Hearing how gear looks

[jazzius II]

In a recent thread someone described the sound of an Avalon piece as: smooth, classy and sparkly.......then it struck me that he could just as easly be describing the appearance of the unit as the sound.


How can we guard against this stuff?

[natpub]

spray paint everything flat grey

then it will all sound flat and neutral

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by jazzius II

How can we guard against this stuff?

Probably his Avalon piece was broken.

I would never describe Avalon stuff as sparkly, more like pillowy.

[Jose Mrochek]

Reverb Processors should come in the shape of a hall, or cave, castle.. that would be cool don't you think hahaha, instead of LARCS every studio should have a dome shaped something over the board

[faeflora]

Originally posted by jazzius II
In a recent thread someone described the sound of an Avalon piece as: smooth, classy and sparkly.......then it struck me that he could just as easly be describing the appearance of the unit as the sound.

That's why Avalon gear is so popular, particularly with hip hop "studios". Because it's SHINY and CLASSY.

[deft_bonz]

you may employ an assistant who's turning the knobs how you like to have it while sitting in the sweetspot with closed eyes and listening to the result, as long as you dont know which unit the assistant is working on.

[djui5]

Originally posted by thethrillfactor
Probably his Avalon piece was broken.

I would never describe Avalon stuff as sparkly, more like pillowy.

More like being stuffed under packing blankets in FL mid summer......with no AC.

[jazzius II]

LOL!......but seriously, doesn't anyone think this is an issue?.......visual clues distorting our perception of sound?

[Ruphus]

Originally posted by natpub
spray paint everything flat grey

then it will all sound flat and neutral

Not everything though, sometimes you could be wanting a coloured sound. That´s when you take a GML or Speck, right?
They have lots of colour on the front.

Ruphus

[strauss]

Originally posted by jazzius II
LOL!......but seriously, doesn't anyone think this is an issue?.......visual clues distorting our perception of sound?

well, a lot off the 'vintage' plugin's are based on this aspect...

[djui5]

Originally posted by jazzius II
LOL!......but seriously, doesn't anyone think this is an issue?.......visual clues distorting our perception of sound?

I'd imagine it happens a lot.....how many guy's love studios because of Avalon and Neumann. I'm sure there's a ton of "up-start" engineers who judge equipment by the way it looks.

Brings me to a funny story I'm not sure if I should admit but here it goes...

When I was in school I hated the 414 TLII....I had never used it...but for some reason I hated it because it's ugly. I'd look at a Neumann and say...man...that's what a mic should look like. Then I'd look at a 414 and say...dammm.....that's a mic only a mother could love. Needless to say the first time an instructor put one up I was quite impressed....regardless of it's looks. From that day forward my perception was changed...I realized I was being retarted.

Makes you wonder how many other people this happens to...

I guess there really is no way to cure this problem.......besides...it's fun to trick people who think they're using that pretty piece of gear...."Just twist that knob if you want more sheen!"......."Just a little at a time...no too much...you'll blow the flux capicators in it."

Brings me to another thought.....do you think people can get excited about new gear and have the fact that it's something new and exciting change their perception of it's quality?

i think that as long as you know in you mind that just because a piece is pretty it isnt necessarily the right tool, you will end up ok.

when i first had access to some u87s and km84/83s, i would get those. i knew in my mind that there was nothing magical about them, but the neumann "legend" was lingering over them. now half a year after using them enough, i have begun to learn how they really sound and that they were not the best mics i could have chosen for the job.

i could see someone getting stuck on the 737 or something and not REALLY listening to it ever, but if you are willing to say" yes this piece is shiny and i have been using it a lot for 6 months, but listen to that vocal track. i think xxx mic pre and compressor would have served it much better" then you will be ok.

[Rab]

Whether you like to admit it or not, a significant proportion of this kit has a high "toys for boys" factor. The cosmetics of a piece undoubtedly play a part in the purchasing decision of a lot of people. If a piece looks like sh*t on the outside, the subliminal implication is that it's sh*t on the inside.

I think it is absolutely right that manufacturers go the extra mile and spend a bit more on presentation if it helps them sell a few more units. Guys who have got this right? Manley... Universal Audio... Millenia... Avalon. My own preference is for "utilitarian" designs (eg. Drawmer, Neve)... not fussy and completely practical.

The flipside is companies who I think suffer unfairly because they don't present themselves well... eg. TL Audio. Flame away... but the C1 and EQ1 are nice pieces at a good price.

Audiophile professionals won't care so much about cosmetics and appreciate functionality. But a significant number of units are purchased by affluent hobbyists, and these guys do care about looks. Let's face it, this is a relatively small and sensitive market and boutique manufacturers are no doubt happy to sell to whoever helps them stay in business to make their lovely kit!

[DirkB]

I think with plug-ins the opposite is also true: for example the onboard compressors on my yamaha Dm1000 look like shit on the display, compared f.e. with the RCL compressor from waves. But after some intensive testing I find them more usefull than the waves compressor in quite some applications...

So I would say, beware of cool looking plug-ins .

With hardware, I guess something like Avalon does get some extra attention because of the looks, but not if you really know what you're looking for. My Chandler AND BAE units don't look shiny (althougn I really like the vintage look), but they get a lot of possitive user reports anyway so people will find them between the more flashy looking gear....

Greetings,
Dirk

[StuartMac]

Originally posted by Rab

The flipside is companies who I think suffer unfairly because they don't present themselves well... eg. TL Audio. Flame away... but the C1 and EQ1 are nice pieces at a good price.

Have to disagree with you here, Rab - I think the current C1 in dark blue LOOKS really nice (it's VU's are more pretty than practical). I replaced mine with a Drawmer 1969 recently, which looks like a pair of noise gates racked together - but it absolutely toats the C1 in all departments.

I even had a metal band I work with regularly complain that I had got rid of the "cool looking box" until I let them hear what the '69 was doing to the mix!

On a slightly different note, the singer in that band once absolutely INSISTED that I put his vocals through an old Dominator during a tracking session - purely because he thought "Dominator" sounded pure ROCK!!!! I could have told him it was a drum machine and he'd STILL have wanted to go through it.

Incidentally, a lot of my clients think my 747 looks like 70s hi-fi. They like the Ibis though!

[Drumsound]

Cool looking gear is also good for giving studio tours for potential clients...

[StuartMac]

Originally posted by Drumsound
Cool looking gear is also good for giving studio tours for potential clients...

Yep, with all them pretty lights....

Have you ever SEEN an Expounder across a dimly-lit room???

[Ted Nightshade]

Beware of geeks bearing gifts.

[Rab]

Originally posted by StuartMac
Have to disagree with you here, Rab - I think the current C1 in dark blue LOOKS really nice (it's VU's are more pretty than practical). I replaced mine with a Drawmer 1969 recently, which looks like a pair of noise gates racked together - but it absolutely toats the C1 in all departments.

In the spirit of a good tiff, I have to disagree with you here . I much preferred the look of the old grey units with their square meters. Whenever I see those round meters, it always puts me in mind of the increasing number of cheap chinese-manufactured units that use them.

I also don't think it's fair to compare the C1 and 1968/69... they're very different units to my tinnitus-ridden ears. I really like them both but for quite different things. I don't think the Drawmer can do the "gooey squash" thing in the same way the TLA can, but the 1969 is way better as a class-act buss compressor.

Pistols at dawn then?

[Stoneface]

I think the looks of your equipment racks and the likes is very important. From an engineer stand point you would want the best quality gear over most eye appealing but as stated above, if you are running a professional recording facility, you have to be able to impress clients.

If you've got a 737 in your rack and a GML, etc that's fine. Hook the client with the looks then blow them away with the sound you can achieve with the combination of all your gear and talents.

In this day an age with so many newbie engineers and producers, etc. there have just become "industry standards" that many newbies and pros tend to look for even if they don't really know what it is. Protools is a perfect example of this. People have to have Protools in a studio they book when alot of the time they wouldn't know the difference between Protools and the display from your D8B.

I personally think this trend sucks and has created a bunch of idoits running around screaming Protools and 737 like they have the foggyest clue what good gear is or how to use it. However, all we can do now is adapt and give the client what he/she wants. (That is if we want to continue to be competitive in our areas.)

For me, I like having great looking gear but when it comes down to sound quality and having the right tools for the job I could care less what it looks like. I may have to "gloss" a client in the door but once they are there I let the sound quality speak for itself. That's the key factor behind any studio that survives or fails.

[James Lehmann]

Looks like there might be a market for a company to start making gear that is quite useless for your signal chain but fills your racks with flashing lights, old-style pots, phoney glowing tubes and big yellow meters.

But I may have just described Behringer.

[Rab]

That will be this then...

http://www.funklogic.com/products.htm

[7rojo7]

it's about harmonics, everything is in motion, everything vibrates, nothing is still.
every sound has a color, a smell and other sensations that are thought imperceivable.
these descriptions are just affirmations of this principle.
the describer doesn't have the experience and/or the vocabulary to relate properly his perception and uses what he feels comfortable to express this and/or what he believes the listener will understand this.
I have the old ugly TLA, their first series and they're extremely usable, I haven't used or heard any of their other gear. my eq is great for things like vocals and gtrs and snares and kiks and the dual mono mode is wicked for getting non amp guitar and bass sounds and my compressor is extremely useful, TLA was one of the first companies to offer features like these on their gear.
I like my millennia stuff more. I don't think that it is only that the millennia stuff would survive global nuclear obliteration, but it's because they use a lot of their own circuits and they use their own gear to record before anyone else does. and they're super useful.
then again there are those who are impressed by looks and buy for this reason.
But these descriptions of sound using colorful or sensual analogs I find normal, even if they may be banal.