mackie xdr is just as good but the xdr II is a little better .....

yes, but what he's saying is that unless you need to push the envelope, then the cheaper ones do a pretty good job. This isn't new or even newsworthy. The disagreements come from those who take the envelope to the real extreme end - and then I'm afraid I can't really justify the extra cost for the smaller improvements. Now I'm older, my hearing tails off too - so maybe this impacts on judgement. I hate hiss. I hate the poor tone some cheap preamps have. I want my recordings to sound good. I've currently got a 2 channel Lexicon, a multi-channel Tascam and the ones built into my Behringer X32. Unless I had a project with very quiet sources that were distant, I don't think I'd pick any of them as sounding 'better', but tone wise, the Tascam works best for me on piano, the Behringer and Lexicon seem to just sound nicer on female voices, and everything else I have tried sounds the same .......... to me!

When you've recorded all sorts over the years, you kind of know the mics that flatter and those that don't and what combinations work best in a certain context. Nowadays, people constantly ask for the best, or the best under a certain price, or the best for a certain sound source. I'm not sure these questions make any sense.

I'm a firm non-believer in any snake oil product, but expensive pre-amps might be the essential product for some recordings, but luckily, I don't do those sorts of recordings. There are loads of bad recording techniques, but good ones tend to stick in the mind, and get repeated.

cheaper pres sound "flat" while the more high end ones impart a sense of dimension or a front to back image, even in mono. Listen to Beatle recordings for this. it's there.

for those who can't hear in the first place, a cheap pre will do fine but anyone with "ears" can hear the difference immediately.

While the sentiment is probably accurate - the 'sense of dimension' description is pure audiophile hokum!

If you are saying that cheaper converters have technical deficiencies - maybe in terms of jitter, or lack of dynamic range, or perhaps even signal to noise, then I'm with you. If we're saying they sound worse because of cost, then I'm not. Unless, of course we're comparing a £15 device compared to something maybe £70 or more?

If I'm to be honest, then I do believe that some people have extended hearing in terms of frequency response and dynamic range. That said, I do not subscribe to the unscientific flowery language used by audiophiles to describe small differences in sound - that are usually impossible to A/B or measure. I'm happy with their belief they can hear these differences. I can hear differences in mic technique and can make judgements. Whenever I compare audio equipment, all I can ever say is they sound different - but personal preference makes my mind up, and I learned a long time ago that what I like doesn't always have to be expensive.

Every studio person who loves to mix on big, loud and gut shaking full range loudspeakers knows that most people at home won't hear this sound - the sound the producer/engineer selected. I listen to old Beatles recordings and hear clarity from decent mics used properly. Recorded on equipment that was sonically compromised by today's standards, but it still sounds good, despite their preamps performing pretty poorly by today's level of technology.

My Tascam is in a huge mobile rack, with a rack mount computer, but my macbook pro and the Lexicon Omega are so much simpler to carry around - and they produce good recordings.

A few years ago, the perfect recording chain sounded 'flat'. A sense of dimension? In mono? Just an accurate reproduction of the room, from a decent mic in the right place - let's not pretend that this is something the pre-amp generates.

Of course I could record with budget preamps. I did it for a long time with a soundcraft LX7.
At the time I had no ears to hear the difference and I had a lot of time to mix and tweak the EQs and dynamics and I'd stopped when it sounded ok but never saying great !
With time my ears got trained by doing a lot of recordings. And having a better budget I started to figure that when recorded with a cheap pre, I had to push hard on EQ cuts and boosts while with a nice pre, it sounded good right away. Now, with the good choice of mic and pre, it's rare that I do cuts more that 3db on the EQ. Also, with better gear, it did cut my mixing time in half. I must say the change of converters also did a lot on quality. ;)

Bottom line; Everything is important when recording audio. The room, the instruments, the talent, the mic, the pre, the converter, the cables, the listening environment, the monitors, how well your ears are trained and how well you know your equipement. If you fail on any, you can undermine the quality of the final product.

paulears, post: 413698, member: 47782 wrote: While the sentiment is probably accurate - the 'sense of dimension' description is pure audiophile hokum!

Every studio person who loves to mix on big, loud and gut shaking full range loudspeakers knows that most people at home won't hear this sound - the sound the producer/engineer selected. I listen to old Beatles recordings and hear clarity from decent mics used properly. Recorded on equipment that was sonically compromised by today's standards, but it still sounds good, despite their preamps performing pretty poorly by today's level of technology.

are you actually saying your behringer, tascam and yamaha pres fall in to that category of sounding better that the "sonically compromised" pres the Fabs were using?

first i would disagree that the gear the Fabs used was poor by todays standards. much of that gear is coveted and imo a Siemens V72 /74 performs as well or better than most of the offerings of the present day. most of the boutique gear in the modern era is based on those designs. nothing has changed much since those days. what sounded good then still sounds good. if you measure performance on paper, then you are right. if you listen with your ears, then it's a different story.

but then if you can't hear the difference the argument is moot. i will say that getting a dimension from better pre amps is not 'hokum" just because you pronounce it so. many well respected individuals in the industry have reported hearing it.

[[url=http://[/URL]="https://www.google…"]https://www.google… from a mic pre&ie=UTF-8&sa=Search&channel=fe&client=browser-ubuntu&hl=en[/]="https://www.google…"]https://www.google… from a mic pre&ie=UTF-8&sa=Search&channel=fe&client=browser-ubuntu&hl=en[/]

http://www.uaudio.com/hardware/mic-preamps/solo-610.html

It's not a price thing based on a name or price alone, Paul. It's a price thing based on overall performance, quality of sound, and quality of build. And sometimes you have to pay a bigger price for quality.

The reasons that people hear the differences between cheap pres and hi caliber pres, is exactly why people do choose those more expensive pres... it's not just because they are pricey.
It's not only so you can have something in your rack that says Neve, or API. It's because those models don't suffer from the flaws that invariably, at some point, so many cheap pres will suffer from.

Cheap pre's generally show their flaws when it comes to the things that count... I'm referring to those most basic requirements... and many times, the cheaper models suffer when it comes to those basic needs - lack of range, S to N, hiss, buzz, and other unwanted electronic noise, harshness and brittleness when pushed... these things do matter. No one wants to record with those deficiencies if they have an option to not have to deal with those things, if they have a choice to use a model that doesn't present those problems.

In my "have ears-will travel" hired-gun engineering gigs, mostly occurring in someone's basement or bedroom studio, I've used quite a few cheap, inexpensive pre amps. I've also had just as many opportunities to use higher caliber pres.
By and large, the cheaper ones do not perform as well as the upper caliber models do. It's not about how they look, or whether they say Avalon or Behringer on them. It's all about their performance.

Yes, of course you can use " just any" pre to record with. If you can get signal to your DAW, then yeah, it serves the most basic purpose. But... it's the quality of the signal that goes into your DAW that matters, and if you're sending noise and buzz and weak signal in, then you'll have to deal with those negatives at some point. I don't want to have to notch filter a track to hell and back because it ended up having nasty noise or buzz ...all because of the pre.

You face a higher percentage of dealing with problematic issues on cheaper models than you will on pro-caliber models, issues that can be - at least to me - deal breakers.

And I'm not talking about "depth" or "color" or "texture" here, or the other nuances that many claim to hear and many claim to be myth.

I'm talking strictly about the things that can kill a track... noisy, buzzy, harshy, hissy ... and the rest of the 7 Dwarves. ;)

IMHO of course.

Donny, you and I seem to be finding posts at the same time. I'm speaking to the web, no one in particular :).

Right on!

DonnyThompson, post: 413692, member: 46114 wrote: I wanted to hang myself watching this video.

The scenarios he uses to describe the "exceptions" - better build quality, better handling of SPL, better voltage to accommodate lower output mics, etc. - are exactly the reasons as to why people do choose high end pre amps. These aren't rare or incidental exceptions. They are everyday scenarios.

He also contradicts himself at least once...see if you can catch where he does.

=HQr-TXIh8pg;t=168
[="

T=168"]View:

T=168[/]="

T=168"]View:

T=168[/]

I agree on everything said.. I think we are are all correct and it will never change.
I recently did 28 voice-overs. I started out using a GR [[url=http://="http://www.greweb.c…"]MP 2NV[/]="http://www.greweb.c…"]MP 2NV[/] and ended up with the Millennia M-2b. WOW! what a difference. I mean, wow. And, we all agreed here.
I wish I had 24 of those, I love those, always have.

I'm debating buying more Millennia pres but now looking for 4 channels of the HV 3D.
Millennia is stellar to me, choice for accurate capture.

Transparent is also why I love SPL and Dangerous Music gear. Makes adding grit more fun. I hear the slightest changes which make eqing easier too. All adds up to "less is more".

Ever wonder why someone says the Millennia sounds too clean? Well, find out what people are using in a chain.
Converters, tracking direct to a DAW, mashing it all up with plug-in verbs and plugin EQ, etc. By the end of the mix, everything is so sterile and flat lined, its going to be pretty damn difficult to hear anything other than the song. Gritty pre's stand out more so I think this an big reason to want "colour" if you don't have other pieces that have that. too much of one thing isn't good either.

Here is my little blurb. Millennia spells exceptional detailed and warmth. Not to my surprise, others claim Millennia is too clean and flat, or even boring.

I have a theory.
When you pass clean through clean, nothing else in the chain to speak of, its clean and boring right? It is to me .

If you pass clean through an 1176 > LA2A > Pultec = pure yummy... ;). The clean becomes what you put after it, precisely accurate and full of lush vibe.
So, if you ain't got "it", then you might need some of "it" in your chain. Its all about making something different in a group so it doesn't all wash together.

My Orpheus pre's... they aren't the M-2b, not even close and some rave about those too.
Look inside the box of the M-2b and ask yourself, I wonder if all that stuff is useless crap. But make sure you unplug that baby and wait for 5 minutes!
Look inside the Orpheus and ask yourself, hmm where is the PSU?

Depending on what you are going for, everything effects everything else so no "one man's option" is really all that helpful to me.

What I do know.
Everything effects everything so unless someone has exactly what I have right down to acoustic treatment, opinions really have little reason for me to take the next guys word on gear..
It comes down to me knowing my sound.

People rave about API and I have my eye on the Pulse 1A3 API 2520 Pultecs right now.

But why would I want gritty colour from trannies in a performance of Liebestraum. Or, why would I want to use clean Millennia pre's if i didn't have quality conversion that translated the sweet high freq of those Millennia's. If the AD I use can't handle the highs, its all going to get in the way of the capture and make the AD over react.
The first thing I notice with crap conversion is how sad everything sounds above 10k. That's why I bought a BAX eq and particularity value the filters on it. But, I have a monitoring chain that allows me to hear what it and everything else coming down the pipe is doing at the end of the capture stage as well as in front. (less is more).

Put that BAX at the end of the analog chain right before the capture DAW and turn those HPF/LPF on! ALL converters love it!
Now the lush analog freq's that the Millennia pre translated in the beginning, will capture perfectly sweet when the mix hits the web at the end of the day.

So, while others think the BAX may not be that useful over a weekend test run through crap monitoring and so it goes.. , from my perspective, filters and conversion is a pretty damn important part to a chain. Really important.
http://recording.org/index.php?threads/oversampling-explained.48087/
In the end no one will know what you did just as long as the song sounds good. The question then becomes, why does that song sound good? And so it goes.

paul ears, critical listening skills take years to develop. perhaps you simply have not sat im the mixing chair long enough? give it time. interact with other engineer on a project level.
the other hand is, you ears will never get there. maybe unfair, buy to quote alec baldwin in 'the departed' "...the world needs plenty of bah-tendas!"

i remember years ago, people talking anout digital being "sterile" and analog being "warm".
ive learned, these words mean jack shit in and of themselves, for they are simply an idea. you either have experienced their impact or you have not. you either understand or you do not. there is no middle area here.

for example: read tape op.
did you not only understand the words being written, but the *experience* they are on about.

what is punch?
clarity?
depth?

hundreds of anonymous people all discussing these things everyday. i would hesitate before i walked up and called shenanigans, lest i look foolish

good thing audio doesn't pass odor (yet) , imagine trying to figure out what someone just ate last :coffee::eek:
:love:

i think frank zappa has an opinion on that ;)

yup, the mother of all inventions. He was something else.

"What I do know.
Everything effects everything so unless someone has exactly what I have right down to acoustic treatment, opinions really have little reason for me to take the next guys word on gear..
It comes down to me knowing my sound..."

Well said. Although, there are people who's opinions I do trust, and it's because of the pro level sound of what I've heard them turn out. I don't really care what gear they have and use, if their work sounds great.
It just so happens that the people whom I respect also happen to use pro caliber gear.

But, just because you own a Neve, API, Pultec, UA, Urei "whatever", doesn't impress me, or make you a pro. It's what you do with that gear that makes me listen to what you have to say. I don't respect you just because you have a Neos and a rack of UA gear (although I do envy you LOL), I respect you because of the pro caliber sonic quality that you consistently turn out. That's all that matters to me. If you feel that your gear alone is what makes your stuff sound so great, then I can respect that. But... I don't agree.

It's because you know what you are doing with that gear, Chris, and because you have a pair of finely tuned ears, a technical skill set, and years of experience in this craft, that tells you what to do with it.
Putting your exact gear and your acoustic environment into the hands of someone who lacks these skills would be futile.

Okay, so I can be a stand up guy and be honest enough to admit that in the beginning of the DAW era, and even into it by a few years, I considered pre's to be the same. It wasn't until I had the opportunity to actually use pro caliber models, and to compare the budget preamps with the pro caliber models, that I heard the difference... "that" sound. I couldn't even describe it in those days, and still have difficulty describing it now. It took years of sessions and of using the best and the worst of preamps to begin to start to be able to put a tangible description together that made sense to others. And I'm still not sure I can accurately describe it.

To be fair, I'll admit to occasionally running into a few high end models that actually disappointed me, in terms of the sound vs. the price, and, just as well, I've also come across some lower budget models that actually impressed me quite a bit.
But, those moments are rare.

For example, I was in a session once where the producer brought in an Avalon preamp/EQ/compressor for the lead vocal track. The mic we were using was a Neumann U89i... (I forget the model of the Avalon, I've searched the web and I'm pretty sure it was the 737)... Anyway, I was so excited to work with the Avalon, because I had heard so many other engineers talk about how wonderful they sounded. Well, I was disappointed.

It wasn't that it sounded bad, not in the sense that cheap preamps will, with brittle sonics and noise, it's just that it didn't have the coloration that I expected out of a well-built, Class A / Tube Pre.
The coloration it did offer came off as sounding muddy and undefined - at least to me. I worked for hours with that thing, after that day's session was over, to try to get out of it what I had expected. I never did.
I didn't feel that it was worth the price. Yeah, it sounded "okay". But it didn't sound $2500 worth of "okay". ;)

On the other end of that spectrum, I recently did a session at a client's "studio" and he had an ART Tube MP Studio model pre amp. I expected the worst, but ended up being kinda impressed by it. It delivered a decent, smooth, tube sound, and while it did lack gain, as is the common issue with cheap preamps, it wasn't what I would consider to be terrible. It certainly wouldn't be my first choice in pre's of course, but, for the $40 my client paid for it - new - well, I can honestly say that it wasn't the worst $40 bucks he ever spent.

FWIW

Then the woman doing e-learning said to me ; 'How come your sound seem so close and intimate, it sound amazing'
My answer : 'good choice of mic and preamp miss !' and I thought : YES :) !! A 3000$ well spent !! (actually spent over 7000$ last year)o_O

DonnyThompson, post: 413736, member: 46114 wrote: "What I do know.
Everything effects everything so unless someone has exactly what I have right down to acoustic treatment, opinions really have little reason for me to take the next guys word on gear..
It comes down to me knowing my sound..."

Well said. Although, there are people who's opinions I do trust, and it's because of the pro level sound of what I've heard them turn out. I don't really care what gear they have and use, if their work sounds great.
It just so happens that the people whom I respect also happen to use pro caliber gear.

FWIW

indeed. :love: Without doubt I trust peers. I'm generally speaking with the punch line being, we all need to know our workflow and no one knows this better than me (ourselves).
I ask Kurt what he thinks of the Pultecs and the history of it. I don't ask him if I should buy that for this singer or if here thinks its worth the $3000 for it when I could get it in a plug-in. This is where I'm coming from.

Read reviews of emulation plugins, they all start with It's not the real thing but sound ''_______'' insert your selling point here !! ;)

I really do love listening to passionate folks talk shop. But ya know, we're making recordings for the people. Not to impress other engineers with. Although that's always nice when ya do.

Most of you guys are talking like rock 'n roll should be low in distortion and other artifacts? Yeah... why? And that one wouldn't want some kind of luscious coloration for lovely fine arts, symphonic and operatic recordings? Are you guys really kidding me?

The Millennia's, very nice indeed. So is GML. So is Neve. So is API. Where does it stop? It's got to be cleaner brighter fresher mintier? Then what does that really have to do with music and how it is perceived?

Some of this is simply mindless marketing. Have ya been reading the trade publications? Everybody wants to start releasing their music in 24-bit, 96 kHz PCM. Really? Why? PCM sucks... it's that simple. Variations on PCM all suck. DSD, now that's real sounding. As close as anything I've heard to the direct source output from a high quality console. And not from the output of someone's gobbledygook 24-bit, 192 kHz converter. Because it still sounds like PCM.

So what you guys are talking about, of course is mostly all nuance. But then here you are now caught, discussing these nuances while completely disregarding just how truly awful Pulse Code Modulation recording really sounds like.

And is the consumer going to buy in, to higher resolution recordings? Have ya looked at the economy lately? Does anybody have $50,000 + & up, budgets for rock 'n roll albums anymore? And so one preamp or other gizmo over another is really going to make any difference? Of course it's not going to. Only for you guys does it make a difference to.

You guys live in your own little microcosm of pro audio. Most people still get most of their listening in, in their car stereos. And those radio stations both terrestrial and satellite, are using real-time, 128 kb per second, MP3 coders as the link, between the broadcast studios and the transmitter site. So tell me now... how are these nuanced differences in converters, preamps, microphones, EQ's, dynamics processors, really going to make?

If people really demanded quality? Why does McDonald's exist? Burger King, Taco Bell, Chick-fil-A, Pizza Hut. This is not quality food. But this is what most people consume. Maseratis Lamborghinis are really great. But most people just buy cars. My Neve, API stuff, UREI/UA, DBX, Lexicon, Yamaha, JBL, Crown, KRK, stuff really makes no god damn difference, even in relation to Mackie and heaven for bid, Barringer. If the equipment works? And the engineer knows what they're doing and has full knowledge of the equipment in use, a lovely listenable professional product, will be the end result.

Because most of you folks have only had experience in small musical groups and productions, equipment aren't your tools, they're your hobby. One does not buy a car every year just because the newer version of what you currently have is cleaner and shinier. It's only there for a single purpose. To get you from point A to point B. And if ya know how to drive? It should work? Otherwise, you'd blame your equipment for your accident. And it wasn't the equipment. It's because it didn't have all the creature comforts that the Maserati had or maybe the BMW, had?

I'm not trying to be pontificating here. We are all here for the betterment of recorded audio. But what does this cleaner and brighter, greater transparency, has anything actually to do with how we are to perceive music? Bottom line, it has nothing to do with it. This of course is proved time and time again, otherwise, nobody would be listening to any of those oldies. And how is our equipment being designed today? As inexpensively as possible so that the software can make it sound like the old stuff. So is this counter production? In other words, the entire music industry collapses, if we don't keep buying new cheap equipment every day? Because if those expensive boutique pieces were so great, are so great? Why do those companies keep regularly going out of business? Because this is not a high profit oriented manufacturing product, to produce.

It's like ya go to a local car dealer and purchase Maserati, Aston Martin, Lamborghini. However, if you desire a true racecar? It won't be one of those you purchase off of a show room floor. It'll be something similar, but with numerous augmentations and enhancements, for a specific purpose application. Not for general everyday usage. And recording equipment is essentially like that.

Back in the day, when it came to pro audio, your choices were break the bank or garbage. There really wasn't anything worthy, in between. And none of it was off the shelf and in stock, anywhere. Most of it was all special order. Today, that largely has changed in numerous different ways. So, boys, if the equipment that you have works? What's keeping you from making fine recordings? I'll tell ya... it's the people you're recording. Because the cheapest lousiest equipment sounds fabulous, when the person you are recording already sounds fabulous. The musicians are all fabulous. Everyone is professional. So nothing keeps you from also delivering a professional product, regardless, of the equipment you have in use. That's what's expected from a professional audio engineer. No excuses. No..." I could've made it so much better if I had...". No. No and no. That's a beginner attitude to take. You'll live another day to record another job. And you'll live longer if you stop stressing out about how substandard your equipment might be because it's not brand spanking new. That really has nothing to do with pushing the quality of audio into new realms. It's really based upon your engineering expertise and technique.

You guys ought to try working for a large firm, in a control room, not to your specifications or even to your liking. And what do ya do? Ya do the job. You get paid. That's all that matters. And the only thing that will improve the quality of the audio is the performer and your engineering expertise. Without those two thirds of the whole, the equipment has no technique of its own. It just sits there. No matter how good or bad it might be? It's the engineer that makes it listenable as opposed to strictly clinically technically perfect. Listenability has nothing to do with the equipment. For instance:

For equipment that is not as clean and bright and perhaps even mushy? That degradation, in your book, might actually translate to warm and friendly to the listener? Cleaner and brighter and more high-end, with greater definition, only lets you hear more of the flaws. Because every piece of equipment as its own sound and therefore it is all flawed. Transparent, the mere definition of it when it relates to audio is marketing bull shit. I've got an advertising and marketing background. I'm third generation. So what you're talking about is everyone should get on board, with the same religion because it's better than your old religion. And if you don't get on with their religion? You'll be ostracized for not being the same... as everyone else. Thank God this atheist isn't like that. I even had reservations about joining the Audio Engineering Society. Because I don't hang with any groups. I stand apart. So I also don't try to make my engineering sound like everyone else's. And to prevent that from happening, I sure as hell not going to use the new detergent and fabric softener y'all are using. I'll go with something more organic. Complete with its flaws.

So shouldn't we really just be talking about engineering technique? And how you have to change your technique depending on the different equipment in which you must record upon? For instance... one of my Grammy nominated recordings, I made, ended up being a huge, huge, compromise, I had to accept, regarding the equipment. My API's sounded nothing like the AMEK, BC-1. That thing was so much darker sounding. It forced me to completely change my entire plotted out microphone selections. I had already recorded this Dramatic Soprano on my API preamps with my Beyer, M-160. I didn't want a condenser sound. But that in fact is what I ended up using, my AKG 414 B-ULS because, it was necessary on that BC-1, portable AMEK. I didn't end up using my U-87 & 67's on the violin section. That I changed over to the KM-86's and SHURE, SM-81's. And there were more than that change around to contend with. But this change was so that I could get " MY SOUND ". Even my primary front orchestral microphones weren't the ones I wanted to use. Both were the ones that the Executive Producer wanted to use from their engineer friend. And a pair I had no experience using, the Sanken CU-44's as a pair of spaced cardioid's. Give me a break! Yet it still got Grammy nominated. What's that say? It really didn't sound anything like the way I wanted it to. C'est la vie.

So if ya buy those really expensive Millennia's, is that going to make or break your business? I sure as hell hope not? I've recorded with just as many Soundtracs, Yamaha, Peavey, TEAC/TASCAM,, Mackie & Beringer's as I have with Neve, API, SSL, Sphere's, MCI, Harrison. No I haven't used anything by any of the boutique manufacturers. I also don't own any Lamborghini's nor Maserati's.

What's it all about, Alfie?
Mx. Remy Ann David

"...I'm not trying to be pontificating here...."

Sure you are.

"You guys ought to try working for a large firm, in a control room, not to your specifications or even to your liking."

Yawn. You're talking as if you're the only one here who has ever worked in a professional environment on a professional project, or have been the only one here who has been forced to attempt to turn out some measure of quality on "substandard" equipment.

"Because most of you folks have only had experience in small musical groups and productions, equipment aren't your tools, they're your hobby."

I don't know who you were referring to when you said "you folks". But I guess I have to break it to you... you're NOT the only professional here. If you want, I can send you my past client list and resume. There's nothing "hobby" about it.

"So shouldn't we really just be talking about engineering technique?"

We do... all the time. Yet, I can't help notice that there's no lack of boutique level name - dropping on your part, of the pro equipment that you happen to own and use.
"API this... Neve that... Pultec there...LA2 over there...three 1176's..... (and a partridge in a pear tree.")

"...Listenability has nothing to do with the equipment..."

Oh Bullshit. On wheat toast. C'mon now Remy, you're as reliant as anyone else is of quality gear to do your job.

I'm not trying to personally offend you. I am, however, calling you to the carpet on this one as a peer, because you know for a fact that given a choice between a Neve pre or a Behringer pre, you're gonna reach for the Neve... every. single. time. Every time.
You know you will.

If it doesn't matter what gear you use in terms of "listen-ability", if it's just all about your skills as an engineer, then you could sell all that nice stuff you have, pick up a 24 channel Presonus Studio/Live Console for around 3 grand, pocket a boat-load of cash - considering the going rate of vintage pro audio gear -and no one would be the wiser.

You're very knowledgeable. 90% of the time, you know what you're talking about. But... there's that other 10% of "drift". And very often, that drift includes a lot of contradiction.

-Donny - I'm only right 80% of the time - Thompson ;)

Donny. Best post of the decade right now. (y)

IIRs, post: 361346 wrote: You need to get your head around the concept of aliasing.

Nyquist theory states that the highest frequency a digital sampling system can represent will always be half the samplerate, so this upper limit is known as the Nyquist frequency. The problem is, if you try to represent signals higher than nyquist they don't just disappear: they actually end up reflected back down below nyquist where they become a particular type of distortion known as aliasing.

Aliasing is the reason why your AD converters need filters: everything above nyquist must be removed before conversion, as there is no way to separate aliasing from the wanted signal after it has occurred.

Aliasing can also occur when processing digital signals however: any process that adds extra harmonics risks inadvertantly adding components above nyquist.

As an example, lets take a sine wave at 6KHz, and lets simplify the maths by setting a samplerate of exactly 40KHz, so nyquist is exactly 20KHz. I'm going to saturate the sine wave with a distortion effect to generate extra harmonics, which should appear at the following frequencies:

2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
12K 18K 24K 30K 36K

However, components above nyquist would be reflected back down as aliasing, so we would actually get the following (aliasing in red)

2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
12K 18K 16K 10K 4K

If we oversample by 2x nyquist will now be 40KHz, so we can go much further:

2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th
12K 18K 24K 30K 36K 38K 32K 26K 20K

Notice that not only do we get another octave of headroom before aliasing occurs, we also get another octave above that where the resulting aliasing components are higher than the target nyquist, and will then be filtered out when downsampling back to 40KHz. ie: the orange aliasing components at 38K, 32K, and 26K will not be audible, so unlike the 1x version which aliases audibly at the 4th harmonic, the 2x version can go up to the 10th harmonic before aliasing becomes a problem.

The amount of oversampling you need therefore depends on two things: how much harmonic distortion is generated by the process, and the higest frequencies present in the signal you are processing.

Compressors will add subtle harmonics, especially with fast attack or release times, but if you are processing a bass guitar (for example) the harmonics generated will probably not go high enough to cause aliasing. But if you are compressing a drum overhead with lots of HF cymbal crashes you may find you need 2x or 4x oversampling to avoid a brittle harsh quality creeping in from the aliasing distortion.

If you are distorting the drum overheads however, perhaps with a saturation effect, or with a compressor or EQ that models analog non-linearities, you may well need 8x oversampling or higher. (The latest version of [[url=http://[/URL]="https://cytomic.com…"]The Glue[/]="https://cytomic.com…"]The Glue[/] provides an offline rendering mode with 256x oversampling! There is no way the compression would ever require this much oversampling, but the "Peak Clip" option uses clipping rather than limiting, ie: distortion.)

Obviously, the down side to oversampling is extra cpu load, and extra latency: not only do you have to process twice as many samples per second (or 4 times, or 8 times or whatever) you also need up and down sampling filters. If these filters are simplified too far they can significantly colour the sound, or smear the phase at the high end, but 'perfect' linear phase fiiltering is costly in terms of cpu, and will add a significant amount of latency. Some plugs therefore allow you to specify that they run at samplerate during realtime playback, but oversample when rendering (Auto mode in the Voxengo plugs). The Glue even allows you to specify different oversampling amounts for playback and rendering, eg: 2x for playback but 8 (or 256!) x for rendering.

I'm a little wary of that to be honest: when I render I like to get exactly what I was hearing when I mixed, and I don't like to assume that the host will always realise that the latency has changed. (Reaper seems to cope ok to be honest, but why introduce an extra variable?)

Remy,
This is a very valuable post and if you read into it, and process what I said about filters on the BAX, why Chris Muth designed this into his BAX, you'll see gear does matter. Especially when we are trying to get digital audio to do what analog does so well.

I miss Dan being around here but his excessive slamming of analog and push towards digital audio got the best of him. Remy, you really need to think about what you are saying .

It would be so much easier if we could measure how good a recording sound. A meter like a tuner that says : 'Perfect sound'
But it's not gonna happen because good sound is based on taste and everybody has its own taste. Also everybody's ears hear differently and are trained differently. So the goal is to please as many people as possible. (you, you're customers and their customers). What ever the tools, if you are able to be successfull nothing else count !! We need to honestly draw the line where we want and make music !!

I'm keeping this going because its a fun topic for me.

I started quantizing in 1979. Quantization = sampling, time correction, plug-ins, DAW's and computers. DAW's are samplers , they quantize everything. Quantization started out being the coolest thing going. From owning $7000 clocks to multiple DAWs and DSD's, one might ask yourself, where am I sitting today?

a DAW includes all this:

preamp> capture > AD first generation wave > integrated and preservation with samplers > time line and sync > quantization

YIKES! What do I do now?

The game changer to natural sound and ease to mixing acoustic music has always been evident to me. Avoid less shift or quantization, music sounds more real to me.

When I do a remix though, I'm big on quantizing and samples. Love it.
When I'm recording classical, I don't touch anything in that department. In fact, that's when I want the most pristine ADC possible and bring out the guns. (Stay back! Get OFF MY LAWN) Kurt :)
I want the sound of the reflections, the performance imaging to be as true to human experience as possible.

Okay, what if I'm doing a little of both (acoustic and electronic)?

Is it possible to glue quantization to rich acoustic music ? To some absolutely, to others not without some help or set backs. This is where we go our different ways.

We all know music has a more natural sound with less shift in the wave. But, at the same time, its hard to avoid quantization ITB isn't it? As soon as we capture music ITB, move a fader or add a plug-in, aren't we introducing quantization?

If you get that, join the crowd of, What do I do now? :coffee:

When people step OTB and enter the world of Pro Audio Hardware, analog gear will instantly become a serious hindrance in a half built chain. Thats my findings. A half built analog chain is a carrot full of issues and dreams. Look at the pro's buying $7000 clocks to try and keep their broken (quantized) hybrid tracks in sync.

If you don't use good quality gear, excellent DA, interfacing, clean power, cabling, a good hardware matrix, and have the brains to run it proficiently, you are peeing face first into the wind. You are worse off than you were sticking to ITB. If you want to play with the pro's, get your wallet out. All this nonsense about gear doesn't matter, is complete ignorance. But, I bet a simple analog mixer and a HD capture DAW would do better for all acoustic performances.

The need for more never ends. The hard part is being satisfied with what you have and keeping the cables short.
My problem is, I am never 100% satisfied and I always run out of time and money.

We are what we eat. I should retire and stop all this nonsense.

dont you dare

I think my sonic appreciation was driven by my physics knowledge, and I spent a lot of time (and money) convincing myself the huge amounts of money I'd just spent really did improve the sound. At some point, I decided that there was good and bad sound, but once in the good sound area, then the lovely descriptive words just hinted at differences. The perception of better or worse was very much up to the individual. The old Beatles recordings are very good examples. I've got some of the collectors rare tracks - the out-takes and different versions, and frankly, if that is exceptional sound from amazing equipment, I'm glad I don't use it! It has clarity, and these collectors tracks are quite revealing. I'm not saying it's bad sound in any way of course - but it's old sound, it's slightly rough around the edges, which may well be what makes it special - but nothing really stands out as an example of superlative recording. However, a few years ago, I got to hear a copy of the original Buddy Holly recordings and that did amaze me. The bottom and top end were very modern sounding in terms of what could be heard - and I was impressed.

I have no interest now in joining this quest for ultimate sound, because any minuscule gains in the recording chain post microphone reveal more deficiencies in the source material.

I spend a lot of time in theatres nowadays, and Sound Designers are spending more and more time (and money) aligning the speaker to ear arrival times, and are now using their pads, pods and phones with specialist apps to adjust based on what they see, as well as hear.

Frankly, the adjustments they are making in the final stages are simply tiny - and I cannot hear them, although I can see what they've done.

I want (and in my Production manager role, demand) no distortion, high quality and what people used to call CD quality sound. That is sufficient. If my Sound Designer wishes to use esoteric preamps, then fine, as long as I don't have to pay for it.

What I cannot cope with are the real enthusiasts who have golden ears, and tell me that they can hear the difference between cables, and all the other crazy products. Word clock is a good example of a solution to a technical issue that can be evidenced on a scope. Data integrity is very important. All I can tell is that a system with jitter sounds different to a small degree. Putting it right is a sensible thing to do IF there is budget for it. I'm not convinced that spending lots of money on this area of sound is sensible use of money for such a small sonic difference. Other people will disagree strongly.

Today I was building up a rack for a tour. Due to a mistake on my part, the rack was one 'hole' too short. One of the amps (a quite expensive one) had a transformer bolt that prevented the very bottom slot being used, and I couldn't shunt them all up because I ran out at the top. Laying around was a much, much cheaper amplifier with similar power output, and identical connectors and no bolt. I stuck that one instead, and frankly - I cannot hear the difference.

I realise I'm never going to convince anyone, over the years I have got quite used to it. I have my own set of audio values - and for me, with the three devices I use all the time - it really doesn't matter to me which one I use. They all sound perfectly good enough. I can't contemplate wanting anything better sounding, because I can make more obvious improvements with microphones and placement.

I don't have a problem with people having a quest for ultimate sonic quality, but it's chasing rainbows.

What was the harmonic distortion figures for valve preamps in the 1960's again?

i guess it all depends on what one likes. i personally like a little distortion on some things like snare and a vocal ... adds edge that make the sound jump. if i were recording a classical piece then i would opt for a more modern pre with lower distortion and a lower noise level. but i record rock and roll, country, blues and Americana music. gimmie a neve or and old api!

Kurt, lets have fun on this. Could you get a close enough API effect/result using the Apollo and UAD API emulation? This is really were we are going here.

Kurt's hit the nail on the head. If a grungier and dirty sound can make music better, the quest for ultraism is a bit pointless. Context is everything. Personally, I'd rather have a better piano than a better preamp!

Indeed, but, doesn't some different between clones and the real deal influence size of the capture. Its sort of relevant, yes? no? When we are compounding , using the same low end pre for everything, doesn't that have any impact on how it translates over 16 tracks?

Two guitars both playing through a stomp box. Both have same mic, same room, same pre but one is coming out of an SS amp and the other through a tube.

Switch, use the Warm Audio Neve Clone the other using a GR 2NV. I wonder if they would sound so close it wasn't an issue?

For a while now I have had a Behringer V-amp processor, and last year I bought the Line-6 version that had always pushed the Behringer version into the 'nearly as good' category. The odd thing is I still like the sound of the Behringer.

Why does a valve microphone, or valve compressor sound better sonically but electronically be (pleasantly) destructive.

If something works, and sounds good to the ear, then maybe we should ignore the scientific tests, and just accept it?

Over the past year, I've been visiting a home cinema build fairly regularly - and am very impressed with the acoustics, but the guy is convinced that swapping X for Y will make big improvements when it will just make a very small one. I doubt I'll hear it - not having heard any of his other 'improvements' in the electronics so far - because his datum point was already excellent, and all the things he's now doing are unmeasurable and impossible for me to hear. He hears them, of course.

paulears, post: 413803, member: 47782 wrote:
Why does a valve microphone, or valve compressor sound better sonically but electronically be (pleasantly) destructive.

If something works, and sounds good to the ear, then maybe we should ignore the scientific tests, and just accept it?

exactly. it's not what sounds good but what sounds good. Rubens or Van Gough? I like Vincent better.

I stopped reading specs in the 80's. I do read them, but it doesn't determine if i like something.

Well, I'm so thrilled over these Pultecs, I want more. I'm sitting here biting my nails over the lust of having the API versions now. I know I'm obsessed . I want one on every channel.
I doubt I will ever be the success I dreamed I would be as a musician, I lost the time to keep my chops up having children. Got all this glorious gear after I could hear myself through it. But, I will hopefully die smiling at the floor of my analog rack leaving something behind that is more than just power suckers. :love:

I should try mixing ITB again. I have no inhibitions. Its been a while since I was there and I do think I've learned a lot since, so who knows. I like to revisit things I'm overly sure of from time to time.

I have found that I enjoy reaching for what seems unreachable. I enjoy trying to emulate those engineers whom I respect - Martin, Parsons, Lang, the Alge brothers, Olson, Padgham, Rundgren, et al.

It might be something as simple as a particular hi hat sound, or a vocal nuance, or a stereo spread.

That's not to say that I want everything I do to sound just like those guys, I do want there to be some kind of "signature" that is my own in the productions I do. But, having examples of what can be done can be a marvelous tool.
I look at it as a "road map" from which I can at least start. The places we end up is up to us, and how far off the map we want to travel.

For example, the first guy who decided to use the 1176 in "all buttons" mode, or the first engineer who figured out how to emulate real-time doubling of a track through electronic means, or the first cat to gate a reverb on a drum kit?

And sometimes, it may even start as a mistake. Hugh Padgham was the guy who found that the compressor on the talk back chain of the SSL E Series console could result in huge drum sounds. It eventually became the SSL Listen Mic Compressor (LMC-1) that ended up being used on many recordings afterwards.

So sometimes, beyond the knowledge and the learning gained, you end up with something very cool as a result.

Not always, of course. My reaching has often resulted in crap - LOL - but as Edison said when asked how he learned to make the light bulb, he answered "I learned 250 times how to NOT make a light bulb."

I'm one of those guys who often says "What if I did this .....?" Constant stretching and pushing the envelopes can often result in better productions... at the very least, it results in knowledge through application; even if it's nothing more than what Edison said... learning how to NOT do something.

As engineers and producers, we should always try for more, we should always reach - even if, at times, it seems unreachable. ;)

I've got a great respect for Martin and Parsons, more than the others I think - mainly because their music is more my taste, but whenever I've read articles about how they did/do things since probably about the mid 80s, most of my recreations of their techniques never quite seemed to work. Their talent, my lack, their recording spaces vs mine, and perhaps even the calibre of musicians and instruments seem to work for them and against me. The session tomorrow for example - I know the guitar sound is going to be tricky, because I've worked with the guy before, and the drummer sings - which, as it's an 'as live' recording really pushes things!

Live recording of a drummer/signer !!! o_O My thoughts are with you Paul !

Not very common - just trying to think of other bands with a lead singer who drums - Tremeloes, The Carpenters, Phil Collins of course. The worst thing is that comping is tricky because you very often can't chop the track where you want, because of a damn snare hit!

Levon Helm! there are mic techniques to deal with the problems that arise with a singing drummer. two mics tapped together and phase flipped is one... search it out
channel=fe&hl=en&q=singing+drummer+mic+spill+fix&spell=1" rel="nofollow">https://www.google.com/search?q=singing+drummer+mic+spill+fix%27s+&ie=UTF-8&sa=Search&channel=fe&client=browser-ubuntu&hl=enchannel=fe&hl=en&q=singing+drummer+mic+spill+fix&spell=1

.... it's been done many times .... Buddy Miles!

Henley, Dave Clark, Sheila E, Dennis Wilson, Roger Taylor, and......(certainly not to compare myself with the former), Me. LOL.

I got a LOT of work in the 80's and 90's as a drummer who sang lead vox. I think that sometimes, I got those gigs more for my singing than I did from my drumming. ;)

I've tried the phase cancelling idea and discounted it because it sounds horrible and needs savage eq. I have an STC/Coles commentators lip mic too, and have even tried that. In Donny's list above Dennis Wilson is probably the closest style. We'll see!

Savage eq
Love that term (y)

Sent from my iPhone