Recording Equipment

oliverstoned wrote: goose wrote: oliverstoned wrote: Unfortunatly, high digital numeric is a joke, 24 bits doesn't change the numeric problem, so i disagree with that. Analog will always beats digital. There will be always informations missing There is equally information missing in tape, because there is only a limited number of magnetic particles on it! There are just more than on a CD. False, the problem is that numeric is a simplified version of analog, with missing infos. DAT uses a metal tape as a support and the problem is the same cause the matter is that it's numeric. An analog tape explodes a DAT tape.

One of the biggest problems with Analogue, as far as recording sound is concerned, is that it modifies the sound - it can't help it - it actually introduces sounds into recording and playback - even the quietest analgoue system will do that, and more often than not. It can actually be an enhancement - but it's still something that the band may not have intended to be in the music.

Digital does not do that - it cannot possibly capture everything, but it captures the bits that it can, dependent on frequency of sampling and bit rate - and it is rabid at doing so.

Analogue also both loses and adds "information" (noise) during the copy process - something that digital ABSOLUTELY does not do, unless the software used for copying has a CODEC routine of any kind.

BUT digital sound lacks real dynamic.

Although all the audio data is captured and presented at such a rate that the human ear cannot distinguish the actual sound of digital from analogue, volume and certain other aspects of sound is logarithmic, so digital will always be fooled where there are great contrasts of dynamic, and at certain points in digital recordings you can notice dynamics increasing more sharply than they should, leading to a feeling of harshness.

This is easy to demonstrate;

Get hold of the vinyl LP or NON mastered CD of "Script For a Jester's Tear", and the 24-bit remaster (you should be able to pick both up very cheaply on eBay, and you can always sell them on if, for some mysterious reason you don't like them...).

Compare either the vinyl CD or the LP with the 24-bit Remaster.

The difference is staggering - the 24-bit Remaster has incredible dynamics, which blow the CD and LP into the shade.

 

But hang on, Cert, I thought you said Analogue was better for dynamics?

Good point.

Well, in the late 1970s/early 1980s, there was an oil crisis, and part of the knock-on effects was that vinyl LPs were made considerably thinner than their 1960s and 70s counterparts. LPs work by providing sound through left-to-right and up-and-down movement of the stylus in the groove. If you limit one, you limit (or compress) the music.

Now track down a genuine 1960s vinyl pressing of "Rubber Soul" or "Revolver", and listen to the dynamics alone. On good headphones, you can hear studio equipment noise, background voices and all kinds of things - on one track, I forget which, you can clearly hear John swearing as he fluffs a guitar part. It's like being in the studio with the Beatles.

There's no CD on earth that beats that

 

Er... I think I've got something work-related to do

oliverstoned wrote: goose wrote: oliverstoned wrote: Unfortunatly, high digital numeric is a joke, 24 bits doesn't change the numeric problem, so i disagree with that. Analog will always beats digital. There will be always informations missing There is equally information missing in tape, because there is only a limited number of magnetic particles on it! There are just more than on a CD. False, the problem is that numeric is a simplified version of analog, with missing infos. DAT uses a metal tape as a support and the problem is the same cause the matter is that it's numeric. An analog tape explodes a DAT tape.

Oh how I would love to be like you - no need for explanations and rationality, living in a dream world.

goose wrote: oliverstoned wrote: Unfortunatly, high digital numeric is a joke, 24 bits doesn't change the numeric problem, so i disagree with that. Analog will always beats digital. There will be always informations missing There is equally information missing in tape, because there is only a limited number of magnetic particles on it! There are just more than on a CD.

False, the problem is that numeric is a simplified version of analog, with missing infos. DAT uses a metal tape as a support and the problem is the same cause the matter is that it's numeric. An analog tape explodes a DAT tape.

We are suggesting the mixer because it will handle any type of input and feed a signal to the soundcard which it will understand properly.

At a very basic level, you could just get a a cable that would convert the microphone din plug to an RCA or 6.5m stereo connector and plug it straight into the sound card. But one microphone recording the live band will sound like sh*t. You may be better of thinking about DAT or 4 track, or whatever the hell is new and replaced these small mixer, recorders.

In that case, start with a small mixer that can be connected to the computer - and consider a Pod for the guitars if you can stretch to it.

For recording software, if you're only going to record the band live from one microphone, then Wavepad (which is FREE) will do just fine.

If you need to multitrack, then you'll need to think about Magix - or something more professionally oriented like Sonar or ProTools lite.

Well for guitar recording i find the POD XT to be an excellent tool and you can make excellent recordings with it very easily!

oliverstoned wrote: Unfortunatly, high digital numeric is a joke, 24 bits doesn't change the numeric problem, so i disagree with that. Analog will always beats digital. There will be always informations missing

There is equally information missing in tape, because there is only a limited number of magnetic particles on it! There are just more than on a CD.

Here's some helpful advice... Get yourself a copy of Sonar and a small audio mixer. Plug any instruments, microphones etc into the mixer and plug the mixer into the soundcard input. The mixer doesn't need to be large, you can record everything one track at a time. Use the midi capabilities of Sonar to enhance the sound, drums, strings, etc. If you can't afford Sonar, the internet can take care of that problem for you as well. You will need good sound hardware and speakers to get decent playback quality, but note that most sound cards will produce a good recording when burnt to CD and played back on hifi equipment. The decent playback quality will be very helpful when mixing, though. Digital recording is VERY disk hungry and will rapidly deplete the resources on a small harddrive.

cobb wrote: The guy doesn't want to start Apple Studios II, just do a little recording at home. Get over it Oliver, a computer is enough to accomplish this task...

Yes Cobb, i know that the guy will eventually do it on his crappy computer. But it's a nice occasion to dicuss that issue...

Edited by oliverstoned

The guy doesn't want to start Apple Studios II, just do a little recording at home. Get over it Oliver, a computer is enough to accomplish this task...