Print

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

[breathe]

I don't want you (and people who share your point of view) to take this the wrong way, but most of my posts on this forum having been trying to outline a value system in the art of recording, namely making a document of musical performance that the listener who actually gives a damn *feels* is faithful to the original event, or perhaps simply to a sound aesthetic that resonates as human when experienced even on super shitty playback systems.  I remember Albini saying during the first Tape Op conference that the meaning of audio 'fidelity' is totally subjective to the listener, which really angered me even though I know that is true.  That being said, I am also a total elitist and not for one second do I believe that every person's point of view on a particular subject is just as good as any other person's point of view.  People are usually highly impressionable sheep on most subjects, especially those they are supposed to feel the most passionate about, like art and politics.

What I'm trying to get at is that you seem to be voicing a popular relativism in this post that I think is total bullshit.  Just because a technology or cultural phenomena/language/style has been 'replaced' doesn't mean the new thing is necessarily better in any way, especially other than frivolous 'convenience' issues, which for some people are totally the deal breaker, but I think in the larger picture are irrelevant when it comes to the task of documenting the most profound of human transmissions with the utmost fidelity to the intention of the communicator.

That being said, my Leica has barely seen any use since I bought my super tiny Canon digital camera several months ago.  It's just so small and light, takes pretty good pictures, and having it with me at all times means I get to capture the most candid moments.  

Nicholas

Teddy G. wrote on Thu, 13 October 2005 18:15

As we get older, we change or we don't - most don't. Yes, some young persons in 1965 were "discovering" Frank Sinatra and "giving up" on the Beatles - So? I miss Kodachrome - I hope to soon buy a better digital camera. TG

[compasspnt]

I'm with you on the Leica issue Nicholas.  I've got about six of them that now just sit sadly in a box, their halycon days of beautiful, grainy, contrasty, monochromatic capture silenced.

Very sad.

But the Fuji digital is awfully convenient.

[Invisible Member]

I really miss the green shag carpet from my bedroom. The new stuff is a slightly different shade and its not as warm when I lay on it. Sure I don't have to vaccum as much but its just not the same.

I started in analog went to digital and went back to analog.

Each time it seemed to be the wrong choice at the time which means you never really now until after you've acclimated a bit.

I'm one of those Tascam owners and an old RAMSA board and I just plain enjoy the methodology. It's a personal thing that is really hard to explain. I am very routine oriented and the tape methodology allows me to keep doing the same thing over and over..my comfort zone. Isn't that really the root of the whole debate. Some people are comfortable chopping up tape and others chopping up files. Our ears are pretty easy to fake out if we put too much emotion into our subjectivity.

I kinda try to put things into a category. Race car analogies are my favorite.
What features require for competitve racing are there often for safety and speed of repair where as a commuter has some safety and reliability of long life

My Tascam ATR-60-16 may not sound great but you can run it 24/7 with minimal effort. Commuter gear.

Compare that to the 2" 8 track machine rumored to be Used on one of Ozzy's records with some assistance from Fletcher.
Formula One Gear. Sometimes it has to be pulled into the pits if you expect it to perform under peak conditions.

Different requirements and different methods.

Are you getting your job done with the right tools? Can you afford the right tools for the job? Can your commuter survive a race and can your F1 survive a trip through downtown stop and go?

I've been busted for street racing 500hp 64 Chevelles and took a 165hp 77 Maverick to a dragstrip and got a kick out of both.

How much more space can I waste on personal taste?

Peace,
Dennis

I have a PT Cruiser now... satifies my fetish for old cars and being able to get to work on time.  

[NelsonL]

rankus wrote on Thu, 13 October 2005 18:34

rattleyour wrote on Thu, 13 October 2005 17:54 rankus wrote on Thu, 13 October 2005 17:52 $50k for a decent board Whoa!!! Is that US$ ? It better be more than decent. Well I was including the outboard shite as well....  Besides, have you ever priced an MCI  console?  (My thought being that the quality of console has to be at least on par with the deck or your going to lose fidelity.....)  Have you priced out a recording quality snake to connect that high end deck to that console?

No, I've never priced an MCI-- I'll have to ask my friend Tim what he payed for his. Homeboy has it set up in his Mom's garage so I'd be mighty surprised if he payed 50K for it!

It wasn't clear to me that the 50K was for the whole laundry list-- plus it gets muddy pretty quick depending on what's on that outboard wish list.

Anyway, I think analog consoles are still an excellent option for digital audio whether you're on a Radar or a DAW etc.

[compasspnt]

rattleyour wrote on Fri, 14 October 2005 16:51

I think analog consoles are still an excellent option for digital audio whether you're on a Radar or a DAW etc.

Absolutely right.  Still wouldn't do it any other way.

[electrical]

rankus wrote on Thu, 13 October 2005 20:52

Albini can have all my share of tape for his collection too.

It's not a collection, it's working stock, but feel free to PM me for the address. I'll even pay the freight.

I make records every day (every goddamn day) and I couldn't do it on anything but tape machines. I know, because of all the people who tell me I could, none of them can do it either. To work at this pace, with this level of confidence, is simply impossible on any other medium.

Making records on tape machines is faster, easier and more permanent than making them on computers. Feel free to disagree, but understand that I am not speculating here, nor I am speaking from a position of ignorance.

Certain circus tricks (beat-for-beat editing, replacing take one's drums with take two's, copying the one perfect chorus...) are faster and easier on computers, sure, but the real need for such circus tricks is actually pretty low. Low enough that when it has to be done, I can do it, and the time I save from not doing it when it isn't called-for more than makes up the difference.

Making records on tape isn't a gimmick. For me, for my clients, for every one of the records I've made, it has been the fastest, best way to get the job done.

I do not romanticize the choice. If there were a better way to do it that didn't have some insurmountable penalty, I would give up tape machines in a minute. There simply isn't anything else I can use that allows for the level of efficiency I require and my clients expect. There is nothing else I can trust to eternity to hold the most important thing my clients will ever do -- the thing that means the most to them.

In short, I haven't stopped using tape because I have found no compelling reason to. In examining everything else offered to me, I have found some fatal flaw or other that disqualifies it. From Dash to DAW, nothing else comes close.

[Ozzy]

One of the most frustration aspects to analogue and indeed digital multitrack recording, was that rewind times dictated the pace of the session.

With hard disk recording we can control that, so no longer do we have to wait when we feel a singer has to retake instantly. And we can delay for a few seconds when we feel they need a breather. We can prevent that too much time to think about it problem!

Personally I've found that HD helps to make engineering even more invisible.

On film sessions the amount of time saved is phenomenal, making savings.

Overdubbing on multiple unedited takes that required reel changes, used to take forever and certainly didn't help creativity.

For me hard disk recording has sped up the process of making a recording no end compared with our old analogue way, I for one wouldn't like to go back there.

[rankus]

electrical wrote on Sat, 15 October 2005 01:55

rankus wrote on Thu, 13 October 2005 20:52  Albini can have all my share of tape for his collection too. It's not a collection, it's working stock, but feel free to PM me for the address. I'll even pay the freight. I make records every day (every goddamn day) and I couldn't do it on anything but tape machines. I know, because of all the people who tell me I could, none of them can do it either. To work at this pace, with this level of confidence, is simply impossible on any other medium. Making records on tape machines is faster, easier and more permanent than making them on computers. Feel free to disagree, but understand that I am not speculating here, nor I am speaking from a position of ignorance. Certain circus tricks (beat-for-beat editing, replacing take one's drums with take two's, copying the one perfect chorus...) are faster and easier on computers, sure, but the real need for such circus tricks is actually pretty low. Low enough that when it has to be done, I can do it, and the time I save from not doing it when it isn't called-for more than makes up the difference. Making records on tape isn't a gimmick. For me, for my clients, for every one of the records I've made, it has been the fastest, best way to get the job done. I do not romanticize the choice. If there were a better way to do it that didn't have some insurmountable penalty, I would give up tape machines in a minute. There simply isn't anything else I can use that allows for the level of efficiency I require and my clients expect. There is nothing else I can trust to eternity to hold the most important thing my clients will ever do -- the thing that means the most to them. In short, I haven't stopped using tape because I have found no compelling reason to. In examining everything else offered to me, I have found some fatal flaw or other that disqualifies it. From Dash to DAW, nothing else comes close.

Hi Steve,

I am, sorry.  It was not my intent to single you out in this debate,,, Apologies.

OT: I read your interview in SOS rag, and must say that I have new deep and profound admiration and respect, for you and your shop...  

I try to do the same thing over here in my little dive with my computers... (Quick comfortable recording without the BS) Granted at a much lower level on the scale. But my philosophies are in sync with yours. Give the artist the control....

Just one defensive comment though:  I too record all day every day (12hrs) on my self built computers.  I am currently working on 3 "indie budget" albums with 3 more before Christmas,.. and I can say with a straight face that I have not had a single glitch, freeze or crash in well over a year. My computers have never held up a session in any way... so it can be done... but as with analog, you gotta know the gear inside and out...

In the end, the musicians go away happy, tell their buddies and the phone rings and rings..... I don't think any of them care what the medium is. I treat my musicians the way you do and it pays off in tons of refferals.  I am getting work that really should be going to the bigger shops, but the artists say they like my place better.... Hmmm ... maybe it's not about the gear!

Oh, and I completely agree with you on editing.... Rarely do I do any editing ...

Keep up the good work Steve.  You are changing the way people think... in this biz that is a real accomplishment!

Thank you.

[breathe]

I hate to hijack my own thread, but since Steve might be looking at this, I wonder what attempts he has made to convince (coerce?) artists he has recorded to not have their mixes from him totally flattened out in mastering, which I think is way worse of a problem fidelity-wise than most of this analog vs. digital argument.  I appreciate the idea/reality of tape being a relatively permanent archival medium for storing recorded performances, quite in contrast to most if not all digital storage options, but having the original recordings preserve well is kind of meaningless when what the public hears in mastered form sounds so fucking awful.  Furthermore, the craft of mastering as it is actually practiced and not idealized has gotten WAY, WAY, worse in the last 15 years.  I can't think of any recent CD I own that wouldn't have sounded better if it was mastered in the late 80's before digital multiband and all that.  I mean really, if Bob Ludwig mastered a record in 1989, he shouldn't have to master it for CD again!  And I'm still scratching my head about the mastering jobs for the new hi-def formats.

Most of my music collection is on CD.  I cherish the best sounding CD's I own possibly more than my best vinyl (like the work of LOW, beautifully produced AAA vinyl productions), because I can play those CD's indefinitely without any fear of inevitable decay.  I like the idea of a medium that can completely survive decay (on the listening end, not the archival end).

I think that it is totally possible for a digital end user medium to totally rock the house!  As I've said before, my CD of Sonic Youth's 'Bad Moon Rising' is like a religious document for me.  I've come to listen to it a lot recently, and unlike vinyl, every time it sounds the same, taking me to a place in my brain that I keep locked up from social influence.

Assuming that 'the public' is not going to start buying vinyl as their music medium any time soon, I think it's really important to talk about how to get the best sound on the medium that is listened to, and God help us if that ends up being 128kbs MP3's!  I would absolutely say that my favorite sounding CD's were produced all-analog, maybe with some digital reverb and the like, but no digital editing or whatever, and mixed to a good analog 2-track.  I own CD's that I bought a long time ago, and they don't seem to be having any trouble as the years go by.  Are they just going to suddenly quit soon?  My point is that from my perspective, the focus is on the sound of the end medium and not an archival issue, because 'the public' never listens to the archival tapes.  The archival issue is really important, but it's just not what I'm thinking about at this point.  All I care about  is the gratification I get from listening to a mastered CD or record I've produced for the first time, hoping to God people see value in the project, as well as hearing a record/CD of music I like, feeling like what I'm hearing out of the speakers is an appoximation of what the artist of that project intended.

So with that all out of the way, I'm interested in my ORIGINAL FUCKING QUESTION of this thread, of what people are doing to impose an analog 'feel' on their digitally produced projects, without having it sound like a fucking modern Paul McCartney record.  Is this even a worthwile endeavor?  Should I just give up, and join the brave new world, desperately trying to find something in it that counters my experience of alienation and doesn't reinforce it?

Thanks,
Nicholas

electrical wrote on Sat, 15 October 2005 01:55

rankus wrote on Thu, 13 October 2005 20:52  Albini can have all my share of tape for his collection too. It's not a collection, it's working stock, but feel free to PM me for the address. I'll even pay the freight. I make records every day (every goddamn day) and I couldn't do it on anything but tape machines. I know, because of all the people who tell me I could, none of them can do it either. To work at this pace, with this level of confidence, is simply impossible on any other medium. Making records on tape machines is faster, easier and more permanent than making them on computers. Feel free to disagree, but understand that I am not speculating here, nor I am speaking from a position of ignorance. Certain circus tricks (beat-for-beat editing, replacing take one's drums with take two's, copying the one perfect chorus...) are faster and easier on computers, sure, but the real need for such circus tricks is actually pretty low. Low enough that when it has to be done, I can do it, and the time I save from not doing it when it isn't called-for more than makes up the difference. Making records on tape isn't a gimmick. For me, for my clients, for every one of the records I've made, it has been the fastest, best way to get the job done. I do not romanticize the choice. If there were a better way to do it that didn't have some insurmountable penalty, I would give up tape machines in a minute. There simply isn't anything else I can use that allows for the level of efficiency I require and my clients expect. There is nothing else I can trust to eternity to hold the most important thing my clients will ever do -- the thing that means the most to them. In short, I haven't stopped using tape because I have found no compelling reason to. In examining everything else offered to me, I have found some fatal flaw or other that disqualifies it. From Dash to DAW, nothing else comes close.

[John Ivan]

I'm back after a weekend of playing guitar and trying desperately to sing. I'm not doing it enough these days and the pipes have rusted a bit.. Damn!!

I miss tape because I can hit the button and know where all the fucking data is. unless the machine just fails, I can count on it big time. No looking for files. And the big one. No wondering if the "times" all line up perfectly. Also, folks who come in wont be as tempted to fuck around with the audio as much. {of course, only one or two folks can be here at one time anyhow}

as I stated above,I have digital tape machines and this allows for the flow I like. I don't mind rewind time at all. That's how I learned. The problem with these digital machines is,, a 1" 16 sounds better to me than digital tape.

I have had TWO analog machines fail during a session in my whole life. I lost NO music. I have been at MANY MANY computer sessions where we had to re-track everything,thanks to a PT crash!!. {lost one days work}

My thing will be, print to analog and if I have to edit,I'll dump it over. Life will be easier AND sound better. [[For ME!!}

[compasspnt]

Good thoughts, good posts, Nicholas.  Striking the middle ground with intellectual curiosity and reason.

[CCC]

Fletcher wrote on Thu, 13 October 2005 15:52

Let's not forget a lot of this was the bullshit economics of the audio industry where big time mixer dude would buy a $200k Sony deck then rent it to the project or mix for $800/day... more than doubling their $200k investment in less than 2 years!!  Try doing that with a "Mutual Fund".  It had nothing to do with the music, it had to do with rich dudes getting richer... much like that fucking dumbass "SPARS" codes... "DDD"; "AAD"; "ADD"; "ADHD"; "FSMe" [Fucking Spare Me"]. Lookit... the digital audio I hear most days is fine and dandy in the right hands, with the right tools.  You wanna buy into the bullshit... well then the Sony decks were perfect [and there was no shortage of famous dudes renting them for large dollars ]...

Bingo. Sony DASH machines from the original 3324 up to the 3348 were/are absolutely terrible sounding machines - but hey, they rented for a decent dollar. Of course, one doesn't want to rent personal machines to the client, so instead the trick is to put your gear into a 'rental company' so that you can then create the impression of 'arms length' dealing....ie. the so that client doesn't think 'whoa, I'm already paying out the butt for this engineer, and now I have to rent his personal gear from him so that he can mix' you get a rental company to deliver your gear for you and do your billing. Whee, double dipping anyone? Works for outboard gear too. I'm not making this up - it's straight from the horse's mouth (well, some part of the horse anyway).

[vernier]

Ivan40 summed it up perfectly.

[blueboy]

I think this whole issue of analog vs. digital audio is very similar to the film vs. digital video debate.

Film inherently has a very high resolution, but at the same time it also has "grain", which could be viewed as a negative (or positive).

Film also is shot at a slower frame rate than video so it technically is not as "true" a rendition of the actual event, but it gives a romantic "larger than life" quality to it.

Producing content on film is also very expensive, and out of the hands of the average aspiring film maker.

Digital video on the other hand is very clean and pristine, and although it technically is a lower resolution than film, it is "more than good enough" for all intents and purposes.

The way a CCD captures light is also very different from film and the distribution of light through the dynamic range produces results that are closer to what we actually see in real life.

The frame rate in digital video is higher than film and therefore captures motion much more accurately. You lose the romantic motion blur that makes film look so "expensive", but can you imagine watching all your favourite sporting events being filmed instead being broadcast in High Definition digital video?

Of course one of the biggest advantages of digital video over film is that just about anyone can now afford to buy a high definition DV camcorder and start producing their own "masterpieces". Does this guarantee that more quality work will be produced...no. But it may give a potential Steven Spielberg an opportunity that might have otherwise been missed.

You gain something and you lose something going from analog to digital. For the most part, the benefit outweighs the loss.

If we had never had analog in the first place, and only started recording with digital technology, would everybody be complaining about the sound?

I really like the sound of analog recordings, and I'm sure that before long someone will produce a virtually indistinguishable digital version of it. But by that time, people will probably be getting all nostalgic about the "graininess and harshness" of first generation digital. CDP-101 plug-ins anyone?

The whole intent is for the medium to be the shortest path from creative expression... through to the audience. Anything impeding that process should not be seen as a positive. With analog, the inherent distortion is "fixed" so you're always going to get noise, compression and transient smearing. With digital, you have an infinite number of ways to "distort" your signal if you want to, but you're starting with a more accurate source.

Maybe 20 years from now we will have some new "holographic" recording system and fans of digital will complain it sounds too "hollow".

The bottom line is that the artist has the choice now to use whatever method they want to convey their message.

Frankly I think we should be much more worried about the quality of "music", and how it's changing, as opposed to the medium it's delivered on.

- By the way, a lot of television content (and film) that looks like real film these days is actually shot (affordably) in digital high definition, and then processed using plug-ins to give it that "film" look. It's not perfect, and the video engineers can spot it easily, but the average viewer would never know.

Just my 2 digits.  

JL

[rankus]

Not only have I not had a crash that has held up a session, but I have NEVER lost a single take or track using a "properly set up daw" ... not once, not ever.


I am not being defensive here without reason.:  I find that the blanket statements that "daws will crash during sessions costing you to lose your work" ... to be absolute propaganda by those not in the know....It's likely occurred to them through ignorance of the equipment, or improperly set up , and maintained gear.  (Yes there is maintenece on DAWs too)

Computers will crash... people will lose data.... But I guarantee upon closer inspection you will find that it was due to operater error or downright incompetence, an incorectly built and configured system etc... You can't just buy an off the shelf computer (mac/dell) install audio software and call it a daw.... it isn't. It must be built and configured from scratch by an expert.... and then operated by an expert...  

Spend several years studying and learning the gear (like you did with the analog stuff) and you will never have an issue.


Now, don't take this as me being a DAW advocate... I am simply stating my real world, work all day, experiences.

The DAW has come into it's own over the last five years...Analog is still beautifull....

So to each his own... just don't slag DAW's because you did'nt have a good experience probably due to lack of a proper tech...

PS:  I also would like to point out that all these "it crashed and lost my data" statements come from those using MAC and Pro Tools .... I use Nuendo on a PC.. just an observation..   (I also have an PT LE rig on a G4 in the "other" room...so I'm not blindly PT/MAC bashing...)