Malcolm Boyce wrote:...and yeah. The quality of the source is everything.
It's been a number of years since I've worked on hi quality analogue tape. That being said, from what I recall, there is a very noticeable difference. Now this was going up against converter technology from 10ish years ago, so maybe things have changed, but I don't feel that converter technology has advanced as much as the difference I recall hearing. Impossible for me to say without hearing it again. I do remember that the RADAR 24 system was by far the closest of the digital systems I compared with. If budget were not an issue in a studio I was building, I would still include a Studer a80 MkIV with 16 track heads and Dolby SRMathieu Benoit wrote:1: Digital vs. Analog - Since I've never had much experience with analog recording to begin with it's hard for me to really say. I often wonder if I could tell the difference between analog master and a 44.1/24 digital transfer of that same master through quality converters. That being said the analog vs. digital question is a broad one indeed when you consider summing and tape saturation which are two different aspects of the debate.
Mathieu Benoit wrote:2: Sample Rate / Bit Depth - I never was able to tell the difference between 44.1 and 88.2 (let alone 44.1 to 48) but maybe that would change if I tried it again now that my "ears" (read: brain) have become more developed. As for bit depth, the difference to me was more noticeable for much earlier on. So I switched from 16 to 24 a few years back and have ben recording exclusively at 44.1/24 ever since.
I don't know if there's a sonic advantage to having all the same preamp or all different preamps. However I do hear a difference. As long as they're of sufficient quality however I don't usually care. Sometimes I'll pick a particular preamp based on features, such as variable hi-pass, or gain staging options but once you're at the level of the Daking amps it makes little difference.Mathieu Benoit wrote:3: Preamps - There are complete audio forums online dedicated to arguing what "color" exist in certain types of preamps. From experience I can tell you that I'm really doubting the whole color thing entirely. There may be differences in terms of characterists but they are subtle. The only differences I can tell that matter to me are amount of clean gain, and to a lesser extent the attack speed. I do find some preamps just faster than others, but even if that's the case it's pretty subtle... or could even be psychoacoustical. All that to say that I would be completely happy with a setup that involved 24 of the same preamps followed by a good quality EQ. If the Daking Pre/EQ had full (switchable pre/post) metering, I'd go with 24 channels of it, no question. It would be expensive though so I guess our setup makes sense financial, but I don't know that I quite buy the whole different "flavor" thing. Some have even said that there are noticeable benefits to using all the same preamps. That might also be true, but I have no way of knowing that personally. The only thing I know for sure, is that having high quality preamps of any ilk makes everything just easier. It's hard to A/B thatr comparison, until you have to start mixing those tracks together though. That's where I notice the biggest difference.
Mathieu Benoit wrote:4: Microphones - In terms of the equipment side of things here is where things get interesting. Microphones are all vastly different. This is where I prefer to get my "different flavors" from. Even though the differences are more obvious to me than with the other stuff I mentioned so far, I still have to say that the source and the room still trump it significantly. I'd rather a SM57 with a great voice than a u47 with a not so great voice. Even then though... it's hard to tell the difference in context. I recorded a vocal with a 441 on Wednesday and I didn't really have any reasoning for it... it sounded fine, just like a bunch of mics might have.
This is the important stuff. I find there's a common misconception that many choices are based on the only mic that works on a given source, but most times many mics will work very well. The choice a lot of the time isn't weeding out mics that don't work, but finding a mic that does something special.macrae11 wrote:Microphones do make a big difference but I'd also be happy making an entire record with nothing but 87's or 441's. I often get the impression that the people who speak of using one mic, one pre for an entire record due so more for logistical benefits than sonic benefits. Not that there aren't sonic benefits to using different mics in various scenarios, but the logistical benefits far outweigh them. This is why, typically for things like vocals, I'll spend 10 minutes at the beginning of a record I'll test 3-4 mics on a given vocalist to see if any stand out. If they're all close enough that I don't care then I move on. But 7 times out of 10 there's a definite winner for a particular voice so I'll use that mic for the remainder of the record and not think about it again.
Malcolm Boyce wrote: The fact is, most times I'm choosing mics that I know will work, so I can get under way quickly and get things happening.
macrae11 wrote:Malcolm Boyce wrote: The fact is, most times I'm choosing mics that I know will work, so I can get under way quickly and get things happening.
Exactly. Not ruining the flow of the session to find the "best" mic for any particular source. Of course in order for this to work you've got to know your mike locker and have a decent idea of what will work best best on any given source. Just another reason that I love all rounder mikes like the 441 and U87.
Mathieu Benoit wrote:macrae11 wrote:Malcolm Boyce wrote: The fact is, most times I'm choosing mics that I know will work, so I can get under way quickly and get things happening.
Exactly. Not ruining the flow of the session to find the "best" mic for any particular source. Of course in order for this to work you've got to know your mike locker and have a decent idea of what will work best best on any given source. Just another reason that I love all rounder mikes like the 441 and U87.
I object to the spelling of "mike". Take it back MacRae.
Mathieu Benoit wrote:For me there are many microphones that I have become very familiar with in our mic locker. But I still feel that I could spend more time trying out different things to maybe come up with a few surprises. Small budgets and tight timeframes have made that very difficult. But I may organize a session at some point this fall that allows me to go a bit nuts, without it costing the client anything to let me engage in shenanigans.
macrae11 wrote:Mathieu Benoit wrote:For me there are many microphones that I have become very familiar with in our mic locker. But I still feel that I could spend more time trying out different things to maybe come up with a few surprises. Small budgets and tight timeframes have made that very difficult. But I may organize a session at some point this fall that allows me to go a bit nuts, without it costing the client anything to let me engage in shenanigans.
I've actually been meaning to talk to you about this.
macrae11 wrote:Yeah I'll give you a shout this weekend once I get past all this awards show stuff I'm working on.
That kind of stuff depends heavily on the source. So many people make broad generalizations based on one or two uncontrolled experiences. There are most certainly audible differences between original "full res" and lossy formats, but what you're listening through, and where, as well as what the source material is will dictate how obvious things are.Mathieu Benoit wrote:BTW... last week I heard for the first time the difference between an audio CD and a high res MP3 copy of the same song. I may have seen the light...
Malcolm Boyce wrote:One of the things about smashed, brick walled masters is, the differences between "CD Quality" and MP3 become almost indistinguishable. These are the times we're living in...
macrae11 wrote:Mathieu Benoit wrote:1: Digital vs. Analog - Since I've never had much experience with analog recording to begin with it's hard for me to really say. I often wonder if I could tell the difference between analog master and a 44.1/24 digital transfer of that same master through quality converters. That being said the analog vs. digital question is a broad one indeed when you consider summing and tape saturation which are two different aspects of the debate.
It's been a number of years since I've worked on hi quality analogue tape. That being said, from what I recall, there is a very noticeable difference. Now this was going up against converter technology from 10ish years ago, so maybe things have changed, but I don't feel that converter technology has advanced as much as the difference I recall hearing. Impossible for me to say without hearing it again. I do remember that the RADAR 24 system was by far the closest of the digital systems I compared with. If budget were not an issue in a studio I was building, I would still include a Studer a80 MkIV with 16 track heads and Dolby SR.
macrae11 wrote:Does he have a JH24? That's in the realm of what I'd consider. For reference the only high end machines that I have personal experience with are the Studer A80, Otari MTR-80 and MTR-90 and the JH24. The JH24 is my least favorite of the 4, but still a great machine. Not nearly as clean as the other two, so it's not as flexible, but certainly vibey. I only used it with a MCI JH636 which was also quite vibey, so that might have coloured my opinion. For the right project I would track to a well calibrated and maintained JH24.
Just curious... Would you as engineer suggest that option, or more of a going along with the plan type of situation?macrae11 wrote:For the right project I would track to a well calibrated and maintained JH24.
Malcolm Boyce wrote:Just curious... Would you as engineer suggest that option, or more of a going along with the plan type of situation?macrae11 wrote:For the right project I would track to a well calibrated and maintained JH24.
macrae11 wrote:... and would benefit from the sound.
Beauty is in the ear of the beholder. Would it be obviously different? Yes... Most certainly. Would you prefer it? Your call.Mathieu Benoit wrote:macrae11 wrote:... and would benefit from the sound.
This brings me around full circle again. Is the end result so identifiable that I could tell lsitening to a finished CD which one was recorded analog vs. digital?
The reason I'm asking as that I'm faced with a client this winter that could potentially be what you describe.
Depends on who you ask. Some say yes, some say no.Mathieu Benoit wrote:If that's the case then the million dollar question becomes are there easier ways to achieve that "vibe" without all the drawbacks of the medium.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests