ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,940
|
Post by ericn on Jan 18, 2022 15:41:34 GMT -6
It becomes relevant every time I walk into a church gig with the radar and find an old Spirit 😜. Seriously in the world of a do everything freelancer never enough Comps, so what the hell grab the EVs. I was sitting in the bar the other night talking to a producer when Fleetwood Mac dreams comes on and the guy gushing talking how it must have been a 47 or 87 on stevies vocals,, nope a good old EV RE/PL. guys jaw on the floor, so we talk some more about Stevie vocals, all our favorites are either from Keith Olson or Ken Callie, or the dance So EV or Beyer Dynamics, with her less honk and pinched nose sound. I do get it though I went all condenser around 91-93, in many ways more detail, but it wasn’t ever that warm and fuzzy. Then I started buying select dynamics ( at my worse my dynamic collection was the dynamic equivalent to Blackbirds condenser collection). Aye, in circumstances.. Like stop eating my mic, was that a growl or two litres of spit? No that KMS105 won't work with a guitarist trying to be louder than three drum kits and hey, where's my mic gone? I'm not going to use a U67 on a live gig, not even sure I'd trust Hetfield. I think you touched on something though, generations.. I like a lot of 60's / 70's and 80's music but production wise (especially the earlier stuff) in terms of fidelity I don't rate many of them. That's probably because I'm used to songs completely unglued that crush your skull with bass and have a sense of super eerie levels of clarity. It's "retro" music to me, sorry.. I'll get off your lawn. Hey the last guy who asked why I own Magnapans rather than Electrostatics couldn’t believe I said “quads and Soundlabs are to good, can’t stand listening to some of my favorite music, vs favorite recordings.”
|
|
|
Post by bricejchandler on Jan 19, 2022 4:01:22 GMT -6
I really don't hear the lofi in a lot vintage recordings. I mean obviously some of it is pretty garage but I'm a sucker for late 50s music and when I hear Everyday by Buddy Holly, or some Marty Robbins stuff, recorded in 58 and 59 and I find the recordings incredible, same with a ton of stuff coming out of the Nashville sound.
To me they actually sound more real/hifi than most stuff coming out now, which doesn't sound hifi to me but more hyper real.
|
|
|
Post by donr on Jan 19, 2022 8:27:25 GMT -6
A bit off topic, but I'm always astounded by how full and ballsy the classic Warner Brothers cartoon soundtracks and SFX sounded. The audio just blazes on any playback system.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jan 19, 2022 9:58:37 GMT -6
There’s something to listen to period music on period systems, hear it the way they did. 60’s stuff on 604’s. 40’s stuff on a Lansing Iconic. Not easy to do, but if you get the chance you’ll find a lot of records are a lot more hifi than you knew, the playback was just mismatched. Heavily compressed modern on a horn system? No thanks!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2022 11:15:46 GMT -6
There’s something to listen to period music on period systems, hear it the way they did. 60’s stuff on 604’s. 40’s stuff on a Lansing Iconic. Not easy to do, but if you get the chance you’ll find a lot of records are a lot more hifi than you knew, the playback was just mismatched. Heavily compressed modern on a horn system? No thanks! I'll never know but hey, wait! How did we get here? I just like condensers more than dynamic's okay? That's all.. *Run's away. Edit, removed the other post.. Just a load of waffling ..
|
|
|
Post by donr on Jan 19, 2022 11:40:39 GMT -6
There’s something to listen to period music on period systems, hear it the way they did. 60’s stuff on 604’s. 40’s stuff on a Lansing Iconic. Not easy to do, but if you get the chance you’ll find a lot of records are a lot more hifi than you knew, the playback was just mismatched. Heavily compressed modern on a horn system? No thanks! I'll never know but hey, wait! How did we get here? I just like condensers more than dynamic's okay? That's all.. *Run's away. Edit, removed the other post.. Just a load of waffling .. My fault, Shadow, I'm always derailing threads. : )
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jan 19, 2022 11:43:27 GMT -6
I think there are three types of fidelity.
One is objective, and measurable. Basically, the highest amount of pure signal, with the least amount of noise and distortion. Like digital VS tape VS wax cylinders/wire recorders.
The second is philosophical. A professional rigor that is applied to the entire studio design and process. Calibrating the tape machine, using low noise cables, low noise power supplies, sound isolated and acoustically balanced rooms, and the "best tools and practices" for any recording job. Note that this does not match literally to the first definition. There's a blend of subjective "sound quality" here as well as some of the objective measurable quality of sound recording.
The third is completely subjective and/or relative. Sometimes you can use objectively "high fidelity" equipment using the first definition, or even the second, and record some garbage music played badly on bad instruments, maybe in bad rooms, and people will call it "Lo Fi." This is more a violation of "professional rigor" than it is of "objective fidelity." It's also relative in the sense that 60's recordings are considered "Hi Fi" compared to 1940's recordings. And that some, Shadow for example, are calling year 2000's recordings higher fidelity than 1960s recordings. It has to do with the change of taste over time, more than either of the first two definitions of fidelity. It's subjective.
Honorable mention to "Lo Fi" genres of recording, where you use distortion and artifacts in an artful way. And also to "Hi Fi" home sound systems, a term that's not so much in use these days but what was very popular back in the baby boomer era.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2022 12:25:15 GMT -6
I think there are three types of fidelity. One is objective, and measurable. Basically, the highest amount of pure signal, with the least amount of noise and distortion. Like digital VS tape VS wax cylinders/wire recorders. The second is philosophical. A professional rigor that is applied to the entire studio design and process. Calibrating the tape machine, using low noise cables, low noise power supplies, sound isolated and acoustically balanced rooms, and the "best tools and practices" for any recording job. Note that this does not match literally to the first definition. There's a blend of subjective "sound quality" here as well as some of the objective measurable quality of sound recording. The third is completely subjective and/or relative. Sometimes you can use objectively "high fidelity" equipment using the first definition, or even the second, and record some garbage music played badly on bad instruments, maybe in bad rooms, and people will call it "Lo Fi." This is more a violation of "professional rigor" than it is of "objective fidelity." It's also relative in the sense that 60's recordings are considered "Hi Fi" compared to 1940's recordings. And that some, Shadow for example, are calling year 2000's recordings higher fidelity than 1960s recordings. It has to do with the change of taste over time, more than either of the first two definitions of fidelity. It's subjective. I ducked out because without a few cold one's and a long time to chew through the semantics it's a hopeless convo. It's hard explain and the basis for a view needs a foundation.. Like "Hi-Fi" vs. "Hyper Real", hyper real might be the basis for somebody's assessment on fidelity.. Take Fleetwood Mac, some may say that modern music (or the general conception of it) sounds small and overly bright in comparison. Some may say it has a stronger centre and more "clarity" meaning treble mainly.. What's better? Who knows? I can tell when there's SNR issues and degraded instruments though. You cannot say modern recording tools are "technically" inferior, science disagree's with that notion entirely. Whatever some person prefers however? Pass me a beer.
|
|
|
Post by bricejchandler on Jan 19, 2022 13:02:58 GMT -6
There’s something to listen to period music on period systems, hear it the way they did. 60’s stuff on 604’s. 40’s stuff on a Lansing Iconic. Not easy to do, but if you get the chance you’ll find a lot of records are a lot more hifi than you knew, the playback was just mismatched. Heavily compressed modern on a horn system? No thanks! I'll never know but hey, wait! How did we get here? I just like condensers more than dynamic's okay? That's all.. *Run's away. Edit, removed the other post.. Just a load of waffling .. Actually I do think most of the discussion here is pretty on point. We gravitate towards different tools because our end goals and methods and esthetics are different. Like a major part of what I record are live bands, usually with the singer in the room with everybody and as much as I'd love to use my 47 or 87 or whatever it just won't work and dynamics ( most of the time some version of an Ev RE mic for me ) or some ribbons ( M160 for example ) are really the only thing that are gonna do the job. And I totally agree, modern tools are definitely far more precise and ultimately it really all comes down to personal preference. I really gravitate towards something that sounds and feels pretty natural, like you're in there with the band and a lot modern productions are so gridded, compressed and distorted in the low end that they end up sounding pretty lofi to my ears.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2022 14:31:54 GMT -6
I'll never know but hey, wait! How did we get here? I just like condensers more than dynamic's okay? That's all.. *Run's away. Edit, removed the other post.. Just a load of waffling .. Actually I do think most of the discussion here is pretty on point. We gravitate towards different tools because our end goals and methods and esthetics are different. Like a major part of what I record are live bands, usually with the singer in the room with everybody and as much as I'd love to use my 47 or 87 or whatever it just won't work and dynamics ( most of the time some version of an Ev RE mic for me ) or some ribbons ( M160 for example ) are really the only thing that are gonna do the job. And I totally agree, modern tools are definitely far more precise and ultimately it really all comes down to personal preference. I really gravitate towards something that sounds and feels pretty natural, like you're in there with the band and a lot modern productions are so gridded, compressed and distorted in the low end that they end up sounding pretty lofi to my ears. Completely agree, although I don't just listen to overly compressed modern pop music.. As discussed with MJB I'm sort of off the rails and listen to all sorts of stuff, not every production is the same especially when you get out of the mainstream. I love compression / saturation but it certainly can have some very negative effects, I don't want to start an ITB / OTB thing but the EARLY plugs I used (2005 - 2009(ish) had a habit of stripping depth from a song. Fortunately they are far better nowadays. Then again a 2A used incorrectly can do the same thing so?!...... Anyway I think I'm a bit too fixated on this stuff as I don't often just listen to music anymore I analyse it. Just for context 1999 - 2006 were my LFAC / rented studio days.. In 2007 I sold everything I had, packed up and quit. A few years later music started swilling around my brain again so I bought an Audio Echofire? (had so much stuff I keep forgetting) and some plugs, cheap mic's and I hated everything about it. I still recorded some stuff but packed it in again, although a few years later the same happened.. At this juncture I had two options, ignore the swilling or just go for it so over the last 5 years I bought a new house with a purpose built studio room designed by an acoustician and then I tested everything I could get my hands on. Didn't care if debt was an issue, I'd just do it for my own sanity.. By this point I must have tried 30 sets of monitors, 60+ mic's and a metric ton of outboard / interfaces etc... The downside of doing this (and mixing to an extent) is you again just focus on the problems not the music, the obsession with that 5? 10? percent. What IS better? What sound am I chasing? etc. Also back in the day I used 7B's all the time, sort of a go to for rock / metal.. Now I can't stand them. It's like a specific type of noodle, I used to really enjoy them until I ate it so often the taste made my face go weird . Also my preferences have changed over the years, I like a bit of rock but at one point all I'd listen to is extreme metal. I mean there's so many probabilities and variables that lead to this conclusion.. BUT.! It's not a bad thing IMO, after years of searching at least I know what I want and what I'm looking for. In the future that'll save time, money and stress.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jan 19, 2022 15:09:47 GMT -6
ShadowK, the Echo Audiofire was 7 years of audio hell for me. Misery loves company, ha. It really is a terrible sounding converter and also, to boot, has some of the worst recorded latency performance of any interface ever made.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jan 19, 2022 15:37:04 GMT -6
It’s amazing how much of the reputation of ADAT recordings is the DA. I’ve mixed a lot of old ADAT stuff the last couple years and it sounds pretty damn good through something else, considering. Reel that back in - a lot of the mic/processing choices the DA drove cease to matter when the DA is out of the picture.
|
|
|
Post by drumsound on Jan 19, 2022 16:35:48 GMT -6
I'll never know but hey, wait! How did we get here? I just like condensers more than dynamic's okay? That's all.. *Run's away. Edit, removed the other post.. Just a load of waffling .. Actually I do think most of the discussion here is pretty on point. We gravitate towards different tools because our end goals and methods and esthetics are different. Like a major part of what I record are live bands, usually with the singer in the room with everybody and as much as I'd love to use my 47 or 87 or whatever it just won't work and dynamics ( most of the time some version of an Ev RE mic for me ) or some ribbons ( M160 for example ) are really the only thing that are gonna do the job. And I totally agree, modern tools are definitely far more precise and ultimately it really all comes down to personal preference. I really gravitate towards something that sounds and feels pretty natural, like you're in there with the band and a lot modern productions are so gridded, compressed and distorted in the low end that they end up sounding pretty lofi to my ears. Every time I see some sort of "modern rock" playlist I can never get past a song or two. I hear all the editing, and I have trouble even thinking of the musical content. That and the mixing (or maybe mastering) that makes it all sound like 3" speaker with an overpowered amp. Everything is distorted and sounds like it's all 1-4K with hints of bass and extreme top that feels like ice pics to my eardrums.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jan 19, 2022 16:39:59 GMT -6
Actually I do think most of the discussion here is pretty on point. We gravitate towards different tools because our end goals and methods and esthetics are different. Like a major part of what I record are live bands, usually with the singer in the room with everybody and as much as I'd love to use my 47 or 87 or whatever it just won't work and dynamics ( most of the time some version of an Ev RE mic for me ) or some ribbons ( M160 for example ) are really the only thing that are gonna do the job. And I totally agree, modern tools are definitely far more precise and ultimately it really all comes down to personal preference. I really gravitate towards something that sounds and feels pretty natural, like you're in there with the band and a lot modern productions are so gridded, compressed and distorted in the low end that they end up sounding pretty lofi to my ears. Every time I see some sort of "modern rock" playlist I can never get past a song or two. I hear all the editing, and I have trouble even thinking of the musical content. That and the mixing (or maybe mastering) that makes it all sound like 3" speaker with an overpowered amp. Everything is distorted and sounds like it's all 1-4K with hints of bass and extreme top that feels like ice pics to my eardrums. Hey man... that's professional recording... you gotta do what the "pros" do. X-D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2022 19:20:30 GMT -6
Yeah, sorry Brice we went through this entire thread and I didn't even listen to your clips.. So, in order of preference (1 being highest) *drumroll 1. U87 2. RE16 3. U77 4. 47 I'd slam the 87 / RE16 through a 2A to smooth 'em out a bit but yeah, I could work with that no issues.. Soo, okay if nothing else the conversation thus far has been interesting.
|
|
|
Post by bricejchandler on Jan 20, 2022 2:38:25 GMT -6
Yeah, sorry Brice we went through this entire thread and I didn't even listen to your clips.. So, in order of preference (1 being highest) *drumroll 1. U87 2. RE16 3. U77 4. 47 I'd slam the 87 / RE16 through a 2A to smooth 'em out a bit but yeah, I could work with that no issues.. Soo, okay if nothing else the conversation thus far has been interesting. Thanks for listening and giving your thoughts! In a blind shootout, the singer picked the U47 that day and he's really picky about how he wants his voice to sound so I went with it! but Yeah pretty cool that a $200 dynamic mic totally hangs with a mic that's literally 100 times more expensive! What I love about the RE16 is the variable D, it gives for a very even response even when the singer moves around quite a bit. So less proximity effect and doesn't thin out at a distance like many dynamic mics do. The singer is about a foot away here. It's just a great mic to have around. I also love it on guitar amps, it gives a great mid focused sound, no fizzyness on top, no rumble down low.
|
|