[Harp-L] Home recording

[Robert Ross <robertaross@xxxxxxxxx>]

RICHARD HUNTER WROTE:
 This I really don't get.  One of the great things about having a
good
 recording program is that you can mix "in the box," i.e. inside the
 computer--you don't need to bother with the external hardware.  You
 don't
 need the control you get from the mixer if all you need is a couple
of
 inputs--you only need the mixer if you're making recordings that
 require
 8-16 inputs, and even then you can put the inputs on the audio
 interface and mix in the box.

---------------

Since Gary is a top player, I looked at my thoughts in the light that
he probably wants to lean in the direction of better quality and a
clear upgrade path to more tracks and more serious recording.
Firewire ports and mixers give him that choice in my opinion for just
a slight increase in cost these days. Although USB 2.0 is adequate,
the reason so many music pros use Mac is Firewire I believe. Of
course, I am not such a pro, though I did a lot of research and
asking around when I bought my setup 2 years ago - a long time in the
digital world - which is why I ended up recommending
HomeRecording.com for more input.

I guess you are right about most people not being able to actually
hear the difference between 44.1kHz and 96kHz. Higher track count as
you mentioned, is just one factor in that, which I do think is
important because you may start out wanted to record just two
musicians, but later as you get into it may want to be able to do
much more than that with your setup. But as for the 24/96, why do so
many professional studios record and master in 24/96? 

As a pro, limiting Gary to MP3 quality doesn't make sense. Secondly,
think like a photographer. You buy a 10 Megapixel digital camera even
if you are printing only 3 Megapixel files. You can't distinguish
between 10MP and 3MP output on a 4x6 print, just like you can't hear
the difference bettwen 44.1 and 96 kHz. However applying color
correction on 10MP images and then downsampling to 3MP for printing
produces a much higher quality result than doing the editing directly
in the 3MP files. 

Recording studios do the same thing by recording and processing audio
files at 96kHz, then downsampling, which in theory, produces higher
fidelity files than doing processing in 16bit / 44.1kHz. Who knows
where Gary is going to go with this. The cost difference between
slightly better, more capable equipment and the low end is not that
much these days at all. I wasn't talking high end stuff here. My $300
Alesis mixer can do 24/96 - even my hand held Multitrack field
recorder can do it. Of course, if you have to be on a tight budget,
then a simple audio interface and a couple of decent vocal mics will
start you out for under $300. Not knowing Gary's budget, I suggested
a range of options. But for myself, even on a budget I'd want a setup
I could grow into and that could grow with me. 

As for the mixer on the front end, that is my personal preference as
I said. Of course I was recording myself with Garageband long before
getting a mixer. For me it was a pain to mix in the computer while I
am actually playing and recording myself at the same time. It is much
more intuitive to reach over, in the flow, grab a knob I can see in
the real world to adjust the mixer than it is to go to the PC, grab
the mouse, move the cursor to the right spot and make and make my
adjustments. I am very digital, having bought my first portable
computer in 1981, my first cell phone in 1989, and built my first web
site in 1995. I live in a very digital world - yet even for me some
things are just more comfortable and natural in their analog form. 

- Robert
www.rawfoodlife.com


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ