| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
John
`Olu`olu
656 Posts |
 Posted - 01/25/2005 : 10:29:42 AM
|
|
--
|
Edited by - John on 06/07/2005 10:26:38 AM |
|
|
Lawrence
Ha`aha`a
USA
1597 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2005 : 2:56:30 PM
|
The thing about specific equipment recommendations is exactly that,
(that they are specific to several criteria):
1) How much money you are willing to spend.
(Custom modified U87=$10,000 versus SM85=$80).
2) What kind of recording, processing & editing you want to do.
(One track at a time & 16 bits is OK versus 32 tracks at once
at 96Khz and 32bit floating point)
3) Your skill and experience.
(An experienced person can do a lot more with whatever tools
are available than a newbie and will quickly get disgusted
with newbie tools, wheras a newbie might just get confused by
professional terms such as Q, FFT resolution bandwidth, impulse
response, compression factor, attack & release time, Z transform,
etc., etc.)
One list of stuff would never fit everybody but checking what other
folks use (like you did with the RMMGA CD) is of course a good idea.
Afterall that's what we all do with all our "Gear", sports equipment,
etc.
I wish Consumer Reports did a lot more testing/reporting than they do
as I am a great advocate of maximum consumer information. This is the
opposite of what the corporations want - i.e. as little information
as they can get by with, with lots of "sizzle" on top.
My equipment was listed on the TaroPatch CDs, and I consider it to
be "middle of the road" stuff. Good enough to do great recording
work, but not really in the same league as the "big guys". Like a
TLM103 instead of a custom-tuned U87 for instance. If you want a list
of stuff I am happy with and would reccommend, I suppose I could list
some of it if you want, and I am sure others will chime in too. You
will find these lists to be mostly similar to what you gleaned from
RMMGA.
|
Mahope Kākou...
...El Lorenzo de Ondas Sonoras |
Edited by - Lawrence on 01/25/2005 3:01:05 PM |
 |
|
|
cmdrpiffle
`Olu`olu
USA
553 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2005 : 4:01:28 PM
|
John,
Obviously the best recorded music is that which you like so much that you don't care how the production sounds......
That said...the very best I've heard from a home recorded standpoint is this:
An acoustic guitar track that was recorded analog, into an older Sony reel to reel. We used Scotch brand tape. (they also make recording tape folks...for those too uhh, young to remember) The Sony had 2 quarter inch jacks. One for each of its wonderful channels. We plugged in a Shure SM57 into each one. Sat back a few feet, and threw the lever to play/record....
The sound over speakers from the tape was wonderful. I'm sure it is useless from a professional standpoint due to the fact that a mechanical analog recording has a lot recorded on it....machine sounds, gears, whirrs from the motors...etc. Most of this is masked by the fact that you are playing it from the same analog/motorized equipment. Nowadays...the background needs to be NONEXISTANT, period.
No noise whatsoever will be tolerated. Fact is, there is a lot of noise on 'professional recordings' that you don't ever hear. One of the main ones on acoustic recordings is the breathing of the person playing the instrument. In the older analog days, it was masked by the machine noise, nowadays (my own new word, hence used twice so far)...it would be picked up, and have to be filtered out. All assuming that it was recorded in a fairly quiet location in the first place.
Skip to the present. I took the reel to reel, and some JBL monitor speakers. I played the Sony thru the speakers, directly into a cheap Radio Shack condenser mic. This was DI'ed into my computer. (my desktop, not this stupid evil laptop I'm currently typing on. I used CakeWalk version something. About 4 years old.
The recording came out perfect. I don't know xactly why that happened. I recorded it analog, and put it to CD via digital. Maybe it was to combination of the 2. All of the noise, hiss, etc., were eliminated when I punched in the dolby or DBX. The final version has the presence of analog, without the noise, and without the deadness of digital.
my 2 cents anyway,
That's the best I can remember the brands and situations John. I will swear by the combo, analog/digital. I also realize that this does you little good in todays market. Sony reel to reels just aren't available. The point I wanna make is that even with little technology, the sound can be awesome!
....Still got that Breedlove?
Mike |
my Poodle is smarter than your honor student |
|
|
|
Lawrence
Ha`aha`a
USA
1597 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2005 : 11:08:37 AM
|
Oops, I forgot to mention the importance of dilithium crystals!
(and how you don't want them to crack),
and I am Earnest when I mention the importance of being Q (from the continuum) 
My equipment and druthers:
I am WinTel PC based. If you are Mac based some things are different.
Digitizer: Echo Layla. I have an older unit and am thinking of replacing it with the latest one. I wanted at least 8 input channels so I could record a small ensemble or a single Drum Kit in one pass. Echo also makes 4 channel and 2 channel units. You can hook up multiple Laylas if you want more channels like 16 or 32. Notice I said digitizer, not sound card. You will never achieve top sound quality with a digitizer built on the card that plugs into the PCI bus, due to electrical interference from the PC clocks (but you can get pretty good results). MOTU units are pretty good too, but stay away from SoundBlasters, quality is mediocre and they have serious clocking problems.
Preamps: I use the preamps in my Mackie VLZ 1604 Mixer. They are as good as anything out there, including any of the outboard boxes. I hook the post-fader sends to the inputs of the Layla.
Mics: Like I mentioned before I have a Neuman TLM103, which is a cardiod only mic, unlike the switchable U87. The TLM103 is the LOWEST NOISE mic that Neumann makes, and low-noise is one of the most important criteria for good acoustic recording of quiet instruments. I also have a Neumann KM183 (omni) mic that I use often. I have Shure SM85s, a couple of SM57s, some Electrovoice 635s(omni), some RE15s (special supercardiods that do not have proximity effect), several AKGs, but NO Sennheisers (wish I had some MD421s). P.S. the sensitivity pattern of the microphone (omni, figure-8, cardiod, supercard, hypercard) IS ALSO SUBSTANTIALLY ALTERED by the body of the instrument when the mic is close (and I'm NOT talking about proximity effect). Some folks don't understand this but it is simple physics, sound will reflect off your instrument (guitar) just like a mirror. Omni mics are best for working close (they do not have a proximity "boom" effect) and they are flatter (flat is good in this case).
Software: I primarily use Adobe Audition, but ocaisionally diddle with Cakewalk. I have downloaded Audacity and have high hopes for it and my conversion to Linux (pronounced Lee-Nucks NOT Line-Nucks!), but that remains to be seen.
Got lots of other studio junk (including four track and two track reel-to-reels), processors, etc, but most of that stuff is no longer needed.
(Yes- and I do remember reading about the tape-plant closing.)
|
Mahope Kākou...
...El Lorenzo de Ondas Sonoras |
Edited by - Lawrence on 01/26/2005 12:01:00 PM |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
