Some thoughts

sei046

I should not be posting with so much work to do but just some thoughts!

I remember reading about how some producer only uses them (millenium?) preamps as they are the most uncoloured. He was saying that he put an osciloscope at the end of the pre and ran a square wave through it and it came out more like a sine wave. He was saying that if you take the attack of anything it is very hard to hear what instrument it is (Which i find true) and that its madness to do it. I actually find this very interesting as its kind of scary to think that you are cutting off a very very important part of the sound. I liked the analogy. Thoughts??


Also


I get so many artists who listen to these records and they want that sound. So lets say i do an irish country tune and they put it up against a Mizelle record and it sounds different and then they put it up against a buckley record and it sounds different. They wonder why its different of course as they want that sound. BUT the mizelle and buckley sounds may be different!

There are many goods, How do you guys choose which sound to go for. I just go with what feels right at the time. But i still like them other sounds. they are just different. What you guys think about various different and equal "good sounds"

jtsuited

sei046 wrote: »

. He was saying that he put an osciloscope at the end of the pre and ran a square wave through it and it came out more like a sine wave.

mmm. i'm a bit confused by your post (don't worry i ramble all the time:D).

although this bit stands to reason if you think about it. A square wave produces harmonics all the way up. A 'mega-warm' preamp/compressor/circuit/whatever is always gonna roll off these harmonics because that's what analogue does. so at the opposite end the oscilloscope is obviously going to look more like a sine wave.

test it if you're interested. Run a square wave through a low pass filter and stick an oscilloscope on the output. it will round off as you bring the lpf towards the fundamental.

there's a lot of pure bullsh1t spoken about the magic of analog etc., when it really comes down to basic mathematical principles.

Slightly off/on topic, i was listening to some summing comparisons the other day comparing some of the high end summing mixers versus ITB protools mixes. The analogue summing mixers really have a nice rounded low end and it sounds a lot punchier. So I thought about getting a nice big summing mixer (the neve 8816 seems to sound beautiful on thumping electronic stuff). But then i thought to myself 'what a load of esoteric nonsense' as i had neglected something quite significant.
When you're mixing in the box, you are going to compensate for the digital harshness of the system. This fact sort nullifies these a/b comparisons.

I've heard and read so much bullsh1t about the real beauty of analogue etc., but with sampling and bitrates always increasing, the clarity of analogue is really not that far off in the digital world.

And then all the 'aesthetic' characteristics of analogue - well it's not difficult to simulate tape saturation with decent plugins (NOT things like PSP Vintagewarmer-don't get me started), and the harmonic distortion of analogue gear is not exactly rocket science for the plugin programmers to work out. I think the UAD and Sonalksis plugins are indicative of how when the 'analogue experts' are involved in the development of plugins (the guys who do Sonalksis are former AMS-Neve designers), the analogue vs. digital debate is shown up for what it is - a load of esoteric nonsense.

A lot of the 'pro/big/godlike' engineers swear by their analogue gear and spit on many aspects of the digital world. But these guys have been around for years using analogue equipment and don't realise that audio behaves vastly different in the digital domain. They don't want to learn new tricks and want to perpetuate the myths that you need at least one LA-2A to even think about laying tracks.

And it's understandable why they would. They need to protect their 'legacy' and profession. But realistically the digital world has put millions of kids in their bedrooms competing with them with stock built home computers.

Now don't get me wrong, I love a lot of analogue outboard, and often use it (every track i've mastered lately has been sent through an 1176), but hearing guys on forums going 'mmm..i can't get a good sound out of ITB, i need to get x, y and z is hilarious. What they really need is to stop deluding themselves about how actually talented they are.

Anywho in the spirit of random ramblings, that is my post!

sei046

and what a post!
I agree completely. I have not met an engineer/producer who was better than his gear! Seriously. Even this behringer gear. amateurs upgrade their gear before they actually can master it ( me included ). A perfect circles stuff is all PT and i think it sounds amazing and warm.

I dont know where i stand on the whole analogue thing as i havent used enough to make a meaningful comment but its so easy to get led astray with all the nonsense

Neurojazz

Have to agree the UAD stuff is incredible... i can't find any reason to go looking for analog gear with that sort of quality of coding going on in software now

jtsuited

Neurojazz wrote: »

Have to agree the UAD stuff is incredible... i can't find any reason to go looking for analog gear with that sort of quality of coding going on in software now

i think part of my motivation for writing that was that the other day i managed to compare a hardware 1176 with the UAD one, and I would not have been able to tell the difference in a double blind test. And my ears are good - i do listening tests regularly and can hear up to around 19.2k.
there was a difference but it wasn't good/bad different. it was merely a character thing. and as we all know analogue gear has different qualities unit per unit.

Yeah i really don't know how someone could justify going out buying that stuff when the UAD etc. stuff is THAT good.
unless people use the whole 'ah but hardware it's just there, and you can't beat real knobs, faders etc. argument.

But that has more to do with commodity fetishism than any real logical argument. But then again there are a lot of people who are more interested in fetishising audio gear than in any music whatsoever.

'Look at me, i have analogue outboard. I'm one step above those kids with their in the box mixing and cheap as chips studios who are making better records than me and hence me not making any money any more etc.
Why don't I just sh1t on everything that's within the budget of amateurs so I can delude myself into thinking I'm a real 'pro'. And i'll keep perpetuating the bizarre phrase 'pro-audio' and point to old great engineers going on about how cheap recording equipment is a load of pants, despite the fact that they don't understand that the digital gain structure in a DAW is vastly different to analog, and won't cover up their messy hot mixes.'


How exactly can Audio be professional anyway?
hee hee, slightly manic rant finished!!:D

eoin5

sei046 wrote: »

He was saying that if you take the attack of anything it is very hard to hear what instrument it is (Which i find true) and that its madness to do it. I actually find this very interesting as its kind of scary to think that you are cutting off a very very important part of the sound. I liked the analogy. Thoughts??

I did a project in college involving flute (simple) and violin (complicated) notes and at times I couldnt tell the sustain of one from the other. Brains have to do some filling in the gaps so that you can hear coherently and for that to work it needs an ASDR format to work on.

Neurojazz

Off topic, but sort of related...

Can anyone find out what frequency cat deterant alarms work at? - my parents used to find it funny that i could hear it and they couldn't and found great joy in watching me wince by setting it off in the house :P

PaulBrewer

sei046 wrote: »

I should not be posting with so much work to do but just some thoughts!

I remember reading about how some producer only uses them (millenium?) preamps as they are the most uncoloured. He was saying that he put an osciloscope at the end of the pre and ran a square wave through it and it came out more like a sine wave. He was saying that if you take the attack of anything it is very hard to hear what instrument it is (Which i find true) and that its madness to do it. I actually find this very interesting as its kind of scary to think that you are cutting off a very very important part of the sound. I liked the analogy. Thoughts??


Also


I get so many artists who listen to these records and they want that sound. So lets say i do an irish country tune and they put it up against a Mizelle record and it sounds different and then they put it up against a buckley record and it sounds different. They wonder why its different of course as they want that sound. BUT the mizelle and buckley sounds may be different!

There are many goods, How do you guys choose which sound to go for. I just go with what feels right at the time. But i still like them other sounds. they are just different. What you guys think about various different and equal "good sounds"

Yea! The millenia approach is very valid and that's why they're very popular in classical recording where the goal is to capture accurately as possible what's going on.

However that is not necessarily the case with 'pop' recording - often the goal is to make the records sound 'good' not 'accurate'.

This opens up a whole new area- hence Neve stuff sounds 'good'. Often terms such a 'warm' and 'full' and 'smooth' are used to describe the sound.

Another way to technically describe it is 'distorted'! However in this case it's a distortion one's ears like!

Neve (as do many others) use transformers in the input and output stages and these are often not terribly accurate on transients and 'soften' them .

On drums this has the effect of 'fattening' things. Think something like the drum sound on a Tom Petty record as the only example I can think of at the mo. Big and Fat.

That's the advantage of 'distortion' !

I've recorded both Mizzell and Buckley more than once so I'm very aware of what you refer to.

I've also sold all the gear to the guys who now record them! Peter and Jonathan.

As we both know the Irish Country sound is based on the Nashville sound.
The Nashville sound comes from a certain kind of perfection which brings me to my regular clarion call........

GREAT GEAR!

All else is only an approximation I'm afraid.... I spent quite a while chasing my (and Nashville's) tail there.

In July I'll attend the Summer NAMM in Nashville and while there we'll visit as many studios as my contacts can open for me......

I'll return with a head full of Boards posts!!

sei046

I like johnathans stuff a lot. Its very lively and well mixed. But i dont know if they are trying to emulate nashville anymore. Irish country has gone so....keyboardy! and although a lot of it is like that because its all ....well on a keyboard! but i find the studios are sticking to this formula and its so monotonous! I cant stand it.

I like the nashville sound. Especially the work on Brad Paisleys albums. Johnathan and The boys in galway, Tony and Frank do great stuff

PaulBrewer

sei046 wrote: »

I like johnathans stuff a lot. Its very lively and well mixed. But i dont know if they are trying to emulate nashville anymore. Irish country has gone so....keyboardy! and although a lot of it is like that because its all ....well on a keyboard! but i find the studios are sticking to this formula and its so monotonous! I cant stand it.

I like the nashville sound. Especially the work on Brad Paisleys albums. Johnathan and The boys in galway, Tony and Frank do great stuff

the Keyboard element is down to budgets often - I think you'll see another big leap in quality in the next while.

Peter and I recorded that live Buckley DVD which was in some ways a turning point insofar as you hear a lot more live drums and bass on tracks than a few years ago. This re-organic-ism (to coin a phrase!) will continue as Jon and Peter and hopefully, yourself, push that style of work.

sei046

I have that dvd here must give it a listen. Heard great things about it. But it really makes a difference. I was just saying to Mark Cahill (Mary Duff, Liam Lawton) About how i want to just start upping the price and using real drums. It makes such a difference.

But to be fair programming has a lot to do with it. To really get a rocking sound out of them you need to spend time programming (in trilogy and BFD) whereas i find i could get a good take with a drummer in the same time

PaulBrewer

I think the DVD sounds ok, just from a sonic point of view. I think we'd do it much better if it was recorded this year, but-sure......- the thing that really impressed me was the band!

14 pieces, Jonathan on drums and James Blenn on bass, Frankie on guitar just lit up the tracks as only musically interacting humans can!

Some of the sounds could be a bit shinier but there's a rare ole groove going on!

James played double bass on a lot of the tracks and has mind melting tuning!

Scary, but beautiful, stuff!

sei046

Whatever Frankie touches turns to gold! Hes some man! Charlie asking for you there.

What i was saying was when there are those guys throwing out good stuff, and you want to get a customer the peter or john sound, you have to make decisions where to work from as the customers dont understand different types of good!

PaulBrewer

sei046 wrote: »

customers dont understand different types of good!

That's our Job!!!


Respect to Pops! haven't seen him in a while, hope he's groovin'!

sei046

if he stopped groovin for a second he would be doing well!

That nashville namme should be a good ol' buzz. Will be interesting to hear the storys

frobisher

sei046 wrote: »

Irish country has gone so....keyboardy! and although a lot of it is like that because its all ....well on a keyboard!

But then you have someone like Gavin Glass rocking out a country buzz with real instruments and a great vibe. He's a friend 'n' all so I'm biased but I really rate what he's doing.
http://www.myspace.com/gavinglass