|
Post by jazznoise on Mar 13, 2014 18:29:16 GMT -6
Funny, I never use a Neumann on a Sinatra.
I forgot RE20 for Floor Tom. You're gonna get a lot more ride then I'd normally go for, but when I have access and I need an "authoritative" tom sound I think it sounds f*cking great.
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Mar 13, 2014 9:52:17 GMT -6
I used and enjoyed the first version, but the inability to save presets on the version I used would drive anyone dotty. However adding "percussion" (I'm hoping gueros, shakers, tamborines, tamborines mounted to hi hats?) would step it up a level again. Having all your percussion in one program certainly would streamline things.
And for whatever reason that final flam around 1:20 reminded me of the theme tune to That 70's Show..
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Mar 13, 2014 6:56:45 GMT -6
I'd heard the Uher M series were 421 capsules rehoused cheaply. But maybe that's just the bigger cousin - you know, the one that looks like it's from Star Trek!
As I'm limited with my overheads, my collection still being quite small, and the Focusrite's inability to allow you to monitor in M/S with their Scarlett Mix software (If you're reading this guys, fix it!).
I tend to stick to XY or ORTF (I'm guessing that's your spaced blumlein you mentioned there?). M/S is fine, but I think the panning is more finnicky on it and bleed from other instruments can generate messy cues. If you're in a space or situation where you can use that, or the kit is a solo instrument, then I'd be more open to it then I usually am. But timing cues are a double edged sword in location work if you can't control them, and it's hard to do anything about them afterwards.
Near as I know, steve places his M/S pretty low. Maybe 3-4 feet of the ground from pictures I've seen? Vertical changes in mic placement are often the last thing people reach for when drum recording and they make a massive difference in balance - especially with the cymbals, as different parts of them radiate differently. You can also get a usable kick sound out of overheads this way, which means you don't have to just mask it with the close mic completely.
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Mar 13, 2014 5:43:53 GMT -6
Didn't know you also had an M538 - what do you think of it, out of curiosity?
I think the EV635a or an AKGD160 are better bottom snare/kick beater mics than overheads, personally - but then I love my ribbons on overheads. Blumlein, M/S or ORTF!
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Mar 12, 2014 6:28:20 GMT -6
If you're looking to control latency effectively, then you need a beastly computer or hardware monitoring that either becomes before the ADC/DAC loop or at a fixed point within it (like in the Focusrite Scarlett's where it takes a second feed of the data back to the outputs before the USB bus).
While for post stuff I'd recommend a powerful computer anyway, keeping the latency low will be hard - especially if you want to do something like ADR or record your own Foley/FX and you're already running a large track count. I'd recommend a simple cheap desk with a few pres outputting to your ADC stage. It's probably the cheapest way to do what you want, though it's not very economical with space, and it's not going to really lose value the way the stuff you're looking at is.
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Mar 11, 2014 9:58:41 GMT -6
Use Dropbox to host your images.
The BBC have a rule of "Phantom always on". I wouldn't be worried by having to have global phantom!
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Mar 9, 2014 19:55:07 GMT -6
I'm always skeptical of folks who swear they start anew on each track, session or gig. Part of having a sound is doing certain things, certain ways. That's why we have the CLA sound, the Andy wallace sound, etc. Even if someone were to truly start on a clean slate, they'll quickly set things up how they are familiar, whether it's conscious or subconscious. It's my opinion that those guys tend to sell their services on "tailored" work, although the band/producer probably chose the mixer for their sound.. Yeah but CLA basically does 20 of the same gig a month. You wouldn't use the same setup for American Idiot as you would for Night At The Opera, would be my 5 cents here. Some people aren't in the specialty-within-a-specialty game.
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Mar 9, 2014 17:54:21 GMT -6
The V69 is allegedly a clone of the Joe Meek JM47 - which I have used and I thought was a very nice mic for guitar cab and vocal. Very smooth, very usable - especially for the money. ...that would be the MXL V67G...or the sE 2200A... My mistake! That's the one.
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Mar 9, 2014 17:35:43 GMT -6
The V69 is allegedly a clone of the Joe Meek JM47 - which I have used and I thought was a very nice mic for guitar cab and vocal. Very smooth, very usable - especially for the money.
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Mar 9, 2014 14:36:44 GMT -6
I heard no difference between the a presonus firestudio and an SSL Alphalink on the word clock front. I doubt I'd pass any AB test. Me neither. The stray capacitance built up in a word clock cable is a larger source of error than a PLL's room for deviation (which is usually, in a good design, less than 3 picoseconds). I've never understood the rational behind the wordclock guys, certainly not in 2014.
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Mar 9, 2014 9:41:20 GMT -6
No disrespect to Slate intended, John, I'm just making fun of the reality of selling audio equipment. Meeting the price their customers are willing to pay while including antiquated features to keep the voodoo at bay must be infuriating for any hardware developer. BNC connectors and a means of bypassing the internal clock (indeed if it does that) when it detects a signal on the word in, as well as a buffer to allow the clock drive the BNC out probably adds 10 to 20 dollars of cost, as well as economy of space, that he'd rather went to something else or was passed on as a saving to the consumer. Especially when there's current cheaper technology that he'd have to include anyway that would make this redundant.
And the worst part is he's not even in a position to poke fun after doing all that. So Mr. Slate will just have to make do with living vicariously through our less than subtle jokes.
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Mar 9, 2014 8:55:55 GMT -6
I'm ITB and I don't tend to do much bussing. Vocals, any multi mic configurations (overheads, rooms, bass di + bass mic) and that's about it. I will have several sends - usually 2-3 reverbs and and a pair of delays. Sometimes extra effects, depending on how eccentric the mix is.
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Mar 9, 2014 7:13:34 GMT -6
yeah but I think what slate is referring to is that most converters will perform more accurately when using their internal clocks. it's just marketing talk. you can't argue against it because it's true. but it's true on such a miniscule level it wouldn't bother most. still it artificially reinforces the concept that the slate gear is superior so it gets mentioned. Completely. Or as I hear it in my head: Internet Expert #7: "Zomg how cud u nt evn gib me wrd clk in and out? Dnt u kno neting about jitter!?"Marketing Guy: Oh yeah, obviously! Jitter! Sheesh. Well we put rubber feet on it to keep the clock more steady as well as phase comparator-feedback loop based clock synchronization technology. Also I lost 8 pounds in a month after using <Device>. Also we added clock in and out anyway to deflect your scaremongering away from our products. Buy our stuff.
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Mar 9, 2014 6:00:29 GMT -6
Hah!
Well, whatever, David Friedmann has a Graphic that he uses as a distortion device. If it works for him, roll with it.
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Mar 9, 2014 5:18:47 GMT -6
You guys, clock talk can go die a miserable death the purple purgatory. This. A big part of the progresss modern digital system design is clock recovery - the jitter bogeyman is a relic of the 80's and offers no real threat to modern digital audio. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-locked_loop
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Mar 8, 2014 20:02:57 GMT -6
Why? ...and this "microphone system" IS always and forever your AD. Always. It is....digital. converting it BACK to analog...then using something else to convert to digital AGAIN is to utterly miss the point of what a converter brings to the table. Yeah, I'd kind of like an AES output. Not sure where the industry is going, but analogue aint it. I'd also +1 the idea of modelling popular lavs and shotguns - if nothing else, they're a sizable part of the industry. The studio nerds are only some of the money.
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Mar 8, 2014 15:37:05 GMT -6
Well, yes, we need robotized mic stands, so you just have to take a photo of the drum set with an iphone and the app does the rest via wlan ... just mention "uses proprietary AI algorithms" and "10 yrs. of development" in the ads. Nice idea, right? I am sure, they would buy it all, over there... just make a 25k price tag on it. Somehow reminds me of self-tuning guitars...but we got them already, right? Hrmpf.................... Where is my self chewing McBurger? God, this super sized coke is so heavy.
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Mar 8, 2014 11:34:33 GMT -6
Hmm, I dunno! Is it slow/not responsive even with no VST's? It might need resampling for whatever reason.. anything can do it really. Bit truncation + dither is child's play - Cool Edit Pro or Adobe Audition can batch convert them for you pretty fast.
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Mar 8, 2014 11:15:59 GMT -6
Chance your buffer size to 1024, chances are it's just too little memory in your buffer for the amount of real time processing you want to do.
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Mar 8, 2014 10:34:45 GMT -6
Cool. Might stick the movie on there when it comes out. Paying gigs a-hoy!
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Mar 8, 2014 10:22:31 GMT -6
What's your buffer size? For big mixes I tend to move mine out..but then I don't use outboard!
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Mar 7, 2014 19:21:00 GMT -6
Jesus, how lazy is society when the guy who sits in a chair all day can't be arsed to move the f*cking microphone?
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Mar 7, 2014 17:08:09 GMT -6
"...map of Skyrim..." LOL. Keep this map in your brain! It's fun after a few years.... No ashtray, somehow your desk is incomplete, for my taste.... Hah, I don't even tend to play it. But I like how it looks, so whatever! I'm not a smoker, so an ashtray is a waste. Traditionally young people here would just use an empty beercan anyway!
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Mar 5, 2014 17:20:38 GMT -6
The flaw in your analogy lies within psychoacoustics. The lossyness of mp3 mainly relies on pre-cortal, pre-cognitive artifacts of the human hearing system. As far as your Lateral Superior Olive or any other part of your auditory system is concerned, it doesn't receive a lossy signal. It was going to discard that data within that context if it arrived. Pardon my denseness on this, I want to understand correctly: you are saying that the auditory system itself is lossy (or something like it, lossy may not be the right term), and the mp3 spec was engineered to take advantage of this. Very interesting. I'm downloading the Harvard files, and will have a listen. Thanks! Yes. The idea is at the highest quality rate, it really only discards what our brain filters our anyway. As it goes on it discards more, but follows the rules so it minimizes lost *audible* content. There's a reason it can distort a signal like 70% from the original and still resemble it...it's clever.
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Mar 5, 2014 15:59:39 GMT -6
Would it be appropriate to think of the mp3 spec as a "scale model" of an initially unaltered audio stream? In this case, always reduced in size, with (supposedly) non-audible content removed? And depending on the sample rate, artifacts like collapsed stereo field, audible distortion, decreased frequency response, etc, are introduced and become "acceptable" as an ever-coarsened approximation of the original? All of this just to make the file smaller, and in theory, more accessible to users? What say you all, do I have this right? If this view of modeling is correct, then the mp3 spec must surely be one of the most egregious examples of function at least partially destroying form. This, then, would be the origin of "fragility" of the source material. As a method of accurate approximation, it is perceptually inadequate because it is purposely destructive (lossy). To relate this to VMS, the product will need to be, at some technical level, the opposite of mp3. It will need to manipulate and even add audio content where none existed before the "mic" picks up the incoming signal. But this process also introduces fragility of the captured audio, where, if the VMS system fails in some way, content is irrevocably lost or altered. Fragility sounds like a bad thing to me, and based on this train of thought, I think I want to stay in the analog domain until I hit my AD. The value of systems like VMS will need to be demonstrated in other areas beyond, or at least adjunct, to fidelity. I've never considered it this way. The flaw in your analogy lies within psychoacoustics. The lossyness of mp3 mainly relies on pre-cortal, pre-cognitive artifacts of the human hearing system. As far as your Lateral Superior Olive or any other part of your auditory system is concerned, it doesn't receive a lossy signal. It was going to discard that data within that context if it arrived. I have a set of Harvard recording's here I would encourage you to listen to, share and read the accompanying notes of: www.dropbox.com/sh/zqviy6dwjohnh08/nYfE5IBic0It's extremely enlightening stuff and you'll be shocked by how robust some of the laws in our hearing system are! Bob is 100% right - it is a final delivery format and quality lose becomes more readily apparent as processing is applied, whether stereo manipulate or reconversion or whatever. But that line can be extremely fine, so it's not a dichotomy. There's a gradient of audibility that has to be appreciated. As for potential errors in VMS - we'll see. Everything has "fail" scenarios, and it's often quality control more than the amount of liabilities in a system that determine this. A sick 1176 could wreck a take halfway through and a Lexicon could start puking its guts up halfway through a live gig, but people still use them.
|
|