Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

which way is cheaper...

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 3:48:15 PM

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

I'm in the process of seting up a home based recording studio. I have a
simple question. In your opinion, is it cheaper and easier, to have a
analog based or digital recording studio, as far as. should I have a
mixer connected to my computer and have all plug-in's on a recording
program, or is it better to set every thing up, and have a room full of
racks.

thanks

More about : cheaper

Anonymous
June 29, 2005 7:22:22 PM

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

anahata wrote:
> jeremyz@woh.rr.com wrote:
> > I'm in the process of seting up a home based recording studio. I have a
> > simple question. In your opinion, is it cheaper and easier, to have a
> > analog based or digital recording studio, as far as. should I have a
> > mixer connected to my computer and have all plug-in's on a recording
> > program, or is it better to set every thing up, and have a room full of
> > racks.

In order to even begin to answer the question, it would help
tremendously to know what you are planning to record. The requirements
are different if you are: a) a singer/songwriter wanting to get your
tunes down, b) a full band wanting to produce high quality demos, c)
an electronica composer, d) a rapper/dj, e) a voice over actor...I
think you can see what I'm getting at here. Define what you want to
record, give us some specifics to work with and the folks around here
can be very helpful.
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 8:24:21 PM

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

<jeremyz@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1120070895.764470.39390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> I'm in the process of seting up a home based recording
studio.
> I have a simple question. In your opinion, is it cheaper
and
> easier, to have a analog based or digital recording
studio, as
> far as.

Probably digital.

> should I have a mixer connected to my computer and
> have all plug-in's on a recording program,

Welcome to the 21st century!

>or is it better to
> set every thing up, and have a room full of racks.

Most people who have that, do so for historic reasons.
Related resources
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 9:20:39 PM

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

> I'm in the process of seting up a home based recording studio. I have a
> simple question. In your opinion, is it cheaper and easier, to have a
> analog based or digital recording studio, as far as. should I have a
> mixer connected to my computer and have all plug-in's on a recording
> program, or is it better to set every thing up, and have a room full of
> racks.

There are about 50,000 answers to that question, most starting with "Go with
digital, but..."

The three most important equipment categories to any recording studio are
the mics, preamps, and monitors. Generally those should represent about 80%
of your budget. If you go cheap on those, all the fancy hardware and pretty
software in the world won't fix what they lack.

Starting from scratch, look into Rode mics, FMR RNP preamps, and research
the hell out of monitors, find a set that lets you hear the most subtle
changes to a mix, not just a good sounding speaker. Some folks mix great on
a $300 set of Behringer Truth's, some can't settle for less than $1800
Dynaudio's. Find out where you fit on that scale.

Revisit the overall system configuration once you figure out how much money
you'll have left, and the types of recordings you'll be doing certainly
comes into play. Accommodating drums doubles the cost of the hardware, for
example.
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 10:29:33 PM

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

In article <1120070895.764470.39390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> jeremyz@woh.rr.com writes:

> In your opinion, is it cheaper and easier, to have a
> analog based or digital recording studio

Digital is cheaper, analog is easier. Take your pick.

, as far as. should I have a
> mixer connected to my computer and have all plug-in's on a recording
> program, or is it better to set every thing up, and have a room full of
> racks.

Whatever you want. You can have as little or as much hardware as you
want, you can have as little or as much software as you want, you can
fiddle with wires (which are easy to understand) or software (which,
for most of us, is not).

--
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
June 29, 2005 11:16:22 PM

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

<jeremyz@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1120070895.764470.39390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I'm in the process of seting up a home based recording studio. I have a
> simple question. In your opinion, is it cheaper and easier, to have a
> analog based or digital recording studio, as far as. should I have a
> mixer connected to my computer and have all plug-in's on a recording
> program, or is it better to set every thing up, and have a room full of
> racks.

What are you planning to record, how are you planning to record it (track at
a time or everyone playing at once), what is the intended product (demos,
CD-Rs to hawk at gigs, or fully-produced CDs)?

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 1:15:55 AM

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

jeremyz@woh.rr.com wrote:
> I'm in the process of seting up a home based recording studio. I have a
> simple question. In your opinion, is it cheaper and easier, to have a
> analog based or digital recording studio, as far as. should I have a
> mixer connected to my computer and have all plug-in's on a recording
> program, or is it better to set every thing up, and have a room full of
> racks.

I don't think that's a very meaningful choice. For one thing I think
either way you're talking about digital recording. But software
processing has got to be cheaper than "a room full of racks".

It really does depend on what you want to record (how many tracks, how
many at once, for a start) but for many purposes a cheap and simple (in
some senses) option is to get an all-in-one multitrack HD recorder.
That's why there are so many of them on the market, all different sizes,
from a Korg CR4 though Yamaha AW16G and similar to a Mackie HDR24/96,
and that's just from a quick glance at the web site of a local supplier.

--
Anahata
anahata@treewind.co.uk -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 5:45:28 PM

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

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:EdedncuBRpXrnl7fRVn-vg@comcast.com...
> <jeremyz@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:1120070895.764470.39390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

>
> >or is it better to
> > set every thing up, and have a room full of racks.
>
> Most people who have that, do so for historic reasons.


Most people's favorite albums, soundwise, seem to be the ones recorded and
mixed that way, in the rooms full of racks. True, most of them were recorded
before the advent of modern integrated "in-the-box" all-digital technology.
However, the albums done the "traditional" way still represent the majority
of the comparatively rare recent examples of true sonic excellence.

Now you can call the reasons for that "historic" or even "nostalgic". I'd
personally rather use the terms "pragmatic" and "esthetic".

Predrag
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 5:45:29 PM

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

"Predrag Trpkov" <predrag.trpkovNeSpamu@ri.htnet.hr> wrote
in
message news:D a0m1v$r2n$1@ss405.t-com.hr

> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:EdedncuBRpXrnl7fRVn-vg@comcast.com...

>> <jeremyz@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:1120070895.764470.39390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

>>> or is it better to
>>> set every thing up, and have a room full of racks.

>> Most people who have that, do so for historic reasons.

> Most people's favorite albums, soundwise, seem to be the
ones
> recorded and mixed that way, in the rooms full of racks.
True,
> most of them were recorded before the advent of modern
> integrated "in-the-box" all-digital technology. However,
the
> albums done the "traditional" way still represent the
majority
> of the comparatively rare recent examples of true sonic
> excellence.

Choices that are made in the absence of significantly
different alternatives, which is what all this history is,
aren't really choices at all.

> Now you can call the reasons for that "historic" or even
> "nostalgic". I'd personally rather use the terms
"pragmatic"
> and "esthetic".

The pragmatism lies in the fact that so many of the modern
alternatives were simply not available, or in many cases not
even thought of when the recordings in question were made.

Contemplate what would have happened if a PC with an onboard
sound card and modern recording software had showed up in
1948.
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 7:08:33 PM

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

On 6/30/05 8:44 AM, in article 8t-dnYLbVfapdF7fRVn-3w@comcast.com, "Arny
Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:


> Contemplate what would have happened if a PC with an onboard
> sound card and modern recording software had showed up in
> 1948.

" He's a witch! Burn 'im!"
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 7:08:34 PM

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

"SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in message
news:BEE98331.B3E5%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com
> On 6/30/05 8:44 AM, in article
> 8t-dnYLbVfapdF7fRVn-3w@comcast.com, "Arny Krueger"
> <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Contemplate what would have happened if a PC with an
onboard
>> sound card and modern recording software had showed up in
>> 1948.
>
> " He's a witch! Burn 'im!"

Actually, given the other potential uses for such a powerful
tool at the time, the chance of it being used to record
music would be pretty slim.
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 8:42:35 PM

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

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:8t-dnYLbVfapdF7fRVn-3w@comcast.com...
> "Predrag Trpkov" <predrag.trpkovNeSpamu@ri.htnet.hr> wrote
> in
> message news:D a0m1v$r2n$1@ss405.t-com.hr
>
> > "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> > news:EdedncuBRpXrnl7fRVn-vg@comcast.com...
>
> >> <jeremyz@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1120070895.764470.39390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
>
> >>> or is it better to
> >>> set every thing up, and have a room full of racks.
>
> >> Most people who have that, do so for historic reasons.
>
> > Most people's favorite albums, soundwise, seem to be the
> ones
> > recorded and mixed that way, in the rooms full of racks.
> True,
> > most of them were recorded before the advent of modern
> > integrated "in-the-box" all-digital technology. However,
> the
> > albums done the "traditional" way still represent the
> majority
> > of the comparatively rare recent examples of true sonic
> > excellence.
>
> Choices that are made in the absence of significantly
> different alternatives, which is what all this history is,
> aren't really choices at all.



You keep insisting on history, Arny. Let's talk about today. We have
significantly different alternatives today, don't we? One of them produces
exceptional, sweetest-sounding, sonically most pleasing results far more
consistently than the other(s). I believe that's what makes it the prevalent
choice of audio professionals in pursue of the ultimate in overall sound
quality. Not the historic reasons as you're trying to dismiss it.



> > Now you can call the reasons for that "historic" or even
> > "nostalgic". I'd personally rather use the terms
> "pragmatic"
> > and "esthetic".
>
> The pragmatism lies in the fact that so many of the modern
> alternatives were simply not available, or in many cases not
> even thought of when the recordings in question were made.



I think we are all fortunate for that. But that's history. We have
alternatives now. And yet most of the RNSA (Really Nice Sounding Albums) are
still produced using essentially the same technology as 20 years ago, using
the combination of analog and digital equipment and mixing through an analog
console. In spite of ever-increasing pressure on recording budgets and the
presence of already mature, widely-accepted, less costly and more
maintenance-friendly "in-the-box" alternative, the one you so passionately
promote.



> Contemplate what would have happened if a PC with an onboard
> sound card and modern recording software had showed up in
> 1948.


Music would have probably been the playground/battlefield of objectivists,
subjectivists, DBT-ists and other scientific types. As an art form it would
have been as exclusive and exciting as reading the telephone book.

Even if there would have been such thing as rec.audio.pro there's no way I
would have been here today. But you surely would have. Probably a much
happier person too.

I feel your pain.

Predrag
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 8:42:36 PM

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

"Predrag Trpkov" <predrag.trpkovNeSpamu@ri.htnet.hr> wrote
in
message news:D a10cs$j93$1@ss405.t-com.hr
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:8t-dnYLbVfapdF7fRVn-3w@comcast.com...


>> Choices that are made in the absence of significantly
>> different alternatives, which is what all this history
is,
>> aren't really choices at all.

> You keep insisting on history, Arny. Let's talk about
today.
> We have significantly different alternatives today, don't
we?
> One of them produces exceptional, sweetest-sounding,
sonically
> most pleasing results far more consistently than the
other(s).

That would be your opinion, Predrag. Guess what, not
everybody agrees with you or I.

> I believe that's what makes it the prevalent choice of
audio
> professionals in pursue of the ultimate in overall sound
> quality. Not the historic reasons as you're trying to
dismiss
> it.

Well, anything that starts out "I believe" without any hard
data to back it up is like a religious belief. Far be it
from me to criticize your religion, Predrag.

>>> Now you can call the reasons for that "historic" or even
>>> "nostalgic". I'd personally rather use the terms
>> "pragmatic"
>>> and "esthetic".

>> The pragmatism lies in the fact that so many of the
modern
>> alternatives were simply not available, or in many cases
not
>> even thought of when the recordings in question were
made.

> I think we are all fortunate for that.

> But that's history. We have alternatives now.

Alternatives are good. If nothing else they lead to choice
and choice is good.

> And yet most of the RNSA (Really Nice
> Sounding Albums) are still produced using essentially the
same
> technology as 20 years ago, using the combination of
analog
> and digital equipment and mixing through an analog
console.

And your independently-audited survey results are where,
Predrag?

> In spite of ever-increasing pressure on recording budgets
and the
> presence of already mature, widely-accepted, less costly
and
> more maintenance-friendly "in-the-box" alternative, the
one
> you so passionately promote.

Predrag, do you know the difference between an unfounded
assertion and a reliable fact, or do I need to help you
clarify that in your mind?

>> Contemplate what would have happened if a PC with an
onboard
>> sound card and modern recording software had showed up in
>> 1948.

> Music would have probably been the playground/battlefield
of
> objectivists, subjectivists, DBT-ists and other scientific
> types. As an art form it would have been as exclusive and
> exciting as reading the telephone book.

I think this is a far better predictor of your religious
beliefs Predrag, than it is a prediction of what would
actually happen.

> Even if there would have been such thing as rec.audio.pro
> there's no way I would have been here today. But you
surely
> would have. Probably a much happier person too.

Delusions of omniscience noted.

> I feel your pain.

Then you feel very little, Predrag. Just because modern
technology is against your particular religion, doesn't mean
that we all agree.
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 1:28:52 AM

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

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:58idnc5TD5JGsFnfRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
> "Predrag Trpkov" <predrag.trpkovNeSpamu@ri.htnet.hr> wrote
> in
> message news:D a10cs$j93$1@ss405.t-com.hr
> > "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> > news:8t-dnYLbVfapdF7fRVn-3w@comcast.com...
>
>
> >> Choices that are made in the absence of significantly
> >> different alternatives, which is what all this history
> is,
> >> aren't really choices at all.
>
> > You keep insisting on history, Arny. Let's talk about
> today.
> > We have significantly different alternatives today, don't
> we?
> > One of them produces exceptional, sweetest-sounding,
> sonically
> > most pleasing results far more consistently than the
> other(s).
>
> That would be your opinion, Predrag. Guess what, not
> everybody agrees with you or I.



I'm glad you realize that we're discussing opinions here.




> > I believe that's what makes it the prevalent choice of
> audio
> > professionals in pursue of the ultimate in overall sound
> > quality. Not the historic reasons as you're trying to
> dismiss
> > it.
>
> Well, anything that starts out "I believe" without any hard
> data to back it up is like a religious belief. Far be it
> from me to criticize your religion, Predrag.



Just because you don't start your sentences with "I believe" does not make
it any more factual.



> >>> Now you can call the reasons for that "historic" or even
> >>> "nostalgic". I'd personally rather use the terms
> >> "pragmatic"
> >>> and "esthetic".
>
> >> The pragmatism lies in the fact that so many of the
> modern
> >> alternatives were simply not available, or in many cases
> not
> >> even thought of when the recordings in question were
> made.
>
> > I think we are all fortunate for that.
>
> > But that's history. We have alternatives now.
>
> Alternatives are good. If nothing else they lead to choice
> and choice is good.
>
> > And yet most of the RNSA (Really Nice
> > Sounding Albums) are still produced using essentially the
> same
> > technology as 20 years ago, using the combination of
> analog
> > and digital equipment and mixing through an analog
> console.
>
> And your independently-audited survey results are where,
> Predrag?



Several threads below, for starters. I'm sure they won't be independent
enough or blind enough or sufficiently scientific for your tastes, but who
cares. It's all about opinions anyway, as you correctly noticed at the
beginning of your reply (and then conveniently forgot about it).



> > In spite of ever-increasing pressure on recording budgets
> and the
> > presence of already mature, widely-accepted, less costly
> and
> > more maintenance-friendly "in-the-box" alternative, the
> one
> > you so passionately promote.
>
> Predrag, do you know the difference between an unfounded
> assertion and a reliable fact, or do I need to help you
> clarify that in your mind?



Oh, and a moment ago you said you wouldn't "criticize my religion". Ts,
ts...

Nevertheless, I can't refuse your generous offer. Please help me clarify the
difference between an unfounded assertion and a reliable fact. Let me
suggest an example. It's a recent claim by the great pro audio thinker A.
Krueger. When asked: "(Should I have a mixer connected to my computer and
have all plug-in's on a recording program) or is it better to set every
thing up, and have a room full of racks?" he promptly delivered one of his
anthological replies:

"Most people who have that, do so for historic reasons."

Now everybody knows all to well that A. Krueger would never spit out an
unfounded assertion. After all, he's the one who constantly accuses others
of doing exactly that. He himself deals exclusively with Hard Facts, doesn't
he? So please tell me where exactly the factual wisdom lies hidden in these
ten words and a comma.



> >> Contemplate what would have happened if a PC with an
> onboard
> >> sound card and modern recording software had showed up in
> >> 1948.
>
> > Music would have probably been the playground/battlefield
> of
> > objectivists, subjectivists, DBT-ists and other scientific
> > types. As an art form it would have been as exclusive and
> > exciting as reading the telephone book.
>
> I think this is a far better predictor of your religious
> beliefs Predrag, than it is a prediction of what would
> actually happen.
>
> > Even if there would have been such thing as rec.audio.pro
> > there's no way I would have been here today. But you
> surely
> > would have. Probably a much happier person too.
>
> Delusions of omniscience noted.
>
> > I feel your pain.
>
> Then you feel very little, Predrag. Just because modern
> technology is against your particular religion, doesn't mean
> that we all agree.


Modern technology is not against my particular religion, on the contrary,
but just because your premises are wrong, Arny, doesn't mean that you can't
draw a correct conclusion. Isn't logic beautiful?

Predrag
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 4:15:24 AM

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

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in news:79CdnQE-QJ2Os1nfRVn-
3Q@comcast.com:

> Actually, given the other potential uses for such a powerful
> tool at the time, the chance of it being used to record
> music would be pretty slim.

Naw, without the Microsoft manuals, no one would be able to figure out how
to program it.
!