The use of digital recording channels?

spoimala · Post by **spoimala** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:05 am

Why do people use digital processing in their recording channel? I do understand why to use analog compressors etc to get hot level recorded, but why digital. If you have once done the AD conversion, isn't it the same to have recorded what comes from AD and then use whatever fx after recording.
As I think it is better to leave all the options for mixing.

Counterparts · Post by **Counterparts** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:14 am

When I record bass or guitar I usually apply a little compression (usually Vinco) in the recording channel. I then compress further as required when mixing...I find doing this in two stages gives better control (and a different result) than all-at-once when mixing.

The only other types of effect that might lie in my recording chain are 'amp' type effects, e.g. Guitar Suite. I never record with any kind of modulation, EQ or reverb etc. as one never knows the appropriateness of these types of effect until dealing with the whole mix. (And you can't remove 'em afterwards!)

Royston

spiderman · Post by **spiderman** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:33 am

sometimes is better to limit the possibility and concentrate on the art . about compression don't forget that ratio are not an additionnal thing but a multiplication one . i mean 4:1 follow by 4:1 give a total ration of 16:1 ( and not 8:1 )

Counterparts · Post by **Counterparts** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 4:20 am

If using Vinco when recording, I use a fairly subtle anmount of 2:1 compression. Remember also that it matters where you set the threshold

And the attack time, of course...

Royston

spiderman · Post by **spiderman** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 6:08 am

yes of course ! also vinco allow huge compression without too much artifact . so it's seems hard to do a mistake during the the recording ..

symbiote · Post by **symbiote** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:26 pm

I'll usually have some effects running while setting up stuff, but I usually turn them off during recording. If within the SFP environement, I would say using some compression can let you get hotter levels, without too much compromise in quality, since its all calculated at higher resolution in SFP before getting brought down to 16 or 24 bits (unless you record in 32 bits, then I guess it doesn't matter.)

The nice thing about SFP tho, is it lets you record both effected and dry signals trivially on different channels. Sometimes stuff sounds just perfect with the effect, and it's a good idea to capture that, but you also get the dry signal in case you really need to go back.

Post by **hubird** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:57 pm

totall recall on every wished moment...

spoimala · Post by **spoimala** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 3:55 pm

I would say using some compression can let you get hotter levels, without too much compromise in quality, since its all calculated at higher resolution in SFP before getting brought down to 16 or 24 bits (unless you record in 32 bits, then I guess it doesn't matter.)

Hmm, I guess having 32 bits won't help, when ADAT only supports 24bits...

sandrob · Post by **sandrob** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:40 pm

usualy when i do recording i use efects (insert and send) for monitoring, while in the asio destination i conect dry signal.

Michu · Post by **Michu** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:15 am

like Sandro, i used to use fx for monitoring and recording dry,
ie some compression, eq or delay or verb to get better feel playing,
but being a bona fide slacker i usually record wet if i like the sound

besides i more than often use some mod patch as fx, and those are hard to recreate in vst environiment