Damn. Kurt's last post should be enshrined in some important audio place, maybe at the entrance to all the audio retail stores. That is what I call writing straight from the heart. David

Audiograff I couldn't agree more. I started collecting gear at the age of 18, now I'm 22. I had plenty of choices off the bat for decent gear, but instead of buying crap that I knew wouldn't cut it when I started buying gear, I bought stuff that I knew I would most likely never sell or get rid of that will last, so if working 60hrs a week in a resteraunt making $9/hr during my breaks from college so be it. I wouldn't work that hard for crap. Yes I started with a 001, esi-2000 and a mackie. Than saved up for my KRKV8's (actaully bout them one at a time so I only had one for a month.) Next two things I bought were a BLUE Dragonfly and a UA M-610, after that a pair of 414TLII's and a UA2108, and since than I have much more equipement. Because of my seeing using and hearing good equipment my standards have gone way up and yes I don't like alot of the cheaper gear out, the cheap "tube" pres that are out all have that muddy thin sound (most of those designs don't use the tube for gain, it simply passes the signal through a tube), the budjet mics all have that decent sound but are blown away by more expensive mics that are expensive for a damn good reason, this is one reason why the recording industry is so saturated, everyone thinks they can make a great sounding recording on there laptop using a $200 mic and an M-box. You talk to some people who think the focusright platinium pres on the controll 24 are great, you talk to a seasoned engineer thats been in the biz for 30 years and he says there decent scratch track pre's. Theres to many high expectations. Poeple are asking for an "expereienced" opinion and those poeple are bieng honest. I'm not saying there isn't cheap gear that isn't great, look at Octava, most of Audio Technica, Studio Projects, FMR.

Originally posted by Kurt Foster:
Now we look at them and their families with desire. We made that choice and now we live with it. No one can have everything..

The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, ain't it.

Speaking as one of the older types with a family, I don't think it necessarily has to be an either/or situation IF one has the proper expectations. I've been doing music in general for 30 years, recording for about six. I'm fortunate to have a job that has allowed me to drop nearly $50K in the past three years on this "hobby" - that includes the cost of constructing a separate building to house all the gear I've accumulated/purchased from day one til now. I've managed to do this without incurring serious debt so I won't be having to sell off the wife and kids anytime soon to pay for it all. My wife married me knowing full well I was a musician and that I intended to pursue that to the fullest possible extent. What can I say. Kids happened (not by my choice), and family life ensued. Life happens and you deal.

I haven't given up my passion and desire for music just because I'm now a parent, have a mortgage, blah blah blah. No, it doesn't mean you give it up. Nor does it mean you incur heinous debt or divorce to pursue it. But it DOES mean that you adopt realistic expectations. At age 35, I finally accepted that I wasn't going to be a rock star. Didn't stop me from wanting to continue playing live. I fully accept the fact that my recording rig will never, in any way, be on par with that of Oceanway's (actually, I never at any time thought it would). Nor will the recordings I make in my room ever sound like they were done at Oceanway. Does that mean I should simply sell off my gear and take up knitting?? Sorry, ain't gonna happen. But at the same time, you won't hear me claiming that my little project studio can compete with a million dollar room in terms of experience or sound. Would I like to have racks full of high end gear and a big old sweet analog console? Sure. Frustrating as it often is, there's other priorities right now. Life doesn't come without frustration and disappointment so you do the best with what you have to work with and be thankful for what you do have.

Frankly, I'm sick to death of the extremists on either side of this issue - those who think they can turn out top shelf recordings with their Korg/Akai/Roland/whatever all in one box, and those who think you shouldn't even bother unless you're willing to eternally sacrifice to "prove" your worthiness to the craft or aren't willing to have racks full of Manleys, Pultecs, API's and DW Fearns.

There IS a middle ground IF one has the proper expectations. To me, it's about balance - which seems to be in mighty short supply when it comes to these kinds of discussions.

Crap can be good. It's all in the attitude. A pro can walk into my store pick up a piece of sh*t 150.00 Chinese guitar and make some serious music with it. Do the best with what you got. If you do then more will be given to you.

Great thread.
Defining goals and priorities is the first step towards making a plan that works.
My top priority is eating/having a roof.
2nd my music/creative work.
3rd keeping my body and mind healthy.
4th girlfriend (currently in the ex-girlfriend phase, which sucks)(yeah, my priorities make it tough).
5th Hell I don't know.

For me, gearwise, it has been a combination of getting good, inexpensive gear (FMR, Studio Projects) and saving for a few key pieces (1176, Sebatron, Ayotte drum kit). When the Stephen Paul mic comes out I will buy it, right now I am saving for that.
Great thread, enjoying the contrasting opinions. David

I'm in that 40-something bracket with a wife and kids, and have come to the recording game late in life.

Like Skeetch, I have been involved in the music business for most of my life...mostly as a musican and recording artist.

I started down this home recording path about 4 years ago now, with certain expectations that had nothing to do with becoming a professional recording studio. Rather, my ambitions where to record my and my friends original ideas that would later be recorded in a "real" studio. This is the true "project studio" concept.

I have a family and a career, and the last thing I want is a bunch of flaky musicians invading my house on a regular basis! (I ought to know, I *am* one! :)

I am not trying to make a living here, nor am I fooling myself into thinking that I can make "professional recordings", but for what I do with demo and project work, it sounds pretty damn good if I do say so myself! :D That comes from having a good ear, from spending 20+ years on "the other side of the glass", and from all the knowledge that I have gained from places like RO!

If I had to do it all over again, I'd invest in higher quality gear, just fewer pieces! Now that I am working to replace some of the "crap" gear, it is amazing what a difference good gear makes! It sounds so much better!

Now trying to recoup all the money I wasted on crap gear is a lesson in futility...

Here is some interesting remarks from someone I respect greatly and who very much knows what he is talking about on what he thinks about the Liquid box as well all emulation and modeling technology. I tend to believe more what this guy says about gear than most others and certainly more than anything that is said by the company that makes or markets it.

I know several specific pieces of analog and digital electronics that are
either sufficiently wide-band, or wide-dynamic-range, or deeply complex or
sufficiently chaotic or all together to make emulation extraordinarily
difficult if not impossible. Therefore, it's a sham. For one example that's
claimed to be emulated, the GML 8900 requires a great many mips to re-craft
directly in digital...and that's if you know the algorithm, which is
extraordinarily detailed. One box that I know of that make a claim to
emulation has far less mips than this. The only similarity is the name.

The claims for emulation algorithms are outlandish and outrageous. We
should all be deeply suspicious of something that's advertised as sounding
"pretty close" for alot less money. I mean, who's evaluating this stuff? In
general, most of what I hear sounds worse than no processing at all...

--------------------
George Massenburg

Frankly, I'm sick to death of the extremists on either side of this issue - those who think they can turn out top shelf recordings with their Korg/Akai/Roland/whatever all in one box, and those who think you shouldn't even bother unless you're willing to eternally sacrifice to "prove" your worthiness to the craft or aren't willing to have racks full of Manleys, Pultecs, API's and DW Fearns.

Thanks Skeetch! Exactly the points I was trying to make. I'm 42 yrs old, the "rock star" window passed me by about 20 yrs ago. I'm not going to be sending anything I do in my basement to a record company. But hey, it sure is nice to be able to put your art down on an enduring media and say "I did this". Keeps me off the streets .... if only it would keep me off of ebay...

If you are young and on a limited budget because Mom and Dad are footing the bill, then the best way to pick which gear you wish to purchase would be to compare the features. The sound is pretty much the same.

I think I'll have to disagree with that one. I do agree that features are important, and I'd also agree that a lot of the cheaper stuff does sound similar, but there's a good amount of it that doesn't as well. There's also a good amount of it that you could probably say would be on the same level, quality-wise, but that sounds quite different...for example, when I was first starting off, I had a Mackie mixer and an ART Tube MP. I've heard stuff that sounded much worse, and stuff that sounded much better, but when that was all I had I got good use out of both of them. Admittedly I don't use them much any more...the Mackie is basically a volume control for my speakers (and I'm even rethinking that), and I'm not even sure where the wall wart for my ART is, but if I could go back and do it again I wouldn't change a thing.

You can do some reasonably good work with cheap gear and learn music, the ins and outs of signal chain theory, gain structure, mic placement and session management but please don't fool yourself into thinking that you can take crap gear and "squeeze" out a masterpiece by the virtue of your talents alone.

I think it is possible to squeeze out a masterpiece by the virtue of talent alone. Much easier to do so than by virtue of equipment alone. There are plenty of brilliant albums out there that sound like crap, and there are many more "perfectly" recorded albums out there that have no substance. You know, the kind where you listen to it once and say "wow, that snare sounds great...listen to that guitar...wonder what they used for reverb?", then the second time (or even partway through the first) you get distracted and you lose interest, and then there is no third time?

Please don't get me wrong...obviously I wouldn't be here if I didn't think gear was important and/or worth discussing. It's arguably the one thing we have control over in terms of our recordings...sure, you can polish your skills to an extent, but there are plenty of capable people out there who can't make a living doing music...and given the choice, most people with the talent and means to make a good recording will opt for the best quality possible. The part that everyone leaves out of "well, the Beatles used an eight-track..." is the fact that the equipment they used was still state-of-the-art at the time, and they had great rooms to record in. But the most important thing was their talent, which is why their music is so timeless.

This is one reason I constantly push the "Great Gear concept". It is a better investment. For the most part, “rack crap” is a waste of money. The only people who benefit from it are the manufacturers and gear dealers.

Again, I'm a believer in great gear myself, and there is a lot of cheap worthless crap out there as well (and some that's not so cheap). But I certainly benefitted from my early purchase of Mackie and ART stuff. Sure, it was a lousy investment if you look at it from the perspective of me trying to sell it now (actually, the mixer was a great investment because not long after I bought it I rented it to a production company I was working for and made more off of it in four weeks than I paid for it...but that's not normal), but I got my money's worth out of the stuff ten times over. I doubt that those minor purchases made any significant difference to Mackie, ART or West LA Music in comparison.

I only wish that someone had been able to get through to me when I was in my 20's and tell me, stop wasting all your dough on going out to bars and chasing girls, booze and weed.. and then buying cheap sh*t gear because all the money is gone.

There I'll agre 110%. Spend the money on the best gear you can afford, and who knows, maybe the girls will follow...and if you're into it, booze and weed as well...

educate yourself as to what the great pieces of gear are. Look for deals. They are out there ( I once purchased a LA2a for $50!).

I agree with this as well, although I wouldn't limit good deals and good pieces of gear to used stuff. Again, there is decent new stuff available that's relatively inexpensive.

Before you know it, you’re going to have some serious stuff.. then people will want to work with you not only because you have great gear but obviously you know enough about audio gear to have made some great purchases.

Hopefully people will want to work with you because of the quality of your work. Sure, having a Neumann microphone, or Pro Tools, is a great way to bring clients to you...and sadly, these days that may be all a client looks for...

Tinker with a Mackie a Chinese condenser and a computer and be happy at that. Don’t try to fool yourself or others that you are being serious with it though.

Again, I'm agreeing with most of what you're saying...and I mention that because I don't want to quote every sentence and say "I agree"...but really, I have to strongly disagree with this one. I'd agree partially and warn you not to fool yourself into thinking that you're working with tools that are as good as the est available. However, I'd say not to let anyone fool you into thinking you can't be serious with limited tools. Having something of the level of a cheap Chinese condenser, a Mackie, and a decent but cheap soundcard would have been unthinkable ten years ago. Just think back...the Mackie mixers were relatively new, and while they haven't improved tremendously and haven't dropped that much in price, at the time they had no competition in their price range in terms of quality. The cheapest large-diaphragm condenser was probably something like a Røde NT2, which was what, about $750 at the time? Maybe something from Audio Technica in the same price range. And you'd either be using a cassette-based multitrack (didn't Tascam have an eight-track rackmount that was about two grand?), or a reel-to-reel, or a $4000 16-bit ADAT. Forget about the computer...about all they were good for at the time was sample editing and maybe mastering, with their whopping 400 megabyte hard drives or whatever. Now, you don't even need the mixer necessarily, you can get a good cheap condenser for $200, maybe $100 if you find the right model (don't get me wrong, there are plenty of horrible ones out there), or you could get that same Røde for about half the price, and you can either get a self-contained workstation for as little as $500 or less or a computer interface, massive hard drive, and even the computer itself, for next to nothing.

Sorry, got carried away there...I was thinking about what I could do if I had the $3K I dropped on my first DA38 back in 1996...would I sell it for that if I could today? Of course. If I could, would I go back and not buy it and save it knowing something better and cheaper (or much better and the same price) would come along? Absolutely not.

There IS a middle ground IF one has the proper expectations. To me, it's about balance - which seems to be in mighty short supply when it comes to these kinds of discussions.

My sentiments exactly.

I have some really nice pieces, but unfortunately, a lot of it is the leftover "crap" pieces that I bought when starting out, and as Kurt and AG point out on a regular basis, that is money wasted if you ever want to be a "pro".

Really? Did you not get any use out of the pieces you bought? I'm not sure exactly what you have, and I wouldn't consider any of the stuff I've purchased to be "crap"...I did research it all pretty carefully before I bought it...but I wouldn't consider any of the money I spent to have been wasted considering the amount of use I got out of my gear and everything I learned while doing so...despite the fact that my SV3800 basically serves as a headphone amp these days, and the main use of my DA38 seems to be as a rewinder for the Hi8 tapes I've taken of my kids.

Now trying to recoup all the money I wasted on crap gear is a lesson in futility...

Again, it sounds like you learned a lot from that gear, even if a lot of it was just that there's much better-sounding stuff out there. I've sold a few of my cheaper pieces of gear to put money towards better stuff (I, too, am married with kids and a straight day job, so any money that goes to the "cause" has to come from money generated by the studio, whether it's work or turning gear over) and not gotten near what I paid for them (actually, I've come close once or twice...weren't the early days of eBay amazing?), but still I wouldn't consider the money wasted. As for my gear that is a better "investment"...I'll probably never sell it.

Funny how this discussion started based on a $3500 piece of gear nobody here has heard yet...

-Duardo

I think it is possible to squeeze out a masterpiece by the virtue of talent alone. Much easier to do so than by virtue of equipment alone.
Funny how this discussion started based on a $3500 piece of gear nobody here has heard yet...

Those are two very good points.

And...after all this philosophic stuff, has anyone actually listened to liquid channel ?

Originally posted by AudioGaff:
Here is some interesting remarks from someone I respect greatly and who very much knows what he is talking about on what he thinks about the Liquid box as well all emulation and modeling technology. I tend to believe more what this guy says about gear than most others and certainly more than anything that is said by the company that makes or markets it.

While I also have great respect for George's work and his (electrical) engineering skills, it has to be said that George is one person that is definitely NOT interested in people buying an emulations of his (expensive) hardware units.
As always, only putting comments and opinions into perspective will yield useful results. This is not to say that George might not be perfectly right. But it is also entirely possible that he has other motives - which is good enough for me to entirely disqualify this comment until further evidence has been gathered.

MisterBlue.

It's possible that ANYONE might have ulterior motives, so why not exclude what EVERYONE is saying? It's also possible that you are all figments of my computer's imagination. Still, it is always good to take any person's opinion with a grain of salt. David

I think it is possible to squeeze out a masterpiece by the virtue of talent alone. Much easier to do so than by virtue of equipment alone.

In my obsevations, a lot of those who subscribe to this idea seem to posses no talent in the first place and wouldn't recognize it if it bit them on the ass... and if they did have talent, I don't think they would waste it running it through cheap crap gear ... Really is there anyone out there that is mega talented, that is using crap gear to record their stuff? Lets hear some tunes ??? Music is just like anything else, you get out of it what you put into it. Of course if your not really serious about it, don't put anything into it, after all your just fu*king around, right?

David,

I don't think we disagree. But this to me is a situation comparable to asking the Mercedes-Benz dealer what he thinks of Lexus cars. How much weight would you honestly put into that opinion?

If you feel that "entirely disqualifying" the opinion is too strong of a word I will agree on taking it "with a good pinch of salt" ... ;)

MisterBlue.

George might not be perfectly right. But it is also entirely possible that he has other motives - which is good enough for me to entirely disqualify this comment until further evidence has been gathered.

And while this is possible, those who have read GM's comments for the last 6+ years on his forum at musicplayer would tell you that he is one of the most honest and humble of all of the big time engineer/producers and won't even discuss his own gear in his own forum. He just released a new channel strip unit and never mentioned it, even after it's debut at AES and still refuses to talk about it, referring people to his website.

Anyone who has spoken to him or listened to him talk at seminars or tradeshows can testify to his lack of ego and high sense of ethics. His tech qualifications and knowledge are of the highest calibur and his standards for excellence are at least twice that of most of the same guys he competes for projects with. I also know him to not ever bash a product as well as to admit and praise the use of products most others consider crap. So with all that in mind, if the technology used in the Liquid provided the sound and performance that was up to the challange, even if it didn't meet his high standards, I for one believe that he would admit it and say so.

You can find a great thread and discussion about the modeling/emulation technology as well as how it is developed in plugs at his forum. Very enlightning and confirms many facts that I always believed that has kept me away from accepting that technology as it currently is.

The posts on this thread for the last few days are "Why I like RO". What started out as a BS flame inducing series of rants on the issue has turned into discourse. Bravo!
The only truth is that no one posting has heard the unit yet. Based on the latest posts my curiousity is piqued AND my guard will be up.
To me, at least, that made reading this worthwhile.Thanks. I'm all ready to buy it with anyone else's money.

Phil

While I also have great respect for George's work and his (electrical) engineering skills, it has to be said that George is one person that is definitely NOT interested in people buying an emulations of his (expensive) hardware units.

Actually, I think he makes a decent amount of money off of people buying emultaions of his hardware units, as plugins for Pro Tools and options for TC's System 6000 that emulate his equalizers, for instance. The thread you quoted from is talking specifically about compressor emulation, and he seems to feel that the technology's not there yet for it to be done to his satisfaction at least. If it were, I'd imagine he'd be doing it himself.

In my obsevations, a lot of those who subscribe to this idea seem to posses no talent in the first place and wouldn't recognize it if it bit them on the ass... and if they did have talent, I don't think they would waste it running it through cheap crap gear ...

So what are you saying, that talent and money go hand in hand? There are plenty of talented people out there with no money (and of course, plenty of people with lots of money and no talent). If you have that drive to create, you'll do it with whatever means are at your disposal. Sure, given the choice you may not choose the cheaper gear...but to a lot of talented people, the gear isn't secondary, or tertiary, or...it comes way down the list in terms of importance. You read all the time about people using "crap" gear to record demos and keeping some or all tracks from those demo recordings becaue the vibe is so much more important than the technical aspects of things.

Music is just like anything else, you get out of it what you put into it. Of course if your not really serious about it, don't put anything into it, after all your just fu*king around, right?

No disagreement there, except I think the talent one puts into their music makes a much more significant impact than the money or gear one puts into it.

And for that matter, there are some great albums out there that are people just fu*cking around, aren't there?

So with all that in mind, if the technology used in the Liquid provided the sound and performance that was up to the challange, even if it didn't meet his high standards, I for one believe that he would admit it and say so.

I think he would as well, but wasn't he just speculating anyhow? I'm not sure that he's even heard the box yet.

-Duardo

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So with all that in mind, if the technology used in the Liquid provided the sound and performance that was up to the challange, even if it didn't meet his high standards, I for one believe that he would admit it and say so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think he would as well, but wasn't he just speculating anyhow? I'm not sure that he's even heard the box yet.

From his comments I can't be sure if has heard the Liquid either, but in understanding the technology and methods that are being used, he and others have come to the conclusion that it is not up to the task. Like all things digital, the first generation almost never get it's right the first time. He doesn't flat out deny that it may indeed sound good, but for it to correctly or accurately emulate all the thngs that Focusrite say it is does, No way. The hardware cost, engineering effort and DSP power required don't exist and are not likley to in the near future that would make it a viable product that could be sold, yet alone make a profit from.

I am curious what Focusrite's business plan is on the Liquid. Judging from Giles' comments and considering that they must be paying $$ to Syntefex, the production cost on this item must be fairly hefty. Are they planning on selling 1500 in the next couple of years at $3500 (profit on unit)or 10,000 at $1499 (profit on volume)?
Regarding Mr Massenburg: my personal opinion, which you are welcome to share or not as you like, is that I trust George Massenburg more than I do Focusrite. Obviously there is more to this than just the simple issue of trust, and I mean this as no slight towards Focusrite, but I feel obliged to voice my support for Mr Massenburg.
David

Originally posted by Kurt Foster:

I think it is possible to squeeze out a masterpiece by the virtue of talent alone. Much easier to do so than by virtue of equipment alone.

In my obsevations, a lot of those who subscribe to this idea seem to posses no talent in the first place and wouldn't recognize it if it bit them on the ass... and if they did have talent, I don't think they would waste it running it through cheap crap gear ... Really is there anyone out there that is mega talented, that is using crap gear to record their stuff? Lets hear some tunes ??? Music is just like anything else, you get out of it what you put into it. Of course if your not really serious about it, don't put anything into it, after all your just fu*king around, right? Eurythmics "Sweet Dreams" album was recorded using a TEAC half-inch 8-track, a cheap, used Soundcraft board and two Beyer microphones. It may not be your favourite album (it is MANY people's though)but you can not tell me that there is no talent there...

Sometimes talented people just don't have money. Sometimes those talented people don't have money because they spend more of their time developing their talent than making money... sometimes talented people just suck at saving money... or maybe they suck at marketing their talent... maybe their lawyer sucks and they get screwed out of money owed to them. There are a host of reasons why people do not have the money to buy great gear.

I do not for a second believe that they are wasting their time or fooling themselves by recording anytime, anywhere using any gear.

They ARE fooling themselves if they do not record their music with passion and care but i do not believe that the value of their gear is a direct reflection of their passion and care.

Great gear is great, i want it! Talent is great, i want it! but the 2 are not necessarily tied together...

greg

Originally posted by teleharmonic:
Eurythmics "Sweet Dreams" album was recorded using a TEAC half-inch 8-track, a cheap, used Soundcraft board and two Beyer microphones. It may not be your favourite album (it is MANY people's though)but you can not tell me that there is no talent there...
greg

Greg,
I have heard that story too, it remains to be proved to me. This is exactly where this kind of attitude gets started with comments like that which are only half truths and rumors. I have never seen anything where Dave Stewart or Annie Lennox actually said that... and even if it is true (it could happen) here is the rest of the story. No one has mentioned what kind of pres and compressors and other outboard were employed. Those old TEAC (actually Tascam) 80's were great machines, all discreet components. They were pretty expensive too (I think the home studio gear of those days was really a lot better than a lot of stuff that is sold as "pro gear" today). Also, most of the record was sequenced electronic keyboards and drum machines, probably never went to tape. Last, where was the record mixed and on what kind of a mix down console and 2 track deck? Great results are possible on narrow gauge tape if all that you are recording is vocals and guitars.. It is feasible that it was done that way, but to me the real answer is what did they record their second album on?

Is talent the most important thing? Yes. Absolutely! Is the gear used inconsequential? No way! Anyone telling themselves that is deluding themselves, living in a fantasy world. There have been the occasional flukes where a home recorded demo went to press but the usual scenario is "Well, that's great but we've got to re-record it in a professional studio." This happens more often than not.

Anyone who stays in this business long enough comes around to this way of thinking. Great gear doesn't make the hit but it makes making the hit easier.. why waste your time, talent and energy with junk?

[ December 09, 2003, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: Kurt Foster ]

Hey Kurt,

Fair enough. I have read the info about the eurythmics a couple of times in a couple of different places but never having had a discussion with dave or annie about it wouldn't bet my house on the validity of the info. So i certainly don't want to be the purveyer of internet rumour.

Even so... i have heard some lo fi sounding recordings that nevertheless were musically moving: most of Guided by Voices comes to mind, the recent Iron and Wine recording "The Creek Drank The Cradle" is an amazingly intimate stripped down bedroom recording, Eric's Trip made some great moody 4 track portastudio stuff.

Aha! you might say... those might be great musical pieces but are not really good examples of the art of "recording" and to that i would have to say, "well, you've got me there..." but for me the line between musician and recordist is pretty blurred. Sometimes these simply, cheaply, crappily recorded fragments are refreshing and help me to redefine what it is exactly that I am trying to achieve.

Again, i am not knocking having great gear... and certainly a pro engineer is much more beholden to have this stuff at their disposal...

However, i would still argue that musical talent alone can create great recordings with passion and care, without expensive gear.

greg

Greg,
I agree that we will be seeing more and more of this as technology advances.. and I am already of the frame of mind that the actual recorder is not so much of an issue any longer.. we crossed that bridge when Alesis introduced the ADAT. Even at 16 bits, these machines are capible of recording CD quality tracks. So if it is a "potty studio" or a Radar, a stand alone hard disc or a full blown DAW the recording medium is now not really the issue.. I think this is great! 2" tape machines sound wonderful but for the most part are a pain in the thuchas to keep running ... Now all we have to worry about are the transducers and the amplifiers. Good ones are better than bad ones..

It feasible that it was done that way, but to me the real answer is what did they record their second album on?

Not sure if that really matters...I don't think that anyone is arguing that most people, given the choice, would choose better equipment if available (although Bruce Springsteen chose to record "Nebraska" to a cassette multitrack using cheap microphones, although he did spend a lot of money in postproduction...the White Stripes are another more current example of people who choose to use cheap gear who certainly have the means not to). But to say that someone with talent can't make a good recording with cheap gear is just wrong. Most people aren't able to start at the top, and I would certainly not discourage anyone from getting into recording because they can't afford the best, or tell someone that they can't consider themselves a serious recording artist if they aren't working with state-of-the-art gear.

Anyone who stays in this business long enough comes around to this way of thinking.

Are you sure?

So if it is a "potty studio" or a Radar, a stand alone hard disc or a full blown DAW the recording medium is now not really the issue.

Sure it is. Everything can be an issue. I doubt that many of the successful artists who have "come around" to the way of thinking you mention are recording to cheap recorders. Most people who spend good money on good microphones, preamps, and so on are going to make sure that they capture that as accurately as possible.

Now all we have to worry about are the transducers and the amplifiers. Good ones are better than bad ones..

I don't think that anyone would argue that (although, for certain applications bad ones may be preferable to good ones, but overall...), but the point is simply that you don't need to have great gear to make a good recording, or to be a serious recording artist.

-Duardo

Originally posted by Kurt Foster:

So if it is a "potty studio" ....

... how did you know that my iso booth was in the bathroom?

water closet studios at your disposal... (not sure if pun is intended)

greg

P.S. Kurt... please understand that if you are ever giving away good gear i would be more than willing to accept it! actually... i'd take your crappy gear too but i imagine there's not much of that hanging around.

I agree that a few key pieces of great gear makes all the difference in the world in sonic quality. I record to Digital performer 4.1 and I used to have an art preamp, a motu 2408 mkII, some inexpensive mics and alesis one monitors- Now I've upgraded the front end with an RCA 77D mic, a grace 1010 preamp and a Rosetta AD going into a Motu 828 MKII via word clock and spdif- the funny thing is that another mic I had, the4 rode nt1 was ok but not great but now it sounds very nice through the rosetta and the grace - I also got better monitors with a M-audio Bx8 and am happy as a clam with what I got! Not only that, but it sounds great- at least to me- and is a big improvement over what I had-

Maintiger :D

Originally posted by Duardo:

It is feasible that it was done that way, but to me the real answer is what did they record their second album on?

Not sure if that really matters...I don't think that anyone is arguing that most people, given the choice, would choose better equipment if available (although Bruce Springsteen chose to record "Nebraska" to a cassette multitrack using cheap microphones, although he did spend a lot of money in postproduction...the White Stripes are another more current example of people who choose to use cheap gear who certainly have the means not to). But to say that someone with talent can't make a good recording with cheap gear is just wrong. Most people aren't able to start at the top, and I would certainly not discourage anyone from getting into recording because they can't afford the best, or tell someone that they can't consider themselves a serious recording artist if they aren't working with state-of-the-art gear.

Of course it matters, if they liked using the Tascam 80 1/2" recorder so much, why didn't they continue to do so? Also as I said, they only recorded vocals and guitars with it and no mention is ever made of what kind on preamps eq's and compressors were employed or where, how and on what the record was mixed. Sure they could have used a 1/2" 8 track but with a great pre, comps and eq and then it could have been mixed through a Neve or an SSL with the best outboard... in that scenario, the only compromise would have been the recorder. I encourage people not to spend money on cheap gear.. because IMO, it is a waste.. Cheap gear self destructs, loses resale value quickly or falls into disuse as the owner becomes more educated to what they are hearing and eventually buys good stuff. It is so much more economical in the long run to simply save and purchase quality from the start. I think if someone is really motivated to do music recording they will bite the bullet and do what is necessary to achieve their goals. The only people who benefit from cheap gear are the manufacturers and dealers who sell it and in all good conscious I cannot recommend its use.

Originally posted by Duardo:

Anyone who stays in this business long enough comes around to this way of thinking.

Are you sure?

Any one who can hear or really cares what their product sounds like.

Originally posted by Duardo:

So if it is a "potty studio" or a Radar, a stand alone hard disc or a full blown DAW the recording medium is now not really the issue.

Sure it is. Everything can be an issue. I doubt that many of the successful artists who have "come around" to the way of thinking you mention are recording to cheap recorders. Most people who spend good money on good microphones, preamps, and so on are going to make sure that they capture that as accurately as possible.

So which is it? Does quality count or not? Transducers and front end gear like pres, compressors and EQ's make the most noticeable impact ... if someone really feels the need to cheap out some place, the recording medium is the most forgiving as long as it is at least 16 bit, 44.1 or better.

Originally posted by Duardo:

Now all we have to worry about are the transducers and the amplifiers. Good ones are better than bad ones..

I don't think that anyone would argue that (although, for certain applications bad ones may be preferable to good ones, but overall...), but the point is simply that you don't need to have great gear to make a good recording, or to be a serious recording artist.
-Duardo

There is no such thing as a "Goodulator". No piece of audio gear actually improves the sound.. none of it. Better stuff just does less damage.. that is the goal, get the music recorded, doing the least amount of damage possible. Why do people insist that music recording is the one place that serious tools are not needed to make a serious product? Serious housecleaners (the professional ones) all have special tools and products they use. Serious race car drivers aren't out there in a Geo Metro, serious doctors don't use sub standard hospital facilities and don't operate using hack saws and straight razors even though they cut flesh and bone almost as well as the most expensive medical equipment and I could go on and on with more examples. I don't see that our art, our lifeblood and soul that we pour into our music is really any less important that the previously mentioned things ... why cast our pearls before swine?

Originally posted by Kurt Foster:
Why do people insist that music recording is the one place that serious tools are not needed to make a serious product? Serious housecleaners (the professional ones) all have special tools and products they use. Serious race car drivers aren't out there in a Geo Metro, serious doctors don't use sub standard hospital facilities and don't operate using hack saws and straight razors even though they cut flesh and bone almost as well as the most expensive medical equipment and I could go on and on with more examples. I don't see that our art, our lifeblood and soul that we pour into our music is really any less important that the previously mentioned things ... why cast our pearls before swine?

There is one standard for a good housecleaner... a clean house. There is one standard for a race car driver... win the race.

Music is art and therefore the standards of what sounds 'good' are non-definative. Even with your doctor example... in some instances doctors have turned away from expensive medicines and tools to more 'lo-fi' techniques (the use of maggots to treat wound infection comes to mind).

Michelle Shocked's first album was recorded on a walkman cassette at a campfire, i'd take it over heaps of stuff that is birthed from neve boards in nashville...

Yes... great gear is art itself, obsessively crafted by people who could make a lot more money if they cut a lot more corners... you will get no argument from me that great gear earns the reputation it gets and the price it asks...

BUT... music is a wiggly little beast that defies definition. That's why i love it so much. Any person, with any gear can make a moving piece of art if they have vision and passion. Sometimes those 4 track bedroom experiments are so much more musical than full blown studio recordings. The bedroom album cannot compete sonically with the studio album but musically it is anyone's game.

I don't really disagree with you Kurt from a sonic standpoint i just think that musically the issue is far more shades of grey than you are stating it to be.

Greg

Man-oh-Man...This thread is going to have the half-life of irradiated aluminum.

In my book, George Massenberg is one of the coolest most inovative guys that ever twisted a knob.Thank God for Lowell George having a penchant for mentioning the type of consoles and recorders the Feat used and who was twisting it up for em.I was doing a lot of live sound at the time of the early stuff and it made me want to do studio sound as well.For those that dont know, G.Massenberg had a LOT to do with that Little Feat clarity and his remix on the live 'Waiting For Columbus' stands as the apex of live sound to this day.If he says the 'Liquid' cant possibly live up to its hype then it probably cant.This doesnt mean its not a usable item, its just not all the hype and predictions of greatness.But then again it may,in fact, impart something totally singular unto itself.
As for 'Great Gear' vs.'Mediocre Gear' vs.'Cheap Crap'....I personally would trust G.Massenberg with my old Tascam 38 and old Yamaha mixer w/57's to get a great sound much more than I would trust the speed-metal neighbor kid with a 8048 Neve,24trk Scully,and 15 vintage u47/67 mics.At the end of the day, its all about talent. Talent on the instruments....Talent in the songwriting....Talent behind the desk....It cant be bought nor can it be sold(much to the chagrin of a lot of manufaturers)....Its not a button on the latest and greatest preamp....Its not 2500' of the finest lo-imp noiseless cable....Its a space between some peoples ears that lets in the good and keeps out the bad. The crux of it is sometimes sad.....its something that some are born into and others, even though they study....use only the finest....surround themselves with those that are great...they NEVER quite get that special zing to the sound that comes naturally for the few.The ones that have the TALENT and have access to the best gear on the planet can be counted without much effort.There just arent that many. I know several people who are incredible technically well-versed knowlegable engineers.I would want em crawlin around fixing anything that could go wrong in a studio.They got ears-o-stone. Not to say they cant get a good sound simply on theory.But its not that special thing.

So work hard and dilligently...Buy the best that you can afford....Pick the brains of those who have 'been there,done that'....learn from technique...experiment liberally....the only rule thats true is there are no rules only physical truths....Be the best you can be and remember theres some guy with no budget and crappy gear that has the GIFT and if he ever gets his hands on the 8048 rig hes gonna change the worlds ears.And hell, it could be yer neighborhood speed-metal kid you've been wanting to kill.....or it could be..........me.

Of course it matters, if they liked using the Tascam 80 1/2" recorder so much, why didn't they continue to do so?

The reason I said it didn't matter was because the point wasn't that people who have the means won't generally opt for the best equipment they can get their hands on...I don't believe that's true...but that it's entierly possible to make a great recording without great gear if the talent is there.

I encourage people not to spend money on cheap gear.. because IMO, it is a waste.. Cheap gear self destructs, loses resale value quickly or falls into disuse as the owner becomes more educated to what they are hearing and eventually buys good stuff.

I've never had any of my cheap gear self-destruct. It may not hold its resale value well, but I wouldn't recommend buying gear as an investment at all in terms of getting your money back on it...sure, it's possible, but when I say that I've more than gotten my money's worth out of the cheap gear I've purchased it's because I've gotten great use out of it, not because I can turn around and sell it for anywhere close to what I paid for it. But I haven't considered that when I've purchased expensive gear either.

It is so much more economical in the long run to simply save and purchase quality from the start. I think if someone is really motivated to do music recording they will bite the bullet and do what is necessary to achieve their goals.

I agree that if someone is really motivated they'll do whatever's necessary, even if it means cutting a few corners on gear so they can get started recording faster. There's enough quality gear out there that's inexpensive that I'd never have a problem recommending getting started on a minimal budget. Compared to what you could have done five or ten years ago...it's a great time to get into recording right now. Sure, if you are serious about it you'll likely wind up upgrading, but I would never discourage anyone from recording simply becasue they can't afford what I perceive to be good gear, and I would never tell anyone not to kid themselves and think they can't make a good recording with cheaper gear. I think it's much more dangerous to let someone kid themselves and think that a better piece of gear will solve all of their problems.

The only people who benefit from cheap gear are the manufacturers and dealers who sell it and in all good conscious I cannot recommend its use.

As I've already stated, I strongly disagree. I personally have benefitted greatly from purchasing cheap gear, as it has enabled me to get started in recording and move on to the better stuff. I worked my way through college with my "cheap" recording setup, while also working in a studio with a 2" 24-track machine, a nice $50K analog console, and a whole bunch of nice microphones and outboard. If I hadn't have bought my cheap equipment and learned to use it I probably wouldn't have had the opportunity to work in the "good" studio, and I also wouldn't have had the opportunity to record a lot of good bands who couldn't afford to record in a "big" studio (and would have missed out on those financial opportunities as well), and they certainly were able to benefit as well.

So which is it? Does quality count or not?

Come on now, I never said that it didn't.

Transducers and front end gear like pres, compressors and EQ's make the most noticeable impact ... if someone really feels the need to cheap out some place, the recording medium is the most forgiving as long as it is at least 16 bit, 44.1 or better.

Your recording chain will only be as strong as the weakest link in that chain, and while their impact may not be as "noticeable" a converter is certainly important in terms of accuractely capturing the sound of the gear you've spent so much money on. I don't disagree that it can't be done at 16/44.1, but all converters are certainly not created equal and I'd rather work with a good converter at 16/44.1 than a cheap one at 24/96. But I wouldn't tell anyone they shouldn't consider themselves a serious artist if they weren't using converters that were up to
the level that I would consider "professional".

-Duardo

Great thread! Kind of one I have been wanting to see...a real shoot'em up type thing...Great gear sounds..well great...best vocal I ever cut (preformance, not eng.)was thru a Nuemann 49 and an API console (not sure what the modules were)...The mix sounded terrible but that vocal had a warmth and a shine...The vox were recorded By Dale Epperson (if you know API then you know Dale, He has a company called Old School Audio making mixer modules now and is the #1 tech guy for API stuff)....
Lot's of us here are in the same boat...wife, kid(s)..not wanting to be "pro's...I got into to this thing rather by accident...I had been a fly on the wall at a number of big sessions in Nashville...picking up tips...Friends started calling asking me to consult on their projects...I started making a cd every year or two myself..My goal has always been to keep production costs to 2k (including repro, I do the art)..I sell 500-700 units at 12$ and make a nice little sum every cd..This formula I learned from my first cd 13 years ago..I dropped alot of dough, worked with as big of names as I could etc...got a few crappy record deal offers I turned down (always look for the word recoupable in contracts, Some friends of mine didn't and are still having trouble today)...Do my cd's sound like pro jobs? No, but people aren't dropping 30-50$ to see me play either :) ...They are getting better each time...My advice to people is RENT good gear for a while...get all your arrangements done on the chinese mics/mackie...If you need to book a few hours in a good room to cut vocals..do it but don't waste time...learn to use a pc(24 bit) for production..once again, not a 2 inch but as others have stated way better than the crap we were using 20 years ago...
The other part of this thread I liked...I own some great cd's (and vinyl) that sound like crap..I am a Van Morrison freak but "Moondance" (the album and cd) sounds like sh!t (even considering the year)..Great music will shine thru bad production but it is rare....bottom line? do the best with what you have, rent when you can, make no apologies or false claims...and HAVE FUN...99.9% of us will never make it but we can enjoy the ride..

My wish list?
An AKG TLII
A Vox Box
A Sebatron (2 or 4 channel, I'm not picky)
A U87
an API 512
an Earthworks small diaphragm mic
and a Millennia pre (any, they all sound great)
Now what was Santa's address again :)

Ray

"You may not get that Pinto to ride like a Town Car, but it may be a terrific Pinto. Maybe next time you can move up to that Town Car. They all evolved from a Model T." -Don Grossinger [in the 'How to become a mastering engineer' thread].

I appreciated Davedog's comments above as well.

I am a pianist who performs a lot. Sometimes I get to play on a perfectly maintained concert instrument in a accoustically magnificent hall. If I happen to play well, no one ever gives the instrument or the room sole credit for the performance. If I don't play well, I am never at liberty to blame piano or room for my shortcomings.

In recording, I do the best with what I have [pro-sumer]. I train myself to hear what does and doesn't work. I am happy with the improvements made through experimentation and critical listening.

The 'Gear of the Gods' is certainly in my eye, but for now, I am content. :c:

Hi people,

I do want to help out in informing people of how the Liquid Channel works,and what the Platinum units consist of.

I spoke to the designer, and tried to get information out of him to make this happen.

However, he's struggling to get the Liquid Channel to market at the moment, since it can't go to market until it's perfect, and there are a few aesthetique issues to finish out.

Also, I'm really struggling to work these forums, since I've never used a forum before. I thought I was meant to get an email when someone replied to any posts on this subject. Can someone help?

Finally, if any one who has any specific one-liner questions (where possible!) could they email them to me - giles@focusrite.com. Or tell me how to work this forum so I can be notified when there is a question.

I'll take any questions to R'n'D and get specific answers there and then. There were some questions that have already been asked. If they could be re-interated, I promise to get answers.

I think there were following questions, to which I have the following answers.

In what country are your PCBs manufactured & "stuffed" & are they primarily SMD?

They were formerly manufactured and stuffed in Scotland. (Voicemaster, Tone Factory, Compounder and MixMaster). they're now manufactured and stuffed in China (TTPro VM Pro) As i think has been mention, this has resulted in both better consistecy and a reduction in price which allowed us to get the VM Pro to market for significantly under $1000.

What compromises have been made in the Platinum range to get them down to the right price?

this can't really be a short answer, and I'll try to get Rob Jenkins to pipe in when the Liquid rush calms a little. the obvious answer is three fold, design, aesthetiques and economies of scale.

Design-wise, the Platinums use discrete transistor-based pre amps and custom opto's for the dynamic processors. Discrete transistor-based pre ampsthese are a tenth of the price of the transformers in the REDS/ISA's (Lundhal), and as for VCA's, whilst you can get a crap VCA for not much, VCA's like that found in the ISA's and RED's (and the compounder, but that's another story) are not cheap. The custom opto's we use feature a unique deposition process, ensuring the highest possible audio performance within the component package. The highly controlled deposition of the precious metal electrodes results in low capacitance and extremely low ohmic resistance; key factors in gaining the best noise and distortion characteristics. These Optos cannot be found anywhere else and were, just like the zobel network in the ISA110, designed by ear, by Trevor Stride, who worked alongside Rupert Neve and design all the ISA dynamic processors that accompanied the ISA 110.

Aesthetiques - is that spelt right? don't have enough time to check. Anyway. The shell of the red range is extruded alluminium , 1/2 inch thick and diamond cut on the facia - they accoutn for almost 1/4 of the cost the unit itself, and more than the cost of a platinum unit put together. With the platinum units, money was not poured into the looks in the same way. Basically, anything that didn't contribute to them sounding great and bringing a high level of functionality, was left out. The bulk of the cost in a Platinum unit is derived from the key components.

Economies of scale - Making a shed load of Platinums, and we do make a lot! means that we can bring the manufactured cost down and pass these saving's on to the customer. We make very little margin on the Platinum's, in the hope that, once people have fallen in love with these units, they'll consider moving up to and ISA or RED, or perhaps the Liquid Channel.

woooo! I really don't have much more tim, but I hope this helps. I'll try my damndest to get some words from Rob ASAP.

As for reviewing the Liquid Channel, it's certainly a possibility, but you will need to be either a print publication (Tape Op etc) or a web-based publication with significantly high stats. Please make a formal application to me, giles@focusrite.com. We already have 16 people queuing up to review the unit, but never say never.

BTW, speculation on the liquid channel. Yes, we have liscenced technology from sintefex and have been working closely with Sintefex boys. Meanwhile, the pre-amp is all of our won doing. The centre piece of the pre-amp is a custom transformer, and I belive the most expensive transformer ever created. Alongside the transformer is a network of resistors and capacitors allowing the preamp to interact in exactly the way the preamp it has replicated would. This Pre-amp, combined with sintefex's dynamic convolutions technology (one step beyond convolution technology, and leaps and bounds ahead of software modelling) make up the mainstay of Liquid Technology, and then there are other bells and whistles making for comprehensive functionality. You could write a book on the Liquid Channel, and I can't do that here, but one-liner questions can be answered, wither by email, or on the forum, assuming it tells me there's a mail waiting for me.

Best wishes

Giles

Thanks for dropping by Giles. We can be a tough crowd, but it is great when someone from an audio company takes the time to answer our questions. Despite my reservations I hope you bring a real winner to market. Any posts from your fellow workers will also be appreciated. Have a good Christmas. David

gee, looks like liquid has caused a stir! ahhh...the beauty of technology:-)

I, unfortunatley, see the result of "target markets" caused by manufacturers everyday. I work in Melbournes, and perhaps Australia's strongest music store (billy Hyde music, check out http://www.billyhydes.com.au if you like) as one of the "synths and hi-tech salesman". Whenever a company releases a "lower end" product it fuels a fire for more of the same thing. Not only that, but the buyer thinks that the pre's in the behringer they are about to buy are as good as their mates mackie. Now that sucks!

unfortunatley (kurt), we need the cheap stuff for those that cant afford the better stuff, my first recorder was a tascam 424 portastudio, if it wasnt for that cheap unit I wouldnt be where i am today! its catch 22 i guess, but i see your point and i agree with most of it.

What does shit me though, is when a customer expects a vamp to sound like a mesa! I tell them, there's no replacement for moving air!
just like cars, turbo's are great but there's no replacement for cubic inches! (gee that last line could start a few more topics!)

well, just an ozzies opinion!

sammyg

Having bought a Focusrite Trakmaster pre and digital I/O card (possibly from sammyg above ), I went ahead and bought a second Trakmaster unit, because they are a good product.

When I opened the preamp to install the digital card, I was impressed with the componentry and the build quality.

I also own a RNP, a Roland MMP-2 (I was curious about the potential of modelling devices and the A/D converter quality), and some other preamps - including Avalon, Brent Averill, Langevin.

Frequently I reach for the Focusrite Trakmasters - because the sound suits the source signal, or the application, or because they are convenient and simple to use - a "known" result.

They happen to be good on guitar, keys, bass and vocals. For live use they excel also.

When you use something like a Trakmaster for a while, you get to know it and it isn't bad - another color in the palette isn't always a bad one. Metaphorically, there are times when light blue paint doesn't suit the painting. But when you need some light blue paint, there is no substitute.

I look forward to purchasing a Liquid.