The sound of music

Post anything that doesn't belong in any other forum, including gaming and topics unrelated to motorsport. Site specific discussions should go in the site feedback forum.
User avatar
jon-mullen
1
Joined: 10 Sep 2008, 02:56
Location: Big Blue Nation

Re: Technician Hand Tools

Post

ESPImperium wrote:Just waiting for some money to come my way and im getting a MacBook for recording in ProTools. Add to that a nice pair of small Genelec active speakers as well and ill have the recording rig i want after trying many PC based solutions.
Ah ProTools, the best and worst thing to happen to music production. IMHO, too many people use it as an excuse for recording in a bad room, with bad mic placement and no concept of gain staging. If you get the basics right, though, it's a really really powerful tool. Otherwise "we'll pre-eq it" becomes "we'll fix it in the mix" becomes "we'll fix it in the master" becomes "people say our album sounds like sh*t."

The HomeRecording.com BBS is a really great resource if you get stuck, but be warned some of the guys on there have got pretty big heads. If you want an honest, diplomatic second set of ears on a track hit me up.

Best of luck.
Last edited by jon-mullen on 27 Feb 2010, 00:00, edited 1 time in total.
Loud idiot in red since 2010
United States Grand Prix Club, because there's more to racing than NASCAR

User avatar
Ted68
6
Joined: 20 Mar 2006, 05:19
Location: Osceola, PA, USA

Re: The "Completely Out of Thread" thread

Post

Wow! Pro Tools. I'm still using a 4 track in the odd times I do any recording. Since this stuff has been around a decade or so, maybe I ought to broaden my horizons. So...

1. How is the recording different? Is DI required or can I still just mic my amp as usual?

2. Can I transfer my old tapes/cd's to PT to create a catalog of my old (very old) stuff?

3. How much sound quality is lost in the transfer?

4. What equipment is required to go with the software?
Heaven: Where the cooks are French, the police are British, the lovers are Greek, the mechanics are German, and it is all organized by the Swiss.

Hell: Where the cooks are British, the police are German, the lovers are Swiss, the mechanics are French, and it is all organized by the Greeks.

User avatar
jon-mullen
1
Joined: 10 Sep 2008, 02:56
Location: Big Blue Nation

Re: The "Completely Out of Thread" thread

Post

Ted68 wrote:Wow! Pro Tools. I'm still using a 4 track in the odd times I do any recording. Since this stuff has been around a decade or so, maybe I ought to broaden my horizons. So...
Ironically there's a ton of plug-ins out there to simulate "tape compression" where the signal just distorts/overdrives to tape instead of digital clipping.
Ted68 wrote: 1. How is the recording different? Is DI required or can I still just mic my amp as usual?
That really depends on your hardware setup, which you'd decide on based on your desired audio quality (sampling/bitrate) and how many tracks you want to be able to record at any one time. Mostly how many tracks. If you don't have any special hardware on your computer then you'd want a preamp for your mic or a DI for your guitar to get it into your computer's stock line-level input. Honestly if you don't have any special hardware I'd just do everything on the Portastudio (guessing that's your 4 track) and dump it into a recording using a stereo RCA->1/8" cable. If you want to record multiple tracks on the computer (AND have access to them separately later, ie for eq or reverb) you'd want to get something made to do the job that will plug into your USB (latency becomes an issue) or Firewire (much better).
Ted68 wrote:2. Can I transfer my old tapes/cd's to PT to create a catalog of my old (very old) stuff?
CDs you can just rip digitally to begin with, but vinyl and analog tape you'd hook a player up to your multitrack hardware, or even just use the RCA line-outs on your home stereo to get it into the 1/8" jack on your computer.
Ted68 wrote:3. How much sound quality is lost in the transfer?
I'm assuming you mean going from tape/vinyl to the computer. At 96kHz and 24-bit sampling (which is what a lot of the standalone hardware will do), not much, especially with good gain staging and good built-in preamps.
Ted68 wrote:4. What equipment is required to go with the software?
ProTools makes hardware that goes along with their software, but you can use it with most audio interfaces, iirc. Anything you see branded "Digidesign" is the makers of ProTools. Some of their stuff has built in Digital Signal Processing cards, which make a difference once you start playing with digital plugins (like eq and verb).

Honestly, you can get hardware on the same level for cheaper and then you've got options if you decide you like SONAR or some other software better than PT. There's a lot of options. Check out Sweetwater.com (and get their catalog, makes great bathroom reading). PM me if you'd like to talk about your specifics some more.
Loud idiot in red since 2010
United States Grand Prix Club, because there's more to racing than NASCAR

autogyro
autogyro
53
Joined: 04 Oct 2009, 15:03

Re: The "Completely Out of Thread" thread

Post

128khz, 24bit hoontech 32 track external recording card, from a 32 track digital mixer desk, into a PC running XP Pro and EMagic 32 track recording software.
Many types of hardware and software add ons and effects rafts.(I can also mix and play out in real time (almost zero latency)onto 5, 6 or 7 speaker stacks in a surround field). Think on that for a moment.
I can record 32 seperate tracks at the same time either line in or phantom power mics. I also use eight seperate drum mikes on the sets.
I use four different monitor speakers, two sets self powered and amped to compare output when studio mixing and dubing. Ears are what count.
I am experimenting with playing a LIVE surround output and could do with a regular suitable venue to work up live acts, bands DJs etc. The new sound field potential needs a totaly new artistic application from artists.
Mixing live play or scratching in a variable surround sound environment is awesome.
The software I use is old now but little has improved, I think there is a lack of imagination in music and entertainment today. Bit like F1.

User avatar
jon-mullen
1
Joined: 10 Sep 2008, 02:56
Location: Big Blue Nation

Re: The "Completely Out of Thread" thread

Post

Sounds like a pretty sick setup, can I hear your work anywhere?
autogyro wrote:I am experimenting with playing a LIVE surround output and could do with a regular suitable venue to work up live acts, bands DJs etc. The new sound field potential needs a totaly new artistic application from artists.
In my experience, the back of the room is where people go to get AWAY from the speakers (which are usually too loud because most sound guys are deaf).

Pink Floyd (in the Syd days) had a surround set up at the UFO Club. It was quadrophonic and connected to an autopanner so it swirled around. I'm guessing that setup + LSD = a lot of lost lunches.
Loud idiot in red since 2010
United States Grand Prix Club, because there's more to racing than NASCAR

User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

The sound of music

Post

I started this thread in desperation... A couple of the previous messages, posted in a totally unrelated thread, were moved by me to "The Completely Out of Thread" thread. Then, the clueless (or very smart, I'm not sure) members posting right before me, continued the thread happily.

Sigh... Well, at least I can say that you're complying with the principle of subverting the forum: I couldn't be prouder of you.

Yeah, I know what you're going to say: "C'mon, Cyrus, you have no idea how hard is to click the "New Post" button, specially when I can't hear a word you say because of the amplifiers attached to my head".
Ciro

User avatar
jon-mullen
1
Joined: 10 Sep 2008, 02:56
Location: Big Blue Nation

Re: The sound of music

Post

lol, sorry.

But to clarify: it's possible to be completely out of thread on the "completely out of thread" thread? Do you know how that makes my head hurt?
Loud idiot in red since 2010
United States Grand Prix Club, because there's more to racing than NASCAR

User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Re: The sound of music

Post

Yeah, I know: it's a new record. You were out of thread in a thread devoted to posts out of thread. Actually, I was expecting for somebody to grasp the idea... ;)

I left a couple of posts of this thread in that thread, as "example for the present and counsel for the future", as Borges would say ("Pierre Menard, author of Don Quixote").

Allow me to quote him:
He (Note: he is Pierre Menard, XXth century author, invented by Borges) did not want to compose another Quixote —which is easy— but the Quixote itself. Needless to say, he never contemplated a mechanical transcription of the original; he did not propose to copy it. His admirable intention was to produce a few pages which would coincide—word for word and line for line—with those of Miguel de Cervantes.

“My intent is no more than astonishing,” he wrote me the 30th of September, 1934, from Bayonne. “The final term in a theological or metaphysical demonstration—the objective world, God, causality, the forms of the universe—is no less previous and common than my famed novel. The only difference is that the philosophers publish the intermediary stages of their labor in pleasant volumes and I have resolved to do away with those stages.” In truth, not one worksheet remains to bear witness to his years of effort...

The first method he conceived was relatively simple. Know Spanish well, recover the Catholic faith, fight against the Moors or the Turk, forget the history of Europe between the years 1602 and 1918, be Miguel de Cervantes. Pierre Menard studied this procedure (I know he attained a fairly accurate command of seventeenth-century Spanish) but discarded it as too easy. Rather as impossible! my reader will say. Granted, but the undertaking was impossible from the very beginning and of all the impossible ways of carrying it out, this was the least interesting. To be, in the twentieth century, a popular novelist of the seventeenth seemed to him a diminution. To be, in some way, Cervantes and reach the Quixote seemed less arduous to him—and, consequently, less interesting—than to go on being Pierre Menard and reach the Quixote through the experiences of Pierre Menard...

“My undertaking is not difficult, essentially,” I read in another part of his letter. “I should only have to be immortal to carry it out.” Shall I confess that I often imagine he did finish it and that I read the Quixote —all of it—as if Menard had conceived it? Some nights past, while leafing through chapter XXVI—never essayed by him—I recognized our friend’s style and something of his voice in this exceptional phrase: “the river nymphs and the dolorous and humid Echo.”

...

It is a revelation to compare Menard’s Don Quixote with Cervantes’. The latter, for example, wrote (part one, chapter nine):

. . . truth, whose mother is history, rival of time, depository of deeds, witness of the past, exemplar and adviser to the present, and the future’s counselor.

Written in the seventeenth century, written by the “lay genius” Cervantes, this enumeration is a mere rhetorical praise of history. Menard, on the other hand, writes:

. . . truth, whose mother is history, rival of time, depository of deeds, witness of the past, exemplar and adviser to the present, and the future’s counselor.

History, the mother of truth: the idea is astounding. Menard, a contemporary of William James, does not define history as an inquiry into reality but as its origin. Historical truth, for him, is not what has happened; it is what we judge to have happened. The final phrases—exemplar and adviser to the present, and the future’s counselor —are brazenly pragmatic.

The contrast in style is also vivid. The archaic style of Menard—quite foreign, after all—suffers from a certain affectation. Not so that of his forerunner, who handles with ease the current Spanish of his time.
Having quoted Borges in this thread, then I am out of thread in a thread that was out of thread in "The completely Out of thread" thread, posts that were moved there because they were out of thread in their original thread, closing the circle.
Ciro

autogyro
autogyro
53
Joined: 04 Oct 2009, 15:03

Re: The sound of music

Post

hmmmm

Food for thought

autogyro
autogyro
53
Joined: 04 Oct 2009, 15:03

Re: The "Completely Out of Thread" thread

Post

jon-mullen wrote:Sounds like a pretty sick setup, can I hear your work anywhere?
autogyro wrote:I am experimenting with playing a LIVE surround output and could do with a regular suitable venue to work up live acts, bands DJs etc. The new sound field potential needs a totaly new artistic application from artists.
In my experience, the back of the room is where people go to get AWAY from the speakers (which are usually too loud because most sound guys are deaf).

Pink Floyd (in the Syd days) had a surround set up at the UFO Club. It was quadrophonic and connected to an autopanner so it swirled around. I'm guessing that setup + LSD = a lot of lost lunches.
Quad output systems were just dual stereo/mono. The idea was tried by a lot of bands in the 60s. My ideas come from the Baker Gurvitz Army days when I travelled across Africa with Ginger. Four and a half days Algiers to Kano. Range Rover.
You are right though, lots of lost lunches and long nights.
Many sound guys are deaf but with the control available today there would be no problem setting up a venue. Perhaps I could leave a space at the back for those who wish to chill. Better still a proper venue with a seperate sound field hall.

The main problem to overcome is to achieve a balance between the moving sound from speaker outputs in the field and the stage acoustic output, mainly drums.
Albert Hall concerts recorded in surround have mostly used baffled drum sets and other baffles for sources of ambient sound on stage. The results have been mixed, some well defined seperation and some without. My first interest in this was aroused in 1968 at the last Cream concert at the Albert. That Hall is awesome for sound and hearing it move around got me thinking.