And Davedog, I will get you another beer for that!... in 7 years.

JoshHPMusic, post: 396879 wrote: And Davedog, I will get you another beer for that!... in 7 years.

No, I dont want you to BUY it, I want you to go out in the hallway where the fridge is and bring the coldest one on the shelf.

Also.....learn the art of making coffee. Once you have that all the engineers will think you're valuable.

I know....not your career path.....but hey, its early. A person that understands all aspects of their chosen path will find no rocks to stub the toe on......(confused-shuss)

Alright, I'll get on it, maybe sneak into the recording room and do a few takes!

There ya go. Now you're talking kid. Hey, 14 is cool. I was 14 in 1970. Remember back then? No? Right. Sperm's don't have memories. They don't have mammaries either but they like to. I hope your mother or father told you that you only get into this business to get chicks? No? Well he should have. You got more things much more important than recordings to make, coming up in the coming years like, girls. No? Yes? Maybe? Well... at 14 I got my first professional audio job. It was just a single event freelance thing. It was being the audio guide for the Miss Detroit Beauty Pageant. And right at 14, I had the know-how to be able to make perfect musical edits with a razor blade. And all I needed was a splicing block, splicing tape and Band-Aids. LOL. No didn't need the Band-Aids after all. At that same age I became a novice ham radio operator and that was really boring. Morse code... blah. Variation on a note. Not much of a kick there, except in the back of your pants. And while at that age, I had been to radio, TV stations and recording studios, I still wasn't really able to discern all of the differences yet. So I thought I had to know all of that stuff? So I studied all of that stuff. Where you might also want to go, to your local community college radio stations, if you have any, and apply as a volunteer engineer? I was given a two day per week show to engineer. And I did that for a couple of years until it 17, I landed a job with the largest recording studio south of New York City in Baltimore. And they actually hired me on not as a gopher but as a full-blown production and duplication engineer. And then that magical day happened, when the music engineer did not show up for a gospel session. A 24 track gospel session in the control room I was never allowed in. OMG! And I couldn't let the client know that I had no idea what I was doing in this control room? I mean this was totally overwhelming. I was freaked out. I was scared. And the whole time, I had to act like I had been working in this control room for years LOL. Somehow and unbelievably, I pulled it off. And I was only 17. You're not far from that. In fact I think you're further ahead of things than I was at your age? You might also want to head down to your local cable access TV station? They frequently offer extremely inexpensive video and audio production courses. Then you can start checking out some of their equipment to use. Because in these times, you never know where you're going to go professionally in life. Don't limit yourself (unless it's with a dynamic range limiter LOL). Explore all avenues of mass media, advertising and marketing, business. Unfortunately, I didn't do so well in business because I'm a creative person and few creative people make good business people. The most successful engineers, don't even have to go looking for business. They have management. And managers only want to represent somebody they think they can make money with. So while you might want to make your future in music, it's kind of like school today. A kid going to school today cannot function without a computer. We didn't have those when I went to school. So look at how much further you are in the curve then someone even like myself was. It's incredible. It's fabulous. And every good pop musician today, really should know how to record themselves well because it's not hard. It's tricky but it's not hard.

One of the best things you can do for yourself is to follow your favorite groups. Find out who's recording and producing them. Find out what studios they used. Find out what equipment the studio had/has. And then don't listen to that song again but instead, listen in to the mix. Pick out separate parts, separate instruments. Tune your brain processor into listening to a single instrument to the song. Go back to the top and repeat that again and again and again. Repeat it until you can hear it in your sleep. Then work on it while you're sleeping. Engineer it in your dreams. See yourself behind the console. Envision yourself selecting and placing microphones. Put yourself into that recording. Then move onto another one that sounds completely and totally different. This is ear training. This is, brain training. It's also brain draining. LOL. But we do it because we love it. Because it's our lives. It's what we were put on the planet to do. So while Paul McCartney isn't necessarily an engineer, he's actually an engineer by default, by osmosis, by doing it. That's not to say that he engineers his own stuff. Remember they made those incredible recordings with the most basic and rudimentary of recording tools and no computers. So when you can make really good recordings with total junk equipment, you'll know you're really on your way. Blame the equipment and you're going nowhere. The equipment is only as good as how you use it not what it is as much. The adults of course can afford the more expensive toys. They really aren't any much different from what you already have. So in a couple of years, you might want a hot Toyota? Were your dad normally would probably want a Cadillac? And what's the difference? Is one going to get you to school more on time then the other? Of course not. That cheap Toyota can function every bit as well as the expensive Cadillac. And audio is pretty much the same way. The equipment today is so far superior to anything we had when I was your age, it's all good, there is no real crap anymore. It's only crap in how long it can last and function for. In which most bargained Chinese stuff won't last but a couple of years. And the professional stuff is well, older than your parents and still going strong. All of the equipment I use except for my computer and digital multi-track recorder is all from the mid-1970s. And like everything else, there is a reason for that. The stuff I have can be run over with a truck and keep functioning. A Behringer would be like a bug on a windshield, in comparison. Otherwise, they can both produce beautiful recordings. One costs $85,000 and the other one costs $500. What would you choose? Well from a financial standpoint, I would guess $500? Then you could make recordings every bit as beautiful as any API or Neve console can. And the only thing you have to know... is what you're doing. Then you're getting real close to that right now. So I'm excited for ya.

If you like, send me a PM of your personal e-mail address and I'll send you some MP3 attachments to hear some of the things I'm talking about. Where I didn't have any condenser microphones and just cheap dynamics, a cheap tape deck and a cheap homebrew passive three input mixer that a 14-year-old could build. And while there is a little tape saturation on a high note running it 7 1/2 in./s on a cheap 1/4 track stereo Sony 630 tape recorder. And a home built reverb unit using a pair of reverb springs that you find on the floor of a Fender Twin Reverb amplifier. And that set me back $20! A lot of money back then for a 14-year-old in 1970. Then there is also a four track country rock band I recorded on a TEAC 3340 without any noise reduction, with my custom-built console that I built at 22 years of age. And one of the songs had a fair amount of regional success from that crappy four track machine. It was helpful though to have a fabulous EMT reverb plate as well. This recording was only done as four tracks because our brand-new 16 track machine had not come in yet. But the guitar overdub stank. It was lame. It was sappy. It certainly wasn't rock 'n roll. So I made it rock 'n roll, yeah! How did I do that? With a broken blown out power supply by a couple of wires with alligator clips at both ends and the one and only compressor limiter we had in the control room. Now it's got lots of fuzz and sustain and its rock 'n roll. And all thanks to a blown up power supply and its three out of four diodes in the blown up bridge rectifier, still connected to the filter capacitors and the transformer in the power supply which of course wasn't plugged in. The rectifier portion was plugged into the input of the limiter. That rectifier makes a regular electric guitar into a fuzz electric guitar. And then you need all that sustain. The 1176 limiter only offered up 40 DB worth of sustain. So it worked all right. And I took the pedal steel guitar, a Show Bud and fed that into a Leslie organ speaker. We didn't have computers. We didn't have software. We have plug-ins. We had nothing! And so you learn how to make recordings with nothing. Try making some recordings without equalization? Equalization can be as helpful as it can be hurtful. You can ruin more good recordings by screwing around with equalizers than you can by leaving them alone. Because making a recording isn't about the equalizers, isn't about the microphone preamps, isn't about the effects. It's about the mixing. It's about the microphone choices and placement.

So for other examples, I've got this beautiful recording I made of a lovely beautiful pop singer with her band and a small rowhouse converted pub in the suburbs of Wellington New Zealand. 8 channel mixer, no equalizers, no compressor/limiter's. And the lead vocal has no compressor/limiter which I had to ride by hand. All mixed and recorded through an old pair of Koss headphones and I couldn't even hear what I was doing, because my rig was right on top of the bass guitar rig. And I laugh every time I listen to it. It's so good. And that's what recording engineering is all about and how it differs from playing computer games today. Computer games are great (i.e. audio software) but they really don't teach you anything about what it means to record things. All you need to know is connected to both sides of your head. And not those two holes in the front of your head which can only look at advertised gobbledygook. Now as you get more proficient at this, you might find that some day, you'll be able to see sound? I do and lots of engineers do. And this has nothing to do with anything that you've been taught. When that day comes, you'll know it. It's like folks and learn how to speak another language. When ya begin speaking that language that is foreign to you, you have to keep translating what you're saying, in your head. One day, in the middle of a conversation, you'll suddenly realize you are no longer translating in your head but actually thinking in the new language. And as an audio engineer, I've experienced the same thing. You will also. I can virtually guarantee it with a guy as smart and talented as you are.

It was always completely fascinating to me to watch my father tune up his violin. He never ever hit A 440 on a piano. Didn't need to do it. He never claimed that he had perfect pitch. But he was always dead on the mark. So he could see that A 440, in his head and tune his violin to it. I could never do that. But then I didn't play violin. French horn was a lot easier. And that I wasn't in competition with dad. Or with mom because she was a Metropolitan Opera star. Because my parents were such world-class musicians, I never thought I could compete with them. So I didn't. I wanted to have a career as a French horn player in a symphony orchestra. But it never came to be. I was an engineer as much as I was a musician. And my musical career was cut short by a sucker punch from a 17-year-old who was vandalizing my car the night before Halloween. It was like having a leg amputated! Nerve damage prevents me from reacquiring my embouchure. And I didn't feel like switching over to piano. Even though my grandmother was a piano teacher and taught me in younger years. Stupid me. I should've gotten that keyboard down in hindsight. Instead, I learned how to play audio consoles. It's just another musical instrument to me and why so many people like myself still love the analog old-fashioned consoles.

So my friend, what is your instrument?
Mx. Remy Ann David

Thanks for all of that. First off, I'm totally used to picking out individual parts in songs, I mean take a look at my most recent cover - [[url=http://[/URL]="http://youtube.com/…"]"Fix You" - Coldplay (Cover by Josh H-P) - YouTube[/]="http://youtube.com/…"]"Fix You" - Coldplay (Cover by Josh H-P) - YouTube[/] - All 11 tracks, I figured out by ear from the song. (2 of them were improv though). I do this all the time when I listen to music though. I totally get what you mean by the whole language analogy. I'm not sure whether or not I have this magical sound seeing power yet, but I feel like I sort of understand it. I'll continue doing this, and soon enough I'd like to start taking vocal lessons. Hopefully that'll improve my singing a good deal. And hopefully growing up and my voice naturally changing will help some too! Either way, I can imagine myself as a musician, but not necessarily an audio engineer. Or at least primarily a musician. I just feel more connected to the music itself, creating music, writing lyrics, with important ideas behind them (unlike today's horrible American pop industry), and just being a musician and performer. The audio engineer part still interests me, but not nearly as much. And for now, I must be my own audio engineer, so I might as well try. And sure, I'll PM you my email.

And lastly, my instrument is the GUITAR. Been playing for about 6 years, partially taught, very much self-taught, and I just love it. Runner up would be a tie between piano and drums, then bass guitar, the vocal chords, ukelele, and trumpet.

Thanks,
-Josh

well online embarrasment/epihny is a great start. next is that in real life time, in front of clients. yup happened(s) to me until i learned the 'platinum guy's" conventions. i got yelled at, insulted, and offered solutions, in front of clients. that definatley sux. but, in order to shut the man up, i became better, faster, at giving the chief whatever he prefers. this is not what you get in college. its heat of the moment.
as a tape (cpu) op, you learn so much about people's preferences, and the most efficient way to meet them. (hence, get fast to shut them up)

run the cables, then watch the experience pick the mic and place it, and figure out why. that's what it is. i got a solid foundataion thru trial and error, and reading. and i get schooled by success. i don't agree w/ every decision, nor am i obligated to use anybody's method, to stay onboard. but the little things add up, and there's a wealth of knowledge and experience that one can't attain, w/out others. ya like it or not, and take it for what it is.

the reason so many people my age aren't well rounded, is just that,... they aren't well rounded. mom and dad bought a mac book and some acoustic foam, showed em a 57 an inch away from anything is fine, and then just used samples. call me the last of a dying breed, but all ya gotta do is capture the energy of a performance. the mics the acoustics, if the 'energy' is there, all ya gotta do is "not f it up".

i don't regeret a second of being whipped into shape, after all, it's not my name on the gold records. its facinating to listen to what these people have to say, and agree taste-wise or not, it's still part of the xperience. otherwise it's mp3's thru utube...

"pour a beer on a drum machine and it won't work, pour beer on a drummer, and he'll play better"
-kyle

Yeah that's all true, and I do need more energy. Going to work on that. See, this is the stuff that helps me move forward. I'm trying to put all the little pieces and tips together to make it work, which I haven't mastered yet, but I'm working on it and I learn more every day. Besides that, I've learned a CRAZY amount just from my own mistakes. And YouTube isn't just a little game, it's a place to easily and freely get content out to hundred or thousands of people, and since it's up, you get feedback. Some nice, some helpful, some cruel. But I feel like there is something to learn from all of it. I just gotta keep taking things in, and I'll try to get to my maximum potential.

-Josh

if the "man" shut up, i wouldn't be able to learn. it's fascinating stuff, the stories, the workflow, the named artists who are PITA's. the lovely aspect of other peoples experience, is being able to avoid their mistakes, and employ their successful ways. that is a shortcut, to me.

the cool thing about all this, is most people aren't afraid to say what 'works'. in fact they are happy, i think, when other people achieve success using the same methods.

lol, are ya gonna get a 58?

Of course he's going to get a 58. Because he knows so much better now. We fixed him good. Yup. I was already working on this stuff, on my own, before I met my mentor at 15. I'm the one who's mouth is always running but when Tom Bray would start talking to me about history of audio and recording, it was probably the only time in my life I ever shut up? This man was such a wonderful mentor to me for over 10 years. I learned so so much from this man that my friends with electrical engineering degrees (that I don't have) have consulted with me over the years. They tell me they're not taught anything about this stuff that I know. Right. Go figure?

What I learned from Tom is not what they teach in the schools. It was so much more than microphones, amplifiers, tape recorders and speakers. I mean this was the guy that created vertical hold for television. This is the guy that worked at Bell Labs when they invented the transistor. This is the guy working on the early radar systems for the Navy in World War II. This wasn't a simple bozo rock 'n roll musician come, recording engineer. I just could never get my head around the math to actually become an electrical engineer myself. At least I tip well LOL. Yeah, I'm an easy pushover.

At least I'm not a tater tot
Mx. Remy Ann David

Can I ask what monitors you are currently using?

And whom are ya directing this question at?

I still have three pair of JBL 4311/12's that I am still quite fond of. Reduction of space has forced me to give a few pairs away. So I'm down three pairs of those and the 4411's. And being fed in the control room by my Crown DC 300, the Hafler on another pair and the Kenwood on the other pair.

I also have a pair of KRK V6, self powered monitors and a pair very similar to those that are passive and powered from another external Yamaha amplifier.

And then there are the FOSTEX 6301's which are mine little 4 inch self powered mini monitors, a self powered modern day version of the Aura Tone's that we used in our control rooms back in the 1970s also.

I also have a pair of rather groovy B. & O6 inch two-way monitors. Very narrow form factor, hangs on the wall or as a piece of ceiling drop tile. Their form factor is so narrow that while you still hang them from your wall, it's almost like having a pair of soffit mounted speakers because THEY ARE ONE WITH THE WALL.

And now you have learned some new audio things grasshopper.
Mx. Remy Ann David

actually, I was asking the original poster of the thread, who asked about upgrading their current setup. I thought that maybe they might consider looking to new monitors as an upgrade.

But thanks for sharing your collection! :)

JoshHPMusic, post: 396568 wrote: Well I'm working on that, but this is my chance to upgrade a part of my studio for the next year... so anybody have any gear suggestions?

I haven't read the thread. Room treatment, workstation placement, monitoring chain (nearfields and headphones) and a shockmount for your microphone (if you keep the mic).

Alright I'm back. With a 58.
Yeah, I caved in, got the 58, and I'm glad I did! It's been awesome so far, especially for a $100 mic! And I have a new cover out, using the mic. Tell me what you think!

[="http://full.sc/10RJ2kV"]"Amy" - Green Day (Cover by Josh H-P) - YouTube[/]="http://full.sc/10RJ…"]"Amy" - Green Day (Cover by Josh H-P) - YouTube[/]

Got accepted for a partnership with Fullscreen Artist Mix too, which I thought would never happen! So I'll be able to start making a little bit of money soon, and get a bit more publicity from them!

Also, as for monitors, I'm actually just using my Bose AE2 Headphones. I don't feel like I can spend so much money just for studio monitors. I do have these speakers though, if you think I should use them? [[url=http://="http://compare.ebay…"]iSymphony M1 Speakers for the iSymphony M1 Micro Music System!! Speakers Only!! on eBay![/]="http://compare.ebay…"]iSymphony M1 Speakers for the iSymphony M1 Micro Music System!! Speakers Only!! on eBay![/]

Thanks,
-Josh

I've got to tell you Josh, I smiled through that whole song of yours. Yeah... now you know about that 58. It's magical. It's perfect. Great on everything! I don't care what anybody else says about any other microphone. Give me a bag full of those and I am a happy camper. It's got just the right sound. It does the right thing. It ignores lousy acoustic environments. This takes you where you need to be really easily. Those stupid Chinese condenser microphones are good on certain things but not on very much. Not as universal as you would like them to be. Not like a 58. What a 57? Unscrew the metal ball.

The microphone was nice looking for the video but you should put an extra piece of foam on that sucker. SHURE actually makes one specifically for the 58 LOL. You don't have to use theirs, any cheap one will do. It makes an even bigger difference. Better than a pantyhose pop filter. Unless, because of your age, you like those types that have previously been worn? It can make a vastly different take on your delivery. A little more give and take one, two, three. And breathe. You might even turn into Ozzy Osbourne? Taste any good rats lately?

Justin Bieber has nothing on you.
Mx. Remy Ann David

remyrad, post: 396603 wrote: acoustics for pop music, in a recording studio like environment, is basically a misnomer. You don't need any stupid acoustical junk. Your room already has a nice sound to it. Nice wood and brick. Reasonable diffusion throughout the room. So don't waste your money on stupid acoustic foam or even bass traps. Not necessary. Completely superfluous.

The rumba is completely different.
Mx. Remy ann david

ah!!!!!!!!!

Attached files

Well thanks! And yes, the 58 is pretty freakin awesome. And yeah, I'll look into that pop filter. By the way, I feel like my MXL 990 records acoustic guitar pretty well, but do you think using my 58 (in 57 form) would actually sound better? I feel like it couldn't, but you tell me! Do you know of any good mic techniques for acoustic guitar?
And as always, nice puns.

The worst part is, Justin Beiber is hosting Saturday Night Live on my birthday.
-Josh

I like that picture Chris.

Yeah that 990 works well on acoustic guitar along with that 58. And try it both ways. 58 on the body 990 on the neck and vice versa. It'll pair up nicely. Makes for cool stereo. You'll get a lot more room sound from that 990 then you will from the 58. And then you can play a completely wacky trick of MS encoding that or rather, middle/side to left/right. As long as the low-end stuff is in the left channel and the high-end stuff is in the right channel. And then you get some really cool stereo guitar recordings that include a solid mono to stereo center image. Where the room will appear in both the left and right channels of the higher articulated sound of the neck. The low-end of the guitar will be front and center from the 58. And if collapsed to Mono, all you'll hear is the 58, where all the meat is. So if anyone asks you where the beef is, you can tell them. And you really don't have to set up the microphones for MS to be able to play with a matrix phase trick. These are actually presets you find available in a lot of audio software. So it's fun to try it out and you learn something in the process.

You don't even have to unscrew the metal ball to put it on your guitar. The metal ball takes away very little. But that's really the only difference between the 57 and the 58. It's otherwise the same microphone capsule, same body, same output transformer. And the 58 used to cost $10 extra but no longer. If you drop your 58 and smash the metal ball, it'll cost you $10 to replace it. The 58 will still continue to work just fine. Try that with a condenser microphone. NO! DON'T TRY THAT WITH A CONDENSER MICROPHONE. I was only kidding. Try that with a condenser microphone.

It's good when you like to kill them.
Mx. Remy Ann David

You had me until the part about "acoustics for pop music, in a recording studio like environment, is basically a misnomer.". hehe, You are making it fun around here! I'm not even going to ask. Nope, I'm not saying nothing....

smoke

RemyRAD, post: 399736 wrote: I like that picture Chris.

Yeah that 990 works well on acoustic guitar along with that 58. And try it both ways. 58 on the body 990 on the neck and vice versa. It'll pair up nicely. Makes for cool stereo. You'll get a lot more room sound from that 990 then you will from the 58. And then you can play a completely wacky trick of MS encoding that or rather, middle/side to left/right. As long as the low-end stuff is in the left channel and the high-end stuff is in the right channel. And then you get some really cool stereo guitar recordings that include a solid mono to stereo center image. Where the room will appear in both the left and right channels of the higher articulated sound of the neck. The low-end of the guitar will be front and center from the 58. And if collapsed to Mono, all you'll hear is the 58, where all the meat is. So if anyone asks you where the beef is, you can tell them. And you really don't have to set up the microphones for MS to be able to play with a matrix phase trick. These are actually presets you find available in a lot of audio software. So it's fun to try it out and you learn something in the process.

You don't even have to unscrew the metal ball to put it on your guitar. The metal ball takes away very little. But that's really the only difference between the 57 and the 58. It's otherwise the same microphone capsule, same body, same output transformer. And the 58 used to cost $10 extra but no longer. If you drop your 58 and smash the metal ball, it'll cost you $10 to replace it. The 58 will still continue to work just fine. Try that with a condenser microphone. NO! DON'T TRY THAT WITH A CONDENSER MICROPHONE. I was only kidding. Try that with a condenser microphone.

It's good when you like to kill them.
Mx. Remy Ann David

Yeah, I've already heard about a lot of that stereo stuff and was planning on testing it out. What do you mean by the "high end" and "low end" stuff? Is this in terms of bass/treble, or sound quality of the two mics?
I did also hear of a technique that involves making a total of 3 track/recording duplicates, then leaving the first in the center, then pan the other two left and right, one of those with a lowpass filter, and one with a high pass filter. You ever heard of or tried this?

-Josh

In the land of the many different kinds of stereo microphone techniques and types that are available, XY being the most prevalent. ORTF, a variant of XY. MS which stands for Middle/Side. MS requires two matched microphones. One has to be cardioid and will face forward as the M (middle). Where S (the side facing) is a figure of 8 pattern. In the past, this was accomplished with ribbon microphones or multi-pattern, dual capsule, condenser microphones. And for the MS technique the capsules are placed as close together as physically possible. The Side figure of 8 microphone is dead as far as front and back pickup goes. It's actually aiming at the left and right side walls. So it's picking up mostly just random ambience. But it's only a single channel. The trick is in the figure of a pattern. And where you heard about this mixing technique of the one thing in the middle and the other two faders panned left and right. That's what you have to do if you have an analog console. And it requires a Y chord to plug the Side microphone, into 2 console inputs. And the right channel is phase inverted. When you add the Middle, panned center to those two other channels from that single microphone, you get this most incredible and accurate stereo. Not only do you get that, you can adjust its width, the stereo width. And it is 100% mono compatible as we say. That was extremely important for broadcast purposes. It's a phase matrixed trick.

Today we have simple drop-down menus with presets to do this oh so easily. The technique of using the high pass filter stuff on one channel having a different on the other channel in the opposite direction, was sort of what they did before reprocessing monaural records to fake stereo. A similar gizmo was created for the early days of stereo television. And it is oh so godly awful! Whereas I use a slightly different technique when I want to create stereo karaoke tracks from the original artists recordings. You've got to phase invert things to cut the vocal. Unfortunately, it also cuts all the low frequencies which include the bass guitar, bass drum, most of the snare drum and anything else, common to the center of the stereo image. So you whack off the low frequencies below 200 Hz on one channel. This allows the other channel to pass anything below 200 Hz. The voice does not go below 200 Hz. And so you can retain a decent low frequency response when illuminating vocals to create karaoke tracks from stereo recordings. And other such folderol.

I used a similar technique to another stereo rock 'n roll track to make it sit nicely behind the interview dialogue of a film documentary. The lead vocal now, no longer appears front and center. Instead, it comes from beyond the left and right channels, behind the people speaking. While the music level still remains quite high and quite stereo now that it has been expanded and vocal ducked out of phase. So the vocal of the song seems to virtually come from behind the people speaking who are front and center. But this is only important for film and video mixing of documentary style material. Nevertheless, it is all part of stereo trickery. Takes a little while to understand what exactly is going on.

Similar tricks are also used in FM broadcast audio processors before the transmitter input. You can compress the Side channel differently then you compress the Middle channel. This makes more stereo information for the FM stereo modulator to work with and therefore also helps to increase apparent loudness levels as part of the loudness wars of FM radio. FM is not broadcast in stereo. It's broadcast as Middle/Side. You're FM receiver makes it stereo. Television and stereo was the same thing when it was still analog starting in 1984 and until last year. Or 2011. The digital stuff are discrete and multiplexed channel streams. Necessary to get stereo and 5.1 surround, independent from each other yet all smashed together digitally.

I guess that's a little more than MS 101?

I think hot dogs with lots of onions tonight? And there's enough chilly here of both varieties.
Mx. Remy Ann David

Mx. Remy Ann David-

Thanks for the fascinating tidbit re: FM being broadcast in M/S - I never knew that, or it was never made as concisely in my gray matter.

Steve

They did it that way for FM so that when you collapsed to Mono, there would be no nasty phase cancellation of any kind. And because the stereo information was carried separately on a subcarrier. And the MS microphone technique accomplishes a similar good outcome. Whereas with XY and the other similar types of stereo microphone techniques, there is always with those, some phase cancellations albeit extremely small with XY and more so with ORTF. So similar techniques can be used in dissimilar ways.

Everybody is always concerned with timing phase cancellation. But it's that timing phase cancellation that we use to make MS work. And one can go way beyond this type of technique in actually reprocessing stereo recordings and soundtracks. You can use band splitting spectral processing techniques with MS style matrixing. And even though the MS microphone technique generally requires matched microphones extremely close to each other's capsule, you can use the same technique even if they are two different microphones and they are in two completely different locations. And with software, it's even easier to do than it was before we had the software. I'd have 20 patch cords patched in to all sorts of crazy things, just to reprocess a stereo recording. Now we just go drop-down click drop-down click, click, click click some more and you're there. So easy. Not really LOL. It'll still scramble your brain when you try to do this. But when you experiment with this, you're going to discover a whole lot of new things to try. And I haven't even gotten into minute time delay adjustments. Because I've already gone crazy and lost my mind and everybody here knows that LOL. (Some of my mind is at Georgetown University Hospital that they removed in 2005 LOL.)

So while I seem to look whole. I seem to be completely recovered? And have a new hole in my head and feel like a whole person again, I am not. Not possible with this kind of brain damage I have. But I'm very very very very and very lucky. And above all, I certainly wasn't supposed to have a genius IQ? And where are these top neurologist & neurosurgeon, at Georgetown University Hospital, have 60 years experience fixing bad brains the best they can, they can offer absolutely no explanation as to why I am not blind, crippled, vegetative, unable to feed myself, BLOB? And neither can I. And yet I'm still an atheist but I sure thank God I am not as the doctors think I should be LOL. Instead, I was put on this earth to come to Recording.ORG, just to start trouble LOL. Good trouble.

You'll get this right. It'll work good. You might produce a hit with it? You might not? But you could.
Mx. Remy Ann David

MX-
Great response - more interesting stuff! I enjoy reading your posts. They're always a fascinating journey though your thought processing. A little journey, if you will.
Thanks,
Steve

Thanks Steve. I'm glad you like. You know what they say? Timing is everything. And in our case today, right down to the sample. And then you can nudge it ahead or retard it. I'm sorry to argue with the computer software I really don't need everything to be phase/timing accurate. it's those time delays that provide for the acoustic signature of a space place. We don't just use time delays as effects. We use it for processing and corrective measures. At least I do. It makes you feel a little godlike to be messing around with time. It has become an acceptable practice today, to use autotune and time quantizing synchronization. So why shouldn't one play with time in different ways? So I just do my thing, my way. Because that's all we could do before we had computers. Now it's so easy. It's in the bag. I mean the computer box.

More sophisticated computer audio interfaces, some even feature a full-blown digital mixer in their control software of their multitrack devices. And with a versatile and proper audio interface you can accomplish many of the same functions as if it was a digital mixer. All control is in the computer and you are controlling the digital mixer in the external box with your mouse or an external " mixer like control surface ".of which there are many by companies like MOTU, which is another quality manufacturer of computer audio interfaces. Many require FireWire. Others require USB 2.0. And since FireWire seems to be quickly discarded as old technology, I would personally suggest a USB 2.0 device. They add an extra level of high speed data transfers and which are also downwardly compatible with USB 3.0 interfaces that will run the 2.0 protocol when it detects that. What will FireWire did have its advantages in that it was a continuous data stream. And where USB 1.1 & 2.0 steals more in data packet transfers. And where most multitrack interfaces that did not require an internal PCI card were mostly all FireWire 400, USB 2.0 devices have caught up quite nicely and are more universally usable at what since that protocol is still in existence. And when the USB 3.0 devices start hitting the streets, track counts, real-time effects will also ramp up in their capabilities and features. And we are in time, PCs may be supplied with the ability to also work with the Apple protocol of Thunderbolt, just like FireWire came into existence? And where I believe their data transfer rates and protocol may in fact yet be superior to USB 3.0? And some things being released seem to be currently catering to the Apple side with no PC compatibility as yet. So how we might be going through some more growing changes, everything still is staying fundamentally the same.

Some things never change even when they do
Mx. Remy Ann David

Looks like this thread has been going on for a few months now, it's been an interesting read and I've enjoyed watching your youtube video's Josh.

There's been a lot of talk here about mic's and interfaces, and recording techniques and that's all fantastic. Since you obviously have a passion for audio engineering and making your own video's you'll get a lot of good advice in a forum like this, and it seems to me like the gear you already have is working out well for you.

Having said that, I'll say that I haven't noticed (and may have missed) a recommendation for you to pop a little coin for vocal coaching instead of make investments in new/more gear. I know you're only 14 but that's a super-prime age for taking natural talent like your and literally taking it to the next level at mach speed with just a few hours of professional coaching. I've seen it first hand. And you have the desire and raw talent to really excite people with your performances.

Just something else to consider.

Yeah Coyote. I indicated to him that until his voice actually changes, actual voice lessons aren't necessary. And so you have made a marvelous suggestion of vocal coaching. And I described to him that many producers actually, in many ways, already do that. But some extra, sought out vocal coaching would be a good place for this very talented guy to start.

So there is a fundamental and slightly blurry difference between actual vocal lessons and working with a vocal coach. Technique and delivery is what a coach brings to the table. A vocal teacher teaches you the basics along with the prerequisite exercises that must be practiced daily and for quite a period of time. Like years. Which might sound like Light Years to someone your age because I know it did to me at your age. But that's not what you work on with a coach.

A word of caution. There are a lot of people not really appropriate to provide such coaching. And with which, just because they are in a successful local band does not necessarily make for a vocal coach, even if they are offering that service. You already have built-in musical and engineering intelligence. You'll know who's for real. And you know you have not been misguided here.

And anybody listen to those Grammy Awards? I thought this was about the most underwhelming live audio I have ever heard? UGH. Made only worse by the new processors in use, so as to keep your TV commercials from sounding too loud. You've got to love that dynamics inversion in the center's stereo image as you hear the lead vocalist drop below the mix. Simply disgusting sounding. All this because people are too lazy to hit the mute button on their infrared remote control for their TV. And all my fellow expert colleagues writing in the trade publications how wonderful their compliance processors are. Whatever that means? It sure doesn't mean anything good. I'm not hearing anything good. And of course it all sounds digitally summed because all of the new digital video trucks are using those new digital audio consoles. And so it's all real-time ProTools, real-time WAVES plug-ins.

Meanwhile I'm switching between live CBS Grammys and NBC SNL in the 1980s Special. Where all of that music which all sounded absolutely fabulous, was coming through those 10-year-old Neve consoles like mine. And it blew away the sound from these 2013 Grammys on CBS. I know coming off of analog videotape that actually really didn't sound great for audio. And it's still blew away whatever digital SSL, Avid or CALWRECK, CBS was using.

So today, I equate most STATE OF THE ART sound the equivalent analogy to Chinese Quality Control and the same oxymoron as Military Intelligence. The digital stuff is a great slick slather of sound with no life, no balls, no warmth, no punch, just McDonald's. And I really don't want to go there. If I was an engineer working for the company and they put me behind one of those digital consoles, I use them. You do what you can with what you've got. And it will come out sounding cool like any other kid creating stuff from samples and software in their bedrooms. I'm sure the kids like it because... it's all they know. But we also know and we're still alive. I mean is Justin Timberlake's new release rap and hip-hop? Didn't look to be? Didn't sound like it? What was that he was doing? Do they call that singing? Is there a sample library for that that I can get for free off of the Internet? What software were they using to make him sing those fancy words like that? What up wis DAT? DAT music ain't good no more. Ain't are state of the art. And my TV turned black and white. So I had to hit it and keep hitting it until the color come back.

50 ways to leave your lover
Mx. Remy Ann David