I want everyone to know that I am not making bold predictions that the Liquid sucks because I want to demean the Focusrite designers or make anyone else here feel bad. I am making this bold prediction because I actually think it is going to suck and I will look like a genius for predicting it. :D No, just kidding. Focusrite obviously has their finger on the pulse of God's Metronome- the continuing thud, every sixty seconds, of a sucker being born.
Hey, this thing better suck or I am going to look the part of folly. :c: Doc

Originally posted by Kurt Foster:
It makes me sad to see a company like Focusrite stoop to products like this and the cheeze platinum series stuff, aiming at the low end of the market (I call it bottomfeeding). I realize that there are a lot of people who simply don't know any better or who just want a rack full of blinking lights and knobs, or most likely can't hear very well who think this stuff is a good thing but I personally wouldn't mind if all the cheap sh*t gear on the planet disappeared in a puff of smoke. Now that would be cool ... hee hee hee, all at the same moment, all the prosumer gear on the planet spontaniously combusts. Ohh, one can only dream. The sound of a million PODs hitting the dumpster all at once would be a beautiful thing.

now don't go pissing me off Kurt...just when I'm starting to like you...the damb liquid channel cost $3500.oo...it certainly isn't aimed at us bottom feeders. :c:

Originally posted by Kurt Foster:
It wouldn't surprise me if the price on the Liquid was discounted after the product has been on the market for a while. I have seen this happen many times. I didn't know the price of the unit at the top of this thread and I mistakenly thought it was a low end product. My bad. I wonder what kind of pre amp circuitry it is utilizing? If it is the same as the platinum things then it is still rack crap, albeit expensive rack crap ...

I chatted with a chap from focusrite personally via email...he said those chips in the LC...LARCS...or something like that..."are bloody expensive"...I had sent him an idea that unfortunately was rejected due to cost...anyhoo...It was mentioned that LC technology was being R&Ded to trickle down...thats when he said he didn't know how it could be done due to the cost of the chips...fellows name is Giles Orford. And I've seen all the streaming endorsment on the LC...guess all them guys are lying eh?

SHARC chips it was that cost so much not LARCS. :c:

I just emailed Giles this topic/page...maybe he'll join in. :c:

Originally posted by David Doc Herbert:
"Jack of all trades, master of none." I have to say that I hope everyone starts using these things and as a result eBay gluts with API, Neve, Manley, Great River... I will happily pay $100 per unit if people want to unload it privately to save themselves the public embarrasment...
The fact that this new box costs $3500 does not mean it will sound good.
My suspicions about this gear are caused by:
-the crappy sound of the prosumer level stuff I have heard from Focusrite the past few years.
-the fact that they are trumpeting it as sounding EXACTLY like 1000 top preamps. That is the claim of a hype-ster, not a respectable audio company.
Don't think I am making fun of anyone here. I respect everyone's right to have an opinion contrary to mine, and that both of our opinion's can be "right" in the sense that one's correctness does not exclude the other. I am jeering at Focusrite (and I am sure they don't even care). David

it's 40 pres and 40 compressors...not 1000 pres.

spcbrown,
Thanks for your interest on this topic. It would be great if your friend would come by and tell us a little more about the Focusrite Liquid. We like to poke fun at big companies but are kind to visitors, especially when they are coming by at the request of a member (you).
The Liquid may well find a home in small budget facilities who need a do-it-all pre/comp. It may do well in larger facilities as a time-saver (ex: the AE plugs source into Liquid and switches between a few models, finds the sound wanted, then switches out to the real gear) or even as a signal path. I hope the Liquid SOUNDS good, that it lives up to the marketing, that slick marketing isn't all that drives up sales.
Please let us know what is going on. David

OK

I'm short of time, but there appears to be alot of confusion here.

Single questions with simple answers can be provided, but I can't always promise a timely response.

Just a couple of things though.

Platinum gear - I can't begin to count the number of majorly high profile producers that are using these - cheap does not mean crap. Madonna vocals on her last album were predominantly processed through the TrakMaster. Is anyone going to tell me Spike Stent doesn't know what he's talking about. He swears by this box. So, it's not how much it costs, but what sound you want, and will it deliver.

The Liquid Channel - What a mine field. I'm trying to get a PPT of the presentation up on to the ffliquid.com site asap, which should help to explain the science behind this box. As an aside, the front end consists of the most expensive (component wise) pre-amp ever built, including the most expensive custom input transformer in existence. The front-end account for more than half the cost of the entire unit (in terms of build and components).

I don't have more than 10 mins a day to make posts, but I'll atleast try to commit that time. And if I can't answer your Q's, I'll find someone who can. I work opposite the designer 5 days a week.

Finally, - Focusrite don't care what people think? There are only 14 people in the company, nearly all of us are serious audio enthusiasts (we've won the industry music competition in Germany three times now - we're obsessed with all things music.

We all also tend to take things personally, since we're so wrapped up in our work here. So please don't slag us off when you don't know what you're talking about...assumption is the mother of all **** ups.

PS. sorry for gettting emotional, but...speaking for al of us here at ff, we just can't help it.

Best wishes

Giles

Welcome Giles,
As a passionate person you will fit in around here. Many of us here at Recording.org are passionate about our pursuits. One of the reasons folks come here is to find out about gear:
-Is X better than Y?
-Does X live up to the hype?
-Would my money be better spent on something else?
None of the moderators here are paid, none accept endorsements. We all have our personal biases, but I rarely find that anyone isn't willing to have their mind changed by overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
My assessment of the Platinum pres is based on using the ProControl down at my studio. Frankly I am not terrifically impressed with them, but of course that is my opinion and you too are free to have yours.
In some regards I see myself and the other mods here as instruments needed to deflate the waves of hype that accompany today's gear. Newer or younger recordists can easily get caught up in the hype (and even old pros), emptying their pockets for the promise of a better technological tomorrow. 'If I buy product X I can sound just like the pros' goes the thinking. Being smart about gear purchases can mean the difference between longterm happiness/success and financial failure, true in any endeavour. If I see a giant hot-air balloon of hype puffing up into the sky, it is practically irresponsible of my not to fire off a few arrows as a deflationary tactic!
Giles, I would very much like to be convinced that the Liquid is going to be an innovative and valueable tool for recording studios. Please continue tho post your thoughts/information about the Liquid. I am particularly interested to hear about the input stages, which you say are the most expensive ever built. What more can you tell us about them? Thank you for your time, David

What's wrong Brownie Boy? More worthless postings with not even one sentance of substance or value to offer?

[ November 06, 2003, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: AudioGaff ]

Hi spcbrown.

I've just become aware of you.

I'm going to assume this time that your expression of hate is your attempt and fun and humor.

Am I wrong?

I have heard Focusrite Platinum pres and i don't care for them. I also have not heard one modeling device that sounded anything like the things they were supposed to sound like.

Now with this Liquid Channel, Focusrite may have a breakthrough product. I am willing to say that nothing is impossible.

I would love to get one and give it a listen. If it is as good as Giles says it is, I will write a review and place it in the E Mag and then I will tell everyone how great it is.. mmmm kay?

Originally posted by AudioGaff:
What's wrong Brownie Boy? More worthless postings with not even one sentance of substance or value to offer?

... :confused:

I think I'm missing something

falkon,

he was referring to spcbrown's last post. It was removed because basically all it was was a message of encouragement to Giles in the same form that you would encourage a pit bull in a fight.

mitz

Ah, I see. I somehow thought Brownie Boy was a reference to Doc. :d:

Hmm?

[ November 07, 2003, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: Laska ]

Hi Giles,
Much of my concern relating to this topic derives from the snip taken from your own site:
Platinum range preamble:
>>>A range of professional yet surprisingly affordable recording modules based on Focusrite's original console circuitry and input stage designs.<<<
"Surprisingly affordable" conjures up in my mind that there obviously must have been compromises made somewhere in the chain of design/manufacturing?
Many "traditional" companies allegedly "appear" to be taking advantage of the new wave of homerekkers by utilising their well founded origins & reputations in the pro industry to "cash in" with these "surprisingly affordable" devices.
So as you bravely entered the "lion pit" of the forum world & volunteered to answer questions; here are mine.
What compromises were made to facilitate the manufacture of these "surprisingly affordable" devices?
In what country are your PCBs manufactured & "stuffed" & are they primarily SMD?
I would ask these questions of many "traditional" companies such as Soundcraft with their "surprisingly affordable" Spirit range of consoles.
Grace, with their 101, whose primary circuit is based on a very cheap SMD Burr Brown monolith.
...and the list goes on.
Yes Giles...I am concerned. at what allegedly "appears" to me, to be the potentially manipulative, hyperbolic misuse of a well founded "heritage".
Rupert Neve established Focusrite...remember?

Regards,
Tom

Actually if it is done well, it will respond just like the real thing, just in a digital realm, meaning all the characters of the sound will affect it's reaction, dynamics, timbre etc. I know that the Sintefex does this, this is how it is able to offer things which rely on amplitude such as compression.

Focusrite has actually licensed Sintefex's technology for the Liquid Channel...and that stuff has a pretty good reputation, so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect this box to perform well.

Much of my concern relating to this topic derives from the snip taken from your own site:
Platinum range preamble:
>>>A range of professional yet surprisingly affordable recording modules based on Focusrite's original console circuitry and input stage designs.<<<
"Surprisingly affordable" conjures up in my mind that there obviously must have been compromises made somewhere in the chain of design/manufacturing?

Looks like Giles isn't hanging out here right now, so I'll insert my 2¢ worth here...I know the main differences between the Platinum stuff and their higher-end stuff are the fact that it's manufactured in China and the fact that they're using transformerless inputs and circuit-mount technology. So sure, they have a different sound. They said "based on" their original circuitry and designs, not "identical to" or "replica of" or anything like that.

Obviously, they're not trying to say it sounds just like the ISA and Red stuff...if it did, why would anyone buy the more expensive stuff?

-Duardo

Duardo,
Let's flip that last bit around- with all the great gear out there, why bother spending money on gear that doesn't sound as good as it possibly can? If Focusrite builds Platinum stuff to sound 'pretty good, but people will still buy RED or ISA because that stuff sounds REALLY good', how good can the Platinum stuff be? If Mark McQ builds his RNPs to be as good as he can possibly make them, without him having to worry about the RNP cutting in to his highend pre sales, is it possible that he is going to build a better-sounding pre than the Platinum stuff? Having access to both products, I have to say that Mark McQ kicked Focusrite's ass. I think the Studio Projects' VTB-1 at $129 is just as useable as the Platinum pres.
I sure wish Giles would come back around. Additional polite and thoughtful discussion on the Liquid would be great. David

Let's flip that last bit around- with all the great gear out there, why bother spending money on gear that doesn't sound as good as it possibly can?

What's to say it doesn't sound as good as it possibly can? You could get just about anything to sound better if you put more money into it. I think finding the balance is the tricky part. I have a few preamps I've purchased over the years I don't use too much any more because I was able to afford better ones. But I got a few good years' use out of them, which I don't regret, and some of them (such as my Platinum Tone Factory) still get used with some frequency.

If Focusrite builds Platinum stuff to sound 'pretty good, but people will still buy RED or ISA because that stuff sounds REALLY good', how good can the Platinum stuff be?

Well, pretty good...as Giles pointed out, good enough for Madonna to use on her latest album...not that they'd be to everyone's liking (and I suppose not that Madonna is either). They're decent clean preamps, certainly a few steps up from something like a Mackie in my opinion.

If Mark McQ builds his RNPs to be as good as he can possibly make them, without him having to worry about the RNP cutting in to his highend pre sales, is it possible that he is going to build a better-sounding pre than the Platinum stuff?

Of course it's possible. But Mark will be the first to admit the corners he had to cut to get it out at the price he wanted to (he does right on his website). And the RNP costs significanly more than the Platinum preamps do on a per-channel basis...the OctoPre, for instance, is about $120/channel whereas the RNP is about $225/channel, and somethink like a TwinTrak which is in the same general price range also has quite a few more features, so it's hard to make a direct comparison...so I'd expect it to sound better in most cases. However, I'd also expect their to be a few cases where a Platinum preamp may be a better choice.

Having access to both products, I have to say that Mark McQ kicked Focusrite's ass. I think the Studio Projects' VTB-1 at $129 is just as useable as the Platinum pres.

I don't doubt that either...I'm sure there are instances where either might be a better choice, and again, I'm not so sure that they're that far from each other price-wise when you consider everything.

I agree, it would be nice if Giles would drop in again.

-Duardo

Duardo,
Mark McQ should be commended for explaining what design choices he made with the RNP. If only all manufacturers were so honest. I feel, however, that his statements support what I am saying: he sacrificed looks, extra functions, precise gain steps, uses the wallwart, and allowed an EIN a little higher than optimal. He didn't sacrifice the sound quality.
I am glad you are happy with your Platinum. I am happy with my RNP. I guess we just have different opinions, and that's cool by me. What other pres are you using? David

Mark McQ should be commended for explaining what design choices he made with the RNP.

I hope that I didn't give the impression that I had anything negative to say about Mark or his preamps. I agree with you a hundred per cent. My point was that when you produce something with a particular price point in mind, you have to sacrifice something. And I don't think that Focusrie has necessarily sacrificed much sonically with their Platinum series. They don't sound like their Neve-designed preamps, granted, but they spec out very well and sound good enough to be used in professional studios. Sure, not everyone likes them, but not everyone likes their ISA stuff either, or the RNP, or Millennia, or..

I am glad you are happy with your Platinum. I am happy with my RNP. I guess we just have different opinions, and that's cool by me. What other pres are you using?

I would hope we didn't all have the same opinion. Things wouldn't be very interesting if we did.

The preamp I replaced my Trak Master with is another Focusrite, the ISA220. I do like it a lot more in almost every situation...the EQ on that thing especially is amazing...but there are times when I still opt to use the Platinum preamp instead, or in addition to, the ISA.

-Duardo

It seems some new information has been added to this
LINK since I last looked at it. I also saw a product press release in the lates issue of Audio Media on this same subject that made me reconsider my previous comments. I have to own up to this.. .

I admit I was wrongfully giving this piece a bad rap. In the inital information I saw on theis piece it appeared that the front end was that of a Platinum Series mic pre. This is not the case, in fact the Liquid has a very flexible and sophisicated mic pre with the ability to change its impedance and / or signal path from transformer balanced to electronicly balanced. The user can also completly bypass the pre amp for use as a compressor only device. It seems this piece might "live up" to the Focusrite name after all, which is a good thing since it retails at $3500! But it sure sounds like it's a great pre amp at the very least. I am still waiting to see how the digital emulations and convolutions sound.. but according to the press release, this looks like a nice piece.. My bad! Kurt :roll:

I think Giles said the preamp in the Liquid was the most expensive ever produced... I thought we had gone off topic with the Platinum talk.
As I said earlier, this type of emulating product gets my antenners all nervous. Of course it does sound like an entirely new way of emulating... but doesn't hype always sound great? David

Here's a novel thought. Before passing final judgement on the Liquid, howz about Kurt gets one for review when they're available and then someone will have actually listened to it. I'm willing to trust Kurt's take on it. If it's overblown, overpriced poo, then so be it. If not, there's a heapin' helpin' of crow for a few of you.

I think that's what Kurt offered to do.

I'll be very surprised if Kurt actually likes this bite he takes of the digital emulation birthday cake, but hey... you never know!

What I was comenting on was that the pre is of a higher pedigree than what I thought it was initally..as far as the emulation and convolution parts, well that sounds like something a bulemic does...

The pre amp sounds very cool but as far as the digital modeling, it is something I don't think I would be interested in messing with.. I guess I'm just too "old school" to deal with all that software stuff. It would probably be wonderful for someone that doesnt already have a rack full of comps, eq's and pres to choose from but for me, in the time it would take to figure out how to use it for one track, I could probably track rhythm tracks for a whole album..

If I buy one I will eat crow. If Fletcher cancels his distribution with Manley, Hardy, Great River, et al because there is no more reason for selling that stuff, I will eat crow. If Ebay is suddenly awash in bargain-priced high end preamps due to the awesome capabilities of the Liquid, I will be very actively purchasing gear on Ebay, and I will eat crow. Frankly, unless it is mind-bogglingly good or obviously bad (I figure it will fall somewhere in the middle of the road), the debate will probably never. end. David

If Focusrite has done their homework and gotten the analog section to work as well as they claim it does, I think it wil probably be a fairly successful and convincing product. Sintefex already has a proven track record with their compressor and equalizer emulation, and that's a good part of the battle.

I don't see Fletcher dropping all of his lines, or vintage preamps selling for nothing on eBay, and I certainly don't see Focusrite dropping their high-end preamps because of this thing. Assuming this thing works as well as they say it will, it may sound as good as some of the analog recreations on the market these days. The presence of the Vintech, Chandler, etc Neve recreations hasn't dropped the value of the real vintage stuff, have they? I really don't know...haven't shopped for one lately...but I don't believe that's the case.

There will always be a certain mystique to the real good vintage stuff, and I'm one of those people who feel that good analog gear will likely hold its value for a long long time. But I can certainly see this preamp existing in the marketplace and doing quite well. I can see a lot of project/mid-level professional studios who may already have a good pair of reference preamps picking up one of these as well to offer a much wider variety of flavors to those who want them. I can see a lot of higher-end facilities who may have half a dozen or more preamps and/or compressors pick one up as well, again to offer additional colors without having to purchase another dozen units. I don't imagine that many who have the budget to buy a dozen preamps will buy one or two of these instead, but I can certainly see them making it one of their choices. I can see it going into a lot of digital studios who want to integrate control of their analog front end into their digital systems. I don't think it will revolutionize the industry or take sales away from existing preamps any more than any of the other new high-end preamps coming out...maybe a little more or less, depending, but not by a significant amount. I see it being able to happily coexist with everything else that's already out there.

But that all depends on how it sounds. If it doesn't do the job it will certainly fail, but if it does I don't see why it shouldn't succeed.

-Duardo

Only time will tell. We should revisit this post in a few years, just for fun. David

I have been tracking this thread for sometime and have to throw in a couple of comments.

I did a shoot out with the RNP and the Platinum Voicemaster Pro as well a DMP3 for fun. I have to tell you the Voicemaster Pro, the new model, outshines the RNP for most of the tracks I used it on. The clarity, and when you need it, warmth factor is slightly better to my ears than the RNP. So much so that I returned the RNP because I did not need the similarity and the VM Pro was slightly more versatile.

I would agree that the original platinum line was not that stand out and actually the orignal voicemaster was too grainy to be useful. However this later generation of the Voicemaster Pro and the Twintrak have stepped up the bar in under $1000 preamps.

I'm relatively new to this forum and I think it's great. I think it's wonderful that experienced folks such as Kurt and Gaff are willing to take time to answer questions and offer advice for free that we (newbies) couldn't get anywhere else.

However, I wonder if maybe everybody shouldn't rate themselves on a scale of one to ten that shows where they are in the "pro" spectrum. That way they wouldn't keep getting the same answer of "jeez, unless you are willing to pay X thousand plus for a Y-sludge-pump-spindle-grommet you're wasting your time". What I'm saying is that it seems like a lot of people here are probably towards the lower end of my aforementioned scale. And, as a result, are probably investing the first (and maybe the only available) thousand or more dollars in their budding recording careers (or hobbies). And wouldn't you agree that the marginal returns on quality are the highest in that first thousand? They then become almost exponential when you get into the higher priced gear? As with most endeavours you end up spending the most money obtaining the last fractions of percent gain in quality and you rarely start out with "the best of the best".

My wish is that instead of telling people that unless they're willing to sell their children and mortgage their house they should probably just pack it in, why not advise them on what they CAN buy for their limited budget. So you've only got $200 to spend on a pre-amp? that's fine, I understand that X is actually a better buy than Y which is the same price. Kurt indicated that he doesn't accept "prosumer" equipment to review. Why not? It seems to me that there are a lot of people who would like to know whether this $300 pre-amp is better than that one. It may not be something that you would use professionally but for those of us who don't have a pre-amp at all ..... I guess I'm saying that we all have to start somewhere. And that starting point usually involves a limited budget.

Anyway, I mean this in the best way possible. And I repeat my thanks for the excellent advice that the moderators provide.

One reason I don't want to review prosumer gear is I don't want to subject my clients to it. They expect the best and that's what I try to deliver. I have found that when I test gear on my own, I don't get a well rounded experience. It works so much better to have outside talent to assist. I have to use my customers as "guinea pigs".

Another reason is I truly believe that most of the prosumer stuff is a rip off. I know that is harsh sounding but in all good conscious I can't say it any other way. IMO, most that stuff is crap.. I don't want to take part in the marketing scam, I prefer to be part of the solution, not the problem. If I request stuff from a manufacture, they expect a review. If I don't write a review and send the gear back saying it sucks, they have wasted their time and money shipping the gear back and forth and they get pissed off at me. I have also wasted my time listening to it. Lose / lose. If I write a review and I say it was crap, then I don't get anymore gear from that manufacture and they tell all their friends in the business and then I don't get gear from them.. again, lose / lose. If I request a great piece, I get to use good stuff, my clients are happy, I write a good review and the manufacture sells some units and is happy, win / win / win..

I have been doing audio for 35 years. I have used good gear and I have used crummy gear ... Good gear is better. It sounds better, is easier to use and lasts where cheap gear wears out, breaks or burns up after a while. I have gained enough knowledge and experience to know that there is no magic bullet. Technology will never advance so far that cheap components, designs and construction techniques will eventually sound as good as high end designs. It just is not going to happen. Good mic pres are derived from robust power supplies, (IMO) the use of transformers on ins and outs, discreet parts and class A operation. I have yet to hear a substitute. Any manufacturer that has made a breakthrough is more than welcome to send me a piece and if it measurers up, I will be happy to write about it and spread the word.. But let the onus be upon them, I don’t ask for that stuff.

You are correct, Barkingdog studios, that the last 10 or 15% of quality usually costs twice or three times as much money. This is because, to squeeze that last bit out, is expensive. Design time, components of the highest quality, most the stuff is hand assembled or even completely hand built and last because the demand is nowhere as high as it is for “prosumer” stuff, so there is no economy of scale to help control costs.. Good gear is expensive... but it is good.. That is what I want to recommend. If someone pays $500 for something that they replace for something better that costs $1000 in a year or two that they replace in a year or two with something else that costs $2000, where is the economy? For that $2000 piece, they have spent $3500 getting there.. be patient, save, spend your money once on something that will hold its value, be resalable and will last a lifetime.. That’s true economy and smart consumerism.

I have never seen anyone who has bought a $500 pre amp or mic, that didn’t wish they could get a $2000 mic or pre amp. By purchasing the cheap stuff, one only put themselves $500 further away from getting what they really want.

Kurt,

I understand you're wanting to serve a more "professional" clientelle and they probably don't want to hear about the $350 ART pre-amp. But if your entire budget is $1500, then just what kind of timeline is going to get you to that single $2000 piece? The message I'm getting is "don't bother doing anything unless you can do it with equipment that's twice your budget". That's like saying don't buy a car until you can afford a Mercedes. I'm surmising that a lot of folks get into the home recording arena because they are in a band and have a need or desire to lay down some tracks "now" or they're an artist simply looking for a means to record their art as it comes to them. Not three years from now. So they set themselves a budget and say "ok, what can I get today to suit my needs?". My guess is that there is a large segment of the 15K (I understand) membership of this newsgroup who are hobbyists or budding musicians. What do you say to them? Find another hobby, you can't afford this one?

I don't expect anyone to stand up and say "this $100 mic is going to sound like a Neumann". I agree with you completely, buying better tools is always the way to go. I guess I'd rather see more help with managing people's expectations along with their budgets; rather than just telling them not to bother because they can't afford to do anything worthwhile. Or just say that you can't help them.

My wish is that instead of telling people that unless they're willing to sell their children and mortgage their house they should probably just pack it in, why not advise them on what they CAN buy for their limited budget.

And if that is all that was expected from those people that would be fine in it's self. But... Those people and most others, don't accept what they get and have very unrealistic expectations of what they get for how much they spend. They want to able to get the same best, highest quality, most popular and million dollar sound out of the cheap crap they end up buying and using. The truth is that there is very little difference in sound of most if not all of the cheap gear crap in the lower end market. Modern technology, off the shelf chips/components and design software allow anyone to be able to make cheap audio products. So they do. The result is a flood of crap made by many only for the quick profit made from the home project guys and hobbiests looking for cheap deals so that they can buy a whole recording setup for what the price of one pro piece of gear costs. Then they bitch, complain and pout how they don't understand why they can't get the same results as the CD's they buy or that they hear on the radio. So they believe and give in to the crap makers marketing, invest a few more dollars, buy yet more half-ass crap products that promise the world they can get you to the pro level for a much cheaper price, but you never do quite get there. There are so many products, options and ways to do what was once a very simple and limited way of doing recording, that it is quite confusing. The marketing sharks of gear makers crap or pro, have used that to exploit people.

If you are just a hack, wanker or karaoke clown then it doesn't really matter what you buy or what you use. If you want to do this as a business, get pro results, or be taken seriously, then you need to step up to the plate in a game of where the big boys play. And it is a game where education, technique, method and skill are even more important than just the gear. But if you consider the gear you buy and use as an investment in tools that are used to be able to achieve the very best results, your gonna be able to score more points of sucess in the big game and have much more fun playing in it.

Gaff,

I couldn't agree with you more. The music industry is rife with unrealistic expectations and broken dreams. I also agree that if you want to race at the indy, don't show up in an econo-box. I don't know what to tell you about the guy who shows up at SONY records with a demo recorded on a crappy system. I guess my advice to that person would have been "forget the gear, take your $2000 and buy some professional studio time".

However, what your post suggests is that advice regarding less-expensive equipment is pointless because it's all sub-standard.

What I don't hear anyone saying is, "I can tell you this piece of equipment is better than that one .... in that range". Or asking the person, "what are you trying to accomplish? Are you just making a demo? Then here this piece of gear would probably suit your needs." That was the point of my intital post; managing expectations. Maybe there needs to be two streams on this site. One for pros and one for those of us who aren't trying to make a career out of it, just have some fun. Are we not worthy of good advice too?

There's probably always gonna be people who don't believe that other people with less money are worth good advice. Why is this? Well, perhaps, it's just like most everything else in this world: more money gains you respect. If you don't earn alot of money, then some people may just think you are piss poor person at heart and are doomed to fail in life overall.

Who want's to help out a bunch of losers? Not alot of people, because alot of people want to succeed in life and for most of them that means doing something that helps themself do such a thing - not someone else. Then there are the few very successful that feel that teaching others really forces them relearn 'the basics', and doing so actually helps them out in return. This is an audio recording forum, and what do most people feel are the basics of audio recording? Quality.

Sure, 'artistry' is in there somewhere too.

What I don't hear anyone saying is, "I can tell you this piece of equipment is better than that one .... in that range".
Are we not worthy of good advice too?

Sure you are. But since there is very little difference in quality and vast difference in features, myself or others giving advice would need need to know every aspect and detail of your setup to offer solid, specific advice. I'm not a moderator and I offer my advice for free as a take it or leave it deal. For me to take the time to analyze that kind of detail and have me offer my expert and specific advice, that would fall under the guise of professional consultation which I'm happy to do if your willing to pay for my services.

your post suggests is that advice regarding less-expensive equipment is pointless because it's all sub-standard.

Yes, that is correct. Real pro's can't be of much good or offer much advice on cheap crap gear because they usually have no direct experience using it. Why would they? I get asked all the time on which China made mic they should buy. Hell, I don't know? I've never used one. I don't intend to ever use one. One day I might, but as of today I have not. I often get get asked by friends questions like, "Your an audio engineer, which $60 boom box is best to buy?" "Hey, you own a Eventide and Lexicon high end effects, What $150 effects unit is best?" Not only do I not know the answers, but I could really fricken care less. I don't even want to know or have that kind of crap loaded in to my brain.

That's like saying don't buy a car until you can afford a Mercedes.

Good point but invalid analogy. A better analogy would be don't buy and car when what you really need is a truck. If all I need is way to haul my ass to and from somewhere, any car will do. If I need something more than to just haul my ass, something more rugged, more flexable, is able to do much more and go places a car can't, a truck is a much better way to do that.

If all you need to do is simply record, anything with a mic pre will work. If you want, desire or need something more, than that would be something much different.

AudioGaff made some great points, in a different way than I have made them in the past. He and I have both been saying the same thing for quite a while.

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.. It’s the feature list that is different. 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. Because the only thing you are going to squeeze out is a .... well you know what I'm sayin',.... "masterpiece".

Many of you reading these threads are young adults living on your own for the first time. Many of you are impatient. You are also "financially challenged". I understand this. I don't know what age Gaff is but I am 50. I am retired and living on a fixed income. I have not been rich or even “well to do” all my life. I understand financial hardship, I have been there. 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.

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. Don’t buy a new car to build a credit rating. Live reasonably, keep your nose clean, learn to save your dough and 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!). Shop the trade magazines and used equipment dealer web sites.. purchase on piece at a time. Start with a good mic, then another maybe a one channel pre and a compressor. 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..

If you are really as driven to do audio, as many of you profess to be when you say, “I have to use cheap gear because I feel the need to be creative”, then setting your priorities in this direction shouldn’t be so much of a sacrifice. If not, then you are just bullsh*tting yourself and us.. you’re simply looking at the profession as a way to the glamour and “large living”.

This is the hardest part for me to say ...I hate this. Those of you who are older and have families, don't mortgage the house or sell the kids.. if you are in that position, maybe you should look at your priorities. The wife kids should come first.. maybe your wife is right and it is too late to start doing this.??? (I shouldn't have to be the one to say that btw.) 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. Real artists are driven to make sacrifices to do their art, not compromises. This is why my wife and I are in our middle age now and childless while all our friends have kids that are grown, starting their own families. These same friends used to look at us with envy because we were doing music for a living ... we wanted to do music for not just a “living” but for “life” and we have. 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..