Sound Quality of 02R vs. AW4416

[Philip OKeefe]

Maybe I'm opening up a can of worms here, but there are some interesting posts on several of the forums here with users commenting on the 02R, especially as compared to the Mackie D8B, Ramsa DA7 and the new Sony.

 

Let me start off by saying that I'd LOVE a Sony but it was out of budget range for right now, so when I went looking for an automated board and recorders to replace my Mackie 32*8 and 4 "blackface" ADATs, I decided to get a AW with two ADAT lightpipe interface cards, two 20 bit ADATs (for archiving and importing stuff from past projects and other studios), a Dakota / Montana card pair for a new 933 MHz PIII which is running Logic Audio Platinum 4.6 and Vegas and will be used to route audio via the lightpipes into the AW4416, giving me 32 tracks.

 

Lots of people commented about the converters, EQ and dynamics processing of the 02R being less than stellar. GM had some pretty scathing comments about the 02R. Some lamented Yamaha's failure to put 24 bit converters into an upgraded 02R. One person even worried about the small footprint of the 02R being a disadvantage as far as "impressing clients".

 

While I'm sure that Yamaha has something in the works to compete with the D8B and Sony, it seems like the AW4416 is a "recycled 02R" with the 24 bit converters and a 24 bit 16 track HDR added on, for considerably less money. Now that they've recouped their R&D money, they repackage it, add a few cool features to intice the home studio market, lower the list price, and continue developing a product to compete with the D8B / Sony.

 

So, here's my questions:

 

Any comments about the sound quality of the 02R verses the AW4416?

 

Would YOU consider the AW4416 to be a "professional" product, as Yamaha's marketing campaign claims?

 

Are the EQ's, Dynamics processors and converters improved on the AW verses the 02R?

 

In your experience, does having a small footprint console scare away customers or do the advantages of space savings outweigh that concern?

 

And finally, how many of you are using the AW4416? In what situation and for what applications? (Home studio / project studio / studio for hire, etc).

 

Okay everyone, blast away! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

 

Phil O'Keefe

Sound Sanctuary Recording

Riverside CA http://members.aol.com/ssanctuary/index.html

email: pokeefe777@msn.com

[dansouth]

I remember reading Roger Nichols' review of the 02R in EQ a couple of years ago. He stated that there was no difference between the sound of an 02R and much more expensive digital consoles, and that the only difference was that the million dollar desks are equipped with many more knobs, sliders, meters, etc. enabling the engineer to more easily control parameters in real time. He went on to compare the 02R's EQ to an $850,000 Harrison console. I don't know about you, but I trust Roger's ears more than ANYONE else who writes in these columns, pro or otherwise.

 

Hans Zimmer uses 02R's for his soundtracks. Listen to his work and tell me the 02R sounds bad. I'm sorry, but that attitude is full of s**t and irrational gear lust. I know it's easy to look at a color user interface and a big MSRP and think, "Ohh, that must sound better." But that's not necessarily the case. Put Roger in front of an 02R and virtually anyone else in front of a Sony, and Roger will kick their sonic ass. The equipment is only one factor of the audio equation.

 

If converters are the issue, buy an AD-8000. It has better converters than those on board ANY of the mixers you mentioned.

 

It's possible that the d8b and Sony are a little easier to use than the 02R, because they have more channels and more tweakable knobs in easy reach, plus better graphics - assuming you hook the d8b to a monitor - but this is pure speculation on my part. Still, ergonomics are important, and a friend who mixes for TV and who has used both the 02R and the d8b prefers the latter for this reason.

 

Is the AW4416 a professional product? I don't know. Is the SM58 a professional product? You can certainly find a better sounding mic. Lots of professionals use SM58's. Lots of beer soaked wedding singers use them, too. What does "professional product" mean, anyway? Does it mean can you track or mix a song on it that will make money? You're using an AW4416 in YOUR studio. You tell us. Are your clients satisfied with its sound?

 

Footprints only matter to people who roam the woods looking for Bigfoot. If your clients are that inane, tell them that you like the unit because it enables you to do on site recording for live acts. And tell them that you've never heard a recorder that makes vocals sound so good. That oughtta shut 'em up.

 

I'm sure that we've all enjoyed many records that were recorded on equipment that was far less sophisticated and capable than any of the equipment mentioned in your posts, including Electric Ladyland, Sgt. Pepper, The Dark Side of the Moon, Heavy Weather, and Aja. When you can compete with the sound of those records, you'll be using your current equipment to the fullest, and it will be time to consider buying something more expensive. Until then, you don't have a real argument for the upgrade unless you need the additional inputs.

[Lee Flier]

Gee Phil, anybody that would set foot in a studio that has ADAT's would have a lot of nerve turning up their nose at an AW4416! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

As you know, I'm an AW owner. And I pretty much agree with Dan here.... a few weeks ago you were very happy with the AW, now you've suddenly read OTHER people's negative opinions of the O2R and are thinking maybe it wasn't such a great choice. If you are happy with the sounds you're getting from it, it was a great choice. And if other people can't get over the "small footprint", that's their problem. I don't imagine most of your customers are the kinds of folks that would be able to afford to hire George Massenburg and a Neve console anyway. They should be happy with what they get for their money.

 

The AW is not a perfect machine, and for a lot more money there are plenty that are better. So it really depends what you want to use it for and how much you want to spend. If it will help you, here are the reasons I decided to buy one:

 

1) Home project studio,

2) Portability - the ability to do offsite recordings and travel with the machine

3) The price/performance level finally got to where I could live with both. I thought the Roland VS series were fabulous for what they were, but the audio quality did NOT stand up, for me. For not much more money, the AW's definitely does, and it definitely could have a place in any "professional" studio, even a high end studio as a remote recording device and other such things.

 

I agree with Dan's assessment that the AW is something like the SM-58 as a microphone: if you had your choice, and all the money in the world, you wouldn't want to use it for everything you recorded. But you would still have one or two around because there's plenty you WOULD use it for, and what you used it for wouldn't suck.

 

But let's face it, most of us don't have all the money in the world. And I think many people have lost sight of the fact that what you can get now for a few thousand dollars, you would have had to spend at LEAST $50,000 to get something comparable not so long ago, and the gear would have filled up a large room. If you're running a commercial studio with ADAT's and an AW, the folks who come in there ought to be grateful that you can offer them a great sounding recording at a reasonable price. If not, they can take their money to a high end studio and pay for the sound they want - if they can afford it, which they probably can't or they wouldn't have called you in the first place.

 

As for the O2R wars, it seems to me it's a taste thing - they have their own sound (as does the AW) and people either like it or don't. And even GM had to concede he'd made some great records on the O2R. Like him, I prefer to use at least some outboard gear with the AW to get the sounds I really want. But if I can't make release-quality CD's with the AW and a few well chosen pieces of outboard gear, I'm a dumbass. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif Can't make any direct comparisons between the O2R and the AW because I've never owned an O2R, but most people I've talked to about it seem to feel that the converters and the effects are better on the AW. I am not at all unhappy with its converters, and I'm pretty much an analog snob. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif For whatever that's worth.

 

--Lee

 

This message has been edited by Lee Flier on 01-12-2001 at 10:37 AM

[Philip OKeefe]

Yeeeaaahh Haw! Boy did You guys take that post the wrong way! Maybe I did a poor job of phrasing things. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/eek.gifhttp://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

First of all, I LOVE MY AW4416! I mean, really, it's an amazing device and the price is great. Having said that, the reason for my post was NOT because I was suffering from buyer's remorse, but rather to get comments directed at the issues OTHERS had raised about the 02R as they pertain (or don't pertain) to the AW4416. And I was trying to do it in a "nice" way without trying to get into the "mine's better" flame type stuff.

 

In other words, I wanted to see if 1) other AW owners had anything to add (good OR bad) regarding some of the "concerns" that were brought up by the original thread 2) if anyone had done a side by side between the 02 and the AW (while I have used both, and think the AW DOES have better sounding EFX and converters, I really don't hear a lot of difference in the dynamics or EQ - BUT I have not tested them "side by side" on the same program material) and 3) to get an idea of what others are using their AW's for.

 

I personally don't give a rat's hiney about what other engineers may think about my rig, and I don't try to get involved in the "mine's better!" flames. If something works for you, great - use it. I tell people all of the time that anyone with enough money can buy all the greatest gear, but that doesn't turn them into a great engineer. You need good ears and experience (and maybe a little / lot of training, but that's another argument) and the most important element to look for in ANY studio isn't the gear, or the acoustics (although both can be important) but THE ENGINEER.

 

Good engineers who know their equipment can ALWAYS smoke those who don't know how to maximize the potential, stretch the envelope, and overcome any problems they may face. A good engineer knows how to make the acoustical enviroment work for them, or how to minimize its effects if it's problematic. As far as my opinion regarding gear snobbery goes, let me give you an example - since you both mentioned the SM58, you might be interested in this. I did an album for Ephitaph records a few years back. I have a pair of nice Telefunken ELA M 251 E's and a Stephen Paul modded 414, BUT the producer (Garth Richardson) and I both agreed that for this vocalist a SM58 was the right choice, and so THAT'S WHAT WE USED.

 

I don't think the listening public really cares WHAT gear you used to record with. They care more about SONGS and PERFORMANCES than what was used to capture them.

 

Dansouth said:

 

>>What does "professional product" mean, anyway? Does it mean can you track or mix a song on it that will make money? You're using an AW4416 in YOUR studio. You tell us. Are your clients satisfied with its sound?<<

 

Well, to quote Forrest Gump, "professional is as professional does". Sure, the '58's a pro mic. The AW is also "pro" equipment IMO. I've made lots of money with both, and my clients are happy. We don't advertise our studio beyond the one line yellow pages listing that comes with a business telephone line, and we stay plenty busy! Almost all of our work is word of mouth referrals or from contacts my wife and I have developed over the years. We have over 90% repeat business, so I guess we must be doing things pretty well, or clients wouldn't keep coming back and telling thier friends. And since we installed it, NO ONE has been disappointed with the AW's sonics.

 

>>I remember reading Roger Nichols' review of the 02R in EQ a couple of years ago. He stated that there was no difference between the sound of an 02R and much more expensive digital consoles<<

 

Well, I'd agree that Roger's pretty damn hot, and since his records are so universally regarded as being among the "best engineered" of all time, I greatly respect his opinions. Then again GM's no slouch either, and he was pretty hard on the 02R. Difference of opinions between two stellar engineers? I guess even the greats don't always agree.

 

>>Footprints only matter to people who roam the woods looking for Bigfoot.<<

 

ROTFL! Well put! I agree 100%. I only mentioned the "footprint" issue because someone else had brought it up on the original thread and I was wondering if everyone else thought it was as silly of a concern as I thought it was, or if some people DID have cleints who made a major issue of it. I'm often amazed by what potential clients will bring up. Comments like "what, no U47?" when they wouldn't know the difference between a '47 and a '58 if they heard them on tape in a side by side comparison!

 

>> I'm sure that we've all enjoyed many records that were recorded on equipment that was far less sophisticated and capable than any of the equipment mentioned in your posts, including Electric Ladyland, Sgt. Pepper, The Dark Side of the Moon, Heavy Weather, and Aja. When you can compete with the sound of those records, you'll be using your current equipment to the fullest, and it will be time to consider buying something more expensive. Until then, you don't have a real argument for the upgrade unless you need the additional inputs.<<

 

I agree with you! I use some of those same records as "benchmarks". I liked my Mackie 32*8, and I didn't upgrade because I couldn't get it to sound good, but because I needed something I could store mixes on and recall at a later time. "Polaroid" recall was getting old fast! As far as additional inputs goes, I use outboards and have two "lightpipe" cards on my AW, so that's not been a problem for me.

 

The only question you didn't addres Dan is, what are YOU using your AW for? I'm just curious as to what others are doing with the machine. I think Yamaha meant it for the "all in one home / project studio" market, but I think it's capable of more, so I'm curious as to how many are using it beyond that market.

 

Lee Flier said:

 

>>Gee Phil, anybody that would set foot in a studio that has ADAT's would have a lot of nerve turning up their nose at an AW4416!<<

 

Boy, I MUST have phrased things poorly if you think I was "turning up my nose" at the AW! Again, I love the thing. And you'll be happy to know that I'll be using the ADATs a LOT less in about two weeks. However, I DO need to keep a couple of them on hand, because they're useful for bringing things in from other studios and from old "legacy" projects, and as archiving / Backup machines.

 

I ordered Frontier Dakota and Montana cards from Sweetwater the day before yesterday. Don't get me started on Sweetwater, I'm a bit ticked off at them right now! When I called up to order them, they said both cards were "in stock" but when I talked to them yesterday they said that "they're special order, and we won't have them here to ship to you for at least a week". AAAARRRRGH! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/mad.gif

 

Anyway, those cards are going into a new PIII 933 MHZ w/ 256 MB RAM and two ATA 66 60 MB / 7200RPM HDD's that I just bought two days ago. The plan is to use my new computer (running Vegas and Logic Audio Platinum 4.6) to lock up to the AW and provide the additional 16 audio tracks via lightpipe. This new setup will do several things for me among which are: 1) reduce lockup time (since the AW can't sync to MTC and WC at the same time, it always has to be the master for the ADAT's and lock times of 10-15 seconds are unacceptable to me) and 2) allow me easier access to blowing parts into / out of the computer for autotuning, editing etc.

 

So, the ADAT's are going on to the "only as needed" list, but Lee, aren't YOU being a bit snobbish about ADAT's? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

 

I don't dislike the sound of ADAT's so much as I get tired of the lockup time and the breakdowns and maintaining them.

 

>>a few weeks ago you were very happy with the AW, now you've suddenly read OTHER people's negative opinions of the O2R and are thinking maybe it wasn't such a great choice. <<

 

 

Boy, I DID do a lousey job on the original post! I AM still happy, and "I" never thought it was the wrong choice for me. I DID consider the D8B, 02R, DA7 and yes, even the Sony before I purchased the AW, and I STILL feel I made the right decision - for me. Please re-read my comments in paragraph 2 above. Again, I don't really care what others are using beyond normal professional curiosity.

 

>>But if I can't make release-quality CD's with the AW and a few well chosen pieces of outboard gear, I'm a dumbass.<<

 

You said it Lee, I didn't! Sorry, I couldn't resist! You're NOT a "dumbass" im my book. I greatly respect your opinions, and want to thank bith you and Dansouth for your comments. BTW Lee, I'd love to hear some of your music sometime. Have any CD's for sale?

 

Thanks again for your comments and sorry I did such a poor job in expressing myself in the original post.

 

 

Phil O'Keefe

Sound Sanctuary Recording

Riverside CA http://members.aol.com/ssanctuary/index.html

email: pokeefe777@msn.com

[Lee Flier]

Phil, sorry too for any misinterpretation of your post! Just a couple more comments..

 

Originally posted by pokeefe777@msn.com:

Well, I'd agree that Roger's pretty damn hot, and since his records are so universally regarded as being among the "best engineered" of all time, I greatly respect his opinions. Then again GM's no slouch either, and he was pretty hard on the 02R. Difference of opinions between two stellar engineers? I guess even the greats don't always agree.

 

No, and that's part of what makes them "great". It's not like there's some Audio Holy Grail that everyone does or should agree on. I'd say if a significant number of pro's are using any piece of gear in their actual studio, it's probably worth considering, even if there are other respected pros who are turning up their noses at it. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

Boy, I MUST have phrased things poorly if you think I was "turning up my nose" at the AW!

 

Actually, I didn't think YOU were - I just thought it would be really hilarious if a CLIENT walked in and thought your ADAT's were just great but the AW wasn't "professional". http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

So, the ADAT's are going on to the "only as needed" list, but Lee, aren't YOU being a bit snobbish about ADAT's? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

 

Oh, absolutely! Everybody's gotta draw the line somewhere. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif Not that I've never heard a couple of people get great sounding results with ADAT's. But I never REALLY thought digital recording was ready for prime time until 24 bit came along. Plus, like you, I hated the idea of maintaining the things and the lockups and dealing with TAPE. I figure, if I'm gonna deal with TAPE it might as well be ANALOG tape! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif If I go digital it damn well better be disk based so I can do fancy editing and the maintenance will be less and all that.

 

BTW Lee, I'd love to hear some of your music sometime. Have any CD's for sale?

 

Not yet! But, now that I've got my AW, I'm workin' on it. Film at 11. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

--Lee

[dansouth]

Phil,

 

Perhaps the communication problem rests with me. My rant was not directed at you, but rather to the "If I only had a Finkelstein SuperMax 9700, my music would be really cool" attitude that rears its ugly head from time to time.

 

I'll get back to you on my use of the AW - short on time today.

 

Apogee makes A/D and D/A converter cards that will work in either the AW4416 or the 02R. Have you checked them out? Also, wasn't the 02R upgraded recently to include 24-bit processing and surround sound?

 

Dan

[Anderton]

>>Well, I'd agree that Roger's pretty damn hot, and since his records are so universally regarded as being among the "best engineered" of all time, I greatly respect his opinions. Then again GM's no slouch either, and he was pretty hard on the 02R. Difference of opinions between two stellar engineers? I guess even the greats don't always agree. <<

 

You also have to take into account the frame of reference, and the time at which comments were made. When the O2R first came out, it was indeed as good as lots of other digital consoles, if not better. But technology advances at a really fast rate. Within a year, there were already much better-sounding conversion options. I've mixed on an O2R and was satisfied with it, but I like the EQ on the DA7 far more. There's no real mystery about this: RAMSA was able to take advantage of additional research and components not available to Yamaha at the time they designed the O2R.

 

Don't worry, in a couple years everything we have now will sound pretty bad compared to what the state of the art will be at that time. That's part of the deal.

[Philip OKeefe]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

 

>>actually, I didn't think YOU were - I just thought it would be really hilarious if a CLIENT walked in and thought your ADAT's were just great but the AW wasn't "professional".<<

 

No, actually, contrary to what someone else apparently thinks on another forum here, the "footprint issue" has not been a problem for us. Most people are still impressed with the novelty of moving faders, although I've been around Neves with Flying Faders for long enough that the "gee whiz" factor doesn't get to me, only the convenience of recall.

 

>>Oh, absolutely! Everybody's gotta draw the line somewhere. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif Not that I've never heard a couple of people get great sounding results with ADAT's. But I never REALLY thought digital recording was ready for prime time until 24 bit came along. Plus, like you, I hated the idea of maintaining the things and the lockups and dealing with TAPE. I figure, if I'm gonna deal with TAPE it might as well be ANALOG tape! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif If I go digital it damn well better be disk based so I can do fancy editing and the maintenance will be less and all that.<<

 

Yeah, you certainly had to work hard to get them to sound good, and the constant repairs were really not much better than aligning analog before every session. I was replacing idler wheels every two weeks there for a while...

 

But, do you REALLY like the editing on the AW? IMO that's one of the weaker features. I still prefer going into the computer for that stuff.I know you're a software jockey - are you still hesitant to go to computer editing for music?

 

BTW Lee, I'd love to hear some of your music sometime. Have any CD's for sale?

 

>>Not yet! But, now that I've got my AW, I'm workin' on it. Film at 11. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif <<

 

Well, make sure you let me know when it's ready.

 

 

Phil O'Keefe

Sound Sanctuary Recording

Riverside CA http://members.aol.com/ssanctuary/index.html

email: pokeefe777@msn.com

 

 

--Lee[/b]

[alphajerk]

"Don't worry, in a couple years everything we have now will sound pretty bad compared to what the state of the art will be at that time. That's part of the deal."

 

and everybody will be wishing they had their mackie 8buss analog desks with ADAT blackfaces setup again reminiscing about how warm it sounded back then http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

 

i would be willing to bet the AW dsp functions sounds a lot better than the O2R. i would bypass the pres and just use it for recording/mixing. but i dont think its an O2R under the hood.

 

for tracking i would certainly rather 2 telefunkens than a sony board sitting there running a headphone mix anyday.

[Philip OKeefe]

Dansouth said:

 

>>My rant was not directed at you, but rather to the "If I only had a Finkelstein SuperMax 9700, my music would be really cool" attitude that rears its ugly head from time to time.

 

I agree with what you said earlier - Point those people to Sgt. Pepper's and tell them that they can have more raw recording power for $3,200.00 than the Beatles ever did, and ask them to surpass what they (and Sir George Martin and Geoff Emerick) did on that record.

 

I was pretty happy overall with my Mackie 32*8, but it was getting to the point where I was turning away sessions because I had to leave a mix "up" to finish it the next time a client was available to come in, so automation was a requirement for us, as much for business reasons as sonics.

 

>>I'll get back to you on my use of the AW - short on time today.<<

 

I look forward to it

 

>>Apogee makes A/D and D/A converter cards that will work in either the AW4416 or the 02R. Have you checked them out? Also, wasn't the 02R upgraded recently to include 24-bit processing and surround sound?<<

 

Have not tried the Yamaha compatable Apogee's yet, but the answer's in the name - Apogee makes the finest converters available, IMHO. As far as the 02R, I know they added 5.1 surround capabilities (I'm hoping they'll do so for the AW at some point too) but I don't know about 24 bit - it might still be 20 bit, but I'm really not sure. I have not used one with 2.0 software in it.

 

 

Thanks for your comments!

 

Phil O'Keefe

Sound Sanctuary Recording

Riverside CA http://members.aol.com/ssanctuary/index.html

email: pokeefe777@msn.com

[Lee Flier]

>>But, do you REALLY like the editing on the AW? IMO that's one of the weaker features.<<

 

I agree. I am particularly irritated that there's no audible audio scrub on the jog wheel. Then again, there isn't a WHOLE lot of editing that I do, and I find it adequate for now. I also think Yamaha will continue to improve the editing with future OS upgrades.

 

And it's not like there aren't a lot of OTHER features that disk based recording offers over tape that are really well executed on the AW - such as virtual tracks, instant locate points w/no rewinding or fast forwarding, etc.

 

>>I still prefer going into the computer for that stuff.I know you're a software jockey - are you still hesitant to go to computer editing for music?<<

 

No, I've worked on Pro Tools and Vegas rigs before and I like a lot of things about graphic editing. But for the relatively small amount of editing that I do, I can't see investing in all of that, plus going through all the headache of transferring stuff out of the AW into the computer and back again. For now I'd rather just deal with the AW's limited editing facilities - ANY disk based system is still better than dealing with tape, where editing is concerned. Granted, I'm pretty fast with analog tape and a razor blade, but it's kinda hard to edit a single track that way. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

--Lee

[Philip OKeefe]

Oh come on Lee, don't you like doing "window" splices? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/eek.gifhttp://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

 

 

Phil O'Keefe

Sound Sanctuary Recording

Riverside CA http://members.aol.com/ssanctuary/index.html

email: pokeefe777@msn.com

[Lee Flier]

LOL Phil... I've never actually done one of those. I did try it once, on a piece of scrap 2" tape. Can't say that I was really successful. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

--Lee

[Anderton]

>>I did try it once, on a piece of scrap 2" tape. Can't say that I was really successful. <<

 

The only way to do it back in the old days was to use a powder that showed the tracks on tape, sort of like dusting for fingerprints. I forget the name of it, but it was mandatory if you wanted to do window splices. The harder part was then finding a piece of tape to insert in the window, so at least the noise floor would contiue during the part that was spliced.

 

And people wonder why I like digital so much!!

[dansouth]

Originally posted by Anderton:

Don't worry, in a couple years everything we have now will sound pretty bad compared to what the state of the art will be at that time. That's part of the deal.

 

I don't necessarily agree; that's why I mentioned classic albums that sound great. Today's equipment doesn't necessarily sound better than the stuff that was used in the 60's, 70's, and 80's. Affordable equipment sounds better than it once did, so mere mortals like me can buy sound quality that competes with pro studios. That was unheard of even ten years ago. But I don't think that you could make a better Sgt. Pepper's with 24/96 and flying faders.

 

In fact, I feel that the sound of professional pop recordings has WORSENED in the last decade. Albums by artists like Mariah Carey and Michael Bolton have so much hyper-compressed high end that I can't listen to them. It sounds like someone scratching their fingernails on a chalkboard. The WORST invention of all is whatever gizmo everybody is using on vocals, these days. Okay, it was fun when Cher did it, but now everybody sounds like they're singing through a tube of toilet paper. What happened to putting a great singer in front of a high quality microphone and letting the tape roll.

 

Speaking of microphones, ever notice that the very best ones were made in the 1940's and 50's? The best guitars are from the 50's and 60's. Kind of shoots down that "everything is going to sound better in the future" theory.

 

Another pet peeve is plug ins. Most of them sound like crap. Even the good ones will destroy a mix if you use too many of them. Does ProTools sound better than analogue tape? I've listened to records that have been touted as "all ProTools" from tracking to mastering. I'm not impressed.

 

And can someone tell me what makes one EQ better than another? The slopes on the filters may vary, but then it becomes a matter of taste, like 2-pole vs. 4-pole filters on synthesizers. As an extreme example, I once ran a mix through the EQ on a finalizer and then through the built in EQ on Studio Vision. There was a HUGE difference in sound quality. But I doubt that Ramsa, Yamaha, Sony, and Mackie differ by such extremes. If the Yamaha sounded THAT good in 1997, is it REALLY such a liability in 2001? Do today's records really sound better than those that were cut four years ago?

 

Besides, EQ is only one part of the sound of a board. Isn't there a school of thought that says EQ adjustments should be minimized, and that it's more important to get the part to sound right on the way in than tweak it during the mix? Just a rhetorical question. Tweak away.

[Lee Flier]

I actually knew guys that could do window splices without the powder (dang, I can't remember what it's called now either). They knew the width of each track and could just measure it out and cut it, and it worked. Now that took some balls!

 

--Lee

[dansouth]

Originally posted by pokeefe777@msn.com:

Lots of people commented about the converters, EQ and dynamics processing of the 02R being less than stellar. GM had some pretty scathing comments about the 02R.

 

Is this the same "GM" who licenses an EQ plug in for the d8b? Does it strike anyone that there may be a conflict of interest here?

 

I've heard that this particular EQ plug in is to die for. But then, it IS a plug in, and it DOES require an additional processor card to run it, and I don't think a loaded d8b can run this plug in on all channels. I've read reviews that convey the opinion that the 02R's internal effects and EQ are better than the d8b's. - Don't get me wrong, I've considered buying a d8b, and I think it's a brilliant machine. - But these EQ opinions are totally subjective. I have yet to hear anyone suggest a set of quantitative criteria for a "better" EQ.

 

Human ears are irrational at times. Why does tape compression hold more appeal than a pure 24/96 recording? Why do many audiophiles prefer the non-linear response of tube amplifiers? Would anyone record a rock guitar directly into the board, bypassing that obviously inferior Marshall amplifier?

 

Better is not always absolute; it's subjective and program dependent. If you mixed five songs on an 02R, a d8b, and a Sony board and have listeners pick the "best" sounding version of each song in a blindfold test, they're not going to pick any one board in all cases.

 

So whatever tool you use, use it, leverage its better qualities, and don't worry. Be happy.

[Philip OKeefe]

>>The WORST invention of all is whatever gizmo everybody is using on vocals, these days. Okay, it was fun when Cher did it, but now everybody sounds like they're singing through a tube of toilet paper. <<

 

If you're talking about the effect on "Believe", I think it was Antares Autotune, which comes as a DirectX or TDM plug in, or as a stand alone hardware box.

 

Yes, everyone is using it, and not just for that "worbbled" vocal effect, but to correct intonation problems. When used responsibly, it's a great tool. When used irresponsibily, it's another story. Technology givith, and technology taketh away.

 

Autotune has allowed me to pitch correct some people who should never be allowed near a microphone, and in that respect, it's a evil evil piece of code (I have the DirectX version), but for a vocal that "feels" oh so good, but has a few minor pitch problems, it's the Holy Grail. I no longer have to either use samplers & pitch bend wheels, Eventides, or live with a slightly out of tune part - or worse yet, decide to re-record it and live with a take that lacks that "magic feel" of the original. I can keep the great feeling take and fix the pitch.

 

On the Cher song, they probably either deliberately mis-set the box, or used the onboard vibrato (which is pretty much useless beyond an obvious "effect" - not realistic at all). I prefer to use the graphic mode as opposed to the "auto mode, and correct where and when I feel it should be done.

 

 

Phil O'Keefe

Sound Sanctuary Recording

Riverside CA http://members.aol.com/ssanctuary/index.html

email: pokeefe777@msn.com

[Hayman]

Hi,

 

I just did my first mixdown to the internal stereotracks on the AW4416. It sounded fine when I did the mixdown but when I listened to the playback of the stereotrack it sounded much thinner and not really good at all. The stereotracks were automatically monitored through track 1 and 2. I turned off all eq and dynamics, still bad.

 

Have any of you experienced this?

 

Richard http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

[Philip OKeefe]

Richard:

 

To be honest with you, I don't use the onboard 2 track mixdown. I do a lot of stuff with ADAT's, so those projects are all at 48 KHz, which prevents using those two extra tracks anyway.

 

I just feed the mix out as it's playing via the S/PDIF output, into the S/PDIF input on my computer, and then burn CD's there.

 

You might want to check with Lee and some of the other users, or check on the Egroups list and see if anyone has had similar problems.

http://www.egroups.com/group/AW4416

 

 

Phil O'Keefe

Sound Sanctuary Recording

Riverside CA http://members.aol.com/ssanctuary/index.html

email: pokeefe777@msn.com

[dansouth]

Originally posted by pokeefe777@msn.com:

If you're talking about the effect on "Believe", I think it was Antares Autotune, which comes as a DirectX or TDM plug in, or as a stand alone hardware box.

 

I read an interview with the producers that mentioned a Digitech unit, but I don't remember the model number. It sounds like toxic waste, and I don't want it in my studio. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/frown.gif

[Philip OKeefe]

Well, as far as window splices go, I have done them on rare occasions, but they ARE a major pain in the rear. It's easier on a 2" 16 track though. I'll be really impressed when I see someone pull one off on a 1/4" Fostex 8 track tape. Now THAT would be impressive! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/eek.gifhttp://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gifhttp://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gifhttp://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

 

Phil O'Keefe

Sound Sanctuary Recording

Riverside CA http://members.aol.com/ssanctuary/index.html

email: pokeefe777@msn.com

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Richard Hjemmen:

I just did my first mixdown to the internal stereotracks on the AW4416. It sounded fine when I did the mixdown but when I listened to the playback of the stereotrack it sounded much thinner and not really good at all. The stereotracks were automatically monitored through track 1 and 2. I turned off all eq and dynamics, still bad.

 

Have any of you experienced this?

 

Oops Richard, I meant to reply to this and never did. Anyway, yes, this problem does happen if you simply unmute the stereo track and listen to the playback through channels 1 and 2. The way to really hear what the stereo track sounds like is to unmute it, press the "Cue" button and then the select button for the stereo track, then play it back. That sends the signal directly out of the monitor outs, not through the channels first. Sounds much better that way!

 

--Lee

 

 

This message has been edited by Lee Flier on 01-26-2001 at 03:45 PM