Jump to content

Music Calgary

Members
  • Posts

    1,615
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Music Calgary

  1. NASCAR racing events continued on as if nothing happened. Oh really? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmifVOnM3zI
  2. There's a valid point being made here -- Americans have poor prioritizing skills when it comes to finances. That's partly what got you where you are. That said it's only marginally less so elsewhere. It seems to be part of the human condition, i.e. you're too tired to paint the garage but have plenty of energy to go golfing, etc. That said and said, just wait. Pro sports is in for a financial nosedive which will make their heads spin like Linda Blair. It's-a-coming the same way it came for all these other bloated so-called "entertainment" companies. Hopefully increased support for local and minor league sports will be the result.
  3. So the only questions are 1) whether man is accelerating a natural process, 2) not accelerating a natural process, or 3) causing a man-made acceleration of the process. Not at all. The answers to those questions have zero benefit other than entertainment value... First of all everything we do is natural, toxins are natural -- and all that occurs here on this shiny blue marble is part of the current natural process. Period. It's no less natural when ten million humans {censored} into a river than when a single catfish does it... Second of all nature has a marvelous capacity to regulate itself and that is really where the crucial questions lie. Case closed, next question! God bless you Craig Anderton for solving global warming.
  4. Why are these countries, with a much smaller economies, developing these things and we're not? In many cases because things got so incredibly bad that they had no choice. India and Brazil have some seriously {censored}ing nasty problems.
  5. Gotta be careful with one-off bits of evidence. Good advice for the so-called "experts"... They will stick to their agenda. Facts are not part of their thinking process, only what feels right. The truth will be on the back page if anywhere, the lies will be yelled from the roof tops. I've always felt that a good size natural forest fire, or volcano puts much more crap in the air than man does. That said, I also agree with Ken. Why should we pollute the world anymore than we have to when alternatives are becoming available. I hope I live long enough to see clean FCHV (fuel cell hydrogen vehicles) become the main mode of transportation. I've already been waiting 35 years. Agreed 100%. Well said. In the sciences, as with any other highly specialized body of knowledge or practice, you have approximately a 0% chance of ever holding an informed and accurate opinion without some degree of reliance on experts. Tell me your opinion of, you know, angiotensin-converting enzymes, or something. Everyone relies on experts all the time. So? As for the straw man, this is about climate facts. Facts. Not rhetoric. Go argue science with this guy: Or any of the other myriad highly qualified/educated and rational experts who've studied this in a proper manner. "Don't believe the hype!" - Flava Flav
  6. Clean air and water would be wonderful. Alternative fuels are essential for both the environment and economic security. Let's just start there and stop bull{censored}ting about global warming. Well said. I'm down with that plan 100%...
  7. Climatologists and other scientists -- who are the experts, here, after all -- have cited large amounts of evidence to support their conclusions. The rest of us, by and large, are not experts and do not have our fingers on the evidence or the expertise to interpret it. That is a really, really ridiculous thing to say/think. To each their own though. Forming reasonable informed opinions via reading/conversation is more appealing to me. The "experts" who have gotten almost all the media exposure on this are bought and sold. If you do even cursory research you will find that sources like UNs IPCC are using highly flawed computer models to forward innaccurate data. But... if there is a problem with global warming and the evidence seems clear, now -- whatever its causes -- it only stands to reason that human activities that contribute to that warming may not be the wisest course of action. The evidence is clear? HAW! How on earth you people feel that you understand nature is beyond me. Because you don't. At all. Failed prediction after another... If the evidence is so clear to you then please cite some. Tell us how it is. Still, shouldn't we try? ABSOLUTELY!
  8. Regardless of whether there's climate change that is man-made or not, running cleaner cars, having less toxic emissions, putting less crap in the air, and conserving natural resources and energy are all things that i can get behind and don't consider stupid. Actually they are very stupid at times, it's all in the implementation... Having good intentions doesn't mean you are generating net-positive results. For example using biotech to conserve resources. As soon as start supporting the concept above the implementation you are in trouble vis-a-vis your own best interests. For example buying a new Prius under the maxim "running cleaner cars" is not conserving resources, it is consuming them. Words are not results. Auto emissions are relatively easy to control, new cars are reasonably good on that front. They are not the biggest problem -- so why is that where resources go instead of the biggest problem? Stupid? Heck yeah... Again, as soon as start supporting the concept above the implementation you are in trouble vis-a-vis your own best interests. Every human supports having cleaner air -- that's obvious. The problem is in implementation. What are you willing to give up? What goods are you willing to tell your family they must do without? When push comes to shove not too many people, particularly those who yell loudest about clean air, are willing to do what it really takes.
  9. http://www.dailytech.com/Alaskan%2BGlaciers%2BGrow%2Bfor%2BFirst%2BTime%2Bin%2B250%2Byears/article13215.htm Since 1946, the USGS has maintained a research project measuring the state of Alaskan glaciers. This year saw records broken for most snow buildup. It was also the first time since any records began being that the glaciers did not shrink during the summer months. I've never accepted the "fight climate change" hysteria. Nature does what it does. For us to invest resources into an intentional attempt to block nature from taking its course in order to somehow "reverse" the unintentional harms we create is probably the single stupidest idea I've ever heard. The Alaskan glaciers have grown this year, Arctic sea ice has increased this year, some areas just had the coldest summer in several decades -- and yet the press isn't giving it any coverage. Odd. I wonder how global warming alarmists will obfuscate this one.
  10. Not during tracking, sorry if I made it sound like that. I do this during mixing although I wouldn't hesitate to do it during tracking as well if I knew what I was doing. With any high-gain amp, there is inevitably going to be some high end sizzle that is simply unmusical and not helpful. And yet, it's good to have high frequencies up front and present in many cases. So I'll play around with a low pass filter with a steep cut-off to find where the guitars still have a bright, rich harmonic content, but lack the noise of the upper high end. Usually this is somewhere in the 11k to 15k range, depends on the amp. It depends on the mic too, an SM57 or e906 won't pick up much of this, but a condenser or something like an SM7B (which I absolutely love on high gain guitars provided there are high and low passes) will typically pick up tons. Unfortunately, with crappier guitar rigs (includes guitars, pedals, amps, speakers and even players), the nice harmonic content and unmusical fizz often go hand in hand, so you can't have one and not the other all the time. High passing is much more common practice. Usually somewhere between 100Hz or as high as 250Hz depending on the sound you're going for I guess. The idea is just to shave off the low end that sounds loose/unmusical/gets in the way of the bass guitar/etc. This will tighten up the guitar sound considerably. Be careful though, too high a frequency and you're cutting off the fundamentals! Ah, I see. Interesting. I've never seen that before but I'll try it. Thanks. (I high pass almost everything though)
  11. high and low passed, which I tend to do with any electric guitar material Just curious, why are you low passing all your electric guitars during tracking? I've never seen anyone do that.
  12. Fletcher, you talk a lot of {censored} but I really don't think you can back up at least 50% of it -- no matter what you own. So... Yawn.
  13. 57s do great on low gain blues tones if setup right, try the 57 before you decide it won't work IMO.
  14. BTW... Phil, ever the voice of reason, did a great job of re-explaining my original explanation in words that could hopefully be understood by the "Music Calgary". I understand plenty, don't eat at "Hard Rock" whatever that is -- and I think you know exactly what you can do with the rest. Fletcher, you talk a lot of {censored} but I really don't think you can back up at least 50% of it -- no matter what you own. So... Yawn. If you were here I'd be glad to hit the studio with you any place, any time to make music -- and I don't think you'd be quite so negative afterward, but then who knows... I can't compete with you at chatter. It's already all been said very well here.
  15. Well, this got a little off topic, didn't it? But I think it's clear that "good mic" doesn't always equal "expensive mic" and vice-versa. The SM-7b is one of my favorite vocal mics; lately, so is the Microtech Gefell MT71-S (I hope I'm remembering the model number correctly). One of them is about a third of the cost of the other, and I couldn't tell you which is the "better" mic because it totally depends on what I'm recording at the time and what kind of sound I'm going for, etc. The SM-57 is one of my favorite mics for snare drums and guitar cabs, and it costs less than a hundred bucks. You don't have to spend thousands and thousands of dollars to get a good-sounding mic. But if you want the absolute tip-top, the very last 1% of possible quality and you're recording in a great facility with a room designed and treated to give the absolute maximum of sound fidelity with players and singers that are at the peak of their game, then yeah, you might find that those uber-high-dollar microphones give you that last little bit of clarity and precision that you need to go from "really good" to "un-freaking-believable." If you're recording in your spare bedroom with your college bandmates and you're going to be uploading the files to your MySpace page ... probably not so much reason for you to spend thousands of dollars on a single microphone. Well said.
  16. If you read my post, you'd realize that I never said "exceeding their capabilities", but instead used the word "inspire" quite a few times. If you disagree that a great sound and great headphone mix will not sometimes inspire the vocalist to reach new heights or sing better than s/he ever did before, then we'll have to agree to disagree. Headphone mix made the singer perform better than ever before? I think this is wishful thinking -- I don't think there's a single competent studio vocalist who will credit their best performance to an inspiring headphone mix. frankly I still feel like he's a moron. That you continue to publicly say this is just unprofessional. You weren't saying that to his face when you took his money, right? = Weasely {censored}. My job, as an engineer, is to deliver what the client requests... He requested you call him a moron?
  17. I'm sorry, but I have to completely disagree here. Argue with the dictionary, not me: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=capable Saying someone, "exceeded their capabilities" is Don King's territory. Magnificous microphone! Your one-way ticket to Utopia! The fideistic bull{censored} that drives this industry... And I reject it as a sell that great mics "inspire the morons". Of course I know the value of great gear in inspiring performers and creating great tracks which make a mix -- you folks do not live in a vaccum. But the notion that it's necessary to make great music is absolute bunk -- and there are tons of less-than-ideally-recorded bestsellers to prove that point, no doubt many of them in and amongst your favorite music. Every studio I've ever been in had certain low-cost favorites in the locker, and they get used every single day...
  18. You've obviously never been in a session where the performer is inspired to perform a little better than they're actually capable of performing because they've heard their voice through ___ mic and ___ pre and are so into the tone they're hearing in the cans that they give the performance of a lifetime. No human in history has ever exceeded their own capabilities. Spending $2K on a mic won't change that. Nor will spending $9K on a mic. Nor $15K. Nor will a big fat wheelbarrow of hype. BTW are these the same performers you seem to refer to so consistently after the session as "morons"? When you've experienced that phenomenon... get back to me First thing on my list of priorities.
  19. Here's one for you: http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/2735883
  20. For large diaphragm microphones you can't go wrong with anything from audiotechnica +1. Another point -- knowing your mics well will give you some leeway. I love the sound of a 4050 through a Great River pre for example, and I can get usable tracks from almost any source with these given a familiar environment. Of course this wouldn't apply to classical -- but I never record classical, so... Whatever mics you get, spend some time learning what they do in different scenarios so that getting the most out of them becomes second nature. I understand where Fletcher is coming from but I also believe that in true triple-blind testing he/we wouldn't be able to discern certain differences. I'm also certain that audiences don't give a flying rat {censored} -- the criteria they use to assess music couldn't possibly be farther from all that...
  21. Yes, but one very important thing is missing from this discussion - release time, and to a lesser extent, attack time. I see compressors as serving two distinct needs: 1) As an automatic volume control to avoid overs, while affecting the sound as little as possible. 2) As an effect where the pumping sound and added sustain are the goal. For 1) you'll use a fast attack to avoid overs even on fast transients, but a slow release so the volume doesn't go up and down constantly which is what makes the pumping sound. In this case you could have 30 dB of gain reduction and never actually hear the compressor working. For 2) you want a fast attack and a relatively fast release. The faster the release time, the more aggressive the effect. "Aggressive" in the sense that distortion at low frequencies increases when both times are set fast. --Ethan +1 Often when using a compressor to adding general smoothing to a rock guitar track (which isn't in danger of clipping) I let some transients through to keep it natural sounding...
  22. Here's my experience... Use 24 when you can but don't be bummed if 16 is your only choice, you can definitely make good recordings at 16 bit -- you just have a little less leeway on levels and compression becomes more important for some sources. I have an inexpensive Korg D888 here which I use for certain stuff, only 16 bit, and hairtrigger "usable zone" on the pres -- but it creates some very good quality recordings when things are setup properly. Some of the tracks I've recorded remotely on this unit and then brought back home to mix ended up sounding quite good on the final CD. On the other hand some 16 bit units sound like garbage. It must be largely in the implementation. And, when you wack it down to 16/44k in a mixdown, it sounds worse than just using 16/44k from the beginning in my experience. I'm inclined to agree. Most of the time anyhow... There's some merit to both sides of this one, i.e. some say record at whatever you're going to distribute at, some say that you should record and process at higher sample rates, etc. Quite often when you dither a mix down for CD you lose "the sound" you had and it ends up being a wrestling match. The dither thing is a wormball. Lately I've had great luck with R8 Brain Pro. OTOH, if you're pleased with your results so far, don't worry about it. That's seriously good advice.
  23. Right. But the foam the OP was talking about, was closed cell non absorbtive. That will not get the job done. The reason many talk about fiberglass and rockwool is that it is cheaper than auralex foam and what not. Agreed. Thanks Jimbroni.
  24. Sorry, not one of those things you listed has any useful acoustic properties. Ethan is awesome and smart and experienced -- but there's absolutely no denying that there are many fine studios on the scene treated with foam. And the treatment works fine. I've used the rooms. They are fine. And there *are* ill health effects which result from fiberglass exposure despite all the best claims of those who seek to profit from convincing otherwise. (spare me the gov't links, I don't trust your gov't *at all*)
×
×
  • Create New...