The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Latent dubs
Old 21st February 2003
  #1
Gear Maniac
 
Cape's Avatar
 

Latent dubs

Right, everyone slated my last post about recording at 96 and then going down to 44.1/48 to save process power, point taken.

So here goes a new one - if I'm overdubbing loadsa stuff, surely 96 at half the latency is worthwhile? nope/yes?

I think I've noticed better performance (so to speak!) as I've no doubt got about 3ms atleast in send return times.

Also in the days of total analogue did peeps worry about latency?
Old 22nd February 2003
  #2
Gear Guru
 

Re: Latent dubs

Quote:
Originally posted by Cape


Also in the days of total analogue did peeps worry about latency?
Not unless you were monitoring off the repro head. ('heh') With analog, your signal is zipping through your gear at the speed of light, not the speed of your chip/software
Old 22nd February 2003
  #3
Gear Maniac
 
Cape's Avatar
 

Ok, but how did people correct phase issues with the kit, they couldn't just shift the room waveforms into line (or could they!!) and when I here stories of Johnny Boy Bonham playing in a stairwell to get 'that sound', it makes me think mmmm, what a ****mare!!
Old 22nd February 2003
  #4
Lives for gear
 
bjornson's Avatar
 

Don't forget that those were also the days when (usually ugly) musicians were actually expected to play instruments and engineers had to really listen instead of just look! Personally I don't think room mics sound as good crunched forward in time. It doesn't happen like that in the real world. I like to think I have much more important (and relevent) issues to resolve than the "curse of the staggered waveforms".
Old 22nd February 2003
  #5
Moderator emeritus
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Cape
Ok, but how did people correct phase issues with the kit, they couldn't just shift the room waveforms into line (or could they!!) and when I here stories of Johnny Boy Bonham playing in a stairwell to get 'that sound', it makes me think mmmm, what a ****mare!!
They didn't worry about lining the wave forms into line - they set up the kit and the mics in the room so that they liked the drum sound that they got. Some folks prefer the sound of recorded drums live in the room (including me); When I've lined up the overheads so that they are exactly in line with the snare mic, I don't like the drum sound as well. I'll check for mono compatability, but I don't ever worry about the kind of thing that you're asking about.

When I think about Bonham's sound, I mostly think, "What a great drummer!"; when I saw the Houses of the Holy tour in, I think 1974, he still sounded like Bonham - never mind that it was a different kit (the yellow Vistalites), a different room (The Tarrant County Colosseum in FOrt Worth, Texas), and most likely a different miking technique - it was still Bonham.
Old 22nd February 2003
  #6
Lives for gear
 
six_wax's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by bjornson
Don't forget that those were also the days when (usually ugly) musicians were actually expected to play instruments and engineers had to really listen instead of just look!
Instruments? Ears? What are those?
Old 24th February 2003
  #7
Gear Guru
 
Drumsound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally posted by Cape
Ok, but how did people correct phase issues with the kit, they couldn't just shift the room waveforms into line (or could they!!) and when I here stories of Johnny Boy Bonham playing in a stairwell to get 'that sound', it makes me think mmmm, what a ****mare!!
First of all, room mics are supposed to sound like they are at a distance form the source. All those reverb boxes and plug-ins that are used are to simulate the sound of actual space.

Second, have you ever listened to "When the Levee Breaks"? It's amongst the coolest drum sounds EVER! Led Zeppelin drum sounds in general are wonderful.
Old 24th February 2003
  #8
member no 666
 
Fletcher's Avatar
Quote:
Originally posted by Cape
Ok, but how did people correct phase issues with the kit, they couldn't just shift the room waveforms into line (or could they!!)
They monitored in "one speaker mono"... and moved microphones around until they sounded correct... frightening thought ain't it.

Nowadays... with the advent of modern technology... there is a nifty little unit from "Littlelabs" [see a forum to the north of this forum for more details] called an "IBP" [In Between Phase] box... it does wonders for altering 'phase relationships' between tracks without moving the actual track in time.

Phase is phase, time is time... the two are different events.
Old 24th February 2003
  #9
Little Labs
 
littlelabs's Avatar
 

If you start lining everything up in time you lose the micro delays that can make a track have life and space. Time shifting has a sound to itself which if done right can be cool, many Bob Rock records are heavily time shifted but his method is more for processing to create a feel of urgency. If you want to keep the feel of the room you are recording, keep yourself in phase not time and yes, things can be in phase and out of time. It's this subtle stuff that will give your engineering a timeless sound...nyuch nyuch grggt
Old 26th February 2003
  #10
urumita
 
7rojo7's Avatar
 

I remember seeing Zep in 74 (13 years old) at MSG and counting mics. on the drums (now I even know what mics. they were, some of them). There was a 67 over the tympanies which no doubt also picked up the hihat with the tambourine attachment, another 67 "close" to the floor toms and "ride" cymbal, there was another mic. (?) over the snare and rack tom and another (?) in front of the kit. (4)!!! gotstaluvdat****.
The thing that impressed me? Except for the drum solo, he never touched a tomtom or a tympani. It was all kiksnarehat. For a kid who worshipped the drumming of I,II, III and IV it was a bit of a letdown but now it lives in me like the eternal flame because it was actually more interesting. FUNKY.
In analog (if you have the right machine) you can work off the sync head, you can line up mics. up to 33 feet or something like that. But what's the point? The differences are what makes the sound interesting.
When the levee breaks was "tracked" through an echoplex. Try playing bad meter into an echo.. mono mic.>echoplex>mix with a couple of other mics.
Modern drum mic.ing techniques have been developped as a standard caused by laziness and bad drummers.
Good drummer? 1 mic in front of the kit and maybe 1 over the kit.
usually the hihat and snare are so loud that it's only the toms and kik that need reinforcing. Drum mic.ing can often be done like this: front of kit, top of kit, floor tom(s) (for some reason/tuning, it never comes out so good) and (maybe) the side of the snare. Whoever hears drums in stereo is probably someone who plays drums, and usually drummers are not the best mixers. I'm a drummer, I'm also a good mixer because I ignore the need to hard pan the drums like they were being played in my brain.
If you can't tell the difference between "phase" and delays don't bother. Check everything in mono like the good book says and leave the math to the monkeys. If you are recording music, your duty lies in serving the musician and not other engineers. In other words: whatever you have, make it work, according to the laws of nature at your disposal.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump