23 Aug
2014
23 Aug
'14
1:56 p.m.
Partly also for historical reasons, I think. In many
ways digital
recording started as the "poor man's tape". Direct to disk recording with
no effects was at first all that could be handled and most peole using it
were replacing 8 track tape with it. They already had a mixer. As the DAW
developed, mix down on the computer has been next. But for many people the
recording part of the strip has been outside of the DAW, on an analog
mixer. This is changing as a new batch of people are going mic->
interface. Their input strip is whatever the interface provides... often
only trim (either as a pot on the pre or in ALSA).
Is this for convenience or not having the ability to afford something else?
I think a lot of times money is spent on the wrong thing such as buying a
fancy multicore computer when something from 8 years ago is totally adequate
for digital audio.
So digital recording is
also going through a two mixer to inline transition. From hybrid to
digital only. The trim controls are there, where they should be, as close
to incoming signal as possible. I don't suppose it would be too hard to
add alsa trim for a card like the d1010 to ardour, but many USB IFs (even
PCIe) have no controls in alsa. It is a physical pot somewhere. So rather
than being in front of the engineer, it is hidden and easily missed by the
newby... or even not so new. So much is done digitally, that the remaining
analog items are forgotten. This is a real problem with a two input IF,
The trim needs to be set every time and the variety of signals through one
channel is huge. Everything from a ribbon to line level. Having a set of
good pre amps could be worth while, this is probably the biggest hole in
the hobby studio. I have two, tube and solid state. (plus line)
It is very simple to keep a few notes on what is a good preamp setting for
a given mic and preamp combination. One inconvenience with some budget
preamps is that you don't know what sort of gain it is providing, so while you
may write down the setting by using a notation like 2:00 for dial position,
you haven't learned anything about gain, so if you swap out a preamp you need
to guess at where to start.
You can get into trouble with a mismatch between preamp and converters, such that
you are trying to "maximize bits" by getting a hot signal level into your
converters.
The preamp ends up distorting and you have a hi-res recording of a distorted sound!
I actually had this problem with a remake of a vintage preamp. So it seems every
preamp has a voltage sweet spot that it should be operated in.
The best situation is if you have converters with analog trims, which is I think
what you were saying, and set them accordingly for each preamp. I leave my preamps
plugged into a specific A/D channels that have been calibrated for that preamp.
One other note, some budget preamps are not qualified for certain levels of input.
I have a Presonus Audiobox which can sound fine for an acoustic guitar, but throw a
drum at it and it is automatically over full scale and unusable.
Grekim
23 Aug
23 Aug
2:11 p.m.
On Sat, 2014-08-23 at 07:56 -0400, Grekim Jennings wrote:
I have a Presonus Audiobox which can sound fine for an
acoustic guitar, but throw a
drum at it and it is automatically over full scale and unusable.
Actually you cant blame a preamp, if the microphone is missing a PAD
switch.
4 p.m.
On Saturday 23 August 2014 08:11:01 Ralf Mardorf did opine
And Gene did reply:
On Sat, 2014-08-23 at 07:56 -0400, Grekim Jennings
wrote:
That is not something I have seen in a mike, but one really should carry
an adapter to allow the mike to be fed into a line input.
Sent out to record a session of the State University of Iowa Scottish
Highlanders, which was scheduled to be on a 20 or so acre practice field,
it started to rain so they had moved into a quonset hut along one edge of
the property.
I had the best tape deck in our inventory at Woodburn Sound Service in
Iowa City, a Tandberg, which had slightly better specs than a Berlant we
also had, and a legendarily good mike, an Altec M-21-b (hey this is 1957
folks & that mike sold new for 600 1957 dollars!) when they fired up the
22 bagpipes inside that quonset hut, it was not only painful to my ears, I
found I had to clip lead the mike into the line input, and was hitting +3
on the vu meter at a gain crank of about 1.25 on a 10 scale.
But the recording itself turned out fairly decent and we sold about 65
copies on single sided acetate disks, cut on our own recording lathe. The
M-21-b was a powered condenser mike, ran on 150 volts of bias, had a 6AT6
vacuum tube in it for a cathode follower output and could make around 140
volts p-p at its output into a 10k load. That was the mike they used to
record the cannon shots, about 6" below the muzzle of the cannon, for the
Mercury Records version of the Overture of 1812.
With that sort of headroom in its output, it simply didn't clip. It was
also rated 20HZ-17Khz flat. When Emory Cook went to Trinidad to record
the then illegal steel drums, the recordings also contained the crickets,
very faithfully reproduced on his 78 rpm lp's of the day.
But my lifelong familiarity with tinnitus started in that quonset hut.
And I haven't heard a cricket in 50 some years. OTOH, wearing out several
high power rifle barrels at the target range over the last 50 years has
also had its effect even if wearing 30+ db ear muffs to do it.
Un-Funny thing about that is that when I walk into a store with an
ultrasonic Doppler burglar alarm, I am in instant ear pain and can't get
out of that store soon enough.
Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
US V Castleman, SCOTUS, Mar 2014 is grounds for Impeaching SCOTUS
I have a Presonus Audiobox which can sound fine
for an acoustic
guitar, but throw a drum at it and it is automatically over full
scale and unusable.
Actually you cant blame a preamp, if the microphone is missing a PAD
switch. 
11:50 p.m.
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014, Grekim Jennings wrote:
true and not. I just upgraded to the i5 because my older P4, while able to
record audio, was on the edge of being able to deal with the number of
tracks (9 or 10) I was using. Also, it was not enough to test some setups
that I was helping others with, like idjc, streaming from two compressed
files and a skype call. Something I can do no problem with the new box.
The recording I was doing was all audio in, no soft synth, no effects
while recording. Effects were added at high latency during mixdown. There
are audio tasks that can not be done on an older computer. I could
probably make do with a two core i3, but I am not sure. Some of the people
I know who are doing audio with video would find my new computer is not
powerful enough. I would have gotten an i7, but I found the only
difference I could find was that they had hyperthreading which is not
lowlatency friendly (I had to turn HT off on the P4 to get solid low
latency). In another thread there is talk about adding effects
to the tallent's monitor... which means lowlatency effects. I don't do
this at this time as I do all monitor mixing analog before the signal gets
to the audio interface. The recorded audio from the direct out on the
mixer and monitor from the mixed signal.
Yes it is simple to keep notes. I would expect it is not a problem for
anyone in this list (it is pretty hard to develop sw without some sort of
organization skills). I have worked with artists who like to record their
work who would find all they could do to make Ardour work, let alone worry
about external gear too. So long as they can get audio recorded they are
happy, if a backing track sounds bad... lower it in the mix.... and blame
it on the cheap equipment that is the best they can afford.
Partly also
for historical reasons, I think. In many ways digital
recording started as the "poor man's tape". Direct to disk recording with
no effects was at first all that could be handled and most peole using it
were replacing 8 track tape with it. They already had a mixer. As the DAW
developed, mix down on the computer has been next. But for many people the
recording part of the strip has been outside of the DAW, on an analog
mixer. This is changing as a new batch of people are going mic->
interface. Their input strip is whatever the interface provides... often
only trim (either as a pot on the pre or in ALSA).
Is this for convenience or not having the ability to afford something else?
I think a lot of times money is spent on the wrong thing such as buying a
fancy multicore computer when something from 8 years ago is totally adequate
for digital audio. analog items
are forgotten. This is a real problem with a two input IF,
The trim needs to be set every time and the variety of signals through one
channel is huge. Everything from a ribbon to line level. Having a set of
good pre amps could be worth while, this is probably the biggest hole in
the hobby studio. I have two, tube and solid state. (plus line)
It is very simple to keep a few notes on what is a good preamp setting for
a given mic and preamp combination. One inconvenience with some budget
preamps is that you don't know what sort of gain it is providing, so while you
may write down the setting by using a notation like 2:00 for dial position,
you haven't learned anything about gain, so if you swap out a preamp you need
to guess at where to start. The best situation is if you have converters with
analog trims, which is I think
what you were saying, and set them accordingly for each preamp. I leave my preamps
plugged into a specific A/D channels that have been calibrated for that preamp.
That would be the best thing so long as you have the channels and
equipment to do so. A lot of people have two channels with a builtin
pre.... a pre that the litterature says is modeled on some super Britsh
Console pre that all the hits used, but is in fact just another two pre on
a chip deal with a tweak in the freq response to colour it. In general the
best thing seems to be a line in (+4 with lots of head room) and a pre
matched to the mic. Possibly with some eq. I think a good preamp can make
a difference to what needs to be done to fix the sound at mixdown. That is
why I said money is often better spent on mics and preamps.
One other note, some budget preamps are not qualified
for certain levels of input.
I have a Presonus Audiobox which can sound fine for an acoustic guitar, but throw a
drum at it and it is automatically over full scale and unusable.
Someone has suggested the mic should have a pad, but if the impedance of
the mic and pre are known, it is not hard to design and build a pad with a
bypass switch... in fact two tens in a row would give twenty on need and
cost pennys more after you already have the case and connectors. Or, it
would be possible to have two pads of different impedance to use with more
than one mic.
--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net
24 Aug
24 Aug
12:58 a.m.
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 02:48:55PM -0700, Len Ovens wrote:
true and not. I just upgraded to the i5 because my
older P4, while
able to record audio, was on the edge of being able to deal with the
number of tracks (9 or 10) I was using.
Strange. I've been using a P4 systen until a year ago.
It had no problems at all with 30 tracks or so, many of them
being multichannel. That was with Ardour2. With A3 it failed
on memory (512M), not on CPU load.
You are right that an i7 won't be better than an i5. My current home
system is an i5. It performs better than the i7 in the CdM studio,
which is from the same manufacturer and twice the price.
Yes it is simple to keep notes. I would expect it is
not a problem
for anyone in this list (it is pretty hard to develop sw without
some sort of organization skills). I have worked with artists who
like to record their work who would find all they could do to make
Ardour work, let alone worry about external gear too.
People should know their limits. And take their time to learn and
move those limits. There's always some effort involved in doing that.
And if they can't do something right, hire someone who can. That is
also an opportunity to learn.
So long as
they can get audio recorded they are happy, if a backing track
sounds bad... lower it in the mix.... and blame it on the cheap
equipment that is the best they can afford.
Some (not all) cheap equipment today is better than what most
people could dream of 30 years ago. And a lot of great recording
was done in those days.
That would be the best thing so long as you have the
channels and
equipment to do so. A lot of people have two channels with a builtin
pre.... a pre that the litterature says is modeled on some super
Britsh Console pre that all the hits used, but is in fact just
another two pre on a chip deal with a tweak in the freq response to
colour it.
Now *that* is true. All that 'vintage preamp' stuff is one great
hoax. Whatever 'sound' these things have amounts to a bit of EQ.
The same is true for tube preamps. Tubes may generate some nice
distortion when used in a power amp, more so if you throw in some
transformers. But at the millivolt levels you find in a preamp
they are as linear as it gets.
Someone has suggested the mic should have a pad, but
if the
impedance of the mic and pre are known, it is not hard to design and
build a pad with a bypass switch... in fact two tens in a row would
give twenty on need and cost pennys more after you already have the
case and connectors. Or, it would be possible to have two pads of
different impedance to use with more than one mic.
You need pads only for condenser mics. And since they already have
a preamp built-in they won't care much about impedance (as long as
it's reasonable). Three resistores of 10 cents each will do the trick.
Ciao,
--
FA
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
4:01 a.m.
On Sat, 2014-08-23 at 22:58 +0000, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
Three resistores of 10 cents each will do the trick.
Funny news, here 1/4 W metal does cost less than 0,10 € :), carbon does
cost 0,10 € :D.
English:
http://www.uneeda-audio.com/pads/ [1]
German:
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Rechner-pads.htm [1]
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Rechner-spannungsanpassung.htm [1]
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Rechner-spannungsteiler.htm [1]
[1] no liability assumed
5:29 a.m.
On Sat, 2014-08-23 at 22:58 +0000, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
Some (not all) cheap equipment today is better than
what most
people could dream of 30 years ago. And a lot of great recording
was done in those days.
At least the analog IOs of inexpensive digital effects don't cause that
kind of audible noise that even expensive digital effects still caused
25 yeas ago. Some algorithm nowadays are much better, but OTOH handling
and reliability for the >= 25 years older equipment is much better.
Better handling and reliability is more important for a production than
getting rid of a little bit of noise.
You also could say that some external gear isn't needed anymore, because
plugins can do the same. Yes, but it took me more than a hour to find a
Linux delay plugin and the setting to get a clean left/right ping pong
delay and it wasn't the delay that had a switch that claimed "ping
pong". If you own gear from 80s as I do, you get what you want in a few
seconds. Not only because I know that gear and I don't know the Linux
plugins, but also because the handling is much easier. GUIs could be
much better than the not that good knob and display usage of vintage
digital effects, but often GUI aren't better, usually they are less
comfortable.
Now *that* is true. All that 'vintage preamp'
stuff is one great
hoax. Whatever 'sound' these things have amounts to a bit of EQ.
The same is true for tube preamps. Tubes may generate some nice
distortion when used in a power amp, more so if you throw in some
transformers. But at the millivolt levels you find in a preamp
they are as linear as it gets.
I stay away from tube gear, because I don't have the money and no will
to maintain it and some indeed is very bad, but it's not completely a
swindle. A friend years ago lent me a Hughes & Kettner guitar tube
preamp. It was a preamp intended as preamp for a guitar amp, it was not
intended as an amp emulation for usage to play guitar connected to the
mixing console, but I used it to play guitar without an amp, connected
to the mixer. The sound was much better than any amp, speaker, whatever
simulation I ever heard. It was a big difference to non-tube gear. No
EQ, no Guitarix & Co. can compare with the Hughes & Kettner tube preamp.
Some, especially really old tube preamps sound very good, even for usage
with microphones. It might be possible that a discrete analog circuit
without tubes could sound that good too, but some preamps are known to
be inexpensive and to provide good audio quality. Around 20 years ago
inexpensive Art tube preamps even were used by people who had the money
for expensive preamps. Some people owned better preamps, but liked the
bias of those amps for some tasks and other needed preamps and had no
money, they perhaps wanted something that is more linear/neutral, but
for the money those Art tube preamps seemingly were better than other
preamps.
6:49 p.m.
Am 24.08.2014 05:29, schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
It was a big difference to non-tube gear. No
EQ, no Guitarix & Co. can compare with the Hughes & Kettner tube preamp.
Remains me on a situation several years ago.
I travel around in Turkey, visit a local market, to buy some food. The
women behind the stand pray to me her eggplants, I say, no, thanks, I
didn't like how they taste. She says, " If you don't know how to handle
them, then they wouldn't be tasteful, but if you do it right, they are
delicious."
She told me how to make it, and up to today, I love to prepare eggplants
for my dinner.
7:43 p.m.
On Sun, 2014-08-24 at 18:48 +0200, hermann meyer wrote:
Am 24.08.2014 05:29, schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
Reminds me of effects that emulate tube microphones. Plug in your Sure
SM58, select Brauner VM1 and an algorithm will generate everything
missing by the SM58, based on the information provided by the SM58. This
on the other hand reminds me of Jerry Bruckheimer and Co.'s scientific
soaps. An observation camera shows somebody from behind and the digital
forensics guys use an algorithm that calculates the view showing the
face of the person, whose face wasn't recorded. Preparing an eggplant is
easy to do, handling algorithms faking abilities also is easy to do.
It was a big difference to non-tube gear. No
EQ, no Guitarix & Co. can compare with the Hughes & Kettner tube preamp.
Remains me on a situation several years ago.
I travel around in Turkey, visit a local market, to buy some food. The
women behind the stand pray to me her eggplants, I say, no, thanks, I
didn't like how they taste. She says, " If you don't know how to handle
them, then they wouldn't be tasteful, but if you do it right, they are
delicious."
She told me how to make it, and up to today, I love to prepare eggplants
for my dinner.
8:23 p.m.
Am 24.08.2014 19:43, schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
This
on the other hand reminds me of Jerry Bruckheimer and Co.'s scientific
soaps. An observation camera shows somebody from behind and the digital
forensics guys use an algorithm that calculates the view showing the
face of the person, whose face wasn't recorded. Preparing an eggplant is
easy to do, handling algorithms faking abilities also is easy to do.
That just
shows you will, and I mean you will, not you could,
never understand the scientific behind tube emulation, and modular
emulation of hardware gear.
greetings
hermann
8:37 p.m.
Am 24.08.2014 20:23, schrieb hermann meyer:
Am 24.08.2014 19:43, schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
As well it seems to me that you didn't know how to make a eggplant
delicacies. ;-)
This
on the other hand reminds me of Jerry Bruckheimer and Co.'s scientific
soaps. An observation camera shows somebody from behind and the digital
forensics guys use an algorithm that calculates the view showing the
face of the person, whose face wasn't recorded. Preparing an eggplant is
easy to do, handling algorithms faking abilities also is easy to do.
That just
shows you will, and I mean you will, not you could,
never understand the scientific behind tube emulation, and modular
emulation of hardware gear.
greetings
hermann
8:46 p.m.
On Sun, 2014-08-24 at 20:23 +0200, hermann meyer wrote:
Am 24.08.2014 19:43, schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
Winfried Knobloch "Röhrentechnik ganz modern" Pflaum Verlag München ISBN
3-7905-0660-5. IIRC around 20 years ago a former friend released some
notes about this topic in the VDT-Magazin, IIRC he at least has given a
talk at a Tonmeistertagung about it. Anyway, I experienced that
recording an e. guitar from an elCheapo transistor amp with an elCheapo
microphone at low volumes (when living in a rental apartment) always
sounds better, than tube amp and speaker emulations, just the Hughes &
Kettner tube preamp was amazing, when connecting the guitar directly to
the mixer. Guitarix and all proprietary simulations sometimes can be
used, but usually even a Boss CS-3 or Boss OD-2, a parametric EQ
provided by the mixer and e.g. a SPX90II early reflection already beats
Zoom, Guitarix and friends. YMMV! Why are Marshall stacks not replaced
by Zoom, Guitarix and friends directly connected to the PA?
This
on the other hand reminds me of Jerry Bruckheimer and Co.'s scientific
soaps. An observation camera shows somebody from behind and the digital
forensics guys use an algorithm that calculates the view showing the
face of the person, whose face wasn't recorded. Preparing an eggplant is
easy to do, handling algorithms faking abilities also is easy to do.
That just
shows you will, and I mean you will, not you could,
never understand the scientific behind tube emulation, and modular
emulation of hardware gear.
8:57 p.m.
Am 24.08.2014 20:46, schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
On Sun, 2014-08-24 at 20:23 +0200, hermann meyer
wrote:
Exact the answer I expected from you, and, sorry, but I haven't the
time, nor any fun in explain to you how to use guitarix, just, leave it
behind you and, do me a pleasure, delete all your guitarix stuff and
didn't talk about it anymore, PLEASE. Talk about Guitar Rig, or what
ever you use, but stop talking about stuff you didn't use nor understand
to use.
best
hermann
Am 24.08.2014 19:43, schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
Winfried Knobloch "Röhrentechnik ganz
modern" Pflaum Verlag München ISBN
3-7905-0660-5. IIRC around 20 years ago a former friend released some
notes about this topic in the VDT-Magazin, IIRC he at least has given a
talk at a Tonmeistertagung about it. Anyway, I experienced that
recording an e. guitar from an elCheapo transistor amp with an elCheapo
microphone at low volumes (when living in a rental apartment) always
sounds better, than tube amp and speaker emulations, just the Hughes &
Kettner tube preamp was amazing, when connecting the guitar directly to
the mixer. Guitarix and all proprietary simulations sometimes can be
used, but usually even a Boss CS-3 or Boss OD-2, a parametric EQ
provided by the mixer and e.g. a SPX90II early reflection already beats
Zoom, Guitarix and friends. YMMV! Why are Marshall stacks not replaced
by Zoom, Guitarix and friends directly connected to the PA?
This
on the other hand reminds me of Jerry Bruckheimer and Co.'s scientific
soaps. An observation camera shows somebody from behind and the digital
forensics guys use an algorithm that calculates the view showing the
face of the person, whose face wasn't recorded. Preparing an eggplant is
easy to do, handling algorithms faking abilities also is easy to do.
That just
shows you will, and I mean you will, not you could,
never understand the scientific behind tube emulation, and modular
emulation of hardware gear.
9:11 p.m.
On Sun, 2014-08-24 at 20:57 +0200, hermann meyer wrote:
Exact the answer I expected from you, and, sorry, but
I haven't the
time, nor any fun in explain to you how to use guitarix, just, leave it
behind you and, do me a pleasure, delete all your guitarix stuff and
didn't talk about it anymore, PLEASE. Talk about Guitar Rig, or what
ever you use, but stop talking about stuff you didn't use nor understand
to use.
JFTR I don't use Guitar Rig, I don't use Windows or a Mac, but it does
provider some nice things, such as a step sequencer for the guitar. As I
already pointed out, all simulations can be used sometimes, but most of
the times any elCheapo amp recorded by any elCheapo mic at disgusting
low volumes sounds better. For clean guitars a Boss CS-3 and for
overdrive a Boss OD-2 and a little bit of an 80th early reflection + the
mixer's parametric EQ usually will do better, than Guitarix, Guitar Rig
and others. IIRC Zoom was the first who introduced those emulations to
the masses. Between 20 and 30 years ago Zoom released a kind of "Guitar
Amp Walkman", I don't remember it's name, it was similar to what
Guitarix provides nowadays. No doubt about it, Zoom, Guitarix and others
are useful for some tasks, but they can not provide what they claim to
provide.
9:25 p.m.
Am 24.08.2014 21:11, schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
but they can not provide what they claim to
provide.
Because you didn't know how to make it delicious.:-(;-)
Again, please stop talking about what you didn't use nor understand to use.
As a side note, a couple of people use guitarix regular on stage,
just,in opposite to you, they understand how to use it, and how to make
it sound delicious.
For the case you would experience a bit more with guitarix, start to use
the tube screamer in front and the tonestack followed by the convolver
in the back. Otherwise, please respect my previous post
9:44 p.m.
On Sun, 2014-08-24 at 21:24 +0200, hermann meyer wrote:
As a side note, a couple of people use guitarix
regular on stage
Do they use guitarix's effects, such as a flanger, or the amp and
speaker simulation? I seriously doubt that any musician who has got a
choice, by choice does prefer what ever digital simulation (Guitarix or
any other) over a real good or even odd guitar amp.
10:17 p.m.
Am 24.08.2014 21:44, schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
On Sun, 2014-08-24 at 21:24 +0200, hermann meyer
wrote:
Seriously, I doubt that you are a musician.
As a side note, a couple of people use guitarix
regular on stage
Do they use guitarix's effects, such as a flanger, or the amp
and
speaker simulation? I seriously doubt that any musician who has got a
choice, by choice does prefer what ever digital simulation (Guitarix or
any other) over a real good or even odd guitar amp.
10:27 p.m.
Please could anybody AES and/or VDT chime in? Feel free to blame me,
assumed I'm mistaken and back up Hermann's claims.
10:38 p.m.
Am 24.08.2014 22:27, schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
Please could anybody AES and/or VDT chime in? Feel
free to blame me,
assumed I'm mistaken and back up Hermann's claims.
http://player.vimeo.com/video/98178317?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0&…
10:56 p.m.
Am 24.08.2014 22:27, schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
Please could anybody AES and/or VDT chime in? Feel
free to blame me,
assumed I'm mistaken and back up Hermann's claims.
http://portalmod.com/blog/2014/08/mod-duo-harmonizer-gx-tube-simulator/
I guess you are to bonehead to understand.
http://portalmod.com/blog/2014/08/mod-duo-harmonizer-gx-tube-simulator/
why musicians could prefer the digital way, if at least the end up in a
digital media. O:-) :-(
25 Aug
25 Aug
8:16 a.m.
On Sun, 2014-08-24 at 22:56 +0200, hermann meyer wrote:
why musicians could prefer the digital way, if at
least the end up in
a digital media.
When recording a guitar at midnight in a rental apartment I play my
guitar directly connected to the mixing console, resp. some
preamplification is better before using the mixer. Sometimes amp and
speaker simulations can be used, but often they are too sluggish. EQs
digital or analog) and early reflections (digital) often are more
promising. I'm not against digital gear for guitars, OTOH tube gear has
some advantages and even analog transistor gear. I mentioned the Boss
Sustainer and Turbo Overdrive. Both effects can be done digital too, but
the advantage when using those effects is, that you automatically get a
preamp. The Hughes & Kettner tube preamp is much better. At home we
usually can not record a guitar amp, in a studio we can do. A flight
simulator is good to practise flying, but if you want to travel, you
need to use a real plane. There is nothing like a tube emulation. You
can not use a mixer or sound card input with a completely different
responding quality and frequency response than those provided by tubes
and Celestion speakers and use an algorithm to simulate something that
is missing. It's possible to handle the frequencies, when there are only
frequencies to cut, but impossible to emulate a missing responding
quality. For guitar the simulations are to sluggish, the responding
quality of the sound cards or mixers are different to those of tube
amps. Regarding the tube microphone emulation, "let your Sure mic sound
like a Neuman or Brauner", it's not only the tube, but much more the
missing frequency response of the capsule.
On Sun, 2014-08-24 at 22:53 +0100, James Morris wrote:
Bring out the pitchforks, someone dares to not keep up
with the times,
burn him at the stake!
You are missing the context. I'm pro old equipment, but against
equipment that tries to fake vintage gear, claiming to use modern
methods, while it even doesn't use the available algorithms. And again,
you can simulate a flight, but you can't travel using a flight
simulator. IOW if you know what to do, you can provide digital EQs and
things like that, but you can not provide preamp and amp simulation,
when the preamp from the mixer or sound card simply can not do what's
needed for guitar. Perhaps you noticed that one of the threads is about
pickups and the different sound, when using a guitar amp and when using
other gear.
I'm not a bonehead, I simply confront you with the technical facts.
8:41 a.m.
On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 08:16 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Perhaps you noticed that one of the threads is about
pickups and the
different sound, when using a guitar amp and when using other gear.
I'm not a bonehead, I simply confront you with the technical facts.
And hear it is:
On Sun, 2014-08-24 at 07:19 -0700, Len Ovens wrote:
I have a classical guitar that I put a
piezo into. Ok, I broke a piezo buzzer open, put wires
on the disk and
used putty to stick it under the bridge :) When plugged into my mixer
(impedance 10k?) it sounded really bad. I could eq it to not bad, but it
took a lot of eq to do so. My wife has a fishman loudmouth guitar amp made
for acoustic guitars and plugging into that made it sound wonderful with
no eq at all.
If Len would use Guitarix, it won't change anything, the preamp of the
mixer already is the culprit. And as soon as you use a preamp, such as
the Hughes & Kettner I mentioned, then you could use an amp emulation,
but then you don't need it anymore.
10:59 p.m.
Am 25.08.2014 08:16, schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
On Sun, 2014-08-24 at 22:56 +0200, hermann meyer
wrote:
when recording your
guitar, that would be welcome, just do it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoHMuLXH8ew
why musicians could prefer the digital way, if at
least the end up in
a digital media.
When recording a guitar at
[umpf..................................))/&%$§"!`?=)(
24 Aug
24 Aug
9:33 p.m.
PS: Instead of an 80th early reflection, I used an IR that came with
jconvolver (IIRC that time it was named jconv or similar). When I
noticed that guitarix included jconv I tried out guitarix, because
jconv's drawback was, that it only could be set up by a config file, no
real-time editing was possible. I tested Guitarix and noticed that the
stereo IR was used mono. Linux already provided the stereo IR, something
that Lexicon already provided decades before, just guitarix crippled it
to mono. Perhaps I missed something, since I experienced Guitarix as a
tool that did neither keep pace with the times, nor it keeps place with
the times >= 20 years ago.
10:16 p.m.
Am 24.08.2014 21:33, schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
PS: Instead of an 80th early reflection, I used an IR
that came with
jconvolver (IIRC that time it was named jconv or similar). When I
noticed that guitarix included jconv I tried out guitarix, because
jconv's drawback was, that it only could be set up by a config file, no
real-time editing was possible. I tested Guitarix and noticed that the
stereo IR was used mono. Linux already provided the stereo IR, something
that Lexicon already provided decades before, just guitarix crippled it
to mono. Perhaps I missed something, since I experienced Guitarix as a
tool that did neither keep pace with the times, nor it keeps place with
the times >= 20 years ago.
Guitarix didn't include jconv, but a (2) interface to zita-convlover. It
include a mono and as well a stereo interface. If you load a^stero file
in the mono convolver, it will be used, OH, Surprise, ta, ta ,ta ,at
M,MM,MMMM, Mono. Ups, use the stereo convolver if you would use a
stereo IR file in stereo.
Again, you didn't use guitarix, nor do you know were you talk about.
AFAIK, you didn't test, you just go as long as it fits your prejudices.
Again, How often do I need to ask you that, please, go ahead, stop
talking about guitarix, you didn't use it, nor do you have any idea
about how to use it, nor do you want to use it., go on, make your deal
for what ever you do, but, please, gimme the freedom, as I provide it
with my work, gimme it back.
respect my soul, please.
11:57 p.m.
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 21:33:03 +0200
Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net> wrote:
PS: Instead of an 80th early reflection, I used an IR
that came with
jconvolver (IIRC that time it was named jconv or similar). When I
noticed that guitarix included jconv I tried out guitarix, because
jconv's drawback was, that it only could be set up by a config file,
no real-time editing was possible. I tested Guitarix and noticed that
the stereo IR was used mono. Linux already provided the stereo IR,
something that Lexicon already provided decades before, just guitarix
crippled it to mono. Perhaps I missed something, since I experienced
Guitarix as a tool that did neither keep pace with the times, nor it
keeps place with the times >= 20 years ago.
Bring out the pitchforks, someone dares to not keep up with the times,
burn him at the stake!
9 Sep
9 Sep
11 a.m.
Hi, In my case the marshall stacks were replaced by the POD HD. There
is no audible reason to think the marshall stack is better then modern
physical simulation/modeling techniques. The only difference is the
experience of standing in front of a speaker stack, and feeling the
breeze in the hair. Oh wait, not even that: A good PA suffices for
wind generation. So its only upto the musicians taste. No one could
tell a fullblown stack from a good simulation just by ear!
Gerald
On 08/24/2014 08:46 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
! Why are Marshall stacks not replaced
by Zoom, Guitarix and friends directly connected to
the PA?
24 Aug
24 Aug
5:31 a.m.
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
I agree.
Yes, but often people would prefer to blame bad sound from their missuse
on equipment than on themselves. Some people choose not to learn.
--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 02:48:55PM -0700, Len Ovens
wrote:
I may have been trying to push the latency too low or I was using the
wrong plugins. I was recording the electric guitar direct and using
plugins to make it sound amped. Very little on the vocals of anything save
an aux out to a single reverb. I can't remember what else now.
However, the en/decoding of too many things at the same time was over the
top. The best I could get with skype->pulse->jack->idjc->icecast and back
along with mp3 files decoding to mix in was over 20ms and still not
stable. This is what some people use as a radio studio for internet
radio. The i5 I can set -p32 no problem. Lower latency makes it easier for
a host to converse with someone on the "phone". Skype may not be the best,
but lots of people have it... I don't think pulse was resampling, but it
may have been from 48k to 48k, the mp3s seem to all be 44.1k but they are
decoded straight to jack, so only one resample (as part of the decode?).
true and not. I just upgraded to the i5 because
my older P4, while
able to record audio, was on the edge of being able to deal with the
number of tracks (9 or 10) I was using.
Strange. I've been using a P4 systen until a year ago.
It had no problems at all with 30 tracks or so, many of them
being multichannel. That was with Ardour2. With A3 it failed
on memory (512M), not on CPU load. You are right that an i7 won't be better than an
i5. My current home
system is an i5. It performs better than the i7 in the CdM studio,
which is from the same manufacturer and twice the price.
Have you tried turning "boost" and hyperthreading off in bios? But then
the whole chipset may be different too.
Yes it is
simple to keep notes. I would expect it is not a problem
for anyone in this list (it is pretty hard to develop sw without
some sort of organization skills). I have worked with artists who
like to record their work who would find all they could do to make
Ardour work, let alone worry about external gear too.
People should know their limits. And take their time to learn and
move those limits. There's always some effort involved in doing that.
And if they can't do something right, hire someone who can. That is
also an opportunity to learn. So long as
they can get audio recorded they are happy, if a backing track
sounds bad... lower it in the mix.... and blame it on the cheap
equipment that is the best they can afford.
Some (not all) cheap equipment today is better than what most
people could dream of 30 years ago. And a lot of great recording
was done in those days. 
10:52 a.m.
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 14:48:55 -0700 (PDT)
Len Ovens <len(a)ovenwerks.net> wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014, Grekim Jennings wrote:
I guess most amateurs go straight from mic to preamp/converter now
days, but if using some gear in between, proper gain staging is
essential. Set the gain at the input stage and keep the signal hot but
not too hot through your chain (preferably by matching line levels
between input and output).
Another often missed point is that mics can sound different
depending on the impedance of the preamp input. I would agree that now
days the best spent money would go into mics and pres, and possibly
hardware EQs and compressors too B)
I'd also contend that if recording with a decent converter to 24bit,
then recording to -10 or -20 dB FS would not present a problem at all,
rather it would give a good headroom safety margin. And one could
always normalize the track before mixing if so desired.
If the signal picked up by the mic is too hot for the preamp, it would
seem a no brainer to buy or build a few pads to be able to reduce the
signal presented to the preamp.
--
Joakim
The best situation is if you have converters with
analog trims,
which is I think what you were saying, and set them accordingly for
each preamp. I leave my preamps plugged into a specific A/D
channels that have been calibrated for that preamp.
That would be the best thing so long as you have the channels and
equipment to do so. A lot of people have two channels with a builtin
pre.... a pre that the litterature says is modeled on some super
Britsh Console pre that all the hits used, but is in fact just
another two pre on a chip deal with a tweak in the freq response to
colour it. In general the best thing seems to be a line in (+4 with
lots of head room) and a pre matched to the mic. Possibly with some
eq. I think a good preamp can make a difference to what needs to be
done to fix the sound at mixdown. That is why I said money is often
better spent on mics and preamps.
12:27 p.m.
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 10:52:33AM +0200, Joakim Hernberg wrote:
I guess most amateurs go straight from mic to
preamp/converter now
days, but if using some gear in between, proper gain staging is
essential.
That's where things get to go wrong.
Another often missed point is that mics can sound
different
depending on the impedance of the preamp input.
Yes, but assuming there's no distortion, the difference amounts
to some EQ.
I would agree that now days the best spent money would
go into
mics and pres, and possibly hardware EQs and compressors too
There's really no point in hardware EQ today if your signal ends
up to be digital. That said, some software EQs are really bad,
usually the result of turning some textbook equation into code
without understanding it. Same for many software compressors.
But both can be near perfect as well.
Ciao,
--
FA
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
4:21 p.m.
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 10:52:33AM +0200, Joakim
Hernberg wrote:
That is true and for most studio mics (anyone use crystal mics?) it would
be minimal. Anytime eq is used to bring back low level frequencies, it is
likely to bring back the noise around that frequency too. Instrument
pickups are most sensitive to this. I have a classical guitar that I put a
piezo into. Ok, I broke a piezo buzzer open, put wires on the disk and
used putty to stick it under the bridge :) When plugged into my mixer
(impedance 10k?) it sounded really bad. I could eq it to not bad, but it
took a lot of eq to do so. My wife has a fishman loudmouth guitar amp made
for acoustic guitars and plugging into that made it sound wonderful with
no eq at all. The only thing I found was that phase reverse made a big
difference in feedback sensitivity... I guess I need to flip the element
over or reverse the cable.
Certaimly this is an extreme example and while a pickup is nice for
performing, I normally use a mic for this guitar for recording. The
point being, that while it is obvious that impedance needs to be
reasonable to begin with, a lot of people's eyes glaze over with the
first use of the word. For many people the best thing is a mic with a USB
plug on it.
--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net
Another often missed point is that mics can sound
different
depending on the impedance of the preamp input.
Yes, but assuming there's no distortion, the difference amounts
to some EQ.
5:25 p.m.
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 07:19:11AM -0700, Len Ovens wrote:
That is true and for most studio mics (anyone use
crystal mics?) it
would be minimal. Anytime eq is used to bring back low level
frequencies, it is likely to bring back the noise around that
frequency too. Instrument pickups are most sensitive to this. I have
a classical guitar that I put a piezo into.
Piezos have a capacitive impedance, together with the preamp resistive
input impedance this forms a first order highpass filter. A typical mic
input is around 2 kOhms, this would place the cutoff frequency somewhere
in the high audio range, with 6 dB/oct below that. Could be EQ'd in theory,
but for musical use it's usually better to use a high-Z preamp.
Some specialised preamps (e.g. for piezo hydrophones), actually do use
a 'zero impedance' input, and integrate the signal to compensate. This
provides the best FR and the most stable calibration, and allows the use
of very long cables..
Ciao,
--
FA
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
25 Aug
25 Aug
9:02 a.m.
On Sun, 2014-08-24 at 15:25 +0000, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
Piezos have a capacitive impedance, together with the
preamp resistive
input impedance this forms a first order highpass filter. A typical mic
input is around 2 kOhms, this would place the cutoff frequency somewhere
in the high audio range, with 6 dB/oct below that. Could be EQ'd in theory,
but for musical use it's usually better to use a high-Z preamp.
Have you tested Guitarix? Hermann claims that Guitarix fix such an
issue, if you know how to handle Guitarix. I'm to bonehead to waste my
time trying to fix such a technical issue using Guitarix, perhaps
somebody approachable is willing to learn how to use Guitarix to
eliminate technical facts by the magic of Guitarix tube amp emulation
algorithms.
10:13 a.m.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 09:02:34AM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Sun, 2014-08-24 at 15:25 +0000, Fons Adriaensen
wrote:
And in theory it could, but I don't think Hermann is advising anyone
to use Guitarix to fix a technical issue such as this one. For a piezo
pickup you need the right preamp, either a very high-Z one or a charge
amplifier. Not to create any 'sound' but just to make it work as intended.
This has nothing at all to do with Guitarix or even tube emulation in
general, so you better stop whining about it.
Ciao,
--
FA
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
Piezos have a capacitive impedance, together with
the preamp resistive
input impedance this forms a first order highpass filter. A typical mic
input is around 2 kOhms, this would place the cutoff frequency somewhere
in the high audio range, with 6 dB/oct below that. Could be EQ'd in theory,
but for musical use it's usually better to use a high-Z preamp.
Have you tested Guitarix? Hermann claims that Guitarix fix such an
issue, if you know how to handle Guitarix.
10:41 a.m.
On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 08:13 +0000, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 09:02:34AM +0200, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
There's to much interaction regarding the dynamic playing done by the
guitar player and the preamplification, unlikely that it make sense
trying to fix it by a digital algorithm. The output of most simulations
usually is without dynamic and add much noise.
On Sun, 2014-08-24 at 15:25 +0000, Fons
Adriaensen wrote:
And in theory it could, Piezos have a capacitive impedance, together with
the preamp resistive
input impedance this forms a first order highpass filter. A typical mic
input is around 2 kOhms, this would place the cutoff frequency somewhere
in the high audio range, with 6 dB/oct below that. Could be EQ'd in theory,
but for musical use it's usually better to use a high-Z preamp.
Have you tested Guitarix? Hermann claims that Guitarix fix such an
issue, if you know how to handle Guitarix. but I don't think Hermann is advising anyone
to use Guitarix to fix a technical issue such as this one. For a piezo
pickup you need the right preamp, either a very high-Z one or a charge
amplifier. Not to create any 'sound' but just to make it work as intended.
This has nothing at all to do with Guitarix or even tube emulation in
general, so you better stop whining about it.
Actually I was talking about preamps when using a guitar plugged into a
mixer. Feel free to search the mailing list archive. Hermann recommended
to use Guitarix and started dissing me, when I said that Guitarix can
not provide what has to be done by the right amplification in the first
place. Please don't misrepresent it. Hermann claimed something without
understanding what the discussion was about and he claimed something
that should be provided by Guitarix, that can not be provided. I pointed
out that even plugging in a Boss transistor stompbox between guitar and
mixer (or sound card) sometimes is better to fix the main issue, than
using amp and speaker emulations. Hermann claimed that this isn't true,
Guitarix does the trick, no correct preamp is needed.
10:51 a.m.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:41:44AM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Hermann claimed something without understanding what
the
discussion was about
So he made a mistake. No reason to amplify that out of
proportion.
--
FA
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
11:39 a.m.
On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 08:51 +0000, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:41:44AM +0200, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
My apologies, my apologies also to Hermann. Indeed, there was no need to
expand the discussion.
Hermann claimed something without understanding
what the
discussion was about
So he made a mistake. No reason to amplify that out of
proportion.
10:45 p.m.
Am 25.08.2014 10:51, schrieb Fons Adriaensen:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:41:44AM +0200, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
for the record, here we go
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-dev/2014-August/thread.ht…
All I do is just to require ralf to stop compare bananas with peaches.
(Okay, it's eggplants what I talk about. peaches, do someone mention
peaches? apples? oranges? Oh shit, . . . )
Hermann claimed something without understanding
what the
discussion was about
So he made a mistake. No reason to amplify that out of
proportion.
10:47 a.m.
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 08:13:28 +0000
Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)linuxaudio.org> wrote:
... or a charge amplifier.
Interesting you mention that. I was wondering if that sort of thing would
work, although I didn't know the name - I had to look it up :)
--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.
11:09 a.m.
On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 09:47 +0100, Will Godfrey wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 08:13:28 +0000
Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)linuxaudio.org> wrote:
Unfortunately the English Wiki for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guitar_pickup#Preamps doesn't mention the
Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_amplifier , while the charge
amplifier Wiki links to the guitar pickup Wiki.
For Germans I recommend http://www.sengpielaudio.com/ , no liability
assumed. People often claim that Wiki knowhow isn't that good, but the
knowhow about audio engineering in German Wikis usually is very good. I
wasn't aware that many Wikis are written by Sengpiel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eberhard_Sengpiel , but there are a lot of
other good Wikis about audio engineering that seem to be written by
others. Perhaps somebody with better English skills than mine, should
share some audio knowhow in the way it's done in German.
I never read a German audio engineering Wiki and wanted to correct
something, all I read was superb.
... or a charge amplifier.
Interesting you mention that. I was wondering if that sort of thing would
work, although I didn't know the name - I had to look it up :)
11:18 a.m.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 09:47:31AM +0100, Will Godfrey wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 08:13:28 +0000
Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)linuxaudio.org> wrote:
The output produced by a piezo is an electric charge proportional
to the mechanical input, so a charge amp is the right way to
capture it, and the standard one for scientific or technical use.
Basically what a charge amp does is to short-circuit the piezo
and integrate the resulting current. And since current * time =
charge, this produces the right output.
What happens with a high-Z input instead is that the capacitance
of the piezo itself plus that of the cable acts as the integrator.
Ciao,
--
FA
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
... or a charge amplifier.
Interesting you mention that. I was wondering if that sort of thing would
work, although I didn't know the name - I had to look it up :)
12:23 a.m.
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 07:19:11AM -0700, Len Ovens wrote:
Certaimly this is an extreme example and while a
pickup is nice for
performing, I normally use a mic for this guitar for recording.
Still some piezo pickups can produce a really nice sound when used
on a good instrument, in particular for the more jazzy genres.
I've been amazed by this many times.
For many people the best thing is a mic with a USB
plug on it.
Sadly, yes.
Ciao,
--
FA
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
1:31 a.m.
New subject: More-OT: Pickups <-Fader mapping <- Ardour MIDI tracer
On August 24, 2014 10:23:28 PM Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 07:19:11AM -0700, Len Ovens
wrote:
Good vibrations. Sorry for the OT steering...
My acoustic has one built in. Beautiful bright sound.
Piezos are so bright they usually require EQ-ing at the
pickup preamp stage. And a pickup preamp IS required.
Didn't know much about the mechanism 'till I studied
piezo/magnetic differences the other day on the 'net.
Now I know my acoustic a little better.
Piezo = bright(er than) single-coil sound + no magnetic hum. Yay.
I like those new piezo clamp-to-head tuners. Some show all strings at once.
Say, optical pickups, anyone?
http://willcoxguitars.com/custom-splash
The products use this:
http://lightwave-systems.com
I noticed that the strings seem to be covered by the optical block(s)
some distance out from the bridge.
This might explain why there doesn't seem to be any electric guitars
shown, only bass and electro-acoustic, because we would need
close-to-the-bridge palm muting, although the ElectroAcoustic model
may be able to get a good sound, after all optical sound is completely
different and neither acoustic nor electric.
Tim.
Certaimly this is an extreme example and while a
pickup is nice for
performing, I normally use a mic for this guitar for recording.
Still some piezo pickups can produce a really nice sound when used
on a good instrument, in particular for the more jazzy genres.
I've been amazed by this many times. For many people the best thing is a mic with a
USB plug on it.
Sadly, yes.
Ciao,
3513
days inactive
3530
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
43 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
Fons Adriaensen -
Gene Heskett -
Gerald Mwangi -
Grekim Jennings -
hermann meyer -
James Morris -
Joakim Hernberg -
Len Ovens -
Ralf Mardorf -
Tim E. Real -
Will Godfrey