It's true! Vinyl IS better than digital!!
It's a topic of endless debate, but really there is no way a stream of digits can beat the real vinyl experience.
Follow RecordProducer.com on Twitter...
For people of a certain age, there is no doubt that digital audio is superior to anything analog has to offer.
To be this 'certain age' you would have been in your professionally formative years in the early to mid-1980s.
Anyone who had acquired professional experience by this time, but was still young enough to be receptive to new developments, would have been in no doubt that digital audio was MASSIVELY better than analog.
The problem is that, like most people, experience acquired during one's formative years becomes hardened and ossified. People become 'set in their ways'.
But digital ways are not always the best ways, and the comparison with vinyl is a case in point.
By any objective measurement, an uncompressed digital recording is better than an analog recording on vinyl. The frequency response can be much better, the distortion and noise are very much lower. And there are no clicks. Well, not if everything is working properly.
So a digital recording is better than vinyl then?
Well no.
I would contend that any recording made up until around 1985 was made to sound at its best on vinyl.
If you were a producer, you would want the listening experience to be at its best for the buyers of your product.
There would of course be some differences between the sound you heard through the studio monitors and the sound of the end-product, but you would allow for that and make compensations - both technical and musical.
So transferring a pre-1985 master tape to CD may be closer to what the producer heard in the studio, but it isn't necessarily closer to the producer's intentions.
So what about modern recordings - surely they sound better in a digital format?
Well yes, except for one thing...
We are all still hooked on the sounds of the past.
Vintage microphones, vacuum tubes, so-called 'classic' equipment. It's all so popular that I don't have to argue my point any further.
And vinyl is part of the sound of the past that we still seem to love so much.
Take that out of the chain, and something is missing.
Maybe the answer is to master to vinyl, then transfer that to digital. But then people would start worrying - as they do - about the quality of the analog-to-digital conversion.
I have to say that I love my vinyl collection. I buy records cheaply secondhand then transfer them to my iPod. The records themselves are stored in the attic.
But then that may say something about the music you can find on vinyl - and how set in my ways my musical tastes have become!
Publication date Thursday February 18, 2010
Enter your e-mail address to receive notifications of new comments on this topic...
(You can unsubscribe quickly and easily.)
(You can unsubscribe quickly and easily.)
Discussion on this article's topic...
Simon Wood, Uk
Hey Paul - Try the decaf next time
I think that when a vinyl record is played our ears also pick up the ambient noise of the record. it's like when you hear someones earbud headphones on the bus. they are maxing out to the latest tupac and all the rest of us hear is tsk tsk tsk tsk tsk tikkka tsk tsk. playing a record with no amp, actually has a fairly loud sound that when mixed with an amp turned up, adds some air.
just a guess, dont flame me
I think that when a vinyl record is played our ears also pick up the ambient noise of the record. it's like when you hear someones earbud headphones on the bus. they are maxing out to the latest tupac and all the rest of us hear is tsk tsk tsk tsk tsk tikkka tsk tsk. playing a record with no amp, actually has a fairly loud sound that when mixed with an amp turned up, adds some air.
just a guess, dont flame me
Tuesday June 15, 2010
Jeff Adkins, Los Angeles, Ca, U.s.a.
Are we hearing the actual vinyl to some degree, when a record is played? I'd assume the electronics in each turntable color the sound as well. At any rate, I'm convince a large part of the attraction of vinyl, tubes, tape sat, etc. is due to there being much better music in the past, especially in the 70's. People had to master instruments back then, for example, instead of relying on tech, and I think that made a big difference in their compositional abilities. Then again maybe it's as you say, just me and the fact that's the music and sound I was exposed to early in life. But contemporary records really are far more simplistic, formulaic, and derivative, even if that's what we used as a critique back in the day as well....
Saturday May 29, 2010
John, Tidewater, Va, USA
@Paul Manfrini: You should write your own blog...That way I could enjoy this one without your snobish ramblings. Honestly, your post (4 times longer than any other) is at best a copyright infringement on previous articals. If I wanted to read a post from on top of a high horse, I'd pick up a post about clidesdales.
Wednesday April 14, 2010
Paul Manfrini, Irvine, USA
Oh, please use your brain!
Of course digital recordings are better than analog recordings. But you are losing sight of the fact that there is a wide range of quality in both formats.
Bottom line is that the BEST QUALITY analog recordings are not even close to the BEST QUALITY digital recordings. Just reading your comments made me laugh, there are people talking about MP3! MP3 is a compressed format, and there are several degrees of compression. So talking about MP3 is meaningless unless you specify what bit rate you are considering. MP3 is not a good example of a digital format to compare to vinyl because mp3 is a compromise, so that we are able to carry our music with us, much in the same way that cassettes were a compromise in the vinyl days. In other words, mp3 is to CDs what cassettes are to vinyl.
Let me point out that just because analog is not a "sampling" of the audio signal it doesn't mean that it's a "perfect" reproduction: far from it. Analog recordings are huge compromises in both frequency range and dynamic range that don't even resemble the original sounds, even in the BEST QUALITY analog recordings.
Comparing analog vs. digital recordings is like comparing photographs captured on film vs. photographs captured digitally in a silicon chip. You cannot compare them in general, because there is a huge range of quality in both, however, the BEST QUALITY image captured in film doesn't come even near the BEST QUALITY image captured digitally.
And by the way, "sampling" is a much more accurate method of capturing both sounds and images once you are above certain sampling rates that are way beyond what our senses can detect, and by "well beyond" I mean IMPOSSIBLY beyond. The evidence is just overwhelming: just watch a movie in Blu-ray format in a good LED LCD HD monitor, and then watch the same movie in a movie theater with the best analog projector available: no one in their right mind would argue that the movie theater's analog image is better than the Blu-ray version.
Sound has basically 2 dimensions, that's why it lends itself to parallels with a 2-dimentional image. The 2 dimensions of any given sound wave are FREQUENCY which is represented along the X axis on all diagrams, and AMPLITUDE (also called pressure level) which is represented along the Y axis. To clarify, the X axis is the horizontal line and it measures changes in the waveform over time, and the Y axis is the vertical line, and it measures the magnitude of the changes.
In digital audio, the X resolution is expressed in measurements per second, and the most common resolution is 44,100 measurements per second or 44.1 kHz. The Y resolution is expressed in "bits" (binary digits): this tells us in essence how small of a fraction can we use to detect small changes in each of the 44,100 meaurements the converter makes every given second.
Professional studio digital recorders, and even home digital recording systems today can have resolutions of 24bits for the Y and 192 KHz for the X. Where the bits express the accuracy of the dynamic range (sound pressure levels) and the KiloHertz express the accuracy of the frequency range.
To parallel the movie experience to the audio experience let me just say that at Red Book (CD) sampling rates of 44.1 KHz measured with 16 bit accuracy (that's 16 binary digits for each value measured) the accuracy is such, that if it were an image instead of audio, single molecules could be reproduced. We are not able to see single molecules unless we look through an electron microscope. No one listens to music with the equivalent of an electron microscope slowing down the wave form so that we can hear the microscopic details (and nobody would want to, because it wouldn't sound like music anymore).
To conclude, let me point out that ANALOG recordings are subject to SAMPLING RATES as well, because analog recordings are done by electrically charging small cells of magnetic material on the surface of a moving tape. These magnetically sensitive cells are called DOMAINS and they have a specific size which is not that small. To make them appear smaller, recording engineers used to speed up the tape, so more of these domains would pass over the recording head at any given second. Even with the faster tape speeds used in professional recording studios, the number of domains passing over the recorder's head gap (the magnetizing segment of the head) doesn't even come close to 44,100 (the sampling rate of a Red Book CD) and the range of magnetic charge that each of these tape domains can take doesn't even come close to the range offered by 16 binary digits.
So analog recordings, before they even get to vinyl, are already far from the original sound. Then, the process of mastering the waveform with the cutting stylus distorts the sound even further, and the sound fed into the stylus has to be formatted with a narrower dynamic range in order to prevent the stylus from clipping. The mechanic limitations of the stylus also narrow the frequency range even further. This original lacquer-coated aluminum disc is then used to produce a metal disc through a multiple plating process. The metal disc is then used to press the vinyl.
Whoever thinks that the audio coming out of this barbarian and rudimentary process that is full of compromises and approximations, can even hold a candle to today's ultra-accurate digital recordings, well then, these people can delude themselves into pretty much anything. I will sell them tape worms too, if they want to lose weight.
Paul Manfrini
Saturday, February 27, 2010
For those who need a refresher course on how sound is recorded:
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/manual-1.2/tutorial_basics_1.html
Of course digital recordings are better than analog recordings. But you are losing sight of the fact that there is a wide range of quality in both formats.
Bottom line is that the BEST QUALITY analog recordings are not even close to the BEST QUALITY digital recordings. Just reading your comments made me laugh, there are people talking about MP3! MP3 is a compressed format, and there are several degrees of compression. So talking about MP3 is meaningless unless you specify what bit rate you are considering. MP3 is not a good example of a digital format to compare to vinyl because mp3 is a compromise, so that we are able to carry our music with us, much in the same way that cassettes were a compromise in the vinyl days. In other words, mp3 is to CDs what cassettes are to vinyl.
Let me point out that just because analog is not a "sampling" of the audio signal it doesn't mean that it's a "perfect" reproduction: far from it. Analog recordings are huge compromises in both frequency range and dynamic range that don't even resemble the original sounds, even in the BEST QUALITY analog recordings.
Comparing analog vs. digital recordings is like comparing photographs captured on film vs. photographs captured digitally in a silicon chip. You cannot compare them in general, because there is a huge range of quality in both, however, the BEST QUALITY image captured in film doesn't come even near the BEST QUALITY image captured digitally.
And by the way, "sampling" is a much more accurate method of capturing both sounds and images once you are above certain sampling rates that are way beyond what our senses can detect, and by "well beyond" I mean IMPOSSIBLY beyond. The evidence is just overwhelming: just watch a movie in Blu-ray format in a good LED LCD HD monitor, and then watch the same movie in a movie theater with the best analog projector available: no one in their right mind would argue that the movie theater's analog image is better than the Blu-ray version.
Sound has basically 2 dimensions, that's why it lends itself to parallels with a 2-dimentional image. The 2 dimensions of any given sound wave are FREQUENCY which is represented along the X axis on all diagrams, and AMPLITUDE (also called pressure level) which is represented along the Y axis. To clarify, the X axis is the horizontal line and it measures changes in the waveform over time, and the Y axis is the vertical line, and it measures the magnitude of the changes.
In digital audio, the X resolution is expressed in measurements per second, and the most common resolution is 44,100 measurements per second or 44.1 kHz. The Y resolution is expressed in "bits" (binary digits): this tells us in essence how small of a fraction can we use to detect small changes in each of the 44,100 meaurements the converter makes every given second.
Professional studio digital recorders, and even home digital recording systems today can have resolutions of 24bits for the Y and 192 KHz for the X. Where the bits express the accuracy of the dynamic range (sound pressure levels) and the KiloHertz express the accuracy of the frequency range.
To parallel the movie experience to the audio experience let me just say that at Red Book (CD) sampling rates of 44.1 KHz measured with 16 bit accuracy (that's 16 binary digits for each value measured) the accuracy is such, that if it were an image instead of audio, single molecules could be reproduced. We are not able to see single molecules unless we look through an electron microscope. No one listens to music with the equivalent of an electron microscope slowing down the wave form so that we can hear the microscopic details (and nobody would want to, because it wouldn't sound like music anymore).
To conclude, let me point out that ANALOG recordings are subject to SAMPLING RATES as well, because analog recordings are done by electrically charging small cells of magnetic material on the surface of a moving tape. These magnetically sensitive cells are called DOMAINS and they have a specific size which is not that small. To make them appear smaller, recording engineers used to speed up the tape, so more of these domains would pass over the recording head at any given second. Even with the faster tape speeds used in professional recording studios, the number of domains passing over the recorder's head gap (the magnetizing segment of the head) doesn't even come close to 44,100 (the sampling rate of a Red Book CD) and the range of magnetic charge that each of these tape domains can take doesn't even come close to the range offered by 16 binary digits.
So analog recordings, before they even get to vinyl, are already far from the original sound. Then, the process of mastering the waveform with the cutting stylus distorts the sound even further, and the sound fed into the stylus has to be formatted with a narrower dynamic range in order to prevent the stylus from clipping. The mechanic limitations of the stylus also narrow the frequency range even further. This original lacquer-coated aluminum disc is then used to produce a metal disc through a multiple plating process. The metal disc is then used to press the vinyl.
Whoever thinks that the audio coming out of this barbarian and rudimentary process that is full of compromises and approximations, can even hold a candle to today's ultra-accurate digital recordings, well then, these people can delude themselves into pretty much anything. I will sell them tape worms too, if they want to lose weight.
Paul Manfrini
Saturday, February 27, 2010
For those who need a refresher course on how sound is recorded:
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/manual-1.2/tutorial_basics_1.html
Saturday February 27, 2010
Karel Post, Grou, The Netherlands
I recently bought the latest Yello CD.
I think the experience of that record is very well captured on CD, so it's not only the quality that counts, also te "sonic experience" that you get from playing a vinyl record or CD.
I personally immediately feel at home with quality reel to reel and vinyl recordings.
CD's are soundwise often "throw away" in my opinion, whilst i really cherish my vinyl collection.
I preferably use vintage DAC and CD player designs as i think a lot CD-players with modern converter designs sound "spongy" and inconsistent.
They lack the "bite" (or byte) of for example classic Philips players / converters or Pro-end DCS units and Otari RADAR in the studio.
It ALSO depends as was mentioned in the article for which format the music was produced.
Like the Yello-Touch album sounding really great on CD because Boris Blank USES the dynamic possibility's (especially the silence not the audiodynamics themselves) of the digital format.
I think the experience of that record is very well captured on CD, so it's not only the quality that counts, also te "sonic experience" that you get from playing a vinyl record or CD.
I personally immediately feel at home with quality reel to reel and vinyl recordings.
CD's are soundwise often "throw away" in my opinion, whilst i really cherish my vinyl collection.
I preferably use vintage DAC and CD player designs as i think a lot CD-players with modern converter designs sound "spongy" and inconsistent.
They lack the "bite" (or byte) of for example classic Philips players / converters or Pro-end DCS units and Otari RADAR in the studio.
It ALSO depends as was mentioned in the article for which format the music was produced.
Like the Yello-Touch album sounding really great on CD because Boris Blank USES the dynamic possibility's (especially the silence not the audiodynamics themselves) of the digital format.
Wednesday February 17, 2010
Keith, Hollister, USA
Don't forget one significant point... digital is not true to an analog waveform. Regardless of the sampling frequency, a digital waveform (taken from analog audio) is a SAMPLING of the analog waveform. There's much talk about MP3 versus WAV files, as an example, where MP3 is compressed and, therefore, not a true representation. However, WAV is lossless. True, but the bottom line is that digital recordings are not perfectly true to the analog signal. Can we hear this imperfection? Another controversial point. Analog recordings on tape and vinyl, with the inherent limitations, are exact analog presentations of the original audio that was captured and recorded. Digital isn't.
Monday February 15, 2010
Julien, Paris, France
Vintage, to me, is popular because people don't know what to do with their current set ups and think that if they could only get a Juno 60 and a tape recording system, their songs would finally sell. I wonder how many people in 2030 will be trying to downgrade themselves to Mac OS 10.6.2 because ... "it ... just had that sound!"
Monday February 15, 2010
Paul Van Der Jonckheyd, Lier, Belgium
Hi RecordProducer.com
I have been working as a recording engineer since the late 60's and have been cutting vinyl discs from 1972 until today.
To me,there are mainly two reasons why a lot of people still prefer the sound of vinyl over the sound of most CD's.
1. A cutting system, the cutting head, has the same tolerances as the human ear: the excessive bass and crazy high frequences that you can find on todays CD's are just not possible on vinyl.
2. The old days' vinyls are much less compressed than most today's CD's, giving a much more open and dynamic sound.
I still love cutting the black vinyl disc
Paul Van der Jonckheyd, FOON Mastering Center, Belgium, eu, www.foon.be
I have been working as a recording engineer since the late 60's and have been cutting vinyl discs from 1972 until today.
To me,there are mainly two reasons why a lot of people still prefer the sound of vinyl over the sound of most CD's.
1. A cutting system, the cutting head, has the same tolerances as the human ear: the excessive bass and crazy high frequences that you can find on todays CD's are just not possible on vinyl.
2. The old days' vinyls are much less compressed than most today's CD's, giving a much more open and dynamic sound.
I still love cutting the black vinyl disc
Paul Van der Jonckheyd, FOON Mastering Center, Belgium, eu, www.foon.be
Monday February 15, 2010
Francis, Yaounde, Cameroon
Hello RecordProducer.com. I read the article on the superiority of vinyl over digital, and would have to agree completely. I was born in 88, so i cannot say taht I was deep into the era, since I witnessed mostly the change from cassette to CD, and then to digital downloads, but as an aspiring hip hop producer and audio engineer, I've had to mess with vinyl while sampling, and I've grown attached to the sonic quality. There is something about vinyl that gives music some sort of warmth, to which listeners very much like myself would get attached to immediately. Digital is more defined and cleaner, sure, but it lacks character, which is so essential to envelope the listener, and make him/her feel as part of the performance. It is similar to live shows and CDs... people prefer concerts to listening to their CDs, but would still listen to the CDs since the performances can't be repeated incessantly. You can't say that listening to Jimi Hendrix's All Along The WatchTower on vinyl does not surpass most of the performances on digital nowadays... It does, on all levels.
To conclude, I agree with you that vinyl IS infinitely better than digital.
To conclude, I agree with you that vinyl IS infinitely better than digital.
Monday February 15, 2010
UPDATE - Posting of comments has been disabled. RecordProducer.com has been targeted by a botnet posting spam comments. The facility to post comments will return when this problem has been resolved.
We welcome your addition to the discussion on the topic of this article. If you feel that the article is inaccurate in any way, please let us know by e-mail at . We read all messages sent to this address but we cannot promise a reply.
 |
As Roger Waters of Pink Floyd once said, "It doesn't have to be loud. We just like it loud." Well, some people would like it even louder. Is this possible? Read more... |
 |
The microphone used by Dusty Springfield on many of her hit records is up for sale. Vintage tube AKG C12 microphones don't come up for sale very often. This could be your big chance! Read more... |
 |
Having trouble with your recordings? It could be that your preamp simply doesn't have enough frequencies! Read more... |
 |
This YouTube video has a slight problem with the sound - the gain is set far too high and the sound is horribly clipped. Read more... |
 |
Do you always connect your effects pedals between your guitar and amplifier. Wow, that's just so retro! Read more... |
 |
Clipping is an eternal problem in audio. It causes terrible distortion and cannot be corrected. Here is the VERY BEST tool to prevent you getting a clip ever again... Read more... |
 |
Are you guilty of recording cliches? Do you do things because you've seen other people doing it like that? Or do you decide for yourself what's best? Read more... |
 |
Where do you make your production decisions? In the studio? No, there's a better place than that, somewhere you can get some peace and quiet... Read more... |
 |
One of the most enduring myths in recording has been the endless quest for more and more tracks, which grew exponentially from the real need to overdub in the 60's. Prior to 4 track, overdubs were made by compiling sounds from one machine to another - with a generation loss of sonics every time... Read more... |
 |
Popular music is here today, gone tomorrow. Each new recording gets more and more stale as time goes by, where classical music can always remain fresh and new. Read more... |
 |
A good drummer is worth his or her weight in platinum. But how can you know for sure just how good they are? Read more... |
 |
You are running tons of plug-ins and your computer is running out of steam. How can you lighten the load AND use as many plug-ins as you like? Read more... |
 |
JamHub is billed as 'the silent rehearsal studio'. Whatever it is, there's simply nothing else like it. Read more... |
 |
The world-famous Abbey Road studio complex has been in the news lately. But not here. We'd rather record there than spread more tittle-tattle. Read more... |
 |
'If you don't ask, you don't get!' That's a good old proverb. But have you asked anyone recently? This guy has... Read more... |
 |
What will happen if you use an uncleared sample on your recording? Can you sample legally if your use is only private? Is it safe to use samples you find on the Internet? Read more... |
 |
Why do we still plug our microphones into old-fashioned mic preamplifiers when we could be plugging them in directly via USB? Read more... |
 |
Some people working at the high end of audio believe that nearly all great mics are made in Germany or Austria. But can you make a great recording with a mic made in China? Read more... |
 |
Aldo Caballero has recently opened a small commercial recording facility in Mexico, right on the border with the USA. Here is Aldo telling us about his studio in his own words... Read more... |
 |
An RP reader who is already a pro recording engineer wants to become a (highly paid) mix engineer. How can he achieve this? Read more... |
You Could Be Making PRO Recordings In Your Home Recording Studio...
Music Production and Sound Engineering Online Course.
Turn your home recordings into
PRO recordings in just 12 weeks.
Sign up now for the FREE COURSE TOUR!
Line Array Loudspeaker Systems
"Line Array Loudspeaker Systems" shows you how the most popular loudspeaker system for pro live sound works. You will learn why the line array is better than any other loudspeaker system for almost any type of venue; the technology and science of line arrays; how to work with line array loudspeaker systems for live sound in practice. Line Array Loudspeaker Systems
Equipping Your Home Recording Studio
Choose the right equipment, and you can make pro-quality recordings right from the start - even with a basic setup. Choose the wrong equipment and you may spend years sorting out a studio setup that is right for you. And all the time you spend doing that, you could have been recording. Equipping Your Home Recording Studio
The Clyde Meredith Microphone Test at Abbey Road Studio 2
Hear ten PRO microphones on male vocal, recorded in studio master quality at Abbey Road Studio 2. The tests include the classic tube Neumann U47, the equally classic STC (Coles) 4038, plus eight other mics you NEED to know. PLUS video recordings of all of the tests in this Multimedia Set™. The Clyde Meredith Microphone Test at Abbey Road Studio 2
Acoustic Guitar Recording Techniques
Thirteen microphone positions in mono and stereo clearly demonstrated on two acoustic guitars in 'Studio Master Quality' audio, together with downloadable videos of the entire session, recorded in Abbey Road Studio 3. See and hear for yourself classic acoustic guitar microphone techniques and positions - select the combination that YOU like best for your next acoustic guitar recording project. Acoustic Guitar Recording Techniques
The Niccie Simpson Microphone Test at Abbey Road Studio 2
Hear ten PRO microphones on male vocal, recorded in studio master quality at Abbey Road Studio 2. The tests include the ultra-classic RCA 44BX 'Elvis' ribbon mic, the equally classic AKG C12 vintage tube, plus eight other mics you NEED to know. PLUS video recordings of all of the tests in this Multimedia Set™. Mic list: ADK Hamburg, AEA A440, Audio Technica AT4050, Bruel & Kjaer (DPA) 4011, Neumann U47, sE Electronics 4400a, sE Electronics Gemini II, STC (Coles) 4038, Violet Design Amethyst, Violet Design Globe. The Niccie Simpson Microphone Test at Abbey Road Studio 2
The Anna Neale Microphone Preamplifier Test at Abbey Road Studio 3
Hear five amazing mic preamps on female vocal, recorded in studio master quality at Abbey Road Studio 3. The tests include the Avalon M5 (Wow!), Universal Audio vacuum tube Solo/610 and the $50 Behringer MIC100. Can you hear the difference? PLUS video recordings of all of the tests. The Anna Neale Microphone Preamplifier Test at Abbey Road Studio 3
Class D Power Amplification
"Class D Power Amplification" starts by explaining how conventional power amplifiers work, including Class A, Class B, Class AB and Class C. It goes on to show how and why Class D power amplifiers are smaller, lighter and more efficient than conventional types. It also goes on to explain Class G and Class H. Essential reading for the live sound engineer. Class D Power Amplification
Pro Engineer School Vol. 1
The renowned Audio Masterclass Sound Engineering and Music Recording course in two e-books. Learn audio to professional standards. Maximize your chances in your studio job interview. Vol. 1 Pro Engineer School Vol. 1
The Nicola Dines Microphone and Preamplifier Test at Abbey Road Studio 2
Three amazing microphones and two amazing preamplifiers tested at Abbey Road Studio 2. This Multimedia Set™ includes the original Studio Master recordings, 48 kHz and AAC versions for easier downloading, videos in both high and medium resolution, and session notes. You will see and hear clearly the differences between the three microphones and two preamplifiers. Also, each preamplifer is demonstrated in two settings, giving further examples of how they can sound. The Nicola Dines Microphone and Preamplifier Test at Abbey Road Studio 2
An Introduction to Equalization
"An Introduction to Equalization" shows you the science, technology and art of EQ. From filters through tone controls to full SSL-style console EQ, "An Introduction to Equalization" explains all of the foundation knowledge you need to know. Covers recording studio EQ techniques, and the important differences in live sound. If you don't know the material covered by "An Introduction to Equalization", then you simply don't know EQ. An Introduction to Equalization
The Charlotte Roel Microphone Test at Abbey Road Studio 3
Hear nine classic and modern microphones on female vocal, recorded in studio master quality at Abbey Road Studio 3. The tests include classic tube Neumann U47 and AKG C12 mics, plus five other amazing mics you NEED to know (some costing as little as $300!). PLUS video recordings of all of the tests. The Charlotte Roel Microphone Test at Abbey Road Studio 3
Four Exotic Microphones on Acoustic Guitar
Three tube mics, one ribbon mic compared on acoustic guitar. From the super-low-cost CAD M9 and Golden Age Project TC1 all the way up to the mega-expensive Telefunken ELA M12F. These tests show, in audio and video, exactly how these mics sound on a Martin OM-21 acoustic guitar in a variety of positions. Instantly downloadable. Four Exotic Microphones on Acoustic Guitar
The Delon Brooks Microphone Test at Abbey Road Studio 2
Hear ten PRO microphones on male vocal, recorded in studio master quality at Abbey Road Studio 2. The tests include the $6000 AEA A440 ribbon mic, the twin-tube sE Electronics Gemini II, plus eight other mics you NEED to know. PLUS video recordings of all of the tests in this Multimedia Set™. Mic list: ADK Vienna, AEA A440, Audio Technica AT4050, Bruel & Kjaer (DPA) 4011, STC (Coles) 4038, Neumann U47, Rode NT1A, sE Electronics Gemini II, sE Electronics Z5600a Mk II, Violet Design Amethyst. The Delon Brooks Microphone Test at Abbey Road Studio 2
The Steve Lyon Record Producer Interview Video
Steve Lyon's productions have sold in their millions. He has more than twenty years' experience in recording and production. He learned from legendary producer Glyn Johns. Now, in this 60-minute video interview, Steve Lyon reveals his production secrets. The Steve Lyon Record Producer Interview Video
An Introduction to Live Sound Monitoring
If you play in a band, or work in live sound, you need to understand stage monitoring. There's nothing that makes more difference to getting a good performance than getting the monitors right. It isn't easy, but this e-Learning Module shows you how! For your house of worship too. An Introduction to Live Sound Monitoring