OCEANROCK STUDIOS new website

[Guest lime ruined my life]

although you can tell the difference between 320khz and 192khz, id say 192 suffices, cd quality is generally accepted as 128. Although obviously if possible i'd use 320.

96khz is piss.

You probably know this but, you do realise that a lot of the information stored in the "true" data is actually redundant, as certain parts are masked by our brains (the first few ms heard after a big noise which varys on frequency and amplitude, also the very first part before a big noise is masked, but no one has made a compression format to utilise that yet.). It's perfectly acceptable to throw these bits of information away, to a certain degree of course. As with everything, quality is down to the process where the data was "written". whereas with mp3's this is done by the user, with record it was done by a record company. You do get shit recordings on record/cd.

Anyway, i thought i'd try to address your cynical attitude towards mp3 players. im done now.

This is why I dispise MP3 players. Yeah they're perfect for some portable listening or uploading a sample track to the Internet' date=' but please don't tell me they sound good. What is the point on using 24 bit digital recording at 96KHz sample rates and mics with incredible responses to get a really good S:N ratio, only to go chucking 90% of the information away LMAO!

?[/quote']

[Flash@TMB]

Anyway' date=' i thought i'd try to address your cynical attitude towards mp3 players. im done now.[/quote']

I'm not anti MP3. It's a great way to carry 4,000,000 tunes aorund in your pocket. It also works well in the car where the engine, wind, and road noise obscure most of the music. But that's about as far as it goes. Here's a good link that goes into bit rates, sample rates, how MP3s are encoded, and how the quality of the encoder drastically affects the quality of the sound.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3

If you are interested then be in the bar some Friday, Saturday or Sunday night around closing time, and introduce yourself. We can run audio through different CD players, Minidisc, MP3, SACD, DVD etc and let you hear the difference. You can even bring your own MP3 player along and we'll hook it up. Most people are shocked at how easily they can distinguish between different CD players, let alone MP3 and SACD.

[Guest lime ruined my life]

thatd be cool, if i had an mp3 player, i still havnt been down to the moorings. If im in soon i'll introduce myself and bring my bjork sacd. (its the only sacd i have)

Nice link, it seems to just detail what i said about the noise masking though.

i know what your getting at with the mp3 quality thing, but i think the argument is only really valid to really rich audiophiles who spend all their hard earned cash on ridiculous analouge valve amps, which inevetably colour the sound anyway!

i think this paragraph from your link sums it up really

"Good encoders produce acceptable quality at 128 to 160 Kibit/s and near-transparency at 160 to 192 Kibit/s, while low quality encoders may never reach transparency, not even at 320 Kbit/s. It is therefore misleading to speak of 128 Kibit/s or 192 Kibit/s quality, except in the context of a particular encoder or of the best available encoders. A 128 Kibit/s MP3 produced by a good encoder might sound better than a 192 Kibit/s MP3 file produced by a bad encoder."

[threeornothing]

http://www.toeragstudios.com

Now thats a studio!

Mind you, all I've been listening to lately are my original Beatles vinyl, and the sound on those pisses over everything today....so that studio could be absolute garbage and I'd still think it sounded great just cos it looks "fab"..and "gear"....

Cool interview with Steve Albini in this months Sound on Sound which has made me look at the studio process in a complete different light...especially the part where he says he'll keep working on a session even if a band run out of money....gives me ideas

"Steve...sorry man...we didn't know it was gonna cost so much to get here, but we were planning on paying for 3 months in the studio!"

[threeornothing]

My stance on mp3's....BRILLIANT! I can send johnny down under my music and he can be listening to it as it downloads...thats amazing!! No C90's in the post costing a fortune etc...for getting your stuff out their, absolutely amazing.

BUT....with the quality taken into account, I think its a fucking disgrace that Apple (et al) are trying to make you buy all your music in a shit quality, for near enough the same price, but with the artists getting less of a cut, and the consumer being ripped off listening to "acceptable" sound quality....all mp3's sound like a toilet flushing, period. Its great for sharing your music, but I don't believe the future of music should be downloading poor quality versions of music...which is what we will get if we don't do something about it.....

HMV and Virgin are now moving into the download territory...when One Up start following suit, I'll start getting very worried

[Flash@TMB]

Nice link' date=' it seems to just detail what i said about the noise masking though.

i know what your getting at with the mp3 quality thing, but i think the argument is only really valid to really rich audiophiles who spend all their hard earned cash on ridiculous analouge valve amps, which inevetably colour the sound anyway![/quote']

Now you're just putting your own spin on it. How about this paragraph:

"As well as the bit rate of the encoded file, the quality of MP3 files depend on the quality of the encoder and the difficulty of the signal being encoded. For average signals with good encoders, many listeners accept the MP3 bit rate of 128 kibit/s as near enough to compact disc quality for them, providing a compression ratio of approximately 11:1. However, listening tests show that with a bit of practice many listeners can reliably distinguish 128 kibit/s MP3s from CD originals; in many cases reaching the point where they consider the MP3 audio to be of unacceptably low quality. Yet other listeners, and the same listeners in other environments (such as in a noisy moving vehicle or at a party) will consider the quality acceptable."

***

But rather than argue about what one weblink says, I'd prefer to draw on considerable after hours experience listening to various sources back to back. This is something that we can do if you do come down to the bar...

...and you will be in for a nasty shock! The MP3 disgards a lot of important information. Listening to it back to back with any CD player really highlights just how utterly shite MP3 is. A deaf monkey with a trumpet up it's arse could distinguish the difference.

Also amazing is the difference between a regular CD player and a semi decent one. Even when both the crap CD player and the decent one connected direct via their digital outputs BEFORE analogue conversion sound astonishingly different. I would go as far to say that the quality of the decoder makes more difference that the quality of the converter.

MP3s sounds fine on their own, because what you don't know you're missing doesn't hurt you. But back to back with a decent source and you suddenly discover that all sort of things are missing. In some cases entire instruments.

And this is without any mega expensive valve amp or anything that colours the sound.

What will also impress is the sheer quality of certain recordings, even old Jefferson Airplane ones. Dig deep enough with decent gear and you turn up all sorts of goodies. But be warned this is quite addictive and can turn into an expensive hobby.

I only became an audiophile after visiting a friends house. He had a decent setup and had just spend a ludicrous sum on speaker cable. He's a joiner BTW. Anyhow he was going on about this and I said "But surely it doesn't sound all that different." Thinking that my crap Sony MIDI HiFI CD player would probably sound better than some scratchy old vinyl. So he put on a record and I almost fell off my chair in amazement!

And take into account that decent HiFi can be procured for only a couple of hundred quid!

[Guest lime ruined my life]

"As well as the bit rate of the encoded file' date=' the quality of MP3 files depend on the quality of the encoder and the difficulty of the signal being encoded. For average signals with good encoders, many listeners accept the MP3 bit rate of 128 kibit/s as near enough to compact disc quality for them, providing a compression ratio of approximately 11:1. However, listening tests show that with a bit of practice many listeners can reliably distinguish 128 kibit/s MP3s from CD originals; in many cases reaching the point where they consider the MP3 audio to be of unacceptably low quality. Yet other listeners, and the same listeners in other environments (such as in a noisy moving vehicle or at a party) will consider the quality acceptable."

***

But rather than argue about what one weblink says, I'd prefer to draw on considerable after hours experience listening to various sources back to back. This is something that we can do if you do come down to the bar...

...and you will be in for a nasty shock! The MP3 disgards a lot of important information. Listening to it back to back with any CD player really highlights just how utterly shite MP3 is. A deaf monkey with a trumpet up it's arse could distinguish the difference.

Also amazing is the difference between a regular CD player and a semi decent one. Even when both the crap CD player and the decent one connected direct via their digital outputs BEFORE analogue conversion sound astonishingly different. I would go as far to say that the quality of the decoder makes more difference that the quality of the converter.

MP3s sounds fine on their own, because what you don't know you're missing doesn't hurt you. But back to back with a decent source and you suddenly discover that all sort of things are missing. In some cases entire instruments.

And this is without any mega expensive valve amp or anything that colours the sound.

What will also impress is the sheer quality of certain recordings, even old Jefferson Airplane ones. Dig deep enough with decent gear and you turn up all sorts of goodies. But be warned this is quite addictive and can turn into an expensive hobby.

I only became an audiophile after visiting a friends house. He had a decent setup and had just spend a ludicrous sum on speaker cable. He's a joiner BTW. Anyhow he was going on about this and I said "But surely it doesn't sound all that different." Thinking that my crap Sony MIDI HiFI CD player would probably sound better than some scratchy old vinyl. So he put on a record and I almost fell off my chair in amazement!

And take into account that decent HiFi can be procured for only a couple of hundred quid![/quote']

i guess theres only one way to find out.

[Rob Karloff]

I only became an audiophile after visiting a friends house. He had a decent setup and had just spend a ludicrous sum on speaker cable. He's a joiner BTW. Anyhow he was going on about this and I said "But surely it doesn't sound all that different." Thinking that my crap Sony MIDI HiFI CD player would probably sound better than some scratchy old vinyl. So he put on a record and I almost fell off my chair in amazement!

That wouldn't be Callum McKenzie now would it...? He's the only joiner I know that has a Linn Sondek turntable!

[Neil]

Dig deep enough with decent gear and you turn up all sorts of goodies. But be warned this is quite addictive and can turn into an expensive hobby.

You're not wrong there. I'm starting to get quite bad - I spent 40 on just interconnects between my CD player and amp! And I know that is nothing compared to what some people will spend...

[Flash@TMB]

That wouldn't be Callum McKenzie now would it...? He's the only joiner I know that has a Linn Sondek turntable!

Yes! LMAO good guess! Also ace builder of custom cars and motorcycles. As you'll know technically he's a furniture maker... but that would have made the story too complicated.

Callum used to DJ in the Satellite bar.

[Flash@TMB]

You're not wrong there. I'm starting to get quite bad - I spent 40 on just interconnects between my CD player and amp! And I know that is nothing compared to what some people will spend...

Ever bought a moving coil phono cartridge? OUCH!

[drum bum]

Hello again!

We record everything digitally apart from voice and occasionally drums' date=' but once a drummer hears how Roland V-Drums sound on the recording they are hooked !!.

Cheers

Nathan[/quote']

I dont know if I agree, the roland td8 sounds pants, yeah the snare has a snare sound but it doesnt sound like a snare, and dynamics on the hats are crap and the whole kit smells cheese.

Ive recorded dozens of tracks on the td8 and td10/ td20, and yeah they'll do to a point, Personally i wouldnt record with one unless i really had to.

Also your not gonna get complete seperation from the td8 because its only got 2 direct outs, even the td10 doesnt have complete seperation

Some engineers i know got lazy and hid behind the td10s to cover up they wernt that great at recording drums and knew next to nothing about mike placement.

But i will admit if i was an engineer and not a drummer id probably be pushing the td8 too, there good time saving tools..

mike

[Cloud]

educate me : is time saving a good thing when it comes to recording?

[Flash@TMB]

educate me : is time saving a good thing when it comes to recording?

Less time spent = less money spent. So good from a fiscal perspective. From a quality perspective more time spent usually equals better quality up until you reach the point of diminishing returns.

[drum bum]

educate me : is time saving a good thing when it comes to recording?

No i don't think it is.

[MTA]

Drums are easy to record when you know what you are doing

[Scootray]

Ocean Rock studios is a good place to practice as an individual, a band, and also for recording. We've been in there plenty of times for all three, and it's certainly been beneficial to us as a band and individuals.

24 per hour isn't extortionate at all.

[threeornothing]

Drums are easy to record when you know what you are doing

They're also a lot easier when you have more than 2 mic pres... a la the Digi 001 How much mics do you guys use at the Byre?!

[MTA]

I can use up to 18 mics on the kit. maybe more if a crazy sound is needed, It might sound like a lot but it does give you loads of sound options. I quite often record using 24 tracks to get everything down edit then start the overdubs.

[threeornothing]

:| ace!

We really need to start saving

[The Milner]

I dont know if I agree' date=' the roland td8 sounds pants, yeah the snare has a snare sound but it doesnt sound like a snare, and dynamics on the hats are crap and the whole kit smells cheese.

Ive recorded dozens of tracks on the td8 and td10/ td20, and yeah they'll do to a point, Personally i wouldnt record with one unless i really had to.

Also your not gonna get complete seperation from the td8 because its only got 2 direct outs, even the td10 doesnt have complete seperation

Some engineers i know got lazy and hid behind the td10s to cover up they wernt that great at recording drums and knew next to nothing about mike placement.

But i will admit if i was an engineer and not a drummer id probably be pushing the td8 too, there good time saving tools..

mike[/quote']

I agree i hate the sound of td8's no matter what they will always sound too fake i think. The cymbols and hats are a big let down.

[oceanrockstudios]

V-Drums versus Acoustic Drums - the truth !!

Hi there!

Great to see so much debate about V-Drums and acoustic drums. At OCEANROCK STUDIOS we use and record both. And there are very clear reasons why :-

V-Drums - for new bands with limited cash they can come in and start recording without the hours required to set up the acoustic kit. Also, we can record the midi from the Roland and then select sounds later on in the final mix! ( which obviously you cannot do with the acoustic kit!! ). For the techies out there, we can also quantize it !!!

Acoustic kit - for those who can afford the set up time and have a quality drum kit which is well tuned and rattle free!

So, no option is better than the other because it depends on how much time and money you have.

Cheers

nathan www.oceanrockstudios.co.uk

[Tav]

http://www.toeragstudios.com

Now thats a studio!

Mind you' date=' all I've been listening to lately are my original Beatles vinyl, and the sound on those pisses over everything today....so that studio could be absolute garbage and I'd still think it sounded great just cos it looks "fab"..and "gear"....

[/quote']

Weren't all the old records, like the beatles, recorded onto 4 tracks and then eventually 8 tracks when they were available. If so I'd like to know some more about being able to get those sounds with on 4 or 8 tracks and what equipment they used...less is more?

[threeornothing]

It was actually 3 track machines they used! (the UK was a bit slow...)

As for how they got that sound....maybe ask George Marten Abbey Road was a big studio designed originally for orchestras in the 30's, so the rooms must sound brilliant. The microphones used were all Neumann U47's, which is a highly desirable piece of vintage kit these days..the redd 37 console probably plays a big part in the sound, as well as the highly skilled engineers of the time. There weren't huge consoles with corrective EQ's, so mic placement was crucial...also listen to a lot of Ringo's drumming. I always thought he sucked but now I hear he is playing things at the right moment to avoid frequency masking etc...also remember....track 1 on the tape would probably contain the drums, bass and guitar, so it all had to be right on that one take. An interesting thing is these early desks didn't have pan controls, they had a simple L-C-R (left centre right) switch. Panning things stereo meant it had to exist on two tracks and the two faders were adjusted pound for pound. Other techniques they had were crazy, like them discovering how to use loops, by taping some tape together then tensioning the tape with a mic stand as opposed to the reels.Theres a great website with all the beatles goofs on their recordings, which once you read, you'll never be able to hear beatles records without the mistakes again. Even today I was listening to "Drive my car" on headphones, and all I could hear was the bleed of a guitar track that wasn't used!! Theres a book in the works (for quite some time now!) called recording the beatles (http://www.recordingthebeatles.com) which should hopefully give a much better insight than I possibly can, and be full of great pics of some awesome vintage gear/sessions. Its truley fascinating, I think George Martin's ingenuity, along with the Beatles being one of the first bands to take control of their recording sessions, all shaped the recording industry into what it is today.

I got a bit obsessed with reading into the Beatles studio sessions which ultimately lead me getting back into them, and hearing them in a whole new light. Fascinating stuff indeed, its all out there on google and usenet!

[Scorge]

I agree i hate the sound of td8's no matter what they will always sound too fake i think. The cymbols and hats are a big let down.

If you're going to use an electronic kit, get a Pintech. And use your own cymbals......