Dubstepforum.com

wub wrote:Eh? I didn't say your opinion wasn't valid, I was just clarifying that my original post wasn't meant to be taken as a hard rule.

Well all i did was to say i disagree with the original advice and provided my reasons. You made no comment on my reasons, effectively ignoring them.

I must also point out that Alphacat made the exact same point as one of mine - there is no clear definition of low/mid/high level gear.

Lichee wrote:calm down man, his point assumed that when you buy and sell gear you lose money, if you buy and sell low level and mid level gear you lose more money and arguably time on getting to know different gear and you do on simply buying and selling low level gear and moving to high level gear.

And my point is that there is no proof of this concept - everyone buys different products.

Who is to say you should learn on cheap hardware before trying expensive?

Lichee wrote:no one, but obviously you start on cheap gear, very very few people begin on high end gear and if they do this discussion is irrelevant to them.

Says who? Do you have access to official statistics? How do you know that most people start out on cheap gear?

Who is to say that you can't make great music on cheap or mid range hardware?

Lichee wrote:The simple definitions of high end and low end are self explanatory, high end is higher end, high end monitors are better than low end monitors, you can make great music on anything, it can become even better with better gear.

At no point did i say that i don't understand the term "high end". I don't think you understand - who is to say whether a piece of equipment is low or high? What test does it have to pass? Does all top end gear sound better than all mid range gear? Perhaps you can tell me at which point a product becomes high end?

You might have the ability to use the full potential of high-end gear, but not the funds for it or inclination to save for it. I suppose a factor in this is how much of your time you want to invest in your music, not just in making it but working and scrimping to buy more stuff to play with. If it's purely a hobby then you might consciously choose to buy mid-level hardware and stick with it. And I guess if you're good enough, the difference in output using the most expensive stuff could be imperceptible, rendering the purchase of said equipment pointless anyway.

alphacat wrote:
Same thing about computer hardware. Folks get all kinda righteous about what synths and plugs one MUST have, yet there's a whole level of so-called industry pro that'd probably say that you were an amateur unless you use ProTools (or Logic as of the last few years) and god forbid that a self-designated pro would use anything BUT a Mac with full 96/24 AD outboard converters and whatnot... and yet, again: some of the greatest tunes ever done on a computer were done on PCs at 16 bit/44kHz. Or, for that matter, in a dirt-floored chicken shack with jury-rigged hand-me-down tape machines on homemade speakers (Scratch Perry.)

It's all done to opinion...and whose you value vs. 'general consensus'

Ebolaman wrote:You might have the ability to use the full potential of high-end gear, but not the funds for it or inclination to save for it. I suppose a factor in this is how much of your time you want to invest in your music, not just in making it but working and scrimping to buy more stuff to play with. If it's purely a hobby then you might consciously choose to buy mid-level hardware and stick with it. And I guess if you're good enough, the difference in output using the most expensive stuff could be imperceptible, rendering the purchase of said equipment pointless anyway.

Another couple of good points - how far does one take a hobby?

It's worth pointing out that the podcast referenced in op was from a professional standpoint.

alphacat wrote:

wub wrote:

alphacat wrote:Question:

Define "mid-level" gear. Are we talking about the so-called 'prosumer' range? Behringer? M-Audio? Name names so we're all on the same page, because honestly... the distinction is not as hard and fast as it used to be. There's a particular gadget I use, for instance, that's largely written off by people yet is capable of creating sounds that - when you don't tell people where it came from - they say "Wow! What'd you use to do that?" But yet the same people - if you do tell them what you used - let the device bias their assessment of the same fucking sound and say "Oh, I guess that's pretty good for _____."



A lot of folks are snobs about shit they know nothing about, like those who slag FL right off the bat despite some of the biggest tunes ever being made on it and having never actually used it themselves...

Good points...surely something is only considered low/mid/high in relation to something else?

I mean, look at the 303: they became popular because nobody wanted them - "real pro musicians" thought they were jokes cuz they didn't sound like a real bass, but somebody figured out that they were actually a whole different beast unto themselves and that you could buy them after their initial run for pennies on the dollar in the markdown bin. So who's jokes now, eh?

Same thing about computer hardware. Folks get all kinda righteous about what synths and plugs one MUST have, yet there's a whole level of so-called industry pro that'd probably say that you were an amateur unless you use ProTools (or Logic as of the last few years) and god forbid that a self-designated pro would use anything BUT a Mac with full 96/24 AD outboard converters and whatnot... and yet, again: some of the greatest tunes ever done on a computer were done on PCs at 16 bit/44kHz. Or, for that matter, in a dirt-floored chicken shack with jury-rigged hand-me-down tape machines on homemade speakers (Scratch Perry.)

I guess they mean AT MOST twice.

Ebolaman wrote:You might have the ability to use the full potential of high-end gear, but not the funds for it or inclination to save for it. I suppose a factor in this is how much of your time you want to invest in your music, not just in making it but working and scrimping to buy more stuff to play with. If it's purely a hobby then you might consciously choose to buy mid-level hardware and stick with it. And I guess if you're good enough, the difference in output using the most expensive stuff could be imperceptible, rendering the purchase of said equipment pointless anyway.

Haha...some people take their hobbies pretty far. What I get out of making music can't be replaced with anything else...every new piece of hardware is another piece to my puzzle that came with no photo as to what it should look like when I'm done. But yea, I dig and dig for the rare gems where price point and quality find a great medium. Otherwise, I'm not buying 5K compressors or whatever.

I've really begun to find that a lot of people on EDM forums (not just this one) are super clicky and ill-informed about gear and the same shit gets recommended over and over again. KRK Rokits are one example that hack me off. There are are all kinds of monitors at that price point that are better...but this is getting way off topic.

in this day and age, this rule pretty m uch only applies to ADDA converters. you spend x amount of dollars on something to later on realize, wait, this makes everything sound like shit.

then you get something that can capture anything without turning it to shit, and spend years plugging $30 guitar pedals into it. /end of story.

everything else in hardwareland-- monitors, processors, even cables-- is up for grabs. if it sounds good, do it.

and 100% of the time in my experience, crappy converters don't sound good.

Sharmaji wrote:in this day and age, this rule pretty m uch only applies to ADDA converters. you spend x amount of dollars on something to later on realize, wait, this makes everything sound like shit.

then you get something that can capture anything without turning it to shit, and spend years plugging $30 guitar pedals into it. /end of story.

everything else in hardwareland-- monitors, processors, even cables-- is up for grabs. if it sounds good, do it.

and 100% of the time in my experience, crappy converters don't sound good.

So you are saying my pirated Waves Platinum bundle is useless using my beats by dre plugged into the stock headphone jack of my laptop?!?!?

WEAR BEATS, GET JACKED.

But yes. For the sake of analogy, a proper converter - if you can afford/properly integrate one in your signal chain - is the biggest, most accurate "lens" possible in the whole signal flow.

HOWEVER: it is also disingenuous to say, "buy Xgear, get ProResults" because halfway decent comprehension of everything happening at every stage of signal conversion (from your daw to it's outcalls to x number of plugins back into the bus of the daw out into soundcard back into 143 sends, etc.) helps more than you know until you know.

Which means: don't go out and buy a nice A/D converter until you know why you need one in the first place.

alphacat wrote:WEAR BEATS, GET JACKED.

But yes. For the sake of analogy, a proper converter - if you can afford/properly integrate one in your signal chain - is the biggest, most accurate "lens" possible in the whole signal flow.

HOWEVER: it is also disingenuous to say, "buy Xgear, get ProResults" because halfway decent comprehension of everything happening at every stage of signal conversion (from your daw to it's outcalls to x number of plugins back into the bus of the daw out into soundcard back into 143 sends, etc.) helps more than you know until you know.

Which means: don't go out and buy a nice A/D converter until you know why you need one in the first place.

Yea...I mean...you wouldn't want to plug your monitors or headphones into good converters ;p

The bit I put in bold...no idea what you mean...what DO you mean? : )

fragments wrote:

Ebolaman wrote:You might have the ability to use the full potential of high-end gear, but not the funds for it or inclination to save for it. I suppose a factor in this is how much of your time you want to invest in your music, not just in making it but working and scrimping to buy more stuff to play with. If it's purely a hobby then you might consciously choose to buy mid-level hardware and stick with it. And I guess if you're good enough, the difference in output using the most expensive stuff could be imperceptible, rendering the purchase of said equipment pointless anyway.

Haha...some people take their hobbies pretty far. What I get out of making music can't be replaced with anything else...every new piece of hardware is another piece to my puzzle that came with no photo as to what it should look like when I'm done. But yea, I dig and dig for the rare gems where price point and quality find a great medium. Otherwise, I'm not buying 5K compressors or whatever.

I've really begun to find that a lot of people on EDM forums (not just this one) are super clicky and ill-informed about gear and the same shit gets recommended over and over again. KRK Rokits are one example that hack me off. There are are all kinds of monitors at that price point that are better...but this is getting way off topic.

It's not just gear though - KRK Rokits for me occupy the same astral plane as sidechaining, z-plane filtering, resampling, choking samples (that's a new one that has sprung from somewhere)...all 'things' which are held up as the best of something because someone who is mildly significant somewhere once said they were good and that's been taken as gospel.

alphacat wrote:HOWEVER: it is also disingenuous to say, "buy Xgear, get ProResults" because halfway decent comprehension of everything happening at every stage of signal conversion (from your daw to it's outcalls to x number of plugins back into the bus of the daw out into soundcard back into 143 sends, etc.) helps more than you know until you know.

I agree with this...for one, everyone's definition of 'proresults' is different based on their frame of reference.

fragments wrote:So you are saying my pirated Waves Platinum bundle is useless using my beats by dre plugged into the stock headphone jack of my laptop?!?!?

You joke but I guarantee there are a lot of folk out there who have this setup

I forgot about D/A converters

I would say I agree for the most part. that was the idea when I got my ipod classic 120gb. I thought "I'll never need another ipod." And then it eventually broke and I hate itunes and now I use my psp for music in my car instead. I didn't like syncing iShit anyways >:[

But if you want to sound like you're using entry-level stuff you need only buy hardware once then. Aside from special creative purposes like that, I think this all comes down to the 'save up more money so you save money and have better gear in the long run' idea.

fragments wrote:

alphacat wrote:HOWEVER: it is also disingenuous to say, "buy Xgear, get ProResults" because halfway decent comprehension of everything happening at every stage of signal conversion (from your daw to it's outcalls to x number of plugins back into the bus of the daw out into soundcard back into 143 sends, etc.) helps more than you know until you know.

Which means: don't go out and buy a nice A/D converter until you know why you need one in the first place.

Yea...I mean...you wouldn't want to plug your monitors or headphones into good converters ;p

The bit I put in bold...no idea what you mean...what DO you mean? : )

Pretty much what you said, only expanded: you already understand that plugging a miniplug into a nice converter somewhat defeats the purpose because the miniplug is effectively acting as a physical bandpass; the physical properties of that particular plug are not ideal for true fidelity.

Past that though, every device, every component your signal passes into and out of can affect it or "color" it in some way, often not optimally.

Using the example of miniplugs being limiting by nature of the way they're built, the same applies to other kinds of connections: a 1/4" guitar jack can handle hotter and wider signal range than a miniplug and so are preferable in that way, except they're noisy as hell (by merit of having thicker wires to handle that hotter, wider signal.) Balanced XLR's, then, are preferable to 1/4" plugs which are preferable to miniplugs, etc... and a solid digital connection often trumps all of these because in the end, electromagnetic cabling is subject to all of the external electromagnetic activity in cosmos.

But this idea is not just limited to the patch cables you're using. This also relates to your many devices' own internal wiring, amplification, power setup, etc. For example, you have a DAW, which is lots and lots of wires in the form of circuitry, often all carrying the same data but to different place and then reconciling them in the end; this is why stock internal sound cards are usually not ideal - it's sharing too much with too many other processes and has not been prioritized to optimize the signal in any way. And then you add the virtual, binary handling of signal: different devices/programs treat your signal flow in different ways, again often changing it in the process.

This idea of throughput adding up to "coloring" your sound can work in your favor though, if you put the right kinds of other devices in your signal chain.

bump, great info in this thread, alpha is a dean and so is wub.

Lichee wrote:I agree with this, i've been producing on £10 sony headphones that I borrowed from my housemate and haven't given back yet for a long time. I always considered getting better headphones but would have only allowed myself up to £100 but now I think i'm at that point i'm getting some HD650's, some people seem to have them for over a decade so it's worth it.

Speakers are still a risk though, the monetary gap between high end and low end monitors is waaaaay too much for me so i'll stick with my krk's for a few years yet

i actually stopped using HD650 because of the amount of times iv had to buy a new stinking wire. if you ever get this then purchase a wire that's better than the original sennheiser wire (something i should have done). apart from that they're amazing headphones.