From what I gather this is a problem with North American ISP service providers as of the last week. There is a problem with the major service providers and their routers reaching a limit of their routers table size limits of 245K size. Hopefully they will fix this soon. I have been contacted by Christophe personally and I understand his frustrations. Forum rules preclude me from saying what is going on it appears. It is not nice when we lose some of the people who can and do have very clear knowledge and insight into some of the issues that we all care so much about. I will miss his input on this and other threads.
Sy,
Sometimes it is a legitimate gripe or complaint. You are a moderator but not on this thread I don't think. It is difficult when there is no recourse or control of what individual moderators seem to do. I'll leave it at that and hopefully won't be in trouble for that simple statement.
Sometimes it is a legitimate gripe or complaint. You are a moderator but not on this thread I don't think. It is difficult when there is no recourse or control of what individual moderators seem to do. I'll leave it at that and hopefully won't be in trouble for that simple statement.
It was not an issue with digital, but with the studios. Their monitors were compensated over the years, to try to simulate the losses of the vinyls. (magic rooms
Lot of the masters produced at this time had too much trebles (the ones losses in the vinyl) while they sounded OK in the studios.
i believe this is the reason of the bad reputation of digital near some audiophiles.
I certainly understand this opinion will get little traction here, I would add peaky microphones too as a problem.
Just got back from Muscle Shoals recording Studio . I would add hearing loss because of way too load monitoring to both problems . Digital to me has afar smaller range of quality playback . At the bottom it bland and you just turn if off ant the top it listenable. Vinyl and the bottom is BAD and noise, commonly heard by the masses. When vinyl is right it is involving and desired to listen more. Two different delivery systems . History repeated itself much like tubes and SS two different system used to do the same job.
As for Muscle Shoals Studio by conventional wisdom it all wrong . Concrete block building sprung wood floor and ceiling cover in fiberglass . But it worked ! They made many million seller out of the place . The place does vocal very well the tonal enrichment of the rooms is impressive. The visual is very underwhelming to the point of disbelief . It was for me the best demonstration of Einstein's statement " See what is not what you want to see" That I have yet experienced .
Scott,
I think one of the problems with the conversation about microphones is that they are often used for their particular audio signature. Certain mikes will be used on drums that give a warm sound and the same goes for specific mics used for vocals. Performers have their own favorite mics and I have seen that many times when you had to have a certain model available to make that musician happy. What is the answer in that case? Yes we could use only flat frequency response microphones such as some instrumentation B&K mics good out to 100knz but is that the answer to great music? I think that is a different discussion than the fact that there are no real standards when it comes to the recording side of things and all the different qualities and sounds of all the recording studios out there let alone the home studio using cheap gear from Guitar Center and the noise coming out of that cheap stuff.
I think one of the problems with the conversation about microphones is that they are often used for their particular audio signature. Certain mikes will be used on drums that give a warm sound and the same goes for specific mics used for vocals. Performers have their own favorite mics and I have seen that many times when you had to have a certain model available to make that musician happy. What is the answer in that case? Yes we could use only flat frequency response microphones such as some instrumentation B&K mics good out to 100knz but is that the answer to great music? I think that is a different discussion than the fact that there are no real standards when it comes to the recording side of things and all the different qualities and sounds of all the recording studios out there let alone the home studio using cheap gear from Guitar Center and the noise coming out of that cheap stuff.
They indeed aren't- one also cares about noise, dynamic range, distortion, and (in the real world) ruggedness. Building my own ribbon mikes was an eye-opening experience.
Well I guess I didn't word that very well then. My point was that just having a microphone with a flat frequency response was not the answer, we can look at the microphone as the analogy of a speaker but on the other end of the chain. There are no perfect transducers on either end and you have to choose your poison carefully.
Role of recording vs producer -
Maaaaybe ...... a flat on axis and low distortion and controlled off-axis and enough dynamic range for the task at hand . etc etc... could be used and for the effects or the vocals let the EQ on the board take care of it. Then it can sound any way desired without the forever recorded distortions from the mic.
Let the mic be neutral.... record for best quality....all other affects can be handled in the mix or even the monitor channel.
Today, a mic or any piece of gear can me mimic'ed (DSP) with the DAW part of the system during playback/monitoring/mix-down.
THx-RNMarsh
Maaaaybe ...... a flat on axis and low distortion and controlled off-axis and enough dynamic range for the task at hand . etc etc... could be used and for the effects or the vocals let the EQ on the board take care of it. Then it can sound any way desired without the forever recorded distortions from the mic.
Let the mic be neutral.... record for best quality....all other affects can be handled in the mix or even the monitor channel.
Today, a mic or any piece of gear can me mimic'ed (DSP) with the DAW part of the system during playback/monitoring/mix-down.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
And when digital is right it is extremely involving - what many still fail to appreciate is that a different set of distortion artifacts plague digital sound, which creates the blandness and all the other "badnesses" that are attributed to digital as a medium. Back in the 80's and 90's I found it quite astonishing to hear how poor the vast majority of digital playback sounded - surely there are some audio engineers, somewhere, who can actually use their ears and note that their expensive equipment sounds pretty dreadful, I thought ... but it's been a very long, very slow, painful, incremental movement forward to bring music into the digital realm ...
Trouble is, the "professionals" quite often still don't get it - the TAD room in the recent audio show was as expertly set up and presented as one would expect, all the top of the line gear used. But the sound,
... grindingly tedious and flat, like 'sophisticated' PA sound, only tolerable for a few minutes ...
Funny you seemed concerned about digital/optical minutiea a few days ago.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.