Greg
2t5b
ha! Logic.
"Audiophile" quality hardware in the music industry.
- Thread starter Alan
- Start date
Which is why certain mastering engineers have the gear / ability to even polish a turd. ;-)
Greg
2t5b
cooky1257
pfm Member
'Tis where your premise fall down Alan, that and saying Prism converters are toys
I've gravitated to pro gear after many years of partial audiofoolery.
Blimey.
'Tis where your premise fall down Alan, that and saying Prism converters are toys
I've gravitated to pro gear after many years of partial audiofoolery.
Orpheus has a firewire interface.. it is a "toy". Anything with FW cannot be considered a rock solid professional piece of equipment no matter how much people protest. I'll agree it's not a piece of crap.. just that a much more reliable and universal connection standard has to be implemented.
One of the challenges any company has to face is that Apple has really limited options on what they can use, especially in the portable domain. Why they ditched the PCMCIA slot on Macbook Pro's I do not know.
Lugging a Mac Pro around really is not an option and iMacs have zero capability for adding anything non-standard.
MADI is probably the leading contender at the moment for a next-gen universal pro-audio interface but even that has it's flaws.. such as the price and various clocking issues when trying to sync via the MADI cable. Talking to people who have been involved in using the SSL Alphalink have said they had to resort to clocking via BNC wordclock to get the system stable which does not fill me with confidence.
It's highly unlikely that Apple would integrate MADI into their computers though.
-A-
P.s. The mastering engineer I use has quite a considerable amount of modified valve gear. He's certainly polished some of my turds to an exceptionally high standard. Could he go further with his set-up and gear? .. Of course he could.. couldn't we all?
cooky1257
pfm Member
None of which actually supports your OP.
That you have a Mastering engineer that modifies the files you give him with euphonic sounding gear again proves nowt other that you've supplied him with some files that are turds.;-)
Well done for re-describing the role of the mastering engineer. ;-)
cooky1257
pfm Member
Hehe.. He's not "my" mastering engineer.. He is Pink Floyd's engineer but I suppose with my beard and long hair I'll forgive you the confusion. ;-)
To be honest, he can be anyone's mastering engineer for £45+vat per track.
http://www.tubemastering.com/
If anyone does use him, tell him I recommended his service.. perhaps I'll get a discount on my next batch of turds. ;-)
To be honest, he can be anyone's mastering engineer for £45+vat per track.
http://www.tubemastering.com/
If anyone does use him, tell him I recommended his service.. perhaps I'll get a discount on my next batch of turds. ;-)
Joe P
Memory Alpha incarnate | mod; Shatner number = 2
Alan,
Do you know why the best jazz recordings from the late 1950s into the 1960s sounds so bloody amazing?
The music is, of course, immeasurably better than the standard audiophile Sheffield fart album fare, but what floors me is just how good these recordings sound.
Was it the simplicity of the recording chain back then?
Joe
Do you know why the best jazz recordings from the late 1950s into the 1960s sounds so bloody amazing?
The music is, of course, immeasurably better than the standard audiophile Sheffield fart album fare, but what floors me is just how good these recordings sound.
Was it the simplicity of the recording chain back then?
Joe
jackbarron
Chelsea, London
Joe,
A number of reasons.. In no particular order..
1. Lack of transistors.
Invented in 1947, it's unlikely that transistors were used in the recording of the Jazz records from the 1950's. All equipment would of been valve based and probably hand-wired, point-to-point as well with PCB technology still in its infancy.
2. Single-mic technique.
Rather than running mics for each musician through a mixing desk, a favoured technique for Jazz recordings was to place a single mic in the room and then move the musicians backwards and forwards from it to get the correct balance.
3. Tape.
By recording one mic to a mono tape you can effectively record, mix and master simultaneously. I imagine the first play of the tape was to check the recording and make a copy, the second to press the record. As tape degrades with each play you can't get much better than this.
4. The power grid.
Very much like the roads in the 1950's.. the power grid was effectively deserted. Hardly any TV's, no switch-mode power supplies, very few devices on the system creating interference meaning very little distortion feeding back on the AC power wave.
5. 15A round pin plugs / bulgin type connectors and no fuses.
A slight but noticeable difference compared to today's 13A square plugs and IEC leads.
6. RFI / EMI and other interference.
Negligible compared to todays saturated airwaves.
7. Copious amounts of drugs.
Always makes music sound better.. period.
A number of reasons.. In no particular order..
1. Lack of transistors.
Invented in 1947, it's unlikely that transistors were used in the recording of the Jazz records from the 1950's. All equipment would of been valve based and probably hand-wired, point-to-point as well with PCB technology still in its infancy.
2. Single-mic technique.
Rather than running mics for each musician through a mixing desk, a favoured technique for Jazz recordings was to place a single mic in the room and then move the musicians backwards and forwards from it to get the correct balance.
3. Tape.
By recording one mic to a mono tape you can effectively record, mix and master simultaneously. I imagine the first play of the tape was to check the recording and make a copy, the second to press the record. As tape degrades with each play you can't get much better than this.
4. The power grid.
Very much like the roads in the 1950's.. the power grid was effectively deserted. Hardly any TV's, no switch-mode power supplies, very few devices on the system creating interference meaning very little distortion feeding back on the AC power wave.
5. 15A round pin plugs / bulgin type connectors and no fuses.
A slight but noticeable difference compared to today's 13A square plugs and IEC leads.
6. RFI / EMI and other interference.
Negligible compared to todays saturated airwaves.
7. Copious amounts of drugs.
Always makes music sound better.. period.
Are you referring to Autechre by any chance? ;-)
Joe P
Memory Alpha incarnate | mod; Shatner number = 2
Alan,
Thanks. My guess was that reasons 2 and 3 were the main culprits — basically, good technique and uncomplicated recording pathways being key to good sound.
Does anyone record music today with vintage mics, consoles and tape recorders? It would be interesting to see if some of the other reasons you cite, like a noisier grid and more RFI/EMI interference, contribute to the crappier sound of many current recordings.
Joe
Thanks. My guess was that reasons 2 and 3 were the main culprits — basically, good technique and uncomplicated recording pathways being key to good sound.
Does anyone record music today with vintage mics, consoles and tape recorders? It would be interesting to see if some of the other reasons you cite, like a noisier grid and more RFI/EMI interference, contribute to the crappier sound of many current recordings.
Joe
Quite a few decent underground American bands do and probably anything recorded by Steve Albini who I hear is single-handedly trying to buy the worlds remaining stock of 2" tape.
It's also the reason I suggested bands go to Nashville which has the most recording studios per square mile than anywhere else in the world as far as I know and a lot of them are still tape capable.
dave
Plywood King
Darryl,
PR&T is a signal attribute which distinguishes the real John Bonham's nuances from an electronic drum kit programmed to play a John Bonham-style beat. No device on the planet that I'm aware of can analyze a tune and determine JB was the drummer and then create and inject his drumming into the signal. In other words, this attribute can't be created knowingly by a circuit or through some distortion mechanism.
Most of the music on our planet is created by humans for other humans within each culture and almost always with very predictable patterns. Fortunately, it takes a lot of signal alteration to obliterate enough of this attribute (PR&T) to make the end result unrecognizable within its culture yet smaller amounts gone missing easily causes displeasure for some individuals as the patterns are no longer what's expected. This level is different of course for each of us. If you agree to this definition of PR&T (those who originally adopted the acronym would), you'll understand it's a lot more than tempo which may be changed subjectively or otherwise according to engineers with frequency reponse tailoring, etc.
Answering your last question..any device downstream has the potential to damage or distort the signal received or the potential to pass it accurately. The quality of the signal received has nothing to do with this fact. Imagine the worst recording ever made by mankind. You can always degrade it further by passing it again through one or more distortion generating devices until the signal becomes totally unrecognizable as music. So yes, a "crap" signal produced by "crap" recording gear can easily be degraded further. In contrast, the "crap" signal could theoretically be reproduced with full fidelity preserving whatever PR&T, etc was present.
regards,
dave
darrylfunk
Banned
dave,
yes we all know you like to follow me around for an argument but your wrong.
it shows the lack of your understanding of recording and modern digital sampling techniques which is why you have added a little proviso in your comment about a mythical device that can copy bohnam.....
but even though you have 'jack' knowledge of recording in modern studios you still pursue your magic 'prat' argument and you always aim it at me for some strange reason....
for instance it is quite easy in a modern studio to replace drum sounds by creating a new audio track that sync's to the original drum strike.
also the music recognition software shazam works very well even analysing highly distorted versions of music inputted into it.
and i can easily use the nuance of a player like bonham if i had recorded the drum strikes as midi info and lets not mention sampling.
for your info i saw herbie hancock play a mechanical piano that recorded his playing then played it back perfectly as he listened on and then joined in on another piano....live mate like magic....it must all be the devils music to an audiophile purist like you but your way out of the loop nowadays.
you just don't like the fact that some people know and understand more about music.
stick to fiddling with bolt tightness and mains leads slackness i'll stick to dealing in truth.
yes we all know you like to follow me around for an argument but your wrong.
it shows the lack of your understanding of recording and modern digital sampling techniques which is why you have added a little proviso in your comment about a mythical device that can copy bohnam.....
but even though you have 'jack' knowledge of recording in modern studios you still pursue your magic 'prat' argument and you always aim it at me for some strange reason....
for instance it is quite easy in a modern studio to replace drum sounds by creating a new audio track that sync's to the original drum strike.
also the music recognition software shazam works very well even analysing highly distorted versions of music inputted into it.
and i can easily use the nuance of a player like bonham if i had recorded the drum strikes as midi info and lets not mention sampling.
for your info i saw herbie hancock play a mechanical piano that recorded his playing then played it back perfectly as he listened on and then joined in on another piano....live mate like magic....it must all be the devils music to an audiophile purist like you but your way out of the loop nowadays.
you just don't like the fact that some people know and understand more about music.
stick to fiddling with bolt tightness and mains leads slackness i'll stick to dealing in truth.