Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[bblackwood]

ammitsboel wrote on Mon, 17 July 2006 12:03

Your comment surprises me...

That analog is more forgiving?

Or?

[Thomas W. Bethel]

Can't we all just agree to disagree <GRIN>

I still love my collection of analog records

Would I want to go back to analog tape editing. In a word "NO"

I can still do recordings in analog and I can do recordings in digital. They both sound good but digital gives me much more flexibility in terms of editing.

I sometimes do recording in analog and then convert it to digital so I get the best of both world.

I really think the debate is somewhat pointless since we are not going to go back to analog releasing in the traditional sense unless we are going back to producing cassettes, 1/4 track reel to reels or vinyl without ever going into the digital domain (what a great name for a web site to bad it is taken) When you release your recording on CD it is going to have to go to digital before it is released and there is NO WAY around that.

MTCW

[Tomás Mulcahy]

bblackwood wrote on Mon, 17 July 2006 17:43

Otherwise your posts are meaningless...

I don't even see his posts  

[compasspnt]

If you are good, then your output is good, whether analogue or digital.

If you are not that good, then analogue may "save you," whereas digital probably won't.

[bblackwood]

compasspnt wrote on Mon, 17 July 2006 14:52

If you are good, then your output is good, whether analogue or digital. If you are not that good, then analogue may "save you," whereas digital probably won't.

Thank you, that's a perfect summary of how I feel about it as well...

[minister]

compasspnt wrote on Mon, 17 July 2006 14:52

If you are good, then your output is good, whether analogue or digital. If you are not that good, then analogue may "save you," whereas digital probably won't.

someone said to me recently that sometimes good analogue is like an air bag....both in terms of safety and performance.

[cerberus]

minister wrote on Mon, 17 July 2006 16:01

...sometimes good analogue is like an air bag....both in terms of safety and performance.

...almost exactly like an air bag if the tape deck is one of the very best that were made.  but otherwise, could have more in common with a taffy pulling machine.  

jeff dinces

[Tomás Mulcahy]

Barry Hufker wrote on Sat, 15 July 2006 19:34

Digital is about 20 years old.  Analog recording is 130.  Digital is making good progress for a newbie.  Let's see how it is in 130 years.  I am sure it will have accomplished as much as analog recording -- and probably so much more. Digital -- let's give the kid a break.  "A" for effort. Barry

Great point, and well made.

I would like to point out that analogue (meaning tape) is much closer to 40 years old, if we take Bing Crosby's investment as roughly the beginning, and The Studer A820 or Ampex ATR series as the peak of development, maybe factor in SR too.

So digital doesn't have far to go.

(30 years into its development, analogue was pretty damn forgiving!)

[maxdimario]

yeah,
but crosby's tape machines were in some ways superior to the ones that came out later..in the 80's.
the 50's machines, including telefunken, already had it ALL if not more.

they just weren't multitrack and they were too big and heavy etc.

But I will agree that mixing in digital is a bloody workout.. and you better have some good tweeters to check the high end.

I believe it's because there is some masking going on.. so you need to set the levels just right in order to HEAR everything.

[Bill_Urick]

carlsaff wrote on Fri, 14 July 2006 22:50

I don't do a lot of tracking work, but the combo I like when I do is tracking analog and then dumping to digital for mixing. That, for me, is really the best of both worlds: the sound of tape, the efficiency and flexibility of digital. And the tracking master tape will live for decades and decades if you store it properly.

Not a lot of surprises in this thread, but this point is a big one, if a little off topic. Having had the pleasure of baking a 20+ year old 2" tape and hearing those tracks play back again from a computer, then realising that I've already had two hard drives fail from sitting on a shelf for a little over a year.... I'm wondering if tracking to analog makes sense from a archival standpoint. I'm not buying a tape machine, but what happens if someone wants to remix a tune 20 years from now and the hard drives won't spin up, the DVD backup is irretrievable and although the data tape cartridge may be good there's no longer a functioning tape drive to put it in. Then again how many functioning 2" machines will be around in 20 years? On the other hand I probably won't be around in 20 years, so screw it!

[Pingu]

Tom If I defend myself I am attacked. But in defenselessness I will be strong, and I will learn what my defenses hide. minister Hero Member Offline Posts: 1761 Re: fatiguing digital mixes Bill Urick wrote on Tue, 18 July 2006 06:46 Not a lot of surprises in this thread, but this point is a big one, if a little off topic. Having had the pleasure of baking a 20+ year old 2" tape and hearing those tracks play back again from a computer, then realising that I've already had two hard drives fail from sitting on a shelf for a little over a year.... funny thing is...some people FREEZE a hard drive to get it to work again. digital really may be the opposite of analog. just like expansion is the opposite of compression. tom hambleton C.A.S. minister of fancy noises ministry of fancy noises IMDb dcollins Hero Member Offline Posts: 2815 Re: fatiguing digital mixes minister wrote on Tue, 18 July 2006 10:50 digital really may be the opposite of analog. just like expansion is the opposite of compression. Tom, I think you might be on to something! Pray continue. Sounds reversible enough, right? 2:1 feeds 1:2. Simple enough.............. DC Dave Collins Mastering Pulse Techniques LLC Patrik T Hero Member Offline Posts: 833 Re: fatiguing digital mixes dcollins wrote on Wed, 19 July 2006 08:39 Sounds reversible enough, right? 2:1 feeds 1:2. I think it's more like 2:1 feeds 1:2,00786923096604522486. At one specific microsecond. Next microsecond it is 2,00554388827369650. Reversible enough, but difficult to nail exactly. BR Patrik minister Hero Member Offline Posts: 1761 Re: fatiguing digital mixes dcollins wrote on Wed, 19 July 2006 02:39 minister wrote on Tue, 18 July 2006 10:50 digital really may be the opposite of analog. just like expansion is the opposite of compression. Tom, I think you might be on to something! Pray continue. Sounds reversible enough, right? 2:1 feeds 1:2. Simple enough.............. DC your tapes sheds so you bake it. you transfer to a hard drive.  hyper-compress (like that word?) the mix with fast-actin'™ plug-ins. the hard drive stops spinning.  so you freeze it.  you decide it is excessively limited, so you expand it.  presto!  same sound as what was on tape!  ...a rose by any other name..... it's just the world made easy through isomorphic mapping.  any bijections? tom hambleton C.A.S. minister of fancy noises ministry of fancy noises IMDb Print Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up « previous next » R/E/P Community > R/E/P > R/E/P Archives > Brad Blackwood > fatiguing digital mixes   SMF 2.0.19 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines | Terms and Policies XHTML RSS WAP2 Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc. Page created in 0.11 seconds with 20 queries.

[minister]

Bill Urick wrote on Tue, 18 July 2006 06:46

Not a lot of surprises in this thread, but this point is a big one, if a little off topic. Having had the pleasure of baking a 20+ year old 2" tape and hearing those tracks play back again from a computer, then realising that I've already had two hard drives fail from sitting on a shelf for a little over a year....

funny thing is...some people FREEZE a hard drive to get it to work again.

digital really may be the opposite of analog.

just like expansion is the opposite of compression.

[dcollins]

minister wrote on Tue, 18 July 2006 10:50

digital really may be the opposite of analog. just like expansion is the opposite of compression.

Tom, I think you might be on to something!

Pray continue.

Sounds reversible enough, right?

2:1 feeds 1:2.

Simple enough..............

DC

[Patrik T]

dcollins wrote on Wed, 19 July 2006 08:39

Sounds reversible enough, right? 2:1 feeds 1:2.

I think it's more like 2:1 feeds 1:2,00786923096604522486.

At one specific microsecond. Next microsecond it is 2,00554388827369650.

Reversible enough, but difficult to nail exactly.

BR
Patrik

[minister]

dcollins wrote on Wed, 19 July 2006 02:39

minister wrote on Tue, 18 July 2006 10:50 digital really may be the opposite of analog. just like expansion is the opposite of compression. Tom, I think you might be on to something! Pray continue. Sounds reversible enough, right? 2:1 feeds 1:2. Simple enough.............. DC

your tapes sheds so you bake it. you transfer to a hard drive.  hyper-compress (like that word?) the mix with fast-actin'™ plug-ins. the hard drive stops spinning.  so you freeze it.  you decide it is excessively limited, so you expand it.  presto!  same sound as what was on tape!  ...a rose by any other name.....

it's just the world made easy through isomorphic mapping.  any bijections?