R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 11   Go Down

Author Topic: analog trade-offs  (Read 38077 times)

stevieeastend

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1297
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #45 on: July 04, 2010, 11:13:15 am »

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

  Tape recorders don't make hit records.  "Even" Cool  Pro Tools can record and mix songs that people love.  Get used to it.





Of course. But they don´t have the same impact anymore, both sales-wise and in terms of being "all-over-the-place", especially in terms of rock..

MDM,

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2305
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #46 on: July 04, 2010, 12:12:01 pm »

compasspnt wrote on Sun, 04 July 2010 09:40

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.







I think that home listening, as opposed to radio airplay (which is so processed that source material doesn't really have to have exceptional quality) is important listening, artistically speaking..

if you only care about hooking the customer and getting them to buy the CD so that they can play it a couple of times than that's fine.

I remember on the other hand how you would listen to albums until they wore out and you had to buy another copy.. what does that do to an artist's image and emotional bond with the fans?  

records which sound (and feel) good (are pleasant to listen to for long periods of time) will probably influence whoever bought them to buy more records.. whereas bad CD's will probably motivate MP3 downloading and copies IMO (because the buyer is not improving his experience over radio and mp3 significantly)



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

faganking

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 882
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #47 on: July 04, 2010, 12:34:11 pm »

compasspnt wrote on Sun, 04 July 2010 10:44

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."




I hear that!

It used to be that I could sit down a young band and play them vinly through my 2 McIntosh monoblocks and watch their 'wowed' reaction. No longer the case. They are simply not used to it and therefore it 'doesn't' sound better to them.
Logged
Benjy King

http://www.benjyking.com

Phil Ramone quote: "If you can't get a good sound with a 57 and a Portastudio you're not going to get a good sound with a C-12 and a 3324."

Andy Peters

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1124
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #48 on: July 04, 2010, 12:49:26 pm »

compasspnt wrote on Sun, 04 July 2010 07:44

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."



If your reference is a digital camera image (even a camera phone image), made with some serious automated exposure control and viewed on a computer monitor with all of the color balancing done behind your back, then a photo created from a disposable point-and-shoot on marginal-quality 200-speed film on marginal-quality paper with little, if any, print exposure and color correction, then yes, the digital image will look more real.

Fuji Provia in 120 or 4"x5" blown up to poster size on Crystal Archive? That sh*t is REAL.

-a
Logged
"On the Internet, nobody can hear you mix a band."

Nizzle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 427
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #49 on: July 04, 2010, 01:47:47 pm »

wwittman wrote on Sun, 04 July 2010 04:37

It means that film FEELS and therefor seems more lifelike than video.
No matter what measurements may say about it.



I feel exactly the opposite. It's like watching a filmed "The Twighlight Zone" versus a video taped version(late sixties). The film version has sooo much more vibe and is, ultimately, superior. The reason it is superior is not because it is more lifelike, but precisely the opposite. It is because the film imparts huge amounts of vibe. The video taped episodes come off a "too real" and it is hard to suspend disbelief.

This analogy, for me, holds true in the audio realm. I work very hard to create some sort of "canvas" to record/ mix onto, within pro tools.

-t
Logged

compasspnt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16266
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #50 on: July 04, 2010, 04:49:42 pm »

faganking wrote on Sun, 04 July 2010 12:34

compasspnt wrote on Sun, 04 July 2010 10:44

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."




I hear that!

It used to be that I could sit down a young band and play them vinly through my 2 McIntosh monoblocks and watch their 'wowed' reaction. No longer the case. They are simply not used to it and therefore it 'doesn't' sound better to them.



My point exactly.

Of course I was not referring to what I like best, in either video or audio.

When I shot all the time, I did use 6 x 9 format on Fuji, with custom prints from the lab.
Logged

stevieeastend

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1297
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #51 on: July 04, 2010, 06:32:37 pm »

My experience is that they don´t care as long as it´s loud enough and not distorted.

But they do notice GREAT/outstanding sound and production, which is easier to achieve with the help of great analog equipment. IMO

MI

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1292
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #52 on: July 04, 2010, 06:43:21 pm »

wwittman wrote on Sun, 04 July 2010 07:37

It means that film FEELS and therefor seems more lifelike than video.
No matter what measurements may say about it.


I agree with that.

There's also something about a 35mm movie's texture, image and light which is really not the same in digital.

Having just shot part of a movie recently, I can really see how the HDV just doesn't have that same softness and ease on the eye.
It can be recreated in Final Cut of After Effects, but it's a lot more work in the Post stage.

My theory, is when we look at something with the naked eye, we "filter out" the junk...we concentrate on what is important.
We naturally soften what's not in our center of vision.

With digital although the picture quality is amazing, but it just feels too sterile sometimes and actually lacks realism. Little things pop right out like a spec or reflection in the background.

I've seen HDV video shot with 35mm lenses, and the softness it creates just looks and feels so much better.

I feel analogue tape works so much more like our ears, creating a true "sound" like our ears work and hear it. And therefore the final result is so much more pleasing.

Although digital may be more precise, you have to work so much harder to get the same "feel". And furthermore, you REALLY have to know what you're doing to get that "feel". Not to mention the time it takes to get there...

Just my 2 cents, please don't shoot me if you don't agree.

Mario
Logged

DarinK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 410
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #53 on: July 04, 2010, 08:54:55 pm »

HD video can have resolution & depth of field greater than what any human can actually see on his/her own, so it makes sense that it can seem unnatural.  And it's true that our eyes only focus on one point at a time, and the surrounding areas are more soft-focus.
This is not really a digital-v-analog point, but I am sometimes bothered by the extreme emphasis some folks & audio companies put on capturing "air".  I know what is meant by that term, and I can certainly hear it, but it's not something I've ever really noticed except through recording equipment.
Logged

jetbase

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #54 on: July 04, 2010, 09:18:10 pm »

Jim Williams wrote on Sun, 04 July 2010 00:37

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.


I have one. Haven't really used it in a couple of years (other than to run mixes through it recently without tape), but I plan to get it serviced soon & use it again. I don't feel my digital setup sounds any worse, but I miss that sound.

I was not aware that it was faster than other machines for punching, having little (punching) experience on other MTR's. As far as I was concerned you still had to anticipate the drop-in, whereas digital is instant. Having said that it rarely let me down. I remember dropping in half a drum fill (2 bars), seamlessly dropping in an out of a guitar solo & countless single bass notes & single words within phrases. The only people who ever cringed when I did this were those who had experience with non-destructive editing.
Logged
sleep is not an option

jwhynot: "There's a difference between thinking or acting dogmatically and drawing from experience."


Glenn Santry
http://www.myspace.com/glennsantry

Fenris Wulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 499
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #55 on: July 04, 2010, 11:19:18 pm »

I was delighted that the "Star Trek" reboot used completely old-school techniques. Real film and practical effects/models wherever possible.

Too bad the script, acting, and cinematography were utter garbage. Ho-ho-ho.

On a related note, I'm waiting for the day when kids walk around in Borg-like "Enhanced Reality" helmets that filter everything they see & hear through compressed digital video and audio, while subjecting them to mandatory advertisements every 12 minutes. Snatch the helmet off, and they fall to the ground writhing in horror as their senses are bombarded by unfiltered reality.

"It's ... too ... REAL .... AAAAAAAUUUUUUGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!"

A few weeks ago at the radio station, someone broke the input jack that allows the lazier DJ's to plug in their Ipods and play their whole show off the Ipod. The result was consternation and panic. Meanwhile they're surrounded by the second-largest vinyl collection in the state. I was sorely tempted to leave it broken.

On the other hand, other DJ's are mixing their own projects to 1/4" tape and releasing them on cassette or vinyl.
Logged
RESIST THE CYBERNETIC OVERLORDS
KDVS Studio A

littlehat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1257
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #56 on: July 05, 2010, 04:01:15 am »

DarinK wrote on Sun, 04 July 2010 20:54

I am sometimes bothered by the extreme emphasis some folks & audio companies put on capturing "air".


What I consider "air" is clearly heard through earbuds or in any car playback system.
It's both extension into the upper octaves and a lack of dynamics processing artifacts in this area.
It is NOT, however, just brightness.

I use the term to describe a relaxed and dynamic top end.

...and I thought the Star Trek movie was better than I'd expected.
Logged
Push the RED button!

MDM,

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2305
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #57 on: July 05, 2010, 06:13:41 am »

faganking wrote on Sun, 04 July 2010 11:34

compasspnt wrote on Sun, 04 July 2010 10:44

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."




I hear that!

It used to be that I could sit down a young band and play them vinly through my 2 McIntosh monoblocks and watch their 'wowed' reaction. No longer the case. They are simply not used to it and therefore it 'doesn't' sound better to them.



I get wow reactions with my setup all the time, from musicians and non-musicians.

I have a cheap lenco turntable with a normal ortofon cartridge (and I will be improving on that once I get out of the recession) BUT the main thing which creates the effect is:

Vinyl records (usually) made before the mid-sixties

A preamp I built which uses a Pentode front-end, passive eq and a triode line driver with no transformer.  both tubes use chokes instead of resistive loads

A golden tube SE-40 (no network feedback) which I modified to accept better preamp tubes and has a good power supply with new film and electrolytic caps.

a couple of cheap old Celestion DL6's with modified crossovers (film caps)


I consistently get people expressing how it sounds like a live show, and how 'this is quite another experience from how I listen to music'


if you start playing 80's records, or reprints of the old records, the difference is not as evident.


it sounds AMAZING with Frank Sinatra and Nelson Riddle records.


But I found that some old 50's portable record players with one speaker had a similar effect for the VOICE, primarily.. instruments which aren't lead instruments don't come out as well..

For music of the time they sometimes can be magic though, because most of the attention was on the voice and leads anyway
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

Fenris Wulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 499
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #58 on: January 16, 2011, 06:42:53 am »

The guy who owns "Welcome to 1979" studios just sold an ultra-rare 1979 MCI JH-16-16 on Ebay. Discrete transformer-coupled electronics, QUIOR quick-punch circuitry, good heads, and completely refurbished. It sold for $6000.

I just don't have the money right now. And I'll probably NEVER see one of those again. Gnashing my teeth.  Crying or Very Sad  Crying or Very Sad  Crying or Very Sad
Logged
RESIST THE CYBERNETIC OVERLORDS
KDVS Studio A

kats

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1694
Re: analog trade-offs
« Reply #59 on: January 16, 2011, 11:34:06 am »

Studio Economik in Montreal might still have  one for sale. I passed on it because people I know who own then told me that they were very unreliable. H
Logged
Tony K.
http://empirerecording.ca

Entertainment is a bore, communication is where it's at! - Brian Jones 1967
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 11   Go Up