KVR Audio

BONES · Post by **BONES** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 11:25 am

Nice one mark77. These people are everywhere and they are indeed wankers. Having started doing this stuff at the dawn of the '80's I suppose I have a decent perspective. The improvement in my sound has generally been tied more to the incredible advances in mixing technology than anything else. My first mixer was a piece of krap [some 8 channel Boss thing] and the next couple were not a whole lot better. Gradually, as they became more digital, things improved significantly and I could actually afford a mixer which allowed me to create a decent mix [Samsom 15something] at home. Now I use a software mixer I am in better shape than ever.

As for vintage synths, I always fucken hated 'em, they were a pain in the arse. I couldn't wait for digital stuff. But the best stuff is available right now because it works like analogue gear but has none of the huge disadvantages, especially for playing live.

BONES · Post by **BONES** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 11:30 am

clueless wrote:or, to answer your question (very simplistically)...

"because they dumped the great-sounding vintage gear in the 80's"

No they didn't, they just appreciated the convenience of better technology. My firs tlive set-up was about 50/50 digital/analogue and it was fucken awful - I could never get the same sound twice from either my Axxe, SH101, Mono/Poly or Delta to the point that I just wanted to super-glue the sliders and pots so I wouldn't lose my favourite sounds in transit. I don't care whether it sounded better or not, although I never believe that it did, because it stopped me from being able to do anything meaningful with it after a while. Good f**king riddance!

jens · Post by **jens** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 11:38 am

clueless wrote:80's ≠ "vintage"

exactly my point...

clueless · Post by **clueless** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 11:42 am

BONES wrote:
clueless wrote:or, to answer your question (very simplistically)...

"because they dumped the great-sounding vintage gear in the 80's"
No they didn't, they just appreciated the convenience of better technology. My firs tlive set-up was about 50/50 digital/analogue and it was fucken awful - I could never get the same sound twice from either my Axxe, SH101, Mono/Poly or Delta to the point that I just wanted to super-glue the sliders and pots so I wouldn't lose my favourite sounds in transit. I don't care whether it sounded better or not, although I never believe that it did, because it stopped me from being able to do anything meaningful with it after a while. Good f**king riddance!

ahhh yes, the glorious vintage sound of a DX7 in full flight...

and the best thing is...you can call that Rhodes patch up any old time ya want!

hmmm...

or, to put it another way, "Stevie Wonder"

skipscada · Post by **skipscada** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 11:44 am

BONES wrote: 50/50 digital/analogue

So I'm not the only one who thinks "digital/analogue" sounds like a euphemism for arsescratching?

MondoEnigma · Post by **MondoEnigma** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 11:50 am

In order to stay on the good side of hype I always found this quote from Rip Rowan over at Prorec useful:

(Now given that it produces sound to your liking and has a pricetag you can accept. It applies to hardware as well.)

"Repeat after me: Stability. Usability. Performance. When software companies ask what you want in a new piece of software, recite your new mantra. Stability. Usability. Performance.

Stability refers program uptime and predictability. Does it work, or does it crash? If I change my hardware or add new software, does the system get all fouled up and require a reinstall or a call to the help desk? Do features work sometimes but not at other times, with no indication as to why they are not working? Can you trust the tool in a critical situation?

Usability refers to the program’s predictability and implementation. Usability is more than feature sets and user interfaces. Usability describes whether the software supports your process. Does the program perform in a consistent manner from function to function? Are features implemented in a logical manner that reflect the way work actually gets done? Are important functions buried deep into the user interface? Does the user have to perform gymnastics to get routine tasks done?

Performance refers to the system’s efficiency and capability. Performance refers to the ability of the system to process your commands, and is easily measured for audio software in terms of throughput and latency."

Rock Hardbuns · Post by **Rock Hardbuns** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 11:51 am

I read a study a while ago (no url sadly) that tested cd qulity recording versus analog mastering tape.

The test was done on engineers and producers, and in the preceeding inteviews they all stated that they could hear the difference and most prefered analog mastering for the so called warmth.
The test showed that they couldnt tell the difference.

I suppose they didnt saturate the tape, because even I can hear that, but then we are talking about an effect.

Anyway, point is, dont underestimate the impact of psychology on perception. If we expect to hear something we are much more likely to hear it.

A while ago when that swedish company released their 303 emu there were alot of discussion as to how accurate it was soundwise, here on KvR. Someone posted two clips and said one was a real TB and the other was the emu (baseline or something?). Well, I could hear a difference, and so did many others. Turns out it was the same clip.

When you expect a difference, your mind will make one for you. But then again, your expectations also play a part in your creativity so if you think analog gear makes better music, you are probably right with regards to your own music.

jens · Post by **jens** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:09 pm

MondoEnigma wrote:In order to go off topic I always found this quote from Rip Rowan over at Prorec useful:
[...]

really interesting

skipscada · Post by **skipscada** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:11 pm

clueless wrote: ahhh yes, the glorious vintage sound of a DX7 in full flight...

and the best thing is...you can call that Rhodes patch up any old time ya want!

hmmm...

or, to put it another way, "Stevie Wonder"

Did you know that statistically, at any given moment, there are 13.567 persons using the DX7 Rhodes patch?

Stevie Wonder made some truly horrible recordings when someone convinced him that the gear he used for his early 70's albums was good for nothing.

Other artsists who produced excellent records with analogue equipment and turned into crap in the 80's include reggae artists like Burning Spear and all those excellent post-bossa nova Brazilian artists. These were established artists whose producers or whoever decided they needed a new sound, which just tore the soul out of their music. They made the same sort of songs, but they were drowned in the digital clutter.

As Joy Division's transformation into New Order shows, successful adoption of new technology seems to depend on a will to explore new ways of making music.

In other words: the technology in itself is not to blame for anything - it's how you decide to use it. Of course, letting others decide what to use and how to use it (i. e. buying the hype, fashion, whatever...):tantrum: doesn't lead to successful individual expression. It may lead to fame and money, but that's not success.

MondoEnigma · Post by **MondoEnigma** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:12 pm

picky eh?

Guitarjeff · Post by **Guitarjeff** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:17 pm

I dunno guys, I think the '80's had probably the BEST productions of any era of music.

All of the different popular genres had fantastic sounding records in my opinion.

Jeff

MondoEnigma · Post by **MondoEnigma** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:21 pm

"In other words: the technology in itself is not to blame for anything - it's how you decide to use it."

Abso - you can't blame sound - but you can blame the ears and mind of the one who uses it.

jens · Post by **jens** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:22 pm

b.t.w.: two days ago I've seen the brand-new 'progressive rock super-group' Kino.
(Marillion's bass player, It Bites' keyboarder, Arena's guitar-player and the ex-PorcupineTree drummer).
The sound was terrible - totally 80's - the keyboarder used two Roland pcm-players with that typical plastic-sound which makes me want to vomit. They drowned everything in cheap digital reverb algos.

However great the music was they played the sound was next to unbearable.

(needless to say that most fans obviously loved it because it was was they're used to)

clueless · Post by **clueless** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:26 pm

Guitarjeff wrote:I dunno guys, I think the '80's had probably the BEST productions of any era of music.

80's drum sounds!

synth-brass! (dwa-d-d-dwooow!)

80's drum sounds!!

sterile, freezing cold reverbs!

80's drum sounds!!!

munchkinized samples!

80's drum sounds!!!!!!

BONES · Post by **BONES** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:32 pm

MMmmmmmmmm.....8-0-'-s - d-r-u-m - s-o-u-n-d-s How I miss those Grand Canyon snare reverbs and synth-toms. Mind you, The The's Infected [1st CD I ever bought that I didn't already own on vinyl] was the 80's, so was Scraping Foetus Off the Wheel's Nail [close to the first CD I ever bought] and its hard to fault the drum sounds or production on those little gems. So I think we're talking more late 70's/early 80's, aren't we?

if vintage gear is so great then howcome the 80s sound crap?