2KnockZ
Newbie
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 6
|
| Software vs. hardware |
 |
|
Basically this is designed for supporters of both designs to battle it out with each opinions. But u have 2 state good reasons why. This is mainly for my benefit so I know which avenue to take for my production work! |
Wed Aug 11, 2004 6:18 am |
|
|
someone
Newbie
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 7
|
| hardware!!! |
|
|
hardware for sure!! in order to get high quality recordings you need high quality hardware (ie... studio condenser mics, studio monitors, prosessors, and so on). you can't expect to get great sound quality with a cheap 20 buck dynamic mic. before i got my home studio i was using just a cheap dynamic mic hooked up to the crappy sound card that comes in a laptop, and the mix of my recording sounded alright but it was lacking the quality, the clearness... then i ordered myself a
-studio projects c1 studio condenser mic,
-a pair of behringer truth b2031 studio monitors,
-behringer composer pro-xl (compressor),
-behringer ultrafex,
-a mackie dfx-12 (which i am not to satisfied with by the way, not good at all for a studio :S),
-a samson drum mic kit (7 piece).
-i also use monster cables for my hooking up my studio monitors, and to hook up the mixer to the nice sound card i ordered (m-audio).
using this equipment gives me amazing sound quality in my recordings. it's very impressive. so i would say you for sure need good hardware. don't get me wronge, it also helps to use good recording software.
 someone cool !! |
|
Wed Aug 11, 2004 10:08 pm |
|
|
|
|
someone
Newbie
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 7
|
oh and of course to get a good sounding recording of a guitar or drumset... you need to have a good sounding guitar or drumset. even if you have the best equipment in the world and record a crappy sounding guitar, you will be hearing a crappy sounding guitar in the end.
ME |
|
Wed Aug 11, 2004 10:28 pm |
|
|
phile
Eager Beaver
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
Posts: 11
|
@2KnockZ, Depends what kind of music you are after?!?
@someone, and without good rooom acoustics you will be recording all the reflections you want and even the best guitar can sound like %$@#.... good sound is a function of a lot of things or as I usually say : Your sound is as good as the weakest link in your signal path, raised to the power of air between the cones and your ears  |
|
Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:56 am |
|
|
|
|
2KnockZ
Newbie
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 6
|
| Yeh phile |
|
|
I woz kinda thinking wot us said but I like to hear other peeps opinions. U see, alot my production work has been based on high quality samples and soundfonts that have either been from sample disks, downloaded or recorded by friends.
My friend who currently owns his own studio records alot of samples for me, like his elec and acoustic guitar and his drumkit, and the sound is really good. Now, when I put all these samples together in a song, I usually use sequencing software (mainly Cubase) but I have at times used FL Studio for the beats. I create the drum loops in FL then import them into Reason which has a real nice sound but there is this one guy who is so adamant that its hardware and hardware alone that should be used. Now I'm thinking 'ok, but the sound I'm getting sounds as good as the records in the charts so what is wrong, what is lacking?'
At the time being, I simply can't afford to buy all the top in the range hardware, being a 16 yr old student but even so, some of the stuff I produce sounds real proffessional. When people come to me talkin bout 'the quality' that hardware produces, I cringe because I tweak my ears as much as humanly possible and ask other peoples opinions also, to discern the differences in quality from something produced using hardware and another using software.
Now, as for live instruments, then you can say there is an advantage over software. Some techniques are really difficult to pull off. Trying to replicate a guitar or violin's vibrato is damn hard when using a synthesizer. That's my only 'advantage' point I think deserves to be given.
Just my opinions anyway. Still would like to hear more responses. thanks phile and someone. |
|
Fri Aug 13, 2004 10:18 am |
|
|
phile
Eager Beaver
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
Posts: 11
|
|
|
|
well, here is what I think:
About the samples -- yes we all use those man (Akai, giga, EMU...). The thing is all those samples and everything has to go through the internal mixer of the host you're using and that's where it all comes down to the quality of the code and the programmers behind it. Every time you run the signal through a plugin there is usually a dither behind the scenes involved - some plugins are 64bit float and hosts are usually 32bit float on the internal mixer and to come out to 24bit fixed ( as is the case with most bouncing and rendering) there is another step involved. Now, there is a thing called "cumulative dither" and it's affect on sound quality but that's nother topic. My point is first: Reason is not the best in that aspect (their code is not up to par with Cubase or Logic),. and I got their rep to admit that the output is not as good as the above mentioned. With hardware, well you will have to record it right, so you'd better have some very nice converters/preamps to make a difference from the highquality sample ilbraries. The simple fact that it's hardware does not mean s*&t, especially in the case of Behringer and the other more "affordable" manufacturers. Behringer I would not touch with a 10meter broomstick. So, when you record the hardware in the digital domain then it all comes down to code and quality of the signal path and preamps/resolution on the recorded audio, unless you're doing your bus sums of all hardware outs on a nice console...... And that's where the difference comes, imho, you will _never_ get the sound of an SSL or Neve from you mackie or the digital mixer or your card/sequencer...... warmth and snr take on a whole new perspective.. ahh and crest factors are much friendlier.... You say that the sound you're getting sounds as good as commercial production. How exactly do you compare?! Is it only you that compares it?! Is it the same eviroment?! Same monitoring?! What are you using for reference?!? It's really really hard to place an objective judgement on your own work and even harder to master it (there is always stuff that you tend to miss, and that an extra set of ears can pick up on). Run it through spectrafoo ro something like that see the signatures and asumed spl ...might tell you some thing .... But, hey don't get me wrong , if you truely have been able to achieve that high quality pro sound at home -- then more power to you, I really respect that, and would definitely be interested in sharing some thoughts.... What music style are we talking about to begin with. I am into idm/breaks/d'n'b/downtempo/ambient, blah blah....
Ahh yea and about the live played instruments -- I don't know man ... I can't imagine a "dive" or "butterfly" sounding good on a virtual guitar.... but yet I cna't play drums so I will have to program them -- different aspects of hardware . For performance instruments it's what you play, for studio gear is what you can afford (BUT, be smart about it).....
Btw, M-Audio is ok ,l but they are really not up to par when you do A/B to say -- Metric Halo. I used Delta 1010PCI for like three years before switching to MH -- the difference is like night and day ....now the only thing that can pray me away from my Metric Halo is probably some nice Apogee (may be Lucid too ......but the modularity of the MH just tips the weights a little ).....
hope this helps... |
|
Fri Aug 13, 2004 12:22 pm |
|
|
|
|
phile
Eager Beaver
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
Posts: 11
|
Oo yea and another thing -- if you bounce internally -- the sound is not going through the converters of the interface so if you wan tto capture them -- use a good external recorder. I am currently using Alesis ML-9600. |
|
Fri Aug 13, 2004 12:27 pm |
|
|
AUdIoCoUrSeS
Joined: 31 Oct 2002
Posts: 2014
|
| Great Work |
|
|
Some really good debates developing here and the input from all has been great.
The comparisions should continue, and as mentioned, the reference environments really ought to be nailed down.
Is dither such a large factor in determining the "pro sound", indeed what does that mean, "pro sound"?
Curious to see how this develops.
_________________
It's all in the ears. - Learn the concepts not the software.
Audio Courses is a way into the music business for you
|
|
Fri Aug 13, 2004 1:11 pm |
|
|
|
|
phile
Eager Beaver
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
Posts: 11
|
|
|
|
Hi,
No, I don't think it's such a large factor, but something definitely to have in mind, an dit can definitely play part in the quality of the output. You mentioned Bob Katz if I am not mistaken in a different topic, well, he talks quite extensively about dithers in his articles and especially in Mastering Auiod(which I couldn't wait to get released ) I actually think that the "pro sound" is going down the tubes with everybody only being concerned if their material is if not louder at least as loud as the other guy's. I really don't know what "pro sound" is -- I use my ears to compare commercially released products, as close as they can be, but I don't have a properly calibrated enviroment (I know I am wayyyy off RP200, I am trying to adjust for K- ....but, that takes experience that I don't have) and only a 2.0 monitoring (i.e no matched sub).... I do believe that if you want to hear what the difference is you should check out some audiophile clas releases, imho.. like some of these:
here
.
This is a part of my humble setup:
|
|
Fri Aug 13, 2004 1:44 pm |
|
|
 
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri May 16, 2008 10:46 am
|
|
|
|
| |
