Ethan Winer wrote on Tue, 18 May 2004 08:17 |
Ted,
> The analog machine sounds a whole hell of a lot more like the vocalist there in the room. <
That sure has not been my experience! When I used to own a pro studio with a 2-inch recorder I could always hear the degradation between monitoring the console while recording and tape playback later. Today, with even a modest digital sound card (Delta 66), I hear no difference.
|
Hi Ethan- I'm not talking about the sound of the mc through the console- I'm talking about the sound of the vocalist live in the flesh through nothing but the air. That's what I'm trying to capture.
Quote: |
> I'm thinking, the digital recording system needs to be a goodly bit better than a Radar S-Nyquist <
I admit I'm not familiar with that box. But I'm curious: In what way does it sound different / worse than the direct mike feed from the console? Maybe it's simply broken or faulty?
--Ethan
|
It's a very nice box as digital goes. Nothing broken about the one I used. FWIW, no console, just a Manley 40dB preamp- and what I find using the tape machine is, it sounds damn near exactly off the tape like it did monitoring through the tape machine in record pause with headphones.
I have no doubt that your experience is genuine, and that whatever 2" machine you were using didn't sound as good to you as what you have now- but implementation is everything. I'd heard a few pretty-good tape machines in the past and never got that excited about it- this one I have, I fell in love with immediately.
Plus, I never use more than a few tracks, because the degradation is too much for my taste. Same with digital though, although I've never used a digital mixer better than RME Totalmix, which is pretty nicely done and very simple like I like it.
From Dave:
Quote: |
I've never heard a recording in any medium on any playback system that sounded like the real thing. At best, a recording can only create an illusion which requires a certain "willing suspension of disbelief".
|
I've heard awfully damn close- part of the trick is, you have to play it back at genuine performance levels. Which are huge! Excellent recordings through Bose 901s and 40,000 watts of custom ultra-clean dead-silent amps- I've heard amazing, very lifelike things. More than a few people coming in were fully expecting to find the band playing live in the room. The giveaway was, no band!
But yes, that's an extremely exceptional playback situation, and you are absolutely right about the willing suspension of disbelief. Although what is it that we are disbelieving exactly when we put on an vivid album or look at an amazing photograph? I suppose to think we're actually there would be a leap- the usual disbelief with an overdubbed recording is that the event ever actually took place all at once! Still, my goal is to get it so natural that absolutely as little as possible is between the listener and the music, on whatever system they have.
Quote: |
To engineers who have spent a lifetime developing the mental filters which enable them to create the best possible illusion using analog means, a digital recording may never sound "right"; they just bring a different set expectations to the listening experience. A generation raised on digital sound is likely hear things quite differently. Neither is right or wrong, they're just different.
|
I was an adolescent when the first CDs came out. A few of my friends' folks had super spendy stereos and we used to lay around listening to these CDs in awe... things we knew from cassette and LP, but in some ways had never heard before. Other than cassette though, I don't think I ever heard reel-to-reel tape until I was in my 20's...
On the other hand my friend with the 40,000 watt stereo had his first reel to reel when he was 10, and he likes all kinds of analog tape anomalies that I really don't care for except as an effect. Nostalgia I'm not part of!
But these kids raised on mp3s and plastic computer speakers, blowing out their ears with ipods... yeah, they're gonna hear differently alright, and not any better either.