FXP) with audiophile 24/96.

Excellent learning tool. I encourage people to START with something
like this. It will not be the end of the line for you if you're
serious, but it's the cheapest learning experience you'll get in this
field.

> Could the MOTU 828 MKII mic pre's be as good as the Mackie 1202 VLZ Pro?

Yes, but I don't know if they are, or if so, in what respect.

> If not...than why bother spending all that money on a MKII, if an
> expensive preamp or mixer is still needed?

Good question. People just getting started DO NOT need an expensive
preamp and mixer. They need one that's adequate for getting decent
quality sound that won't get in the way of learning how to use the
gear. But if you keep it up, eventually you WILL want a better quality
preamp (as well as a ton of other "better quality" gear) and you'll
have a better idea of what to look for then than now.

> For 200 bucks, a mixer with all those inputs, effects, eq's, preamps,
> and more...that seems like more bang for the buck than one big fancy
> sound card, like the M-audio firewire 410 - which many say has big
> problems and so so mic preamps.

It is. But if you're using your computer as a recorder, you still need
some sort of interface for that. And if you want to record multiple
tracks in one pass, you'll need an interface that has more than two
inputs. If you're working by yourself, you can do a whole lot of very
good work with a Mackie 1202 VLZ Pro, a halfway decent sound card like
the M-Audio Audiophile, some software, two or three decent
microphones, and a good set of monitors. Don't forget all that other
stuff, and be sure you have enough money for it.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
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 here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Related resources
Anonymous
August 21, 2004 2:27:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<MichaelDouglas@sprintnethome.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b90e541a51f281d9896be@news.easynews.com...
>
> I ended up stabbing and cutting myself with a nail clipper, because
> that was less painful than the 7 days of 24/7 research I've been doing
> on what combination of soundcard/mixer/preamp/ or all in one sound card
> solution to use for a new DAW.

Here's a question: are you going to be *only* doing recording, or are you
going to be playing out in bars and stuff too?

If you're doing the live music thing, you could use a separate mixer there
as well as in your home studio.

Another question: are you only recording yourself singing/playing one
instrument at a time, or are you doing the band thing? If you only need to
do one or two channels at a time, you don't need a mixer; go with the stereo
preamp/soundcard thing.


Just trying to throw a wrench into your decision making...

Dave O'Heare
oheareATmagmaDOTca
Anonymous
August 21, 2004 9:46:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hiya Dave,

I might do live sometime. And it's just me, a one man show, although I
might add 2 more at some point.

If by stereo/preamp soundcard thing you mean like an Art
preamp/soundcard, I avoided that because I just thought the Mackie 1202
vlz pro xdr preamp was better than any preamp for under 300.00.

Really...from my research, the Mackie Preamp in the 1202 vlz pro makes
that mixer more of a really cheap but quality preamp purchase (from
ebay) with a mixer thrown in for free. My impression was that the
preamps in the Mackie were better than most any soundcard, save for,
perhaps, the 1,000 plus MOTU's, RME's, and EMU's, and even there it's
arguable?

I guess it was all about an economical but super quality preamp. I only
paid 220.00 for the Mackie 1202...I don't think I could find a sound
card with an equivalent preamp for less?

Now I am just about to get the Behringer USB 2.0 BCA2000 Audio/MIDI
Interface. I mean you get a mixer, midi, preamps, and a midi
controller, and much more, for 200 bucks??? And Behringer quality is
arguably quite good by many accounts and reviews. I don't see how any
other sound card under 600.00 retail can come close to competing...if it
does half of what it claims.

The only other competitors are the Firewire 410 and...well...for under
400.00 there really is not much else with Firewire or USB 2.0, with
anything close to the features and purported quality of the Behringer,
albeit, there are precious few reviews of the very new Behringer
bca2000.

I mean...it seems that for about 400.00 USD, I have everything I need to
compete with the major studios...provided I have some know how and a
quality mic? I don't have much know how (except for what I read here)
but assuming I did...

Or is the Behringer obviously not going to come close to a 600-800 MOTU
MKII card...to a degree where, all other things being equal, the average
listener or even engineer could really tell a significant difference?

Surely it will match cards like the audiophile 24/96 and EMU 1212M,
which are in the same price range, albeit 100.00 less for the former and
about the same for the latter.

The specs for the Behringer are below, but the official and more gritty
specs are here: http://www.behringer.com/BCA2000/index.cfm?lang=ENG

Can anyone think of a better bargain for roughly 400.00?

Others USB2.0 cards may follow, but for now, this seems like the king of
the hill...of the first offerings that will exceed pci in
features/convenience and portability and compete in
quality/speed/throughput?

Love,

Burt



The BCA2000 is a high-speed USB 2.0 multi-channel audio MIDI control
interface that raises your performance to a whole new level. Not only
does it provide an intuitive control surface with 100-mm faders for
audio/MIDI sequenzing, it also features a high-performance analog input
section that has 2 state-of-the-art studio-grade IMP =3FInvisible=3F Mic
Preamps with +48 V phantom power, plus line and Hi-Z guitar inputs.
Combine this with its versatile digital input and output formats like
ADAT®, ADAT® S/MUX, AES/EBU and S/PDIF (including DOLBY DIGITAL® and
DTS® options) and you have an unlimited array of interfacing
capabilities.

You can simultaneously use 3 analog input sources (1 mono + 1 stereo)
with digital input sources. Its ultra-flexible input/output
configuration is supported by a comprehensive LED audio routing
indicator plus button (status) LEDs. Input signal distortion and A/D
converter overload are prevented by the adjustable studio-grade analog
input dynamic control (noise gate + limiter).

The BCA2000=3Fs fully equipped USB/MIDI interface with 1 MIDI input and 2
MIDI outputs is individually selectable for 16/32 MIDI channels. Plus,
full multi-channel playback is enabled at 24-bit/96 kHz. There is a
high-resolution 2 x 12 element LED level indicator for stereo In/Out
signals plus 2-element LED level indicator for input and output channels
3 through 8. The high-speed USB 2.0 interface with 24-bit/96 kHz
supports 8 In & 8 Out channels simultaneously (analog and digital) with
low-latency ASIO 2 and WDM drivers.

Simply connect your B-CONTROL to your computer via high-speed USB 2.0.
Then connect your keyboard, guitar and mic. True audiophiles will surely
appreciate the fully equipped master and monitor sections with 100-mm
fader, individual level controls for 2 speakers, 2 phones and low-
latency direct monitor function plus separate dim, mute and mono
functions. Best of all, discover just how awesome MIDI can be!


Subject: Re: I knew there would be blood, but this much?
From: <"David O'H" <.>>
Newsgroups: alt.music.4-track, rec.audio.pro


<MichaelDouglas@sprintnethome.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b90e541a51f281d9896be@news.easynews.com...
>
> I ended up stabbing and cutting myself with a nail clipper, because
> that was less painful than the 7 days of 24/7 research I've been doing
> on what combination of soundcard/mixer/preamp/ or all in one sound card
> solution to use for a new DAW.

Here's a question: are you going to be *only* doing recording, or are
you
going to be playing out in bars and stuff too?

If you're doing the live music thing, you could use a separate mixer
there
as well as in your home studio.

Another question: are you only recording yourself singing/playing one
instrument at a time, or are you doing the band thing? If you only need
to
do one or two channels at a time, you don't need a mixer; go with the
stereo
preamp/soundcard thing.


Just trying to throw a wrench into your decision making...

Dave O'Heare
oheareATmagmaDOTca


Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 10:27:51 -0400
Anonymous
August 21, 2004 9:46:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 17:46:10 GMT, burtreynolds@simplyburt.com wrote:

>I mean...it seems that for about 400.00 USD, I have everything I need to
>compete with the major studios

Well, it might not be quite that simple...
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 12:25:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<MichaelDouglas@sprintnethome.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b90e541a51f281d9896be@news.easynews.com...
> One possible config would be Mackie 1202 vlz Pro Mixer with awesome XDR
> mic pres, and cheap, ie audiophile 24/96. Or one could choose an all in
> one solution, ie a Motu 828 MKII.
> Could the MOTU 828 MKII mic pre's be as good as the Mackie 1202 VLZ Pro?
> If not...than why bother spending all that money on a MKII, if an
> expensive preamp or mixer is still needed?

Why compare a cheap two channel card with an 8 channel box? How many
*simultaneous* inputs do you need to record, and how many do you need to
playback? That should ALWAYS be the first question.
Now look at driver support for the software you wish to use.
Then look at actual measured performance.

TonyP.
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 12:25:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hi Tony,



Thanks for the reply to this dude. I am not sure if you got the gist
of his post though: It seems his point was that it depended on the
mixer, mic pre, or other options. For instance, if he didn't get a
mixer with mic pres, he would need a sound card with mic pres,
hopefully quality ones, and it just so happens that sound cards with
quality pre amps, also come with other features, such as 8 channels.

Perhaps it wasn't a comparison as much as it was a question of which
combination was more advisable from experience or informed speculation
on the part of this knowledgeable and experienced group.

I think his point is that there are many ways to setup the mic
pre/sound card/mixer part of a DAW. I have been doing this for
years...and even I am unsure what the best setup is - though I have
long wished for an all in one solution - and now a firewire or usb 2.0
solution. Conceivably, one shouldn't need more than one
interface/box/soundcard - but in today's market, his Mixer/soundcard
seems to cover all the bases.

I guess I would say Burt, you don't always know ahead of time how many
ins/outs you are going to need in the future, as the previous poster
seemed to assume, so I would say get a few now, if you can afford it,
and you won't be sorry later.

I like your idea of using a mixer for the mic pres: You are guaranteed
to get good mic pres, and you get a mixer and lots of in/outs to boot.
So then it's just a matter of getting a quality soundcard. Even though
it's overkill for features, the MOTU MKII seems to be the best quality
of the soundcards you mentioned and a logical choice. But I would
listen to the more experienced here, if they care to help...but that's
my advice in the interim.

Oh...also, perhaps the Behringer BCA2000 USB Audio/MIDI Interface
answers all your needs, in that it's cheap, but it has all the
features, preamps, midi, controller surfaces, 24/96, and loads more,
for just about 200 bucks. It seems to be the most feature loaded usb
2.0 soundcard out there right now.


On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 20:25:21 +1000, "TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au>
wrote:

>
><MichaelDouglas@sprintnethome.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1b90e541a51f281d9896be@news.easynews.com...
>> One possible config would be Mackie 1202 vlz Pro Mixer with awesome XDR
>> mic pres, and cheap, ie audiophile 24/96. Or one could choose an all in
>> one solution, ie a Motu 828 MKII.
>> Could the MOTU 828 MKII mic pre's be as good as the Mackie 1202 VLZ Pro?
>> If not...than why bother spending all that money on a MKII, if an
>> expensive preamp or mixer is still needed?
>
>Why compare a cheap two channel card with an 8 channel box? How many
>*simultaneous* inputs do you need to record, and how many do you need to
>playback? That should ALWAYS be the first question.
>Now look at driver support for the software you wish to use.
>Then look at actual measured performance.
>
>TonyP.
>
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 4:01:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Great post Mike! Thanks a lot. I have one question:

When you recommended the BehringerUB2222FX Pro and audiophile soundcard,
did you mean over the Mackie 1202 and say the new Behriner BCA2000?,
which are about the same price but perhaps with more features?

Also...I found it interesting that you suggested just buying what is in
stock at the music store. That's like telling an obsessive compulsive
disorder clean freak person, to roll in a vat of dirty jelly. I have
always been obsessive about research, whether it's lifting weights,
stereo equipment, pc stuff, or soundcard/recording stuff. Hmmm...your
life must be easy... a lot easier than mine :) 

Have you really purchased major or important tech stuff without
comparing and researching?

Love,

Me



> I ended up stabbing and cutting myself with a nail clipper, because
> that was less painful than the 7 days of 24/7 research I've been doing
> on what combination of soundcard/mixer/preamp/ or all in one sound card
> solution to use for a new DAW.

You didn't have to do that much research. All you had to do is realize
that it makes very little difference, go to your local music store,
buy what they have in stock, and use it for a while.

> One possible config would be Mackie 1202 vlz Pro Mixer with awesome XDR
> mic pres, and cheap, ie audiophile 24/96. Or one could choose an all in
> one solution, ie a Motu 828 MKII.

Those are two very different things and while they both have mic
inputs, computer interface outputs and do some mixing, they work in
different ways.

> Or for a ton of mixer featuers, one could use the Behringer UB2222FX Pro
> Eurorack 22 Input Mixer with FX (http://www.zzounds.com/item--
> BEHUB2222FXP) with audiophile 24/96.

Excellent learning tool. I encourage people to START with something
like this. It will not be the end of the line for you if you're
serious, but it's the cheapest learning experience you'll get in this
field.

> Could the MOTU 828 MKII mic pre's be as good as the Mackie 1202 VLZ Pro?

Yes, but I don't know if they are, or if so, in what respect.

> If not...than why bother spending all that money on a MKII, if an
> expensive preamp or mixer is still needed?

Good question. People just getting started DO NOT need an expensive
preamp and mixer. They need one that's adequate for getting decent
quality sound that won't get in the way of learning how to use the
gear. But if you keep it up, eventually you WILL want a better quality
preamp (as well as a ton of other "better quality" gear) and you'll
have a better idea of what to look for then than now.

> For 200 bucks, a mixer with all those inputs, effects, eq's, preamps,
> and more...that seems like more bang for the buck than one big fancy
> sound card, like the M-audio firewire 410 - which many say has big
> problems and so so mic preamps.

It is. But if you're using your computer as a recorder, you still need
some sort of interface for that. And if you want to record multiple
tracks in one pass, you'll need an interface that has more than two
inputs. If you're working by yourself, you can do a whole lot of very
good work with a Mackie 1202 VLZ Pro, a halfway decent sound card like
the M-Audio Audiophile, some software, two or three decent
microphones, and a good set of monitors. Don't forget all that other
stuff, and be sure you have enough money for it.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
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 here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Date: 21 Aug 2004 10:08:58 -0400
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 4:10:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Well...with the know how, loosely speaking of course...in terms of being
able to produce sounds similar in quality? I mean...if one has very
quiet clean signal in...assuming the proper software...what else would
one need - software these days can emulate most tube amps, all major
effects, compression, etc...as long as the signal is good coming in?

I have read posts from people who claim to be in the business, and they
have said that with a high quality mic, mackie mixer with xdr pre's, and
a quality soundcard...like say an e-mu 1212m or perhaps the brand new
behringer bca2000 usb 2.0, they actually do produce demos that most
could not discern from a sun studio demo.

impossible?

Subject: Re: I knew there would be blood, but this much?
From: <playon <playonATcomcast.net>>
Newsgroups: alt.music.4-track, rec.audio.pro

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 17:46:10 GMT, burtreynolds@simplyburt.com wrote:

>I mean...it seems that for about 400.00 USD, I have everything I need
to
>compete with the major studios

Well, it might not be quite that simple...
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:13:23 -0700
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 4:10:30 AM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

burtreynolds <burtreynolds@simplyburt.com> wrote:
>Well...with the know how, loosely speaking of course...in terms of being
>able to produce sounds similar in quality? I mean...if one has very
>quiet clean signal in...assuming the proper software...what else would
>one need - software these days can emulate most tube amps, all major
>effects, compression, etc...as long as the signal is good coming in?

A good sounding room and good monitoring.

>I have read posts from people who claim to be in the business, and they
>have said that with a high quality mic, mackie mixer with xdr pre's, and
>a quality soundcard...like say an e-mu 1212m or perhaps the brand new
>behringer bca2000 usb 2.0, they actually do produce demos that most
>could not discern from a sun studio demo.

Who CARES about the equipment? If you have yourself a nice big room with
good treatment, you are most of the way there. If you are working in a
bedroom with French doors, you are not very far there at all.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 4:10:30 AM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 00:10:29 GMT, burtreynolds
<burtreynolds@simplyburt.com> wrote:

>Well...with the know how, loosely speaking of course...in terms of being
>able to produce sounds similar in quality? I mean...if one has very
>quiet clean signal in...assuming the proper software...what else would
>one need - software these days can emulate most tube amps, all major
>effects, compression, etc...as long as the signal is good coming in?

Emulation is *not* reality. And even the best digital imitations of
analog fall short in my opinion. However, if you can't hear any
difference, then it really doesn't matter I guess.

>I have read posts from people who claim to be in the business, and they
>have said that with a high quality mic, mackie mixer with xdr pre's, and
>a quality soundcard...like say an e-mu 1212m or perhaps the brand new
>behringer bca2000 usb 2.0, they actually do produce demos that most
>could not discern from a sun studio demo.

I don't mean to rain on your parade, go for it... everyone has to
start somewhere. I will tell you that in putting together my own
little space and starting to accumulate some decent gear a few years
ago, it didn't take me long to hear the limitations of an untreated
room and cheap electronics. The first time I used a mic that cost
more than $500 was a revelation. When I bought some high quality
outboard digital converters, that was another revelation. Good
monitors are very important also. Unless you plan to record
everything direct, the best thing you can do is spend some money
treating your recording space.

I'm sure that an experienced engineer can make an excellent recording
with less than ideal gear, but that doesn't mean that you can do it.
As far as Sun, people have been trying to copy that sound since 1956
with varying degrees of success. What made the legendary studios great
was much more than gear, it was rooms with great (or at least unique)
acoustics, great ears, and great talent on both sides of the board.
Also they were recording the sound of air moving, not an emulation of
it. If you think you can get your bedroom to sound like studios such
as Mussel Shoals, Olympic, Gold Star, Sun, Abbey Road, etc, by using a
few plugins, good luck.

Al

>impossible?
>
>Subject: Re: I knew there would be blood, but this much?
>From: <playon <playonATcomcast.net>>
>Newsgroups: alt.music.4-track, rec.audio.pro
>
>On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 17:46:10 GMT, burtreynolds@simplyburt.com wrote:
>
>>I mean...it seems that for about 400.00 USD, I have everything I need
>to
>>compete with the major studios
>
>Well, it might not be quite that simple...
>Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:13:23 -0700
August 22, 2004 4:10:30 AM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

burtreynolds <burtreynolds@simplyburt.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1b91ae83bd8097d09896c6@news.easynews.com>...
> Well...with the know how, loosely speaking of course...in terms of being
> able to produce sounds similar in quality? I mean...if one has very
> quiet clean signal in...assuming the proper software...what else would
> one need - software these days can emulate most tube amps, all major
> effects, compression, etc...as long as the signal is good coming in?
>
> I have read posts from people who claim to be in the business, and they
> have said that with a high quality mic, mackie mixer with xdr pre's, and
> a quality soundcard...like say an e-mu 1212m or perhaps the brand new
> behringer bca2000 usb 2.0, they actually do produce demos that most
> could not discern from a sun studio demo.
>
> impossible?
>

I don't think there was anything high end about Sun studios by any
standard. Go buy a decent 2 track reel to reel and a second cheap 3
head one for a slap reverb and you are pretty much there.

Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 4:10:31 AM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 21 Aug 2004 22:15:05 -0700, mmeprod@mmeproductions.com (Mike)
wrote:

>burtreynolds <burtreynolds@simplyburt.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1b91ae83bd8097d09896c6@news.easynews.com>...
>> Well...with the know how, loosely speaking of course...in terms of being
>> able to produce sounds similar in quality? I mean...if one has very
>> quiet clean signal in...assuming the proper software...what else would
>> one need - software these days can emulate most tube amps, all major
>> effects, compression, etc...as long as the signal is good coming in?
>>
>> I have read posts from people who claim to be in the business, and they
>> have said that with a high quality mic, mackie mixer with xdr pre's, and
>> a quality soundcard...like say an e-mu 1212m or perhaps the brand new
>> behringer bca2000 usb 2.0, they actually do produce demos that most
>> could not discern from a sun studio demo.
>>
>> impossible?
>>
>
>I don't think there was anything high end about Sun studios by any
>standard. Go buy a decent 2 track reel to reel and a second cheap 3
>head one for a slap reverb and you are pretty much there.

Um, I don't think so... Sun was not just some garage. It was a
professional, for-hire studio facility. It was acoustically treated,
it had high ceilings, and they had many of the same tools that other
larger studios (RCA, Capitol Records etc) at the time used, such as
state-of-the-art RCA ribbon mics and Ampex tape recorders. They were
using the best professional tools that were available at the time, not
cheap knock-offs. One thing some of the bigger studios had that Sun
didn't have were reverb chambers, which is probably one reason that
they used tape echo. Now, if you had a nice sounding room, a brand new
Ampex 1" tape recorder, some great old mics in new condition, and some
exceptionally talented people, you could probably make it sound kind
of like Sun studio did, if you were lucky.

Al
August 22, 2004 5:03:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hi,

If a small room is very sound dampened...does a big room still have a
sound advantage?

Love,

Me
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 5:03:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

burt <burtreynolds@simplyburt.com> wrote:
>
>If a small room is very sound dampened...does a big room still have a
>sound advantage?

Absolutely. If you damp down a small room, it sounds like a dead small
room. That was a popular thing in the 1970s, but it's not the 1970s
any more. A big room not only doesn't have an absence of bad acoustic
effects, it also has plenty of good acoustic effects. Damping everything
down totally is throwing out the baby with the bathwater (plus you really
can't damp down the bottom end anyway so you get a dead room with standing
wave problems which is a total nightmare). Thank God the 1970s are over.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
August 22, 2004 5:03:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <MPG.1b91bb08dbd98dad9896c9@news.easynews.com>,
burt<burtreynolds@simplyburt.com> wrote:


> If a small room is very sound dampened...does a big room still have a
> sound advantage?


you can't change the laws of physics and low frequencies have long
wavelengths. ergo, big room, high ceilings are necessary if you want to
begin to have chance for a real low end. for example:

the sound of a drumset in a big room can't be faked.
monitoring in a good environment can't be faked.
--
Digital Services Recording Studios
http://www.digisrvs.com
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 8:02:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cg8qgf$kcs$1@panix3.panix.com...
> Who CARES about the equipment? If you have yourself a nice big room with
> good treatment, you are most of the way there.

When you have THAT, better equipment is usually small change.

--
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
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 10:27:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<MichaelDouglas@sprintnethome.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b90e541a51f281d9896be@news.easynews.com
> I ended up stabbing and cutting myself with a nail clipper, because
> that was less painful than the 7 days of 24/7 research I've been doing
> on what combination of soundcard/mixer/preamp/ or all in one sound
> card solution to use for a new DAW.
>
> One possible config would be Mackie 1202 vlz Pro Mixer with awesome
> XDR mic pres, and cheap, ie audiophile 24/96. Or one could choose an
> all in one solution, ie a Motu 828 MKII.

Someone has to explain to me why it's a good idea to connect a low end mixer
that might have a little extra residual noise, to a sound card that can't
exploit the actual dynamic range of the mixer, because the input of the
sound card clips well before the output of the mixer.
August 22, 2004 10:45:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

playon <playonATcomcast.net> wrote in message news:<svegi0t9ktnp6bev1pob506bnfaaom6ces@4ax.com>...
> On 21 Aug 2004 22:15:05 -0700, mmeprod@mmeproductions.com (Mike)
> wrote:
>
> >burtreynolds <burtreynolds@simplyburt.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1b91ae83bd8097d09896c6@news.easynews.com>...
> >> Well...with the know how, loosely speaking of course...in terms of being
> >> able to produce sounds similar in quality? I mean...if one has very
> >> quiet clean signal in...assuming the proper software...what else would
> >> one need - software these days can emulate most tube amps, all major
> >> effects, compression, etc...as long as the signal is good coming in?
> >>
> >> I have read posts from people who claim to be in the business, and they
> >> have said that with a high quality mic, mackie mixer with xdr pre's, and
> >> a quality soundcard...like say an e-mu 1212m or perhaps the brand new
> >> behringer bca2000 usb 2.0, they actually do produce demos that most
> >> could not discern from a sun studio demo.
> >>
> >> impossible?
> >>
> >
> >I don't think there was anything high end about Sun studios by any
> >standard. Go buy a decent 2 track reel to reel and a second cheap 3
> >head one for a slap reverb and you are pretty much there.
>
> Um, I don't think so... Sun was not just some garage. It was a
> professional, for-hire studio facility. It was acoustically treated,
> it had high ceilings, and they had many of the same tools that other
> larger studios (RCA, Capitol Records etc) at the time used, such as
> state-of-the-art RCA ribbon mics and Ampex tape recorders. They were
> using the best professional tools that were available at the time, not
> cheap knock-offs. One thing some of the bigger studios had that Sun
> didn't have were reverb chambers, which is probably one reason that
> they used tape echo. Now, if you had a nice sounding room, a brand new
> Ampex 1" tape recorder, some great old mics in new condition, and some
> exceptionally talented people, you could probably make it sound kind
> of like Sun studio did, if you were lucky.
>
> Al



As I recall the room was pretty small albeit with high ceilings. While
a prosumer digial recorder of today may not sound better than what was
available by the time of a lot of the Beatles works, the quality
improvements since the 50's (when Elvis recorded his work at sun) is
by leaps and bounds and there is a lot of affordable equipment that
can do as well and better.

Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 11:20:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I hear and respect and understand your points. Probably no two
recordings will be exactly the same given different variables such as
"air space", room dynamics, electronics...and, of course, the various
people recording with various sounds of their own. Even the same guy
might sound different on two separate days - so nothing is exactly the
same - when open air is in the picture.

So then, it's a matter of decent quality. And that's what's at issue -
without trying to duplicate precisely inimitable elements, can't one
approach the same league of quality - that's my only point - and I still
think one can - but my opinion is purely academic, based on research,
the knowledge of those who claim to know - I have no experience of my
own to toss into the mental deliberations.

I cannot therefor disagree with you...but can only say there are those
who claim credentials who might.

I am very grateful for your response. I did copy every studio name you
listed, so I can research them, out of love and curiosity for great
music, and also to visit one day. I understand one can actually hire Sun
studios for just a few hundred bucks an hour. That would be unreal
cool...in my personal opinion.

love

burt
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 11:24:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

You know what...this is a GREAT POINT. If Sun sounds were great, are
great, and considered coveted classics, than what might talent fed into
todays DAW technology produce? So your point somewhat undermines those
who necessarily correlate ultimate sound with ultimate
dollars/equipment. Not to dismiss the wisdom of those posts - as surely
there is something to be gained from nice tronics...but greatness can,
as you say, easily come from cheap a** broke down basic stuff.

So my question of competing with Sun or Abbey Road...might better be
phrased as, "By how far can todays basic DAW stuff ~exceed~ the
capacities of Sun, Abbey Road, et al?"

Love,

Burt
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 11:28:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

John,

You are educational and I am learning. I hadn't thought of the structure
of low frequency waves and how they need space. Great point. So would
human vocals be low enough to be effected? Or would only drums, and non-
human sounds take the hit?

Love,

Burt


> If a small room is very sound dampened...does a big room still have a
> sound advantage?


you can't change the laws of physics and low frequencies have long
wavelengths. ergo, big room, high ceilings are necessary if you want to
begin to have chance for a real low end. for example:

the sound of a drumset in a big room can't be faked.
monitoring in a good environment can't be faked.
--
Digital Services Recording Studios
http://www.digisrvs.com
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 00:01:16 -0500
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 1:19:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

If you have the talent of greats like Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, Pink
Floyd and the Beatles (among countless others) then you can match what
they did I'm sure. Comparing Sun and AR is apples and oranges too.
Besides that point, these places aren't famous because of their
technology (especially Sun, I think they were the original 'gorilla'
recordists), but because of the people; artists, engineers, producers.
If you want to talk about exceeding them on a purely sonic level,
again the talent is very tied into that, but I don't see how you can
surpass a slew of Telefunken mics/preamps, and wide track discrete
tape machines...no DAW is going to exceed that in particular for rock
and roll, in my not so humble opinion anyway.

Nathan Eldred
http://www.atlasproaudio.com


Burt Reynolds <burtreynolds@simplyburt.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1b92141fabd240c89896cb@news.easynews.com>...
> You know what...this is a GREAT POINT. If Sun sounds were great, are
> great, and considered coveted classics, than what might talent fed into
> todays DAW technology produce? So your point somewhat undermines those
> who necessarily correlate ultimate sound with ultimate
> dollars/equipment. Not to dismiss the wisdom of those posts - as surely
> there is something to be gained from nice tronics...but greatness can,
> as you say, easily come from cheap a** broke down basic stuff.
>
> So my question of competing with Sun or Abbey Road...might better be
> phrased as, "By how far can todays basic DAW stuff ~exceed~ the
> capacities of Sun, Abbey Road, et al?"
>
> Love,
>
> Burt
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 2:43:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 20:10:29 -0400, burtreynolds wrote
(in article <MPG.1b91ae83bd8097d09896c6@news.easynews.com>):

> Well...with the know how, loosely speaking of course...in terms of being
> able to produce sounds similar in quality? I mean...if one has very
> quiet clean signal in...assuming the proper software...what else would
> one need - software these days can emulate most tube amps, all major
> effects, compression, etc...as long as the signal is good coming in?
>
> I have read posts from people who claim to be in the business, and they
> have said that with a high quality mic, mackie mixer with xdr pre's, and
> a quality soundcard...like say an e-mu 1212m or perhaps the brand new
> behringer bca2000 usb 2.0, they actually do produce demos that most
> could not discern from a sun studio demo.
>
> impossible?

Impossible, but not undoable. A lot of circuits contributed great sound as
well as artifacts back then, both in the recording gear and the instrument
amps. The acoustics of the spaces also played a part in the sound.

Emulation is emulation. It's mimicry. It may have a LOT of the
characteristics of the sound you're trying to evoke, but it won't be the real
thing. ie, Hand me a Rickenbacker electric 12-string and I sort of sound like
Roger (Jim) McGuinn.

Then there's the the side effects of analog tape and the fact that the
nonlinearity of analog tape does something quite different than does digital
audio on a hard drive.

Don't let any of this stop you from trying.

I'd find your Behringer vs Sun studios comparison a stretch.

Regards,

Ty Ford




-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 3:15:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 21:03:51 -0400, burt wrote
(in article <MPG.1b91bb08dbd98dad9896c9@news.easynews.com>):

> Hi,
>
> If a small room is very sound dampened...does a big room still have a
> sound advantage?
>
> Love,
>
> Me

Define small and big, but, yes, a big room can have advantages in that
specific situation.

An overly damped small room sounds dead and usually pulls an inordinate
amount of HF out of the sound. That leads some people to use overly bright
mics which don't sound very natural.

A more natural sounding mic in a room that's not overly dead usually results
in a much better sound.

A bigger, better treated room has the benefit of having enough space for the
sound to get away from the mics and lose energy so that when it finally gets
back to the mic, it doesn't have much to add to the sound. You hear less
room. Most home studios aren't particularly nice sounding spaces, so
minimizing room sound is usually a good thing.

The best solution is to treat the room with a complement of absorptive and
diffusive surfaces. You need some absorption to control big slappy
reflections. From there, let diffusion do the rest of the work. Diffusion
scatters the high frequencies instead of absorbing them. The result is a
space that isn't dead, but doesn't ring.

Every space has resonance. In it's simplest form, resonance is the whistle
you hear when you blow air into a bottle. Room resonances are similar, but a
lot more complex. Size matters because it takes a lot less energy to excite a
small room to resonance than a big room.

Small rooms with hard surfaces, such as bathrooms, are more resonant because
of all the hard surfaces. It doesn't take much energy to excite them into
resonance.

A larger space typically will take a lot more energy to excite. That's why
singing softly works OK in some spaces, but really sounds pretty nasty when
the vocalist opens up. As they open up, they excite the room more and at some
threshold that excitation makes the room ring. Acoustic instruments and
amplified instruments also excite a room in much the same way.

Regards,

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 3:23:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 00:01:16 -0500, John
<are.you.crazy@sendmenomail.com> wrote:

>you can't change the laws of physics and low frequencies have long
>wavelengths. ergo, big room, high ceilings are necessary if you want to
>begin to have chance for a real low end. for example:
>
>the sound of a drumset in a big room can't be faked.
>monitoring in a good environment can't be faked.

So you can't get any real "thump" out of a close-miced bass drum, it's
all about room effects?

Aren't we confusing the ability to HEAR a low frequency with a room's
ability to RESONATE at that frequency?

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 3:23:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Laurence Payne <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 00:01:16 -0500, John
><are.you.crazy@sendmenomail.com> wrote:
>
>>you can't change the laws of physics and low frequencies have long
>>wavelengths. ergo, big room, high ceilings are necessary if you want to
>>begin to have chance for a real low end. for example:
>>
>>the sound of a drumset in a big room can't be faked.
>>monitoring in a good environment can't be faked.
>
>So you can't get any real "thump" out of a close-miced bass drum, it's
>all about room effects?

You'd be shocked what the difference in the sound of a bass drum miked
from inside is, when you put it in a big room and in a small one. If
you don't believe me, try taking your kick drum outside and rolling a
few feet of tape there, then compare it with what you get inside.

Also, of course, there is a huge amount of kick that leaks into the
overheads, and that is 100% dependant on the room.

With an open kick the effect is even more substantial.

>Aren't we confusing the ability to HEAR a low frequency with a room's
>ability to RESONATE at that frequency?

If there is a big room resonance, you won't hear that note in some spots
in the room, and you'll hear too much of it in others. So will the mike.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 3:23:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 06:27:03 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <n4-dnfELz65-6bXcRVn-vA@comcast.com>):

> <MichaelDouglas@sprintnethome.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b90e541a51f281d9896be@news.easynews.com
>> I ended up stabbing and cutting myself with a nail clipper, because
>> that was less painful than the 7 days of 24/7 research I've been doing
>> on what combination of soundcard/mixer/preamp/ or all in one sound
>> card solution to use for a new DAW.
>>
>> One possible config would be Mackie 1202 vlz Pro Mixer with awesome
>> XDR mic pres, and cheap, ie audiophile 24/96. Or one could choose an
>> all in one solution, ie a Motu 828 MKII.
>
> Someone has to explain to me why it's a good idea to connect a low end mixer
> that might have a little extra residual noise, to a sound card that can't
> exploit the actual dynamic range of the mixer, because the input of the
> sound card clips well before the output of the mixer.

In some cases, two wrongs can make for a righter sound. Some cheap mics
sound better through a Mackie 1604 XDR than they do through better preamps.
Harvey's Marshall 603s proved that to us when they were here.

The limitation of one element is disguised or masked by the limitation of the
other. Just don't expect a comparison of this sort to stand up to that of an
amazing mic with an amazing preamp.

Ty Ford




-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 3:40:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 06:27:03 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>
>Someone has to explain to me why it's a good idea to connect a low end mixer
>that might have a little extra residual noise, to a sound card that can't
>exploit the actual dynamic range of the mixer, because the input of the
>sound card clips well before the output of the mixer.

Because, despite the undisputed fact that better-specced gear is
around, this stuff may be available, cheap, have convenient features
and offer a perfectly adequate operating "window" between noise
floor and overload point?

i'm just saying this MAY be so :-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 3:40:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:brtgi0l6tnepqgaj3hcc1fp2u574ek9p28@4ax.com
> On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 06:27:03 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Someone has to explain to me why it's a good idea to connect a low
>> end mixer that might have a little extra residual noise, to a sound
>> card that can't exploit the actual dynamic range of the mixer,
>> because the input of the sound card clips well before the output of
>> the mixer.
>
> Because, despite the undisputed fact that better-specced gear is
> around, this stuff may be available, cheap, have convenient features
> and offer a perfectly adequate operating "window" between noise
> floor and overload point?
>
> i'm just saying this MAY be so :-)

Of course, there's no doubt that an AP2496 works well with cheap mixers!
Heck, I've made some fair recordings with a MXB1002 running into the line
input of a Nomad Jukebox, which clips at about half the input voltage of an
AP2496. It's just that the knee-jerk interfacing of what the vendor makes no
secret is a consumer card, with audio production gear, gives me a headache.
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 3:43:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 07:24:02 GMT, Burt Reynolds
<burtreynolds@simplyburt.com> wrote:

>You know what...this is a GREAT POINT. If Sun sounds were great, are
>great, and considered coveted classics, than what might talent fed into
>todays DAW technology produce?

It's more about talent than it is about technology for me... I'd
rather listen to acoustic blues recordings from the 1920s and 1930s
than a most of the stuff I hear on the radio today. Talking about
Mackie mixers isn't really the point, it's what you capture with the
gear that is important.
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 3:51:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in message news:<cg8vqh$qep$1@panix3.panix.com>...

> down totally is throwing out the baby with the bathwater (plus you really
> can't damp down the bottom end anyway so you get a dead room with standing
> wave problems which is a total nightmare).


so what are the minimum dimensions/volume for a good low end in a
room? the wavelength of 20hz (20C, sea level) is 56.5ft . . . does
this mean i need at least one linear dimension of 56.5ft of my room to
"support" 20hz?




> Thank God the 1970s are over.

i've already clients requesting 70's drum sounds -- getting my 703
order for the new iso room together . . . .

chris deckard
st louis mo
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 3:51:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <svegi0t9ktnp6bev1pob506bnfaaom6ces@4ax.com> playonATcomcast.net writes:

> Um, I don't think so... Sun was not just some garage. It was a
> professional, for-hire studio facility. It was acoustically treated,
> it had high ceilings, and they had many of the same tools that other
> larger studios (RCA, Capitol Records etc) at the time used, such as
> state-of-the-art RCA ribbon mics and Ampex tape recorders.

Most of what gave them what they got was the talent. The room is very
live and has minimal (by today's standards) acoustical treatment. I
think it would be quite possible to duplicate the sound on the classic
Sun records if you have the same players in the same room using
today's mics and recording systems.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
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 here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 5:01:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 07:24:02 GMT, Burt Reynolds
<burtreynolds@simplyburt.com> wrote:

>You know what...this is a GREAT POINT. If Sun sounds were great, are
>great, and considered coveted classics, than what might talent fed into
>todays DAW technology produce? So your point somewhat undermines those
>who necessarily correlate ultimate sound with ultimate
>dollars/equipment. Not to dismiss the wisdom of those posts - as surely
>there is something to be gained from nice tronics...but greatness can,
>as you say, easily come from cheap a** broke down basic stuff.
>
>So my question of competing with Sun or Abbey Road...might better be
>phrased as, "By how far can todays basic DAW stuff ~exceed~ the
>capacities of Sun, Abbey Road, et al?"

I don't buy into this "golden age" thing. But, even if I did, aren't
we just recognising a competent job done by technicians experienced on
their equipment?

We live in an age of dabblers. Everyone can afford the tools of every
trade. But most of us use them on a decidedly part-time basis. Some
get seduced by the latest new bit of gear before learning to use what
they've got! Others use an important project as an opportunity to
experiment with unproven techniques, unproven gear. Look at
"recording a violin" in this month's Sound on Sound. It's a story of
experimentation, not of a professional recording session.



CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 7:45:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike" <mmeprod@mmeproductions.com> wrote in message
news:934b3e2c.0408220545.1c14a69e@posting.google.com...

> As I recall the room was pretty small albeit with high ceilings. While
> a prosumer digial recorder of today may not sound better than what was
> available by the time of a lot of the Beatles works, the quality
> improvements since the 50's (when Elvis recorded his work at sun) is
> by leaps and bounds and there is a lot of affordable equipment that
> can do as well and better.

I think this is fundamentally wrong. By about 1954 it was possible to make
recordings that, with the exception of tape hiss level, sounded excellent.
The microphones were there (RCA, Neumann), the high-quality transformers
were there, maybe not Jensen quality but darned good, and electronics were
clean enough to not contribute much to the sound. In 1949 the stuff didn't
exist, but there were a lot of improvements in the art by 1954.

Another thing worth pointing out is that the imperfections in good 1950s
electronics were, in many cases, less audible or annoying than the
imperfections in cheap 2000s electronics. A few low harmonics in a HD test
vs. lots of high ones, etc.. Long story, but that's the upshot of it: cheap
gear still has problems more audible than the ones in older good gear or,
for that matter, newer good gear.

Peace,
Paul
August 22, 2004 7:54:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <6psgi0thln88gnf9ig5q260vfo2v4211hd@4ax.com>,
Laurence Payne <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

> So you can't get any real "thump" out of a close-miced bass drum, it's
> all about room effects?

close mic'ed thump, sure, big explosive drum sound of a big room being
captured and compressed a la Andy Johns and others, nope. gotta have
the room. the trick of the drum sound isn't from the close mics.
--
Digital Services Recording Studios
http://www.digisrvs.com
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 8:02:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <MPG.1b92152c73670de89896cc@news.easynews.com>,
Burt Reynolds <burtreynolds@simplyburt.com> wrote:

> So would
> human vocals be low enough to be effected? Or would only drums, and non-
> human sounds take the hit?

totally imo, but solo vocals can use some space definition, usually a
gobo behind the singer. group voices, maybe, maybe not, big ensemble
take a big room and space.

brass, solo or group, big room

gtr amps, ->for some sounds<-, big room with near and far micing

compressors become your friends here. put 1176 on the room, squeeze the
daylights out of it and you will be pleasantly suprized at the result.

a great acoustic space is exactly that and worth the price of admission.

--
Iron Butt Assoc., WATR 4X, BL3 paparazzi, E.O.B.
R1100RT, R75/5
"If you are civil to the voluble, they will abuse your patience;
if brusque, your character." - Jonathon Swift
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 8:27:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> So my question of competing with Sun or Abbey Road...might better be
> phrased as, "By how far can todays basic DAW stuff ~exceed~ the
> capacities of Sun, Abbey Road, et al?"

easy -- record albums by artist whose talen exceeds those that
recorded in those studios.

as far as pure sound quality -- sure, one could (conceivably) easily
exceed it, but who cares? ie., who wants to listen to good quality
recordings of dribble?

cheers,
chris deckard
saint louis mo
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 11:00:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Burt Reynolds" <burtreynolds@simplyburt.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b92141fabd240c89896cb@news.easynews.com...
> ...If Sun sounds were great, are
> great, and considered coveted classics, than what might talent fed into
> todays DAW technology produce?

We've already seen the answer which unfortunately seems to be that it
produces quite a bit LESS!

The limitations of studios like Sun required great performances in order to
achieve anything that was even remotely acceptable. Performance skill is no
longer a basic requirement in order to make an acceptable recording . The
bottom has fallen out of the cost of achieving mediocrity and too many
artists are willing to accept mediocrity as being "good enough."
--
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
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 11:15:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:9c3Wc.235548$OB3.63273@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Another thing worth pointing out is that the imperfections in good 1950s
> electronics were, in many cases, less audible or annoying than the
> imperfections in cheap 2000s electronics.

More important, the dynamic range of good 1940s and '50s electronics was
many times better than all but the highest-end new gear available today. The
sweet spot was enormous which meant you could keep takes that you wouldn't
be able to keep if more modern gear was used. I strongly disagree with all
of the "euphoric distortion" bullsh!t that's being thrown around by today's
"pro" audio manufacturers. Most of that old gear was unambiguously better
by objective standards. So much better that you could just hit record while
the performers did their thing with no screwing around. THAT capability made
for significantly better recordings.

--
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
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 11:22:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bob Olhsson wrote:

> More important, the dynamic range of good 1940s and '50s electronics was
> many times better than all but the highest-end new gear available today. The
> sweet spot was enormous which meant you could keep takes that you wouldn't
> be able to keep if more modern gear was used. I strongly disagree with all
> of the "euphoric distortion" bullsh!t that's being thrown around by today's
> "pro" audio manufacturers. Most of that old gear was unambiguously better
> by objective standards. So much better that you could just hit record while
> the performers did their thing with no screwing around. THAT capability made
> for significantly better recordings.

Bob, the way I understand what you're saying, I figure you must mainly
be referring to the input headroom of the electronics--is that right?
If so, are there any particular examples that stand out in your mind?

--best regards
Anonymous
August 23, 2004 12:08:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

playon: << It's more about talent than it is about technology for me... I'd
rather listen to acoustic blues recordings from the 1920s and 1930s
than a most of the stuff I hear on the radio today. Talking about
Mackie mixers isn't really the point, it's what you capture with the
gear that is important. >>

It's a sad thing, that more people can record than at any other time in
history, but where are the truly memorable recordings? If the industry was
really bright, it would look into just how to keep musicians gainfully
employed. For it is becoming increasingly obvious that music must be a
professional industry to produce truly great art, simply because it takes time
to do so. My favorite, and oft repeated, example is: would you like to have
your teeth worked on by the dentist who works once or twice a month and dreams
the rest of it?
Anonymous
August 23, 2004 12:49:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 22 Aug 2004 16:27:17 -0700, chrisdec@swbell.net (mr c deckard)
wrote:

>> So my question of competing with Sun or Abbey Road...might better be
>> phrased as, "By how far can todays basic DAW stuff ~exceed~ the
>> capacities of Sun, Abbey Road, et al?"
>
>easy -- record albums by artist whose talen exceeds those that
>recorded in those studios.
>
>as far as pure sound quality -- sure, one could (conceivably) easily
>exceed it, but who cares? ie., who wants to listen to good quality
>recordings of dribble?

Apparently, millions of people.
Anonymous
August 23, 2004 5:46:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<Old_Lurker@sunstudios.com> wrote in message
news:kijei01cv8b5nuabnd6bq6vcujm6p4sid1@4ax.com...
> Oh...also, perhaps the Behringer BCA2000 USB Audio/MIDI Interface
> answers all your needs, in that it's cheap, but it has all the
> features, preamps, midi, controller surfaces, 24/96, and loads more,
> for just about 200 bucks. It seems to be the most feature loaded usb
> 2.0 soundcard out there right now.

Has it actually been released yet? I gave up on it a while ago when it was
only six months behind schedule.
It may take a while for them to get the drivers sorted too. But it looks
pretty good on paper :-)

TonyP.
Anonymous
August 23, 2004 5:56:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:n4-dnfELz65-6bXcRVn-vA@comcast.com...
> Someone has to explain to me why it's a good idea to connect a low end
mixer
> that might have a little extra residual noise, to a sound card that can't
> exploit the actual dynamic range of the mixer, because the input of the
> sound card clips well before the output of the mixer.

You do realise that attenuators reduce both the noise level and the signal
level?

TonyP.
August 23, 2004 8:10:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Bob Olhsson" <olh@hyperback.com> wrote in message news:<6h6Wc.497362$Gx4.66343@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> "Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:9c3Wc.235548$OB3.63273@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Another thing worth pointing out is that the imperfections in good 1950s
> > electronics were, in many cases, less audible or annoying than the
> > imperfections in cheap 2000s electronics.
>
> More important, the dynamic range of good 1940s and '50s electronics was
> many times better than all but the highest-end new gear available today. The
> sweet spot was enormous which meant you could keep takes that you wouldn't
> be able to keep if more modern gear was used. I strongly disagree with all
> of the "euphoric distortion" bullsh!t that's being thrown around by today's
> "pro" audio manufacturers. Most of that old gear was unambiguously better
> by objective standards. So much better that you could just hit record while
> the performers did their thing with no screwing around. THAT capability made
> for significantly better recordings.

You know better than me for sure so I was just trying to understand
how that would be. You have a technology that is not far beyond its'
inception (tape recorders) and it seems to be at its' peak. Is it
because later periods use more tracks, and more mixer channels etc,
thus compromising the headroom etc?

Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com
Anonymous
August 23, 2004 1:58:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <934b3e2c.0408230310.5a6028f7@posting.google.com> mmeprod@mmeproductions.com writes:

> You know better than me for sure so I was just trying to understand
> how that would be. You have a technology that is not far beyond its'
> inception (tape recorders) and it seems to be at its' peak. Is it
> because later periods use more tracks, and more mixer channels etc,
> thus compromising the headroom etc?

More tracks in the mix means designing mixers with more internal
headroom, so that's one thing.

One of the things that has changed in equipment design (and I'm not
including all of today's real pro gear in this, primarily the
'popular' equipment, of which there is much more, so it becomes 'the
norm') is the emphasis on advertizable specifications on individual
pieces, leaving the user with a system engineering problem - things
can't be optimized to fully utilize those specifications.

For instance, it's typical for the ananlog input of a digital device
to require as much as +24 dBu in order to reach full scale. It's also
typical for analog outputs to run into the hard limit of the power
supply at +20 to +22 dBu. In a world where people have been taught two
things:

- Digital distortion is negligable until reaching full scale
- Always try to run as close to full scale as possible

you have the situation where people are driving outputs to clipping in
an effort to get within 2 dB of full scale digital. Some even enjoy
the "fact" that their equipment seems to have some sort of limiting
built in to protect against digital overload. But they aren't
monitoring critically and they don't hear (or don't notice, or even
kind of like) the distortion. But when trying to mix 50 tracks that
are all clipped, that's hard.

In the analog days, it was typical that "0 VU" was +4 dBu, that you
didn't start to notice any distortion until you got 10 dB over that
(but when you heard it, unless you wanted to use it as an effect, you
turned down) and that short peaks could go another 10 dB higher and
wouldn't be offensive. You can accomplish that with today's pro-oid
gear if you draw a line halfway up the meters and shoot for that as
your nominal recording level rather than a level below which you
should never go if there's a signal at all. But most people don't do
that, so they hit clipping more often, as well as sending a greater
average signal level to a mix bus.

Mixing "in the box" can more easily accommodate this than mixing
through active analog circuitry because it's cheaper (in parts, then
you have to sell 50,000 copies of the software to pay for the labor)
to make bigger internal mixing "busses." But then people complain
about the cost of software upgrades.

Better to just get something that works, or learn to work what you
have. And don't worry about tape hiss. That's the way it used to be.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
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 here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
August 23, 2004 2:18:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Where is your studio?
Anonymous
August 23, 2004 4:09:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Bob Olhsson" <olh@hyperback.com> wrote in message
news:6h6Wc.497362$Gx4.66343@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> "Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:9c3Wc.235548$OB3.63273@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> Another thing worth pointing out is that the imperfections in good
>> 1950s electronics were, in many cases, less audible or annoying than
>> the imperfections in cheap 2000s electronics.
>
> More important, the dynamic range of good 1940s and '50s electronics
> was many times better than all but the highest-end new gear available
> today.

I want to hear the explanation of this!

>The sweet spot was enormous which meant you could keep takes
> that you wouldn't be able to keep if more modern gear was used.

My studies suggest that the micing procedures were vastly different.
Vocalists were recorded at distances like 4 feet plus. That would have the
result that you mention, but electronics had nothing to do with it.

> I strongly disagree with all of the "euphoric distortion" bullsh!t
> that's being thrown around by today's "pro" audio manufacturers.

FWIW, agreed.

> Most of that old gear was unambiguously better by objective standards.

I want to hear the explanation of this!

> So much better that you could just hit record while the performers did
> their thing with no screwing around. THAT capability made for
> significantly better recordings.

I do that today. It's called recording live performances. Modern recording
equipment does not seem to constrain sound quality for that. However, things
like stage monitors can contaminate the field in a surgical sense.
!