Recording Equipment |
Post Reply | Page <1234> |
Author | |||
Lindsay Lohan
Forum Senior Member Joined: May 25 2005 Location: Norway Status: Offline Points: 3254 |
Posted: December 08 2005 at 14:51 | ||
Well for guitar recording i find the POD XT to be an excellent tool and you can make excellent recordings with it very easily!
|
|||
Rosescar
Forum Senior Member Joined: October 07 2005 Status: Offline Points: 715 |
Posted: December 08 2005 at 16:08 | ||
Oh yeah, maybe I should've mentioned that. I got a Yamaha PXR-1100, two guitars and a Roland Cube 30 AMP. I also have a microphone which can't be connected to the computer (it's my sister's really). |
|||
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 08 2004 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 7559 |
Posted: December 08 2005 at 16:28 | ||
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. |
|||
Rosescar
Forum Senior Member Joined: October 07 2005 Status: Offline Points: 715 |
Posted: December 08 2005 at 16:39 | ||
Mixer - how, what, why? I know what a mixer is, but don't really see why it's neccesary.
What's a Pod? And, what microphone would you suggest me? Let's say something under 30 Euros. Excuse me for having NO idea about it all. Edited by Rosescar |
|||
cobb
Forum Senior Member Joined: July 10 2005 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1149 |
Posted: December 08 2005 at 16:52 | ||
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. |
|||
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 08 2004 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 7559 |
Posted: December 08 2005 at 16:57 | ||
A mixer will allow you to do several things; Most mixers have sockets for common audio equipment - so you can plug whatever you have into the mixer, and plug the output from the mixer into your soundcard. Many mixers allow you to interact with music software through the hardware controls rather than muck about with the software itself. The more channels your mixer has, the greater number of simultaneous inputs you can have to your soundcard. There are other benefits - but I've got one of these; http://www.emusicgear.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=US2 24 It's really handy for jamming away - maybe keyboard and guitar, then add drums later, and vox later still.
A Line 6 Pod is the best invention for the guitar ever - it models amplifiers that most people couldn't afford, and allows you to choose a range of effects, different speaker cabinets - even microphone positioning, to mimic the recording of a live guitar.
As for Mics under 30 Euros, I really don't know enough about budget mics; All the vocal work I do is at a colleague's studio - and he's got a Shure and an AKG, neither of which would get much change out of €200. |
|||
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 26 2004 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 6308 |
Posted: December 09 2005 at 02:52 | ||
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. |
|||
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 26 2004 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 6308 |
Posted: December 09 2005 at 02:56 | ||
You know how many combinations are in 24 bits, do you? MUUUUUCH more than the human ear can discern. [QUOTE=oliverstoned] The human ear perfectly decerns harshness, flatness, lack of dynamic in a numeric recording whereas it's 16, 20 or 24 bits. |
|||
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 22 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Online Points: 21138 |
Posted: December 09 2005 at 03:14 | ||
Oh how I would love to be like you - no need for explanations and rationality, living in a dream world. |
|||
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 26 2004 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 6308 |
Posted: December 09 2005 at 03:24 | ||
I gave a clear and rational explanation to answer goose: that's not a matter of support -tape versus optic disc-, but a matter of recording technology used -digital versus analog-, but if you want to make irony...
Moreover, you have been brain-washed by marketers who claimed that CD was perfect, and now claim that 16 bits CD was not, but SACD is perfect! Believe them...and loose all your pseudo-scientific mind. Edited by oliverstoned |
|||
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 08 2004 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 7559 |
Posted: December 09 2005 at 03:29 | ||
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 |
|||
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 22 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Online Points: 21138 |
Posted: December 09 2005 at 03:31 | ||
It's all about listening tests ... which are dismissed by the "esoteric" people, and accepted by the "rational". |
|||
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 26 2004 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 6308 |
Posted: December 09 2005 at 03:43 | ||
"The difference is staggering - the 24-bit Remaster has incredible dynamics, which blow the CD and LP into the shade."
There's no 24 bits version of an album which beats a good vynil version of the same. Or you played it on a bad turntable or using a torn vynil. Although the 24 bits CD version can be better than the former CD edition. "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," Doesn't exist too. |
|||
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 26 2004 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 6308 |
Posted: December 09 2005 at 03:54 | ||
"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." I prefer analog which adds a little noise or cracks (that's really nothing)but keeps the music, contary to digital which adds no noise but completely ruins the music! the choice is quickly done! And for the noise pb, my Naka1000 features a Dolby noise limiter which works nice!! "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" It's the same for all albums!! Edited by oliverstoned |
|||
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 26 2004 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 6308 |
Posted: December 09 2005 at 03:58 | ||
The listening tests say exactly the contary as what you say. I know cause i've done it many times, contrary to you, who builds his opinions on theories. |
|||
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 22 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Online Points: 21138 |
Posted: December 09 2005 at 04:45 | ||
You are referring to your own private listening tests, which none of us can duplicate. I am referring to the numerous public listening tests. Of course you're free to choose which one to believe ... and so am I. |
|||
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 26 2004 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 6308 |
Posted: December 09 2005 at 04:51 | ||
Yes, the public listening you choose, which validate your theories.
You should better do the test yourself, instead of reading scientific works which has nothing to do with the facts! |
|||
goose
Forum Senior Member Joined: June 20 2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 4097 |
Posted: December 09 2005 at 06:29 | ||
Quantisation noise at high levels and quantisation distortion level at low levels, while not actually recorded as such, are still an inherent part of digital signals that can't be removed. oliver: I'm not talking about DAT, I'm talking about any kind of magnetic tape. Just like digital formats have a certain number of bits that can be either 0 or 1, every magnetic format consists of magnetic particles that can be flipped either one way or the other - this is why hard drives on a computer work magnetically, although of course in a different way. Edited by goose |
|||
goose
Forum Senior Member Joined: June 20 2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 4097 |
Posted: December 09 2005 at 06:31 | ||
Please bear in mind it is impossible to discern which format is "better" by listening tests, only which one the majority of people prefer listening to. Just because it's more pleasing to the ear doesn't mean it's a more accurate recording.
|
|||
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 26 2004 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 6308 |
Posted: December 09 2005 at 06:44 | ||
Actually, in the present case, analog is both more accurate (you hear much more things as it goes further-Cert gave an example up with the Beatles album)and more pleasant as it doesn't hurt ears like numeric does! It's a legend that numeric is less pleasant but more precise, more transparent. In fact, it's less pleasant, less transparent, less dynamic, less natural, less present, less all!!! Edited by oliverstoned |
|||
Post Reply | Page <1234> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |