Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GeirmundTS]

Hi, this is my first post here, I'm sorry I can't contribute to the pro sound discussion in any way, being a student studying producing, I try to gather knowledge.

THIS is my question: Of all things you need in a audio reproduction chain (for mixing), which is the most important? Which is lesser important? - In other words: Which equipment should be expensive? Which equipment will not be better if you spend more money on it?

I.ex. do I need a master clock? Do I need better cables? I guess my question is hard to explain - which components (and there seems to be lots of different ones) make a difference and which does not?

There seem to be a lot of opinions out there. I like the ones which is scientifistically grounded, and I dislike the market hype, which seems to dictate what's good sound and what's not, for the sake of making money.

This is a start of a discussion - I would be happy for some insightful responds. (and pardon my stupid norwegian english!)

[Jon Hodgson]

GeirmundTS wrote on Wed, 19 July 2006 12:27

I.ex. do I need a master clock? !)

No.
Unless you have a reason where a single syncable clock source is a practical advantage... for example you have to synch with analogue tape. You gain no quality advantage from a master clock.

Quote:

Do I need better cables?

That would depend on the quality of cables you have. If you go to Dan's forum on his own website at www.lavryengineering.com you can get a more specific scientific answer on this particular subject, but my personal experience is that there are some really crappy cables (connections fail, really microphonic, etc), but once you get past a certain level (which is really not that expensive) if you can REALLY hear a difference between two cables, then it's probably showing that one of your other components is not good.

An example that should be easy to comprehend is power cables. Your power supply is supposed to reject fluctuations at the power station, 100 miles of copper to the substation, a couple of miles of copper to you, interference from the houses in your street and finally interference from the fridge in your house switching on and off... if you can hear the difference between a couple of metres of decent copper with a plug properly attached to the end and a couple of metres of super perfect crystal silver with divine connector orientation or whatever it is being sold as... then your power supply is really not up to its job, because it's going to really let through those other much bigger differences.

Quote:

which components (and there seems to be lots of different ones) make a difference and which does not?

Everything makes a difference, however the chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Therefore there's little point in having a mic with -136dB self noise and an ADC with only 96dB SNR.


And a thing many people forget... you're never going to get much better than your original source, so start by sorting your acoustics.

[Teddy G.]

Assuming "digital"/"computer-type" recording... In order of how much money you need to spend? No. Even the best computers, interface devices and software are relatively cheap, compared to what some speakers, microphones, preamps, etc., might be. Decide what you want to do. Then, buy/build:

1. The software you intend to use.

2. A computer that will handle that software.

3. Your interface device(Soundcard, whatever.), which will handle your software and your computer and "interface" them with the rest of your needs. What connectors your interface device has, so as to easily hook it to the rest of the gear you have or contemplate having, is almost #1 in priority!?!? Actual "quality" of sound is almost a non-issue, these days the cheapest devices have "good specs". Superb tech support is at least priority #2. All this electronic stuff today is "reliable", far as it goes - other than, maybe, the very cheapest of stuff(Even then?).

4. Your recording space(Assuming you want a "space", a studio.).

5. Everything else must simply fit your budget and the type of recording you do.

6. There is no "flawless sound".

7. That said, "MY" flawless sound consists of:

A decent computer - though hardly anything "special" - it's just audio - easy for a computer. A Lynx sound card, a pair of Yamaha MSP5A's, the best mic and preamp I can afford(Total cost of my mic's and pre's - around 1500 US, for the moment.), and I do what I can to make my "space" useable(Sound treatment, positioning of things, etc.).

"Flawless sound" is "what you need to get the job done with no more complaints than you can handle." In my case, what I do, on my stuff, gets NO complaints - gear-wise - I am safely "above" the needs of my work(And my stuff is "cheap" - so are my clients - it works out fine.). That's it. The job often determines what "flawless" is.


TG

[GeirmundTS]

I guess I got my answers - thank you very much    - maybe I should read magazines with a bit more care in the future. But if you don't know mathematics of digital audio, you really think that you need the "Apogee Big Ben" in order to get your chain "in time with it self", as I read it did.

Too many wondermachines, I think - but maybe this discussion belongs to people with acoustically treated rooms and real monitors, after all. But it's good to read some articles like the one written by Dan Lavry about our ears' finite limit for hearing vs. recording at 192khz, even if I didn't understand half of it. (but it still gave me confidence in keeping my system at 44.1 or 48, so thank you! )

About the "flawless sound", I believe it's a quest which never ends - for your own sake that is. Of course, if it's up to the type of job, I sometimes couldn't care less. But I guess I will start at the acoustics right away, and get some decent monitors too. But first I'm gonna buy the Access Virus TI (and that ain't a joke, either! )

[Teddy G.]

If I was to spend "real money" and do a real room, from scratch, it would be for a professional room designer - before I ever picked up an equipment catalog. Even if I only hired them to help me plan the room(s) and did the work myself, the best I could, I know it would be the best investment I could make. If you can, try at least making a phone call to someone and ask for a "day rate" or something(Particularly if you can find one close to you). Just the initial, off-the-cuff, advice alone could pay huge dividends(If followed, of course!).

TG

What is Access Virus TI???

[Ronny]

The question shouldn't be what gear for flawless sound. Flawless sound is subjective to the individual and there is really no such thing as flawless sound, unless everyone on the planet agrees that it's flawless. That will never happen no matter the device. If you are considering commercial production, the question should be what gear for flawless operation, my answer is if you want flawless operation, go with dedicated to audio only devices, meaning stand-alone HD-R's and not PC/Mac platforms for the raw recordings. Editing on the DAW is fine, mixing too if you like to mouse, but for multi-track reliabilty they don't cut the mustard for me.  

Before hard core ITB guys start flaming me, I might add that I run 3 DAW's and 4 HD-R's. 30 hard drives for the HD-R's and knock on wood, I've never lost any critical audio in over 10 years of using the HD-R's. Every DAW I've ever owned crashed at least once, some many times and I've lost hours of work a few times. Most of my multi-track recordings are one take get it or not, live remotes. I have to have more reliability than I've experienced on the PC/Mac systems and I really don't see how some of the fellows run a commercial business using DAW based recording systems, but my hat is off to you folks.

[GeirmundTS]

True, there's no sound which can be called "flawless", or, to take a philosophical turn - you can't say that something sounds "wrong", either...

...but in a mixing environment, it seems to be some guidelines. And Teddys point seems a very logical one, as he turns the spotlight to the main enviroment which is the room. So I think we've covered base one!

So if we stay in the field of mixing/mastering (not recording for now. But I'll have HD-R in mind, ronny), I guess we've got the room, the monitors, the amplifier, the D/A konverter (optionally, maybe?) and the sound card - mine is an RME Multiface, and I've got B&W speakers and a NAD amp. Room not treated at all. (I feel like I'm taking a risk every time I do a project! But it eventually turns out from OK to allright...)

Geirmund

Oh, ted, Access Virus TI is a virtual analog synth! It's not a real virus!