wwwjd

I used to be regular, long ago.

Basically, I bailed when the forum style changed into the crazy large sized thing that it is. too frustrating to bother with, a horrible layout I'd never seen before, or since this. Just wasn't worth surfing her. Just stopped in to see if it was still around.

ah ha, Jedi Console Warrior... but, alas, I am the anal one and have worked out every last nuance of emotion I desire in the vocals from when to add the "T"'s, or the facial expression heard in the mic on the chorus... so, I'll be producing from the microphone muwahahahhahahaha! But you are welcome to try

Good stuff. It usually takes me 3 or 4 to warm up, then I can hit it consistantly until my voice gives out, which is after about 20 and it's all downhill from there.

The one I can't stand is the "ANYTHING GOES". It's too hard to advise how to make the performance better since it keeps changing. I just shake my head, and hit record like a monkey. Rarely does anything good come of it, because I lack the patience.

I can't do 24bit or I loose amount of tracks. Hardware DAW.

48k gives me higher POTENTIAL frequency on recording. Why would I not want to do that?

On second thought, you are right conversion back to 44.1 for the master is extra pointlessness, since 44.1 get me 22k resonse anyway and most people can't hear above 18

I found some more threads on 16vs24 with a deeper search. Thanks!

TOPIC I MEANT 16 BIT not 26 BIT

You know the story, wearing too many hats to know anything effectively...

My machine will record 16 or 24bit 44.1 or 48k. I need 32 tracks, but if I go 24 bit I get less tracks. I will go 16bit 48k I guess.

Do I have this right: 16 VS 24 bit is only about DYNAMICS, more headroom, more steps of volume difference, right?

I seriously doubt the compressed pop crap I record will EVER need 24bit dynamics. It's not soft chamber music anyway. Am I right?

Audio-wise, I was not able to HEAR any difference when test recording the two different bit rates.

Thanks for enlightening me.

If compression makes an artist sound like Nickleback, I think I'll avoid it.

doesn't it depend on your final objective? home tinkering, limited audience release, or mega-multi platinum sales. I don't enjoy that much crunch either, but you hear it a lot on Mutt's other little albums: Back in Black, Def Leopard, Shania Twain etc etc etc... $$, $$$ and more $$$$$

yeah, I meant it's an option, not an "Always"

While I totally believe in doing it the "Right" way, I believe there is some merit it the wrong way too. this stuff I've done that sounded the worst, or easily most amature, were vocals not compressed enough. After listening to multi-platinum producer John "Mutt" Lange's latest release in Nickleback's Dark Horse, he's either gone completely insane/senile now, or maybe there's something to using a lot of vocal compression. Those vocals are totally squashed - not just the whole CD - you can hear the compressors POPPING into action on the vocals. I'll admit, I hate the sound of this new release compared to their last one, BUT they are selling millions of CDs and I'm just a wannabee. Now, granted that is not the way to make a crystal clear recording, or win awards for artistic quality, it IS a way toward multi-platinum. It depends on what you want your end result to be. Any more, I start at 4, 8, 12:1 and above, sometimes playing with INFINITY to get that commercial sounding vocals - if that is the desired end result. Just some thoughts.