Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Dithering
|
|
| Re: Dithering [message #95755 is a reply to message #95754] |
Fri, 08 February 2008 07:30   |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dither does nothing to contribute to "clouding" a mix, in fact,
it helps with regard to the opposite of that. If you don't
dither down to 16 bits, what you're doing is adding a certain
amount of distortion via truncating, which (like adding an
exciter across the 2-buss) MIGHT make your mix sound more open
or have more definition, but all it's really doing is adding
distortion.
There are different types of dither, you know... i don't know
what type(s) CEP has, but maybe you'd like another type of
dither better than whatever they use. You can easily hear
the difference between a couple types, and there's not so much
difference - that I can tell, anyway - between a couple others
so you might try to hear some different types of noise-shaping &
see if you like one better than the other, or one's more
appropriate for whatever style of music you're mixing right now.
Izoptoe's Ozone has four different types to choose from, and
the one that comes with Cubase (UV22-HR) is pretty clear and
neutral.
Neil
"cujo" <chris@applemanstudio.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>How are you guys getting your 24 bits to 16 for evaluating mixes?
>
>I've been using CEP for a long time. And I wonder if the dithering is messing
>with the sound too much, clouding the stereo image a tad and just adding
>a haze that is really not there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Dithering [message #95776 is a reply to message #95773] |
Fri, 08 February 2008 19:09 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>I really think all of the 16 vs.
>24 bit and higher sample rates is not important for 85-90 percent of the
>people recording out there. I think better/smarter mic choices and pres
make
>far more difference.
It's like I've been saying on & off in other threads for awhile
now - it's not about ONE thing making an amazing difference...
the more I work with digital, the more I realize it's all about
incremental gains at various stages of production. So, you're
obviously right about the mics & pres making a difference in
terms of picking the right combination for the sound you're
trying to get, but it IS also about wordlengths & samplerates
& using plugins that process well, instead of adding
undesireable artifacts, and whether to dither or not to dither,
etc, etc, as well.
IOW, is a 16-bit, 44.1k truncated mix going to automatically
sound like shit vs a 24-bit 88.2k or 96k recording that was
dithered upon mixdown or mastering? I'm not saying that's
a "gimme" that it will - i'm just saying that each of those
factors contributes to something that's "a little bit better"
at each stage of the process.
Neil
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Dithering [message #95792 is a reply to message #95776] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 10:48 |
Cujjo
Messages: 325
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I agree with all of that, but in this case what I am talking about is listening
to the same mixes in the same room not 10 minutes difference in time. Playin
in Paris sounds wide open and huge.lush lush...then burn dithered CD plug
into the same Dynaudio speakers..same freakin room and it sounds small, stereo
image not as defined and less "in your face"
Pf course to trouble shoot it could be the CD player...but commercial CD's
sound fin through it.
By the way..I touch my mixes with a Drawmer 1968 merc and a pair of BAE312's
but that is aall in the listening chain as well.
Also to the 16 bit thing..for a while I thought 16 sounded better..but with
the BM15's you can hear a difference..24 seems richer and more 3d or something
like that..and yes it is not that much of a difference..but the game is a
battle of inches.
"Neil" <OIUOI@OI.com> wrote:
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>I really think all of the 16 vs.
>>24 bit and higher sample rates is not important for 85-90 percent of the
>>people recording out there. I think better/smarter mic choices and pres
>make
>>far more difference.
>
>It's like I've been saying on & off in other threads for awhile
>now - it's not about ONE thing making an amazing difference...
>the more I work with digital, the more I realize it's all about
>incremental gains at various stages of production. So, you're
>obviously right about the mics & pres making a difference in
>terms of picking the right combination for the sound you're
>trying to get, but it IS also about wordlengths & samplerates
>& using plugins that process well, instead of adding
>undesireable artifacts, and whether to dither or not to dither,
>etc, etc, as well.
>
>IOW, is a 16-bit, 44.1k truncated mix going to automatically
>sound like shit vs a 24-bit 88.2k or 96k recording that was
>dithered upon mixdown or mastering? I'm not saying that's
>a "gimme" that it will - i'm just saying that each of those
>factors contributes to something that's "a little bit better"
>at each stage of the process.
>
>Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: Dithering [message #95794 is a reply to message #95792] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 10:14 |
Miguel Vigil [1]
Messages: 258
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
It's all about the music. I'm making this big Halion String arrangement in
in Cubase. I compose a track to underline a solo part. It works perfect when
played back in Cubase, but when rendered and played back in Paris, it
doesn't work. It sound richer, fuller, more 3d, but doesn't fit in the mix.
I this case I want that plastic, thin, native sound. Sometimes the vibe of
the song is more important than doing it right. (But I guess you must know
the right way, to do it wrong... the right way :-)
Bjorn R
"Cujo" <chris@applemanstudio.com> wrote in message news:47ade757$1@linux...
>
>
> I agree with all of that, but in this case what I am talking about is
listening
> to the same mixes in the same room not 10 minutes difference in time.
Playin
> in Paris sounds wide open and huge.lush lush...then burn dithered CD plug
> into the same Dynaudio speakers..same freakin room and it sounds small,
stereo
> image not as defined and less "in your face"
>
> Pf course to trouble shoot it could be the CD player...but commercial CD's
> sound fin through it.
>
> By the way..I touch my mixes with a Drawmer 1968 merc and a pair of
BAE312's
> but that is aall in the listening chain as well.
>
> Also to the 16 bit thing..for a while I thought 16 sounded better..but
with
> the BM15's you can hear a difference..24 seems richer and more 3d or
something
> like that..and yes it is not that much of a difference..but the game is a
> battle of inches.
>
>
> "Neil" <OIUOI@OI.com> wrote:
> >
> >"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
> >>I really think all of the 16 vs.
> >>24 bit and higher sample rates is not important for 85-90 percent of the
> >>people recording out there. I think better/smarter mic choices and pres
> >make
> >>far more difference.
> >
> >It's like I've been saying on & off in other threads for awhile
> >now - it's not about ONE thing making an amazing difference...
> >the more I work with digital, the more I realize it's all about
> >incremental gains at various stages of production. So, you're
> >obviously right about the mics & pres making a difference in
> >terms of picking the right combination for the sound you're
> >trying to get, but it IS also about wordlengths & samplerates
> >& using plugins that process well, instead of adding
> >undesireable artifacts, and whether to dither or not to dither,
> >etc, etc, as well.
> >
> >IOW, is a 16-bit, 44.1k truncated mix going to automatically
> >sound like shit vs a 24-bit 88.2k or 96k recording that was
> >dithered upon mixdown or mastering? I'm not saying that's
> >a "gimme" that it will - i'm just saying that each of those
> >factors contributes to something that's "a little bit better"
> >at each stage of the process.
> >
> >Neil
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Dithering [message #95795 is a reply to message #95794] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 11:40 |
Cujjo
Messages: 325
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
yes I agree with all that too..But still not exactly my point.
Hmm..ok, what I mean is we make cd's to evaluate mixes and pass around to
band and manager..but if we are making changes in the mix that may be more
related to
the CD itself than the 24 bit mix the Mastering guys is gonna get...we can
go in circles forever. What I should do is I guess open up a mix listening
project in Paris..bring the 16 bit files in there and listen there..just
to test it..and AB them next to the 24 bit un-ditherd files.
Also not talking about mixes translating outside my room..that would most
likely be bad room acoustics..mixing too loud whatever. I know I have those
issues and so it;s been in every studio with every producer I have ever
worked with. Never 100% satisfied with mix translation.
Also curios if dithering makes no difference..why are the so many noise shaping
choises?
"BR" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>It's all about the music. I'm making this big Halion String arrangement
in
>in Cubase. I compose a track to underline a solo part. It works perfect
when
>played back in Cubase, but when rendered and played back in Paris, it
>doesn't work. It sound richer, fuller, more 3d, but doesn't fit in the mix.
>I this case I want that plastic, thin, native sound. Sometimes the vibe
of
>the song is more important than doing it right. (But I guess you must know
>the right way, to do it wrong... the right way :-)
>
>Bjorn R
>
>
>
>"Cujo" <chris@applemanstudio.com> wrote in message news:47ade757$1@linux...
>>
>>
>> I agree with all of that, but in this case what I am talking about is
>listening
>> to the same mixes in the same room not 10 minutes difference in time.
>Playin
>> in Paris sounds wide open and huge.lush lush...then burn dithered CD
plug
>> into the same Dynaudio speakers..same freakin room and it sounds small,
>stereo
>> image not as defined and less "in your face"
>>
>> Pf course to trouble shoot it could be the CD player...but commercial
CD's
>> sound fin through it.
>>
>> By the way..I touch my mixes with a Drawmer 1968 merc and a pair of
>BAE312's
>> but that is aall in the listening chain as well.
>>
>> Also to the 16 bit thing..for a while I thought 16 sounded better..but
>with
>> the BM15's you can hear a difference..24 seems richer and more 3d or
>something
>> like that..and yes it is not that much of a difference..but the game is
a
>> battle of inches.
>>
>>
>> "Neil" <OIUOI@OI.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>> >>I really think all of the 16 vs.
>> >>24 bit and higher sample rates is not important for 85-90 percent of
the
>> >>people recording out there. I think better/smarter mic choices and pres
>> >make
>> >>far more difference.
>> >
>> >It's like I've been saying on & off in other threads for awhile
>> >now - it's not about ONE thing making an amazing difference...
>> >the more I work with digital, the more I realize it's all about
>> >incremental gains at various stages of production. So, you're
>> >obviously right about the mics & pres making a difference in
>> >terms of picking the right combination for the sound you're
>> >trying to get, but it IS also about wordlengths & samplerates
>> >& using plugins that process well, instead of adding
>> >undesireable artifacts, and whether to dither or not to dither,
>> >etc, etc, as well.
>> >
>> >IOW, is a 16-bit, 44.1k truncated mix going to automatically
>> >sound like shit vs a 24-bit 88.2k or 96k recording that was
>> >dithered upon mixdown or mastering? I'm not saying that's
>> >a "gimme" that it will - i'm just saying that each of those
>> >factors contributes to something that's "a little bit better"
>> >at each stage of the process.
>> >
>> >Neil
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Dithering [message #95796 is a reply to message #95792] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 11:45 |
Rod Lincoln
Messages: 883
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
What CD burning app are you using? What dither app are you using? It should
sound the same. Are your monitor level knobs on the C-16 set to Zero?
It COULD be CD player. Maybe commercial CD's sound OK because you don't have
the multitrack session of those songs to compare it to. Just a thought.
Rod
"Cujo" <chris@applemanstudio.com> wrote:
>
>
>I agree with all of that, but in this case what I am talking about is listening
>to the same mixes in the same room not 10 minutes difference in time. Playin
>in Paris sounds wide open and huge.lush lush...then burn dithered CD plug
>into the same Dynaudio speakers..same freakin room and it sounds small,
stereo
>image not as defined and less "in your face"
>
>Pf course to trouble shoot it could be the CD player...but commercial CD's
>sound fin through it.
>
>By the way..I touch my mixes with a Drawmer 1968 merc and a pair of BAE312's
>but that is aall in the listening chain as well.
>
>Also to the 16 bit thing..for a while I thought 16 sounded better..but with
>the BM15's you can hear a difference..24 seems richer and more 3d or something
>like that..and yes it is not that much of a difference..but the game is
a
>battle of inches.
>
>
>"Neil" <OIUOI@OI.com> wrote:
>>
>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>I really think all of the 16 vs.
>>>24 bit and higher sample rates is not important for 85-90 percent of the
>>>people recording out there. I think better/smarter mic choices and pres
>>make
>>>far more difference.
>>
>>It's like I've been saying on & off in other threads for awhile
>>now - it's not about ONE thing making an amazing difference...
>>the more I work with digital, the more I realize it's all about
>>incremental gains at various stages of production. So, you're
>>obviously right about the mics & pres making a difference in
>>terms of picking the right combination for the sound you're
>>trying to get, but it IS also about wordlengths & samplerates
>>& using plugins that process well, instead of adding
>>undesireable artifacts, and whether to dither or not to dither,
>>etc, etc, as well.
>>
>>IOW, is a 16-bit, 44.1k truncated mix going to automatically
>>sound like shit vs a 24-bit 88.2k or 96k recording that was
>>dithered upon mixdown or mastering? I'm not saying that's
>>a "gimme" that it will - i'm just saying that each of those
>>factors contributes to something that's "a little bit better"
>>at each stage of the process.
>>
>>Neil
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Dithering [message #95797 is a reply to message #95794] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 10:33 |
Miguel Vigil [1]
Messages: 258
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Not that I know the right way, I'm trying to learn :-) Another example, my
personal opinion. The song "London Calling" by The Clash, a good song, but
too much reverb the wrong way. The song "Radio Nowhere" by Springsteen, too
much reverb the right way.
Bjorn R
"BR" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:47adf14c$1@linux...
> It's all about the music. I'm making this big Halion String arrangement
in
> in Cubase. I compose a track to underline a solo part. It works perfect
when
> played back in Cubase, but when rendered and played back in Paris, it
> doesn't work. It sound richer, fuller, more 3d, but doesn't fit in the
mix.
> I this case I want that plastic, thin, native sound. Sometimes the vibe of
> the song is more important than doing it right. (But I guess you must know
> the right way, to do it wrong... the right way :-)
>
> Bjorn R
>
>
>
> "Cujo" <chris@applemanstudio.com> wrote in message
news:47ade757$1@linux...
> >
> >
> > I agree with all of that, but in this case what I am talking about is
> listening
> > to the same mixes in the same room not 10 minutes difference in time.
> Playin
> > in Paris sounds wide open and huge.lush lush...then burn dithered CD
plug
> > into the same Dynaudio speakers..same freakin room and it sounds small,
> stereo
> > image not as defined and less "in your face"
> >
> > Pf course to trouble shoot it could be the CD player...but commercial
CD's
> > sound fin through it.
> >
> > By the way..I touch my mixes with a Drawmer 1968 merc and a pair of
> BAE312's
> > but that is aall in the listening chain as well.
> >
> > Also to the 16 bit thing..for a while I thought 16 sounded better..but
> with
> > the BM15's you can hear a difference..24 seems richer and more 3d or
> something
> > like that..and yes it is not that much of a difference..but the game is
a
> > battle of inches.
> >
> >
> > "Neil" <OIUOI@OI.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
> > >>I really think all of the 16 vs.
> > >>24 bit and higher sample rates is not important for 85-90 percent of
the
> > >>people recording out there. I think better/smarter mic choices and
pres
> > >make
> > >>far more difference.
> > >
> > >It's like I've been saying on & off in other threads for awhile
> > >now - it's not about ONE thing making an amazing difference...
> > >the more I work with digital, the more I realize it's all about
> > >incremental gains at various stages of production. So, you're
> > >obviously right about the mics & pres making a difference in
> > >terms of picking the right combination for the sound you're
> > >trying to get, but it IS also about wordlengths & samplerates
> > >& using plugins that process well, instead of adding
> > >undesireable artifacts, and whether to dither or not to dither,
> > >etc, etc, as well.
> > >
> > >IOW, is a 16-bit, 44.1k truncated mix going to automatically
> > >sound like shit vs a 24-bit 88.2k or 96k recording that was
> > >dithered upon mixdown or mastering? I'm not saying that's
> > >a "gimme" that it will - i'm just saying that each of those
> > >factors contributes to something that's "a little bit better"
> > >at each stage of the process.
> > >
> > >Neil
> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Dithering [message #95803 is a reply to message #95797] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 13:04 |
Cujjo
Messages: 325
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Oh..Wow..Off topic..but I think London Calling is pretty much flawless in
almost every way..Way ahead of other stuff from that era.. To me the verb
adds to the excitement. That stuff is so subjective anyway..
I just want to make sure I am making adjustments to bass and drum levels
for the right reasons..will do some A/B tests..we are going to try running
mixes through the 1/4" inputs of my BAE312s and test em against goin into
the mic inputs via Avedis' line pads..gould be too much transformer color.
Also the BAE's gain knobs are not stepped so could be that the stereo image
is off.
Although..it aint when listening in Paris.
"BR" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>Not that I know the right way, I'm trying to learn :-) Another example,
my
>personal opinion. The song "London Calling" by The Clash, a good song, but
>too much reverb the wrong way. The song "Radio Nowhere" by Springsteen,
too
>much reverb the right way.
>
>Bjorn R
>
>"BR" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:47adf14c$1@linux...
>> It's all about the music. I'm making this big Halion String arrangement
>in
>> in Cubase. I compose a track to underline a solo part. It works perfect
>when
>> played back in Cubase, but when rendered and played back in Paris, it
>> doesn't work. It sound richer, fuller, more 3d, but doesn't fit in the
>mix.
>> I this case I want that plastic, thin, native sound. Sometimes the vibe
of
>> the song is more important than doing it right. (But I guess you must
know
>> the right way, to do it wrong... the right way :-)
>>
>> Bjorn R
>>
>>
>>
>> "Cujo" <chris@applemanstudio.com> wrote in message
>news:47ade757$1@linux...
>> >
>> >
>> > I agree with all of that, but in this case what I am talking about is
>> listening
>> > to the same mixes in the same room not 10 minutes difference in time.
>> Playin
>> > in Paris sounds wide open and huge.lush lush...then burn dithered CD
>plug
>> > into the same Dynaudio speakers..same freakin room and it sounds small,
>> stereo
>> > image not as defined and less "in your face"
>> >
>> > Pf course to trouble shoot it could be the CD player...but commercial
>CD's
>> > sound fin through it.
>> >
>> > By the way..I touch my mixes with a Drawmer 1968 merc and a pair of
>> BAE312's
>> > but that is aall in the listening chain as well.
>> >
>> > Also to the 16 bit thing..for a while I thought 16 sounded better..but
>> with
>> > the BM15's you can hear a difference..24 seems richer and more 3d or
>> something
>> > like that..and yes it is not that much of a difference..but the game
is
>a
>> > battle of inches.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Neil" <OIUOI@OI.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>> > >>I really think all of the 16 vs.
>> > >>24 bit and higher sample rates is not important for 85-90 percent
of
>the
>> > >>people recording out there. I think better/smarter mic choices and
>pres
>> > >make
>> > >>far more difference.
>> > >
>> > >It's like I've been saying on & off in other threads for awhile
>> > >now - it's not about ONE thing making an amazing difference...
>> > >the more I work with digital, the more I realize it's all about
>> > >incremental gains at various stages of production. So, you're
>> > >obviously right about the mics & pres making a difference in
>> > >terms of picking the right combination for the sound you're
>> > >trying to get, but it IS also about wordlengths & samplerates
>> > >& using plugins that process well, instead of adding
>> > >undesireable artifacts, and whether to dither or not to dither,
>> > >etc, etc, as well.
>> > >
>> > >IOW, is a 16-bit, 44.1k truncated mix going to automatically
>> > >sound like shit vs a 24-bit 88.2k or 96k recording that was
>> > >dithered upon mixdown or mastering? I'm not saying that's
>> > >a "gimme" that it will - i'm just saying that each of those
>> > >factors contributes to something that's "a little bit better"
>> > >at each stage of the process.
>> > >
>> > >Neil
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Dithering [message #95805 is a reply to message #95803] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 12:26 |
Miguel Vigil [1]
Messages: 258
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Yes, very off topic, sorry bout that. But I just saw a documentary of the
british punk scene the other day, and they started with the original London
Calling track, and switched to a live recording of the same song. Much less
reverb, and it sounded much better (in my opinion).
The Springsteen-track is breaking every rule in use of reverb in modern
music. A long, loud reverb-tail that mashes into the background vocals. And
it works just fine.
(And I think I'll have to get one of those Masterlink thingies :-)
Bjorn R
"Cujo" <chris@applemanstudio.com> wrote in message news:47ae0732$1@linux...
>
>
> Oh..Wow..Off topic..but I think London Calling is pretty much flawless in
> almost every way..Way ahead of other stuff from that era.. To me the verb
> adds to the excitement. That stuff is so subjective anyway..
>
> I just want to make sure I am making adjustments to bass and drum levels
> for the right reasons..will do some A/B tests..we are going to try running
> mixes through the 1/4" inputs of my BAE312s and test em against goin into
> the mic inputs via Avedis' line pads..gould be too much transformer color.
> Also the BAE's gain knobs are not stepped so could be that the stereo
image
> is off.
> Although..it aint when listening in Paris.
>
> "BR" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> >Not that I know the right way, I'm trying to learn :-) Another example,
> my
> >personal opinion. The song "London Calling" by The Clash, a good song,
but
> >too much reverb the wrong way. The song "Radio Nowhere" by Springsteen,
> too
> >much reverb the right way.
> >
> >Bjorn R
> >
> >"BR" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:47adf14c$1@linux...
> >> It's all about the music. I'm making this big Halion String
arrangement
> >in
> >> in Cubase. I compose a track to underline a solo part. It works perfect
> >when
> >> played back in Cubase, but when rendered and played back in Paris, it
> >> doesn't work. It sound richer, fuller, more 3d, but doesn't fit in the
> >mix.
> >> I this case I want that plastic, thin, native sound. Sometimes the vibe
> of
> >> the song is more important than doing it right. (But I guess you must
> know
> >> the right way, to do it wrong... the right way :-)
> >>
> >> Bjorn R
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Cujo" <chris@applemanstudio.com> wrote in message
> >news:47ade757$1@linux...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I agree with all of that, but in this case what I am talking about is
> >> listening
> >> > to the same mixes in the same room not 10 minutes difference in time.
> >> Playin
> >> > in Paris sounds wide open and huge.lush lush...then burn dithered CD
> >plug
> >> > into the same Dynaudio speakers..same freakin room and it sounds
small,
> >> stereo
> >> > image not as defined and less "in your face"
> >> >
> >> > Pf course to trouble shoot it could be the CD player...but commercial
> >CD's
> >> > sound fin through it.
> >> >
> >> > By the way..I touch my mixes with a Drawmer 1968 merc and a pair of
> >> BAE312's
> >> > but that is aall in the listening chain as well.
> >> >
> >> > Also to the 16 bit thing..for a while I thought 16 sounded
better..but
> >> with
> >> > the BM15's you can hear a difference..24 seems richer and more 3d or
> >> something
> >> > like that..and yes it is not that much of a difference..but the game
> is
> >a
> >> > battle of inches.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Neil" <OIUOI@OI.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
> >> > >>I really think all of the 16 vs.
> >> > >>24 bit and higher sample rates is not important for 85-90 percent
> of
> >the
> >> > >>people recording out there. I think better/smarter mic choices and
> >pres
> >> > >make
> >> > >>far more difference.
> >> > >
> >> > >It's like I've been saying on & off in other threads for awhile
> >> > >now - it's not about ONE thing making an amazing difference...
> >> > >the more I work with digital, the more I realize it's all about
> >> > >incremental gains at various stages of production. So, you're
> >> > >obviously right about the mics & pres making a difference in
> >> > >terms of picking the right combination for the sound you're
> >> > >trying to get, but it IS also about wordlengths & samplerates
> >> > >& using plugins that process well, instead of adding
> >> > >undesireable artifacts, and whether to dither or not to dither,
> >> > >etc, etc, as well.
> >> > >
> >> > >IOW, is a 16-bit, 44.1k truncated mix going to automatically
> >> > >sound like shit vs a 24-bit 88.2k or 96k recording that was
> >> > >dithered upon mixdown or mastering? I'm not saying that's
> >> > >a "gimme" that it will - i'm just saying that each of those
> >> > >factors contributes to something that's "a little bit better"
> >> > >at each stage of the process.
> >> > >
> >> > >Neil
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Dithering [message #95822 is a reply to message #95776] |
Sun, 10 February 2008 00:34 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Totally agree, Neil, oddly enough I think we agree about this sort of thing
more than we disagree. I 'went native' a long time ago and there's a massive
penalty for me going to higher sample rates because I use a lot of software
synths and native f/x. For me, 24 bit files at 44.1 sound really, really
good and give me a lot of options for real time processing when it comes
time to mix.
In a few years, we'll be using dual eight core processors (or more) and will
forget the 'Great 44.1 v. 96k Debate' and we'll all use higher sample rates
automatically, just like we now record to 24 bit files because we can and
they give us an incremental improvement in sound quality.
Fun day of recording for me today, just loud distorted guitars. I used both
my Savage and my Top Hat, no f/x, an SE ribbon and the Claytor you sold me,
both about 12 inches off the speaker pointed straight at the cone a few inches
from center, both mics went into the Langevin DVC. The amps were on a piano
bench and in the sweetest spot in the room. Got all of the tracks for three
songs in one day. Now _that_ is a work rate I like!
TCB
"Neil" <OIUOI@OI.com> wrote:
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>I really think all of the 16 vs.
>>24 bit and higher sample rates is not important for 85-90 percent of the
>>people recording out there. I think better/smarter mic choices and pres
>make
>>far more difference.
>
>It's like I've been saying on & off in other threads for awhile
>now - it's not about ONE thing making an amazing difference...
>the more I work with digital, the more I realize it's all about
>incremental gains at various stages of production. So, you're
>obviously right about the mics & pres making a difference in
>terms of picking the right combination for the sound you're
>trying to get, but it IS also about wordlengths & samplerates
>& using plugins that process well, instead of adding
>undesireable artifacts, and whether to dither or not to dither,
>etc, etc, as well.
>
>IOW, is a 16-bit, 44.1k truncated mix going to automatically
>sound like shit vs a 24-bit 88.2k or 96k recording that was
>dithered upon mixdown or mastering? I'm not saying that's
>a "gimme" that it will - i'm just saying that each of those
>factors contributes to something that's "a little bit better"
>at each stage of the process.
>
>Neil
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Dithering [message #95825 is a reply to message #95822] |
Sun, 10 February 2008 01:07 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>Totally agree, Neil, oddly enough I think we agree about this sort of thing
>more than we disagree. I 'went native' a long time ago and there's a massive
>penalty for me going to higher sample rates because I use a lot of software
>synths and native f/x. For me, 24 bit files at 44.1 sound really, really
>good and give me a lot of options for real time processing when it comes
>time to mix.
16-bit audio has 65,536 discrete steps to it... 24-bit has over
16 Million... that's a BIG difference in what even the
most robust CPU's can handle, so yeah if you're using a lot of
major stressors like softsynths/VSTi's, 16-bit makes more sense
in a lot of cases.... frankly, I'm amazed that we can even RUN
30 or 40 tracks of 24-bit!
>In a few years, we'll be using dual eight core processors (or more) and
will forget the 'Great 44.1 v. 96k Debate'
No, no, no, it's 44.1 vs 88.2... 96k is really uneccessary ;)
>Fun day of recording for me today, just loud distorted guitars. I used both
>my Savage and my Top Hat, no f/x, an SE ribbon and the Claytor you sold
me,
>both about 12 inches off the speaker pointed straight at the cone a few
inches
>from center, both mics went into the Langevin DVC. The amps were on a piano
>bench and in the sweetest spot in the room. Got all of the tracks for three
>songs in one day. Now _that_ is a work rate I like!
Interesting, because today I tried my first-ever recording
of a ribbon mic on guitar... picked up a couple of those Nady
$69 ribbons on special at Guitar Center a few weeks ago & today
we started setting up for another batch of songs with a band I
did a demo for a few months ago - tried one of the ribbons
through a couple of pre's & settled on the Grace 101 - then
paired it with an Audix i5 through the Focusrite Red, which
sounded enough like the ribbon/Grace combo to perhaps track it
in "pseudo-stereo" that way. Those two combinations have some
very similar characteristics, but are slightly different enough
to provide a definite split image.
Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: Dithering [message #95829 is a reply to message #95825] |
Sun, 10 February 2008 10:35 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OI.com> wrote:
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>Totally agree, Neil, oddly enough I think we agree about this sort of thing
>>more than we disagree. I 'went native' a long time ago and there's a massive
>>penalty for me going to higher sample rates because I use a lot of software
>>synths and native f/x. For me, 24 bit files at 44.1 sound really, really
>>good and give me a lot of options for real time processing when it comes
>>time to mix.
>
>16-bit audio has 65,536 discrete steps to it... 24-bit has over
>16 Million... that's a BIG difference in what even the
>most robust CPU's can handle, so yeah if you're using a lot of
>major stressors like softsynths/VSTi's, 16-bit makes more sense
>in a lot of cases.... frankly, I'm amazed that we can even RUN
>30 or 40 tracks of 24-bit!
>
>
>>In a few years, we'll be using dual eight core processors (or more) and
>will forget the 'Great 44.1 v. 96k Debate'
>
>No, no, no, it's 44.1 vs 88.2... 96k is really uneccessary ;)
>
>
>>Fun day of recording for me today, just loud distorted guitars. I used
both
>>my Savage and my Top Hat, no f/x, an SE ribbon and the Claytor you sold
>me,
>>both about 12 inches off the speaker pointed straight at the cone a few
>inches
>>from center, both mics went into the Langevin DVC. The amps were on a piano
>>bench and in the sweetest spot in the room. Got all of the tracks for three
>>songs in one day. Now _that_ is a work rate I like!
>
>Interesting, because today I tried my first-ever recording
>of a ribbon mic on guitar... picked up a couple of those Nady
>$69 ribbons on special at Guitar Center a few weeks ago & today
>we started setting up for another batch of songs with a band I
>did a demo for a few months ago - tried one of the ribbons
>through a couple of pre's & settled on the Grace 101 - then
>paired it with an Audix i5 through the Focusrite Red, which
>sounded enough like the ribbon/Grace combo to perhaps track it
>in "pseudo-stereo" that way. Those two combinations have some
>very similar characteristics, but are slightly different enough
>to provide a definite split image.
>
>Neil
I picked up one of the Nady ribbons from Deej. They're really weird mics.
My first start with guitar sounds in the 'Steve Albini Pair' approach. One
dark mic (the ribbon) and one bright mic (the Claytor you sold me, the Baby
Bottle you sold me, or a pencil condenser maybe), both about a foot off the
speaker, very close to each other, pointed pretty close to the center of
the speaker. I move things around from there. The thing about the Nady mics
is that--at least the one I have-- is _really_ dark. I read somewhere that
they packed the capsule full of junk to keep them from breaking when some
idiot blows in them to see if they're working. Can't confirm or deny this,
but it makes a little sense considering how they sound.
TCB
|
|
|
|
| Re: Dithering [message #95830 is a reply to message #95829] |
Sun, 10 February 2008 11:07 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Yeah, I did notice right off the bat that the Nady is a bit
dark-ish, but it might work out OK for this, since it's your
typical Mesa Triple-Rectumfryer shred tone. The rolloff of the
mic takes off some of the "fizz".
Still gotta mess with placement a little more - we didn't have
time yesterday to toy with that very much, but the guitarist
liked what he heard right away... anyway, we'll see how it
ends up working out. I noticed it has pretty good gain for a
ribbon, though... didn't have the amp super-cranked, yet I
also didn't have to max out the gain on any of the preamps I
tried it through - 36-40 db of gain on the pre gives a decent,
useable level to record with, without the mic sounding
too "driven". More than that & it sounds like you're kind of
driving the mic too hard... at least in this particular
application.
Neil
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>"Neil" <OIUOIU@OI.com> wrote:
>>
>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Totally agree, Neil, oddly enough I think we agree about this sort of
thing
>>>more than we disagree. I 'went native' a long time ago and there's a massive
>>>penalty for me going to higher sample rates because I use a lot of software
>>>synths and native f/x. For me, 24 bit files at 44.1 sound really, really
>>>good and give me a lot of options for real time processing when it comes
>>>time to mix.
>>
>>16-bit audio has 65,536 discrete steps to it... 24-bit has over
>>16 Million... that's a BIG difference in what even the
>>most robust CPU's can handle, so yeah if you're using a lot of
>>major stressors like softsynths/VSTi's, 16-bit makes more sense
>>in a lot of cases.... frankly, I'm amazed that we can even RUN
>>30 or 40 tracks of 24-bit!
>>
>>
>>>In a few years, we'll be using dual eight core processors (or more) and
>>will forget the 'Great 44.1 v. 96k Debate'
>>
>>No, no, no, it's 44.1 vs 88.2... 96k is really uneccessary ;)
>>
>>
>>>Fun day of recording for me today, just loud distorted guitars. I used
>both
>>>my Savage and my Top Hat, no f/x, an SE ribbon and the Claytor you sold
>>me,
>>>both about 12 inches off the speaker pointed straight at the cone a few
>>inches
>>>from center, both mics went into the Langevin DVC. The amps were on a
piano
>>>bench and in the sweetest spot in the room. Got all of the tracks for
three
>>>songs in one day. Now _that_ is a work rate I like!
>>
>>Interesting, because today I tried my first-ever recording
>>of a ribbon mic on guitar... picked up a couple of those Nady
>>$69 ribbons on special at Guitar Center a few weeks ago & today
>>we started setting up for another batch of songs with a band I
>>did a demo for a few months ago - tried one of the ribbons
>>through a couple of pre's & settled on the Grace 101 - then
>>paired it with an Audix i5 through the Focusrite Red, which
>>sounded enough like the ribbon/Grace combo to perhaps track it
>>in "pseudo-stereo" that way. Those two combinations have some
>>very similar characteristics, but are slightly different enough
>>to provide a definite split image.
>>
>>Neil
>
>I picked up one of the Nady ribbons from Deej. They're really weird mics.
>My first start with guitar sounds in the 'Steve Albini Pair' approach. One
>dark mic (the ribbon) and one bright mic (the Claytor you sold me, the Baby
>Bottle you sold me, or a pencil condenser maybe), both about a foot off
the
>speaker, very close to each other, pointed pretty close to the center of
>the speaker. I move things around from there. The thing about the Nady mics
>is that--at least the one I have-- is _really_ dark. I read somewhere that
>they packed the capsule full of junk to keep them from breaking when some
>idiot blows in them to see if they're working. Can't confirm or deny this,
>but it makes a little sense considering how they sound.
>
>TCB
|
|
|
|
| Re: Dithering [message #95833 is a reply to message #95803] |
Sun, 10 February 2008 11:58 |
chuck duffy
Messages: 453
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I'm with you Cujo. Of course I almost always am :-)
Radio nowhere, while I enjoy the song, sounds to me like bruce doing the
killers doing bruce. Of course my old bandmates disagree with me on that
call, they like to refer to it as 8675309 nowhere.
Chuck
"Cujo" <chris@applemanstudio.com> wrote:
>
>
>Oh..Wow..Off topic..but I think London Calling is pretty much flawless in
>almost every way..Way ahead of other stuff from that era.. To me the verb
>adds to the excitement. That stuff is so subjective anyway..
>
>I just want to make sure I am making adjustments to bass and drum levels
>for the right reasons..will do some A/B tests..we are going to try running
>mixes through the 1/4" inputs of my BAE312s and test em against goin into
>the mic inputs via Avedis' line pads..gould be too much transformer color.
>Also the BAE's gain knobs are not stepped so could be that the stereo image
>is off.
>Although..it aint when listening in Paris.
>
>"BR" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>Not that I know the right way, I'm trying to learn :-) Another example,
>my
>>personal opinion. The song "London Calling" by The Clash, a good song,
but
>>too much reverb the wrong way. The song "Radio Nowhere" by Springsteen,
>too
>>much reverb the right way.
>>
>>Bjorn R
>>
>>"BR" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:47adf14c$1@linux...
>>> It's all about the music. I'm making this big Halion String arrangement
>>in
>>> in Cubase. I compose a track to underline a solo part. It works perfect
>>when
>>> played back in Cubase, but when rendered and played back in Paris, it
>>> doesn't work. It sound richer, fuller, more 3d, but doesn't fit in the
>>mix.
>>> I this case I want that plastic, thin, native sound. Sometimes the vibe
>of
>>> the song is more important than doing it right. (But I guess you must
>know
>>> the right way, to do it wrong... the right way :-)
>>>
>>> Bjorn R
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Cujo" <chris@applemanstudio.com> wrote in message
>>news:47ade757$1@linux...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I agree with all of that, but in this case what I am talking about
is
>>> listening
>>> > to the same mixes in the same room not 10 minutes difference in time.
>>> Playin
>>> > in Paris sounds wide open and huge.lush lush...then burn dithered CD
>>plug
>>> > into the same Dynaudio speakers..same freakin room and it sounds small,
>>> stereo
>>> > image not as defined and less "in your face"
>>> >
>>> > Pf course to trouble shoot it could be the CD player...but commercial
>>CD's
>>> > sound fin through it.
>>> >
>>> > By the way..I touch my mixes with a Drawmer 1968 merc and a pair of
>>> BAE312's
>>> > but that is aall in the listening chain as well.
>>> >
>>> > Also to the 16 bit thing..for a while I thought 16 sounded better..but
>>> with
>>> > the BM15's you can hear a difference..24 seems richer and more 3d or
>>> something
>>> > like that..and yes it is not that much of a difference..but the game
>is
>>a
>>> > battle of inches.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > "Neil" <OIUOI@OI.com> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>> > >>I really think all of the 16 vs.
>>> > >>24 bit and higher sample rates is not important for 85-90 percent
>of
>>the
>>> > >>people recording out there. I think better/smarter mic choices and
>>pres
>>> > >make
>>> > >>far more difference.
>>> > >
>>> > >It's like I've been saying on & off in other threads for awhile
>>> > >now - it's not about ONE thing making an amazing difference...
>>> > >the more I work with digital, the more I realize it's all about
>>> > >incremental gains at various stages of production. So, you're
>>> > >obviously right about the mics & pres making a difference in
>>> > >terms of picking the right combination for the sound you're
>>> > >trying to get, but it IS also about wordlengths & samplerates
>>> > >& using plugins that process well, instead of adding
>>> > >undesireable artifacts, and whether to dither or not to dither,
>>> > >etc, etc, as well.
>>> > >
>>> > >IOW, is a 16-bit, 44.1k truncated mix going to automatically
>>> > >sound like shit vs a 24-bit 88.2k or 96k recording that was
>>> > >dithered upon mixdown or mastering? I'm not saying that's
>>> > >a "gimme" that it will - i'm just saying that each of those
>>> > >factors contributes to something that's "a little bit better"
>>> > >at each stage of the process.
>>> > >
>>> > >Neil
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Dithering [message #95834 is a reply to message #95825] |
Sun, 10 February 2008 12:23 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Neil, that do you think of the ribbon mics?
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OI.com> wrote:
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>Totally agree, Neil, oddly enough I think we agree about this sort of thing
>>more than we disagree. I 'went native' a long time ago and there's a massive
>>penalty for me going to higher sample rates because I use a lot of software
>>synths and native f/x. For me, 24 bit files at 44.1 sound really, really
>>good and give me a lot of options for real time processing when it comes
>>time to mix.
>
>16-bit audio has 65,536 discrete steps to it... 24-bit has over
>16 Million... that's a BIG difference in what even the
>most robust CPU's can handle, so yeah if you're using a lot of
>major stressors like softsynths/VSTi's, 16-bit makes more sense
>in a lot of cases.... frankly, I'm amazed that we can even RUN
>30 or 40 tracks of 24-bit!
>
>
>>In a few years, we'll be using dual eight core processors (or more) and
>will forget the 'Great 44.1 v. 96k Debate'
>
>No, no, no, it's 44.1 vs 88.2... 96k is really uneccessary ;)
>
>
>>Fun day of recording for me today, just loud distorted guitars. I used
both
>>my Savage and my Top Hat, no f/x, an SE ribbon and the Claytor you sold
>me,
>>both about 12 inches off the speaker pointed straight at the cone a few
>inches
>>from center, both mics went into the Langevin DVC. The amps were on a piano
>>bench and in the sweetest spot in the room. Got all of the tracks for three
>>songs in one day. Now _that_ is a work rate I like!
>
>Interesting, because today I tried my first-ever recording
>of a ribbon mic on guitar... picked up a couple of those Nady
>$69 ribbons on special at Guitar Center a few weeks ago & today
>we started setting up for another batch of songs with a band I
>did a demo for a few months ago - tried one of the ribbons
>through a couple of pre's & settled on the Grace 101 - then
>paired it with an Audix i5 through the Focusrite Red, which
>sounded enough like the ribbon/Grace combo to perhaps track it
>in "pseudo-stereo" that way. Those two combinations have some
>very similar characteristics, but are slightly different enough
>to provide a definite split image.
>
>Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: Dithering [message #95836 is a reply to message #95830] |
Sun, 10 February 2008 13:25 |
Cujjo
Messages: 325
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I have one of those Shiny Box 23c's (cinemag tranny) which I think is just
a mod Nady or close to it. Have not liked it on my Marshall yet but works
great on a vintage Champ. where is seems to shine is string things..fiddle
sounds great through it.
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OI.com> wrote:
>
>Yeah, I did notice right off the bat that the Nady is a bit
>dark-ish, but it might work out OK for this, since it's your
>typical Mesa Triple-Rectumfryer shred tone. The rolloff of the
>mic takes off some of the "fizz".
>
>Still gotta mess with placement a little more - we didn't have
>time yesterday to toy with that very much, but the guitarist
>liked what he heard right away... anyway, we'll see how it
>ends up working out. I noticed it has pretty good gain for a
>ribbon, though... didn't have the amp super-cranked, yet I
>also didn't have to max out the gain on any of the preamps I
>tried it through - 36-40 db of gain on the pre gives a decent,
>useable level to record with, without the mic sounding
>too "driven". More than that & it sounds like you're kind of
>driving the mic too hard... at least in this particular
>application.
>
>Neil
>
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Neil" <OIUOIU@OI.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Totally agree, Neil, oddly enough I think we agree about this sort of
>thing
>>>>more than we disagree. I 'went native' a long time ago and there's a
massive
>>>>penalty for me going to higher sample rates because I use a lot of software
>>>>synths and native f/x. For me, 24 bit files at 44.1 sound really, really
>>>>good and give me a lot of options for real time processing when it comes
>>>>time to mix.
>>>
>>>16-bit audio has 65,536 discrete steps to it... 24-bit has over
>>>16 Million... that's a BIG difference in what even the
>>>most robust CPU's can handle, so yeah if you're using a lot of
>>>major stressors like softsynths/VSTi's, 16-bit makes more sense
>>>in a lot of cases.... frankly, I'm amazed that we can even RUN
>>>30 or 40 tracks of 24-bit!
>>>
>>>
>>>>In a few years, we'll be using dual eight core processors (or more) and
>>>will forget the 'Great 44.1 v. 96k Debate'
>>>
>>>No, no, no, it's 44.1 vs 88.2... 96k is really uneccessary ;)
>>>
>>>
>>>>Fun day of recording for me today, just loud distorted guitars. I used
>>both
>>>>my Savage and my Top Hat, no f/x, an SE ribbon and the Claytor you sold
>>>me,
>>>>both about 12 inches off the speaker pointed straight at the cone a few
>>>inches
>>>>from center, both mics went into the Langevin DVC. The amps were on a
>piano
>>>>bench and in the sweetest spot in the room. Got all of the tracks for
>three
>>>>songs in one day. Now _that_ is a work rate I like!
>>>
>>>Interesting, because today I tried my first-ever recording
>>>of a ribbon mic on guitar... picked up a couple of those Nady
>>>$69 ribbons on special at Guitar Center a few weeks ago & today
>>>we started setting up for another batch of songs with a band I
>>>did a demo for a few months ago - tried one of the ribbons
>>>through a couple of pre's & settled on the Grace 101 - then
>>>paired it with an Audix i5 through the Focusrite Red, which
>>>sounded enough like the ribbon/Grace combo to perhaps track it
>>>in "pseudo-stereo" that way. Those two combinations have some
>>>very similar characteristics, but are slightly different enough
>>>to provide a definite split image.
>>>
>>>Neil
>>
>>I picked up one of the Nady ribbons from Deej. They're really weird mics.
>>My first start with guitar sounds in the 'Steve Albini Pair' approach.
One
>>dark mic (the ribbon) and one bright mic (the Claytor you sold me, the
Baby
>>Bottle you sold me, or a pencil condenser maybe), both about a foot off
>the
>>speaker, very close to each other, pointed pretty close to the center of
>>the speaker. I move things around from there. The thing about the Nady
mics
>>is that--at least the one I have-- is _really_ dark. I read somewhere that
>>they packed the capsule full of junk to keep them from breaking when some
>>idiot blows in them to see if they're working. Can't confirm or deny this,
>>but it makes a little sense considering how they sound.
>>
>>TCB
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Dithering [message #95840 is a reply to message #95833] |
Sun, 10 February 2008 15:45 |
Cujjo
Messages: 325
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Thanks Chuck.
I do drive my band mates a bit nutz with The Clash.
Of course they all loved it when we got to work with Mikey Dread (who is
not doing well right now)
Oh another great one from that time is The Jam's All Mod COns
"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>
>I'm with you Cujo. Of course I almost always am :-)
>
>Radio nowhere, while I enjoy the song, sounds to me like bruce doing the
>killers doing bruce. Of course my old bandmates disagree with me on that
>call, they like to refer to it as 8675309 nowhere.
>
>Chuck
>"Cujo" <chris@applemanstudio.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Oh..Wow..Off topic..but I think London Calling is pretty much flawless
in
>>almost every way..Way ahead of other stuff from that era.. To me the verb
>>adds to the excitement. That stuff is so subjective anyway..
>>
>>I just want to make sure I am making adjustments to bass and drum levels
>>for the right reasons..will do some A/B tests..we are going to try running
>>mixes through the 1/4" inputs of my BAE312s and test em against goin into
>>the mic inputs via Avedis' line pads..gould be too much transformer color.
>>Also the BAE's gain knobs are not stepped so could be that the stereo image
>>is off.
>>Although..it aint when listening in Paris.
>>
>>"BR" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>Not that I know the right way, I'm trying to learn :-) Another example,
>>my
>>>personal opinion. The song "London Calling" by The Clash, a good song,
>but
>>>too much reverb the wrong way. The song "Radio Nowhere" by Springsteen,
>>too
>>>much reverb the right way.
>>>
>>>Bjorn R
>>>
>>>"BR" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:47adf14c$1@linux...
>>>> It's all about the music. I'm making this big Halion String arrangement
>>>in
>>>> in Cubase. I compose a track to underline a solo part. It works perfect
>>>when
>>>> played back in Cubase, but when rendered and played back in Paris, it
>>>> doesn't work. It sound richer, fuller, more 3d, but doesn't fit in the
>>>mix.
>>>> I this case I want that plastic, thin, native sound. Sometimes the vibe
>>of
>>>> the song is more important than doing it right. (But I guess you must
>>know
>>>> the right way, to do it wrong... the right way :-)
>>>>
>>>> Bjorn R
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Cujo" <chris@applemanstudio.com> wrote in message
>>>news:47ade757$1@linux...
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > I agree with all of that, but in this case what I am talking about
>is
>>>> listening
>>>> > to the same mixes in the same room not 10 minutes difference in time.
>>>> Playin
>>>> > in Paris sounds wide open and huge.lush lush...then burn dithered
CD
>>>plug
>>>> > into the same Dynaudio speakers..same freakin room and it sounds small,
>>>> stereo
>>>> > image not as defined and less "in your face"
>>>> >
>>>> > Pf course to trouble shoot it could be the CD player...but commercial
>>>CD's
>>>> > sound fin through it.
>>>> >
>>>> > By the way..I touch my mixes with a Drawmer 1968 merc and a pair of
>>>> BAE312's
>>>> > but that is aall in the listening chain as well.
>>>> >
>>>> > Also to the 16 bit thing..for a while I thought 16 sounded better..but
>>>> with
>>>> > the BM15's you can hear a difference..24 seems richer and more 3d
or
>>>> something
>>>> > like that..and yes it is not that much of a difference..but the game
>>is
>>>a
>>>> > battle of inches.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > "Neil" <OIUOI@OI.com> wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > >"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>> > >>I really think all of the 16 vs.
>>>> > >>24 bit and higher sample rates is not important for 85-90 percent
>>of
>>>the
>>>> > >>people recording out there. I think better/smarter mic choices and
>>>pres
>>>> > >make
>>>> > >>far more difference.
>>>> > >
>>>> > >It's like I've been saying on & off in other threads for awhile
>>>> > >now - it's not about ONE thing making an amazing difference...
>>>> > >the more I work with digital, the more I realize it's all about
>>>> > >incremental gains at various stages of production. So, you're
>>>> > >obviously right about the mics & pres making a difference in
>>>> > >terms of picking the right combination for the sound you're
>>>> > >trying to get, but it IS also about wordlengths & samplerates
>>>> > >& using plugins that process well, instead of adding
>>>> > >undesireable artifacts, and whether to dither or not to dither,
>>>> > >etc, etc, as well.
>>>> > >
>>>> > >IOW, is a 16-bit, 44.1k truncated mix going to automatically
>>>> > >sound like shit vs a 24-bit 88.2k or 96k recording that was
>>>> > >dithered upon mixdown or mastering? I'm not saying that's
>>>> > >a "gimme" that it will - i'm just saying that each of those
>>>> > >factors contributes to something that's "a little bit better"
>>>> > >at each stage of the process.
>>>> > >
>>>> > >Neil
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Dithering [message #95849 is a reply to message #95830] |
Mon, 11 February 2008 00:22 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Not knocking the Nady at all, it's a very decent mic for the (small) money.
There are some guys in the interweb who have mods for them to remove a bit
of the muffling, but I haven't been that brave yet.
With the SE ribbon the gain has been dependent on the source. With a fairly
loud guitar cab the DVC works great. With acoustic guitar or percussion (tambourines
sound _loverly_ with it) I have to use the Syteks just because they have
a lot more gain. I have to admit, I like the Syteks more and more as I use
them. Simple design, really cheap on a 'per pre' basis, and they do a simple
job very well. They make stuff louder. I might pick up two more so I have
12 channels all the time.
Anywho, good luck with the Nadys, I can see them sounding great on a shredding
Mesa triple + cab setup. Plenty of high end there anyway, so the rolloff
might help.
TCB
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OI.com> wrote:
>
>Yeah, I did notice right off the bat that the Nady is a bit
>dark-ish, but it might work out OK for this, since it's your
>typical Mesa Triple-Rectumfryer shred tone. The rolloff of the
>mic takes off some of the "fizz".
>
>Still gotta mess with placement a little more - we didn't have
>time yesterday to toy with that very much, but the guitarist
>liked what he heard right away... anyway, we'll see how it
>ends up working out. I noticed it has pretty good gain for a
>ribbon, though... didn't have the amp super-cranked, yet I
>also didn't have to max out the gain on any of the preamps I
>tried it through - 36-40 db of gain on the pre gives a decent,
>useable level to record with, without the mic sounding
>too "driven". More than that & it sounds like you're kind of
>driving the mic too hard... at least in this particular
>application.
>
>Neil
>
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Neil" <OIUOIU@OI.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Totally agree, Neil, oddly enough I think we agree about this sort of
>thing
>>>>more than we disagree. I 'went native' a long time ago and there's a
massive
>>>>penalty for me going to higher sample rates because I use a lot of software
>>>>synths and native f/x. For me, 24 bit files at 44.1 sound really, really
>>>>good and give me a lot of options for real time processing when it comes
>>>>time to mix.
>>>
>>>16-bit audio has 65,536 discrete steps to it... 24-bit has over
>>>16 Million... that's a BIG difference in what even the
>>>most robust CPU's can handle, so yeah if you're using a lot of
>>>major stressors like softsynths/VSTi's, 16-bit makes more sense
>>>in a lot of cases.... frankly, I'm amazed that we can even RUN
>>>30 or 40 tracks of 24-bit!
>>>
>>>
>>>>In a few years, we'll be using dual eight core processors (or more) and
>>>will forget the 'Great 44.1 v. 96k Debate'
>>>
>>>No, no, no, it's 44.1 vs 88.2... 96k is really uneccessary ;)
>>>
>>>
>>>>Fun day of recording for me today, just loud distorted guitars. I used
>>both
>>>>my Savage and my Top Hat, no f/x, an SE ribbon and the Claytor you sold
>>>me,
>>>>both about 12 inches off the speaker pointed straight at the cone a few
>>>inches
>>>>from center, both mics went into the Langevin DVC. The amps were on a
>piano
>>>>bench and in the sweetest spot in the room. Got all of the tracks for
>three
>>>>songs in one day. Now _that_ is a work rate I like!
>>>
>>>Interesting, because today I tried my first-ever recording
>>>of a ribbon mic on guitar... picked up a couple of those Nady
>>>$69 ribbons on special at Guitar Center a few weeks ago & today
>>>we started setting up for another batch of songs with a band I
>>>did a demo for a few months ago - tried one of the ribbons
>>>through a couple of pre's & settled on the Grace 101 - then
>>>paired it with an Audix i5 through the Focusrite Red, which
>>>sounded enough like the ribbon/Grace combo to perhaps track it
>>>in "pseudo-stereo" that way. Those two combinations have some
>>>very similar characteristics, but are slightly different enough
>>>to provide a definite split image.
>>>
>>>Neil
>>
>>I picked up one of the Nady ribbons from Deej. They're really weird mics.
>>My first start with guitar sounds in the 'Steve Albini Pair' approach.
One
>>dark mic (the ribbon) and one bright mic (the Claytor you sold me, the
Baby
>>Bottle you sold me, or a pencil condenser maybe), both about a foot off
>the
>>speaker, very close to each other, pointed pretty close to the center of
>>the speaker. I move things around from there. The thing about the Nady
mics
>>is that--at least the one I have-- is _really_ dark. I read somewhere that
>>they packed the capsule full of junk to keep them from breaking when some
>>idiot blows in them to see if they're working. Can't confirm or deny this,
>>but it makes a little sense considering how they sound.
>>
>>TCB
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Dithering [message #95860 is a reply to message #95834] |
Mon, 11 February 2008 09:34 |
neil[1]
Messages: 164
Registered: October 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Too early to really tell, James... so far, so good, though.
Like I said, we just slapped one up about a foot away from the
cabinet & ran it through one of the the Grace's & it sounded
pretty good right off the bat. Tried a couple other pre's, but
immediately went back to the Grace without even a debate.
Only tried it on the Mesa-shred tone so far... like I was
telling Thad, the rolloff on the mic seems to take off a lot of
the "fizz", so it might work out just fine for this application
(basic trax on rhythm guitar, coupled with an i5 through the
Mucusrite Red8)). I doubt i'll be able to use it for layering -
might need something with a bit more edge for that so the whole
thing doesn't turn into a murkfest (probably keep the i5 &
switch out the nady with a BLUE Ball & a guitar with P90's in
it for layering stuff).
Neil
use
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Neil, that do you think of the ribbon mics?
>
>"Neil" <OIUOIU@OI.com> wrote:
>>
>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Totally agree, Neil, oddly enough I think we agree about this sort of
thing
>>>more than we disagree. I 'went native' a long time ago and there's a massive
>>>penalty for me going to higher sample rates because I use a lot of software
>>>synths and native f/x. For me, 24 bit files at 44.1 sound really, really
>>>good and give me a lot of options for real time processing when it comes
>>>time to mix.
>>
>>16-bit audio has 65,536 discrete steps to it... 24-bit has over
>>16 Million... that's a BIG difference in what even the
>>most robust CPU's can handle, so yeah if you're using a lot of
>>major stressors like softsynths/VSTi's, 16-bit makes more sense
>>in a lot of cases.... frankly, I'm amazed that we can even RUN
>>30 or 40 tracks of 24-bit!
>>
>>
>>>In a few years, we'll be using dual eight core processors (or more) and
>>will forget the 'Great 44.1 v. 96k Debate'
>>
>>No, no, no, it's 44.1 vs 88.2... 96k is really uneccessary ;)
>>
>>
>>>Fun day of recording for me today, just loud distorted guitars. I used
>both
>>>my Savage and my Top Hat, no f/x, an SE ribbon and the Claytor you sold
>>me,
>>>both about 12 inches off the speaker pointed straight at the cone a few
>>inches
>>>from center, both mics went into the Langevin DVC. The amps were on a
piano
>>>bench and in the sweetest spot in the room. Got all of the tracks for
three
>>>songs in one day. Now _that_ is a work rate I like!
>>
>>Interesting, because today I tried my first-ever recording
>>of a ribbon mic on guitar... picked up a couple of those Nady
>>$69 ribbons on special at Guitar Center a few weeks ago & today
>>we started setting up for another batch of songs with a band I
>>did a demo for a few months ago - tried one of the ribbons
>>through a couple of pre's & settled on the Grace 101 - then
>>paired it with an Audix i5 through the Focusrite Red, which
>>sounded enough like the ribbon/Grace combo to perhaps track it
>>in "pseudo-stereo" that way. Those two combinations have some
>>very similar characteristics, but are slightly different enough
>>to provide a definite split image.
>>
>>Neil
>
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Dec 24 00:10:16 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01762 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
