Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Tube rolling
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Tube rolling - Page 8

post #106 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post
 

..especially as a musician myself who has seen and heard how engineers can wreck a good song.

 

What? The sound is your responsibility. The engineer's name doesn't headline on the sleeve. If you have to learn to engineer it yourself to get it right, then that's what you have to do. Shift the responsibility onto somebody else, that's an easy way to get a crap result.

 

As a musician myself, I always made damn sure I knew how to get the best from the electronics. All the best musicians I knew were stone cold engineers when it came to objectivity. Sounds like you still got a few things to learn.

 

w

post #107 of 178

Some musicians just want to make music... They depend on a really good Music Supervisor and engineering team. Nothing wrong with that. Better to work with pros who know it inside and out than to depend on your own limited knowledge of technical issues as a musician, especially if all you want to do is compose and play.

post #108 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post

So you basically don't own or have heard tube amps then. As I thought. I guess you must hate all your guitar amps on clean and switch to solid state for that instead? Thanks for the laugh!


Well, I also own a Roland JC-120 and a Gallien Kruger 250ML .. And several DI-boxes ..

Other than that - Thanks for the laugh, I always enjoy watching 'Hi-Fi' subjectivist loose it .

(except for the fact that you are not concerned about playback Hi-Fi -

I am, because I want to know what it really sounds like )


Edited by bufferoverflow - 3/8/14 at 5:33pm
post #109 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakibaki View Post
 

 

What? The sound is your responsibility. The engineer's name doesn't headline on the sleeve. If you have to learn to engineer it yourself to get it right, then that's what you have to do. Shift the responsibility onto somebody else, that's an easy way to get a crap result.

 

As a musician myself, I always made damn sure I knew how to get the best from the electronics. All the best musicians I knew were stone cold engineers when it came to objectivity. Sounds like you still got a few things to learn.

 

w

 

No, the mix/mastering is the responsibility of the guy getting paid to do it. Doesn't mean I won't have a say, but ultimately, when you're a professional and the label is paying the bills and you have a deadline, you don't always have time or a choice. And as bigshot said, these guys have decades of experience in a very technical field. If you think you can rival their knowledge you're dreaming. However, there remains the problem of what the musician wants the album to sound like vs what the engineers think sounds best, add to that the time factor, and you more often than not have to settle for something that won't be perfect for you.

 

The fact that you seem to believe you can walk into any studio and figure out every machine they use (which vary from studio to studio) or think that you have recording/mixing/mastering techniques some engineers guard like a trade secret figured out make it sound like you're the one who still has a few things left to learn.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bufferoverflow View Post
 


Well, I also own a Roland JC-120 and a Gallien Kruger 250ML .. And several DI-boxes ..

Other than that - Thanks for the laugh, I always enjoy watching 'Hi-Fi' subjectivist loose it .

(except for the fact that you are not concerned about playback Hi-Fi -

I am, because I want to know what it really sounds like )

 

So like I said you haven't heard a tube amp used for playback. You're pretty much comparing apple and oranges, without having tasted oranges. The only one losing it is the guy saying a piece of gear sucks without having heard it. You want to know what it really sounds like, that's great. When I'm at home I want to enjoy my music without having a clinical sound for a critical listen. If that's not to your liking, tough luck buddy.

post #110 of 178

Well, I listened to The Rolling Stones at Hyde Park, they seemed to have managed to strike an acceptable compromise with the TV engineers.

 

w

post #111 of 178

Are you implying you're an artist with enough fame and renown to be on par with a band like The Rolling Stones who have their pick of the litter when it comes to record label and what goes into their contracts? Because I can assure you that unless you've got a few platinum albums under your belt or the label isn't funding the recording/mixing/mastering/marketing of your album (which would mean it's self-funded), it's highly unlikely that you're bossing engineers around in the studio.

 

Only on Head-Fi will you see people compare themselves to one of the most famous rock bands on the planet :rolleyes:

post #112 of 178

And since we're on the topic of The Rolling Stones, let's take a look at their first album, recorded at the Regent Sounds Studio:

 

Quote:
 In early 1964, The Rolling Stones recorded their hugely successful first album at Regent Sound Studio. Keith Richards said in an interview “We did our early records on a 2-track Revox in a room insulated with egg cartons at Regent Sound. It was like a little demo in Tin Pan Alley, as it used to be called. Denmark Street in Soho. It was all done on a 2-track Revox that he had on the wall. We used to think, oh, this is a recording studio, huh? This is what they’re like? A tiny little backroom. Under those primitive conditions it was easy to make the kind of sound we got on our first album and the early singles, but hard to make a much better one.”

 

Enough said.

post #113 of 178

The Stones were never known for their sound quality. That was the Beatles' forte.

post #114 of 178

Well, to be fair it was the Abbey Road's studio staff's forte ;)

post #115 of 178
I get the impression that nether of them had a member with specific responsibility for pissing off the engineer.

w
post #116 of 178
Perhaps that's because they knew better smily_headphones1.gif
post #117 of 178
Quote:
So like I said you haven't heard a tube amp used for playback

Right, because macintosh never made a tube-amp, neither did B&O or anyone else ..

I grew up with that tube-crap ..

post #118 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

 

Today, even midrange solid state amps achieve perfect sound and reach the goal of hi-fi for amps which is being basically "a wire with gain".

 

So what would be difference between a midrange solid state and a TOTL solid state amp?    Would something like the O2 achieve perfect sound, or just get close to perfection?

post #119 of 178

The difference would be noise floors you'll never reach and frequency extension beyond the range of human ears.

 

Perfection is a matter of definition. Do you want the best you can hear? Or do you want the best that an amp can do? Me, I just care about what I can hear. I'm not going to spend thousands of dollars on inaudible differences.


Edited by bigshot - 3/12/14 at 7:36pm
post #120 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

The difference would be noise floors you'll never reach and frequency extension beyond the range of human ears.

 

Perfection is a matter of definition. Do you want the best you can hear? Or do you want the best that an amp can do? Me, I just care about what I can hear. I'm not going to spend thousands of dollars on inaudible differences.

 

But would you buy a midrange amp, or would you be content with something like the O2?   In other words, can you hear a difference between an entry level amp and one which costs around $500? 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Tube rolling