R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 11   Go Down

Author Topic: analog trade-offs  (Read 23765 times)

Bill Mueller

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4502
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #15 on: June 28, 2010, 12:54:11 pm »

littlehat wrote on Mon, 28 June 2010 02:26


How about the hundredth time?


I can't remember that far back.

Bill
Logged
"Don't take it personally. But this shit is a science." J.J.Blair

“The Internet is only a means of communication,” he wrote. “It is not an amorphous extraterrestrial body with an entitlement to norms that run counter to the fundamental principles of human rights. There is nothing in the criminal or civil law which legalizes that which is otherwise illegal simply because the transaction takes place over the Internet.” Irish judge, Peter Charleton

nob turner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 383
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #16 on: June 29, 2010, 02:30:30 am »

regarding JH 16 or 24, talk to someone like michael gore since you're in n. cal.  he loves analog and has worked on LOTS of those.  he can probably give you the skinny on reliability and other issues.  good chance you'll need him or someone like him if you buy an old MCI.

and he ALWAYS has opinions...  whether or not you want them...  
Logged
Why do you think they call it the control room?
www.garymankin.com

wwittman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7712
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #17 on: June 29, 2010, 01:04:15 pm »

Otitis Media wrote on Mon, 28 June 2010 12:35

Quote:

 It's an emotionally truer representation of what is coming out of the desk


I'm not sure whether you're anthropomorphizing or what.

I don't want to pick on the poor guy who's trying to choose between tape machines and hijack his thread. I guess I'd go for the discrete transformer coupled machine AND use a desk. If you're gonna go, go big. I like discrete, I like desks.


I'm saying that it's our human perception of the result that matters; not how it may or may not measure.

As far as 'hijacking' goes, I believe it's on th point to say staying all analogue is potentially the best sounding, but that transferring to digital can still be better than digital only recording.
It's somewhat impossible to participate in the discussion WITHOUT expressing personal feelings and preferences as to the relative sonic quality of analogue versus digital.

Everything I like about digital pro audio has to do with features.
Sonically, I prefer pro analogue in every way.

Just sometimes we have to live with the compromises.
Logged
William Wittman
Producer/Engineer
(Cyndi Lauper, Joan Osborne, The Fixx, The Outfield, Hooters...)

marcel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1257
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #18 on: June 29, 2010, 02:40:28 pm »

The quality of the OP's A/D/A would also have an impact on whether or not the process of transfer would be sonically prohibitive.

The better the converters used, the less the transfer process is going to 'show up'.  I would do this with Apogee -16x converters, but would probably be tempted not to do it with PT hardware.

Don't want to open a whole other can of worms, just an observation...
Logged
Best, Marcel

Fenris Wulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 499
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #19 on: June 29, 2010, 09:24:11 pm »

The bit about "emotional fidelity" is very true. An AE listens with his ears, but behind that he listens with his EMOTIONS. He's using a lot of psychoacoustic trickery to create the impression of power and size that isn't really there, and he knows it's working by how it affects his emotional state. Bad mix decisions produce frustration/annoyance and good mix decisions produce excitement and physical movement. Like a mad scientist jabbing electrodes into his own brain just to see what happens.  Very Happy
Logged
RESIST THE CYBERNETIC OVERLORDS
KDVS Studio A

Fenris Wulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 499
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #20 on: June 29, 2010, 09:51:45 pm »

After a lot of thought, I realized the most important factor isn't sonics, it's workflow.

I want to record good bands who don't need computer trickery. A JH-24 with quick-punch will let me stay analog and work faster. Working quickly is more important to the end result than the sonic difference between a JH-24 and a JH-16. Especially since the  microphones, the preamps, the console, and the outboard all have transformers out the wazoo.

A JH-16 only makes sense if I'm recording bands who NEED computer trickery. Buying a BETTER machine so I can record WORSE bands defeats the purpose.

JH-24 it is. And a JH-16 later on when we have more money. Very Happy

Thanks everyone for the input.
Logged
RESIST THE CYBERNETIC OVERLORDS
KDVS Studio A

Otitis Media

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 564
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #21 on: June 29, 2010, 09:58:03 pm »

Congrats on the decision. I like being decisive most of all. I'm sure that your choice of gear will support your workflow, instead of the common problem of the workflow being dictated by the shortcomings and frustrations of the equipment.

Working with good talent that doesn't need tons of post-trickery is damn ideal, and it makes you a hero no matter what. I always like working with bands and talent that make it easy to do my job instead of having to fix stuff and hide the crap with compromise.
Logged
Dan Roth
Hired Gun

compasspnt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16266
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #22 on: June 29, 2010, 10:14:39 pm »

Otitis Media wrote on Tue, 29 June 2010 21:58

I like being decisive most of all.



YES!

Me too.

I think.

Sort of...
Logged

RMoore

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4584
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #23 on: June 30, 2010, 07:36:28 am »

Fenris Wulf wrote on Wed, 30 June 2010 03:51

After a lot of thought, I realized the most important factor isn't sonics, it's workflow.

I want to record good bands who don't need computer trickery.  



When I was all-analog my work flow was much much faster,

As soon as a computer entered the control room, everything started taking significantly longer to do.

Not to mention a constant sense of mild to medium irritation grappling with computer-ness, dealing with file management, hitting the virtual record button even - which was never there with the analog stuff.

But yeah, editing, compatibility, cheapness...
Logged
People's Republic of Ryan

http://www.myspace.com/twilightcircus
 http://www.youtube.com/user/Ryonik
 
By the end of today, another day is gone forever. You will never get it back.
We must never let up for a second. Work harder at every single thing - Terry Manning

 You miss 100 percent of the shots you never take - Wayne Gretzky

Fletcher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3016
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #24 on: June 30, 2010, 08:45:03 am »

Fenris Wulf wrote on Tue, 29 June 2010 21:51

Working quickly is more important to the end result than the sonic difference between a JH-24 and a JH-16.


Whoo - hoo!!!  New to the thread, sorry I'm late.

Having worked [extensively] with both of these machines, I am pleased to tell you... with the JH-24 -- YOU GET BOTH!!  Easier work flow, and in my opinion, way better sonics.

The JH-16's transport is pretty much a nightmare -- wow & flutter city, and handles tape like ass... which is NOT good for sonics.

The JH-24 not only punches like a dream [I've done punches on a JH-24 that could NEVER be done on even an A-800 which is the second best punching machine I've ever met... like hitting the middle syllable in a 3 syllable word!!], but at least in my opinion they are one of the 2 "clearest" sounding recording decks.

An A-800 is a better mix deck [you get that lovely "head bump" around 100Hz at 30 ips... but if for some reason you should need to replace the repro head, JRF [at least at one time] had a JH-24 repro head that has MANY of the characteristics of the A-800 head.  Didn't sound the same as an A-800 [which I keep referencing because I like the sound of them much better than A-827's or A-820's]... but I dare say I liked it better.

Best of luck with your new deck... the locator is also 1/2 a joy as opposed to Studer locators which can often be 1/2 a drag.

Peace.
Logged
CN Fletcher

mwagener wrote on Sat, 11 September 2004 14:33
We are selling emotions, there are no emotions in a grid


"Recording engineers are an arrogant bunch.  
If you've spent most of your life with a few thousand dollars worth of musicians in the studio, making a decision every second and a half... and you and  they are going to have to live with it for the rest of your lives, you'll get pretty arrogant too.  It takes a certain amount of balls to do that... something around three"
Malcolm Chisholm

kats

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1694
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #25 on: June 30, 2010, 09:59:56 am »

You know, with the A820/827 I think the issue is those 20k hour coated heads and the wrap rather than the rest if the electronics. I swapped the heads on my A827 with flux heads, and the sound difference is pretty obvious. I can't say for sure because at the same time the flux heads are 16 rather than 24 tracks.

However, whien talking to Mike Spitz, he confirmed that the wider wrap  definatly affects the sound quality positively but at the expense of head life. The Flux heads need a lap after 3k hours.

Did the 800 also have  the coated heads ?
Logged
Tony K.
http://empirerecording.ca

Entertainment is a bore, communication is where it's at! - Brian Jones 1967

Fenris Wulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 499
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #26 on: June 30, 2010, 06:11:04 pm »

Fletcher wrote on Wed, 30 June 2010 13:45

 The JH-24 not only punches like a dream [I've done punches on a JH-24 that could NEVER be done on even an A-800 which is the second best punching machine I've ever met... like hitting the middle syllable in a 3 syllable word!!], but at least in my opinion they are one of the 2 "clearest" sounding recording decks.


Our current machine is a JH-110C 1" 8-track with almost the same circuitry. You're right, it locates & punches like a dream and it does "hi-fi" really well. That's what sold me on MCI.  Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy
Logged
RESIST THE CYBERNETIC OVERLORDS
KDVS Studio A

wwittman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7712
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #27 on: June 30, 2010, 07:02:11 pm »

Fwiw
I also disagree about jh24 being faster to drop on or out than A800s

I find quite the opp

Plus, playback and recording on the A800 is an order of magnitude better.
Logged
William Wittman
Producer/Engineer
(Cyndi Lauper, Joan Osborne, The Fixx, The Outfield, Hooters...)

Blas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 466
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #28 on: July 02, 2010, 04:52:53 pm »

I'd recommend you getting with Randy Blevins in Nashville.  He's a king around the MCI gear, plus a nice guy to boot!
Blevins Audio...your one stop analogue shop.

Joe
Logged
Conjecture and theory are all well and good...but the proof comes out of the speakers - Fletcher
He who has said the pen is mightier than the sword, has never been in a pen & sword fight!- me

Joe Giannone

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 123
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #29 on: July 02, 2010, 11:57:17 pm »

“Shoot-outs” like this are fun for kicks and giggles, but it‘s amazing that even in the same listening environment, folks with “good” ears disagree about which format sounds “better”.

 http://www.recordproduction.com/mpg-event-june05-video1.html
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 11   Go Up