Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > Tech Talk
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Recording Equipment
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedRecording Equipment
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Certif1ed View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559 		Direct Link To This Post Topic: Recording Equipment
    Posted: December 14 2005 at 09:44
There's a cheapo Sennheiser on dolphinmusic for about £25 - you can't go too far wrong with Sennheisers - but I've never used one, so can't vouch for that exact model.
Back to Top
Rosescar View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 07 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 715 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2005 at 07:48
Originally posted by Certif1ed Certif1ed wrote:

http://www.dolphinmusic.co.uk/d2/?page=shop/flypage&prod uct_id=2022&r=google

All you'll ever need


$$$$$$

Anything slightly cheaper?
Back to Top
Certif1ed View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2005 at 04:42

...although you really want one of these;
Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2005 at 03:23
Sure it's Shure!
Back to Top
Certif1ed View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2005 at 03:04

http://www.dolphinmusic.co.uk/d2/?page=shop/flypage&prod uct_id=2022&r=google

All you'll ever need



Edited by Certif1ed
Back to Top
Rosescar View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 07 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 715 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 13 2005 at 15:12
Originally posted by Certif1ed Certif1ed wrote:

Originally posted by Rosescar Rosescar wrote:

Originally posted by goose goose wrote:

Any multitrack editing software should have a mixer built in, regardless of how bad it is, so you won't need anything but a microphone connected to your computer, really. You can do everything software based, except playing (and you can even do some of that!)

That's what I'm looking for. What would you recommend me for the both? Total price at a max of, say, 60 euros.

I'm very keen on Magix Studio - for the money, there's nothing better - but it does depend how you like to work.

Wow, so I had a total déja vu with the Magix thing o_o;;

And Microphone?
Back to Top
Certif1ed View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 13 2005 at 13:39

Originally posted by Rosescar Rosescar wrote:

Originally posted by goose goose wrote:

Any multitrack editing software should have a mixer built in, regardless of how bad it is, so you won't need anything but a microphone connected to your computer, really. You can do everything software based, except playing (and you can even do some of that!)

That's what I'm looking for. What would you recommend me for the both? Total price at a max of, say, 60 euros.

I'm very keen on Magix Studio - for the money, there's nothing better - but it does depend how you like to work.

Details

Buy last year's version on Amazon cheaply

Or the latest version, only slightly less cheaply

 
Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 13 2005 at 05:43
"What I believe is that a digital system has the potential to be better than any analogue system does, and I damn well want to make one "
That's untrue IMO, but anyway, if you want a digital system which works, i hope you're very rich.
Back to Top
goose View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 4097 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 12 2005 at 15:06
I couldn't say, in all honesty, because the only reason I use what I do (Logic) is because someone gave me an illegal copy of it. There might be some freeware stuff, but I haven't really looked around. Cert can give much better advice than me, as well as a few other members of the forum
Back to Top
Rosescar View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 07 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 715 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 12 2005 at 14:28
Originally posted by goose goose wrote:

Any multitrack editing software should have a mixer built in, regardless of how bad it is, so you won't need anything but a microphone connected to your computer, really. You can do everything software based, except playing (and you can even do some of that!)

That's what I'm looking for. What would you recommend me for the both? Total price at a max of, say, 60 euros.
Back to Top
goose View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 4097 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 12 2005 at 12:48
Originally posted by Certif1ed Certif1ed wrote:


My points regarding the noises made my quantisation and aliasing (and the effects of anti-aliasing), whether technically sound or not (and I'm reasonably confident that they were) were that you can tell digital apart from analogue fairly easily if you know what you're listening for.


I don't know that quantisation has much of an audible effect for loud passages - the quoted figure is around 100dB although I can't remember it offhand. I suppose it's low level distortions that are the main issue, and I don't know how much of a problem they are after dithering.
Quote

Analogue has all kind of faults that digital does not display, and vice versa. Both have distinct qualities too.



Six of one and half a dozen of the other, I guess. Some people just prefer six ! And, to use another cliche, we have some apples and oranges here (and maybe some bad apples spoiling the bunch?).

Perhaps imperfections in analogue transfer make it sound more like you're "there" because of some psychoacoustic effect of third harmonic distortion. It's hard to say, really.

Quote

As you say, goosie, much is opinion, but much is also what you're used to


Much as I mean this, I probably neglected to say it. And on the other side of the coin, what I meant have said but not meant is that digital systems sound better. What I believe is that a digital system has the potential to be better than any analogue system does, and I damn well want to make one
Back to Top
goose View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 4097 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 12 2005 at 12:37
Any multitrack editing software should have a mixer built in, regardless of how bad it is, so you won't need anything but a microphone connected to your computer, really. You can do everything software based, except playing (and you can even do some of that!)
Back to Top
Rosescar View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 07 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 715 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 12 2005 at 12:09
Alright, some questions about software. Is there something like a digital mixer? So I could record the drums, then the guitars, and mix them all together in some program? Because this way I could probably deliver decent quality work.

If that's not possible, I'd need to consider buying a mixing panel and a microphone, right? Is there any specific software or material that I need for this? And what microphone would be suited best for this?

Is there any microphone that can record cheap to mediocre quality, and in combination with a mixing panel record good quality sound? This way I can get a microphone for Christmas, and maybe later the mixing panel for my birthday.
Back to Top
Certif1ed View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 10 2005 at 16:00

Originally posted by goose goose wrote:

You can really on listening only to tell you which sound you prefer, no more!

My points regarding the noises made my quantisation and aliasing (and the effects of anti-aliasing), whether technically sound or not (and I'm reasonably confident that they were) were that you can tell digital apart from analogue fairly easily if you know what you're listening for.

Analogue has all kind of faults that digital does not display, and vice versa. Both have distinct qualities too.

A good system will reveal these faults and qualities to someone that knows what they're listening for. I have a reasonable, relatively inexpensive system - the whole lot set me back no more than £1,500 in total.

I recently treated a friend who has a £5,000+ pure digital system to a whirlwind tour of some first press vinyl. He couldn't help but agree that the vinyl has a distinct sound and ambience that is better in many ways to Remastered DVD-A sound - and that was only after a single listening session.

He and I work together engineering our music, so we've both got "engineers ears", and it wasn't my superior equipment, because it's not superior - unless you class a pure analogue chain from turntable to speakers superior to a top-end digital system...

A high end system like the pin-ups that Ollie keeps posting  will definitely show these differences up to anyone but the sonically retarded.

A budget system and the average PC will make everything sound like my worst nightmare.

As you say, goosie, much is opinion, but much is also what you're used to - once you've heard DSOTM played from the original 2" master tape on an MCI JH24 through Crown DC 300 and D 150 tube amps feeding ATC SCM 300s, everything sounds inferior.

MCIJH24-TS.jpg - 28632 Bytes

 



Edited by Certif1ed
Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 10 2005 at 05:28
OK Mike, they sound even better than they look.

--->Goose:

"You can really on listening only to tell you which sound you prefer, no more!"

Yes, but between a trumpet which brittles, hurts the ears in digital, and the same album in analog, where the trumpet is perfectly reproduced without harshness and distorsion, with all the subtility and matter, the choice is quickly done!



Edited by oliverstoned
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21138 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 10 2005 at 05:25

oliver: From now on I'll no longer comment on your "theories" ... I'll just enjoy the look of your magical esoteric equipment.

You'll continue to use good looking equipment, I'll continue to use mine.
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
goose View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 4097 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 10 2005 at 04:26
You can really on listening only to tell you which sound you prefer, no more!
Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 09 2005 at 15:22
You too are crazy! you rely on theories, i rely on

Hifi realities

Linn




Relaxa



Counterpoint SA5000 tube preamp with separated tube power supply



Jolida for highs



Goldmund power amps for low




Transparent cables















Etc, etc...

These are facts...not esoterism...

Edited by oliverstoned
Back to Top
goose View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 4097 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 09 2005 at 13:30
Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:

^ I think you're exaggerating a bit because 16 bit are 65k, and 24bit are 16,7 million "shades" of info. 32bit would be 2 billion ...



but think about it ... one second of CD audio consists of 16 bits x 44,100 = 705,600 bits. Now if you imagine how many magnetic particles are in the amount of tape that is used to store one second of audio ... I'd estimate that it's well over 10,000 billion. If you use SACD you get 24 bits x 96,000 = 2,304,000 bits.



I have no idea where I got my numbers from, actually, I'll redo them now I can think - 2^16 * 44,100 / 15 ~ 200,000,000 particles per inch on 15" tape for the equivalent of CD, and 2^24 * 48,000 / 15 ~ 50,000,000,000
Quote

BUT the thing is that the human ear doesn't have near as many cells to receive audio information. And even then the brain removes the better part of the collected info. So rather than comparing these meaningless figures, we should rely on listening tests ...



You have to use the statistics in conjunction with listening tests - if you just run the test, all you can find is that people can tell one sound apart from the other. If you know that and know that one is technically superior, then you can have some assumption that the superior one is the more transparent. If we rely on the nice-sounding one (analogue, according to most listening tests), for example when we could get the same effect by (e.g.) adding distortions and different EQ to the mastering, why stick with a more expensive and less practical format?

edit: comparing number of bits on CD directly to number of particles on tape doesn't work, because x bits on digital systems yields 2^x different levels, while y particles yields only y + 1 different levels.

Edited by goose
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21138 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 09 2005 at 12:20

^ I think you're exaggerating a bit because 16 bit are 65k, and 24bit are 16,7 million "shades" of info. 32bit would be 2 billion ...

but think about it ... one second of CD audio consists of 16 bits x 44,100 = 705,600 bits. Now if you imagine how many magnetic particles are in the amount of tape that is used to store one second of audio ... I'd estimate that it's well over 10,000 billion. If you use SACD you get 24 bits x 96,000 = 2,304,000 bits.

BUT the thing is that the human ear doesn't have near as many cells to receive audio information. And even then the brain removes the better part of the collected info. So rather than comparing these meaningless figures, we should rely on listening tests ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiophile

... and in particular: The Ten Biggest Lies In Audio

 

 



Edited by MikeEnRegalia
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.223 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.