The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
New Book Coming on Decca Recording Technique
Old 14th May 2021
  #271
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
I like 'Gordon Parry and the Italian Tea Boy' line in Humphreys commentary....
Old 25th May 2021 | Show parent
  #272
Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 ➡️
I got a chance to try out the Decca 2 x 2 Tree tonight...AB 50cm omni main pair KM183... with MKH 8020 flankers.

You should be able to see them all in the front camera shot from the streamcast...no spot mics used.

Main pair were pannned 75% left and right, flankers/outriggers hard left/right

My thought was that additional spots might conspire to collapse the front to back depth... your thoughts and reflections on this 'spotless frontal quartet' welcomed !

https://vimeo.com/546802195
Could it be that the out-riggers are reversed panned? The stereo image is very confusing.
Old 31st May 2021 | Show parent
  #273
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orgeltonmeister ➡️
Could it be that the out-riggers are reversed panned? The stereo image is very confusing.
It's quite possible....remedied in this return to same venue and setup (May 29th Vimeo) ....with addition of ORTF 'orchestral stereo spot' at the right of conductor's RH shoulder (for piano concerto only):

https://arts.adelaide.edu.au/music/e...concert-series

Concert commences at approx. 15:50.

Main AB pair panned out 90%, omni flankers 100% left/right
Old 31st May 2021 | Show parent
  #274
Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 ➡️
It's quite possible....remedied in this return to same venue and setup (May 29th Vimeo) ....with addition of ORTF 'orchestral stereo spot' at the right of conductor's RH shoulder (for piano concerto only):

https://arts.adelaide.edu.au/music/e...concert-series

Concert commences at approx. 15:50.

Main AB pair panned out 90%, omni flankers 100% left/right
Stereo image is fine, nice recording and well played.
Old 4th June 2021 | Show parent
  #275
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
The book has some good tips on spot miking for double bass (in both section and individual miking) in an orchestral context….but doesn’t address a situation where there might be loud brass or a tymp directly adjacent to a pair of basses….any suggestions (fig 8 maybe?)

Last edited by studer58; 5th June 2021 at 05:30 AM..
Old 4th June 2021 | Show parent
  #276
Lives for gear
 
fred2bern's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 ➡️
The book has some good tips on spot miking for both double bass section and individual miking in an orchestral context….but doesn’t address a situation where there might be loud brass or a tymp closely nearby…any suggestions (fig 8 maybe?)
Plexi walls like "Clearsonic" work very well in this situation. Sometimes fig8 is not the ultimate solution because in some room, when it is really too loud, you have too much signal in the rear lobe.

"Treating" the room became something more and more important to me. The more the acoustic sounds good, the less you have to deal with microphone choice and positioning...
Old 4th June 2021 | Show parent
  #277
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by fred2bern ➡️
Plexi walls like "Clearsonic" work very well in this situation. Sometimes fig8 is not the ultimate solution because in some room, when it is really too loud, you have too much signal in the rear lobe.

"Treating" the room became something more and more important to me. The more the acoustic sounds good, the less you have to deal with microphone choice and positioning...
Oops…I should have mentioned it’s in a concert, not studio, context…so more ‘combat conditions/damage mitigation’ mode Thus plexi panels not possible…

I’m going to try a dynamic mic, most likely an Audio Technica ATM250, as that should give me the desired degree of ‘side deafness’ I’m seeking?

Last edited by studer58; 5th June 2021 at 05:30 AM..
Old 5th June 2021 | Show parent
  #278
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
The ATM250 did the trick…who’d have thought a hypercard dynamic kick mic would have a place in this context ? I’ll post some audio in the next few days…
Old 14th June 2021 | Show parent
  #279
Here for the gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush ➡️
Here's what I do:

I mic most things with stereo spots
a ton of tube mics
mostly omni mics (known as a real microphone)
no time alignment ever
spaced or non coincident mains
I don't record with any EQ
often mix directly to stereo with a Sonosax mixer
Mix to a Sonosax SX-R4+ recorder or to a Nagra Seven recorder or to a Stellavox SM-8 tape recorder
Reverb added at the session
I use an Acousence a/d converter
Hudson,
From what I've had the pleasure to listened to, your recordings are superb! I'm a bit late to this discussion. When you use omni spots, do you mean in studio? Do you find yourself a bit closer than you would otherwise be to your targets with omnis? And, what reverb(s) do you like? Thanks!
Old 15th June 2021 | Show parent
  #280
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
 
5 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by rohlfie ➡️
Hudson,
From what I've had the pleasure to listened to, your recordings are superb! I'm a bit late to this discussion. When you use omni spots, do you mean in studio? Do you find yourself a bit closer than you would otherwise be to your targets with omnis? And, what reverb(s) do you like? Thanks!
Thank you for your questions. In general, like many here, I rely on something far and something closer. Main pair can be ORTF or NOS or spaced omni on a bar (Rens Heijnis modified B&K 4006). Most soloists are miced in stereo with cardioid or some wider variant. Piano always gets Schoeps MK2 omnis or Schoeps MK5 omni mics. Chorus with orch. gets Pearl CC-22 cardioid--usually 5 or 6 of them. Chorus alone gets main pair and Pearl accents close in.

In order to imitate a cardioid mic with an omni, I move in about half again as close as I would with a cardioid mic. Just adjust impression of directionality by ear.

Currently using SONOSAX analog mixer. For reverb I like QUANTEC Yardstick or Lexicon 92.

For a/d conversion I just switched to the German artistic-fidelity
ACOUSENCE 191 designed by Ralf Koschnicke. Best converter out there by far to my ear. Supplied by Roland Storch at ADEBAR ACOUSTICS, Wiesbaden, Germany.
Old 10th July 2021
  #281
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by citerbottal ➡️
Classical recordings after 1955 sound great. Their recording technology was light years ahead of that of popular music at the time (rock/pop did not catch up until the late 60s).

There's a bit of 'tape hiss' on many Sony/CBS recordings from this time but other than that they sound great. It's only pre-1955 that I start worrying that a recording is 'historical', that I'm supposed to ignore large recording defects in order to appreciate a specific performance.
Yes, early recordings, like early films, are almost impossible to consume.

But hearing Caruso sing E lucevan le Stelle in The Truffle Hunters was really moving. Recording was from first decade of 20C. One can only imagine how wonderful he would have sounded if properly recorded.
Old 20th July 2021 | Show parent
  #282
Here for the gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush ➡️
Thank you for your questions. In general, like many here, I rely on something far and something closer. Main pair can be ORTF or NOS or spaced omni on a bar (Rens Heijnis modified B&K 4006). Most soloists are miced in stereo with cardioid or some wider variant. Piano always gets Schoeps MK2 omnis or Schoeps MK5 omni mics. Chorus with orch. gets Pearl CC-22 cardioid--usually 5 or 6 of them. Chorus alone gets main pair and Pearl accents close in.

In order to imitate a cardioid mic with an omni, I move in about half again as close as I would with a cardioid mic. Just adjust impression of directionality by ear.

Currently using SONOSAX analog mixer. For reverb I like QUANTEC Yardstick or Lexicon 92.

For a/d conversion I just switched to the German artistic-fidelity
ACOUSENCE 191 designed by Ralf Koschnicke. Best converter out there by far to my ear. Supplied by Roland Storch at ADEBAR ACOUSTICS, Wiesbaden, Germany.
Wow! Sorry, just now seeing this (need to change my notification preferences). Thanks for the detailed response! That all sounds amazing! When in studio, do you shy away from tracking in order to preserve the cohesiveness of an ensemble performance? In other words, do you use gobos or the like to add a bit of separation as needed. I imagine that could get tricky, especially if you wanted to avail yourself of a favorable acoustic.
During the pandemic, I've faced the most challenging of recording scenarios with the somewhat limited capacity I have (about 16 mics). Everybody spread waaay out, and louder instruments like horns or tympani positioned out front. Choirs in multiple places spread out. Especially challenging when all guns are blazing!
Assuming you still capture iso tracks fed from your analog mixer, do you use the mixer because it allows you better control? Or is there a sonic quality/tactile benefit? I know the Swiss issued Sonosax recorders employ some pretty advanced technology affording a wider dynamic range recording. Sound Devices has issued and is continuing to evolve in the direction of 32 bit floating point *recording,* effectively accommodating unlimited dynamic range (within the physical limits of recording). They presently offer it in their Mix-Pre series, but not yet in their top tier line, likely because of insane data requirements. I'm curious if anyone will bother to combine the two technologies of unlimited dynamic range with DSD when processing and memory allow it. Haha! But on the other end of those considerations is why you'd need that, except occasionally. For someone who knows what they're doing, there would be few occasions when you'd actually need it in classical music recording, assuming you have a high-quality, low noise signal already. But that's all off topic for this thread! Thanks for checking back!
Old 16th August 2021
  #283
Gear Nut
 
the book references this recording of Turandot - which is simply a desert island disc for me

the recording really captures the fortitude of Puccini tutti's
when the book references 64 in the diagram section - what mic is that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1NwSKCoK2Q
Old 16th August 2021 | Show parent
  #284
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pickett ➡️
the book references this recording of Turandot - which is simply a desert island disc for me

the recording really captures the fortitude of Puccini tutti's
when the book references 64 in the diagram section - what mic is that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1NwSKCoK2Q
“For the Turandot recording, the vocal soloists were positioned about six to seven feet apart and six to seven feet behind the woodwind section, with a similar amount of space behind each singer, enabling them to move forward and back as required. A KM64 was positioned about eight feet in front of each singer. As for bleed, that was never a problem.

"There's nothing wrong with it," explains Lock. "You don't go for separation. What you go for is clarity, and sometimes you get the clarity by way of the bleeding. Even with pop music you don't need to have loads of separation, in my opinion. After all, once you separate everything you've got to put it back together again, haven't you? There's no logic in that. It's a question of using, with discretion, the spot mic in relation to the main pickup mics. In other words, if you raise the spot mic more than necessary, it will stick out. Instead, you should raise it to the point where there's clarity but it still retains the distance and perspective. It's a technique you have to learn."

My guess would therefore be Neumann KM64…


Source of the good sauce: https://www.soundonsound.com/people/...classic-tracks

Last edited by studer58; 16th August 2021 at 03:05 PM..
Old 16th August 2021 | Show parent
  #285
Old 22nd August 2021 | Show parent
  #286
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
An interpretive request: with regard to the "small Decca Tree" dimensions.....chapter/section 12.1.1, and associated pictures 12.1a and 12.1b

The text states: "A smaller Decca Tree can be used, with each of the three microphones spaced at around 50–56 cm (19.5″ to 22″) from the centre point of the tree"

I'd take that to mean that each 'branch' extends out from the fixed centre hub by 50-56 cm ....yet the diagram picture 12.1a shows the span distance (between the 2 rear left/right mics) to be 57-61 cm (19"-22"), which neither conforms to the text, nor bears a close relation to it ? Following the text guidance, shouldn't that rear left/right span be 100-112cm ?

Figure 12.1b (side view) shows the forward/centre mic to be 12" (30.5cms) from the fixed centre hub....which is close to half of the pictured span between the rear pair, so there's at least some consistency there, pictorially ?

19" = 48.3 cms....
19.5" = 49.5 cms
22"= 55.9 cms....
57cms = 22.4"....
61cms = 24"....
100cms = 39.4"....
112cms = 44"....

Can anyone lend some clarity please (or perhaps have a hotline to the authors) ?

Last edited by studer58; 22nd August 2021 at 04:51 PM..
Old 22nd August 2021 | Show parent
  #287
Lives for gear
 
wildplum's Avatar
 
🎧 20 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 ➡️
An interpretive request: with regard to the "small Decca Tree" dimensions.....chapter/section 12.1.1, and associated pictures 12.1a and 12.1b

The text states: "A smaller Decca Tree can be used, with each of the three microphones spaced at around 50–56 cm (19.5″ to 22″) from the centre point of the tree"

I'd take that to mean that each 'branch' extends out from the fixed centre hub by 50-56 cm ....yet the diagram picture 12.1a shows the span distance (between the 2 rear left/right mics) to be 57-61 cm (19"-22"), which neither conforms to the text, nor bears a close relation to it ? Following the text guidance, shouldn't that rear left/right span be 100-112cm ?

Figure 12.1b (side view) shows the forward/centre mic to be 12" (30.5cms) from the fixed centre hub....which is close to half of the pictured span between the rear pair, so there's at least some consistency there, pictorially ?

19" = 48.3 cms....
19.5" = 49.5 cms
22"= 55.9 cms....
57cms = 22.4"....
61cms = 24"....
100cms = 39.4"....
112cms = 44"....

Can anyone lend some clarity please (or perhaps have a hotline to the authors) ?
see the reply to post #118 . (the text is correct.)
Old 22nd August 2021 | Show parent
  #288
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildplum ➡️
see the reply to post #118 . (the text is correct.)
Thanks wildplum....I thought I'd seen reference to a few corrections and clarifications in recent months, and yours nailed this one...sorry for repetition !

BTW...have you (or other contributors here) tried out this smaller Tree with any success ?
Old 15th September 2021 | Show parent
  #289
Here for the gear
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush ➡️
Thank you for your questions. In general, like many here, I rely on something far and something closer. Main pair can be ORTF or NOS or spaced omni on a bar (Rens Heijnis modified B&K 4006). Most soloists are miced in stereo with cardioid or some wider variant. Piano always gets Schoeps MK2 omnis or Schoeps MK5 omni mics. Chorus with orch. gets Pearl CC-22 cardioid--usually 5 or 6 of them. Chorus alone gets main pair and Pearl accents close in.

In order to imitate a cardioid mic with an omni, I move in about half again as close as I would with a cardioid mic. Just adjust impression of directionality by ear.

Currently using SONOSAX analog mixer. For reverb I like QUANTEC Yardstick or Lexicon 92.

For a/d conversion I just switched to the German artistic-fidelity
ACOUSENCE 191 designed by Ralf Koschnicke. Best converter out there by far to my ear. Supplied by Roland Storch at ADEBAR ACOUSTICS, Wiesbaden, Germany.
Thank you very much!
Old 25th September 2021 | Show parent
  #290
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by fred2bern ➡️
The more the acoustic sounds good, the less you have to deal with microphone choice and positioning...
One of the funny paradoxes in recording. You need to be a much better engineer in a terrible acoustic. In fact bad acoustics can really teach one a lot about mic technique.
Old 26th September 2021 | Show parent
  #291
Lives for gear
 
kludgeaudio's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Spearritt ➡️
One of the funny paradoxes in recording. You need to be a much better engineer in a terrible acoustic. In fact bad acoustics can really teach one a lot about mic technique.
Absolutely. And sadly, it sometimes requires better microphones too.
--scott
Old 29th September 2021 | Show parent
  #292
Lives for gear
 
hbphotoav's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by kludgeaudio ➡️
Absolutely. And sadly, it sometimes requires better microphones too.
--scott
I would only submit "usually" for "sometimes...
Old 3rd October 2021 | Show parent
  #293
Registered User
 
🎧 5 years
I am reading this book (at chapter 13 now) and find it very interesting. However, I have to take issue with one thing. In several places the book warns against "blasts of air" from brass instruments. I suppose it depends on your definition of "blast", but having played the trumpet for 42 years I can tell you that brass instruments do not produce what I would call "blasts" of air. At most these are barely perceptible wafts of air.

Perhaps contrary to popular belief, a brass instrument does not produce sound through movement of air. What produces the sound is the vibration of the lips. Air movement is a side effect and not a goal unto itself.

The narrowest part of a trumpet mouthpiece, called the "throat", is a few millimeters across (about 3.6mm or 0.14"). The volume of air that is moved through that throat of the mouthpiece is dispersed at the other end of the trumpet across the entire bell which ranges in diameter between 4.5" ~ 5". You can test this yourself in a way: blow against the palm of your hand. Now open your mouth wide and expel the same volume of air.

So will a larger instrument than a trumpet (for example a trombone, a euphonium or a bass tuba) have stronger air currents emanating from the bell? Answer: No. While these instruments can require more air from the player (especially a bass tuba), this is dispersed over a much larger bell.

To put it in recording engineer terms, disregarding SPL considerations I would be more concerned about moving a ribbon microphone across the room than I would be of placing it 6 inches in front of the bell of a trombone.

<End of rant>

Regards, Christine
Old 3rd October 2021 | Show parent
  #294
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by connloyalist ➡️
To put it in recording engineer terms, disregarding SPL considerations I would be more concerned about moving a ribbon microphone across the room than I would be of placing it 6 inches in front of the bell of a trombone.

<End of rant>

Regards, Christine
Quite correct....the ways of 'moving air' in either a musical or environmental context are many and varied. Do record wind instruments off axis to the bell or horn, you can safely record voice or piano, perhaps even kick drum, at a smaller than expected distance.... at least when it comes to rubbon mics
Old 3rd October 2021 | Show parent
  #295
Lives for gear
 
tourtelot's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by connloyalist ➡️
but having played the trumpet for 42 years I can tell you that brass instruments do not produce what I would call "blasts" of air. At most these are barely perceptible wafts of air.
I didn't know that. Thanks so much for a bit of useful education. I appreciate the knowledge gained.

D.
Old 3rd October 2021 | Show parent
  #296
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Perhaps the book only meant to convey blasts of SPL from brass instruments, rather than massive air movement.

To nit pick a bit, the only reason vibrating lips produce a sound is through 'movement of air' - not a side effect.
Old 18th April 2022 | Show parent
  #297
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted 141eef3 ➡️
No disrespect whatsoever intended to Robert Toft but I have read it and I can say unequivocally that there is basically nothing in that one which is not covered better and in more depth elsewhere -- e.g. Richard King's book, Acoustics and the Performance of Music, the one discussed here by Dunkerley et al.

The Richard King book is excellent.
What I’m picking up from the author’s field of academic interest is that there might be more of a vocal focus …or voice accompaniment by piano/fortepiano, if you examine the Table of Contents and Case Studies in links below:

https://www.routledge.com/Recording-...9780815380245#

https://routledgetextbooks.com/textb...se-studies.php

Also ‘Description’ in this Amazon link:

https://www.amazon.com.au/Recording-...0259/ref=nodl_

The author’s record label has 2 early music releases: https://www.talbotrecords.net/secret-fires-of-love

Last edited by studer58; 18th April 2022 at 06:56 AM..
Old 3 weeks ago | Show parent
  #298
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Mark Rogers...one of this (ie OP topic) book's co-authors...lists his philosophy towards gear, as well as the key items he relies upon...and a surprising addition to his DAW inventory, of the usual suspects:

In the studio and out on the road

"I work both on the road at in my studio. Most recording takes place on location, and most post-production in the studio.

My mobile recording rig is comprehensive enough to record a full symphony orchestra and chorus but still fits in a small van. It is fully flightcased, and usually I just need somewhere with a power socket and a bit of light in order to get set up. Many years' experience of classical recording on location has given me the skills to get excellent results in churches, school halls, concert halls, stately homes etc.

My studio is fully equipped for all aspects of post-production, including mixing, editing and mastering. It is a room whose acoustic properties I know very well, and I get consistently good results that translate well to all listening environments, from high-end hifi to iPods to boomboxes.
How important is equipment?

Before I list some of the equipment I use, please let me make a point about its importance. I am a strong believer that the quality of the equipment used is as nothing compared with the skill of the person using it. In my lounge I have a much-loved battered old upright piano, which my 1-year-old daughter likes to 'play'. Even if I replaced it with a £90,000 Steinway Model D, I don't think she would make great music on it, as she doesn't (yet) have the skills. But if Alfred Brendel paid us a visit, and knocked out the Hammerklavier sonata on the upright, it would sound incredible. Sure, I have absolutely no doubt that it would sound even better on a Steinway, but the point is still clear - it's the skill of the user that makes by far the biggest impact on the quality of the result, whatever gear is used. So please don't pay too much attention to gear lists - so far as I am concerned, they are usually irrelevant.

In many ways I am a contrarian when it comes to equipment. I take great pride in not following the herd into buying the latest gadget-of-the-month. Whenever anyone implies that you cannot get a great sound without using the latest HokeyCokey2000, or that you have to use high sample rates (complete garbage), I just go back to some of the first CDs I ever worked on (analogue remasters of 1970s Decca opera recordings transferred to digital in the mid 1980s using analogue-to-digital converters that are of lower quality than the cheapest piece of current Behringer equipment) and am moved to tears by the sheer opulence and gorgeousness of the sound. All thanks to great artists recorded by great engineers.

My decision on what gear to use for a particular task is always based on a simple question: given the inevitable practical constraints, whether in time, budget or anything else, what is the most appropriate tool for this task? If someone asks me whether I have ProTools, I tend to reply along the lines of "I'm a pro, and I use appropriate tools." The point being that I want to be judged on my results, not on what I use to achieve those results. Do my recordings and mixes sound fantastic? Did I deliver on time and on budget? Did I supply exactly what I was asked to supply - file formats, documentation etc? Was working with me an enjoyable and stress-free experience? So far as I am concerned, those are the questions that really matter.
Equipment

So having said all that, here is some of the gear I use in my post-production studio and mobile recording rig:

Customised PMC Monitoring
Bricasti M7 reverb
RME audio interfaces (RayDAT, Fireface etc)
Yamaha 01V96 digital mixer
DAV Electronics (Decca) mic amps
Neumann, AKG, Groove Tubes, Studio Projects mics
Schoeps and DPA mics (hired in when required)
Sennheiser HD600 headphones
Beyer Dynamic DT880 Pro headphones
Self-designed and built monitoring controller and studio communications system
Plugins from Sonoris, JMS Audioware, Universal Audio etc
Algorithmix reNOVAtor noise removal
Celemony Melodyne pitch and time correction (including Direct Note Access polyphonic pitch correction)
Self-written Lumberjack session logging software
SAW Studio Digital Audio Workstation
Pyramix Digital Audio Workstation
Sony Vegas Pro video editing
Mediachance DVD-lab PRO 2 authoring
Sonoris DDP Creator
Sibelius notation software

Digital Audio Workstations

My main two Digital Audio Workstations (DAWs) are Pyramix and SAW Studio. Pyramix, together with SADiE and Sequoia, are the acknowledged standards in classical music - all of them feature the key elements of a comprehensive fade editor linked to a four-point (source/destination) editing model. I'm comfortable with all three, and use Pyramix for most of my classical editing.

SAW Studio is much less well known. Written by just one man - Bob Lentini - it is in many ways the antithesis of the marketing-led approach of most of its competitors, and thus appeals greatly to my contrarian nature! Bob is an audio engineer in his own right (and a phenomenally talented one, it must be said), and wrote SAW (Software Audio Workshop) mainly for his own use. His marketing philosophy, such as it is, can pretty much be summed up as "if you like working the way I like working, then great - welcome aboard - but if you want it tweaked to suit your particular foibles, then I politely suggest you look elsewhere". I appreciate this single-minded, no nonsense style.

SAW Studio has no superflous bells and whistles, is incredibly fast and compact (installation takes about ten seconds, boot up takes less than two), and hasn't crashed on me for as long as I can remember. It also breaks many of the conventions that software is "supposed" to follow. For example, most software is designed (successfully or not) to be easy to learn for a beginner - i.e. it tries to be intuitive. But what makes software easy for the beginner can lead to it becoming inefficient for the expert user. SAW Studio is not remotely intuitive - the screen isn't covered with buttons and menus, it doesn't use standard keystrokes, and many things can't be done without using a keystroke combination that you can only discover by the old-fashioned method of reading the manual. So, unlike other DAWs such as ProTools, it is not at all freelance-friendly. But if you make the effort to learn it, it becomes blazingly fast and efficient.

And above all it sounds great. I find it by far the best environment I have ever used for mixing - with exactly the combination of precision and creativity that I like. The software never gets in the way - I never have to think about how to use it, and it frees me to concentrate on getting the sound I want"

http://mark-rogers.com/index.php/equipment
Old 3 weeks ago | Show parent
  #299
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
"Lumberjack" is Mark Rogers' logging app for recording sessions: http://mark-rogers.com/index.php/software/lumberjack
Old 2 weeks ago | Show parent
  #300
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Anyone with more than a passing interest in the Neumann U47's, M-49's and M-50's of Abbey Road's collection (plus all their outboard gear, REDD desk and Studer J37 tape machine) might want to check out this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QskQHxvB_Q&t=559s

"Spitfire Audio co-founder @ christian Henson Music takes a deep dive into the most famous recording location in the world: Abbey Road Studio Two.

Guided by @ Abbey Road Studios 's Head of Audio Products Mirek Stiles, follow along as they take you through the history, unique gear and curiosities of this studio, home to some of the most legendary recordings by The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Radiohead and many more"

Contents:
00:00 - Entering The Room
05:08 - The Pianos
07:27 - The Echo chamber
09:19 - The Mic cupboard
17:54 - The Control Room

Last edited by studer58; 2 weeks ago at 04:08 PM..
📝 Reply
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump