|Industry rags||Arkansan Raider||2/11/12 8:52 AM|
I seem to remember a discussion of industry mags a while back, but I
don't remember which thread it was in.
My question is: Which of the music industry mags are worth subscribing
to from both a tech learning standpoint and an industry learning
standpoint? IOW, how-tos on tech and info about the industry/music
business in general.
Scott, I know you contribute to Recording Magazine, and that is one that
I'm considering subscribing to. I liked it back when I was subscribing,
and I've seen some issues lately that looked interesting.
I just hit a link to Sound On Sound that was an article link from the
turnmeup.org link in the LOUDNESS WARS thread. It looks really
interesting and pretty dang thorough. Seriously thinking about that one.
I remember that Mix used to be pretty good, but I seem to remember
reading in that earlier thread that it has degenerated somewhat--is that
I used to pick up Electronic Musician, but I've not read one in a while.
I'm not sure how many mags I want to subscribe to, certainly Recording
Magazine and possibly Sound On Sound, but if much better content is out
there, I'd like to know.
What's your opinions, folks?
|Re: Industry rags||hank alrich||2/11/12 9:05 AM|
|Re: Industry rags||Jeff Henig||2/11/12 9:21 AM|
|Re: Industry rags||Scott Dorsey||2/11/12 9:40 AM|
Arkansan Raider <yom...@yomama.com> wrote:It's good. It has some interesting stuff in it. It varies from really
good to occasionally lousy, but it's never really really bad.
Most of the other big market magazines at least once an issue have
something that makes me hit my head and say "That's stupid and wrong."
Sound On Sound and Resolution are both British and are probably the two
best industry magazines out there today. They are as close as it gets
to what R/E/P used to be like. They are, sadly, also the most expensive
of the set.
They just changed their format, so things might be different soon. The
thing is, Mix was really a magazine that followed the studio industry,
and there just really isn't a studio industry left any more. It's a
different world, and Mix changed along with it, and it became far less
interesting as a result.
Live Sound is very good for the live sound folks. Tape Op is interesting
and eclectic; it has some of the best and some of the worst material out
there. And Tape Op is free so there's no reason not to get it. FOH is
an interesting live sound magazine also which I think fills the same kind
of gap that Mix used to, telling what band is working where and what company
is going bankrupt this week.
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
|Re: Industry rags||Jeff Henig||2/11/12 10:01 AM|
Looks like I've some online time to spend...
|Re: Industry rags||PStamler||2/11/12 12:00 PM|
As another guy who writes for Recording, I'm naturally prejudiced, but
I think the technical level in that magazine is consistently higher
than that of its competitors -- at least, its American competitors.
|Re: Industry rags||Mike Rivers||2/11/12 2:25 PM|
On 2/11/2012 11:52 AM, Arkansan Raider wrote:I write for Recording occasionally, as do a couple of others
from here. It's getting lighter than when I was writing
monthly but it's still pretty good, probably the best of the
US "general interest" recording-oriented music magazines.
They frequently have "themed" issues, so there are some
months where I get through an issue in half an hour because
I'm just not interested in most of the articles. Other
issues can keep focused for a couple of days of part time
Tape Op is pretty well written but most of the subject
matter deals with music in which I have no interest, so I
read it as a matter of curiosity rather than actually
learning anything. They try to be retro but everybody they
write about uses a DAW unless it's a cheap tape machine for
"lo fi" production.
Sound on Sound and Resolution are my favorite magazines, but
both are British, and neither one has free distribution in
the US. I pick up issues at trade shows and there's usually
enough reading material to hold me until the next show. If I
bought a subscription, they'd probably pile up. I let Mix
and Electronic Musician pile up because they rarely have
anything that I want to save, so they're good "portable"
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson
http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff
|Re: Industry rags||geoff||2/11/12 2:33 PM|
Arkansan Raider wrote:That's exactly what I've whittled down to for the last 3 years or more.
|Re: Industry rags||Jeff Henig||2/11/12 3:04 PM|
Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote:Thanks, Mike!
I should've mentioned this as well: I'm wanting to go with digital distro
rather than print so's I can use an e-reader or laptop or something. I'm
not all that interested in letting print copies pile up, I've enough books
on my shelves.
Saying that, I've noticed that Recording and SoS both will do digital
distro, as well as Tape Op, of course.
|Re: Industry rags||Jeff Henig||2/11/12 3:04 PM|
Roger that. Thanks!
|Re: Industry rags||Jeff Henig||2/11/12 4:26 PM|
My exposure to its competitors has been limited, but I've always enjoyed
the reviews and DIY projects, not to mention some of the interviews.
The TAXI section is usually pretty good, IMO.
I also like the ideas on self-distro and using available channels for
doing so. As I'm not really big on the whole big label gig, the indie
stuff they write about is very interesting to me.
|Re: Industry rags||Mike Rivers||2/12/12 4:58 AM|
On 2/11/2012 6:04 PM, Jeff Henig wrote:I get Pro Audio Review (which I also used to write for) and
Audio Media in digital form because they stopped sending me
print copies and they don't seem to be particularly
interested in stopping the digital version (though it's just
a monthly e-mail pointing me to a link. I never read them,
though I'll occasionally take a look at the table of
contents before deciding not to bother.
I don't know how these look on an e-reader but I absolutely
hate how they look on my computer. Way too much clicking in
order to read an article. I have shelves and shelves and
shelves of magazines dating back to the 1970s. I keep them
for reference. Sometimes I'd just pick an old issue of
R-E-P, leaf through it, and get an idea for an article to
I hate, hate, hate, hate print media in non-printed form. I
won't put up with it.
|Re: Industry rags||Scott Dorsey||2/12/12 6:12 AM|
In article <jh70vk$2cq$2...@dont-email.me>, Jeff Henig <yom...@yomama.com> wrote:
>My exposure to its competitors has been limited, but I've always enjoyedWell, write the editors and tell them this!
I am really, really annoyed when people say patently wrong things in interviews
which are then printed without correction or commentary. That's where a lot
of some of the fallacious common wisdom in the industry comes from... somebody
said something in a magazine interview decades ago and it lives on.
And what I like about Recording's interviews is that they try pretty hard to
Tape-Op does some of the most interesting interviews, and they do long-form
ones, but they don't attempt any fact checking at all. This is a mixed bag.
I'm still trying to figure out if that's an ad or if it's content. Still,
they seem to be doing okay.
There aren't any big label gigs any more. The big labels now are living off
of a few large acts and off of back catalogue. They don't have much in the
way of A&R at all and they don't have the distribution channels they used to
have. So self-distribution and small-label distribution has become critical
everywhere, but self-production has too and that's not such a good thing to
|Re: Industry rags||Ethan Winer||2/12/12 8:11 AM|
On Feb 11, 5:25 pm, Mike Rivers <mriv...@d-and-d.com> wrote:Not just Tape Op. It seems most of the "audio" mags these days have
several features on bands and musicians every issue. Like you, I don't
care what mic they used to record the tambourine overdubs. Heck, I
don't even care what mic they used to record the lead vocal. I am
interested in tips and techniques though, and of course theory.
|Re: Industry rags||philicorda||2/12/12 8:41 AM|
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 10:52:30 -0600, Arkansan Raider wrote:Sound on Sound is great, and has some very interesting original articles.
I particularly enjoy the 'classic tracks' thing they have been doing
recently. They take a famous song or album and analyse it from a
recording point of view, including new interviews with the original
engineers, producers and artists.
I don't enjoy reading the reviews of music gear though. Software and
equipment is often so complicated nowadays that most of the article is
often just spent explaining what it does. Tape-Op tends to assume the
reader already has some idea, which makes the reviews more interesting.
|Re: Industry rags||Mike Rivers||2/12/12 1:58 PM|
On 2/12/2012 9:12 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:An infomercial? I suspect that it pays a good bit of the
|Re: Industry rags||Mike Rivers||2/12/12 2:10 PM|
On 2/12/2012 11:41 AM, philicorda wrote:Mix has been doing "Classic Tracks" for years, but Sound on
Sound's goes into a lot more detail about the sessions
whereas the Mix version is stronger on history.
This is why I enjoy reading some reviews - because it
explains what something that I don't know about does. I
don't usually bother to read reviews of mics or compressors
or preamps because I'm not in the market for any more of
them. But since it seems that every new computer audio
interface has a little different schtick, I like to read
those to see why this one is different from the last one -
and they often really are. Sometimes you can get something
out of a review that's useful general knowledge, perhaps as
a technique. For example, a lot of these new dynamics
processing boxes are coming out with a parallel unprocessed
signal path that can be mixed in with the processed path. A
few sentences of how that can be useful can teach the reader
that he can do the same thing with the stuff that he already
has, and that it might be worth a try some time.
Sometimes, though, they assume too much, particularly
assuming that people recognize names, often nicknames, of
programs, plug-ins, and even hardware. I usually know what
they're talking about when they write "We used a 57 3 inches
off center" (a Shure SM-57 in front of the speaker of an
instrument amplifier) but a novice might need all the words.
|Re: Industry rags||hank alrich||2/12/12 8:27 PM|
Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:It's an infomercial in print.
Yes, they are. Lot of people get in the car and go nowhere, though.
WMB has lost a bit over ten billion dollars in the last ten years. The
CEo is still getting paid very well, thank you.
|Re: Industry rags||Marc Wielage||2/13/12 1:39 AM|
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 04:58:19 -0800, Mike Rivers wrote
(in article <jh8d1c$qaq$1...@dont-email.me>):
Some of them actually look pretty good on eBook readers like the iPad or the
I agree, it's a distressing trend for people of a certain generation.
Unfortunately, like the death of film, it's one of those things you gotta
just accept and move on with.
I'm currently in a transition stage: reading some things in book/magazine
form, reading others digitally on pad devices. Either way works to the point
where I'm unaware what medium I'm using, and I just let the words sink in.
Not a big deal to me anymore.
Get used to it if you can, because the world is moving on (whether or not we
|Re: Industry rags||Scott Dorsey||2/13/12 6:42 AM|
philicorda <phili...@dontspamme.com> wrote:That's kind of what I like about their reviews. They explain what it does,
if it does it well, and usually with some decent measurements. In fact, they
are about the ONLY magazine that does trustworthy measurements in their
The Tape Op reviews are sometimes done by experts, and sometimes by totally
clueless idiots who have no idea what the product is or what it's for. You
pays your money and you takes your chance.
|Re: Industry rags||geoff||2/13/12 11:26 AM|
Scott Dorsey wrote:
> That's kind of what I like about their reviews. They explain what itAnd if there is something they don't like, they actually say it, rather than
just 'not mention' that aspect.
|Re: Industry rags||Mike Rivers||2/13/12 1:37 PM|
On 2/13/2012 4:39 AM, Marc Wielage wrote:
> Get used to it if you can, because the world is moving on (whether or not weWill they give me an e-reader to go along with their new
format? I already have a couch which is all I need to read
a magazine. My only experience is reading e-zines is on a
computer which is not where I want to be when I'm reading a
magazine, and the screen format is all wrong for a magazine
page layout (which I know is not the case with an e-reader).
|Re: Industry rags||Marc Wielage||2/16/12 2:27 AM|
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:37:30 -0800, Mike Rivers wrote
(in article <jhbvqr$vsa$1...@dont-email.me>):
The question you gotta ask is: how much longer are you gonna be able to
receive a printed magazine?
My guess is, you got about as much time as you have in buying Kodak film.
Five years, maybe seven.
|Re: Industry rags||Mike Rivers||2/16/12 6:27 AM|
On 2/16/2012 5:27 AM, Marc Wielage wrote:Maybe by then I'll be dead, or my sight will be so poor that
I'll be clamoring for Sound on Sound as a talking book. Or
maybe an e-reader will only cost $15 and then I'll buy one.
I saw one at Micro Center yesterday for $35, but it wasn't
one of the big names, there wasn't any information on the
box as to what formats it would accommodate or what material
was available for it. So I didn't buy it.
|Re: Industry rags||0jun...@nomail.bellsloth.net||2/16/12 8:26 AM|
Yep, and then you'll have to hope that sos doesn't disable
text to speech in your e-reader of choice, adn that you can
manipulate the controls adequately <g>. That's why folks
like me are battling with the industry re such issues today
replace anything before at with elspider
|Re: Industry rags||geoff||2/16/12 12:23 PM|
Marc Wielage wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:37:30 -0800, Mike Rivers wrote
> (in article <jhbvqr$vsa$1...@dont-email.me>):
>> Will they give me an e-reader to go along with their new
>> format? I already have a couch which is all I need to read
>> a magazine.
> The question you gotta ask is: how much longer are you gonna be able
> to receive a printed magazine?
> My guess is, you got about as much time as you have in buying Kodak
> film. Five years, maybe seven.
Maybe they have invented infinite battery life by then, and electronics that
|Re: Industry rags||Scott Dorsey||2/16/12 1:33 PM|
geoff <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz> wrote:We had electronics that don't break, but they weren't profitable enough
because people weren't replacing them, and people didn't want to pay the
up-front costs. So now with RoHS and mass production we have products that
don't work as well or last as long but are far more profitable.
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
|Re: Industry rags||Marc Wielage||2/17/12 1:23 AM|
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:23:52 -0800, geoff wrote
(in article <0oGdnd6hy-BE-KDSnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@giganews.com>):
Yeah, and we'll have cars that fly and run on mini-fusion reactors, and all
they pollute is a gallon of water a year. Surrrrrrre.
Check any major newsstand magazine, and tell me they ain't shrinking. I got
a TIME magazine issue the other day that I swear, had about 40 pages. Awful.
About the only American magazine that hasn't shrunk to the size of a pamphlet
is VANITY FAIR, which I swear, has about 300 pages of ads in each issue and
100 pages of actual editorial content. And the recording magazines are
awful. What the hell is with MIX? What kind of size is that -- some kind of
bizarre non-standard paper format that makes absolutely no sense. And the
articles are in like 6-point type. Come on. I grieve for RE/P from the old
At least with eBook readers, old farts can up the type size and read the
damned thing. It's not bad; I've used the Kindle for a few years, and it
works. I'm looking forward to the new iPad 3, and hope it doesn't suck too
much. (Power, money, and just sucking in terms of performance.)
|Re: Industry rags||William Sommerwerck||2/17/12 4:06 AM|
> Check any major newsstand magazine, and tell me they ain't shrinking. IThis is due to reduced advertising. It does have one advantage -- TIME and
Newsweek now focus on analytical articles.
|Re: Industry rags||ChrisCoaster||2/17/12 7:29 AM|
On Feb 11, 11:52 am, Arkansan Raider <yom...@yomama.com> wrote:
> Hey folks!
> I seem to remember a discussion of industry mags a while back, but I
> don't remember which thread it was in.
> My question is: Which of the music industry mags are worth subscribing
> to from both a tech learning standpoint and an industry learning
> standpoint? IOW, how-tos on tech and info about the industry/music
> business in general.
> Scott, I know you contribute to Recording Magazine, and that is one that
> I'm considering subscribing to. I liked it back when I was subscribing,
> and I've seen some issues lately that looked interesting.
> I just hit a link to Sound On Sound that was an article link from the
> turnmeup.org link in the LOUDNESS WARS thread. It looks really
> interesting and pretty dang thorough. Seriously thinking about that one.
> I remember that Mix used to be pretty good, but I seem to remember
> reading in that earlier thread that it has degenerated somewhat--is that
> I used to pick up Electronic Musician, but I've not read one in a while.
> I'm not sure how many mags I want to subscribe to, certainly Recording
> Magazine and possibly Sound On Sound, but if much better content is out
> there, I'd like to know.
> What's your opinions, folks?
Yeah, like when Stereo Review was Stereo Review? With folks like
Julian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Hirsch at the helm? And
other mags that, while nerdish by today's standards reviewed equipment
with a professional air, and between reviews were a lot of good
articles on "best practices" and the basics? I'd give real hens'
teeth for some of Hirsch's transcripts!
If there's one thing digital audio and digital processing has done is
totally alter this landscape. I guess Mix still harkens somewhat back
to that simpler time. Haven't seen Live Sound for a while.
|Re: Industry rags||Scott Dorsey||2/19/12 10:22 AM|
geoff <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> philicorda <phili...@dontspamme.com> wrote:
>>> Sound on Sound is great, and has some very interesting original
>> That's kind of what I like about their reviews. They explain what it
>> does, if it does it well, and usually with some decent measurements.
>> In fact, they are about the ONLY magazine that does trustworthy
>> measurements in their reviews.
>And if there is something they don't like, they actually say it, rather than
>just 'not mention' that aspect.
Recording and Tape Op are also very good about that. Some of the other
magazines, though, seem to have reviews which are thinly-veiled advertisements.
|Re: Industry rags||Scott Dorsey||2/19/12 10:30 AM|
ChrisCoaster <ckoz...@snet.net> wrote:Hirsch liked measuring things, but he didn't listen to anything at all.
When presented with equipment which sounded bad but measured well, he
tended to blame the listener rather than the measurements.
In fact, I would say that Hirsch's resistance to anything approaching
actual listening tests started the whole controversy that lead to the
creation of the subjectivist audiophile movement.
This was exaggerated, of course, by his working in an era when solid
state electronics were just coming in, and when people were designing
solid state electronics with the same methods used to design tube
circuits (namely lots of capacitively-coupled stages with feedback
around everything). This resulted in a lot of gear that had nice THD
numbers on the bench but couldn't reproduce music (or square waves)
worth a damn.
Mix is mostly nontechnical, aside from Eddie Ciletti's column.
But I don't think digital audio and digital processing have really
altered that landscape at all. We still have the same basic problems
of technology changing, people having trouble getting the new technology
to work the way they want, and incompetent reviewers who just throw up
their hands and say "everything is fine."
|Re: Industry rags||ChrisCoaster||2/19/12 10:51 AM|
On Feb 19, 1:30 pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> ChrisCoaster <ckozi...@snet.net> wrote:> >Julianhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Hirsch at the helm? And
> >other mags that, while nerdish by today's standards reviewed equipment
No WONDER I was a fan of his writings! I "listen with my eyes" too.
LOL. Remember the whole headphone thing here last fall? But now these
guys are trying to tell me the same thing applies to the "original VS
remaster" and "loudness" debate. It's all relative, all personal
preference, they tell me. Don't pay attention the jagged original
waveform of a song and the bloated "remastered" test-tone below it!
No wonder Hirsch was and I am such a "spec"-head! There's not
absolutes out there, nothing to gauge stuff by - be it equipment or
the material played on it.
|Re: Industry rags||Scott Dorsey||2/19/12 11:51 AM|
ChrisCoaster <ckoz...@snet.net> wrote:No, actually that's not what they are trying to tell you. They're
trying to tell you that there is no absolute reference to judge anything
And, except in the special case of classical music and other acoustic
music for which you have a concert hall reference, that is the case.
|Re: Industry rags||ChrisCoaster||2/19/12 12:22 PM|
On Feb 19, 2:51 pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
That leaves me quite disenfranchised, espescially coming from the
likes of you, whose input on these boards I regard higher than that of
most contributers here. Sighhhh. No absolutes, no benchmarks. Lets
just throw all systems of mesurement, of height/length, of temperature
- and loudness. Throw it all out!! Eveything is personal preference.
If. a $15 Fisher Price record player with 3-inch mono speaker moves
one to tears while a $5,000 rack of components does nothing for them,
Chris(leaving the room crying)Coaster
|Re: Industry rags||Ralph Barone||2/19/12 1:41 PM|
Yup, that's pretty much it. However, just to keep you from jumping out the
window, I'll add that the more experience you get listening, that "what
measures good" tends to correlate well with "what sounds good". The
differences between the two then become fodder for religious wars.
|unk...@googlegroups.com||2/19/12 2:33 PM||<This message has been deleted.>|
|Re: Industry rags||PStamler||2/19/12 5:11 PM|
Dry those tears. Measurements aren't useless; they're just not the
whole story. The real issue is figuring out which measurements
actually correlate with what you hear and which don't. Because, in the
end, the idea is to listen to music, not to look at spectra and
waveform pictures. (Well, except for a few nutcases like us.)
As Scott said a few years ago, listening points you in the directions
to measure, and measurements help you figure out why you heard what
you heard. They're the yin and yang of audio, and they both matter.
|Re: Industry rags||Frank Stearns||2/20/12 6:46 AM|
ChrisCoaster <ckoz...@snet.net> writes:
>On Feb 19, 2:51=A0pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>> No, actually that's not what they are trying to tell you. =A0They're
>> trying to tell you that there is no absolute reference to judge anythingChris, I hate to do this to you, but it gets worse than that...
Your own personal "reference" will shift with fatigue, blood sugar level, and many
other factors that can move around.
Those are short-term variances; long-term changes can affect your internal
"reference" as well, such as changes in your hearing, a slow, subtle shift in how
you "absorb" music, and so on.
It can be very humbling when something internally shifts and you recognize what has
There is no simple answer other than "cross-checking" as you can (reviewing
recordings you know well, going to live, unamplified music events, even playing or
You should, however, always be able to tell the diff between really bad and really
If someone is gonzo over really-really bad, then IMO they are artistic
light-weights, have no depth, and are delighting in being contrary because it draws
attention AND makes things "easy" because any idiot can do "art" at that level and,
due to the Emperor's New Clothes affect, can dub themselves great artists or great
appreciaters without fear.
So, come on now. Wipe away those tears and come on back.
|Re: Industry rags||Frank Stearns||2/20/12 6:49 AM|
Jeff Henig <yom...@yomama.com> writes:
>Speaking of fodder, didn't you know that Joan of Arc was executed for going
Jeff, you know the Bible -- was the Holy Fodder involved with that?
(Frank, now ducking for cover, running, etc.)
Highly Mobile Audio
|unk...@googlegroups.com||2/20/12 6:54 AM||<This message has been deleted.>|
|Re: Industry rags||ChrisCoaster||2/20/12 2:27 PM|
On Feb 20, 9:46 am, Frank Stearns <franks.pacifier....@pacifier.net>
I said personal PREFERence overrode scientific meaurements, not
'reference'! BTW I was being sarcastic Im not really crying.
Disappointed? Yes. Crying? No.
|Re: Industry rags||Scott Dorsey||2/22/12 12:06 PM|
ChrisCoaster <ckoz...@snet.net> wrote:>> No, actually that's not what they are trying to tell you. =A0They're
>> trying to tell you that there is no absolute reference to judge anything
>That leaves me quite disenfranchised, espescially coming from theFrankly, this sounds to me more to be a good argument for listening to
classical music than for buying crappy equipment.
|Re: Industry rags||ChrisCoaster||2/23/12 4:34 AM|
On Feb 22, 3:06 pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Not just classical. Jack Johnson, Dennis Chambers and Grover
Washington Jr still care(d) what their product sounds like. They're
all filed in my 'Reference' playlist.
|Re: Industry rags||Scott Dorsey||2/23/12 6:37 AM|
ChrisCoaster <ckoz...@snet.net> wrote:Right, but none of them sound realistic, they aren't supposed to sound
like they do in the studio.
All the Grover Washington stuff I know, at least the later stuff, sounds
very close-miked. The horn is in your face and you can hear the valve
noise. Doesn't sound like that in a concert hall. It is a very artificial
|Re: Industry rags||geoff||2/23/12 9:22 PM|
Didn'y Winelight boast use of the (then new) Aphex Aural Exciter ? Did he
manage to kick the habit ?
|Re: Industry rags||ChrisCoaster||2/24/12 4:26 AM|
On Feb 23, 9:37 am, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
At least it sounds as though it's never been near a compressor. :).
Dynamic range and fidelity do count for a lot.
A little clinical, yes. Would be interesting to hear a coincident pair
of that same performance in a decent sized hall.
|Re: Industry rags||ChrisCoaster||2/24/12 4:31 AM|
On Feb 23, 9:37 am, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:______
And also speaking of close-miked: Do you have a technique for keeping
performers' lips off the microphones? LOL. I'm thinking about
dipping a few screens in deer or skunk scent. Seriously!
|Re: Industry rags||mcp6453||2/24/12 4:36 AM|
Poor grounding? Foam windscreen?
|Re: Industry rags||Scott Dorsey||2/24/12 10:42 AM|
ChrisCoaster <ckoz...@snet.net> wrote:1. Get them monitors so they can hear what is really going on when they
get up close. 90% of the bad mike technique is a side effect of bad
monitoring (and sometimes many years of bad monitoring). And get the
backline levels down.
2. Yell at them in rehearsal a lot.
3. If all else fails, get one of the huge pop screens from Olsen, which
are about half a foot in diameter. You just plain cannot get close
enough to the mike to pop it.
4. Give them a crappy vocal mike and then put a 441 about a foot away.
Use the 441 feed in the mains. Note that this only works for groups
with sane backline levels.
|Re: Industry rags||Marc Wielage||2/25/12 11:22 PM|
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 04:31:20 -0800, ChrisCoaster wrote
I know of people who have literally gaffer-taped pencils to the grill, so
that performers will poke themselves in the mouths if they get too close.
Realistically, a pop-stopper would probably be the best way. The trick for
me is to get inexperienced people not to weave back and forth, and stay
on-mike 100% of the time. I've thought of using nails to pound their feet to
the floor, but haven't done that yet.
|Re: Industry rags||philicorda||2/26/12 11:47 AM|
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 17:10:07 -0500, Mike Rivers wrote:
>> articles. I particularly enjoy the 'classic tracks' thing they have
>> been doing recently. They take a famous song or album and analyse it
>> from a recording point of view, including new interviews with the
>> original engineers, producers and artists.
> Mix has been doing "Classic Tracks" for years, but Sound on Sound's goes
> into a lot more detail about the sessions whereas the Mix version is
> stronger on history.
The Sound on Sound one on The Special's 'Ghost Town' was brilliant.
>> I don't enjoy reading the reviews of music gear though. Software and
>> equipment is often so complicated nowadays that most of the article is
>> often just spent explaining what it does.
> This is why I enjoy reading some reviews - because it explains what
> something that I don't know about does. I don't usually bother to read
> reviews of mics or compressors or preamps because I'm not in the market
> for any more of them. But since it seems that every new computer audio
> interface has a little different schtick, I like to read those to see
> why this one is different from the last one - and they often really are.
It's more that I can easily download the manual and get a description
from a manufacturer's web-site, and generally hear sound examples too. So
anything I can learn there is a bit redundant in a review. This wasn't
the case when I started out, but the reviewing style hasn't changed all
I agree that explaining how a product differs from what has gone before
is useful. Saying how the product differs from the manufacturer's
description is important too.
> Sometimes you can get something out of a review that's useful general
> knowledge, perhaps as a technique. For example, a lot of these new
> dynamics processing boxes are coming out with a parallel unprocessed
> signal path that can be mixed in with the processed path. A few
> sentences of how that can be useful can teach the reader that he can do
> the same thing with the stuff that he already has, and that it might be
> worth a try some time.
That is certainly useful, but it doesn't tell me much about the product
being reviewed. I would say though that most of what I actually need to
buy for my studio at the moment is pretty boring, so I do perhaps read
reviews for entertainment and enlightenment.
> > Tape-Op tends to assume the
>> reader already has some idea, which makes the reviews more interesting.
> Sometimes, though, they assume too much, particularly assuming that
> people recognize names, often nicknames, of programs, plug-ins, and even
> hardware. I usually know what they're talking about when they write "We
> used a 57 3 inches off center" (a Shure SM-57 in front of the speaker
> of an instrument amplifier) but a novice might need all the words.