- This topic has 3 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Greetings members,
Deeper into the home recording rabbit hole we go. This podcast with SCGC’s Will Kahn takes us behind the red ropes of ultimate home recording. Will talks about the difference’s in interfaces and what’s really most important in getting a great recording at home. This is a fantastic interview full of great info, hope you enjoy. Here’s where to listen.
Apple Podcasts
Soundcloud https://on.soundcloud.com/UAMYx
YouTube https://youtu.be/baOJHq8l6gw
We’re going deeper with Eric Skye and Tad, fresh back from the Woodstock Luthier Festival has a few surprises as well.
Hope you enjoy!
-
-
-
Happy NYE y’all!
I’m looking back at this a couple of months later, I’m of course inspired by the great podcast, and more recently from seeing Neil Young’s film and another podcast with Neil and Rick Rubin talking about both modern and ’70s production https://youtu.be/PZ-AVFpB3KI. I have some questions!
First, Neil and Rick talk about recording a studio session directly to tape, and then taking it to digital with a play back head directly behind the record head. They offer context for this in relating that tape is changing in mere hours after recording is completed, and describing how after a session, making a rough mix was immediate requirement. Now that was pretty cool to hear, and I’m imagining that the mechanism may be print-through from one layer of mag tape to the next, or perhaps just the nature of the medium.
They conclude that so much more is possible in digital production than analog – where every step loses some fidelity. I thought it was a remarkable approach to getting the best from both the analog recording and digital for for production.
Questions for Will (et al):
Going back to the ’80s when LSI op amps became available, it was my understanding that the class A amplifier specification baked in assumptions based in tub amp design that are just not appropriate for solid state design, in particular an “A” amp must not change its mains current draw more than some given small percent mo matter the wattage output being drawn at the output. — Granting that this is an easy objective to achieve in pre-amp circuits, I still wonder of class A designation is important in an analog signal chain?
Following from that, before LSI and VLSI made it possible to build an op amp on chip circuit. The design of the operational amplifier requires matched transistors – easy when all the components are on a single silicon die. To do this working from discrete components in the way I guess Burl must do requires that paired transistors be matched pairs, so transistors taken from one die must be kept in a batch. Question is: not all op amps are $0.30 cent value, there are (expensive) LSI op amps designed for high audio fidelity. How much advantage does the Burl method carry over the use of better components?
I can surely hear the difference between my SM-57, SM-81, and TF-11 when recording directly to my TASCAM, Now to best hear that difference, I need to listen with my better headphones – Grado 1x reference; my ATmx-40 HPs just don’t cut it. Same goes for passing through what I thought was a fairly decent mixing panel – an A&H 10 channel. So I have to wonder, how much more is there to gain from say Burl electronics? I should say, due to our very small living space, studio speakers aren’t an option.
To be sure, I’m happy with my audio rig. I can obtain recordings I’m happy with from my two condenser mics, and I’ve found that placing the sm-81 trained on the lower bout, with the large diaphragm TF-11 on the fretboard gets great tone sans post EQ processing. Before I added the TF-11, I would catch the room with the sm-57, and the instrument directly with the sm-81, again, a good compromise.
Thanks again for the great discussion!
SCGC 1934 OM Adi > BRW
#1 build WRC > flame maple
Solist 🌈 burst on quilt maple
Martin OM-28
Strat rosewood > mahogany 2021
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.