Fletcher wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 00:07 |
Interesting philosophical dilemma - but this is not a particularly new phenomenon. While music in the 70's was often based around "accurate capture" - starting in the 80's, between the introduction of SSL desks [which permitted all kinds of sick automation events], AMS delays and reverb. the fashion of gated reverb on drums, "triggerable" autopanners - fashion was to create product that could NEVER occur "in nature". The tools of today have given the practitioner the ability to take this premise to new heights, while there is a bit of a hangover from the "return to nature" movement of the 90's [no blatantly blown drum samples / gated reverbs, etc.] but still exploiting the ability to produce product that could not, and did not occur in nature. Analog mix capture could be part of this, could not be - it is but a spoke in the wheel of modern production techniques and is a decision exclusive to each and every production team. Peace. |
let go the fight and focus on your path that is actually the only way to turn it around |
Silvertone wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 05:36 |
Yes, I mix analog. I only record real musicians playing real instruments. I'm lucky as I only do projects that interest me... and I'm only interested in capturing real performances made by living breathing (pun intended) musicians. Nothing like the thrill of "live" musicians "going for it" in the studio to get my blood going. |
Silvertone wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 06:36 |
Yes, I mix analog. I only record real musicians playing real instruments. I'm lucky as I only do projects that interest me... and I'm only interested in capturing real performances made by living breathing (pun intended) musicians. Nothing like the thrill of "live" musicians "going for it" in the studio to get my blood going. Long live analog! |
tom eaton wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 20:13 |
I can not think of one instance in which a project did not sound better and come together easier mixed on the console. Roughs along the way might be done ITB for speed, but at the end of the day if the budget is there to mix on the console (and for recalls as needed) the end result always sounds better than anything I can do in the computer. If I had an awesome control surface with a bunch of touch sensitive faders it's possible the process of mixing ITB might become more musical, but the ability to work the faders would still not make the sonic difference the console makes. Which is either some degree of "murk" or "glue" or "weight" or whatever the console brings to the table. Coming one to one from the d/a converters to the console channels probably helps, too, and I've never used a summing box... soooo... t |
compasspnt wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 08:22 |
Best thing in Tony's photos...NO HEADPHONES! |
Quote: |
you begin to realize how little bleed adversely affects anything |
cgc wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 23:33 |
and use analog for what it is good at - non-linearity and unpredictability. |
kats wrote on Sun, 05 December 2010 05:37 | ||
What's so good about that? Surely there must be other attributes... |
cgc wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 21:33 |
Use digital for what it is good at, namely infinitely repeatable precise math, |
mell wrote on Sat, 15 January 2011 22:12 |
a never ending annalogue vs digital debate, i realy doubt that digital was invented cause of non-linearity in annalogue , where do people get these ideas from? |
kats wrote on Sun, 05 December 2010 03:37 | ||
What's so good about that? Surely there must be other attributes... |