Music Player Network Home Guitar Player Magazine Keyboard Magazine Bass Player Magazine EQ Magazine
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#1681575 - 06/07/05 10:05 AM Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
dohhhhh6 Offline
Platinum Member

Registered: 12/05/02
Posts: 1292
Loc: St Louis
Hey guys! It's been awhile since posting here, but my band's getting closer and closer to recording our demo, and I need some help, if you could spare the time.

We're planning on buying a used Tascam Porta 02 MKII for this purpose, 2 recording channels, 4 channels, simple mixing controls. My question relates to being limited to very few options after completing the recording process.

With only 1 real chance to equal each channel, how do I get the best sound between all of the instruments in the beginning? Do I just try to get the sonic picture worked out by running through some songs before we record? How do you guys go about the EQ'ing for an analog recording?

With 2 channels for recording, I'm thinking of starting with drums and bass with the drums having a pair of mics for stereo recording going into my Behringer UB802 mixer and the bass going direct into the 2nd recording channel on the mixer. How do I pan the stereo mics? With this setup, I'll only have the initial opportunity to pan the drum mics. Should I go about a 1/4 left and a 1/4 mics on the respective mics? I'll probably run a few tests for the mics (listening in mono for phase cancelling, etc). Anything else I should look for?

Will there be any problem having the Behringer's mic pres going coupling with the Tascam's? Should I go from the mixer to the tascam and use a 1/4 trs cord or an XLR?

For the vocals, I'll most likely run the mic into the mixer (for its 3 band EQ) and then into the Tascam, any problems seen with that? Also, I think I can wing an SM57 for recording the guitar, should I go straight to the 4 track or through the mixer? And with the bass going direct, should I get a preamp, use my Gallien Krueger 1001rb's DI, or go straight to the board?

And my last questions, if I pan the stereo drum's left and right slightly, should I just pan the bass directly in the center? I believe with the mixer, I'll have to bounce the drum and bass tracks, which is why I'm asking... oops, 1 more question (sorry!), after I'm done with all of the tracks, should I bounce or leave them in the least bounced form possible?

Lord, I have 1 more, can anyone recommend some high quality cassette tapes? I want the best recording for the cheapest, and I figure a good tape might give a small edge.

Thank you guys so much! Oh, and if anyone could recommend a good budget analog recording book, I'd appreciate it!

LadY

P.S.... wow, I just thought of another questions, if I'm doing multiple songs, should I use seperate tapes for each song and send them to the pc (I'm putting these on cds)? Thanks!
_________________________
In Skynyrd We Trust

Top
#1681576 - 06/07/05 11:12 AM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
miroslav Offline
Cosmic Cowboy
10k Club

Registered: 05/23/00
Posts: 14215
Loc: NY Hudson Valley, USA
OK...I know you might not want to hear this...
...but, if you are worried about "best sound" and "best recording"...
...I would not start off with a cassette porta-potty.

I would at least get a nice used TASCAM 1/2" 8-track...a small 8-channel mixer (there are some nice used 8-channel TASCAM recording mixers too) though your Behringer is useable, but not all that great sounding...IMO.


I'm an analog tape user...but I never bothered with cassette multitracks...even in my early days.
They are only good for "rough" recordings...practices...etc.
If you want a good demo using analog tape...you need to step up to at least ½” 8-track...though I've done some decent stuff on 1/4" 4-track in my early days...just don't bounce too many times!
Now day, I use a 16 track open reel deck.

Otherwise...for the price of a cassette porta-potty...you might as well get a small digital rig...'cuz cassette tape will not = "best" at anything.
_________________________
miroslav - miroslavmusic.com

"Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important."

Top
#1681577 - 06/07/05 02:33 PM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
Bill@Welcome Home Studios Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 08/23/03
Posts: 9613
If you've got a pc, why not just grab Ntracks ($20) or Traxion and a cheap interface, or a used Tascam US 428, or something, and do the work in the PC.

Portastudios basically sound like shit (compared to modern recording choices), and the cassette medium also has a limited dynamic range. If you recorded to cassette and mixed down for cassette and distributed cassette demos, it might be okay. But to convert cassette to CD? nahh.

The way you have described it, you are going to do several times the amount of work to end up with half the product that you could end up with. There is such a thing as "cheap" in the computer, too.

If possible, stay away from the eqs on cheap boards and recorders. ANY software eq will sound better.

Bill
_________________________
"I believe that entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot."

Steve Martin

Show business: we're all here because we're not all there.


Top
#1681578 - 06/07/05 05:22 PM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
KenElevenShadows Offline
10k Club

Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 13222
Loc: Los Angeles, CA, UNITED STATES
As far as the panning is concerned, I don't know if what you are recording is "true stereo" anyway" (an attempt to recreate the sound field), but regardless, pan them so that they sound best to your ear. Since you appear to be talking about bass in one channel and drums in the other, straight up is standard, but you don't have to be "standard" - pan them to how best it serves the song. There is no right or wrong answer here. How does it sound to you?

I don't have any specific "analog" book on home recording to recommend to you, but would suggest that you get anything on basic recording techniques and go from there. My recommendation, "Sound Advice: A Musician's Guide to the Recording Studio" appears to be out of print, but I cannot recommend it highly enough.

Go to a decent book store and look around and see what makes sense to you. Which book explains things to you clearly?

For cassette especially but most any analog machine, the less bouncing, the better. But you already know that, don't you?

And finally, consider using your PC for some simple recording, even if it's two channels at a time only. You will most likely get better sound quality than a Tascam Porta 02. I used to record on a Tascam Porta 1 (owned that one) and Porta 2 and a Yamaha 4-track cassette as well. Now, I'm pretty damn good at recording, and I had a very hard time getting a good sound out of those things.

Top
#1681579 - 06/07/05 10:15 PM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
dohhhhh6 Offline
Platinum Member

Registered: 12/05/02
Posts: 1292
Loc: St Louis
And lord, the plot thickens...

Here I was set on doing an analog recording, but I find that the options of the pc will be put to good use.

I'm going to download Protools free and see how it compares to both N-track studio and Audacity.

When you guys talk about interfaces, what do you mean? Since it really looks like I'm going the digital route (damn you scoundrels!), should I buy a mic pre and go straight into the computer?

If I bought a cheap condensor mic, what would be the improvements vs. using a dynamic mic for vocals and guitar?

Thankfully I had a couple of non analog specific questions.

By the way, I'm wanting the demo to just be a good representation of us with the best production values we can pull while still keeping a super meager budget.

Thanks a bunch.
_________________________
In Skynyrd We Trust

Top
#1681580 - 06/07/05 10:37 PM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
KenElevenShadows Offline
10k Club

Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 13222
Loc: Los Angeles, CA, UNITED STATES
Quote:
Originally posted by Da LadY In Tha Pink Dress:
And lord, the plot thickens...

Here I was set on doing an analog recording, but I find that the options of the pc will be put to good use.

I'm going to download Protools free and see how it compares to both N-track studio and Audacity.

When you guys talk about interfaces, what do you mean? Since it really looks like I'm going the digital route (damn you scoundrels!), should I buy a mic pre and go straight into the computer?

If I bought a cheap condensor mic, what would be the improvements vs. using a dynamic mic for vocals and guitar?
If you're comfortable using 4-track cassette, go ahead and do it. You can get a representational recording of the band if that's pretty much all you want. I suggested the computer because 1.) you have one, 2.) it'll sound better than cassette, and 3.) you were going to dump the audio from your 4-track cassette into the computer anyway.

Interfaces: something simple. Get something simple. M-Audio comes bundled with software. So does Mackie Tracktion. So does Pro Tools MBox. Pick something like this, something simple, something that fires up and is easy to use and has really good software that feels intuitive to you. They all do pretty much the same thing - record stuff and then chop it up for you. So get something that makes sense. What's the best way to do this? By downloading their demos. The interfaces will have at least a couple of mic preamps on it already, and will connect to your computer via USB or Firewire. Simple. You'll be able to record two tracks simultaneously, more if you pay for an interface that has more than two inputs. I believe that's the same amount of inputs as you would have with the Porta 02 (the Porta 01 could only record 2 tracks simultaneously, if memory serves. Someone correct me if I'm wrong!).

Pro Tools Free, to the best of my knowledge, isn't supported by Windows XP. But don't take my word for it since I don't use PT Free - do a search and verify this for yourself.

A condenser will almost always sound better for acoustic guitar than a dynamic, in my opinion. It's worth getting one in either case. Do a search for oodles of discussions about good cheap condensers to get for guitar and vocals. Rode NTK is good for US$400. For cheaper, look at Marshall or Oktava or some of the other ones that have been discussed here. If you don't really need anything fancy, don't bother blowing more than US$100 for a condenser because, quite frankly, it'll sound just fine. Shockingly good for the money.

And get a book on basic home recording.

Top
#1681581 - 06/07/05 11:40 PM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
Bill@Welcome Home Studios Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 08/23/03
Posts: 9613
Quote:
Originally posted by Da LadY In Tha Pink Dress:
Here I was set on doing an analog recording,

I'm going to download Protools free .

When you guys talk about interfaces, what do you mean?

If I bought a cheap condensor mic, .
There is NOTHING in a cassette recording that even remotely resembles what anyone is talking about when they wax poetic about analog recording.

In my experience, Protools Free bites the big one. Baddly.

Interface... the way that you are going to get your signal from the source to the computer. Most computers come with as sound card that will allow you to record 2 tracks at once. (A single stereo file.) But to do multitrack recording, you need something that will allow you to handle more than 2 tracks at a time. There are a lot of options, at many price points and track count choices. One of the cheapest for a lot of tracks is the Wamirack. (I think that is what it is called. Last that I looked, $200.) The Tascam 824 comes with the recording software, and it is a USB device...dead easy to set up. Used they show up on ebay for around $350.

There is no doubt that a good condenser sounds good. But you never know about the cheap ones. I would suggest to you that renting a good one would be better than buying a cheap one.

Bill
_________________________
"I believe that entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot."

Steve Martin

Show business: we're all here because we're not all there.


Top
#1681582 - 06/08/05 01:01 AM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
younggunmn Offline
Member

Registered: 05/22/05
Posts: 25
Loc: New York, NY
I'm a complete nitwit

Top
#1681583 - 06/08/05 01:15 AM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
Dennyf Offline
Platinum Member

Registered: 11/17/03
Posts: 1231
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
If your computer has a soundcard, you already have an "interface." And you can still do two tracks at a time, just as you could with your 4-track cassette.

The only stumbling block would be if your sound card is not full duplex, i.e., cannot play and record at the same time. And I think the odds are in your favor that it can.

Even a relatively pedestrian sound card, or even on-board sound, will probably be an improvement over the cassette. And with something like N-Track, you can record quite a few tracks (but still only two at a time with a standard sound card).

Your sound card probably uses eighth-inch stereo "mini" phone plugs for line input and output. While you may need an adaptor, the outs from your Behringer mixer should work just fine for driving this input. So you might be good to go without spending any (or at least, very little) money.
_________________________
band link: bluepearlband.com
music, lessons, gig schedules at dennyf.com

STURGEON'S LAW --98% of everything is bullshit.

My Unitarian Jihad Name is: The Jackhammer of Love and Mercy.
Get yours.

Top
#1681584 - 06/08/05 08:02 AM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
miroslav Offline
Cosmic Cowboy
10k Club

Registered: 05/23/00
Posts: 14215
Loc: NY Hudson Valley, USA
Quote:
Originally posted by Da LadY In Tha Pink Dress:
[QB] And lord, the plot thickens...

Here I was set on doing an analog recording, but I find that the options of the pc will be put to good use.
There's NO REASON not to pursue your analog path...
...we're just saying, that doing it with a cassette porta-potty, isn't going to give you the best of analog that you may be dreaming about.
So...between a 4-track cassette and a very basic PC/digital rig...even those of use that love/use analog, will tell you that a PC/digital rig is the better choice.

But...if you want to make a little extra effort...and spend a bit more cash...you can have a real sweet analog setup that WOULD yield great results.
In your case...a nice TASACAM 1/2" 8-track would be super...and they can be had on eBay for only $200-$300 bucks.
And yeah…a LOT of folks will tell you that even that level of analog can’t compare with the dynamic range and “cleanliness” of 24 bit digital that you can get with a basic sound card and a decent PC rig.
But…there is “something” special about analog tape and pure analog that continues to have a HUGE following at all levels of the music industry…and especially for people doing R&R.

Quote:
By the way, I'm wanting the demo to just be a good representation of us with the best production values we can pull while still keeping a super meager budget.
This is one of those Catch-22 situations that a lot of people fall into when starting out.
You try and do things on the cheap...and spend time convincing yourself that it will sound good enough...and that you can "erase" the negative aspects of the very cheap recording gear by utilizing superior production/engineering techniques...but...in the end...you will realize that there is a reason why some gear costs more, and why some gear sounds better.
And before you know it...you will be out there either looking to get rid of your cheap rig and upgrade to something better...or you will look for a pro studio to record in because you can't/won't spend any more money...
...or you may even get disgusted by the whole thing and just give up.

My advice would be for you to spend a little more time working on your songs, doing pre-production...while at the same time gathering up some additional finances that will let get you some better gear. Then…you will get that sound you want a lot easier.
You just have to make that commitment.

Don't keep settling for less just so you can save a few bucks today...only to be disappointed tomorrow.
_________________________
miroslav - miroslavmusic.com

"Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important."

Top
#1681585 - 06/08/05 09:47 AM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
Bill@Welcome Home Studios Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 08/23/03
Posts: 9613
Just to add a touch to what Miroslav has said about saving money...

...you are going into the PC anyway, according to what you have said.

When you spend money, you will get a better value for the money spent by purchasing things that have a long term value.

A PortaStudio is unlikely to have a long term value factor. In the long run, if you go analog or digital, that particular piece is going to be dropped rather quickly. That makes it a questionable investment. (at least, in my book...)

Side issue: If you are looking at a used PortaStudio, consider that most PortaStudio users don't know or care about maintenance. I've seen a number of these things over the years, and most have been beaten pretty thoroughly. Worn tape heads are usually the biggest problem, but worn belts are an issue, and just general crud that has been allowed to accumulate and therefore cause premature wear to the machine seem to be typical. So please choose carefully.

Bill
_________________________
"I believe that entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot."

Steve Martin

Show business: we're all here because we're not all there.


Top
#1681586 - 06/08/05 10:09 AM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
miroslav Offline
Cosmic Cowboy
10k Club

Registered: 05/23/00
Posts: 14215
Loc: NY Hudson Valley, USA
Here's something I spotted on eBay...just to give you some ideas: ;\)

OTARI MX5050 MKIII - 1/2" 8-track starting at $99
_________________________
miroslav - miroslavmusic.com

"Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important."

Top
#1681587 - 06/08/05 10:24 AM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
Bill@Welcome Home Studios Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 08/23/03
Posts: 9613
Quote:
Originally posted by miroslav:
Here's something I spotted on eBay...just to give you some ideas: ;\)

OTARI MX5050 MKIII - 1/2" 8-track starting at $99
I had one of those for years. Nice piece. One must have a local tape recorder maintenance guy though, for any good analog tape machine. And alignment tapes, (at over $300 a pop and yes, they wear out and need replaced about once a year or so...); and it helps to have an O-scope, though you'll never get that straight diagonal line on that particular machine... lots of little mouths laughing at you as you try.... don't forget the frequency generator, the frequency counter, a meter that reads low enough (most inexpensive RS meters don't read that fine, I use an HP-400... even reads in dBs, but it was pricy....), head cleaner, rubber restorer....

Oh, I'm begining to remember why I dumped analog....

I still have my half-track 5050 over/under. But it hasn't even been turned on in over a year.

Bill
_________________________
"I believe that entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot."

Steve Martin

Show business: we're all here because we're not all there.


Top
#1681588 - 06/08/05 10:34 AM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
KenElevenShadows Offline
10k Club

Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 13222
Loc: Los Angeles, CA, UNITED STATES
If someone is looking for analog machines, those Tascam 388 (8-track reel-to-reel with a built-in mixing board) were very nice. Take it to a shop for maintenance once a year, regular cleaning and demagnetizing (which is very easy) and you're good to go.

~~~~
If going for something with a computer, just go with something super simple.

Top
#1681589 - 06/08/05 12:03 PM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
miroslav Offline
Cosmic Cowboy
10k Club

Registered: 05/23/00
Posts: 14215
Loc: NY Hudson Valley, USA
Quote:
Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:
Oh, I'm begining to remember why I dumped analog....
Yeah...OK...analog tape decks need regular care...
…but, if you have a deck all set up...and you are only using it occasionally to record a few songs...
...that is, you are NOT using it 24/7 in a non-stop commercial studio...
...the heads/guides are not going to go out of whack with any regularity.

Heck...if you don't move that puppy...and you put minimal wear on it...the heads/guides can stay untouched for a long time.
As far as the electronics needing regular calibration...it depends on the machine...and on it's age…and on it's overall usage.

I check mine from time to time...and if the rec/repro quality/levels are the same as the last time I checked...I don't touch any of it.

Quote:
I still have my half-track 5050 over/under. But it hasn't even been turned on in over a year.
I take it it's a 1/4" half-track?

What are you saving it for Bill? \:\)

I've been on the lookout for a nice 1/2" half-track that I can use for mastering purposes...but, the good ones are a bit expensive...
...so I might settle for a 1/4" half-track if it's mint and if the price is right!

Hint...hint... ;\) ... ;\) ...nudge...nudge. \:D
_________________________
miroslav - miroslavmusic.com

"Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important."

Top
#1681590 - 06/08/05 12:24 PM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
Bill@Welcome Home Studios Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 08/23/03
Posts: 9613
Quote:
Originally posted by miroslav:
[QUOTE] ...As far as the electronics needing regular calibration...it depends on the machine...and on it's age…and on it's overall usage.
You need to recal for every new batch of tape. You also need to recal when you pull up an old tape. You also need to recal when someone brings in a different tape to use on your machines. You need to recal a lot.

In terms of the deck not moving..... that tape is whizzing through those guides, over the arms, and across the heads at 15 to 30 inches per second. Breaking, pulling, starting, stopping, rocking reels, ... things definitely go out of alignment, and it doesn't take much to affect the quality of the recording.

Paper tape, zebra tape, green and red tape, splicing tape, razor blades, splicing blocks, grease pencils... I had quite a few years of it. Hurray for digital editing!

Bill
_________________________
"I believe that entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot."

Steve Martin

Show business: we're all here because we're not all there.


Top
#1681591 - 06/08/05 02:40 PM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
miroslav Offline
Cosmic Cowboy
10k Club

Registered: 05/23/00
Posts: 14215
Loc: NY Hudson Valley, USA
Quote:
Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:
You need to recal for every new batch of tape. You also need to recal when you pull up an old tape. You also need to recal when someone brings in a different tape to use on your machines. You need to recal a lot.
These days, I don't have anyone bringing me in their tapes anymore.
Also...I've been using EMTEC 911 almost exclusively...and so far...it's been very, very consistent from batch to batch. I still have about 4 cases to go through before I’ll need more….and that WILL be quite awhile for me.
And...I also have a couple of cases of EMTEC 468 to go through...which is a “slightly” different formulation than the 911...so when I get to it...I will recal as needed…but I did try out one reel on my deck as-is…and I could not notice any real sound quality difference. It’s quite interchangeable without a need for recal.

Mind you…I’m not one to “split-hairs” over ‘scope readings! ;\)
“If it sounds right, it is right!”…is the motto I’ve adopted.
_________________________
miroslav - miroslavmusic.com

"Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important."

Top
#1681592 - 06/08/05 04:57 PM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
Bill@Welcome Home Studios Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 08/23/03
Posts: 9613
Quote:
Originally posted by miroslav:
[QUOTE] ...I got so friggin' tired of staring at computer screens...zooming in and out...clicking through many parameter windows...and mousing around all over the place...
...
What sent me over to the "solidly in favor of computer editing" side of things... I had a regular quarterly gig that required 300 to 600 edits. It needed to be done over the weekend, and in addition I had to crank out 500 copies of the finished product.

Great gig, but a great pain with a splicing block and multiple tapes. Piece of cake when I switched over to a computer and a large data file.

This is what got me into computer editing, and adopting it to music was the next obvious step for me, and I never looked back. It comes down to the time required to do a job. When you cannot hear a difference between the two formats (you can argue this is you like, ... after all, I argue that the better mics and converters and monitors are worth it... my paradigm. I've certainly got room in my world for yours.)there was little to no reason for me not to work with the format that gave me back some of the time in my life.

After quality, time is the issue. At least, for me. Less time editing means more time to invest in playing, writing, sleeping, or just sticking my lazy ass in a chair and thinking about nothing or whatever happens to whizz by.

Bill
_________________________
"I believe that entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot."

Steve Martin

Show business: we're all here because we're not all there.


Top
#1681593 - 06/08/05 07:57 PM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
miroslav Offline
Cosmic Cowboy
10k Club

Registered: 05/23/00
Posts: 14215
Loc: NY Hudson Valley, USA
Naaa...I wouldn't argue about digital quality overall.
Heck...my DAW running Samplitude nocks my socks off with it's audio quality!
I have 24 channels of A/D/A conversion...and I can easily bypass the analog tape deck for any kind of session.
Right now...I have couple of tunes in the DAW that do have a lot of tracks and a lot of edits going on.

But...the last few tunes I’ve done...I went back to basics. And I can get each song all on only 16 tracks...AND...I have no edits that I feel I need to make. I'll do as many takes as I need to, to get it all in one...and that's not a really difficult thing to do...IF...I am prepared to record....and if I know the song and have worked out all the parts.
So...for those tunes...using the 16 track analog deck is very straightforward. These are all very 60's-70's kind of Rock/Pop tunes….so tracking them to tape…just seems right.

As soon as I am done with this particular project (I have a few more songs to do in this genre)...
...I may shift over to some ambient, "head" music...and that MAY require many more tracks and a good deal of editing. So...I may do that stuff direct to DAW.

I'm flexible and realistic...but I still do love working with tape.

One thing though...whether I use tape or DAW to track...
…I will be mixing down in analog...using my console and my outboard gear.
I don't see myself going the all ITB route...not for a long time, anyway.
I just like mixing with a console and using hardware processing...and I do believe it sounds better...more cohesive...than doing it all ITB.
But...I can see why ITB may be the only choice for many people…and that’s fine for them.
_________________________
miroslav - miroslavmusic.com

"Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important."

Top
#1681594 - 06/08/05 10:07 PM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
dohhhhh6 Offline
Platinum Member

Registered: 12/05/02
Posts: 1292
Loc: St Louis
Sorry, double post.
_________________________
In Skynyrd We Trust

Top
#1681595 - 06/08/05 10:07 PM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
dohhhhh6 Offline
Platinum Member

Registered: 12/05/02
Posts: 1292
Loc: St Louis
Wow, this stupid thread (hey, it became pretty much pointless after the 2nd reply...) has garnered some good material, including a studio connection with one of the resident homerecorders.

I have 1 last question (or so I think).

I don't know quite yet what kind of soundcard we're going to be using (we'll most likely be using my friend's laptop), is the interface (such as from M Audio) used instead of the soundcard, or does the interface go to the soundcard?

If I can find for under $200 an interface that acts as a soundcard, has a decent preamp, and has its own recording program, I think could divert that much money into one.

Thanks
_________________________
In Skynyrd We Trust

Top
#1681596 - 06/08/05 10:30 PM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
dohhhhh6 Offline
Platinum Member

Registered: 12/05/02
Posts: 1292
Loc: St Louis
Heh, I lied.

Is getting an interface really the way to go for a laptop? I'm wondering if buying a decently nice ($100) soundcard and just using the Behringer for preamp would be the better idea?

Also, I found one of the Tascam US122's for about $130 used, anyone have any experience with this? I would go towards the m-audio mobile pre except it only does like 12bit/48hz instead of 24bit/96hz.

Thanks!!! More questions I'm sure will follow, though more fleshed out on a single subject and on a single thread.
_________________________
In Skynyrd We Trust

Top
#1681597 - 06/08/05 10:50 PM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
younggunmn Offline
Member

Registered: 05/22/05
Posts: 25
Loc: New York, NY
The interface is instead of the soundcard in most cases. Here's the idea: with the run of the mill sound card that comes with most computers (on some, it may even be built into the motherboard, which is more likely on a laptop), the analog-digital converters are pretty crappy. What's worse, the card is swamped in electromagnetic fields generated by the other components in the computer (especially the power supply and fan). These fields induce small, unwanted currents in the soundcard, which manifest themselves as a constant hissing noise. Add to that the fact that the preamps suck, and that you can't use XLR inputs which are less noisy in the first place.

What most good interfaces do is use good AD converters, and put them in a breakout box outside of the CPU, away from the fields. They build in some nice quiet preamps, and then instead of sending the sound back to the computer as an electric signal, they send back the digital data which will not get hiss added to it. You can have the best preamp in the world, but if you send the signal from it into a really crappy soundcard, the end result will sound like crap also. BTW, you also need to make sure with whatever you do that the signal you are feeding in is not too high voltage for the input. As an extreme example, I have a rather technologically disabled buddy of mine who tried to send the signal from his 250 Watt head straight into a mixer. Let's just say he doesn't use that channel anymore. The same goes for feeding the output of a preamp into a soundcard (and BTW, if it's in your motherboard, frying the soundcard might also fry the motherboard).

So personally, I would really suggest you gets some kind of interface with a built-in preamp. I think you'll get a better sound that way even if the preamp is not the best.

I've never used this one, but it looks like it might be about your speed, and it's in your price range.

Here\'s a link

If you can afford it, this one has more inputs, and even phantom power for a condesner mic

Here\'s a link

Hope that helps,
Matt

PS: I wouldn't be lured in by the software package that comes with the less expensive one. N-Track is virtually free, and would probably fit your needs really well.

Top
#1681598 - 06/09/05 05:34 AM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
Bill@Welcome Home Studios Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 08/23/03
Posts: 9613
Quote:
Originally posted by younggunmn:
...What's worse, the card is swamped in electromagnetic fields generated by the other components in the computer .....

This has been a myth since Day One, back when the best computer audio card that you could buy was a Digital Audio Labs CardD, which was an internal card, and suffered not a wit from any of the oft-quoted problems with internal cards. It comes down to the design and quality of components and manufacturing. (And since most included sound cards get minimal use from non-profesionals, they are the cheapest solution, which almost assures you that none of the above conditions... quality design, components, or manufacturing... exists in te included sound card.) But you can still buy quite good cards with converters installed, on boards meant to be put in the computer.

Bill
_________________________
"I believe that entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot."

Steve Martin

Show business: we're all here because we're not all there.


Top
#1681599 - 06/09/05 05:39 AM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
Bill@Welcome Home Studios Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 08/23/03
Posts: 9613
Quote:
Originally posted by Da LadY In Tha Pink Dress:


Is getting an interface really the way to go for a laptop? I'm wondering if buying a decently nice ($100) soundcard and just using the Behringer for preamp would be the better idea?

Suggestion: start out with the existing laptop sound card and adapter cables from Radio Shack to allow you to use the existing board as a recording board. Get your feet wet. You'll be able to make better decisions if you do.

So far you come back with 2 channel solutions. You already have a 2 chsannel solution, why buy another one? My guess is that you will be happier with at least 4 channels of input.

"I would go towards the m-audio mobile pre except it only does like 12bit/48hz instead of 24bit/96hz."

You better check your specs again.

And think about this... you do need 16 bit at least, 24 is preferable. But as you are working on a budget and you want to make a CD (with a native resolution of 16 bit 44.1k) you might forgo 96k at this juncture.

I had a 122, okay for a cheap 2 channel box, lots of handy features. The Transit, another 2 channel USB box, has no frills, but is under $70.

Bill
_________________________
"I believe that entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot."

Steve Martin

Show business: we're all here because we're not all there.


Top
#1681600 - 06/09/05 12:59 PM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
dohhhhh6 Offline
Platinum Member

Registered: 12/05/02
Posts: 1292
Loc: St Louis
Sorry, the Mobile pre is 16bit/48hz while the US-122 is 24bit/48hz.

The Transit looks really sexy with 24bit/96hz recording, but it seems to have only 1 channel?

What is the difference between 48hz and 96 hz? Or the same 48hz but 16 bit vs 24 bit? Isn't 96hz supposed to sound closer to a cd? I believe in the "junk in, junk out" mentality, but if I put good recording in through a USB interface that can't the best possible resolution, my recording won't be able to sound their absolute best given the situation, right?

However, I think I'll really be able to make use of the multiple channels.

Here's so far my recording plan (please evaluate how good this is).

I'm going to have 2 OH mics for drums so I have stereo. Do I use condenser or dynamic mics for this purpose? While recording the drums, I was hoping on recording the bass DI'd with headphones on both the drummer and me (so I don't have any bleed).

Will I be able to record 4 tracks with the Tascam US-122? It has 2 XLR inputs and 2 line-in's, are those capable of recording 4 tracks seperately? If not, I guess I'll just do headphones on the drummer and me, but I won't record. If it can do 4 tracks at once, I'll possibly DI the guitar with us, but it might be better to go with a mic'd guitar.

After that, I'll add vocals and start compressing, then EQ'ing the drums as well as EQ'ing and panning all of the instruments.

When I mix down to a cd, does it automatically go to 16bit 44.1k? Or in other words, does having a 24bit/96hz recording even matter?

Also, how big should the drum recording room be? I heard that tiles and reflective surfaces work really well for drums (which is partly why the bass would be recorded with everyone using headphones instead of amps). What rooms are the best for electric guitar (I know it depends on the song, etc, but where do you like to record electric guitar). Can anyone make a general statement about where to record men's vocals?

I'm guessing the simple rule is if I want natural reverb and space, to use a tiled room, and to have a sharp, dry voice, I'd use a room with lots of couches, etc.

Thanks once again for the amazing help! Things are REALLY shaping up!

P.S. do people ever record a mono signal for bass or guitar, make a second copy, then pan them slightly left and right to create space in the mix?
_________________________
In Skynyrd We Trust

Top
#1681601 - 06/09/05 01:15 PM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
Bill@Welcome Home Studios Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 08/23/03
Posts: 9613
Quote:
Originally posted by Da LadY In Tha Pink Dress:

Here's so far my recording plan (please evaluate how good this is).


"...The Transit .... seems to have only 1 channel?"

It has one stereo channel. (That would be 2 channels.) Windows 'sees' all channels in pairs. Your software breaks it up into mono channels, or combines them into stereo channels or whatever. The Tascam DA-38/88/98 and the Sony 800 (and undoubtedly, other products) all work the same way.

"What is the difference between 48hz and 96 hz? "

96k is twice 48k.

"Or the same 48hz but 16 bit vs 24 bit?"

" Isn't 96hz supposed to sound closer to a cd?"

As I said above, the native resolution of a CD is 16 bit, 44.1k.

"..if I put good recording in through a USB interface that can't the best possible resolution, ... "

Uhhhh...... why do you think that USB can't handle the data flow?

"When I mix down to a cd, does it automatically go to 16bit 44.1k?"

No. But it will not be an audio CD unless you do.

" Or in other words, does having a 24bit/96hz recording even matter? "

As I said above, you would benefit from working at 24 bit for tracking, dithering down to 16 bit on mixdown.

In terms of 48k or 96k: on a budget, I'd just record to 44.1.

"Will I be able to record 4 tracks with the Tascam US-122?"

No. It is a two channel device.

Most of us use the rooms that we have, and make the best of it. Couches are good if your vocalist gets tired.

Bill
_________________________
"I believe that entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot."

Steve Martin

Show business: we're all here because we're not all there.


Top
#1681602 - 06/09/05 02:46 PM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
younggunmn Offline
Member

Registered: 05/22/05
Posts: 25
Loc: New York, NY
Quote:
Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:
Quote:
Originally posted by younggunmn:
...What's worse, the card is swamped in electromagnetic fields generated by the other components in the computer .....

This has been a myth since Day One, back when the best computer audio card that you could buy was a Digital Audio Labs CardD, which was an internal card, and suffered not a wit from any of the oft-quoted problems with internal cards.
I wouldn't exactly call it a myth. It's a physical fact that the card is in several fairly strong EM fields, and without excellent electrical engineering and components (which both cost a lot), you'll get significant noise because of it (this isn't restricted to audio -- it's just physics). And as bpark said, most sound cards are not built with that in mind.

So anyway, my point was just to get a good soundcard/inerface, wherever it is. Most of the cheaper solutions I know of deal with the problem with a breakout box because it's just an easier solution, but if you can find something at reasonable price that doesn't do it that way, go for it. If you're using a laptop, you'll probably also want something using USB or firewire, since you can't install a PCI card.

Top
#1681603 - 07/10/05 02:33 PM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
joeysimms Offline
Member

Registered: 07/10/05
Posts: 4
Wow. There is some serious 4 track bashing here.. I think a 4 track cassette is capable of good sound, and I also think it would be good for this poster to get a 4 track, because it's a great introduction to recording, and, much better sounding than a crappy digital rig with crappy converters. My point is, it's going to take alot more money to get a decent digital rig up and running, and you could just record on the 4 track with no effort at all. Even cassette 4 tracks, while certainly not the standing definition of "analogue" recording, are forgiving, and do bring some of the benefit of tape compression. And fuck all of you who think nothing good, soundwise, can come from a 4 track cassette. What a sillyass, myopic view. If you really believe that, then your songs must really suck, because I have heard tons of great 4 track recordings. You probably also believe that cd's sound better than lps..

As for the original post - there are lots of different ways to approach recording a band, ultimately you will experiment and find what works best for your music. What kind of music are you recording? How many instruments? What mics do you have?

Top
#1681604 - 07/10/05 02:52 PM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
Bill@Welcome Home Studios Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 08/23/03
Posts: 9613
Quote:
Originally posted by joeysimms:
... I think a 4 track cassette is capable of good sound, ....
When you already have a computer, you have access to far better recording than you can achive with a 4 track. Dynamic range, signal to noise, just about any spec that you can name, 16 or 24 bit digital will be superior, even with only a built in sound card with cheap converters.

This does not say that you cannot make good recordings with acassette deck. Thousands of us have. Mostly in the 1980s.

I believe in trying to spend my money wisely, on products that will serve me well into the future. A 4 track cassette deck? Wasted money. The same money, spent on Year 200n technology instead of 1975 technology, will advance the user and help them to be able to cope with recording issues that they might encounter in the future.

"...there are lots of different ways to approach recording a band..."

Of course there are. Simple logic dictates that one use the best technology available within the budget available. When the distribution media will be CD, this nearly always precludes the use of cassette as a viable front end.

In the first place, to make the CD you then have to either dump to a computer or buy an expensive stand alone cassette to CD burner. (and where does that fit in the budget?)

Second, cassette transfers to CD sound like ass because of the difference in dynamic range. So now you -have- to dump to the computer to re-master for CD.

Since you have to remaster in the computer anyway, why not just start off recording the original tracks to computer, where they will be cleaner, quieter, and have more dynamic range and headroom? Then you also can take advantage of the superior editing functions, and basically unlimited track counts.

"You probably also believe that cd's sound better than lps.."

some do, some don't. And that is a grand topic for another discussion. Because technically, they all should. Why don't they? Hint: It ain't the media.

Bill
_________________________
"I believe that entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot."

Steve Martin

Show business: we're all here because we're not all there.


Top
#1681605 - 07/10/05 06:24 PM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
Rigsby Offline
Member

Registered: 07/10/05
Posts: 2
Loc: London, England
It's not about fidelity though is it? It's about heart.

It's also about knowledge, the sort of knowledge that comes from experience and if the author of this thread is new to recording perhaps it's best to learn about mic technique and positioning and patterns and so on ..important stuff, and a simple recording medium allows you to do that, get that knowledge in, before you immerse yourself in ..other things.

Top
#1681606 - 07/10/05 06:41 PM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
joeysimms Offline
Member

Registered: 07/10/05
Posts: 4
I disagree with you completely, Bill. Just because there is technically more dynamic range available does not mean it sounds better. Not with my ears anyway. The guy can borrow a cd burner, whatever. Interesting point about buying something that will serve you well in the future, when computer systems turn over so fast these days that it is a sucker's game trying to keep up with the latest. Meanwhile, for ~$200, this guy can actually teach himself to record by listening, mic postioning, and arrangement, instead of learning how to cut n' paste, drag n' drop, and otherwise erase away bad bits of a digital represenation of a picture.

I just find your elitist bashing of cassette tape to be bad advice for someone just starting out.

Top
#1681607 - 07/10/05 09:49 PM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
dubold Offline
Member

Registered: 07/10/05
Posts: 1
well, the important question here is: what's the point? if your songs are good, that'll come across regardless of the format. There's a certain amount of forgiveness that's inherent in the computer format. As someone who went from four track to computert, I definitely think that the move to computer-based recording actually hurt me, artistically. there's a level of commitment inherent in cassette four-track recording, and an attention to mic technique that will be invaluable when you eventually move to computer.

Top
#1681608 - 07/10/05 11:15 PM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
Bill@Welcome Home Studios Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 08/23/03
Posts: 9613
It's funny, because I have an old school attitude to recording, as I was raised with reel to reel tape and all that this implies in terms of recording. This often puts me at odds with the computer guys, because I think that they get too damned tweaky about things, and are too willing to replace recording/acoustical knowlege with digital trickery.

On the other hand, my embracing the advantages that digital can bring to the recording process often puts me at odds with the tape guys.

But honestly, what you are perceiving as bashing is just a statement of fact. You may not like it, but it is true.

"Meanwhile, for ~$200, this guy can actually teach himself to record by listening, mic postioning, and arrangement..."

And exactly what prevents this if they use a computer instead of a cassette deck? Nothing. Same $200 invested, possibly less.

"Interesting point about buying something that will serve you well in the future, when computer systems turn over so fast these days that it is a sucker's game trying to keep up with the latest."

Only if you are sucker enough to try. My custom built Chris Smith (realcomputerguy) studio box is a few years old now, but it runs both the latest veriosn of SAWStudio and Sequoia as well as I need them to be run. My RME Digiface is a couple of years old now. My Mytek converters are, too. I see no reason to change them any time soon, because I was able, over time, to bring the quality of my rig up to my particular quality/price/performance comfort point. But I started out with a 4 bit game card at a time when if you wanted an audio application,you either wrote it or got someone else to write it. I've been through the quality wars, I've carefully examined all of the media that has been available in my lifetime, and didn't jump on anything until it was superior to what I already had.

"As someone who went from four track to computert, I definitely think that the move to computer-based recording actually hurt me, artistically..."

Right. You learned one way, then had to try to adjust to another and unlearn a lot of stuff. That is EXACTLY my point. The computer is most likely the future media for most recordists. Learn it now, or waste your time learning something else, only to have to learn it later, with all of the frustrations that you describe. Had you learned on the computer to start with, you would not have hit that bump in the road. Unlearning and adjusting expectations is harder than learning.


Bill
_________________________
"I believe that entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot."

Steve Martin

Show business: we're all here because we're not all there.


Top
#1681609 - 07/11/05 12:04 AM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
miroslav Offline
Cosmic Cowboy
10k Club

Registered: 05/23/00
Posts: 14215
Loc: NY Hudson Valley, USA
Quote:
Originally posted by joeysimms:

I just find your elitist bashing of cassette tape to be bad advice for someone just starting out.
Dude...get a grip. \:\)

The ONLY reason one would use a 4-track cassette is if you could not afford anything better.

Back in the days before DAWs...yeah, even a 4-track open reel was not "cheap"...never mind 8-track or more...
...so, those on very tight budgets, used 4-track cassettes.
But please be clear...using 4-track cassettes had NOTHING to do with superior quality! \:D

And when you say "your songs must really suck"...boy, now THAT'S a very elitist view!

These days, if you really want to record to tape, “on-the-cheap”...why on earth would you waste a couple of hundred bucks on a 4-track cassette when for that same amount of money…you can get a real decent 1/2" 8-track analog tape deck that will sound about 10 times better than a cassette...???

It's not elitism...it's just common sense.
_________________________
miroslav - miroslavmusic.com

"Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important."

Top
#1681610 - 07/11/05 12:25 AM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
younggunmn Offline
Member

Registered: 05/22/05
Posts: 25
Loc: New York, NY
Quote:
Originally posted by joeysimms:
And fuck all of you who think nothing good, soundwise, can come from a 4 track cassette. What a sillyass, myopic view.
Not that I'm really in a position to be making the rules around here, but I'm a member of several communities, online and otherwise, and I've learned at least this much. Having the second thing (post #2) you tell people contain 'fuck all of you' is not such a great way to introduce yourself. If you don't want myopia, it's best to try to encourage a friendly debate rather than a heated argument.

I personally agree that computers are the way to go, ESPECIALLY for a beginner. It's just too frustrating to deal with 4 tracks when you could have the freedom and 'security' a computer provides (see my post above). When you're learning something new, discouragement is your worst enemy.

As for not learning good mic technique, it's not as if it's any different with computers, really. You may be able to turn crap into dirt using a computer, but you'll never turn it into gold. You might waste some time early on trying to do this, but I think eventually you'll see it can't be done, and hopefully in the process you will have gained some post-production skills that will help you later.

Matt

Top
#1681611 - 07/11/05 04:18 AM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
Rigsby Offline
Member

Registered: 07/10/05
Posts: 2
Loc: London, England
Quote: "The ONLY reason one would use a 4-track cassette is if you could not afford anything better."

How about likeing the sound? That's not a reason no?

Quote: "These days, if you really want to record to tape, “on-the-cheap”...why on earth would you waste a couple of hundred bucks on a 4-track cassette when for that same amount of money…you can get a real decent 1/2" 8-track analog tape deck that will sound about 10 times better than a cassette...???"

Yeah, and you can spend time learning all the maintenance and aligning etc while you'd be better off spending your time learning mic positioning et al, that's why four-tracks are so awesome, a very simple platform to learn and hone skills on.

Top
#1681612 - 07/11/05 09:22 AM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
miroslav Offline
Cosmic Cowboy
10k Club

Registered: 05/23/00
Posts: 14215
Loc: NY Hudson Valley, USA
Quote:
Originally posted by Rigsby:
How about likeing the sound? That's not a reason no?
OK...since you want to go down this path...

Can you please explain in detail exactly WHAT it is that you like about the sound of a 4-track cassette mor than any other format...???

Don't just go on about it...tell us.


Quote:
Yeah, and you can spend time learning all the maintenance and aligning etc while you'd be better off spending your time learning mic positioning et al, that's why four-tracks are so awesome, a very simple platform to learn and hone skills on.
If you are under the assumption that a 4-track cassette needs no maintenance and will last a long time untouched...well, that explains your misguided arguments.
Have you ever removed the front cover and looked at the heads/transport of a 4-track cassette?
That teeny tiny pinch roller gets gummed up pretty quick...and the heads always need cleaning too...and you SHOULD be demagnetizing it just like any other tape device…are you???
Oh...and the entire head mechanism moves up/down in order to engage the tape...which means it can go out of whack a lot faster.

I've had my hands inside many a cassette recorder...and have also thrown out quite a few, because once they start to crap out...they are not worth repairing.

With a decent small-format open reel...once the initial mechanical/electronic alignment is done you only need to clean and demag the heads/rollers once in awhile (same thing you should be doing with a cassette)...and maybe check the alignment every so often.
Unless you are working the deck really hard...the heads guides are not going to go out that quick...and if you don't change tape formula.
Of course, the big format pro machines need more regular care...but then, the payoff in sound quality is worth it.

Look, you cassette lovers...no one is saying that you can't get a decent sound out of one...but it really can NOT compare to the sound you can get out of even a 4-track 1/4" tape...!!!...never mind as you move up further in format…analog and digital.

The real point here is that if you are going to buy something for $200-$300 dollars...THESE days...you CAN do a LOT better than a 4-track cassette tape rig.
Nice, used ¼” and ½” decks can be had…or go digital, if you already own a solid computer.
Believe me, I’m an analog tape guy…but, even a $200-$300 dollar digital I/O rig will sound about 20 times better than a 4-track cassette tape recorder.
Not to mention the fact, that you can do all kinds of editing/processing with a nice little DAW, that you can never even think about with a 4-track cassette rig.

But this IS such a silly debate! \:D
You go right ahead using you 4-track cassette tape…and enjoy the sound quality! ;\)

You know what a 4-track cassette recorder is killer for...???...
...using it as a "scratch pad" for when you are just working out stuff, and you don't want to fire up your large rig...the cassette recorder will let you get a few tracks down, just to see how the song is going.
And...they are quite portable…so if you are going away for a few days, you can bring your guitar and cassette recorder along, for some demo/scratch work!!!
_________________________
miroslav - miroslavmusic.com

"Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important."

Top
#1681613 - 07/11/05 03:47 PM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
joeysimms Offline
Member

Registered: 07/10/05
Posts: 4
This place is lame, you people are nuts. Good bye.

Top
#1681614 - 07/11/05 08:17 PM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
miroslav Offline
Cosmic Cowboy
10k Club

Registered: 05/23/00
Posts: 14215
Loc: NY Hudson Valley, USA
_________________________
miroslav - miroslavmusic.com

"Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important."

Top
#1681615 - 07/11/05 08:19 PM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
younggunmn Offline
Member

Registered: 05/22/05
Posts: 25
Loc: New York, NY
Well, at least post #3 was more polite than #2 \:D

Top
#1681616 - 07/18/05 02:36 PM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
joeysimms Offline
Member

Registered: 07/10/05
Posts: 4
quote=younggunmn: Well, at least post #3 was more polite than #2

Hey, go fuck yourself. You fuckwads tossing around utter bullshit statements such as "200-300 digital rig will sound 20 times better than casette 4 track.." are what really sucks. look, I've been home-recording for 15 years, i have used 4 tracks, 8 tracks, 1/4", 1/2", 1" and 2" inch, and, in MY VIEW, anyone who writes off 4 tracks as easily as you dorks do is clearly not listening very well. It pisses me off because there is no debate here, just 'porta-potty 4 track' bashing, and not a shred of evidence to support daws and digital recording equipment being better.. cuz there is no way to prove it! it's in the ear of the listener, don't go spouting freq. range response tables, that doesn't mean jack shit.

Top
#1681617 - 07/18/05 02:52 PM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
Bill@Welcome Home Studios Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 08/23/03
Posts: 9613
Quote:
Originally posted by joeysimms:
.... cuz there is no way to prove it! it's in the ear of the listener, don't go spouting freq. range response tables, that doesn't mean jack shit.
ahh, in the face of science the ignorant invoke voodoo. rock on dude.
_________________________
"I believe that entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot."

Steve Martin

Show business: we're all here because we're not all there.


Top
#1681618 - 07/19/05 05:29 AM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
younggunmn Offline
Member

Registered: 05/22/05
Posts: 25
Loc: New York, NY
>>>Hey, go fuck yourself.
I thought you were supposed to be leaving? In any event, I find your use of the English language to be wonderfully playful and witty.

>>spouting freq. range response tables, that
>>doesn't mean jack shit.
Yeah who was that guy Hertz? Probably a fuckwad

Top
#1681619 - 07/20/05 09:21 AM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
Anderson Council Sound Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 07/13/01
Posts: 177
Loc: Florida,UNITED STATES
I thought you said you were leaving, and not comming back?

Quote:
Originally posted by joeysimms:
This place is lame, you people are nuts. Good bye.
We won't miss you.

Top
#1681620 - 07/20/05 11:51 AM Re: Pointless thread, unless you want to answer a few digital reocrding Q's
Sean Eldon Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/19/04
Posts: 462
Loc: Long Island
this thread gave me a baby. i am pregnant because of this thread.
_________________________
http://www.purevolume.com/seaneldon

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >