(no subject)
Jun. 26th, 2007 11:32 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
This is a post with an audience of two (or maybe three or even four). If you're not one of those two (etc), please don't feel obliged to read on.
So....
It's been an interesting couple of days.
Graham has given the first three chapters of the novel and synopsis to his publisher.
I finished tracklaying a song called 'The Thom Yorke Position' that Ike wants to put on his next album. In trying to recreate the demo using Alan's new state-of-the-art, not-quite-without-bugs, desk and 96Mhz sampling rate we came up against a few problems, not least recreating the fx on the guitar tracks. As an aside, fx is/are one of my areas of expertise, and even that was stretched to the limits. Not all plug-ins work as well as the old-fashioned stomp-boxes and odd things of yore.
Delays....The old Binson echorec has a great tone but...these days even WEM Copykats go for silly money. The Edge (who knows a thing or two about fx) uses/used a Roland digital delay (SDE2000 I believe - I have one somewhere).
Getting a direct box to be part of a feedback chain...not too difficult....stompboxes in front of the direct box, uh-oh, no way...I have a SansAmp somewhere....The old fashioned stuff works fine in 96Mhz, it's just the modelling stuff like the Pod or GNX3/GNX4 that's found wanting.
Oh, and Mackie should really get their act together. Latest digital desk has teething troubles.
96Mhz sounds pretty good, however. I think it sounds better than tape (heresy). Mind you, these days everyone listens to stuff on i-pods, tracks therein which tend to have a resolution that make them sound almost like music. (But as most people can't tell the difference, why bother protesting?) So, sound quality doesn't seem to matter, excepting to sad little geeks (like me): it's a dead issue.
Will have to continue this later.
So....
It's been an interesting couple of days.
Graham has given the first three chapters of the novel and synopsis to his publisher.
I finished tracklaying a song called 'The Thom Yorke Position' that Ike wants to put on his next album. In trying to recreate the demo using Alan's new state-of-the-art, not-quite-without-bugs, desk and 96Mhz sampling rate we came up against a few problems, not least recreating the fx on the guitar tracks. As an aside, fx is/are one of my areas of expertise, and even that was stretched to the limits. Not all plug-ins work as well as the old-fashioned stomp-boxes and odd things of yore.
Delays....The old Binson echorec has a great tone but...these days even WEM Copykats go for silly money. The Edge (who knows a thing or two about fx) uses/used a Roland digital delay (SDE2000 I believe - I have one somewhere).
Getting a direct box to be part of a feedback chain...not too difficult....stompboxes in front of the direct box, uh-oh, no way...I have a SansAmp somewhere....The old fashioned stuff works fine in 96Mhz, it's just the modelling stuff like the Pod or GNX3/GNX4 that's found wanting.
Oh, and Mackie should really get their act together. Latest digital desk has teething troubles.
96Mhz sounds pretty good, however. I think it sounds better than tape (heresy). Mind you, these days everyone listens to stuff on i-pods, tracks therein which tend to have a resolution that make them sound almost like music. (But as most people can't tell the difference, why bother protesting?) So, sound quality doesn't seem to matter, excepting to sad little geeks (like me): it's a dead issue.
Will have to continue this later.
What fun
Date: 2007-06-26 12:37 pm (UTC)Not really.
It is amusing to note that as the sample-rate goes up one is increasingly obliged to dust off the old analog boxes... (I lost my old Binson - sob.) This may mean that 'character' is slowly creeping back into recorded music - despite your timely caveat about the i-pod. (96 MHz - 'Better than tape' ? - real progress at last ! I bet it eats hard discs.)
How lucky I am to have bought an old electric organ.
Bon courage, dear fellow.
Re: What fun
Date: 2007-06-26 01:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-27 06:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-27 09:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-27 09:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-27 02:45 pm (UTC)