I have been reading the thread about Randy Sloanes optimos design, and the topic of signal route in audio production came up again (I think dirk posted something about it). I have seen it come up a few times in other threads, and I think it is time that we start a thread on this. I hope a few other people will find it interesting. I know that there are some musicians out there who have been involved with production, as I have. Here are a few of my thoughts and questions on the subject...
Other than the audiophile classical labels like Telarc, is there anyone who is using a short and unprocessed signal route and electronics with minimal feedback, especially in pop/rock music?
The consoles that I have used always have 3-4 eq stages. I would have to assume that they are implemented with op-amps and feedback. I have to wonder sometimes why we go to all the trouble of building these minimalist systems with no eq, etc. and then listen to a recording that has been processed so much! The typical multitrack recording may have gone through a process that includes:
1. tracking- tracking to tape with pre-eq, although some prefer to print to tape without eq.
The microphone(s) may have been run through a console preamp or standalone (better quality). It is also quite typical, especially on drums and other dynamic instruments, to record to tape/hard disc with compression (especially since digital recording responds so terribley to overload, clips hard). The a/d converters will typically be at least a 20 bit now, but I have to wonder about the quality there. Maybe when the SACD direct stream digital ends up in pro audio there will be an improvement in this area. Multiple tracks are recorded like this.
2. Mixdown- All tracks are equalized to get a consistent sound. This is typically done through the console, although sometimes outboard processors are used. This part of the process may or may not leave the digital domain. Staying digital once there is always preferred, but is not always practical (especially for smaller studios with limited resources). Compression and de-essing (frequency dependant compression, to tame spitty ssss sibilants that are a byproduct of compression). Artificial ambience in the form of reverbs and delays are added to create space. Panning is done to create the soundstage.
3. Mastering- a mastering engineer listens to the recording and adjusts levels and eq between tracks on the 2 track master to give a consistent sound. Compression may be added to the overall track now to add "punch".
This is just my understanding of and experience with some of the processes involved in making a pop recording. It makes me wonder what the quality potential is if someone were to implement audiophile techniques to the process and cut down on the signal butchering. I'm convinced that there are people doing it... I'll bet that some of the better sounding recordings have producers with more of this mindset.
I guess my point is that we can talk about the issues of feedback vs. no feedback, simple gain paths vs. complex amps with low distortion, etc. etc. But you have to wonder what is going on before it even gets to us, and how much we are missing out on!
Other than the audiophile classical labels like Telarc, is there anyone who is using a short and unprocessed signal route and electronics with minimal feedback, especially in pop/rock music?
The consoles that I have used always have 3-4 eq stages. I would have to assume that they are implemented with op-amps and feedback. I have to wonder sometimes why we go to all the trouble of building these minimalist systems with no eq, etc. and then listen to a recording that has been processed so much! The typical multitrack recording may have gone through a process that includes:
1. tracking- tracking to tape with pre-eq, although some prefer to print to tape without eq.
The microphone(s) may have been run through a console preamp or standalone (better quality). It is also quite typical, especially on drums and other dynamic instruments, to record to tape/hard disc with compression (especially since digital recording responds so terribley to overload, clips hard). The a/d converters will typically be at least a 20 bit now, but I have to wonder about the quality there. Maybe when the SACD direct stream digital ends up in pro audio there will be an improvement in this area. Multiple tracks are recorded like this.
2. Mixdown- All tracks are equalized to get a consistent sound. This is typically done through the console, although sometimes outboard processors are used. This part of the process may or may not leave the digital domain. Staying digital once there is always preferred, but is not always practical (especially for smaller studios with limited resources). Compression and de-essing (frequency dependant compression, to tame spitty ssss sibilants that are a byproduct of compression). Artificial ambience in the form of reverbs and delays are added to create space. Panning is done to create the soundstage.
3. Mastering- a mastering engineer listens to the recording and adjusts levels and eq between tracks on the 2 track master to give a consistent sound. Compression may be added to the overall track now to add "punch".
This is just my understanding of and experience with some of the processes involved in making a pop recording. It makes me wonder what the quality potential is if someone were to implement audiophile techniques to the process and cut down on the signal butchering. I'm convinced that there are people doing it... I'll bet that some of the better sounding recordings have producers with more of this mindset.
I guess my point is that we can talk about the issues of feedback vs. no feedback, simple gain paths vs. complex amps with low distortion, etc. etc. But you have to wonder what is going on before it even gets to us, and how much we are missing out on!
). People are entitled to their audio opinions so I won't argue the point but I had to throw my 2 cents into the spare-a-penny tray.