That the best sound is one that stays true to the natural sound of the instrument.

Thanks Charles, I appreciate your work as well... only good natured teasing implied here.

the echo delay on Your Love is, as per my usual tastes, fiddled with until it sounds good... NOT intended to be in any specific time.

I rarely like calculated delay times.

with a tape machine for delay, I'd start at 15ips.
If it was way too fast I'd switch to 7.5ips.
if 15 was close but not quite right, I might VSO it by ear into something appealing... but there's no calculating involved and more often that not, i'd leave it at 15ips.
know what I mean?

so i do the same with digital delay.

I'm willing to bet that the Your Love delay is 262ms (my usually starting point!)

w2

P.S. French wines are overrated! I take an South-African or Austrialian red wine with my beef any day over what France has to offer...[/QUOTE]

If you come to AES let's meet and check that !

Volodia

Ok, now that was funny.

Good one, Charles.

perhaps the reason for this is a matter of DSP consumption and not something intrinsic to depth/rate. a DSP running 16/44 can devote more processing to each sample than one running 24/48. seems even more probable given it's age

Heard that one for 30 years, "I know I just met you, but I have a black box that can make you sound better than you really are".

Try that on Stevie Wonder and you'll find a blind man's shoe imprint on the rear of your ass.

So, just what computer plug can improve his voice???

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

Costello: Well then who's on first?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: I mean the fellow's name.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The guy on first.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The first baseman.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The guy playing...

Abbott: Who is on first!
heh


That the best sounding records were made in the late '70s

Thanks for the kind words + delay tips. You rock!!!

I usually go for the calculated delay times myself, but I often tweak them behind or on top to get rid of that too perfect feel. So, we're kinda on the same page there.



Now, let's get back to dfegad

That distortion is inherently bad.

That a record must represent exactly what the musicians sound like live.

That distortion from a guitar amp, bass amp, leslie, or rhodes is a good thing, but color or distortion anywhere else in the signal chain is bad.

That the sound of the recording gear should never be a part of the sound of a record.

That the recording studio itself is not one of the instruments on a record.

That purist recording is a lot of fun.

That Jim Williams knows what he's talking about.





(Okay, I'm kidding with the last one. heh He clearly knows what he's talking about, we just disagree. )

That recording MIDI-sequenced music is about the same as recording a live band and calls for the same tools and techniques.

-synthoid

see I knew sooner or LATER we'd agree about somethings. <g>


re: The Outfield - remember also that none of Play Deep was to a click.. so calculating a delay time would have been a moving target anyway!

But I usually punch in 262 and then tweak until it sounds good.

the delays on the guitars are like that as well, recorded right onto the track (it's all analogue obviously) live with an AMS ddl.

only the vocal delay was added in the mix.

That screw-top wines aren't as good....

Or that you can't get decent converters for less than $150 per channel.





-tINY

Mhhh, i never believe that my timing was bad when doing a record

Uh oh... there's a layer of ice forming under my chair.

Thanks for the insight, much appreciated. Again, awesome sounding record.

Expensive power cables is nonsense. Power conditioning, possibly. An average old guitar would have been made from better materials, because, particularly in the states, the only materials available were of a very high quality. Silvertone, $50 guitars out of a catalogue had fretboards built from brazilian rosewood (which it's illegal to trade in now and is only used on custom shop guitars generally) and the neck was designed by one of the best luthiers there has ever been.
New average guitars are made out of god knows what by the million and sound bad because of it.
The range was so much more limited, and the market so much more competitive that there were a lot of great instruments made, If you compare a real '59 les paul with a new one you'll know what i mean. The cheaper guitars of the early 60's are still incredible in comparison to the cheaper guitars you find nowadays. That's the thing. You can still get great guitars, but they're expensive. If you buy an old collectors piece it'll cost you a lot of money. If you bought the same guitar beaten up with changed hardware and paint, you could get an incredible sounding, playing guitar for less than a new one might cost.
The best fenders IMO are early 60's. When the electric guitar was really getting going and fender's small factory needed to make amazing guitars to compete with gibson. So that's what they did until CBS bought the company, upped the production and dropped the quality.
Cause and effect. Necessity is the mother of invention.

i agree....that sort of attitude frustrates me....its as if there are rules concerning taste sometimes....total nonsense that has nothing to do with engineering

I know one thing that is a proven fact among audio engineers... we make the worst and corniest jokes ever, but are still very amused by them.

In 2 sm58 mics directly to a old stere tape deck, i mean, if your music is really good you done.

Digital media hasn't hurt recordings, but the internet probably has . . .

It's always striking to me how differently people approach mixing. Two claims in this thread really stand out:

1. That there's no advantage to matching mics and preamps. I don't even understood what that could mean. Couldn't be meant to say that a given mic sounds the same thru all preamps. Maybe that using 1 style of preamp for a whole record unifies the sound somehow? I can understand saying you don't NEED different kinds of preamps, but I can't understand why you wouldn't WANT them.

2. That it's better to record at 16-bit 92K than 24-bit 44.1. A breathtaking claim.

I don't believe....


.........much that I read in forums

Waves Vox?

Autotune?

****Tone Turbo Bit-Decimator?

I dunno... Is the question multiple guess?

It's a voice.

Ya record it.

Then ya whip some **** on it and see if anybody smiles.... and if yer any good... they just may.

Oh... and for the record... Everybody knows a little bit of something and we're all pretty small and stupid in the face of God... Soooooooo.... Blind or no.... Try and kick me and you'll lose that friggin' foot.

SM.

PS. Oh yeah... and on the topic.... Here's a great GS "myth in progress" I'd love to debunk.

Any guy who shows up looking to change yer shutters and repaint the front door is a great homebuilder himself.... Hell, with his long and illustrious track record of design, manufacture and marketing.... He's qualified to whip out his tape measure and wax poetic on everything from the lie of the foundation... to the color of the architects underwear.

Not like he has a vested interest in 'home improvement' these days.

But... I could be mistaken... My AP rig is on the fritz. Tough to tell what I'm LOOKING at.

In audio, two wrongs don't make a right

but at least they're in phase

his line is always " Im suppose to get my settlement check next week". He has an "engineering degree", so I guess that kinda implies here

















fuuck

"We'll just improvise for 8 hours, like we did that one time at that bar.
We can get like two records out of that!"

the answer to the confusion in your second statement lies in your first.

i'm the proud owner of 12 identical preamps, fwiw.


gregoire
del
ubk