Specific Ergonomic Design

Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2002 2:27 am

Hey, stedel - just got back from the Fairlight site, or "FoulDark Park", whichever - Some really cool lookin' stuff! Other than I want one now, and some other asshole got my winning lottery ticket, the only hint of belly button lint I picked out of the specs sheets is: Absolutely NO mention of 88.2 kHz sample rates! Everything I've read on digital indicates that if you're going to do high sample projects that will end up on CD, you're better off doing them at 88.2 rather than 96k. It's much easier to do an exact 2:1 downsample than 2.176870748:1 (wonder why?) So, if I found that lottery ticket I think my first question to the Dream Team would be "Why no 88.2?" - But hey, if the lotto pot was big enough, it IS really cool looking...

BTW, I screwed up again and put some stuff over on your City Hall answer place, please don't sic the Cassowaries on me til I restock my supply of grenades... Steve

Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2002 7:57 am

Quote:

Originally posted by knightfly:
Hey, stedel - just got back from the Fairlight site, or "FoulDark Park", whichever - Some really cool lookin' stuff! Other than I want one now, and some other asshole got my winning lottery ticket, the only hint of belly button lint I picked out of the specs sheets is: Absolutely NO mention of 88.2 kHz sample rates! Everything I've read on digital indicates that if you're going to do high sample projects that will end up on CD, you're better off doing them at 88.2 rather than 96k. It's much easier to do an exact 2:1 downsample than 2.176870748:1 (wonder why?) So, if I found that lottery ticket I think my first question to the Dream Team would be "Why no 88.2?" - But hey, if the lotto pot was big enough, it IS really cool looking...

BTW, I screwed up again and put some stuff over on your City Hall answer place, please don't sic the Cassowaries on me til I restock my supply of grenades... Steve

I'll come to your last paragraph later...maybe after the five years of counselling it's going to take to recover from the shock I got! And what's worse...you're wrong!!!Anyway, nobody's gonna visit
my post because it's science, based on irrefutable, documented evidence that people are being played like a monkeys uncle. But we're above all that here aren't we everybody?
In the meantime.
Have you been able to establish what the American price is. Can you tell me what it is?
Unlike you NOT every article I've read has mentioned such a critical factor re CD mastering and 88.2. In fact I'm trying to think which ones did emphasise it. ERk. I know this might sound like heresy, but why are you talking about mastering down to CD's anyway? Particularly if you're having trouble with Fairlight being too "expensive"?
See I'm not establishing a "mastering studio's", no way..far too much money. But I can remain in an analogue domain - as much as 96kHz gives me an analogue type sound.Doesn't that give you a clue?

Why not stop wasting your time agonizing over something that can't be done? Namely audiophile quality recordings "In Your Own Studio! For less than $3000!" Do you have a decent mastering studio's near you? You don't have to visit them everyday y'know? Just for the projects that:
a. Are you're own and you're convinced that you deserve this quality cos people are going to buy it, preserve it, cherish it, look at it -even if is
only your mum and Mrs Williams down the road, who always used to have a thing for you when you knew her as June.
b. Clients who (the magic word) pay!

You're approaching Fairlight from the wrong way
here I think, and I need some more info re what you actually want to do.
Step by step.
BTW, a lot of people have been on my case recently about changing my style, some of them valid, some of them because of...well lets not bring this onto the Fairlight Forum...lets just say I'm dissapointed in City Hall at the moment.But the ones that are valid I'm working on. Now knightfly,
read my reply here. Don't you think I'm starting to sound like an agony aunt?
Think about it.I think you're partly to blame.
And think about this:
Why do the Satellite & The Merlin come with only basic editing (compared to some). Why is it that most of the Fairlight users here are happy with the sound they're getting? It's not like the ProTools people who are constantly going on about "How do I get a better sound?" or "What's wrong with my sound?" Particularly when they come loaded with stuff that can help "fix" your sound. And if that doesn't work - here's a list of 3rd party manufacturers, who'll have another go at "fixing" your sound.

Kind regards
Stedel

Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2002 11:18 am

[quote]Originally posted by stedel:

Quote:

Why is it that most of the Fairlight users here are happy with the sound they're getting? It's not like the ProTools people who are constantly going on about "How do I get a better sound?" or "What's wrong with my sound?" Particularly when they come loaded with stuff that can help "fix" your sound. And if that doesn't work - here's a list of 3rd party manufacturers, who'll have another go at "fixing" your sound.

Kind regards
Stedel

Just so you know, I'm not happy with the sound of Fairlights. I'm, extatic. I absolutely LOVE my Fairlights.

And you're right, I don't have to use a gazillion Plugins to get the sound I am looking for, Because the sound I want, is the sound I record. It's as simple as that. I don't need a special annalogue Buss mixer, or extra superduper expensive compressors, extra oputbaord EQ's etc.

In fact, I'm getting some mixes back this week of a band I produced, and they were transfereed to Pro-Tools, and mixed in a huge studio on an SSL 9000j series. With all the outboard gear you can think of. Distressors, Neve strips, you nameit, they used it. I am going to compare it to the mixes I did, and it will be interesting to see how they compare. If anyone is interested, they can have alisten for themselves and tell me what they think.

Mark

Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2002 2:38 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by knightfly:
Absolutely NO mention of 88.2 kHz sample rates!

Hey Steve! Funny you should mention that, a friend pointed out the same thing.?? I guess I just missed it, but that's not uncommon for me. (I am at bifocal age, and the Doc wants to ease me into my new script).
--Rick

Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2002 3:10 am

hey stedel, I would never say "it´s too good for rock"! I LOVE ROCK´N ROLL! Since I was playing my NoNameElectricFenderCopyJazzBass in a band with my friends at school. It´s not the only kind of music I love (There´s such a big amount of lovable music around), but I do.
I only wanted to say what henchman said: "I´m, exstatic" (Mark, you always say what I´m not able to say, thanks). I´m just missing some words in my vocabulary, so I´m trying to say it with the few ones I know.

...so what would be bigger than "It ROCKS"?...

maybe "It STEDELS!??" Very Happy

BTW I cannot quite understand the discussions here about 88,2kHz and 96kHz. I know studies with blind tests of some AD and DA converters, running at 96, 88,2, 44,1 and 48 kHz. There were some well known engineers and producers participating, and the best sounding converter was (if I remember correctly) a LakePeople one. And it was running at 48kHz. Same thing you can make on EQ´s, Compressors and mixers. I think my Studer D19 (20bit/48kHz) is better sounding than the most cheap 24bit/96kHz stuff on the market. You always loose quality, converting 24bit/any frequency to 16bit/44,1. And the loss from 24bit to 16bit is always bigger than the difference of quality at different frequencies. And as I said, the difference between some gear is even more.
Some people try to dither, adding NOISE to their fabulous clean sound! Meanwhile a lot of music is heard at mp3 standard! So what´s the problem if you do not produce a 24bit-96kHz-AUDIO-DVD for the golden ears in the HighEnd-Scene?
The MUSIC we record is important, and of course we try to optimise the sound. But if this optimising becomes more important than the music, there´s some doctor needed.

Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:48 pm

Quote:

BTW I cannot quite understand the discussions here about 88,2kHz and 96kHz. I know studies with blind tests of some AD and DA converters, running at 96, 88,2, 44,1 and 48 kHz. There were some well known engineers and producers participating, and the best sounding converter was (if I remember correctly) a LakePeople one. And it was running at 48kHz. Same thing you can make on EQ´s, Compressors and mixers. I think my Studer D19 (20bit/48kHz) is better sounding than the most cheap 24bit/96kHz stuff on the market. You always loose quality, converting 24bit/any frequency to 16bit/44,1. And the loss from 24bit to 16bit is always bigger than the difference of quality at different frequencies. And as I said, the difference between some gear is even more.
Some people try to dither, adding NOISE to their fabulous clean sound! Meanwhile a lot of music is heard at mp3 standard! So what´s the problem if you do not produce a 24bit-96kHz-AUDIO-DVD for the golden ears in the HighEnd-Scene?

Hey, I'd like to come back to this tomorrow, if that's OK, I still feel it's part of ergonomics - anybody think efficiency of bit rate sampling, Fairlights clocking sytem and kHZ ratings outside of the scope of Ricks topic here?
Cool

PS that wasn't a challenge..it could go on for a while, other people may join in, but it deals with some things I've been looking into myself recently. So.....

Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2002 12:36 am

Sorry, I apologize, I think this topic indeed should be discussed in another forum like Digital Cafe or so.

But I can´t hold sometimes, cause 96kHz is going to be a standard, mostly only causing more needed space on the harddisk. Wink

This topic sponsored by: