|
A soundcard in its most basic terms is essentially a input/output system with an Analogue to Digital and Digital to Analogue convertor in between. Some soundcards will throw in other things to confuse people - a preamp stage for example is common in soundcards aimed towards home recordists. When you get beyond a certain price point you no longer see all in one 'soundcard' solutions - you see discrete modules - these can be used with a computer in between but arent designed exclusively for computer users. Discrete AD convertors. Discrete DA convertors. Discrete preamp stages. And you essentially have to build your soundcard out of massively overengineered, massively expensive metal boxes. In this case, you would need a separate AD convertor like a Prism AD2 to record sound via an input. You would need something like a Benchmark DAC-1 to convert the digital signal stored temporarily on your computer back into a tiny current so it can be output to a speaker amplifier. And you would probably need a preamp like a Neve 1272 before the ADC to ensure the signal is full scale at the input. The soundcards I listed are basically just convertors and clocks. Thats it. Everything else costs extra. Gulp. 
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2007 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:01 |
|
|
Thanks for all the above responses guys, Yea I won't deny I don't know poo poo about high end PC recording. In the past I have made do with 2 channel 0 latency consumer sound cards. I'll record drums on a professional Mac setup, either rent a studio out, or find a friend with a 002 rig or something, then I'll get the bands to record everything else on my PC and be restricted to 2 inputs. Far from ideal, but even after working on Mac setups in studios for 5 years, I still hate them. That list above I provided was very greedy, and none of those pre-reqs are set in stone for me It's not like I'm after cutting edge, I just 8 inputs for my logic setup, 'cos boy...after all these years, I hate change when I'm comfortable, and I know what I like. But I also hate Vista, so I may have to bite the Mac bullet. I'll check out all those hardware reccomendations too, Time to stop being so stubborn and rethink, and rebuild from scratch?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2007 02:24
|
|
|
Slowfuse posted:poo poo...hate them...hate change...hate Vista My advice would be to stop all the hatin'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2007 02:35
|
|
|
The RME Hammerfall Multiface, and Octamike sounds like an excellent option. The MOTU 2408mk3 and 24I/O would be good if I wanted to think bigger, these are all much cheaper than going from scratch to Mac at any rate. I was hoping some of these smaller boxes would have built in 5.1 output, but I haven't seen any so far. Things are looking up though, was getting scared for a minute. EDIT: Obviously my problem was I was still trying to find a niche in the more concise and homely "Consumer" cards/boxes that could give me close to everything in a combi, but MOTU and RME seem to provide a nice compromise between the two extreme price ranges, without having to put together a home studio system that winds up looking like lego blocks. Never Post Again fucked around with this message at 08:37 on Jun 30, 2007 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2007 08:29
|
|
|
Slowfuse posted:I was hoping some of these smaller boxes would have built in 5.1 output, but I haven't seen any so far.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2007 09:15
|
|
|
wixard posted:5.1 mixing would be controlled by the software. Any interface with 6+ line outputs combined with software that supports 5.1 will work, so if Logic can do it either of those hardware setups you listed could be used to mix in 5.1. Good point, didn't think of that. It would be a bit of a hassle to initially set up a work-around, but certainly a cost effective solution. I may very well be good to go, I will let you know how I get on, thanks again guys.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2007 11:48
|
|
|
Slowfuse posted:Good point, didn't think of that. If you have a 5.1 system already and are looking for an optical output I think both of the interfaces you listed have an optical output you could assign instead. Even if they didn't, if you have a soundcard already that you're using to play DVDs in 5.1 or something, you may be able to use a driver like ASIO4All to assign 5.1 outputs from the mixing software to that card. If you're using digital/optical outputs, the quality of the soundcard shouldn't have any effect on the audio signal. I've never tried either of those things though, so I might be missing some important step that makes it impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2007 00:04
|
|
|
RivensBitch posted:nothing is indestructable, I've shattered a 58 and sent a few broken one's back for other people in my time. But there's a reason why these two mics have sustained for over 40 years now. The i5 sounds better on snare 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2007 14:40
|
|
|
Boner Slam posted:The i5 sounds better on snare That's what Audix claims. But I've heard it's also a major durability issue and that i5's break easily when hit with drum sticks... so I haven't tried it yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2007 20:24
|
|
|
Boner Slam posted:The i5 sounds better on snare hows the off axis rejection? to my ear it's awful, especially if you hit a hi tom and sure 1k is attenuated but 100hz is right there in your face. also when audix first sent me my i5 I broke it within 5 minutes of playing. sure the rep sent me a new grille but not everyone knows the rep like i did. protip- off axis rejection has more to do with how good something sounds through a mic than anything else, especially if there are other instruments in the soundfield and you are going to be heavily processing with gates, compressors and eqs. If your bleed from these other instruments is not even across the frequency spectrum then you're going to get some very unnatural sounds that do not please the ear. RivensBitch fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Jul 1, 2007 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2007 21:06
|
|
|
Honestly, it's kinda hard to gently caress up the sound of a well-tuned snare no matter what you put in front of it. I mean I'm sure people do it, but I wouldn't blame the mic. The only time I used an i5 was mixing an opener in front of a packed 3000cap club. I got no soundcheck at all and it turned out the bass DI line wasn't working. The monitor guy went and put a mic on the bass cabinet instead and it sounded like complete and total rear end. Really boomy, no definition at all and just not smooth. I'm staring at the PM4000 and looking at the Clair Brothers R-4 install going "how can I not get a listenable bass sound from any mic they put on there, when the amp sounds fine?" Yea, so guess what answer I got when I asked the monitor guy what kind of piece of poo poo mic he put on the bass cab. The moral is there's no such thing as a snare mic so I'd buy one that works on everything else. Although obviously you need to take into consideration durability and SPL if you're putting it near drums. ChristsDickWorship fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Jul 1, 2007 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2007 21:17
|
|
|
Boner Slam posted:The i5 sounds better on snare Word on the street, is this is better than the 57, looks a little cheaper even. I haven't got any 57s right now, was gonna buy 2 or 4...maybe I'll get one of these instead. Naturally, 57s are great but I've never been blown away, often wished there was a 'standard issue' that was a little better. quote:protip- off axis rejection has more to do with how good something sounds through a mic than anything else, especially if there are other instruments in the soundfield and you are going to be heavily processing with gates, compressors and eqs. If your bleed from these other instruments is not even across the frequency spectrum then you're going to get some very unnatural sounds that do not please the ear. This is a little less encouraging if what you say is true; I like a bit of room and sizzle in my snare sound. As far as experimenting goes, the price is right though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2007 02:56
|
|
|
Slowfuse posted:This is a little less encouraging if what you say is true; I like a bit of room and sizzle in my snare sound. As far as experimenting goes, the price is right though. perhaps you don't understand what i'm saying, all mics have bleed the question is how even is that bleed across the frequency spectrum. I don't mind if I get bleed in my snare mic, I do mind if that bleed is completely skewed and bottom heavy. Admittedly I work for Shure so I'm biased, but one of the main reasons we remain so dominant in the pro sound world is because of how our mics perform, and this is one of those areas that keeps people coming to us. You'd be surprised how little we do in terms of giving away our microphones for people to use. When I worked at guitar center every mic company other than Shure would GIVE me their microphones to try out. My I5 has my name engraved on it, they wanted to win me over that badly. Shure never had the need to do these kind of promotions, and they remain on top when it comes to mics on riders.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2007 06:01
|
|
|
RivensBitch posted:perhaps you don't understand what i'm saying, all mics have bleed the question is how even is that bleed across the frequency spectrum. I don't mind if I get bleed in my snare mic, I do mind if that bleed is completely skewed and bottom heavy. Christ that sounds pretty bad, what are we talking here 150hz and below? What's the proximity effect like on these? Might be a contributing factor. This is a 57 from Shure site:  This is the i5:  Haha, Rivens just cost Audix a sale
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2007 03:38
|
|
|
Slowfuse posted:Christ that sounds pretty bad, what are we talking here 150hz and below? SM57:  i5:  If you don't know what you're looking at there, they're showing you how the microphone picks up sound from areas all around it at varying frequencies, 0deg being directly in front of the capsule and 180deg being directly behind it. If you were trying to be strict about "which microphone has the more accurate pattern?" you can easily say that the i5 does because it keeps its cardioid shape more consistently while the 57 is really loose at 1KHz and a little funky above 4KHz. That means if you have it too close to a hi-hat when you put it on your snare it might make the hi-hat sound a little muddy, washy or clunky in conjunction with the overhead mics in a mix because a whole lot of that 1K mess from the hats will be on your snare mic, and possibly some of the higher stuff too (although that weirdness at 4K and 8K actually makes it more hypercardioid which would minimize bleed from the hi-hat with most common snare mic placements). When you look at the i5 chart though, you see a common problem with microphones: it gets looser and looser (more and more omnidirectional) as the frequency drops. They only publish their specs down to 250Hz, an octave less range than the SM57 chart, and following the trend on the left there I would say that if they did publish lower you would see it look a lot like 1KHz on the SM57 does. In conjunction with the boost of low end on the frequency response chart you posted, that indicates that the mic could easily muddy up your mix around 250Hz and below in a situation where bleed is a concern. So tit for tat, right? The 57 is wonky at 1KHz, the i5 is wonky under 250Hz how could you say 1 is better than the other? Well, it's a small minority of microphones that you will look at and see the pattern remain the same up and down the frequency spectrum. To me, 1K is a less problematic frequency than anything less than 200Hz. That's a straight-up opinion right there, and sounds like a weird thing to say, but in my experience you have a much better time mixing if you have 1K bleed than if you have 150Hz or 200Hz bleed all over your tracks. Not only that, but 1K bleed is more preventable and manageable in a controlled studio setting than low-end bleed. Lower frequencies become more and more omnidirectional in the way they travel and their larger wavelengths diffract around obstacles like baffles, while higher frequencies with smaller wavelengths are very directional and can often be reflected and better controlled if need be. Those drum shields you see at a lot of jazz and pop concerts do a great job of keeping the cymbals and crack of the snare from bleeding into the vocal mics, but they don't do much at all in the way of making a kick drum quieter. This kinda sounds like me going to great lengths to defend an SM57, but I'm not really trying to. I prefer them obviously, but it's hard to be completely wrong or right in the audio world when it comes to gear selection and mixing practices so I do my best not to really recommend any particular product. All I can do is ramble about why I like what I like.  Trust your ears, folks. Even for the greenest of engineers you stand a better chance of getting what you want if you trust what you hear than if you take a consensus vote amongst Grammy-winning recording engineers. You might not know what to listen for exactly, but it's easier to learn that than it is to figure out who you can always listen to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2007 05:15
|
|
|
wixard posted:That was a great explanation. Seriously. Thank you. You rule.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2007 19:31
|
|
|
RivensBitch posted:perhaps you don't understand what i'm saying, all mics have bleed the question is how even is that bleed across the frequency spectrum. I don't mind if I get bleed in my snare mic, I do mind if that bleed is completely skewed and bottom heavy. Admittedly I work for Shure so I'm biased, but one of the main reasons we remain so dominant in the pro sound world is because of how our mics perform, and this is one of those areas that keeps people coming to us. You'd be surprised how little we do in terms of giving away our microphones for people to use. When I worked at guitar center every mic company other than Shure would GIVE me their microphones to try out. My I5 has my name engraved on it, they wanted to win me over that badly. Shure never had the need to do these kind of promotions, and they remain on top when it comes to mics on riders. Well if you work for Shure I will obviously advise everybody to take this advice with a grain of salt when it comes to the I5. The i5 is a mic that sounds good on snare and has, to my ears, no obvious defects when it comes to its pickup pattern and even if it is very gradual and doesn't really affect anything much if you have control over the setup. It is also considerably cheaper and by far not as versatile as the 57, which can be used on just about everything. However, many AEs prefer the i5 on snare after comparision, me beeing one of them. On snare only, yes. But nonetheless it sounds better to my ears and I am not concerned with how established Shure might be and how little they have to do to push their mics OR how much Audix might attempt to make this mic known. Would I buy 8 i5 for all my tom/guitar etc needs? Probably not Does it sound better on snare? Yep. Obviously just my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2007 21:44
|
|
|
wixard posted:Well, the proximity effect doesn't affect what RB was talking about. Bleed pretty much by definition is not from sources close to the microphone. And the frequency response graphs aren't entirely the damning part. I'll disclaim this though by saying that I honestly don't really trust any of these charts as gospel for any microphone, but they can give you an idea of what to expect. All of Shure's polar plots are made in house. They have a large anechoic chamber (which I actually got to spend some time inside of when I last toured the Illinois facility), they put a reference speaker in that chamber and connect the mic to a robot arm, then with software make their plots. I just contacted the applications department and they said that the edges of the plots, which are normally jagged, are smoothed out to cosmetically look better in the user guides. That said the actual shapes of the patterns are still accurate. Same goes for the frequency response charts, the minute jagged edges are made a little smoother but the actual edge itself is correct. Also as long as we're talking about opinions, I have an old SM98 on my snare and swear by it. Sounds much better than an i5, and give the 57 a run for it's money.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2007 22:29
|
|
|
Critique my studio... its all "prosumer" type gear. Please tell me that I have enough because I don't want to buy anymore. I write prog rock and proggy blues fusion - think Tribal Tech meets Spock's Beard. Its all for enjoyment and I have no desire to be a rock star. iMac Core Duo / 2GHZ 1.5GB Cubase Studio 4 Presonus Firepod (sup RavensBitch) Yamaha HS50M powered reference monitors Axiom 49 MIDI Controller Rode NT1A Sennheiser MD441 Shure SM57 AKG 240S Headphones FXpansion BFD Every VST effect I could ever use Stuff I have on permanent loan- Anthony DeMaria Labs ADL1000 Compressor/Limiter Shadow Hills Mono Gama Mic Pre two Old School Audio MP-1s mic pres Every type of guitar imaginable and a bass or two. Guitar effects: Roland VGA-7, VG-8EX, Pod XT Pearl Export 5-piece w/ Sabian cymbals. Vintage Wurlitzer electric piano
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2007 01:49
|
|
|
Blackadder posted:Guitar effects: Roland VGA-7, VG-8EX, Pod XT Dude, can you tell me about your experiences with the VG-8? Never even touched one, but I'll be damned if they don't endlessly interest me, they're so rare too. I have been toying with the idea of picking one up off ebay, I suppose because I'm a such a big Muse fan, if for no other reason. They seem so retro now. The VG-88 is where I lost track of technology... I haven't been a guitar nerd for a few years, what is the state of digital hardware effects 'multi-cessors'? (I can't remember if I read that terrible term in Guitar World, or some loser at a guitar store used it on me in a pitch) As for the rest of your arsenal, it you sounds like you have everything you could ever need. You could run a serious business and make some incredible stuff with those toys. I'd start looking for some nice matched pair mikes, and start experimenting in stereo. Get some 5.1 happening too, I don't know, I kind of expected everyone to be listening/producing to albums in 5.1 by now (far from it) My big stupid fear was suddenly 5.1 would blow up, and engineers without experience in it would get left behind. What's more prog rock than a nice flange whirl alternating between 5 speakers? Never Post Again fucked around with this message at 11:51 on Jul 6, 2007 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2007 11:42
|
|
|
Blackadder posted:Critique my studio... its all "prosumer" type gear. Please tell me that I have enough because I don't want to buy anymore. Well its how you use it that counts...I'm not entirely sure what kind of answer you are expecting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2007 13:28
|
|
|
WanderingKid posted:Well its how you use it that counts...I'm not entirely sure what kind of answer you are expecting. Utilizing my studio's complete capabilities- do I have enough equipment to produce a great sounding mix or can a trained ear tell that I did everything in my basement? Its hard for me to believe that I can make the music at pro quality on such a modest budget, compared to the budget that it took only 5 years ago. I'm finally just two weeks away from starting to mix all of my songs. I just have the suspicion that something obvious will be missing and I want to plan for the purchase. Slowfuse posted:Dude, can you tell me about your experiences with the VG-8? 5.1 was the only additional feature I wanted in Cubase 4 vs. Cubase Studio 4. I know someone with Nuendo, so I could make a 5.1 mix. Matched pair mics would be very nice and I could probably use them for instrument/room acoustics and drums. I don't know if something like a Rode NT4 or two SM81s would be the way to go. Shure claims that their microphones don't need matching because of their manufacturing produces every mic with the same characteristics. Calling RivensBitch? Weeks ago, a friend listened to the music I was working on and said "Sounds a lot like Muse to me" about two songs. I heard the "Black Holes" CD months back, two years after I started these songs and I can see some similarities in the vocals and arpeggiated synths. Since you mentioned it, I read their guitarist has some "fuzz GK pickup" mod. Can you tell me what that is and what songs he uses VG technology? Now is the time to buy a VG-8 or VG-88, as many V-guitarists are being dumping them to buy the VG-99. I will never part with my VG-8EX, in fact I will buy another as insurance. The VG-8 and VGA-7 are the center of everything in my music. I bought the VG-8EX the day it was released sometime in the 90s. I tweaked every preset and made some unreal patches, everything from an old noisy room mic'd Robert Johnson type acoustic to patches that belong on Kid A. I thought about upgrading to the VG-88 but there wasn't enough there for for me to redevelop all of my patches. The VG-88 V2 has almost enough new things, but I knew that the VG-99 was in development. I think that's the one to buy- dual effects processors, midi conversion, complete midi control, software patch editor, d-beam and ribbon controllers, USB and XLR. I'm still tempted to buy a V-Bass. The VGA-7 is even more rare, its based on Roland's keyboard amps but with instrument and amp modeling. My "trademark" sound if you can call it that, is using a Godin ACS SA nylon guitar and layering the VG-8 and VGA-7, using a hollowbody instrument model with stereo effects (chorus, reverb, phaser, flanger) on the VG-8, and then outbound to the VGA-7's line-ins. At times, I include the 1/4" output on the Godin ACS and into the VGA-7 amp models for a nylon sound blended in. Everything is then mixed stereo into the PA with the VGA-7s line outs. The combined system is stereo and completely noiseless. I don't exaggerate with it as much today, but years ago in college when I frequently played live in a super tight but ill-fated space/art/post-rock group, my guitar sound was the differentiator in our music that even the most casual of listeners would recognize and appreciate. I would receive more compliments (and get laid) more often when I used that setup in gigs than not. Yes, I am a believer in V guitar. I wish I could use every guitar I own with a VG system. I've had to spend too much on amps, pickups, and pedals just to get close to what the VG-8 offers because I don't have the heart to fuckup a Parker Fly or an ES-335 with a mod. I forgot to mention in the last post that I have a GR-33 midi processor that I use mostly for creativity and composing. I don't use it for anything else because of tracking and patch limitations. It doesn't play nice with my widdly widdly woo guitar playing that I am doing these days, and "Look mum! My guitar is a piano! WOW!" never impressed anyone. The biggest problem is that it kills all harmonics and natural sound of the guitar. But there are some amazing performers that have done wonders with GR synths, and I'm always interested in the developments of this technology. The Great Aspie fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Jul 8, 2007 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2007 01:59
|
|
|
Blackadder posted:Samples. Please. This sounds so cool.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2007 08:36
|
|
|
Hey Blackadder, I gotta check out that VG99, this thread is getting frustrating, I just don't know what to save for first. Every time I get some cash, some bullshit comes up, right now I got a bunch of holes in my teeth, time for some suffering I reckon. As for Muse, it's hard to gauge their studio stuff, but live, Bellamy still screws around with all sorts of amazing and mad synth things. He has dual outputs, midi through a V system and direct analogue to his amp that is either mixed in or alternated (last I read). But the prick has endless processing through Logic run by the engineers and built in effects to his Manson guitars. Someone once asked Trent Reznor if he felt threatened by the rise of home studio owners and cheaper hardware, he said he welcomed and encouraged it. It's because gear can never make up the difference between good or bad production. There is no denying the beauty of great equipment, but I have worked on a number of albums utilising only an SM58 and NT1 (changed for an Audio Technica AT2020 now). Recorded on a store bought 512 ram Pentium, with an AC97 soundcard and 15 ms latency. I worked like a bitch and poured my guts into those recordings, and it shows despite its flaws. In New Zealand, I helped produce another record for a band I worked with, they forked out $10,000 (self funded after years of saving almost minimum wage) for around 12 days in a well regarded studio that had recorded local top 10 albums. The gear was top line, but the engineer wasn't worth poo poo. What they got wasn't even close to radio worthy, it felt like a high school band recording a demo. To my ears it tasted like a plate of poo poo covered in white sugar. Long story short, software based mixing is where it's at today, meaning it's entirely based on a producers' ear and skill set rather than gear (which, being software based is easy to aquire). In essence, the only difference between your setup and someone like Trent Reznor's is: the mics, nice analog outboard processing, mastering to tape, and nice tube preamps. These days, to a degree, these can almost be 'faked' (emulated) relatively well. Rent some professional level preamps or EQs, rent a $10,000 mike for a week, and you will notice the difference. If you are ever worried about stepping up the game, short term renting is a great option. Send some stuff to get mastered by a pro (cheaper than you may expect). Test it out and see if there is any difference.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2007 16:35
|
|
|
1. What is better for Music Recording at the moment. A dual core processor, or a single core processor. The ~3.0 ghz single core processors from yesteryear are looking pretty cheap now, but I remember reading something about how some programs only use 1 core (on another forum)? What should I go for? The cheaper high-end cards of the past, or the slightly more expensive low-end cards of the future? 2. Does a really good soundcard enable you to play VSTs off of your lovely computer with low latency? Or do I need to upgrade everything? I tried recording MIDI on my lovely computer with a SoundBlaster card. I had 2.4ghz and 512mb, and it didn't work. I just want to know the bare minimum to play VSTs off of the computer with less than 6ms latency (reverb/sparse effects included.) I think I'm going to have around $900 to spend on computer upgrades, so please help me out here. Last time I tried, I couldn't even play lovely MIDI sounds without a noticeable delay between the time I hit the keys and when the note played from the computer. This makes MIDI recording completely useless on my computers, and I hate them. Are Firewire-USB interfaces any good?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2007 00:58
|
|
|
As far as I can tell, Pro Tools will not work on an x64 OS, right? Is there any indication that DigiDesign will update PT anytime soon for use on x64?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2007 04:05
|
|
|
Elder posted:As far as I can tell, Pro Tools will not work on an x64 OS, right? Is there any indication that DigiDesign will update PT anytime soon for use on x64? I am running protools 7.1.something on my 64bit core 2 duo imac. It runs fairly well with no major hiccups. There is a newer version(7.3 I believe) but the stooges want you to pay to upgrade after i just spent $1000AUD on this system. Get bent I say. Edit: x64 is the same is 64bit right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2007 07:38
|
|
|
ryblogg posted:I am running protools 7.1.something on my 64bit core 2 duo imac. It runs fairly well with no major hiccups. There is a newer version(7.3 I believe) but the stooges want you to pay to upgrade after i just spent $1000AUD on this system. Get bent I say. Yeah, x64 is just fancy talk for 64bit. I wonder if it will run on Windows x64, as I've got a Core 2 Duo as well and was thinking about upgrading. The DigiDesign website says that it won't work with x64, but I don't know if that means it won't run at all, or just can't take advantage of all 64 bits or what. But I guess if it on your imac than maybe it will...hmmm.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2007 08:22
|
|
|
Elder posted:Yeah, x64 is just fancy talk for 64bit. I wonder if it will run on Windows x64, as I've got a Core 2 Duo as well and was thinking about upgrading. The DigiDesign website says that it won't work with x64, but I don't know if that means it won't run at all, or just can't take advantage of all 64 bits or what. But I guess if it on your imac than maybe it will...hmmm. Well OSX is still only 32bit (until october), so until then there are very few programs that support 64bit. I assume the current version only addresses 32bits, though this may be changed when OSX10.5 is released. But yeah, no problem at all running protools on the newest imacs (24incher here).
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2007 10:05
|
|
|
Blackadder posted:Matched pair mics would be very nice and I could probably use them for instrument/room acoustics and drums. I don't know if something like a Rode NT4 or two SM81s would be the way to go. Shure claims that their microphones don't need matching because of their manufacturing produces every mic with the same characteristics. Calling RivensBitch? Confirm. All of their mics (except for the PG series) are made to military specifications, meaning that the frequency plots from mic to mic are at a consistency equal to or better than typical matched stereo pair limits. The matched pairs of their KSM137 and KSM141 mics that Shure sells are pulled from the same production stock that the singles come from. The only reason they package these as stereo pairs and not the rest of their mics is due to marketing demand, they could just as easily put two SM57s in a box and call them matched pairs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2007 21:07
|
|
|
Slowfuse posted:As for Muse, it's hard to gauge their studio stuff, but live, Bellamy still screws around with all sorts of amazing and mad synth things. He has dual outputs, midi through a V system and direct analogue to his amp that is either mixed in or alternated (last I read). But the prick has endless processing through Logic run by the engineers and built in effects to his Manson guitars. RivensBitch posted:All of Shure's polar plots are made in house. They have a large anechoic chamber (which I actually got to spend some time inside of when I last toured the Illinois facility), they put a reference speaker in that chamber and connect the mic to a robot arm, then with software make their plots.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2007 04:48
|
|
|
my understanding is that the smoothing is done for cosmetic and printing reasons, and that otherwise they're as accurate as could be reasonably expected. In the case of stereo matched pairs the tiny zigs and zags are the same from mic to mic, and with shure their mics are that close to each other with any given model.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2007 06:20
|
|
|
Hey guys. I've been using a friends equipment for a while but he's gone out of the country for some time. There's no way to contact him regularly and besides - more knowledge here! I've been looking at the various links around here and reading up on home recording but there's a lot of technical words being used. I'm left with the sensation of being spun around in a chair for 30 minutes straight while busting for a piss. What it comes down to is: I play guitar, uke and keyboard (and sing) and would like to be recording all of these instruments. My price range is £150. Things of note would be that I use a laptop (it's got 1gig RAM, etc., so that's ok) - other than that I'm not really sure what to add. Obviously with only £150 I don't expect anything great at all in terms of equipment but some help would still be much appreciated. Actually: what my friend has is a condenser mic and a box, which I'm assuming is the thing that makes the sounds turn into wave files, and both of those plug straight in to the computer. The two programs we'd always have open were Gearbox and Ableton. I'm comfortable using basic stuff in Ableton and don't plan to make anything particularly fancy anyway, but don't know much about Gearbox at all. It would be cool to have something just like that. There's just so much to learn. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2007 16:01
|
|
|
Benzoyl Peroxide posted:Actually: what my friend has is a condenser mic and a box, which I'm assuming is the thing that makes the sounds turn into wave files, and both of those plug straight in to the computer. The two programs we'd always have open were Gearbox and Ableton. I'm comfortable using basic stuff in Ableton and don't plan to make anything particularly fancy anyway, but don't know much about Gearbox at all. It would be cool to have something just like that. Here are the pieces of equipment you will absolutely need to sound OK, from end-to-beginning: 1. Digital interface. aka "sound card" - but the recording industry shies away from that term - it takes an analog sound(voltage going through wires) and makes it digital(zeros and ones the computer can use). It also goes the other way. The microphone jack on built-in sound cards technically works, but they're cheap and not made for professional use. 2. Preamp. This brings an analog signal from a microphone up to line level - to where it's audible. You can record without a preamp but in the conversion to digital you'll lose most of your detail and it'll sound like crap. 3. Microphone. You know what this does. 4. Cables to connect these things: You will probably use RCA to go between interface and preamp, and XLR between microphone and preamp. Your friend's box is most likely a combined interface/preamp, which are fairly common now. It is certainly possible to put together amateur-adequate recording at that budget, but you will have to shop around. Your budget will probably limit how many tracks you can record at once. On the software end, you can start by trying the free program Audacity. Free music software unfortunately doesn't have comparable features to commercial ones at this time, but it will be sufficient to record multiple takes and do some editing. If you want to learn more, go to a bookstore and read all the music production magazines. (I don't recommend actually buying them though) Eventually they start repeating themselves, but they help you get used to the terminology.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2007 08:54
|
|
|
t_rf posted:
Wrong. It will most likely be quarter-inch/phono/'balanced' cables going from interface to preamp (if they're separate). RCA is mostly for consumer-level stereo equipment and is rarely used in circumstances where there might only be one channel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2007 14:02
|
|
|
Swivel Master posted:RCA is mostly for consumer-level stereo equipment and is rarely used in circumstances where there might only be one channel. I stand corrected - I really don't have experience with higher-end equipment, but the cheaper "prosumer" interfaces that I do know well will often use RCA, in addition to or replacing TRS.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2007 07:26
|
|
|
t_rf posted:I stand corrected - I really don't have experience with higher-end equipment, but the cheaper "prosumer" interfaces that I do know well will often use RCA, in addition to or replacing TRS. Please find me a standalone preamp that outputs to RCA (which is what you originally said). edit: Can we please all keep in mind that there are people here who absolutely know what they're talking about, so if you aren't sure, please don't chime in with incredibly detailed information you have a feeling may or may not be correct. If a question goes unanswered for a while and I think I know the answer, I'll generally preface with "Well I'm not 100% sure, but..." I think that helps keep the misinformation in this thread to a minimum. Swivel Master fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Jul 12, 2007 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2007 21:40
|
|
|
Misinformation on a pro audio forum is very hard to avoid as there is no one textbook that covers all answers. It's another reason why we see the same threads pop up again and again, it's easy for the wrong answer to get out there and not be noticed until it's been repeated as gospel a few hundred times. So to clear a few things up, analog > digital, protools is poo poo, and this poo poo is so amazingly expensive at least the build quality keeps getting better and better as the years pass.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2007 22:13
|
|
|
I'm thinking about buying a really nice Reverb Processor, but I've never really used one before so I'm not quite sure where to begin. Mainly, I'd like to know if different units have different sounds (in terms of mood, color, feel, etc.) or is one more or less going to sound the same as another? Does a higher price tag just mean better parts and more options, or is there a big sound difference? Also, are there Reverb Units that are preferable for someone who is working almost entirely in the digital realm, or does it really matter? Any recommendations would be great, I'd be willing to drop as much as $1000 if it was really worth it. I would only need 2 ins/outs, and the more settings, options, and customization the better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2007 02:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:01 |
|
|
Id go with convolution reverb if your computer is up to it. You can run certain convolution processors with 0ms latency (like Voxengo Pristine Space) but the CPU hit is fairly big. If that doesn't bother you, then for 120 bucks or so you get the basic unit and get to use alot of impulses for free - these include some well recorded acoustic impulses and impulses recorded from famous digital hardware reverb processors (such as the Lexi PCM91 which does some really nice sounding plate emulations). You can't buy a PCM91 for less than about 1.5 grand so this works out to be a good deal. Convolution processors can also be used emulate many hardware reverbs in this way - all of the TC reverbs for instance and Pristine Space. Its also worth noting what type of reverb you want - there are many types - reverberation from real acoustic spaces, plate reverbs and spring reverbs. Spring reverbs would be the type of reverb you typically get on a guitar amplifier. A Spring reverb is basically a transducer and a pickup with a spring between them - the pickup detects the mechanical vibration of the spring caused by the transducer and converts it into an analogue signal. These are fairly compact which is why they are built into guitar amps. Plates are the more expensive versions of spring reverbs and use a similar principle except that this time theres a metal sheet in between the transducer and the pickup. The pickup detects the mechanical vibrations of the metal plate. These are fairly big however. You know what to expect from real acoustic spaces. Plates are fairly expensive, fake reverbs. Plate reverbs do not sound like real acoustic spaces but they are so commonly used in music production and so ubiquitous on studio recorded vocals that they have basically become desirable in and of themselves. If you are shooting for a studio sheen kind of reverb - then you want plates. All digital reverb processing is done on digital signal processors so you can stick these into a 1u rack or whatever and emulate the sound of a plate reverberator. The PCM91 is one such unit and its very well known but expensive. Eventide do alot of digital effects processors so I'm sure they do a reverb unit of some kind. If they do, its going to be expensive. I'm not a big fan of TC's reverbs but they do quite a number of digital reverb processors. Mostly though, I just use SIR 1.008 - which is a free convolution processor like Pristine Space (but not as good). I'd do all of this processing digitally and after the recording is in your DAW - I'd rather not perform the extra AD/DA conversion stage and ship a digital signal outboard and back in. But I'm fairly certain most of these units have digital I/O so it should all be good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2007 11:19
|
|