Does equipment matter?

Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 10:25 pm

Just a further note Kurt the new minidisc "Hi-MD" is now a no compression recording. The results are much better than the compressed recordings made with the old atrac compressed system.

Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 12:39 pm

Although I rspect Kurt and understand his frustration I do disagree with his premise. As Kurt knows from the pre Amp thread I am a huge advocate of those who don't have the money or choose not to purchase the esoteric gear. I have been doing this for 30 years and have gone thorugh various incarnations of Home Studios and all kinds of formats.

I am getting ready as soon as I get home to once again revamp my home studio. I'm selling just about all and simplifying. I have come to the realization that the quality of gear available today costs a tiny fraction of what that same quality would have cost when I began. Thats why I do not subscribe to the "must have a $2000 pre amp theory."

HOme recording of decent quality is available to the masses and that does upset those who feel it should still be reserved for "qualified" individuals. If the quality was that terrible, major geared studios would not be going out of business by the day. Nor would labels be looking for less expensive places to record.

I remember when I was recording on a TAscam 244 on cassette format.....I hear Bruce Springsteen records Nebraska on the same format carrys the tape around in his back pocket for a week. and it is released! I am sure it was tweaked by expensive gear at some point in the process but the original tracks were still on the lowly Tascam 244. I felt "validated" in a small way with my lowly gear.

This gave me incentive and some confidance in my own gear but more importantly the content. . I remember start up companies like Alesis (digital reverb for the masses), Ensonig (sampling for the masses) Cakewalk (Sequencing software for the masses) CAD ( large diaphraim mikes) Tascam ( my hero) and many more recent companies have made once unobtainable technology affordable to many.

The gear is getting better exponentially as the price points decrease inversely. The Gap between prosumer and Pro is very narrow and I believe now in the "hair splitting" arena in many cases. This is evidant by those who claim to need "ears" to hear the differences in very extremly priced gear. I read it many times. You need "ears." Amatuers don't have the "ears" therefore they are not qualified or something like that.

My argument would be most endusers of CDs don't have those "ears" and thus the mid priced gear is plenty good enough. I don't claim to have those "ears" nor do I want them.....golden ears are very expensive to satisfy and its unfortunate but the masses cannot appreciate the subtities of sound in their high SNR listening environments.

You can record for other producers and engineers or you can record for the general public........I choose the general public who listen to the end products as mP3s and boom boxes. There are those who will claim they record for themselves and could not live with lesser quality recording (read anything but the best gear)....well the piper has to be paid for that very personal if somewhat unappreciated by the masses need.Society has been dumbed down...I certainly am not going to pay the prices to buck that trend.

All that said..I have to say if one is recording Acoustic guitar and voice ala Tuck and Patty......There is a valid argument for very quiet gear and quality mics....$2000 pre amp? no. $3000 mike again no..but not Beheringer either.

I do believe spending $300-$400 per channel on a pre amp is plenty good enough as is a $500 LD mic. Any more than that in my experience and opinion is money better spent on music lessons....

Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 4:51 pm

I posted this in another thread as well but it applies here as well.

Quote:

"Back in the day, when many put down Alesis for their cheap funny looking digital reverb unit", I went out and bought one and hooked it up to my crappy Phonic 16 channel stereo rack mount mixer and an old bi amp quad limiter. I recorded to a Sony consumer DAT machine using some cheap ATM11 pencil condensers and some 57's and 58's and was able to capture some pretty good performances.

But I always knew that what I was working with was more on the level of "boys toys", than that of a "real" professional recording studio. I still lusted for those compressors "that started with the letters LA" and a 2 inch machine seemed to be unattainable. I was just hoping that I could learn enough to perhaps get myself an entry level position in a "real" studio.

It's true that most people don't know the difference. But that doesn't mean there isn't. It seems to me that to know this and then on the other hand try to represent a Behringer or other cheap gear type studio as "capable of recording professional level recordings", is at the least dubious. My extreme nature makes me think it's either ignorance, stupidity or dishonesty.

As long as the people that use that stuff understand that it's more of a toy than a professional tool, I have no problem with manufacturers making and selling it ( at an appropriate cost, but that's another topic ) and people buying it and using it. Budget gear can be a great starting place for anyone who wants to get into doing audio. But these people, should focus more on the art of recording and not take that kind of gear so seriously.

I also disagree that any budget level pre amp is going to duplicate the phase accuracy and bass propagation as that of a mic pre with a well designed power supply. All of the low end stuff cheeses out on the power supplies and without that foundation, all the tubes and transformers and Burr Brown chips are worthless. There's even more to it but I can leave it at that for the moment.

Also, there are very decent mic pres for a lot less than $2000 per channel. The JLM TMP8 sells for $2100 for 8 channels. The Brick can be bought for under $350. I've used the JLM but not the Brick. But they both utilize very adequate power supplies.

Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 7:48 pm

ALL gear makes a difference.What you do with it makes MORE of a difference.

BTW...I'm teaching my monkey to type. As soon as hes done with this lesson, I'm expecting the Declaration Of Independance.I mean he IS using an IBM SELECTRIC for gosh sakes, it oughta be good enough for that!It is the best typewriter in the world after all........

Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:21 pm

Davedog wrote:

I mean he IS using an IBM SELECTRIC for gosh sakes, it oughta be good enough for that!It is the best typewriter in the world after all........

Ahhh yes, vintage analog gear. That's the ticket Thumbs Up

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:53 pm

I certainly wouldn't say that gear doesn't make a difference. If it didn't there'd be nothing to talk about on these forums but technique, room construction, performance, maybe songwriting...hmm, maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing.

I would, however, say that the gear used is probably the least significant factor in the ultimate quality of a recording, after the song, the talent (both of musicians and engineers), the room, the instruments, the vibe, the phase of the room, the price of rice in China...okay, maybe not the last two. But I can say that if I had to go back to when I started recording and do a session, and I could either take my gear and use the skills I had then or vice versa, I'd take my current skills with my old gear and I think that the session would turn out much much better.

Quote:

These are the kind of people who will say there's no difference in 96K v 44.1, who swear digital is "more accurate" than analog and that there is no difference in various EQs, compressors or mic pres.

I'm one of those who would swear that digital is more accurate than analog, because it is...not that it's necessarily better, because it isn't...but it's certainly more accurate (assuming we're talking about decent-quality gear in both formats).

As for there being no difference between 96 kHz and 44.1 kHz, I'm not necessarily one of those...with some converters, there's definitely a difference. Sometimes 44.1 kHz even sounds better. However, there is no reason why 44.1 kHz audio can't sound as good as 96 kHz or 192 kHz audio, and there are certainly converters out there that sound just as good at 44.1 kHz as they do at the higher rates. Apogee's current converters, for example, sound identical to me (and to them) at all sampling rates, and better than, say, Digidesign's converters at any rates, whereas Digidesign's converters (the 192 specifically) sound better (or at least different) at 96 khz or 192 kHz than at 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz. But I'd take an Apogee at 44.1 kHz to a Digi at 192 kHz any day.

As for there being no difference in various EQ's compressors or mic pre's...I'd never say that. And even though I see the gear in the industry shifting both upwards on the high end and downwards on the low end with not so much in the middle, I do think that there are certainly differences between even the cheap gear that make some much more viable than the others.

Quote:

I really don't know of too many engineers "with an incredible ear as producer/engineer" that are willing to work "with cheap gear" for the most part. My observation is anyone who can really hear (in my estimation), who has been exposed to the high end, are not so willing to go back to working with "semi pro" gear.

Of course, most would prefer not to. But if I were hired to do a project in a studio with "semi pro" gear and I liked the project, and couldn't afford to bring in the good stuff, I'd certainly be willing to work on the cheap stuff.

Quote:

[I am arriving to the conclusion that the music and audio recording business was far better off when "affordable gear" didn't exsist. At least the music was better.

I disagree. There was plenty of crap back then, and there's plenty of good stuff now. I think we tend to remember the "golden years" as being better because we forget about the crap and remember the good stuff. I do agree, however, that it's harder to find the good stuff now because there's so much more music available overall. I'd even agree that commercial music has, for the most part, gone downhill. But if anything, I think that the availability of inexpensive recording gear has made more quality music available, and also has weeded out some of the artists that didn't necessarily deserve to be successful.

Quote:

I however reserve the right to constructively argue points I do not agree with without enduring personal insults.

Sure, that's understandable, but when you accuse people of "laying a big fat greasy turd" you have to assume that people will take that as a personal insult, even though it may not have been directed at them. You're certainly insulting someone, aren't you?

-Duardo

Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 10:06 am

Quote:

I certainly wouldn't say that gear doesn't make a difference. If it didn't there'd be nothing to talk about on these forums but technique, room construction, performance, maybe songwriting...hmm, maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing.

I agree!

Quote:

when you accuse people of "laying a big fat greasy turd" you have to assume that people will take that as a personal insult, even though it may not have been directed at them. You're certainly insulting someone, aren't you?

I went nuts last week. I'm sorry.

Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 12:29 pm

I have only been a visitor to this site for a couple of months now, but I have noticed that there is a broad spectrum of folks who say that they are "pro audio". Does that mean they are "for audio" or "audio pro's"? Sometimes I wonder.
I have been mic-ing up stuff for over 30 years.Yeah, I'm old! It all starts with the talent ! "Garbage in, Garbage out", as they say in the computer biz. I had to ditch my 2" Ampex 1100 16-track last year. Why? Because the dude that had kept it running all these years....DIED! I HAD to go digital. When I did, one of my clients dropped me for a guy with those old ADAT VHS-tape 8-track recorders.Why? "Because I think tape sounds better"(!). There are people out there with absolutely no idea...
That Ampex was a workhorse. 24/7/365. Sure, it had it's quirks. Nothing like going into "automatic rewind" in the middle of a session. It also had balls. And a top end that was as smooth as a baby's bottom. All in an easily-transported package the size of a modern refrigerator(with ice maker and water chiller)! My 48-track Tascam rig is 1/10th the weight, easier to use than your kid sister, and will turn out tricked-out tracks that the "Mack Track" couldn't dream of. Better? Depends on what's going into it. Do I miss it? I'll let you know after I have the Tascams 20 years.
CHEAP GEAR WILL THROW YOU UNDER THE BUS EVERY TIME!!!

Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:33 pm

I would loooove to have one of these....

http://www.mercenary.com/vt2dualchanv.html

unfortunately there are a few 'must haves' in front and I don't know when I'll get one... unless I get a real cool project with a big budget or I win the lotto...

Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 4:05 pm

Ampex 1100 2" 16 track....Mmmm....My beginnings with 'real gear' started at a friends 'little' studio....Ampex 8track 1".....Scully half-track...A big old console with strange shaped knobs,uhhh....I think there was a little metal badge on it....said Tele something or other...Great big microphones...dont know what brand...is RCA a brand?I thought they made radios......You've all heard that Ampex sound...Close your eyes and think of Led Zepplin and that drum sound....Got it?....there you go....I'll take the digital available now but damn....that sound of that acetate passing over those shiny silver things....

Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 5:50 pm

Yeah. Many years ago, I was a live sound mixer on the road. We stopped in this studio in Philly, and the owner had a tracking room UPSTAIRS, so that the Neumann lathe (remember those?) could be downstairs, where his wife/secretary could operate it if need be. This guy (Frank V.) had tons of gear:MCI, Sculley, EMT,etc. In the corner of the CR was this behemoth tube job with a big meter in the center of the panel, looking like a cyclops eye. All the guys in the band laughed at the "Martian Radio Box" that Frank ran the bass through. Old Frankie had the last laugh, though...it was a Fairchild! PEACE!

Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 9:01 pm

When you do not know what you are doing equipment really does not matter that much. A mackie or even a behringer board, a cheap soundcard, some cheap ass speakers and a daw will get you going. As you develop your ears and your chops grow, you become aware of the sonic differences and that's when good gear starts making a difference in your recordings- A concert grand does not make a pianist. But put a master with a great instrument and you will hear something! Its no different with recording. A great enginneer will get the most out great equipment and the results will be sweet indeed--

Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 1:02 pm

blank

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 1:22 pm

Well - this post is getting a bit dated, but I'll jump back in to ...

B
U
M
P

it.

I just have one comment -

If you look at Kurt's original post on this, it refers to a post over in the Acoustic Music forum regarding the same sentiment.

After reading all of this, I found it to be funny to an extent.

Those of us sitting on $50K to $100K or more gear are the ones saying "equipment doesn't matter" and "you can make a good recording with basic equipment" (I know, I'm just as guilty as the rest).

It's usually the folks that don't have that much gear or "lower quality" gear that say the contrary.

Truth be told - if you came in and took away all my favorite mics, pres, etc. I could make a good recording still. However, I would be VERY pissed at you for taking my goodies away and I would complain the entire time.

So, I guess it does matter a little (duh...), but not to the extent that most people insist. It's just that some of us are anal and HAVE to have what we perceive (for whatever reason) to be the best.

J. Thumbs Up

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 4:24 pm

hey Jeremy- it matters when you know what you are doing- but we know that, don't we- that's why we have so much stuff! when you don't have the chops sorry, nothing will really help you- put a total newb with the most expensive guitar in the Universe and you are definitely not gonna get an instant Segovia. Or if you can, please let me know! Very Happy

This topic sponsored by: