Expensive but crappy gear?

[Aaron Selix]

Hello,

Everyone has heard cheap gear that sounds like crap, and says, "what do you expect, it's cheap."

 

So, who has purchased an expensive piece of gear (say over $1000) and been disappointed? Any of those esoteric mic pres or compressors just not live up to the hype?

[Uh Clem]

I try to stay away from "esoteric" for the most part and stick with tried and true industry standard stuff. I've not really been disappointed yet with that approach. Esoteric usually implies paying a premium for diminishing returns or even fad syndrome.

 

I like the idea of "if ton's of people (or at least Roger) are using them to make records that I like the sound of, then I'm probably OK with it" approach. Then I at least know if my stuff sucks, it ain't the gear.

 

What I don't like is "project" studio oriented products that magically appears overnight at some heretofore unheard of miraculously low price - especially those feature laden jack of all trade devices. I'm sure there are exceptions, but most I think are destined to become boat anchors. Anyone seeing Alesis 230's or 3630's bringing a good price these days?

 

Anything that seems too good to be true usually is. Technology is lowering prices in some areas - lower prices in analog gear, though? - very slowly if at all in the "classic" gear - in many cases becoming more expensive due to mass production of cheaper components for consumer products and lower production of high grade components.

 

Even with digital it usually gets to a more steady price state with features going up more so than prices coming down as product categories mature.

 

Any quick drop in prices for "seemingly" equal features, however, seems suspicious to me.

[Lee Flier]

Steve wrote:

 

>>Anything that seems too good to be true usually is. Technology is lowering prices in some areas - lower prices in analog gear, though? - very slowly if at all in the "classic" gear - in many cases becoming more expensive due to mass production of cheaper components for consumer products and lower production of high grade components.

...

Any quick drop in prices for "seemingly" equal features, however, seems suspicious to me.<<

 

I don't know, seems to me that higher quantities are always going to drive prices down. I mean, we tend to forget how different things were less than 10 years ago. Hardly anybody could afford a studio in their home. Digital recording technology put it into the reach of LOTS more people, but now they are still going to need outboard gear and mics, so with the greater demand, many companies can afford to lower their prices. I mean how much demand really WAS there for high end outboard gear until a few years ago? It was a highly elite thing with limited production.

 

Another thing people tend to forget is how much more discretionary income so many people seem to have in the last few years. Some of the figures I see tossed around for home studio gear just blows me away, and I make pretty decent money, but I could *never* see dropping 10 or 20 grand on outboard gear. Not to criticize anyone who does, but I don't remember ANY of my musician friends having that kind of money to throw around 15 years ago.

 

Also, a lot of "mid grade" gear now exists in response to project studio demand, which depending on what it is, may be close enough to the high end stuff not to matter in most situations. The "classic" gear was developed for recording things like symphony orchestras which most of us will never do in our project studios. If you're running a commercial studio, it may well be worth it to spend the money on higher end gear, but if you're just doing a studio for mostly your own work, you can customize it to your particular style and it may well be that you prefer the sound of something cheaper to something more expensive, or at least feel that you couldn't really tell the difference in your circumstances. Again this will depend on where the manufacturer opts to cut corners. The RNC is frequently tossed around as an example of a cheap compressor that is sonically wonderful but just lacks a few features of some of the more expensive ones. If you can get along without those features, spending $2000 on a compressor will not make any sense to you.

 

Likewise there are some mics and preamps that boast a huge dynamic range, but in practice most people's stereos will not have that range, so you may not care. Some gear is famous for its high signal-to-noise ratio, which may be very relevant for violins but if you're recording a punk band, that isn't worth an extra $1000 to you!

 

Considering how much stuff is on the market these days, the only way to really tell is to compare. Buy several different models on a credit card, compare them and take back the ones you don't like.

 

All that having been said, yes, much of the high end gear does sound audibly better than the cheaper stuff. IF I had the money to buy in that price range, the only thing that would cause me to feel ripped off is if, as I said, it had features that I just didn't need and had to pay lots of money for. Most of the manufacturers seem to be addressing that issue by offering lots of different models each with different levels of features and/or performance. That's cool, the only thing that sucks is trying to compare them all!

 

--Lee

 

 

[This message has been edited by Lee Flier (edited 11-20-2000).]

[Curve Dominant]

Props to Lee from The Curve. I totally agree with everything you just posted. How true. I have been engaged in a 3-day long smackdown on the Digital Recording forum thread "Best mic-pre for 1K" with a bunch of gear snobs who tell me I absolutely need to spend a grand or more on a mic pre, because if I buy that $500 unit I've been looking at, my recordings will suck. Maybe they feel like suckers cause they spent thousands on pres, and the now the prices have come down. Who knows? Who cares? F*ck 'em.

 

Rock on Girlfriend.

[Uh Clem]

So, who has purchased an expensive piece of gear (say over $1000) and been disappointed? Any of those esoteric mic pres or compressors just not live up to the hype?

 

But to answer the question directly - NO.

 

Everything I can think of that I have bought that is what I consider to be "pro" quality gear has jumped up and kicked ass so audibly that non-engineer musicians I work with and even my wife could hear the difference very easily.

[Uh Clem]

Originally posted by Curve Dominant:

Props to Lee from The Curve. I totally agree with everything you just posted. How true. I have been engaged in a 3-day long smackdown on the Digital Recording forum thread "Best mic-pre for 1K" with a bunch of gear snobs who tell me I absolutely need to spend a grand or more on a mic pre, because if I buy that $500 unit I've been looking at, my recordings will suck. Maybe they feel like suckers cause they spent thousands on pres, and the now the prices have come down. Who knows? Who cares? F*ck 'em.

 

Rock on Girlfriend.

 

Curve, you have to put the question and the answers in context - many people are asking guys like Roger and George for advice on a level of equipment they probably rarely, if ever, run across or have occasion to use. And for the others responding, if they actually have enough experience to answer, they probably have been in a commercial studio and have not seen much of that type of gear either.

 

Additionally most people ask these things without specifying what level of quality they are willing to live with or what their goal is.

 

If you are in this for the long haul (and after 20 yrs I consider myself to be), you start to realize that putting money into less than professional gear ultimately ends up being a waste.

 

I have some of the 1st pieces of nice gear I bought back in high school that still work today - and I can remember countless other things that I just should not have bought that barely lasted a year or that I outgrew quickly as I realized that they just couldn't live up to the sound I wanted to hear.

 

Most of the respondees including Roger, Ed, GM, Fletcher, MixFix, Jon Atack, Quantum, Alpha, Robdarling, M Bishop, etc. are making the assumption that posters are looking for pro grade quality gear that lives up to certain expectations and will do so for many years.

 

They are not being snobs - without more information or qualification of needs, they are just trying to give good advice.

 

When I see a question like what is a good pre for $1K, my experience tells me that I have not heard much I would like to use in that price range. I'm sure most of these guys feel the same way and just draw a blank.

 

The follow on question should probably be "good for what?" A hobby, a demo, to learn on, to record a specific type of material that is not likely to benefit from hi-fidelity?

 

Maybe we should have a 1-10 scale expectation system in the gear quest Q's: I'm looking for an XYZ that's around a 7 on the 10 scale for under $????. I'm not doing this for a living or for customers, or if I am, they and I can live with a 7.

 

That would probably help get more appropriate responses.

 

 

Lee, what type of Mics and Pres did you use for the Drum Recording example you posted awhile back?

 

[This message has been edited by stevepow (edited 11-20-2000).]

[alphajerk]

i can use just about anything in any price range. i also have all kinds of junk i have bought over the years. while everyone is talking about the POD, im using a ZOOM 9000 from 10+ years ago. and its noisy as hell. i like cheap stuff as much as expensive stuff. [you have to use the cheap stuff as accent and not all over though]

[Curve Dominant]

It's coming down to a "lo-fi vs hi-fi" kinda thing. Interesting debate, and productive, I believe. Some audiences appreciate the gritty streetwise sound of lo-tech; then there's the commercial side that wants the most expensive sound. Artists tend towards the former for artistic reasons, and engineers have to respect the latter in order to maintain that pro edge. Seems like we all have to respect each other's needs.

 

>>many people are asking guys like Roger and George for advice on a level of equipment they probably rarely, if ever, run across or have occasion to use. And for the others responding, if they actually have enough experience to answer, they probably have been in a commercial studio and have not seen much of that type of gear either<<

I can totally understand that, Steve. The kinds of posts I take issue with are the ones that throw out static that is completely unsubstantiated. Roger & George, to my knowledge, have never trash-talked gear that they are not familiar with. On the other hand, some folks have posted sh*t that is factually false, and have even gone so far as to manufacture critiques by George & Roger. This sort of bullsh*t is way out of bounds on a so-called "pro forum," and ya'll should show some balls by holding those bullsh*tters accountable. Sound engineering is inherently scientific, therefore critique of gear essential to this scientific process should by nature be objective. When a supposed "engineer" states on a MusicPlayer forum that George Massenburg has negated a certain piece of gear, when in fact GM is not on record of even MENTIONING said gear, it degrades the credibility of that entire forum. When a "supposed" engineer states that a proprietary A/D conversion patent with a published white paper is a "marketing gimmick," it makes us all look like a bunch of bullsh*tters. Let us take some responsibility for our words, because our words reflect on our actions.

 

[This message has been edited by Curve Dominant (edited 11-20-2000).]

[Guest]

Originally posted by Curve Dominant:

The kinds of posts I take issue with are the ones that throw out static that is completely unsubstantiated. Roger & George, to my knowledge, have never trash-talked gear that they are not familiar with. On the other hand, some folks have posted sh*t that is factually false, and have even gone so far as to manufacture critiques by George & Roger. This sort of bullsh*t is way out of bounds on a so-called "pro forum," and ya'll should show some balls by holding those bullsh*tters accountable. Sound engineering is inherently scientific, therefore critique of gear essential to this scientific process should by nature be objective. When a supposed "engineer" states on a MusicPlayer forum that George Massenburg has negated a certain piece of gear, when in fact GM is not on record of even MENTIONING said gear, it degrades the credibility of that entire forum. When a "supposed" engineer states that a proprietary A/D conversion patent with a published white paper is a "marketing gimmick," it makes us all look like a bunch of bullsh*tters. Let us take some responsibility for our words, because our words reflect on our actions.

 

[This message has been edited by Curve Dominant (edited 11-20-2000).]

 

Preach it Curve, Can I get an AMEN. Although I'm in no way a pro I fully agree with Curve on this. You don't have to be a pro to show some proffesionalism, it's actually quite easy and never fails to amaze me how many musicians seem incapable of doing so.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Stratamatic@aol.com (edited 11-20-2000).]

[miroslav]

I don't know...I am often torn between the idea of saving up for that "$2,000 compressor" or buying 3-4 less expensive pieces of gear. Usually I've gone for the 3-4 rather than one expensive item.

 

Would the "2,000 compressor" be worth every penny...hopefully yes. Could I get by without it, and/or would I get more from the combined 3-4 less expensive items... probably yes.

 

When ever I'm buying a less expensive piece of gear I always stop and think back to the 50s, 60s and even early 70s. Some absolutely ass-kicking music was made back then with limited and very simple equipment. Yes, some of that equipment is considered "classic" and very sought after these days, but by today's standards...they had nothing.

 

It's not the equipment, it's the music first, and then it's taking the equipment you have and making it work for you instead of you working for the equipment.

 

Less is more.

 

Miroslav

[Anderton]

A few points to ponder...

 

First, the point of diminishing returns. A $200 speaker will be twice as good as a $100 speaker. A $400 will be 1.7X as good as a $200 speaker. An $800 speaker will be 1.5X as good as a $400 speaker (I'm just pulling these figures out of the air, but you know what I mean). I don't think a $10,000 speaker is ever twice as good as a $5,000 speaker.

 

When it comes to mic pres, or any gear, the very top of the line stuff is there to give you that extra 10% - 15%. It may be more gold-plated contacts, or a shock-mounted PC board, or pots that are point-to-point wired to a circuit board rather than wave-soldered in place.

 

Second, the vocalist you're recording is the same vocalist, regardless of what mic pre you use. The performance is always what matters.

 

Third, I do have the high-end performance of a million dollar studio right in my own home! The secret? I'm talking about a million dollar studio from 1975 . Remember, high-end is a moving target. I bet the mic pres in the cheapest Mackie console are cleaner and more transparent than ANY solid state mic pre prior to 1975. The budget gear we have today smokes high-end gear from a couple decades ago (with a few exceptions for classic vintage gear, of course).

 

Would spending several thousand dollars on a mic pre make my music sound better? Probably. Would it make any difference to the end listener, or the radio stations? No. And the bottom line: the amount of time I would have to spend working for that multi-thousand dollar preamp would be time not spent making music, which was the whole point in the first place...

 

As to whether high end gear lives up to the hype, listen to Lynn Fuston's mic preamp CD shootout. There are some very $$$$ models that at least to my ears don't sound as accurate as ones that cost substantially less. I do think some of the high-end gear is for those with more bucks than brains, but those pieces are definitely in the minority. Most of the people I've met making high-end gear are friggin' fanatics who would sell their souls to the devil to get an extra 1/10th of a dB more accuracy.

[Anderton]

One more thing. This probably goes without saying, but Roger Nichols is no gear snob. Having had the pleasure of moderating a forum where he was one of the panelists, I can say he's one of the most unassuming, unpretentious people you'd want to meet. If he were to use a piece of high end gear, it would be solely because he has the ears and experience to appreciate it, not because there's a particular logo on the front panel.

[Lee Flier]

Amen to everything you said, Craig! And I agree with you, Curve, Steve etc. about the superstar engineers not being "gear snobs" at all, they just have very limited experience with anything other than the most expensive stuff.

 

Most of the really great engineers I've ever met will relish a certain amount of limitation as a challenge. They are convinced that it's ears and skill that make a recording great, and sometimes will even go so far as to use a cheap piece of gear to give a unique signature to a recording if that's what they have to work with.

 

Sure, gear can really help or really hurt a recording, but most falls somewhere in the middle. I would certainly rather hear something that a great engineer recorded with mid grade equipment than something a relative hack recorded with top of the line stuff. I guarantee you that the person with the ears will win out, regardless of what they used. My favorite photographer can take a snapshot with a cheap Poloroid and it will look great.

 

--Lee

[Lee Flier]

Steve wrote:

 

>>Lee, what type of Mics and Pres did you use for the Drum Recording example you posted awhile back?<<

 

Funny you mention that, because the whole reason I recorded that was as a "baseline" for my gear shopping. I used the absolute minimum on that recording and if any gear purchase I make sounds twice as good to me, it's a keeper. If not, it's outta here.

 

I used SM-57's on the kick and snare, and 2 CAD E-100's for overheads. E-100's, for those not familiar with them, are condensors that cost $225 each. I recorded through a Mackie 1402, the original model (not even with the "VLZ Pro" pre's), with no other outboard preamps and no compression. Not only that, the recorder I used is a cheap Tascam 30 1/2" 8-track with RCA ins and outs.

 

So I figure anything that I pay a lot of money for, had BETTER sound a heck of a lot better than that to be worth it! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

--Lee

[tonemonkeyyahoo.com]

This one's easy...

 

Yamaha G10 Guitar/MIDI controller.

 

I should've known that when the music store had only one left (because Allen Holdsworth returned it), that I it was big BIG trouble.

[Lee Flier]

Here's another point of inspiration for anyone who is strapped for cash and believes that you absolutely have to have the highest end gear to get a good sound.

 

There's a guy in Portland who does some amazing work with gear that most people here would turn up their noses at. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif Go to http://www.echostarstudio.com, click on the MP3's section and have a listen. There are a lot of different styles represented so it's worth checking out several tunes. Then, click on his equipment list link and be prepared for a shocker.

 

--Lee

[Aaron Selix]

Yes, I checked out echostar and it's good quality. But they do have some good gear - the ghost console is nice, The TL audio stuff is nice and I they do mention access to other mics as needed - I'd imagine that's the case for the vocals.

 

But, still good recordings. There is a sizeable investment in this studio - It would have to qualify as more than just a home studio setup. I think the tube stuff helps alot - as does the ghost console - warm sounding stuff....

[Lee Flier]

Yeah I agree, the console makes a big difference no matter what the situation. And those Ghost consoles ARE nice. But, I did ask the owner what he used on a few of those tunes and, for example on vocals and acoustic guitars it was almost always the AT 4033 thru the ART pre.

 

And yes, you're right, he does run a commercial outfit so he has spent a few bucks more than some of us would. But the majority of what he uses is stuff we can all well afford, and even if you spent a boatload of money on outboard gear and mics, as Fletcher likes to say, if it's all going into an $89 sound card it will be for naught. I think the worthwhile places to spend money would be the recorder itself, whether that be a sound card or whatever, and the console. With all the emphasis on mic preamps these days, people sometimes forget that they are still going to be mixing on a console in all likelihood, tracking through it some (in all likelihood), and that it will play a major role in the end result.

 

If you like your deck and you like your console, you're doing all right!

 

--Lee

[Aaron Selix]

So if you take the console out of the equation and you mixing within the computer, how does that affect things?

 

I don't think you get great "separation" for lack of a better word, with your tracks when you mix within the computer. The tracks seem to meld together and it's hard to focus on one instrument when listening on playback. Perhaps it's because I'm using only one focusrite mic pre (green series focus EQ), for all my tracking and there does seem to be a lack of presence and warmth (it's clean though!). Perhaps it's my lack of skill too.

 

Now I know about giving each instrument it's own "space" and what not, and that's easier said than done, but still, things seem flat and sterile. My next buy: a good tube compressor to make things fatter and warmer.

 

Maybe that will help!!

[dansouth]

Originally posted by aselix@hotmail.com:

So, who has purchased an expensive piece of gear (say over $1000) and been disappointed? Any of those esoteric mic pres or compressors just not live up to the hype?

 

Tascam DA-30mkII. Sounded great, but very cumbersome to use. Specifically, you had to follow a strict key sequence every time you recorded something, or the tape counter wouldn't display time, only a sequence number. Then it broke. When it came back, other stuff was wrong with it. Now I use an Alesis MasterLink - very nice. I had a good time heaving the Tascam into a dumpster. I should have sampled the "clunk".

 

The TC Electronics Finalizer is a nice unit. I am especially fond of the EQ section. But from the way it was positioned, they made it sound as though you could run a lame mix through the Finalizer and it would come out sounding like Bob Ludwig had blessed it. It's far easier to make a recording sound BAD with a Finalizer than it is to make it sound good.

 

You folks have probably already gone down this avenue, but I'd have more to offer on a thread about gear that exceeds expectations.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com:

You folks have probably already gone down this avenue, but I'd have more to offer on a thread about gear that exceeds expectations.

 

Why don't ya start one then? I'd like to hear about it!

 

--Lee

[Guest]

Wow! I want to thank Lee Flier for dragging my butt over to this BBS. I don't think I have ever been here before.

 

And also, thanks for the nice words about my work Lee! It is really nice to hear things like that from peers in the field. Customers tend to have little perspective about their recordings, and seldom think they got a great deal.... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/frown.gif

 

Just for people's info. When tracking, a majority of the time, I am using either a SM-57 through the ART Tube MP, or a AT 4033 through the ART Tube MP. For vocals, I will sometimes add the ART Levelar behind the pre, just to add a little more warmth, and to catch any major velocity jumps! The TL's only get used as a rule for drum overheads, and for a horn track, or guitar track here and there. I really prefer the ART to the TL units. The Ivory quad is a peice available to me when I track drums (me and another studio load gear here and there), but I don't really care for it much. I use a Tascam PE 125 for hi hats, a C1000S for the ride (if needed) the AT 4033's for overheads, and a RE 27 n/d (my most killer mic in the collection!), and 57's exclusively on tom's and top and bottom snare. Basses get DI'ed through the ART's, and here and there, I will mic a cabinet, usually with either the C1000, or a 57. Guitars I always use a 57, except for leads, I will break out the 4033 for that.

 

Basically, you get the point. 4033, 57. These are the two main mics I use. The ART is used as much as possible.

 

To tell you the truth, I have used a whole slew of Class A pre's on some stuff I have worked on. Usually, they get turned off and the ART get's used. For digital, it just works much better then API's, Neve's, Focusrites, Millenium Media, etc.....This is of course my own opinion, and everyone is entitled to theirs concerning mic pre's.

 

I think my systems most major set back is the Type I ADAT's, and some places where the wiring is not the greatest stuff. I have worked with the Type II ADAT's, and now have a Lynx One audio card to mix to, and have found that the whole 20 and 24 bit game offers plenty to audio!

 

Anyway. The Ghost is indeed a very nice console, and really provides a level of sound that is surprising for a console that is under 10k! Actually, I bought it for 6k when it came out. Now I have seen them as cheap as $4500!!! THAT is a steal! I have done some mixing on a nice DDA with Uptown faders, a Trident, oh god what else......Anyway, none of those other consoles provided a sound that I felt was worth the huge price tags. The Ghost offers a great eq section, a very low noise floor, and a versatile routing scheme. Not much more you can ask for in a recording console. Although, a hi pass filter on every channel would be nice, and some more pre fader sends, and automated mutes on the aux sends. But hey! It was only 6k!!!

 

About the software mixing thing. If you don't have something with a very high internal bit resolution, something like ProTools, Sadie, or Sonic Solutions, forget getting killer smooth results. Most PC based mixing software is not worth a dime really. To my ears, it does very funny stuff to the sound. In fact, I just can't bring myself to use ANY digital mixing after having worked on a Yamaha O2R for a period of time at another studio that hires me here and there. It is just basically too much digital!

 

A nice console WILL make a difference in your mixes, but certainly you can get decent enough results with a Mackie 1604. I have a buddy that has mixed some very nice sounding stuff with that console. Certainly he could have done much better with something like the Ghost, but, the Mackie sounded pretty darn good.

 

I agree that it is usually the ears, and the patience of the engineer that will net the better results. Also, the engineer needs some imagination too! Maybe not imagination as much as an "intuitive" feel for how the song should sound. Let's face it, not too many of us are dealing with a SSL G series console with a great automation setup. For those of us who don't have that state of the art stuff, we make do with what we have. That means KNOWING what you can and can't do with the mix! That I believe is the most important thing one has to learn in audio, what they can and can't do with it with the tools they have. Really, no compressor, gate, eq, reverb, delay, flanger, exciter, etc...is going to change your sound too drastically for the better. Your sound on tape is what it is. These tools help shape it "a bit", not a create a whole new sound that you wanted in the first place. Moral? Track it close to what you want. Otherwise, live with the sound you got! As a guy who I used to use as an equipment consultant used to say, "Learning good recording techniques is just a matter of doing a bunch of things you will never do again!". Wiseass or wiseman? Depends on the day I am having behind the console.... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

That is enough for now. On another BBS, I am known for my long posts, but they are used to it now. I won't shock you guys with it right off the bat! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

Ed

[Aaron Selix]

Ed,

thanks for the info. Yeah, I'd agree that something doesn't sound right when mixing within the computer - a lack of clarity and instrument focus would be my biggest complaint. I'm using Samplitude studio (with the Lucid AD9624 and DA9624 converters) it mixes at 32 bit resolution. I take it the Pro tools, sonic solutions, etc, is mixed a higher resolution for smoother results?

 

I'm even thinking of getting a stand alone hard disk system and then a nice mixer (that ghost is cool!). But that means outboard fx and compression - This is definitely the more expensive way of doing the home studio.

 

I do like your results with such modest mics and pre's. Yes, it can be done with some experience and know how....

[sonusman]

Hey. Your software IS NOT mixing at 32 bit resolution by any means. It is using some kind of funky algorithm to create that file. Basically, you mix is only as high of resolution as your A/D/A converters are (16? 20? 24?)

 

Many get confused by the hype manufactures and software writers say about their stuff.

 

Bob Katz over at http://www.digido.com has some very informative articles about the difference in "floating point" DSP and "fixed" DSP. It can be wrapped up like this:

 

32 bit floating point DSP = 24 bit fixed DSP

 

Your computer software works in the 32 bit floating point deal of Windows. It does no more then that, and it never will until computers and the Operating Systems are ungraded to do more.

 

Something like ProTools or Sonic Solutions does it's own DSP in the box that IS the system. Your computer just plays host for the interface. Your CPU does virtually NOTHING in a ProTools or Sadie, or Sonic Solutions, or Soundscape system. All the DSP is done in the box, and with some of them, this can be as high as 54 bit fixed DSP as I recall. Appearently, there are stand alone digital boxes (compresssors, eq's, etc....) that work even higher then that.

 

Basically, the internal bit depth is the power that is used for applying the processing to the audio. Don't confuse this with the "dithered" output of the device, meaning that if you are using ProTools to apply a compressor to a aiff file at 24 bits, the internal processing of the file will take place at 48 or 54 bits, then be dithered back down to 24 bits so that your converters can handle this. This increased internal bit depth give the algorithm a lot more power to smoothly make gain changes in the audio that a 32 bit floating point system just can't provide.

 

Anyway, if you are confused, don't be alarmed!! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif Once you start reading through Bob Katz stuff over at www.digido.com, and apply a little common sense, it will all come to you, and you will understand why many of the cheap (and I mean under $100K) digital mixers and 32 bit software just isn't in the same league with the top of the line stuff for DSP, like ProTools, etc....

 

There ARE some things in audio where you get what you pay for. I have found that in DSP, more money usually equals much much better results for the audio. It is a bit different in analog though. A cheaper unit can actually have a "charm" or "character" to it's sound that if used well can really compliment the audio. But bad DSP is bad DSP! There is little way to make bad DSP good, or to hear where it is providing a nice "color" to the sound. This is the little secret that you will NEVER hear from the software companies, and the cheap digital mixer companies, that their stuff will NEVER be in league with the big boy stuff, and that you CANNOT make it do what the big boy stuff can.

 

Is cheap DSP good enough for demo's? Yes. Is it good enough for bands doing a local release? Yes. Is it good enough for an artist that wants to retain the most natural sound possible? Not really. But then again, Mackie and ADAT's are now associated with "hi fidelity". People kid themselves into thinking that this cheap gear is going to provide "pristine" audio results, when it will not, even under that best of circumstances. That is the way it is, and we have to live with it. There is no way I can look someone straight in the eye and say that even a Type II ADAT is as good sounding as a Otari 2" with Dolby SR (or for that matter, without.... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif).

 

Anyway, just ranting here. Lee I beleive suggested earlier that you should invest in a good console and a good recorder. I wholeheartedly agree with that. I beleive those two things take precendent over $4000 mics and $5000 dollar mic pre's. You can get by just fine with a 4033 and a ART or TL preamp. Many have. But a bad recorder is simply that. A bad mixer in my opinion is insufferable! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/frown.gif Don't waste your money of crap in those two departments, invest as much as you possibly can afford.

 

Anyway, still don't want to hit you guys with a "long" post yet, so I will shut up for now.... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

Ed

[Guest]

I just found this site today...it is very cool, and I plan on spending a lot of time here.

 

In response to this post:

 

I wonder how many of the people here at this site are on the pro level? How many are intermediate home recordists?

 

If there are a lot of people here that are building there own home type studios, then I would imagine that the question of "high end" gear is also about level of competency.

 

I know for me, a home recordist, who also produces local music, that I didn't learn about recording in a commercial studio or go to school.

 

Now, this might be a broad generalization, but from what I have read, a lot of industry professionals followed two routes to become innovators and professional in there craft, 1) school, or, 2) learning at a commercial studio, under people who knew what they were doing.

 

A lot of us who are interested and have the aptitude for the science behind the art, are learning completely on there own, with very little guidance and very limited access to credible advice. I mean, that there are so many places on the web to get information, it is hard for people like me to discern between a credible review of a piece of gear, or not.

 

With the industry becoming increasingly inundated with new "this" or new "that", the problem for a guy like me is more and more confusing every day.

 

I hope spending some time here will help clear some of that stuff up.

[Anderton]

>>With the industry becoming increasingly inundated with new "this" or new "that", the problem for a guy like me is more and more confusing every day. <<

 

The more you read the posts here, the less confusing the answer becomes: make great music, and it doesn't matter what you record it on, or with.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Anderton:

>>With the industry becoming increasingly inundated with new "this" or new "that", the problem for a guy like me is more and more confusing every day. <<

 

The more you read the posts here, the less confusing the answer becomes: make great music, and it doesn't matter what you record it on, or with.

 

 

Craig - Excellent answer!

I'd like to add:

Record often. The more recording you do, the better you'll get at it - reading (and going to school) will only take you so far; after that, there is no substitute for the time spent training your ears and mind to objectively analyse what you are hearing and to commit to decisions you have to live with ever after.

 

 

------------------

philbo

[Fletcher]

Originally posted by stevepow:

Most of the respondees including Roger, Ed, GM, Fletcher, MixFix, Jon Atack, Quantum, Alpha, Robdarling, M Bishop, etc. are making the assumption that posters are looking for pro grade quality gear that lives up to certain expectations and will do so for many years.

 

 

I can't speak for anyone on that list but me. Frankly, I'm flattered that you included me, but I don't speak for anyone's uses or purposes except mine.

 

I'll be more than happy to share what I use or have used in a certain application, used 'X' piece to get me out of 'Y' jam, or what I've found to be an excellent long term tool.

 

I also happily share my thoughts and motives concerning 'gear aquisition'...it's what I do for a day gig, I'm a gear pimp. It's also why I work where I work...[and good lord, I really don't want this to come out as an advertisement...I know it's gonna...but that's really not my intention] I don't have to be "right" all the time.

 

Our return policy thingy means I can be wrong. There's no pressure. Now; we got to that place because everyone who works there is either an engineer, a gigging musician, or directly involved in the process. We look at working there as a day gig that enables us to do the shit we really like doing at night.

Yes, I'm kinda the front man for the band...but no, my word isn't final on anything there by any stretch of the imagination. While I may have a higher profile than the other guys, I'm certainly no better than they when it comes to recording, or specifying, trying, or recommending. Everyone there is different, we all have opinions, and no two of us have the same opinions. Some of the 'gear arguments' during 'cocktail hour' are pretty damned humorous.

 

My big Friday night out...went to a friend's home studio, tried out a new mic-pre. Put a Royer SF-12 over a drum kit, ran it through this new pre, commenced to recording it. I left around 9-9:30, got home, sang a bedtime song to the kids [if they turn into axe murders I will directly blame my lack of singing prowess], broke open a very nice Cabernet Sauvignon with the wife...fired up the stereo and watched "The Perfect Storm".

 

Argued with the wife as to whether the 'screen writer' or the 'director' should be held accountable for that piece of garbage. I said 'director'...she said 'scriptwriter(s)', I said doesn't matter, they all make more money than we do...she agreed. Neither here nor there...

 

Yesterday, I went back to my buddy's house. We reviewed the tracks. For a grin, he had run a couple takes with the SF-12 through another mic amp he usually uses, we wanted to hear the difference. It wasn't subtle, there was a definite difference.

 

Now, we have no idea which will end up on the final product, or if it will be a combination, or if one performance killed the other performance so completely that sound is irrelevant. I won't be involved in that part of my friend's decision process, but I will hear about it and use the information.

 

Now, the new "pre" was pressed into service on some overdubs...it sucked on vocals with his Soundelux U-195, but sounded pretty damn cool with a TLM-103. One of the two singers sounded good with the U-195, the other one sounded good with the 103...

 

Ruled on bass as a 'DI' input...was a bit "much" when they went to add some 'minimoog' stuff...they went back to the 'Evil Twin' I had left there a couple weeks ago...they liked it better.

 

It sucked on Guitars with a Royer R-121, but did OK with a Shure 57 and an MD-421...

 

So...this was a 'proto-type' unit...it won't be on the market for several weeks, in fact, I highly doubt that this 'revision' will be the final revision that will see the light of day. The last two days of playing with it will also be logged as a 'yeah, maybe'...not as any form of 'gospel truth'.

 

Going back to the list of people that "are making assumptions" for a minute. That's a pretty diverse list of folks. Roger, according to his articles, is all "Mr. Digital"...George is working on an 'Oxford', though he's designed some brutally cool 'analog stuff', his heart seems entrenched in the digital domain. George also seems to lean toward 'clean and clear', where I know in my work 'clean and clear' are more often than not an afterthought...somewhere after 'aggression and urgency'

 

Last I heard Ed was still Mr. Analog when he had the option, but was just seen asking questions about which 'DAW' to get for the house.

 

Alpha seems to be on a lesser budget than any of those 3, so has to chose his weapons wisely...while the other guys have the ability to call *any* manufacturer and say: "hey, send me over _____ to try, I've heard it's cool", guys like Alpha don't have that luxury.

 

I get calls from manufacturers asking me to try their shit, but I'm a gear pimp. They want me to sell it. Worse, I'm a vocal gear pimp...they want me to talk about it while I'm selling it. Literally, I have 8 units that made it through the first level of screening that are in a holding pattern circling the airport waiting for us to make a 'yea or nea' decision on whether we're going to add them to 'the roster' or not.

 

We've been driving the Lucid people out of their fucking minds for like 6 weeks now, because while 3 of us think it's better than A/D-D/A converters we already sell...two of us aren't sold. We've been passing the stuff around to friends like a freshman girl at a Frat-party trying to get a consensus whether it's cool or stool.

 

I can't even begin to think about MixFix/Jon Atack/Robdaling/Michael Bishop's nor Quantum's reality...mine is hard enough to put a handle on.

 

My longwinded point; these are all just people's opinions. They suck. Anyone taking my opinion on anything as coming from the 'mountaintop' is an idiot.

 

While I've done songs here and there I thought were pretty damn cool...I've never done an album I've liked from start to finish. There is always at least one song where I either kick myself for fucking up the recording, thinking of an 'arrangement' thing after it's been in the stores for a month, find a 'rough mix' that kicks ass over the 'released mix'...something.

 

Now, also realize I wouldn't let myself mix a rum and coke if I had the choice [rum-coke-ice-lime...4 inputs, I'd still find a way to fuck it up...hell, I'm still working on getting a proper balance for the water in the shower].

 

From this you'd make a decision on how you'd spend your hard earned money? Are you out of your mind? Hell, the only reason I take my own advice is 'cause I have to...and there are several arrests along with a couple of convictions that show I don't always give myself very good advice.

 

-----

 

Fletcher

Mercenary Audio http://www.mercenary.com

[soapbox]

A long time ago, in 1981 or 1982, my Oberheim OB-8 was out of my hands for a mod that I was having done. I wanted to get it to work with a Sequential Circuits controller for the Prophet 5 that you could strap on like a guitar (this was before MIDI, and I guess beside the point).

 

Anyway, I was given a loner keyboard, a Yamaha analog lemon which was their last effort before their revolutionary DX7. This keyboard sold for $5,000 and sounded like garbage. Thank God it was only a loner and I hadn't wasted my money on that thing! I sorely missed my OB-8 for a month while it was at JL Coopers. I paid around $3,000 for my OB-8; and for its time, it was worth every penny!

 

(BTW, they were never successful in getting that controller to communicate with my OB-8. We take MIDI for granted, but it revolutionized the industry!)