Jump to content

podgorny

Members
  • Posts

    66
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by podgorny

  1. There are specific reasons for using multi-mono or multi-channel. The obvious is that multi-mono plugins can have independent settings for each channel, but that's the the tip of the iceberg. If, for instance, you are applying reverb for surround mixing using a multi-mono plugin, you aren't allowing each channel to interact (in essence you are putting a mono reverb on each channel, so that if you pan something toward one channel, you will only be getting reverb from that channel). Sometimes this is desirable. Sometimes it isn't. A more common use for me is applying limiting to masters, specifically, when doing multiple stages of limiting. I'll sometimes use multi-mono (or unlinked L-R), followed by normal stereo limiting. This allows you to deal with some of the stray side peaks without causing the whole mix to be affected. Of course, over-use of this can make the stereo center move around, so don't overuse it.
  2. I don't begrudge Apple for making a premium product that people want. But considering Apple nets roughly a half-million dollars per year per employee, it seems a little strange that they would go to such extreme lengths to ensure their employees aren't taking items. Guilty until proven innocent?
  3. It comes with its own mounting system. Just add saliva.
  4. Yup. Had them before the recoils. They DEFINITELY made things worse. Sometimes it's fun to search for solutions to imagined problems.
  5. I had some primacoustic recoils. My frequency response and time-domain response were better without them - which isn't to say they don't work. They just may not always be an improvement. FWIW, I'm using SoundAnchors StudioADJR stands.
  6. Several of Nuendo's developers have been with Avid for a while now.
  7. Apple's greatest successes have been products that people never asked for. And many of their greatest failures have been when they try to cater to what people want. "If I'd asked customers what they wanted, they would have said 'a faster horse.'" ~Henry Ford
  8. I remember the transition from 6 to 7. There was no change in audio quality. As far as I recall, Digidesign kept the same audio engine throughout the life of the HD product range.
  9. It was Ampex's fault, wiring pin3 hot. The UK standard was pin2, and of course now it is the standard everywhere. Of course, it doesn't REALLY matter what pin you consider "hot" as long as whatever piece of gear we're talking about puts signal out on the same pin it received the signal on. It just gets complicated when you start throwing unbalanced connections into the mix. I can see how that might be a useful devide for you to remember it, although it has no basis in how audio signals work or even why XLR connectors are named XLR Here's an interesting page about this history of the XLR http://www.soundfirst.com/xlr.html) It makes no difference whether white or blue is positive/negative. The significance of this is that if you establish a standard, you can (hopefully) avoid mistakes when building cables, and in the event of a problem you can troubleshoot more quickly.
  10. 12" or 19" I've only seen 12" patchbays installed in consoles.. Like this one. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Custom-Neotek-Series-IIIc-3c-balanced-TT-patchbay-Half-Normaled-Mults-/200930528296 I've also built a couple bays by building a jig and drilling holes in plastic I purchased from McMaster-Carr. This worked great for small portable racks with only a few pieces of outboard.
  11. PT's audio engine has sounded great since version 6 on HD. And no one "chose PT for mixing" until recently because of the sheer SCOPE of mixing movies. Mixing in-the-box becomes a whole different ball game when you're talking about working with upwards of 500 tracks. Even now, Pro Tools HDX is the only thing that could conceivably pull that off, and that's only with PT11. I had an interesting discussion last night with Jonathan Wales (who knows way more about the post market than I do), and he said. "If pro tools went away tomorrow, there is NO APPLICATION which could take its place." Fact is, Avid is a big ship, and big ships turn slowly. But they ARE turning things around. Pro Tools 11 is a HUGE leap ahead of anything else.
  12. Considering the elaborate stage and sound systems used by touring groups every day, I'd say this is a fallacy. The problem with the Wall of Sound is that it simply didn't work well (which is why Bob Heil took over with one of his systems). Since the array would not be changing, it's really a set-and-forget scenario. The problem is that using two mics pointed at the same thing with one's polarity inverted is a recipe for comb-filtered nastiness - which is to say, it doesn't work (and that include's the Grateful Dead's ill-fated attempt). The idea of using two cardioid capsules facing away from each-other to create new polar patterns is of course, a time-tested technique that is used every day (probably by people who don't even realize it).
  13. The AC is superimposed on the AC. My bad. Analog synths took over my brain when we started talking about oscillators.
  14. If the polar patterns and frequency responses are equal, and if gain is matched, neither is more likely to produce feedback. You're acting as if there is some unquantifiable aspect of microphones which makes one behave differently from another. In fact, we can measure these aspects, and use the data to make informed decisions about which tools we will choose for a particular application.
  15. From Wikipedia: The Wall of Sound was designed to act as its own monitor system, and it was therefore assembled behind the band so the members could hear exactly what their audience was hearing. Because of this, a special microphone system had to be designed to prevent feedback. The Dead used matched pairs of condenser microphones spaced 60 mm apart and run out-of-phase. The vocalist sang into the top microphone, and the lower mic picked up whatever other sound was present in the stage environment. The signals were summed, the sound that was common to both mics (the sound from the Wall) was cancelled, and only the vocals were amplified. It makes sense, but I think there is a reason why this experiment never really took off. (By most accounts, the phase-cancelling microphone array simply sounded bad.)
  16. It swings both negative AND positive. I don't see how you can classify that as DC. But I imagine there's a good chance that the CV CW chirps you describe are the same thing as what the OP has observed. D- Please see me after class.
  17. Rubber or plastic? If you're cleaning rubber (such as pinch rollers on a tape machine), people have been using diluted Fantastik cleaner for years.
  18. By virtue of the fact that it is moving from negative to positive, it isn't DC. It is very low frequency information, and it is normal behavior for an oscillator. Don't worry about it.
  19. In response to the OP... You could tape two cardioid microphones together, facing opposite directions from each-other (so that one is facing the talent and the other has the talent in the null), and invert the polarity of either. With their gains matched, this will effectively create a figure-of-eight microphone, which potentially could minimize some amount of ambient noise, but depending on what the second capsule is pointed at, may also introduce other problems. If you can record these on discrete tracks, you could choose the pattern (omni, cardioid, hypercardioid or figure of eight) in post to suit each situation. If schedule or track count limitations are forcing you to commit to a particular pattern, it's probably better to use a hypercardioid mic placed as close to the talent as permitted and just go with it. Can you bring gobos?
  20. Nothing has changed (except that engineers are afraid to put vintage U87s on toms now).
  21. I purposely echoed Soundwill's choice of words. "Shifting" phase IS a function of delay. From a technical perspective, this is DIFFERENT from inverting polarity. "Flipping phase" may have come to mean the same thing as "inverting polarity", so this is purely a semantic discussion. But seeing as this is a technical field, it doesn't hurt to be specific.
  22. This is purely a function of polar pattern. What you are describing is greatly-varying sensitivity across a range of SPLs, and I've never experienced that with any microphone. Assuming gain, frequency response and polar patterns are equal, you will not see condensers exhibit more susceptibility to feedback than another transducer type.
  23. Most of MJ's vocals were NOT done with an SM7. One was used on Thriller. Bruce Swedien has talked about this on multiple occasions. I cannot speak for his reasoning behind choosing one over say, a C12, but I suspect it had something to do with performance, attitude, and handling noise because these are the reasons why I have chosen an SM7 over other microphones myself. Same goes for Bono's famous use of a Beta 58. In all cases (just as it should be), performance and attitude trump sonics.
  24. See reasons 3 and 4. When put up side-by-side in a controlled environment, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who prefers an SM58 to a U47 for sonic reasons.
×
×
  • Create New...