Otitis Media wrote on Sun, 27 June 2010 20:45 |
The thing digital gear does not do is saturate or compress or overload gracefully at all... the mojo that everyone talks about doesn't show up until you're pushing hard... THese days, most people trying tape for the first time are disappointed. |
littlehat wrote on Mon, 28 June 2010 02:26 |
The thing digital does not do is sound as good as properly implemented analog. It starts out better sounding and works its way up to mojo, then past mojo to muddy or hairy. These days, most people trying analog for the first time treat it like a stunt piece of gear that you push until it lights up. How good was sex your first time? How about the hundredth time? Not understanding something is a sure fire way to get the least out of it. |
Quote: |
It's an emotionally truer representation of what is coming out of the desk |
littlehat wrote on Mon, 28 June 2010 02:26 |
How about the hundredth time? |
Otitis Media wrote on Mon, 28 June 2010 12:35 | ||
I'm not sure whether you're anthropomorphizing or what. I don't want to pick on the poor guy who's trying to choose between tape machines and hijack his thread. I guess I'd go for the discrete transformer coupled machine AND use a desk. If you're gonna go, go big. I like discrete, I like desks. |
Otitis Media wrote on Tue, 29 June 2010 21:58 |
I like being decisive most of all. |
Fenris Wulf wrote on Wed, 30 June 2010 03:51 |
After a lot of thought, I realized the most important factor isn't sonics, it's workflow. I want to record good bands who don't need computer trickery. |
Fenris Wulf wrote on Tue, 29 June 2010 21:51 |
Working quickly is more important to the end result than the sonic difference between a JH-24 and a JH-16. |
Fletcher wrote on Wed, 30 June 2010 13:45 |
The JH-24 not only punches like a dream [I've done punches on a JH-24 that could NEVER be done on even an A-800 which is the second best punching machine I've ever met... like hitting the middle syllable in a 3 syllable word!!], but at least in my opinion they are one of the 2 "clearest" sounding recording decks. |
Joe Giannone wrote on Fri, 02 July 2010 20:57 |
“Shoot-outs” like this are fun for kicks and giggles, but it‘s amazing that even in the same listening environment, folks with “good” ears disagree about which format sounds “better”. http://www.recordproduction.com/mpg-event-june05-video1.html |
wwittman wrote on Wed, 30 June 2010 19:02 |
Fwiw I also disagree about jh24 being faster to drop on or out than A800s I find quite the opp Plus, playback and recording on the A800 is an order of magnitude better. |
Larrchild wrote on Sat, 03 July 2010 02:51 |
preaching to the QUIOR. |
ssltech wrote on Sat, 03 July 2010 12:01 | ||
...You unspeakable Bastard. THIRTY YEARS, I've waited for the right moment to say that. |
wwittman wrote on Mon, 28 June 2010 06:37 |
emotionally truer |
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. |
compasspnt wrote on Sun, 04 July 2010 15:44 |
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." |
Extreme Mixing wrote on Sat, 03 July 2010 00:55 |
Tape recorders don't make hit records. "Even" Pro Tools can record and mix songs that people love. Get used to it. |
compasspnt wrote on Sun, 04 July 2010 09:40 | ||
|
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." |
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." |
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. |
faganking wrote on Sun, 04 July 2010 12:34 | ||
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. |
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. |
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. |
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". |
faganking wrote on Sun, 04 July 2010 11:34 | ||
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. |
kats wrote on Sun, 16 January 2011 16:34 |
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 |
MagnetoSound wrote on Mon, 17 January 2011 09:36 |
What is a k7? |
Silvertone wrote on Mon, 17 January 2011 08:19 |
As for the film analogy, I've used that for many, many years... film softens the edges (transients) and blurs the picture a little (magnetic tape), just like our brain does with the real world... put a little cheese cloth over the lens (compression) and you get a euphoric effect. I think it's why we still prefer it over the cold stark reality that is digital... we want a softer, gentler world to live in... I know I do. |
Tidewater wrote on Mon, 17 January 2011 18:11 |
... analog plays back what it heard you say, and digital plays back what you said ... |
MagnetoSound wrote on Mon, 17 January 2011 10:21 | ||
Gotta say, I love this. |
Tidewater wrote on Mon, 17 January 2011 13:11 |
It's very hard to talk about this. Digital has better ears than me. Analog has similar ears, and tastes. Analog allows for a spirit world. There is no afterlife in digital. Do to the nature of the formats, analog plays back what it heard you say, and digital plays back what you said, no matter how stark.. This is what I am talking about. Digital is a format, analog is your partner in production. I am all alone here. |
Bob Olhsson wrote on Sun, 16 January 2011 11:48 |
A "wow" reaction is often short for "wow, it sounds so real!" I fear that people who have never experienced "real" aren't likely to be very impressed. |
OOF! wrote on Mon, 17 January 2011 14:27 |
then It's *not* that tape is capturing more information than digital, and therefore giving us a bigger picture, but rather that tape is capturing the source imperfectly and instead of sounding worse it sounds *better* or at least louder and brighter a the same volume. Really interesting stuff, David |
Bill Mueller wrote on Mon, 17 January 2011 11:07 |
We know that second harmonic distortion can be very pleasing to the human ear as it adds "loudness" to a signal without adding volume. The BBC studied the effect of noise on high frequency perception and concluded that noise makes the listener believe a signal is "brighter" and has more highs than it actually has, without the noise. Again, an enhancement. Who woulda thunk! |
Bill Mueller wrote on Mon, 17 January 2011 14:07 | ||
Miles, You're not alone at all here. I agree with your statement and would like to further add that analog tape (the thing we are talking about when we say "analog", has a "transfer characteristic". That means that the signal that comes from the playback head is different than the one that went into the record head. This is a simple, measurable quantity of wow, flutter, harmonic distortion intermodulation distortion and broadband noise. These characteristics are a problem for some and pleasing to others. We know that second harmonic distortion can be very pleasing to the human ear as it adds "loudness" to a signal without adding volume. The BBC studied the effect of noise on high frequency perception and concluded that noise makes the listener believe a signal is "brighter" and has more highs than it actually has, without the noise. Again, an enhancement. Who woulda thunk! For those of us who have never really relied on tape to add those things, and want the recorder to simply play back what was put into it, we don't miss analog tape all that much. For those who love those characteristics for themselves, we now have a multi million dollar market replacing the sounds of obsolete recorders. VERY odd if you ask me. In the end. To Each His Own. Best regards, Bill |
Bill Mueller wrote on Mon, 17 January 2011 20:47 |
I left a key factor out of this post. That is the rise time associated with transients in analog tape. Analog tape rounds off sharp transients and to some this is a fault and to others, a feature. |
MagnetoSound wrote on Mon, 17 January 2011 13:12 | ||
Yes, I think this is key to why analog sounds more 'friendly'. |
DarinK wrote on Mon, 17 January 2011 17:47 | ||||
But why do those sharp transients not bother me in the real world, or when tracking & listening to the source in the control room, but only during playback from a digital recording? I think it's more than just the softening of transients with analog, it's something with (non-DSD) digital that makes those transients sound overly harsh or unnatural. |
faganking wrote on Mon, 17 January 2011 11:29 |
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." |
rankus wrote on Mon, 17 January 2011 18:57 |
In conversation with my 25 year old daughter (aspiring to become an engineer), the subject of "warmer" analog recordings came up. Her response was: "god your guys older recordings are so "spiky" they hurt my ears. I really like how our modern stuff is so smooth". "Better" is all in the perception IMO. |
mgod wrote on Mon, 17 January 2011 22:09 | ||
There may be an important age and gender factor here. Younger ears, female ears. I have a lot to say about contemporary digital recording, but won't. My pal Bill and I would wrangle about it pointlessly. If, however, I could figure out a way for him to hear a Memory Player, then we might have a real conversation in which I'd learn and not just tilt at windmills. |
Bill Mueller wrote on Mon, 17 January 2011 15:47 |
I left a key factor out of this post. That is the rise time associated with transients in analog tape. Analog tape rounds off sharp transients and to some this is a fault and to others, a feature. Bill |
DarinK wrote on Mon, 17 January 2011 17:47 |
But why do those sharp transients not bother me in the real world, or when tracking & listening to the source in the control room, but only during playback from a digital recording? I think it's more than just the softening of transients with analog, it's something with (non-DSD) digital that makes those transients sound overly harsh or unnatural. |
Bill Mueller wrote on Mon, 17 January 2011 21:24 | ||||
Hey Dan, Next time I'm in your neighborhood. I promise. BTW, Ruby Friedman played in town last night. You MUST check out this band live! So here is an odd thing. I don't mix in Pro Tools. I use a Yamaha digital console and MX2424. Tonight I did a back up of some songs through my console and into PT (no conversions, just straight through digi). For some reason, the back up tracks, that should be identical in every way to the MX tracks, back through two inputs on the console sound BAD! Everything is synced perfectly, no extra processing, identical procedures for every track, etc, etc. But when I play them back, IN THE BOX, it's like they lost all their beauty. Really odd. There may be sumthing (pun) to this ITB thing. Bill |
Tidewater wrote on Mon, 17 January 2011 22:53 | ||
You compensate, that's why it isn't driving you crazy. You record a good sound that you hear, and there it is. In the real world, your ears are tape, just like tape. |
Tidewater wrote on Mon, 17 January 2011 23:31 | ||
You don't lose points. It was a stipulation from my previous response about the hyperreality brashness. Yeah, I got your back. Post with confidence. lol |
Silvertone wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 07:15 | ||||
This is what I was talking about when I said the brain compensates for it. It's in your minds "ear" as well. Read the book "This is Your Brain on Music"... our minds filter out so much junk in a day we are not even aware of it... and it would drive us insane if we were aware of it |
mgod wrote on Mon, 17 January 2011 18:24 |
So is digital the Asperger's of audio? |
Tidewater wrote on Mon, 17 January 2011 20:53 | ||
You compensate, that's why it isn't driving you crazy. You record a good sound that you hear, and there it is. In the real world, your ears are tape, just like tape. |
Tidewater wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 17:19 |
I missed my point. You use the same techniques in digital and analog.. you turn the knobs until it sounds a certain way. That certain way may look different between formats, but you are still going to arrive in the same zipcode.. maybe you just shelf the highs a bit to compensate for the extended top end that never flattens.... that you wouldn't think about if you had never had analog ears, you'd just accept as what an eq curve looks like normally.. typically, rather. |
Fenris Wulf wrote on Thu, 20 January 2011 14:14 |
Unfortunately, due to my lack of scientific grounding, I would conclude that a material that is physically squishy will sound squishy, and spend the next 20 years trying to perfect the wax cylinder recorder. |
jetbase wrote on Wed, 19 January 2011 22:50 | ||
That makes sense. If it were me I would also conclude that ear wax would be the most logical material to use. |
Nicky D wrote on Thu, 27 January 2011 01:41 |
I think it is because the audio is fractured...maybe i'm crazy...but after getting into DSD briefly...all other digital audio sounds fractured to me...I don't know why...and I'm not sure I care to know why....DSD (5.6)..is the answer....will it happen in multitrickland? good chance it won't. |
fiasco ( P.M.DuMont ) wrote on Wed, 26 January 2011 21:49 |
depth |
fiasco ( P.M.DuMont ) wrote on Wed, 26 January 2011 13:49 |
Can anyone point me to a song, CD, snippet that was recorded digitally that has unmistakable depth? |
Jim Williams wrote on Thu, 27 January 2011 18:37 |
How many of you believe 2" analog tape will still be in production in 25 years? Show of hands? |
Tidewater wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 12:19 |
I missed my point. You use the same techniques in digital and analog.. you turn the knobs until it sounds a certain way. That certain way may look different between formats, but you are still going to arrive in the same zipcode.. maybe you just shelf the highs a bit to compensate for the extended top end that never flattens.... that you wouldn't think about if you had never had analog ears, you'd just accept as what an eq curve looks like normally.. typically, rather. |
Silvertone wrote on Thu, 27 January 2011 06:27 | ||
Already has Nicky... Genex 10 years ago and Korg just came out at AES with their multitrack DSD system... so there is hope yet! I keep stuff that I recorded on analog on the system all the time to show people what we gave up "depth" wise. Everyone is amazed at how 3D analog can sound. DSD is our only hope IMHO. That said I have 4 different digital platforms here and while I can't say they all sound different (some actually do), I can tell you that material recorded on any of these systems will perfectly null against any of the other disc's I cut. So to me it's just the "coding" of the playback that sounds different. |
Fenris Wulf wrote on Thu, 27 January 2011 12:27 | ||
|
Jim Williams wrote on Thu, 27 January 2011 13:37 | ||
Check out Todd Garfinkle's MA Records. His stuff is recorded using 2 B+K mics, great wire and preamps (usually mine) and has all the 3d you would ever want. There is one track on "Further Attempts" that has the bass player bowing the bass legato style. With headphones and a great converter, you can hear the bass rocking fowards/backwards in your head. I've not ever had that experience with an analog multi track recording, ever. The question is this: How many of you believe 2" analog tape will still be in production in 25 years? Show of hands? |
Bill Mueller wrote on Thu, 27 January 2011 16:14 | ||||
One of the first things GM taught me was to track drums at -20db to preserve the transients. We would sit in the control room and look at the scope before we had peak meters. So much for the theory that all analog clips transients. Bill |
Nicky D wrote on Thu, 27 January 2011 17:36 | ||||||
I'm not sure if you are disagreeing or agreeing with the quoted post, but in my very limited use of tape I've always felt that it exhibits limiting characteristics and not compression...and not when it's (obviously) saturating either. |
MagnetoSound wrote on Thu, 27 January 2011 18:29 |
A limiter tends to have a threshold. |
Bill Mueller wrote on Thu, 27 January 2011 23:32 | ||
Totally. However the further we get from daily use of analog tape by the majority of engineers, the more the myths and misunderstandings of it grow. Bill |
MagnetoSound wrote on Thu, 27 January 2011 17:40 | ||||
Yup. |
Bill Mueller wrote on Thu, 27 January 2011 16:52 | ||||||||
Nicky, A well set up Studer or Ampex tape machine running at 15 or 30 ips can capture transient information quite accurately, without limiting or compression. However, since the transients are sometimes 20db above the VU indications, if you want to capture transients as George always did, you should not record above -20db according to him. Bill |
Bill Mueller wrote on Thu, 27 January 2011 22:19 |
But if you can't get a great sound with a DM2000 and a MX2424, you need more help than an A80 can give you. |
Fenris Wulf wrote on Fri, 28 January 2011 16:23 | ||
I can't get great sound with a DM2000 and a MX2424. And yet I CAN get great sound on a live-to-stereo mix with 1 hour setup time, if I'm using an analog console. Hilarious. |
Nicky D wrote on Thu, 27 January 2011 19:12 | ||||||||||
that makes complete sense...never thought about it that way |
Bill Mueller wrote on Thu, 27 January 2011 14:52 | ||||||||
Nicky, A well set up Studer or Ampex tape machine running at 15 or 30 ips can capture transient information quite accurately, without limiting or compression. However, since the transients are sometimes 20db above the VU indications, if you want to capture transients as George always did, you should not record above -20db according to him. Bill |
Jim Williams wrote on Sat, 29 January 2011 12:00 | ||||||||||
True, BUT you must include the THD into the differences. Analog tape properly aligned will give you about 4~5% THD at 10k hz, it doesn't get any better. Compared to my BurrBrown converters, that drops to .001% THD, quite a difference when someone bashes a cymbal. I find analog tape THD to be very objectionable on acoustic sources, almost like spit thrown onto the sound. |
Bill Mueller wrote on Sat, 29 January 2011 18:02 |
To your point, Classical labels, the MOST technically rigorous of all the music genre, adopted digital technology almost instantly through Soundstream. Why? Because of two reasons in my opinion. First wow and flutter. Anyone who can't hear the wow and flutter in an analog recording of a piano sonata is not listening carefully enough in my opinion. Second, your point harmonic distortion. When you record a symphony, the sound that came out of the console is the sound you want to come back from the tape machine, not a bunch of freelance compression, wow, flutter and especially DISTORTION. |
Quote: |
And two they are trying to recreate "rock" sounds in a purposely designed "sterile" digital medium. |
Bill Mueller wrote on Thu, 27 January 2011 22:14 |
One of the first things GM taught me was to track drums at -20db to preserve the transients. We would sit in the control room and look at the scope before we had peak meters. So much for the theory that all analog clips transients. Bill |
Fenris Wulf wrote on Sat, 29 January 2011 16:47 | ||||
The most natural recording of a cello I've ever heard, by far, is the Pablo Casals recordings of the Bach cello suites done in the 1930's using a ribbon mic direct to shellac disk. Even today, many classical recordists prefer vintage tube microphones if they can get them. I strongly prefer jazz and classical recordings made prior to the 1970's. Part of it could be the higher standards of musicianship that prevailed in the past, but the "flawed" recording medium in no way detracts from my enjoyment of the music. I've recorded acoustic projects to Quantegy 499 at 15 ips on a stock MCI 1" 8-track. Technically it has noise and distortion and bla bla bla, but subjectively the sound is far less fatiguing than recording straight to digital. I have no doubt that I could record classical music on the same MCI, disguise the hiss in the reverb tails, and no one would be able to identify the medium. The golden-eared audiophiles would say "that sounds great, what digital converter did you use?" Flutter? So what? Air currents and the physical movements of the musicians produce similar timebase distortion. Flutter is OK in small amounts. Digital jitter isn't.
This is why studios end up buying a dozen different kinds of mic preamps for different music styles, and can't understand how old-school engineers got by with only the board preamps. I strenuously object to the idea that digital is "good enough" and bad results are the fault of the engineer. I believed this myth for many years and it cost me a lot of time, money, and frustration. In my experience, digital isn't even acceptable. I'm looking into the possibility of creating an analog recording program at the university, so that students can experience working in a real analog studio. If it ever happens, watch out. They might start asking some inconvenient questions. Like why we ever gave up analog in the first place. |
Bill Mueller wrote on Sat, 29 January 2011 22:30 |
Multitrack recording, analog or digital had no affect at all on classical recording during the time I cited. It was all done to two track. Classical recordists went digital because of the quality of sound. I was there. And if your willing to accept flutter in your classical recordings, that is your compromise, not mine. |
Fenris Wulf wrote on Sat, 29 January 2011 18:08 | ||
No, they were blown away by the complete lack of hiss. It made their jobs much easier. It took them a while to realize that digital has its own drawbacks. |
Fenris Wulf wrote on Sun, 30 January 2011 00:01 |
I didn't say that Ross's or Terry's recordings aren't great, I said that you need to spend a LOT of money to get that kind of sound with a digital setup. On my budget, analog is a better choice. You claim that classical music was all done to two track. This is simply not true. Classical recordists have been using spot mics for a long time. Some build an on-site control room so they can mix all the mics live to stereo, while others use multi-track recording. Orchestral recording for film is nearly always multi-track. I've observed 2" tape machines in use in quite a few "making of" documentaries. And I find the sound of pre-digital films to be considerably more pleasant and less fatiguing that modern films mixed in Pro Tools. While most classical recordists abandoned analog, they also realized that digital wasn't as "perfect" as they initially thought, and a lot of money and research was invested to develop better digital converters. Eventually they came full circle and re-introduced discrete transformer-coupled circuitry, and converters finally sounded as good as they did 30 years ago. I think classical recordists have a prejudice against using analog tape, and have never experienced what something like a high-end ATR multitrack with custom EQ curves and modern tape formulations can do. |
Fenris Wulf wrote on Sat, 29 January 2011 19:42 |
I have a question for Bill Mueller. I see that you have an extensive background in live sound. I want to know, have live sound engineers REALLY embraced digital technology, like MIX magazine would have us believe? Or do they still prefer a good modular analog FOH console if they can get it? What's better in terms of sound, reliability, and ergonomics? A digital console can provide complete automation of all parameters and enable you to duplicate the sound of the album. But doesn't that defeat the purpose of a live show? What was so bad about the old way of working? What has digital technology actually done for the quality of music? |
Bill Mueller wrote on Sun, 30 January 2011 05:22 | ||
Fenris, Yamaha, Digico, Harrison, Soundcraft, Avid and many other digital consoles have penetrated the sound reinforcement/broadcast community for many years now. The only question has ever been reliability, not fidelity. Even church venues are switching to digi consoles. So the answer is yes digital consoles have come close to taking over the mid to upper end of live sound production. However, sir, we are not even talking about digital or analog consoles, we are talking about the difference between digital audio recording and analog tape and in that arena, the ship sailed years ago. No one records live show on analog tape any more. At the very most it is extremely rare. No one uses multiple 2" analog machines synced with time code on track 24. It just does not happen. It is just too difficult and fraught with peril. Also, no one is saying analog tape does not sound good. I have said many times, I have a Studer B67 that I love. It is sitting right next to me while I type this out. I did a pretty good job restoring it and lapping the heads. This is not about how awful analog tape is. This is about people saying how awful digital audio is, lumping both cheap ITB toys and excellent sounding large format consoles together and slandering them all with the same brush. This is my only point. All digital systems are not the same and all analog tape is not automatically better. Best regards, Bill |
Bill Mueller wrote on Sat, 29 January 2011 23:22 |
This is not about how awful analog tape is. This is about people saying how awful digital audio is, lumping both cheap ITB toys and excellent sounding large format consoles together and slandering them all with the same brush. This is my only point. All digital systems are not the same and all analog tape is not automatically better. Best regards, Bill |
Silvertone wrote on Sun, 30 January 2011 10:45 | ||
That said, I'm restoring that vintage Langevin 12x3 tube console and pairing it with a very old mint conditioned Presto 3 track machine to make some very "old" analog recordings. In the end I'll let all of you be the judge as I intend to cut high bit and sample rate digital at the same time. Hopefully she'll be up and running by springtime... |
Bill Mueller wrote on Sun, 30 January 2011 05:22 |
This is not about how awful analog tape is. This is about people saying how awful digital audio is, lumping both cheap ITB toys and excellent sounding large format consoles together and slandering them all with the same brush. This is my only point. All digital systems are not the same and all analog tape is not automatically better. |
Fenris Wulf wrote on Sun, 30 January 2011 19:38 |
I've used expensive digital and I'm still not impressed. |
Fenris Wulf wrote on Wed, 16 February 2011 06:58 |
I have an admission to make. When it comes to the delivery medium, I can't tell the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96. I can't even tell the difference between a 192 kbps MP3 and linear 24/96 most of the time. |
Fenris Wulf wrote on Sun, 20 February 2011 22:39 |
I always track to tape and mix on a real console. |
Fenris Wulf wrote on Mon, 21 February 2011 04:39 |
The tape and the digital transfer sound pretty similar -- until I apply EQ or compression, at which point the digital is clearly worse. |
Fenris Wulf wrote on Mon, 21 February 2011 22:27 |
Yo Dogporny. |
Podgorny wrote on Tue, 22 February 2011 23:38 | ||
You work professionally in a creative field, right? You and Tony should go have a luddite circle jerk. |