The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
That Sheen Condenser Microphones
Old 25th July 2014
  #361
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
But what about a GOOD modern band? You can't compare the worst of today with the stuff that's lasted from yesteryear.

I wish I could share what I've been working on today...jazz trio (drums, double bass, piano) tracked live, added guitar, violin, vocals and a little synth strings to mask the budget string orchestra! Tracked in quality room, great instruments with quality mics (67s, Coles, 149s, Royers etc), quality outboard (API/neve/schoeps, pultecs, la2a etc). Straight to digital, currently being balanced 100% itb (though I may go hybrid for final mix) - I'm going for minimal processing, but no doubt I'll probably do more than I intend to!

It sounds "pro" to me - isn't missing "sheen" or sounding "hard". No, it doesn't sound like "kind of blue" but I don't want it to either - it's a Christmas bonus track for one of our artists, it still has to sound "pop" in a Buble sense.

No I didn't track through a fireface. But if you're telling me that if I did, all the tone I've captured would somehow disappear, I think you're crazy. Might sound different; might not sound quite as good. But it wouldn't be destroyed. Likewise if I'd used the 192 and not the hd io. Recording everything with 57 s on the other hand....would destroy it!

I'm very lucky I get to work in the situation I do of course - I'm well aware that others don't get this chance. But this is why I hold the opinions I do.
To be honest a couple days back, I read your credits, listened to some of your stuff so I can't argue with you based on that since you have done some awesome stuff!! but............... I really hate the sound of those FF units. Maybe I have some personal agenda against them? Based on that bias it isn't right for me to keep blaming it or slamming. Though In gneral I still think a converter upgrade is due here .........

Why is it people will drop 2k on a new PC every year, but when it comes to buying more stuff that actually matter to recording they make excuses?
It's weird, I bet all the people here who used FF have i7 8core computers with16 gig and SSD. I'm still using a Pentium system with ide hardrives and I only have 4 gig.
Old 25th July 2014
  #362
Lives for gear
 

One thing you should try is running everything at higher sample rate. That definitely makes a huge difference, since a lot of plugins introduce more aliasing than passing the signal through a FF800 couple billion times (some plugins are coded very badly though - and aliasing isn't always bad).

Seems like this thread is pretty much done. Nothing relating to the topic has been added really. Also till there are actual clips of the FF800 ruining something be very wary of what is said. It's most likely nonsense. Look at the Ethan's demonstration I posted couple pages back, even the soundblaster didn't really change the signal in any immediately noticeable way.
Old 25th July 2014
  #363
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oden View Post
One thing you should try is running everything at higher sample rate.
That will open a can of worms here beyond imagination

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oden View Post
Also till there are actual clips of the FF800 ruining something be very wary of what is said. It's most likely nonsense.
Don't you think the lack of FF800 clips essentially proves otherwise? No one has posted one decent recording of one here. I wonder why?
Actually I know why.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Oden View Post
Look at the Ethan's demonstration I posted couple pages back, even the soundblaster didn't really change the signal in any immediately noticeable way..
Is this the AES Ethan? If so and if my memory serves me correctly he also claims 44k 16 bit is ample. I'm not disputing this or his soundblaster views but it seems you are picking and choosing his theories to suit your "arguments".

If a sound blaster works well, then 44/16 will also, at-least according to him, No one records at 16 bit and no one records with soundblasters except for him. Neither are practical.
Neither is using a fireface since it's so outdated.
Old 25th July 2014
  #364
It's not fair to say that the sound doesn't degrade in Ethan (Winer's) Sound Blaster demonstration -- but it's probably fair to say that it degrades more slowly -- maybe considerably so -- with the copy-of-copy-of-copy-etc process than many would expect.

With regard to 16 bit/44.1 kHz being 'sufficient' for properly prepared and optimized finished product, that would appear to be a reasonable conclusion since the Meyer-Moran set of tests appeared to confirm that those who might be able to differentiate between properly prepared material at 16/44.1 from higher data density formats like 24/96 are extremely rare or nonexistent. (IIRC, no one -- from a pool including many 'trained listeners,' musicians and recording sector folk -- was able to differentiate with statistical significance in hundreds of tests over a variety of materials and in a variety of listening circumstances.)
Old 25th July 2014
  #365
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
With regard to 16 bit/44.1 kHz being 'sufficient' for properly prepared and optimized finished product, that would appear to be a reasonable conclusion since the Meyer-Moran set of tests appeared to confirm that those who might be able to differentiate between properly prepared material at 16/44.1 from higher data density formats like 24/96 are extremely rare or nonexistent. (IIRC, no one -- from a pool including many 'trained listeners,' musicians and recording sector folk -- was able to differentiate with statistical significance in hundreds of tests over a variety of materials and in a variety of listening circumstances.)
16 bit is actually ample but only OTB mixing, and only if you a really going to spend lots of time on levels and/or track with compressors. ITB with plugs you need the additional bits to be safe. Is 16 bit going to hurt your quality of mixes? Not sure in all cases, but 24 bit converters are really all that exists now, so it's freebie of sorts, why not use it. While a 2track 16 bit master is cool, multitracking in this way is tough with out lots of good outboard and a nice desk.
Old 25th July 2014
  #366
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
If a sound blaster works well, then 44/16 will also, at-least according to him, No one records at 16 bit and no one records with soundblasters except for him. Neither are practical.
Neither is using a fireface since it's so outdated.
44.1 is enough FOR LISTENING. Not so for processing. Completely different arguments. I can post one clip and prove this beyond any doubt. And the theory supports that. No need for beliefs or can of worms when you got facts...

44.1kHz vs 192kHz internal rate is completely different comparison than comparing two converters. Because there in fact is a significant, measurable difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule
Don't you think the lack of FF800 clips essentially proves otherwise? No one has posted one decent recording of one here. I wonder why?
Actually I know why.
Not sure if trolling...
Old 25th July 2014
  #367
Lives for gear
 
tedtan's Avatar
 

No one is saying to track at 16 bit. They're saying 16 bit is fine for distribution (e.g., playback).


EDIT: Oden beat me.
Old 25th July 2014
  #368
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedtan View Post
No one is saying to track at 16 bit. They're saying 16 bit is fine for distribution (e.g., playback).


EDIT: Oden beat me.
Check out Sting's 'Nothing Like The Sun' record. Recorded on a digital mutli-track tape machine, likely 16 bit, 44.1 sample rate. Not ITB obviously, but..
Old 25th July 2014
  #369
Gear Addict
 
MoneySound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post

Don't you think the lack of FF800 clips essentially proves otherwise? No one has posted one decent recording of one here. I wonder why?
Actually I know why.



No one is going to post their clients' music on a public forum for this purpose. What would it prove anyway to post some random song about which the recording circumstances are unknown and many factors besides conversion having drastic influence on the sound?

In my opinion, the "sheen" (as described by OP in the first post) should be evident at the 'faders up' stage due to a methodical approach to capturing the source sounds in a clean and balanced fashion. Everything tuned, in time, someone else mentioned new strings and drumheads, I think. All important details that lead to something sounding like a professional record BEFORE the mixing stage. If the "sheen" is not there at that point, you have a lot of work ahead to add it and no magic sheen box will do it for you.
Do you think pro engineers just throw up whatever mics and decide to fix it in the mix? Or worse yet say "Oh don't worry, the converters will take care of it"?
Old 25th July 2014
  #370
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oden View Post
44.1 is enough FOR LISTENING. Not so for processing. Completely different arguments. I can post one clip and prove this beyond any doubt. And the theory supports that. No need for beliefs or can of worms when you got facts...
as stated in my post to TheBlue1, 16 bit is fine OTB with hardware. It was done for years and years. Rush signals is 16bit as is Love at first sting by the scorpions. I think there a couple MJ disks that are tracked 16 bit and 100s of others. From 1978 to about 1995 everything multitrack digital or DAW was 16 bit for the most part. And 44k is ample for any application. It's nyquist theorem it cannot be disputed with other "facts" since it is the law. I record at 96k and I think it has some additional qualities but the fact that virtually all digital recordings are 44k is proof it works great.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Oden View Post
44.1kHz vs 192kHz internal rate is completely different comparison than comparing two converters. Because there in fact is a significant, measurable difference.
actually it's a well known fact some converters sound better at different sample rates and not necessarily their highest one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Oden View Post
Not sure if trolling...
I'm just dumbfounded you are defending a 15 year old FF and then you are a proponant of higher sample rates. It seems to me that you are the one trolling. It also seems possible me you either have never actually used a fireface or never used a highend converter. I could be wrong but you have a weird perspective on things. I don't mean this in a negative way though.
Old 25th July 2014
  #371
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoneySound View Post
"Oh don't worry, the converters will take care of it"?
Thank you for making my day
Old 25th July 2014
  #372
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoneySound View Post
No one is going to post their clients' music on a public forum for this purpose.
They only have to post links, surely it's on YT...try again
Plus I find it very hard to believe anyone with "clients" uses a fireface, that would be dishonest to charge money with that as a backline. Maybe 15 years ago but not in this era of technology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoneySound View Post
What would it prove anyway to post some random song about which the recording circumstances are unknown and many factors besides conversion having drastic influence on the sound?
What it would prove is that FF is widely used in the professional recording industry for major releases, which I already know it's not and for very good reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoneySound View Post
In my opinion, the "sheen" (as described by OP in the first post) should be evident at the 'faders up' stage due to a methodical approach to capturing the source sounds in a clean and balanced fashion. Everything tuned, in time, someone else mentioned new strings and drumheads, I think. All important details that lead to something sounding like a professional record BEFORE the mixing stage. If the "sheen" is not there at that point, you have a lot of work ahead to add it and no magic sheen box will do it for you.
By all means that is a legitimate point of view. A magic sheen box ? yeah it's called Burl or RADAR.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MoneySound View Post
Do you think pro engineers just throw up whatever mics and decide to fix it in the mix? Or worse yet say "Oh don't worry, the converters will take care of it"?
No, but I never made such a ridiculous implication.

The first rule in recording is know how to record. It's by default. Mic technique is a given here it is assumed anybody who is a professional engineer has that under control.
Old 25th July 2014
  #373
Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
16 bit is actually ample but only OTB mixing, and only if you a really going to spend lots of time on levels and/or track with compressors. ITB with plugs you need the additional bits to be safe. Is 16 bit going to hurt your quality of mixes? Not sure in all cases, but 24 bit converters are really all that exists now, so it's freebie of sorts, why not use it. While a 2track 16 bit master is cool, multitracking in this way is tough with out lots of good outboard and a nice desk.
Again, we are talking about RELEASE formats for finished product.

I don't think any sensible, knowledgeable people are arguing that, with today's computers and other resources, we should not use 24 bit word length in production processes.

That make very good sense, since the added precision allows greater flexibility when setting input levels (so as not to redline A/D converters). And audio DSP engines that use extended word lengths (like 64 bit floating point) may benefit those with highly complex DSP requirements.

And, although the practice has detractors as well as proponents, there are those that suggest that there are a number of plugins that (apparently) do not do proper anti-alias filtering after their DSP and, so, benefit from double or quad sample rates which, according to this thinking, raise alias products above the generally accepted frequency threshold of human hearing.
Old 25th July 2014
  #374
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
And, although the practice has detractors as well as proponents, there are those that suggest that there are a number of plugins that (apparently) do not do proper anti-alias filtering after their DSP
That's what sux about plugins your really don't know what's going on under the hood. You have to put your faith in the developers and listen close for artifacts, in the event that there are implementation issues. While you could surely do some testing an analysis of these plugins prior to use, it's not something we should have to do as consumers. In addition is there any guarantee higher samples rates will necessarily solve these problems with specific plugins? Where does it end? this is why we have to use our ears and determine if it "sounds good" then use it.

Looking at legacy hardware units from AMS, Lexi and Eventide etc... there were never any issues with these devices. Those units were essentially standalone 2ch volatile DAWs with plugins. They had A/D D/A and they obviously had the algorithms for whatever effect(s). Why now with DAW and computers do these issues exist?. Makes no sense in theory. It's as if everyone is over analyzing everything.

Reputable audio professionals still pay 5k+ for 480l units, yet they can use 64 bit floating point reverbs in a DAW for free? 480l is 44/16 bit. So obviously there is some disconnect, since pretty much everyone likes hardware verbs over plugins. Same with comps and chorusing. So in practice none of this higher sample rate high bit rate really matters if you don't like the inherent sound of the plugin, even if it's implemented correctly with no fundamental DSP coding issues in filtering or whatever.
Old 25th July 2014
  #375
Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
That's what sux about plugins your really don't know what's going on under the hood. You have to put your faith in the developers and listen close for artifacts, in the event that there are implementation issues. While you could surely do some testing an analysis of these plugins prior to use, it's not something we should have to do as consumers. In addition is there any guarantee higher samples rates will necessarily solve these problems with specific plugins? Where does it end? this is why we have to use our ears and determine if it "sounds good" then use it.

[...]
This makes sense above. When I'm working, I always use my ears. (But that said, since my ears are old, I also use graphic frequency analysis looking for potential problems in the top octave I might not be able to hear.)

Quote:
Looking at legacy hardware units from AMS, Lexi and Eventide etc... there were never any issues with these devices. Those units were essentially standalone 2ch volatile DAWs with plugins. They had A/D D/A and they obviously had the algorithms for whatever effect(s). Why now with DAW and computers do these issues exist?. Makes no sense in theory. It's as if everyone is over analyzing everything.

Reputable audio professionals still pay 5k+ for 480l units, yet they can use 64 bit floating point reverbs in a DAW for free? 480l is 44/16 bit. So obviously there is some disconnect, since pretty much everyone likes hardware verbs over plugins. Same with comps and chorusing. So in practice none of this higher sample rate high bit rate really matters if you don't like the inherent sound of the plugin, even if it's implemented correctly with no fundamental DSP coding issues in filtering or whatever.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I have 6 different hardware reverbs -- 7 if you count my old Orban that needs to be resprung -- though none of them particularly pricey. (And no physical plates. :( Maybe one of these days I'll do the DIY thing, but, honestly, I just don't use much reverb.)

I've heard crappy reverb plugins and less than ideal reverb plugins, but I've also heard plugins that sound (to me) every bit as good as that out of the digital hardware units. I mean, I get the notion that a dedicated unit might be able to throw 'more resources' at the processing than a plugin designed to use a minimal amount of CPU (that said, I've had some CPU-sucking 'verb plugins, without question!) but today's desktop computer CPUs offer far greater and faster raw processing capability than the processors in classic dedicated digital reverb hardware devices. There's no technical reason I can think of that a well-designed plugin can't perform as well or better than a dedicated unit from the past.
Old 25th July 2014
  #376
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
And, although the practice has detractors as well as proponents, there are those that suggest that there are a number of plugins that (apparently) do not do proper anti-alias filtering after their DSP and, so, benefit from double or quad sample rates which, according to this thinking, raise alias products above the generally accepted frequency threshold of human hearing.
It's impossible to apply anti-alias filter after the processing. The matter of fact is, running plugins at different sample rates might alias major time, or be low passed, or introduce latency... Or it might do nothing. Depends on the coding.

And that is fact (simple noise wave played at two different sample rates, watch your volume):
Attached Files

44100Hz.mp3 (115.9 KB, 104 views)

192kHz.mp3 (120.2 KB, 215 views)

Old 25th July 2014
  #377
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
as stated in my post to TheBlue1, 16 bit is fine OTB with hardware. It was done for years and years. Rush signals is 16bit as is Love at first sting by the scorpions. I think there a couple MJ disks that are tracked 16 bit and 100s of others. From 1978 to about 1995 everything multitrack digital or DAW was 16 bit for the most part. And 44k is ample for any application. It's nyquist theorem it cannot be disputed with other "facts" since it is the law. I record at 96k and I think it has some additional qualities but the fact that virtually all digital recordings are 44k is proof it works great.
I very much doubt even those old daws/digital mixers actually used 16 bit internal rates. Which is what I am talking about here (not the delivery format - or even recording format necessarily).

Anyway, I have given the samples, where is your proof?
Old 25th July 2014
  #378
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oden View Post
It's impossible to apply anti-alias filter after the processing.
actually it is possible, but what would be the point? after the processing it would have no point of reference where aliasing filtering would be applicable.

You can add and anti-aliasing filter to a bitmap arbitrarily for blurring which is essentially a low pass filter, the algorithms are identical for audio or graphics. It's the same exact concept. Except with Audio, it more complimentary to a given process. For instance if you re-sample from 44 to 96 you would use an anti-aliasing filter, but even in this case it's not actually necessary. However quality would most likely be degraded, whether it's discernible to average human hearing is an entirely different debate.
Old 25th July 2014
  #379
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
actually it is possible, but what would be the point? after the processing it would have no point of reference where aliasing filtering would be applicable.

You can add and anti-aliasing filter to a bitmap arbitrarily, the algorithms are identical for audio or graphics. It's the same exact concept. Except with Audio, it more complimentary to a given process. For instance if you re-sample from 44 to 96 you would use an anti-aliasing filter, but even in this case it's not actually necessary.
And the trolling continues. Obviously what I meant is that it's (practically) impossible to get rid of the aliasing after the fact. And thus impossible to filter it out. So the AA must be part of the implementation and not something that follows it. But whatever, this really isn't very relevant.
Old 25th July 2014
  #380
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
This makes sense above. When I'm working, I always use my ears. (But that said, since my ears are old, I also use graphic frequency analysis looking for potential problems in the top octave I might not be able to hear.)



I can't speak for anyone else, but I have 6 different hardware reverbs -- 7 if you count my old Orban that needs to be resprung -- though none of them particularly pricey. (And no physical plates. :( Maybe one of these days I'll do the DIY thing, but, honestly, I just don't use much reverb.)

I've heard crappy reverb plugins and less than ideal reverb plugins, but I've also heard plugins that sound (to me) every bit as good as that out of the digital hardware units. I mean, I get the notion that a dedicated unit might be able to throw 'more resources' at the processing than a plugin designed to use a minimal amount of CPU (that said, I've had some CPU-sucking 'verb plugins, without question!) but today's desktop computer CPUs offer far greater and faster raw processing capability than the processors in classic dedicated digital reverb hardware devices. There's no technical reason I can think of that a well-designed plugin can't perform as well or better than a dedicated unit from the past.
I personally like ITB reverb better but within the industry some people still swear by hardware. Bricasti is still better than plugin though that is the one exception. But I can't justify one at his moment since I don't really use a lot of reverb in general.

I had one of those Orban springs they are awesome, wish I never sold it
Old 25th July 2014
  #381
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oden View Post
It's impossible to apply anti-alias filter after the processing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oden View Post
Obviously what I meant is that it's (practically) impossible
oh ok,
Old 25th July 2014
  #382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oden View Post
I very much doubt even those old daws/digital mixers actually used 16 bit internal rates. Which is what I am talking about here (not the delivery format - or even recording format necessarily).

Anyway, I have given the samples, where is your proof?
Right. I tried to make the distinctions between delivery formats and production clear in my post, but, of course, sometimes those distinctions get lost on the way to the reader.

And, as you note, for devices with 16 bit i/o, it was common in the early days to have 18 to 20 bit internal processing to minimize rounding error from level changes or whatever other DSP the device offered. And, of course, the 'norm' for production formats pretty much moved up to 24 bit around the end of the 90s and beginning of the new century.


With regard to your earlier posted point about what you suggest is the impossibility of antialias filtering in plugins, I'm not sure I follow you. From my reading, it appears a number of plug-ins do just that. But maybe I'm misunderstanding. I don't need a lengthy explanation but a link to some info about that would be much appreciated.
Old 25th July 2014
  #383
Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
I personally like ITB reverb better but within the industry some people still swear by hardware. Bricasti is still better than plugin though that is the one exception. But I can't justify one at his moment since I don't really use a lot of reverb in general.

I had one of those Orban springs they are awesome, wish I never sold it
Maybe yours was better than mine. Mine is, if I recall correctly, a three spring job.

It was great for dub-style effects, of course, though. Give it (when working properly) a gentle slap with the palm of your hand and you get the reverb bonk from hell.
Old 25th July 2014
  #384
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Right. I tried to make the distinctions between delivery formats and production clear in my post, but, of course, sometimes those distinctions get lost on the way to the reader.

And, as you note, for devices with 16 bit i/o, it was common in the early days to have 18 to 20 bit internal processing to minimize rounding error from level changes or whatever other DSP the device offered. And, of course, the 'norm' for production formats pretty much moved up to 24 bit around the end of the 90s and beginning of the new century.


With regard to your earlier posted point about what you suggest is the impossibility of antialias filtering in plugins, I'm not sure I follow you. From my reading, it appears a number of plug-ins do just that. But maybe I'm misunderstanding. I don't need a lengthy explanation but a link to some info about that would be much appreciated.
Good to know this...

With regards to the anti-aliasing, I might have been a smart ass with that comment, but not 100% sure. In a way I sure deserved Chainrule's wrath. What I simply meant was that once the aliasing is there, it is (again: practically) impossible to remove it afterwards. Plugins over-sample before/during the processing and then low pass+down-sample or simply reduce the high frequency content they generate and prevent aliasing that way. Either way once the aliasing is there nothing can really be (practically) done AFTER the DSP.

Thus it follows that higher internal sample rate almost certainly means less aliasing, but also different EQ curves in EQs and sometimes different tonality in the case of a synth (as in the sample)+ perhaps less latency that is inherent in the oversampling process. It sure depends on the plugin and what you are doing. Not too difficult to find out the differences thankfully.
Old 25th July 2014
  #385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oden View Post
Good to know this...

With regards to the anti-aliasing, I might have been a smart ass with that comment, but not 100% sure. In a way I sure deserved Chainrule's wrath. What I simply meant was that once the aliasing is there, it is (again: practically) impossible to remove it afterwards. Plugins over-sample before/during the processing and then low pass+downsample or simply reduce the high frequency content they generate and prevent aliasing that way. Either way once the aliasing is there nothing can really be (practically) done AFTER the DSP.

Thus it follows that higher internal sample rate almost certainly means less aliasing, but also different EQ curves in EQs and sometimes different tonality in the case of a synth (as in the sample)+ perhaps less latency that is inherent in the oversampling process. It sure depends on the plugin and what you are doing. Not too difficult to find out the differences thankfully.
I get it that once a signal with over-band-limit content is folded back into the host's x Hz SR signal data stream that it will be 'misinterpreted' (aliased). But I had, indeed, thought you were suggesting that a plugin could not internally filter out the out-of-band results of its own internal calculations/DSP. I think we're good, now.


FWIW, though I am a computer guy and have done my share of coding, it's been business/database computing. DSP coding is a very, very different beast and, of course, requires intimate familiarity and facility with Nyquist-Shannon. Probably best to think of me as an old analog tape era guy who moved to digital a long time ago, but has approached it more as a professional consumer, an end user.
Old 26th July 2014
  #386
Gear Addict
 
MoneySound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
They only have to post links, surely it's on YT...try again
Plus I find it very hard to believe anyone with "clients" uses a fireface, that would be dishonest to charge money with that as a backline. Maybe 15 years ago but not in this era of technology.

What it would prove is that FF is widely used in the professional recording industry for major releases, which I already know it's not and for very good reason.
Just because you and I aren't aware of great recordings on which a FF was used, doesn't mean they don't exist. To say that because the 30 people participating in this thread can't post a link, it proves no great FF recordings exist, is seriously flawed reasoning on your part. The FF800 is very popular - I have a hard time believing nobody is doing good work with it.
People using this level of gear have real clients even if its local bands doing demos. Its not dishonest if you disclose what gear you're using and I suspect, when it comes to converters, many clients don't care. They may want to hear you say "Pro Tools", but likely have never heard of Lavry or Burl.
I too doubt you'll hear a FF on a top 40 hit, but how would I (or you) know for sure? Good luck finding out what converters were used on any popular song unless you stumble across an SOS article providing those details.
Old 26th July 2014
  #387
Gear Addict
 
MoneySound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadJones View Post
Thank you for making my day
Most welcome! I'm glad that wading into this thread wasn't a complete waste of time!
Old 26th July 2014
  #388
Here for the gear
 

A mixbuss comp really...isn't it?
Old 26th July 2014
  #389
Lives for gear
 
hasbeen's Avatar
Hey,

There is a FireFace for sale in the classified.

Anyone interested?


I hear they have great conversion!

Fireface 800
Old 26th July 2014
  #390
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoneySound View Post
The FF800 is very popular - I have a hard time believing nobody is doing good work with it.

I suppose using a FF800 is like doing a fat chick; fun to ride, but you wouldn't go bragging to your friends about it.
Topic:
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