Quote:
Originally Posted by Fran Guidry
I don't know if you have the inclination, but it can be very educational to go through the hassle of a careful level matched same source comparison. Small details in the recording process can have a large impact on our impression of the results, so level matching with a test tone, positioning the mics as close the same location as possible, and recording the same session through both mics simultaneously will reduce the variables and allow you to hear the real differences with more confidence.
The reason I keep singing this old song has to do with the thousands I spent on gear when I was trying to learn to improve my recordings. I read the posts on Gearslutz that convinced me I had to have a John Hardy preamp and solid gold a/d converters or I'd be wasting my efforts. Of course, the first session through the Hardy was a revelation - veils were lifted, angels sang, and I was on my way to a Grammy! But the next day my tracks sounded as bad as ever (grin). It took a long time to figure out that a good recording required (as Jim1960 lists above) a good performance, a decent sounding space, a flattering mic position. And once these things were taken care of and the gear didn't add hum or hiss or crackles, didn't wipe out the bass or make the highs shriek, the tracks sounded pretty darned good.
So I try to be the anti-Gearslutz. And today I have plenty of fairly high end equipment and do most of my recording on a Zoom H6 XY.
Fran
|
Fran we have been round and round on this in many threads.
And you still seem to confuse that when someone suggests that" in general you get what you pay for " that they are saying the gear alone will make your recoding better, that is of course only in your imagination. No one has said or inferred that gear alone will make your mixes better, period.
So your anecdotal experience with thinking that, because someone on GearSlutz told you to by a John Hardy and you still had bad mixes, is fine for your learning curve. But inferring that experience has any relationship to what people might be suggesting , is not only false but frankly a bit insulting . As is your constant demand for proof to justify the notion that in a general sense "you get what you pay for" and better gear might have some value.
No one here has suggested bad room, poor recording techniques, or inexperience can be overcome by more expensive gear. In fact almost universally the opposite happens, where it is suggested that looking to the room and technique should come first.
No one here has suggested you cannot get good recordings with gear that is very modestly priced.
No one here has suggested "
a good performance, a decent sounding space, a flattering mic position. And once these things were taken care of and the gear didn't add hum or hiss or crackles, didn't wipe out the bass or make the highs shriek, the tracks sounded pretty darned good.",,,,, is not basically accurate
Perhaps the fact that you "
try to be the anti-Gearslutz." is arguably the problem and not the solution you have convinced yourself it is .
You often seem to bring this anti-Gearslutz crusade into discussions about the possible value of higher priced gear. As well intentioned as that might be. It is somewhat predicated on the notion that folks here need to be saved from suffering the same disappointment you went through when you mistook the notion that higher price gear could make up for poor technique and lack of experience or poor room acoustics . As if others will either suffer the same disappointment or delude themselves into believing there is an improvement.
"And today I have plenty of fairly high end equipment and do most of my recording on a Zoom H6 XY".
Is fine for your personal situation, but is a bit arrogant ( smacks of "If it's good enough for me" and "If I can't hear it it isn't there" or have real value) to assume that is corollary of the rest of our situations.
And lastly to answer: The concept that the more noise or hyped anomaly that is the signal chain, becomes increasingly more noticeable when multiplied over increasing numbers of tracks is absolutely common knowledge. Because it is in fact physics not a "phenomenon" as you condescendingly labeled it .
In digital recording there is absolute limit to the dynamic ceiling of signal , and while the increases in track numbers increases the noise and distortion, and raises the noise floor , there no corresponding increase in the absolute ceiling ( 0 db ) so what happens is the noise increases in relation to the absolute signal limit. And that increase in noise does start to increase the loss of sense of space (3D) distinction, and detail, and the mixes become more dull (less detailed) and flatter (more 2D) . And yes I have also experienced it on sessions of multiple tracks.