Jump to content

What Are Your Favorite Stoopid Audio Myths?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 245
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

You can hammer nails all day long with an SM57 without damaging it in any way.

 

The 12 Tone Equal Temperament is 'in tune.'

 

 

When Mike writes "Digital recording is forever and never degrades" is a myth -- I think we all know that he's referring to very real and practical problems with today's digital storage media. But it could be confusing to some of the less than adequately informed folks out there who think of themselves as recording "engineers."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

High end gear is needed to sound to sound pro. (How about the musicians Talent, arrangement and recording techniques?)

 

(Which goes hand and hand with (I can record as good as the pros if I only had their gear.

 

I can mix better with headphones.

 

Recording a miced cab is better than recording direct.

 

I can do it all with my ears, screw the meters.

 

Manual? I dont need to read no stinkin manual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Myth: You need vintage gear to make a classic album... you know the culprits: Neve 1073s, Neumann mics, API EQs, etc...

 

Its not about the gear. Most of that "classic" gear was used by legendary performers. Those same performers would have made classic albums with a Shure 57 and a Mackie mic pre on a 1604 mixer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yes, although that would not sound quite as good...
:D

And I should know...that used to be my recording setup!!!

I'll admit that it's not a 1604 but a SR24-4 VLZ, but I moved back to using my Mackie's pres. I don't use my '57s as much as I used to, though, since I switched cab-miking to my (original, Oz-made) Rode NT1. It's not a pre you're likely to like for its saturation characteristics, maybe -- it goes quickly from clean to crackly when you finally get to the end of its rather broad signal handling range. But I like its relative lack of color. I did some key, formative early work on a Neve board and, though I wouldn't mind having a couple of channels of it, overall, I wasn't crazy about that Neve sound. Call me a contrarian.

 

I'm not suggesting that there might not be some other mic pre that I liked better than the Mackie, by any means, in fact, there's at least one relatively inexpensive unit that's been on my possible list for years, just that after using a number of 'colored' pres in the low-mid 3-figure range (which, admittedly, is on the cheap side by many standards), I moved back to pres that were more like $60 a channel. ;) That said, no one is confusing my recordings for outtakes from Aja, either. :D (Not that I'd want that but many would.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I'll admit that it's not a 1604 but a SR24-4 VLZ, but I moved
back
to using my Mackie's pres. I don't use my '57s as much as I used to, though, since I switched cab-miking to my (original, Oz-made) Rode NT1. It's not a pre you're likely to like for its saturation characteristics, maybe -- it goes quickly from clean to crackly when you finally get to the end of its rather broad signal handling range. But I
like
its relative lack of color. I did some key, formative early work on a Neve board and, though I wouldn't mind having a couple of channels of it, overall, I wasn't crazy about
that Neve sound
. Call me a contrarian.

 

 

Fortunately, I have had access to loads of gear and anyone who has heard this classic/vintage gear knows it has its place. In general though, a 57 and a neutral pre like a Grace can go very far. Sorry for going OT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I had the original Mackie preamps with that setup, and they are, in my opinion, not flattering for most mics, certainly the 57, which I thought did not sound good at all (and I like 57s). Neutral? I have no problem with that. But they had a lack of depth and physicality that I disliked. The VLZs have greater physicality and depth, in my opinion. For "neutral" (uncolored sounding) mic preamps that are cheap, I like FMR RNPs. Open. They stomp grapes over the original Mackies. I've heard good things about the Mackie Onyx preamps.

 

My Neve Portico mic preamps are relatively uncolored when they are used in "Regular Mode" (in other words, without the Silk Button engaged). I use both settings, although I tend to use the Silk Button for rock-oriented stuff such as electric guitars, basses, and many vocals (rock, folk, experimental).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I had the original Mackie preamps with that setup, and they are, in my opinion, not flattering for most mics, certainly the 57, which I thought did not sound good at all (and I like 57s). Neutral? I have no problem with that. But they had a lack of depth and physicality that I disliked. The VLZs have greater physicality and depth, in my opinion. For "neutral" (uncolored sounding) mic preamps that are cheap, I like FMR RNPs. Open. They stomp grapes over the original Mackies. I've heard good things about the Mackie Onyx preamps.


My Neve Portico mic preamps are relatively uncolored when they are used in "Regular Mode" (in other words, without the Silk Button engaged). I use both settings, although I tend to use the Silk Button for rock-oriented stuff such as electric guitars, basses, and many vocals (rock, folk, experimental).

 

Yes Ken,

 

Should have mentioned, I was talking about the VLZ pres. I have no experience with the original 1604s. Dammit, read my mind!:mad:

 

Seriously, have you tried any Grace pres? Very neutral yet have depth and clarity.

 

EB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I had the original Mackie preamps with that setup, and they are, in my opinion, not flattering for most mics, certainly the 57, which I thought did not sound good at all (and I like 57s). Neutral? I have no problem with that. But they had a lack of depth and physicality that I disliked. The VLZs have greater physicality and depth, in my opinion. For "neutral" (uncolored sounding) mic preamps that are cheap, I like FMR RNPs. Open. They stomp grapes over the original Mackies. I've heard good things about the Mackie Onyx preamps.


My Neve Portico mic preamps are relatively uncolored when they are used in "Regular Mode" (in other words, without the Silk Button engaged). I use both settings, although I tend to use the Silk Button for rock-oriented stuff such as electric guitars, basses, and many vocals (rock, folk, experimental).

It's been a while since I've spent any qualtime with the RNP but I was quite taken with one my buddy parked over here for a week or so -- but I was mostly using it in tandem with its companion RNC and the two could give a pretty bigger than life sound. If I were to spend more money on pre's, RNP would be one of the first I'd consider. I don't think it's quite as neutral as the VLZ's but it's not as colored as stuff like the old Neves and APIs and such I've been acquainted with, which I'm just not that in love with, though, of course, many are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Grace Design stuff isn't cheap--unless you consider how much other gear of that quality sells for. I have the single channel Model 101 pre, and it cost me over $500.

 

I'd liken its effect to that of using top-quality cables--super clean and accurate. Personally, I love it! (And not just because the company has a great name. ;) )

 

Sound On Sound review: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may06/articles/gracemodel101.htm

 

Best,

 

Geoff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Grace Design stuff isn't cheap--unless you consider how much other gear of that quality sells for. I have the single channel Model 101 pre, and it cost me over $500.


I'd liken its effect to that of using top-quality cables--super clean and accurate. Personally, I love it! (And not just because the company has a great name.
;)
)


Sound On Sound review:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may06/articles/gracemodel101.htm


Best,


Geoff

 

Yes, great unit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

A high-end condenser mic will sound great and be the right choice no matter who is singing through it.
:facepalm:

 

I've tried condensers, but at the end of the day I still prefer an SM57 on my voice.

 

What can I say? I guess I'm just a cheap date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
NEW PRODUCT!!
Signature version of the Clever Little Clock, only $299
. More powerful than a locomotive. Expect more air, more detail, more bass and more dynamics and microdynamics. A lot more. We now use
Energizer
Ultimate Lithium batteries in all Clever Little Clocks. Estimated lifetime 10 years minimum.


Signature_Clock2.jpg

Introduction

The Clever Little Clock is a battery-powered travel clock the size of an iPhone that has been extensively modified using many highly specialized techniques. At least 19 steps are required to produce the Clever Little Clock, somewhat more for the new Signature version. The clock can be placed anywhere in the room with excellent results for both the
sound quality
of audio systems AND the
picture quality
of video systems. The Clever Little Clock is based on concepts and techniques that were developed by
PWB Electronics
, Leeds, England and is designed and manufactured exclusively by
Machina Dynamica
. May Belt of
PWB Electronics
provided assistance with this theory of operation.


Machina Dynamica introduced the original Clever Little Clock in 2005. However, we did not provide any details of its operation in all this time - until now. Since its introduction, there has been some speculation that the Clever Little Clock is an acoustic resonator, an emitter of some sort or an EMI/RFI channeler. But, it's none of those! The Clever Little Clock's operation actually has to do with
time
itself - how the past catches up with us -- like a predator. The real story of how the Clever Little Clock works involves man's inherited
fight-or-flight response
to danger and the
evolution of his memory system
-- how memories are created, stored and retrieved. The clock's operation also involves the significance of
two different time references
-- one that was operating when the recording was made and one that's operating in the future when the recording is played.


Predators, Evolution and our Internal Clock

Man's internal clock evolved during the
Dawn of Man
as a survival mechanism. This internal clock is a function of the brain that time-sequences sensory information - most notably, perhaps, moving images and sound - so the information can be stored in and retrieved from memory
chronologically
. Early man's chronological memory allowed him to calculate a predator's
location, speed and direction
of movement and figure out, on the spot, if it was barreling down on him or not. Timing in memory operation was critical since sensory information had to be retrieved from memory in precisely the same sequence and speed it was stored - otherwise, it would be all jumbled together and wouldn't make sense.


Early man continually [...]

http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina41.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I'll start: the
$500 high-mass knobs
that add weight to your power amplifier, this keeping it from moving around, which (of course!) focuses the sound more. I'm sure all those electrons running around inside really care about the weight of the knobs.


And another one:
The output of digital audio is stair-stepped.
Hello? It's filtered. Look at it on on oscilloscope, and a sine wave at the input looks like a sine wave at the output.


What about
cables don't make a difference
? You find out real fast they do if you feed a tube amp with a guitar using a cable with lots of capacitance per foot.


Got any faves?

 

If I'm shopping for a cable should I just hook up a multimeter to see if its any good?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
If I'm shopping for a cable should I just hook up a multimeter to see if its any good?

I'm thinking he means use properly purposed cables. Don't use a speaker cable for an instrument cable. Don't use 8 gauge wire for your hi fi speakers, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Green Sharpie on CD edge! You see, it tightens the bottom end and allows the imaging to fulfill the spacial perspective in a more emotional yet articulate way. This combines to reveal something closer to the composers intentions. Without the green Sharpie, it's just 0's and 1's. And a laser beam, or something. But
with
the Sharpie? That makes it soar.

 

 

Guy #1: Reads about how the green marker trick defeats a certain form of early copy-protection on CDs. Employs it on a CD copy-protected in this manner.

 

Guy #2: Sees Guy #1 employing this trick. He doesn't know what it's supposed to achieve, but it must be significant somehow, so he starts doing it habitually on all his CDs.

 

Guy #3: Sees Guy #2 marking his CDs and asks, "Why the heck are you doing that?" Guy #2 shrugs his shoulders and says, "Dunno, I guess this makes it sound better, or something."

 

Guy #3: Tells Guy #4 to mark the edge of his CDs with green marker because it will sound better.

 

Guy #4: Gets on the internet to share Guy #3s advice. Only, he realizes it sounds kind of silly when he comes to think about it. So he decides to pretty it up with technical sounding jargon, so it comes out as, "Green Sharpie on CD edge! You see, it tightens the bottom end and allows the imaging to fulfill the spacial perspective in a more emotional yet articulate way. This combines to reveal something closer to the composers intentions."

 

Guy #1: Responds to Guy #4s post and tells him he's an idiot.

 

Guys #5 to #27: Are offended and outraged by Guy #1s trolling and personal attacks and rally around Guy #4, spreading the secret of how to make your CDs sound better -- the secret that "The Man" (i.e. Guy #1) doesn't want you to know!

 

* * *

 

I'd say that's pretty much how all stupid myths come about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

"the $0.26 mic pre i paid $600 for sounds better than the same $0.26 mic pre built into this quality mixer"


or another:


"a mic pre is something other than a gain section to match mic level signal to line level"


and finally:


"this mic pre sounds different than another mic pre" where both are identical in their voltage gain characteristics
.

 

i absolutely cannot believe you folks. :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I don't think it's quite as neutral as the VLZ's but it's not as colored as stuff like the old Neves and APIs and such I've been acquainted with, which I'm just not that in love with, though, of course,
many
are.

 

 

I have the VLZs, and the RNPs sound noticeably more open to my ear, particularly when you hear them on multiple tracks in the same session ("stacked", as they say). They're both fairly neutral in general, in my opinion.

 

My Neve Portico, when in "Regular Mode", is surprisingly neutral, more than you would think when you think "Neve".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

 

 

No, I haven't. I've heard really awesome things and really crappy things about those preamps. And it's things like that which actually pique my curiosity. If something is that polarizing, I want to hear it!! But alas, no. I know Geoff GRACE has GRACE preamps, and I think he likes 'em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...