R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 11   Go Down

Author Topic: analog trade-offs  (Read 24323 times)

Extreme Mixing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1050
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #30 on: July 03, 2010, 12:55:53 am »

Joe Giannone wrote on Fri, 02 July 2010 20:57

“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


That's because at some point, it doesn't really matter.  There is not song a out there that was popular because of the recorder it was captured on or played back on for the mix.  It's just not that important.  People either like the song and connect to it emotionally, or they don't.  Tape recorders don't make hit records.  Even Pro Tools can record and mix songs that people love.  Get used to it.

Steve

Larrchild

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3972
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #31 on: July 03, 2010, 02:51:42 am »

wwittman wrote on Wed, 30 June 2010 19:02

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.

preaching to the QUIOR.
Logged
Larry Janus
http://2ubes.net

Blackie Pawless

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 161
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #32 on: July 03, 2010, 02:52:24 am »

As a complete sidebar comment:  
The fastest punching 2"machine I ever used, bar none, was a little Soundcraft 24 track.
This thing could punch in the middle of words in some cases . Physically smaller than an MX80 but sounded pretty big.
I've never seen one since then ( 88-89).
Logged
Scott Baggett

MDM,

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2305
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #33 on: July 03, 2010, 06:55:34 am »

I saw one once, and it wasn't really built to last as far as I could see.. the electronics inside were also typical soundcraft

not sure about the fast punching-in thing but that sounds like a positive feature.
Logged
I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy .. in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry and music.
John Adams (1735-1826) 2nd President, United States

Jim Williams

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1105
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #34 on: July 03, 2010, 10:37:47 am »

That was the 760 24 track deck. I still have schematics for it around here somewhere. It used all 5534 opamps, a bit above the usual console design for them. I recall some at that time experimented with moving the record/erase heads closer together for faster punching. All sorts of stuff was tried. Then digital came out and the rest (along with the decks) is history.
Logged
Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #35 on: July 03, 2010, 12:01:40 pm »

Larrchild wrote on Sat, 03 July 2010 02:51

preaching to the QUIOR.


...You unspeakable Bastard.





THIRTY YEARS, I've waited for the right moment to say that.

Razz
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

littlehat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1257
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #36 on: July 03, 2010, 12:35:37 pm »

ssltech wrote on Sat, 03 July 2010 12:01

Larrchild wrote on Sat, 03 July 2010 02:51

preaching to the QUIOR.


...You unspeakable Bastard.

THIRTY YEARS, I've waited for the right moment to say that.

Razz


So sweet!
Logged
Push the RED button!

Edvaard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1334
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #37 on: July 03, 2010, 01:50:59 pm »

.
Logged

Nizzle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 427
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #38 on: July 03, 2010, 04:45:18 pm »

wwittman wrote on Mon, 28 June 2010 06:37



emotionally truer




What does that mean?

-t



Logged

Fenris Wulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 499
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #39 on: July 03, 2010, 09:58:52 pm »

I'm convinced that I saw our current machine (JH-110) on TV when I was 10 or 12 years old. It was in a band's home studio and they were talking about how this machine had the latest technology and it allowed them to fix mistakes with no gaps or clicks in the sound.

The punches COULDN'T be faster barring time travel. It's instantaneous and it even does a little cross-fade.
Logged
RESIST THE CYBERNETIC OVERLORDS
KDVS Studio A

wwittman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7712
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #40 on: July 04, 2010, 07:37:37 am »

It means that film FEELS and therefor seems more lifelike than video.
No matter what measurements may say about it.
Logged
William Wittman
Producer/Engineer
(Cyndi Lauper, Joan Osborne, The Fixx, The Outfield, Hooters...)

stevieeastend

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1297
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #41 on: July 04, 2010, 08:57:34 am »

Glad to find this thread to post this although it´s not 100% on topic...

So, yesterday I bought a couple of CDs, as usual once in a month, just to have a listen to the latest music/"sound", Christina Aguilera, Them Crooked Vultures and a couple of more. In addition I bought a Ben Kweddler CD, mostly because of the artwork and price and out of curiosity.

Well, in terms of sound no surprises, all of the chart stuff has this well known, kind of crushed-digital sound, which I have gotten used over the years and usually I cannot make it listening to a whole album.

Then I put in the above mentioned Ben Kweller CD and immediately noticed a change in terms of sound and overall feel. It didnt´t "hurt" at all, highs and mids very smooth and everything sounded alive,natural and easy. I thought to myself that I knew this sound from recordings I made using tape almost 10 years ago.... I looked for the credits and -  surprise, surprise - the whole record was recorded to 2 inch analogue, as well as mixed to 1 inch.

All this came to my mind after listening to almost half way through the whole album without even noticing that I would..

Talking about how sound can ruin music and the other way around as I don´t find Ben Kweller´s arrangements to be very special or oustanding..

Will buy a tape machine again without a shadow of a doubt.

cheers
St

compasspnt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16266
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #42 on: July 04, 2010, 10:40:39 am »

Extreme Mixing wrote on Sat, 03 July 2010 00:55

...at some point, it doesn't really matter.  There is not song a out there that was popular because of the recorder it was captured on or played back on for the mix.  It's just not that important.  People either like the song and connect to it emotionally, or they don't.  Tape recorders don't make hit records.  Even Pro Tools can record and mix songs that people love.  Get used to it.



Logged

compasspnt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16266
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #43 on: July 04, 2010, 10:44:18 am »

Yesterday I was with a couple of teenagers when they got their photos back from the 4 Hour Photo shop.

They had bought one of those cardboard Kodak cameras with the real film inside.

The first thing one of them said was "Yuk, I hate film, it just doesn't look real."
Logged

KB_S1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 931
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #44 on: July 04, 2010, 10:58:07 am »

compasspnt wrote on Sun, 04 July 2010 15:44

Yesterday I was with a couple of teenagers when they got their photos back from the 4 Hour Photo shop.

They had bought one of those cardboard Kodak cameras with the real film inside.

The first thing one of them said was "Yuk, I hate film, it just doesn't look real."




Something I have noticed is that film appears to be far more forgiving for 'snaps' than digital.
Yes the results are generally less sharp and accurate but almost anyone could take a photo that looked 'good' whereas with digital I find more effort is required to get a pleasing photograph.

Is this something that could be applied to recording? I am not sure as it is so long since I recorded to tape and relative to digital I did very little of it.
Logged
<a href="http://www.parklanerecordingstudios.com/" class="link3">Park Lane Studio</a> Where to find me most of the time<br /><br />

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/kb_s1/" class="link3">Flickr</a>where to see what I have been up to  <br /><br />
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 11   Go Up