Truth time... What do you hear?

Tech talk about audio recording and live stage production.
---Hosted by Andrew MacRae & Malcolm Boyce

Truth time... What do you hear?

Postby Mathieu Benoit » Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:00 pm

So, over the course of a very short time in audio production I've been eagerly awaiting new and enlightening auditory experiences. I will be honest though, I was hoping I could hear more differences by now. Analog vs. digital, difference in sample rates / bit depth, difference in microphones, preamps, compressors, EQs and even summing... We are told that everything sounds different by the internet and sometimes by our colleagues and mentors but how much of it is truly perceivable and how much of it is psychoacoustical. Either way, I've commited myself to not "upgrading" things that I can't tangibly appreciate. If for no other reason than the fact that I want to experience the difference by starting at the bottom.

It's taken my about 2-3 years to get to the point where I can really start to tell the difference in some of these things, but other differences still elude me.

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.

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.

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.

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.

These are justa few things I've been thinking about lately. I have more too, but I want to get some other opinions on this. Keep in mind, I'm basing all of this solely on what I can hear. so I'm not saying that differences don't exist, just that I'm not at that level yet maybe...
"Volume automation takes time. You don't got that kinda time. You could be getting naked with somebody somewhere." -Slipperman

Mathieu Benoit - Fluid Productions
www.fluidaudiogroup.com
www.facebook.com/FluidAudioGroup
User avatar
Mathieu Benoit
Drumwaiter
 
Posts: 4707
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:55 pm
Location: Saint John, New Brunswick

Re: Truth time... What do you hear?

Postby Malcolm Boyce » Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:03 pm

I think you are on the money as far as how you are going about things. This is precisely the opposite of the gearslutz mentality of... I read about it on the Internet, so it must be true.

There is scads of money being spent on equipment by those with little experience, for an "improvement" that means so little to what their end result will actually be. The problem is, they are looking for the secret ingredient that others have, that make their mixes or whatever sound so much better. The don't want to know what the truth actually is. After that, comes the buyers commitment of posting how HUGE of a difference their new clock made... when in fact they, and many others, likely can't actually tell the difference. All that money spent can't possibly be a waste... right?

Like you said, I'm not dismissing that little things don't make a difference, I'm just suggesting that if I have to switch back and forth more than a few times to be able to describe the improvement... I doubt it's something that will make or break the end result.

A big part of the equation is to have the confidence to make those decisions.
"Once again, it is NEVER the gear that makes a good record.
It just fills Forum pages..." --compasspnt

middleaudio.com
User avatar
Malcolm Boyce
Your Humble Host
 
Posts: 3681
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:07 am
Location: Saint John, NB

Re: Truth time... What do you hear?

Postby Malcolm Boyce » Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:04 pm

...and yeah. The quality of the source is everything.
"Once again, it is NEVER the gear that makes a good record.
It just fills Forum pages..." --compasspnt

middleaudio.com
User avatar
Malcolm Boyce
Your Humble Host
 
Posts: 3681
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:07 am
Location: Saint John, NB

Re: Truth time... What do you hear?

Postby Mathieu Benoit » Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:46 am

Malcolm Boyce wrote:...and yeah. The quality of the source is everything.


On that note, I had a very interesting conversation with our guitar player last Sunday night. He wanted to pick my brain about recording. He's getting into this whole "recording as a hobby" thing and wanted to ask about gear. He's a guitar player, a really gifted one at that, but he also plays some drums.

He is using a 24 channel Behringer mixer going into an Alesis HD24. He has a bunch of microphones bt I didn't really ask him about what the were. He just wanted to know if there was something "wrong" with using this Behringer mixer. I told him that there wasn't anything "wrong" with it until he finds it's getting in his way. I told him that his drumming, drumkit, and room would be a far bigger factor than what preamps he's using. It's as if a lightbulb went off because he immediately commented on how much more he likes his guitar tones.

I get the impression that he was thinking that better gear would equal better drum tones, but then he immediately realized how silly that was. He said to me "It's like being a beginner guitar player with a custom Les Paul." Yeah, it's exactly like that.
"Volume automation takes time. You don't got that kinda time. You could be getting naked with somebody somewhere." -Slipperman

Mathieu Benoit - Fluid Productions
www.fluidaudiogroup.com
www.facebook.com/FluidAudioGroup
User avatar
Mathieu Benoit
Drumwaiter
 
Posts: 4707
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:55 pm
Location: Saint John, New Brunswick

Re: Truth time... What do you hear?

Postby macrae11 » Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:02 pm

It's probably time I went back and relistened to some of these things, but in the past I did some non scientific testing and if I found a difference that wasn't too costly in resources or time I stuck with it. It's possible that I could be totally wrong, but I've had most of these corroborated by other professionals in the field whose ears I trust and aren't typically subject to all types of gearsluttery, just for the sake of gearslutterly.

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

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.

For me the difference is small but noticeable, and worth the extra effort. I find the farther you go into a project the more you notice the difference between 44.1 and 88.2, especially getting into the mixing stage. However I still track at 44.1 from time to time, and other differences such as monitoring certainly trump the improvement of high SR. I'd rather track in a great room at 44.1 than a bedroom at 192. That being said, I don't hear a difference between 88.2 and 96, or a worthwhile difference between 96 and 192. When I did some listening at 192 I did hear a difference, but I don't even know if I'd quantify it as a positive difference. Definitely not worth the price of admission for me.

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.
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: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.

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.
User avatar
macrae11
Andrew MacRae
 
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:12 pm
Location: Oromocto

Re: Truth time... What do you hear?

Postby Malcolm Boyce » Tue Oct 09, 2012 11:43 pm

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.
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.

The thing is, there's a belief that many times we are comparing many mics on a daily basis on every date. 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. The fun "shoot out" or trying out different things is reserved for the situations where I have time to fool around, and the right performers and sounds to do so.

Regarding the one type of preamp thing. It's people describing this situation as limiting that I think causes the arguments. I understand why some people like to work with many different choices of pre, there just seems to be people talking loudly about how they can't understand how someone can work with just the pres in the desk to do a whole project. That's the attitude I can't get.
"Once again, it is NEVER the gear that makes a good record.
It just fills Forum pages..." --compasspnt

middleaudio.com
User avatar
Malcolm Boyce
Your Humble Host
 
Posts: 3681
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:07 am
Location: Saint John, NB

Re: Truth time... What do you hear?

Postby macrae11 » Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:44 am

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.
User avatar
macrae11
Andrew MacRae
 
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:12 pm
Location: Oromocto

Re: Truth time... What do you hear?

Postby Mathieu Benoit » Wed Oct 10, 2012 9:44 am

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.

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.
"Volume automation takes time. You don't got that kinda time. You could be getting naked with somebody somewhere." -Slipperman

Mathieu Benoit - Fluid Productions
www.fluidaudiogroup.com
www.facebook.com/FluidAudioGroup
User avatar
Mathieu Benoit
Drumwaiter
 
Posts: 4707
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:55 pm
Location: Saint John, New Brunswick

Re: Truth time... What do you hear?

Postby macrae11 » Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:37 am

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.


Yeah I don't know what happened there, must have had a seizure. I formally recant.
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.
User avatar
macrae11
Andrew MacRae
 
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:12 pm
Location: Oromocto

Re: Truth time... What do you hear?

Postby Mathieu Benoit » Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:56 am

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.


You have my number. I'm open to your thoughts on this (or anything really.)
"Volume automation takes time. You don't got that kinda time. You could be getting naked with somebody somewhere." -Slipperman

Mathieu Benoit - Fluid Productions
www.fluidaudiogroup.com
www.facebook.com/FluidAudioGroup
User avatar
Mathieu Benoit
Drumwaiter
 
Posts: 4707
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:55 pm
Location: Saint John, New Brunswick

Re: Truth time... What do you hear?

Postby macrae11 » Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:58 am

Yeah I'll give you a shout this weekend once I get past all this awards show stuff I'm working on.
User avatar
macrae11
Andrew MacRae
 
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:12 pm
Location: Oromocto

Re: Truth time... What do you hear?

Postby Mathieu Benoit » Wed Oct 10, 2012 11:02 am

macrae11 wrote:Yeah I'll give you a shout this weekend once I get past all this awards show stuff I'm working on.


Word!
"Volume automation takes time. You don't got that kinda time. You could be getting naked with somebody somewhere." -Slipperman

Mathieu Benoit - Fluid Productions
www.fluidaudiogroup.com
www.facebook.com/FluidAudioGroup
User avatar
Mathieu Benoit
Drumwaiter
 
Posts: 4707
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:55 pm
Location: Saint John, New Brunswick

Re: Truth time... What do you hear?

Postby Mathieu Benoit » Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:37 pm

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... :shock:
"Volume automation takes time. You don't got that kinda time. You could be getting naked with somebody somewhere." -Slipperman

Mathieu Benoit - Fluid Productions
www.fluidaudiogroup.com
www.facebook.com/FluidAudioGroup
User avatar
Mathieu Benoit
Drumwaiter
 
Posts: 4707
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:55 pm
Location: Saint John, New Brunswick

Re: Truth time... What do you hear?

Postby Malcolm Boyce » Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:11 pm

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... :shock:
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.

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...
"Once again, it is NEVER the gear that makes a good record.
It just fills Forum pages..." --compasspnt

middleaudio.com
User avatar
Malcolm Boyce
Your Humble Host
 
Posts: 3681
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:07 am
Location: Saint John, NB

Re: Truth time... What do you hear?

Postby Mathieu Benoit » Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:28 pm

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...


This CD wasn't smashed, and I spend enough time working on the mixes to know that material pretty well. The difference between the standard 160kbps MP3s that iTunes made and the CD, was astonishing. But the differences between 320kbps and the CD were still audible although not enough to really lose my mind over.
"Volume automation takes time. You don't got that kinda time. You could be getting naked with somebody somewhere." -Slipperman

Mathieu Benoit - Fluid Productions
www.fluidaudiogroup.com
www.facebook.com/FluidAudioGroup
User avatar
Mathieu Benoit
Drumwaiter
 
Posts: 4707
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:55 pm
Location: Saint John, New Brunswick

Re: Truth time... What do you hear?

Postby Mathieu Benoit » Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:22 am

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.


You are talking about ideal conditions though. Many people I see online and in the real world would take far less than ideal tape machines and still go through the extra hassle of recording on it because they think that they are gaining something.

Either way I'd like to have the chance to try it out sometime for my own education. I think Marc at Atlantica has an MCI JH24. Anyone else in the area record to a tape machine with any regularity? Boyer?
"Volume automation takes time. You don't got that kinda time. You could be getting naked with somebody somewhere." -Slipperman

Mathieu Benoit - Fluid Productions
www.fluidaudiogroup.com
www.facebook.com/FluidAudioGroup
User avatar
Mathieu Benoit
Drumwaiter
 
Posts: 4707
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:55 pm
Location: Saint John, New Brunswick

Re: Truth time... What do you hear?

Postby macrae11 » Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:37 am

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.
User avatar
macrae11
Andrew MacRae
 
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:12 pm
Location: Oromocto

Re: Truth time... What do you hear?

Postby Mathieu Benoit » Tue Oct 23, 2012 12:50 pm

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.


The JH24 is listed on the Atlantica website, and I think I saw pictures of some students re-capping it on Facebook. I have no idea what condition it is, but Marc is a fairly tech savvy guy so it stands to reason that it's in decent shape.
"Volume automation takes time. You don't got that kinda time. You could be getting naked with somebody somewhere." -Slipperman

Mathieu Benoit - Fluid Productions
www.fluidaudiogroup.com
www.facebook.com/FluidAudioGroup
User avatar
Mathieu Benoit
Drumwaiter
 
Posts: 4707
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:55 pm
Location: Saint John, New Brunswick

Re: Truth time... What do you hear?

Postby Malcolm Boyce » Tue Oct 23, 2012 1:12 pm

macrae11 wrote: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?
"Once again, it is NEVER the gear that makes a good record.
It just fills Forum pages..." --compasspnt

middleaudio.com
User avatar
Malcolm Boyce
Your Humble Host
 
Posts: 3681
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:07 am
Location: Saint John, NB

Re: Truth time... What do you hear?

Postby Malcolm Boyce » Tue Oct 23, 2012 1:21 pm

I would love for Matt to be able to experience what analog multitrack does, in an environment where he can appreciate the good... and the bad of it.
"Once again, it is NEVER the gear that makes a good record.
It just fills Forum pages..." --compasspnt

middleaudio.com
User avatar
Malcolm Boyce
Your Humble Host
 
Posts: 3681
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:07 am
Location: Saint John, NB

Re: Truth time... What do you hear?

Postby macrae11 » Tue Oct 23, 2012 1:26 pm

Malcolm Boyce wrote:
macrae11 wrote: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?

I'd suggest it if I thought it would be of benefit to the act. It would have to be an act who had enough budget and talent to pull off a true analogue performance(little or no edits) and would benefit from the sound.
User avatar
macrae11
Andrew MacRae
 
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:12 pm
Location: Oromocto

Re: Truth time... What do you hear?

Postby Mathieu Benoit » Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:01 pm

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.
"Volume automation takes time. You don't got that kinda time. You could be getting naked with somebody somewhere." -Slipperman

Mathieu Benoit - Fluid Productions
www.fluidaudiogroup.com
www.facebook.com/FluidAudioGroup
User avatar
Mathieu Benoit
Drumwaiter
 
Posts: 4707
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:55 pm
Location: Saint John, New Brunswick

Re: Truth time... What do you hear?

Postby Malcolm Boyce » Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:19 pm

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.
Beauty is in the ear of the beholder. Would it be obviously different? Yes... Most certainly. Would you prefer it? Your call.

As far as "blind"... Once you know some things to listen for in a finished product, you can hear analog V digital, but not with absolute consistency IMO. I find that unless the intent was to make something sound "digital" or "analog", and if something is recorded immaculately, the differences become incredibly subtle or non existent to me. Sometimes I'll be thinking something sounds a certain way, and then I'll have it confirmed that it was tracked analog. Was I positive? No, but it definitely has a vibe that you catch on to.

As an early hater of digital... I much prefer it now.
"Once again, it is NEVER the gear that makes a good record.
It just fills Forum pages..." --compasspnt

middleaudio.com
User avatar
Malcolm Boyce
Your Humble Host
 
Posts: 3681
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:07 am
Location: Saint John, NB

Re: Truth time... What do you hear?

Postby Mathieu Benoit » Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:37 pm

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?

The whole analog vs. digital debate is multi-tiered as well. You have the medium, the processing and the mix bus. The only one of those that I have a lot of experience with is the processing. There isn't a plugin compressor available that I know of that can match the STC-8, but not all plugins/outboard units are created equal. The whole analog summing thing to me seems interesting, but I doubt the difference would be that life altering to me at this point. I haven't had the chance to really compare high quality analog tape recording to high quality converters going to a HDD. I'm sure if there was a difference it would be most obvious at this stage, but not because it's "analog" but because of the physical properties of tape as a medium.
Last edited by Mathieu Benoit on Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Volume automation takes time. You don't got that kinda time. You could be getting naked with somebody somewhere." -Slipperman

Mathieu Benoit - Fluid Productions
www.fluidaudiogroup.com
www.facebook.com/FluidAudioGroup
User avatar
Mathieu Benoit
Drumwaiter
 
Posts: 4707
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:55 pm
Location: Saint John, New Brunswick

Re: Truth time... What do you hear?

Postby Malcolm Boyce » Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:44 pm

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.
Depends on who you ask. Some say yes, some say no.

Some say analog has something that digital removes, and some say analog adds something that digital doesn't have inherently. Depends on which camp you belong to.
"Once again, it is NEVER the gear that makes a good record.
It just fills Forum pages..." --compasspnt

middleaudio.com
User avatar
Malcolm Boyce
Your Humble Host
 
Posts: 3681
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:07 am
Location: Saint John, NB

Next

Return to Sounds Good...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests

cron