Didier

Hi All, The title is from Songstuff's news section, of course Interesting report on OMD profitability. Online Music Download Business is Not Healthy... Didier

Hi John, Not yet, because I have to find somebody lending me an amp It will depend what my dealer has in stock. He usually has more the PA amp stuff, rather than studio ones. But it's a good suggestion. My amp might be weak on basses. I noticed that when I push the lows (with the EQ), the amp is clipping quite early. Didier

Hi John, Although I didn't make a real recording with it, the SKE sounded good with my Ovation when I tested it. The sound was perhaps a little "rigid", but a good preamp would certainly enhance that. I can definitely recommend checking this microphone for acoustic guitar recording. Of course, whether you'll like it or not is a matter of taste. But, at a minimum, its value is certainly worth the price. Didier

Hi Steve, I think I get it so far. Feedback (unless it is guitar feeback on purpose) is most unpleasant indeed. But what is the "it" you want to plug back. Is it the the audio card, or the 4 tracks? Didier

Hi Steve, Thanks Forgive my question, I don't know/understand your routing/needs. Why do you need a separate input and output mixer? Didier

Hi John, Follow-up on my monitoring environment. First, A/B testing my reference monitors with my hi-fi. Apart from the fact it was a real mess to move the hi-fi in the studio, it was an interesting experience. My hi-fi, which sound as having much more bass than my normal mixes in my living room, has much less bass in my studio. So, clearly, my monitors are not the issue here. To be sure, I also tested "old" (origine unknown) Inkel "large" 3-ways hi-fi monitors, and small compact BASF monitors (my multimedia speakers). Both sounded as having much less bass than my reference monitors, whatever the source (commercial CD, my own mixes, etc.) I will not implement your suggestion of using alternate hi-fi monitors to check my mixes. The sound I obtained through my trials with hi-fi speakers was a real mess, compared to my reference monitors. The higher frequency curve of these hi-fi monitors could have been useful (as a check), but my reference monitors have a "not accurate" position, which mimics quite exactly the frequency curve of the hi-fi monitors. As a conclusion, it would appear that my studio is "dead" on some bass frequencies, which would explain why I tend to over increase the basses, or not hear them when there are present on some synth sounds, even with the EQ off. Secondly, inserting an EQ before the studio amp. This was also an interesting test. The EQ I used is the small graphic EQ from the mixer of the MT44 4 track. This EQ has 60/150/400/1K/2.4/6K/15K, +-12 dB. I boosted 60 Hz +12dB, and 150 + 6dB. Interestingly, this boost has no nearly no effect on commercial (i.e. mastered) CDs, whatever the speakers/headphones. So, when I hear a clear rumble with this EQ, I'm now quite sure there's an issue with the basses. Thanks for your advices, they have allowed to pinpoint quite exactly some issues. Next (long term) thing to do now is trying to think of some ways to correct the studio for this bass issue. Didier

Since Marc does not seem to be around, I'll sacrify myself to do the translation. As a preliminary statement, I'll state clearly that the profanities below are Steinberg's doing, not mine CuBeat, phonetically in French, is rendered as AssCock in English. Given the fact that Steinberg were in Germany, and France was their second market at that time, you would have believed they would have paid attention before naming their software. This software was the subject of jokes for months in the French music magazines. Didier

Hi All, The SKEC015 is a large diaphragm condenser microphone. It is produced in China, by Soundking Electronic (http://www.soundking.com). It belongs to a family of quite similar mics (according to the manufacturer), but only this model is available from my dealer, or in France and Italy as far as I know. It is directly imported from China from the largest Italian music gear supplier (headquarters and warehouse in Turin), and then directly re-imported by my dealer (Turin is not far from Lyon). It is likely that this mic is produced (in the packaging I got, at least) directly for the Italian reseller, since the packaging does not corresponds to what is announced on the web site. The web site claims aluminum carrying case as standard, and does not even mention this specific reference (but has other mics bearing exactly the same characteristics). The packaging is just a single carton box, containing a zip pouch, with no accessories at all. Suspension and Foam windscreen are extra accessories. The box contains a single datasheet, called User’s manual of professional microphones (!). This datasheet is common to 7 different mics, with small differences mentioned for each mic in a table. The frequency curve is not really readable, because it is not mentioned to which mic it corresponds. The SKEC015 is a basic model: one inch single diaphragm, FET preamplifier, strictly cardioid (no adjustments), no attenuator, and no low cut. The specs on the datasheet are less than stellar: 30~16000Hz. However, the same mics are mentioned as 20~20000 Hz on the manufacturer web site. All the specs are different between the printed datasheet and the web site, so it’s difficult to know which one to trust. I tested the SKEC015 connected through the Behringer UB802 small mixer pre-amps. I A/B tested, as far as it can be, against my two current mics: Shure PE86, and Prefer electret UC1222. Ideally, I would have liked to compare this mic with other large condenser, but there wasn’t any available. I tested with various sources: vocals, acoustic guitar, acoustic piano, electric guitar, amplified PA playing a commercial CD, and my reference monitors playing a commercial CD. My finding were that this mic has an obvious low tendency, flat mediums, and does not reach as high as I would have imagined a condenser mic to do. The low tendency was especially apparent when miking one of my reference monitors, and comparing the sound of the monitor itself, with the sound from the mic in my AKG K240M headphones. Overall, these extra lows did not bother me. Once you’re aware of it, and prepared to compensate if needed on the mixer, it has an advantage, to give fullness to some recordings. It took time to find a correct placement for the electric guitar (it is very different from my electret). But, in the end, I managed to record the most accurate impression, compared to my recordings with other mics, of what I hear of my amp. I have not yet found a correct placement for the acoustic piano, but I’m pretty sure I’ll find it. Since I am not a reference tester (not enough experience with condensers), I interviewed two owners. The first one is a guitarist. He was previously the owner of a pair of Rhodes NT1. He have sold them, to keep the SKCO15s, which he said were “much better than the NT1s”. The second one is a studio owner. In his opinion, this mic is good on vocals, acoustic guitars, brass, and as overheads, but not on electric guitars. He said the mic is worth mics in the 750/915 euros range. I have no reasons not to trust his opinion. One thing the studio owner added is interesting. “The mic you tested is too new, and the diaphragm is too stiff. After a few weeks/months of usage, the sound will gradually improve”. Globally, I did not found this mic was “great”. On the other hand, it’s much better (for general purposes) than my current mics. If the studio owner’s opinion is accurate, the price proposed by my dealer is impressive: 100 euros for a mic. The suspension comes at 30 euros. So that put the price at 130 euros. As a result, I decided to buy a pair of these mics. Didier

Hi All, The Behringer Eurorack UB802 is a small mixer, in the family of all the compact mixers there are on the market today, initially inspired, it seems, by the Mackie 1202. This mixer is very compact (18x22 cm, 7 2/5” x 8 2/3”). It has two mic inputs (with 48v phantom power), 2 stereo inputs, a stereo Aux return and an additional Tape input. All faders are rotary, with a centre 0 point. The output are Fx Send (mono), Ctrl Room out and Main out and Tape Out (which is the same signal as Main out, but on RCA connectors). I tested this mixer initially to supply Pantom power to my new microphones. So my main tests were focused on the pre-amps, to check whether they were good enough and, hopefully, better than my current gear. Since I had to compare without phantom power, my tests were done using a Shure PE86 (similar to SM58) and a Prefer electret UC1222, which is a relatively cheap electret. The PE86 has the typical curve of a vocal mike, while the Prefer tends to go very high, and being weak in the lows. The gear with which I was comparing was a Tascam 8/4/2 M208 mixer, and the Mixer section of the Akai MG1214 recorder/mixer. The sources I used were vocals, acoustic and electric guitar and an amplified PA playing a commercial CD. My findings are that, first, the UB802 are clearly better than those of the Tascam. I had always thought that the Tascam’s were “warmer”. In fact, that’s because they are cutting some of the highs. UB802 vs Akai was much more challenging. In fact, there was no winner, because I could honestly hear no difference between the preamps. So, either they are both quite good, or both equally bad. I was a little disappointed by this. I would have suspected that the Invisible Mic Preamps (as dubbed by the manufacturer) would be better. But what is clearly different (in favour of the UB802), is the gain you can obtain from its preamps. I had to record spoken voice messages. I didn’t want to be too close to the mic (because of mouth sounds), but I didn’t want to force my voice, to make it sound natural. On the Akai, I had to put the gain and fader to the maximum to reach a reasonable recording level, which is of course not a reasonable situation. With the UB802, I needed to be only at 3/4 gain (just below clipping), with the rotary fader at 0. The mic input provides +60dB. With a condenser mic, the pre-amps allowed an impressive level of sensitivity, I could hear my breath at 3 meters from the mic. As for the rest of the mixer, I would consider it as “honest”. I was not too fond of the EQ section. I find the Tascam’s much more musical. The Mains out can be hissy if you push them, even with no input signal. Overall, as a pure mic preamp, this mixer might not be the ideal solution, because, without a direct send from the input (no inserts), you have to use the Mains out (or the Fx send if you operate with a single mic) to feed your main mixer/inputs. A much better solution (I hope) will be the MIC100 valve pre-amp (from Behringer also) which hopefully I will be able to test in 2 weeks. However, I took into account the versatility this mixer will had to my routing. Adding EQ to Aux returns, pre-mixing my synths for live performances are only a few applications I can think of. And, quite importantly, I was able to fit exactly the UB802 on a spare place at the top right of the Akai, which makes it a kind of extension to my main mixer, without taking valuable space. The price proposed by my dealer was 95 euros. At this price, I think the UB802 is one of the cheapest possibility to have 2 decent mic inputs with phantom power. In addition, you have a mixer “for free”, with a good general usefulness. I decided to buy this mixer, even in the case I decide to buy the MIC100 in the future. Didier

Which was the most ever ridiculous name for the French speaking market (Sorry, couldn't resist) For those not knowing why, ask Marc :-X

Hi John, Unfortunately, not much experience into that. Although I've been writing for others, so far none of my songs have made it to a deal. The only thing I make sure is that, before anything is going to be public, I register the song with my authors' right organisation (SACEM). Which can be a pain because, normally, they require a "beginning of public performance" to register it. The advice I can offer is: If there's something potentially serious involved, copyright at once your material. Don't sell your publishing rights just for the fun of it. By owning my own publishing rights, I own 100% of royalties (I'm speaking of author's rights, nor performances). With a publishing company involved, it would be 50% only. Didier

Hi John, I started with Track 24 (low budget French software) on the Atari. Then I moved to very Notator Alpha, quickly replaced by Notator, and bought the upgrades to Logic. I'm still using the Atari, with Notator 3.2 for live performances, and Logic 2.5 for the studio (both software share the same dongle). Didier

Hi John, I missed your reply until today. There must be some kind of glitch in the "notify" thingie. I wouldn't know. The specs I quoted is all I have regarding these monitors, which only contain a woofer (or mid) and a tweeter, by the way. If you're interested, I could send you a scan of the data sheet. I couldn't find anything on the Internet, the maker has apparently decided to concentrate exclusively on car audio tuning. You know: loudness contests. The heros seem to reach 168 db! Indeed. Interesting suggestion. As luck would have it, neither my groups or aux have EQ But I could still route to my second mixer on normal tracks, and EQ there. Yes, Alesis has one. To experiment, I can use the little mixer that went with my 4 tracks. It is definitely not hifi, but it has a graphic EQ, which will allow me to test the idea. I am not always as lame as I seem to be I have 3 patchbays, plus the connections on my recorder/mixer are layed out horizontally, which makes a 4th one, plus the mixer of my 4 tracks is connected through a proprietary patchbay. As far as switching speakers, wouldn't a speaker switch box be enough (I have one or two of these things)? Agreed. That's perhaps where my setup failed in the past. Before I bought my current monitors, I was mixing on 3 different setups, but each of those setups included a different amp. That's why I was so happy using only my monitors, until this bass issue occured It occured, I guess, because the sources I use contain much more basses than before. I will try the graphic EQ trick. I'm thinking also of using again the "large" hifi monitors I was using in the past, if the EQ is not enough to have something convincing. But, of course, all these experiments will take a lot of time. Thanks for these advices. No comment on subwoofers, then? Didier

If my maths are correct, your connection should be (at least) twice as fast. I can think of 3 reasons for that: - your modem has an issue. Could you check with another one? - your provider is the issue. You could check with another one, by borrowing a login from a friend, just for an hour or so. - your phone line is definetely no good. If you let your mouse over the connection (in the "tray") it normally tells you the speed of connection. What does it says, there? Didier

Hi John, Thanks for the answers. I have the information provided with the monitors. It is somewhat confusing. "Bass response is very flat and very tight to 55 Hz" "Frequency Response (+-2db) 52Hz - 20 kHz" But the provided frequency curve stops at 200 Hz, where the attenuation begins, while it goes up to 20kHz. Since the curve shows an attenuation of (at least, it is not very precise) 3 dB at 200 Hz, I find it hard to believe it is totally flat from that point down to 52 Hz. Sounds like a good idea. Now my studio amp, which is supposed to be a real studio amp, has no bass boost, or any setup whatsoever, except the volume. And my mixer (as most), as no EQ on the mains. To apply this idea, I would have to introduce an EQ between the mains of my mixer and the amp. That could be done, and is perhaps an option. I'm not using a computer for audio. But even then, I wouldn't like too much the idea. It would allow to "normalise" the tracks ("frequencywise"), but it would still be a "deaf" operation. My questions (even to myself ) are more how can I have a setup which allows me to mix using my ears. Thanks for the advices. They are sound and sensible, to make the most of my current setup. I read once: 'you cannot EQ a bass drum on less than an 8" '(I think it was 8 "). My pondering on this "issue" was more on the line of: you cannot mix something your hardware cannot reproduce. So either inserting an EQ before my amp would be enough, or I would have to consider other solutions. The ones I have considered are: - adding a sub-woofer. Which would mean also adding a crossover and an amp. - buying "large" monitors, not necessarily great ones, but accurate enough on the lows to EQ/set volumes of basses, bass drums, etc.. - changing my monitors, either to a cross between nearfields and "classic" reference monitors, or to a combo of nearfields and a sub-woofer. Any thoughts on these options? Didier

You're welcome H.H., Have a happy New Year too Didier

Hi H., I didn't saw your duplicate post, and I answered in the Chat forum. Here's a copy of my post. Hi H., As far as I remember, the U-110 sounds are in the family of the D-50, but based on larger/better samples. Most of the sounds should be "realistic" sounds, not "synth" sounds. I only tried tried it for 10 minutes (and years ago), but I seem to remember the sounds were good. If I were you, I would definitely try it before dumping it. As far as the manual, you could search on the Internet. But (normally), provided you've got a MIDI interface and a kind of sequencer, all you have to do is send program changes for basic operations. Hope this helps. Didier

Hi H., As far as I remember, the U-110 sounds are in the family of the D-50, but based on larger/better samples. Most of the sounds should be "realistic" sounds, not "synth" sounds. I only tried tried it for 10 minutes (and years ago), but I seem to remember the sounds were good. If I were you, I would definitely try it before dumping it. As far as the manual, you could search on the Internet. But (normally), provided you've got a MIDI interface and a kind of sequencer, all you have to do is send program changes for basic operations. Hope this helps. Didier

Hi Steve, I would be interested to know the results. What do you call "very slow"? Is it less than (theoritical) 56K? Indeed. Provided they have fast enough computers, they can take a 128K MP3, apply a codec at 32K (for instance) and voilà, you have transfer time divided by 4. But you have a 32K MP3. I may be wrong on that. Right now, that's the only way I can see how they can compress MP3s much more than they are already compressed. I don't think there will be that much demand, but time will tell. Didier

Hi Steve, I checked their website. As I thought, there's no magic involved. What can be easily compressed, they compress. But you cannot compress an already compressed file, it's useless. This includes nearly all heavy content (images, sound, programs). As a result, since compressing text is trivial (and, besides, modems are already partly doing that), they strip images of colours and/or pixels. Otherwise, they wouldn't get any speed improvement on JPEG. But think about it: JPEG is already compressing by losing content and they supress content further. I'm no graphist, so I wouldn't care much. But they clame they will achieve the same thing with MP3s. MP3s are already heavily compressed, including content suppression. I wouldn't like an algorithm that would suppress further content. The connection will also depend on the speed of their server to yours (if they would compress on your PC only, it wouldn't make sense). I did a speed test with their servers (from their site). The througput I get is average, not especially impressive. I suppose it will work, sort of... But I wouldn't put too much hope in it. Didier

Thanks John, My monitors are DigiDesign DD161, and I paid them something like £400. Agreed, I really dislike NS10s. That's what I did when I purchased mine. I'm quite happy with them. The issue I have is with low-end: I do a "good" mix (at least I like it), and all would be fine when listened on my hi-fi and car stereo (my ultimate mix validation), except suddenly "sub-basses" appear from nowhere, thus ruining my mix. Eventually, I have to mix the low-end blindly, which is not a comfortable situation. I would be interested to know how you deal with that. Didier

Hi Steve, As long as reviews are done by members (read my reply to John on clarifying this) I'm with you. Of course, reviewers able to part the difference between a song and production is always great. It doesn't mean they cannot say that (in their opinion) production lacks (or sucks ), but it's good when comments clearly state what is reviewed. Monitoring... an headeache for most of us. That's why I still be interested in having state of the art answers on monitoring recommandations: http://www.songstuff.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB...;num=1068591491 Didier

Agreed. Also it has always been complicated for me, because usually people don't agree into which genre I am (or should be) I can deal with any comment. So true I think, on the whole, we agree. Perhaps since I am only a recent "online" artist (since one year), I don't feel so much the urge to have "online" comments. I appreciate feedback/reaction, even if negative. That's perhaps when feeback transforms into uncalled suggestions (do that, do not do that, modify that, etc.) that I less appreciate them. Agreed. I wouldn't be so drastic. I think there has been some misunderstandings in this topic, most likely from my part. You're talking about members reviews, and I was speaking of reviews open to anyone who registers (or even not), the way it's done on other sites. I should have asked first who does the reviews, i.e., who are the members? If these are members of these forums, I don't think there's any need for approval of reviewers. Perhaps just something to grant they are indeed participating members. It could be a minimum of posts, even if it's low (like 5 or something), just to ensure they didn't register only to post reviews. I hope this clarifies (somehow) my position. Didier

Hi Steve, I do agree with you! I was not speaking of reviews done by people on these boards! I'm not sure I ever improved by listening to criticism. But perhaps I never improved For me, reading reviews/critics of my music is a guess work: What is the cultural background of the "critic", and why he's saying what he says. This way, I can use critics, to reflect on how my music can be perceived. Three examples (on the same song), by three different persons: "You frequently sing off key" "I'm amazed by your ability as a vocalist" "I like the way I can hear passion in your voice" Of course, I can take the first one as truth (which probably is ), and spend weeks trying to sing differently. Or I can try to understand why the first person said that. Didier

You mean chicken? I remember a very interesting article in Keyboard US, by Jim Aikin. The point was that all criticism is destructive. Which doesn't mean it cannot be useful. And the advice in "business 101" is to use criticism only from people with a "proven track record", i.e., people who know what they speak about. I remember the comments we got in my trio: "good, but you should add a sax". "Good, but you should add a keyboard". "Good, but you should add a second guitar", and so on. The first time I spoke with a serious manager with experience, I asked him about that, and he answered: "You're kidding, absolutely stick with the trio. But change your guitar, and use some effects". I hope you see the point. I do like "technical" reviews, for instance what's going on on the lyricstuff board. And I really appreciate discussing with fellow musicians/writers. To clarify, I was speaking more of general reviews, done by listeners. I do agree about the overhead. You could perhaps do it the other way round. By default, let the reviews appear. And in the admin area (for instance), have a button such as "send this review to admin for checking". As for bad review scores, I don't mind (unless someone gets 20 1/10 in 1 hour, which I've seen also on other sites), I was speaking only of the comments. Didier