Steve Henningsgard
New member
And now we know you're a whiney bitch!
yep pro-tools still sucks
- Thread starter sweetnubs
- Start date
And now we know you're a whiney bitch!
D
danny.guitar
Guest
Where do you find the time to post when you have like $6 billion dollars worth of gear and work in like 35 different studios?
sweetnubs
New member
"PT LE, one of the big things that gets me... 24 tracks only? whaa?" (terratard) Funny how analog engineers have been working with 24 tracks for ages, 16 tracks, 8 tracks, 4 tracks, 3 tracks, etc. Please refer to perhaps a Sinatra record done on three tracks then listen to one of your 140 track track logic midi monstrosities.
Steve Henningsgard
New member
You know, if you decided to word some of your thoughts differently, you might not come off as such a dick (although judging by said wording, it's obvious that's your intent.) I do have to agree with your point, and add that more often than not, it's those restrictions that breed creativity. I mean, when you have infinite tracks/infinite takes/infinite cuts & pastes/sound replacing/etc., there's really no pressure on the artists to perform very well anymore. As evidenced by the complete lack of talent most "artists" display these days. I'm of the firm belief that most people in bands, don't deserve to be in bands. Can't play or write to save your life? Go fuck yourself: work at McDonald's and get your shitty music off of myspace.
/rant
pipelineaudio
Well-known member
If musicians were still allowed to work at mcdonald's we'd still have some good ones
Most bands now are VERY, EXTREMELY wealthy parents living thru their kids
If you are old enough to get a job, you are most likely too old to start a band with any chance at success
Most bands now are VERY, EXTREMELY wealthy parents living thru their kids
If you are old enough to get a job, you are most likely too old to start a band with any chance at success
NashBackslash
New member
You know, I bet if he actually posted any, we'd all find out that the mixes aren't really that great to begin with anyway. No one would be impressed and everyone would be like "I can do better than that mixing in the box".
TerraMortim
New member
Because of physical constraints... now...with software..it's not that hard to make the track count more than that...again you don't understand the difference between analogue and digital. 1. 140 tracks would be impossible with even modern computer setups....unless there were more than one computer working at the same time...also.. people like sinatra could afford to have large live orchestra's playing off the floor live... so... there you go. How many tracks do you think an orchestra needs, being that they do all of the mixing themselves with their instruments. If you can afford to hire a full orchestra, in leu of modern musicians union (esp the symphonic players) rates... not counting the conductor, copyist, live room big enough to hold them let alone actually sound good enough for a whole orchestra (using the strictly room mics that they most likely used on Frank...don't think they'd gotten to spot micing the sections till much later..I know Zappa was one of the earlier ones to do that on his 200 Motels album...)...perhapse you deal drugs..because, judging from your inefficient and closed minded way of working, and no doubt your desire for wearing summer dresses and teddies around the control room, would prevent you from doing high enough paying work to reward you with the opportunity to record with such overpaid classical ponces.
TerraMortim
New member
No doubt......
TerraMortim
New member
Becuase I don't feel the need to answer the quiz from professor "25 years" nubz? I dunno maybe I'm just ignorant, I just can't hold up to the power that is your studer...it's melting my brain with it's radiance as we speak. If it sits there too much longer, it just might make you a world class engineer...don't you know, that's the secret trick of all the greats..they just bought a whole bunch of gear and then the gear infused with their nervous system while they slept and they created godlike mixes. Brian Eno was a simple librarian until he bought his Neve... Bob Rock was a christian minister with a bone to pick with the rock and roll scene...that avalon sure changed things, didn't it?
RADAR has the same preamps as the MOTU dumbfuck. If you remember, RADAR is from Vancouver, which I am from, and I know some of the people who used to be at the head of their R&D and engineering teams. Same preamps... It sounds better to you, beause it has an analogue workflow...simple as that. If I really wanted to get some of the best a/d and digital preamps, I'd go for apogee... I used to work with a buddy on his apogee (one of the older 24, 48kHz ones.. but it was really lovely)
Actually, the "Vintage warmer" is a plugin that emulates a sort of LA2A setup mixed in with some channel strip functionality, and includes a multiband limiter, and shelfing EQs.. It does actually sound quite good on most sources, and has, from some amusing experiments of mine, in blind listening tests, fooled some folks into thinking it was an analogue recording (the analogue recording was the one they thought was digital... hahahaha.)
For such an old school guy, you have taken on the "internet tough guy"/anime nerd/ etc.. cliche for whenever they cannot think of valid arguement...make up a fake "quiz" for the other, and when the other person lacks the patience to submit to their dumb assed "test", they get something equivilant to a sexual arousal from creating fake contractions from their name/username (e.g. terratard) and no doubt the "I have 10 women sucking my cock under my Neve right now, will ensue. You should try a more origional approach, if you lack the ability to actually back up your arguement with intelligent thought, and reality. Or you could just refrain from talking right from your sphinkter..that might work better for your arguements, granted they have any basis in reality.
To your quite silly "vintage warmer" quote: It takes experience, and somewhat complex techniques (that often are independant of what exact "plugin" to achieve a good result) If I require a tape sound for something, I track down a tape machine and dupe off the track to tape...simple as that. In much of modern production, the ammount of source material that absolutely requires tape is not that significant (drums sound nice on it, IMHO).
As I said before, a good modern engineer can have the ability to pick and choose between what suits the sound the best...sometimes it's analogue, sometimes digital, sometimes broken gear through distortion pedals, through a fischer price karaoke mic... Experiment, and maybe if you make it lucky, you won't be sweet "25 years" nubz, the fucktard crossdresser on the homerecording.com forums...but actually someone who ammounts to more than a pile of rat shit.
TerraMortim
New member
It's a whole other world when you have one of the one man deals for studio work. . . =D With my band, all of the music is originated from myself with my computer and then after the songs are worked out, delegated to other members to add their magic...analogue would be possible, but more akin to a nightmare in my situation. I can really laugh with you on your last comment tho...don't think having the ability to edit is the cause, just the over-availability of the tools to make music...but it doesn't really matter..the music made by those types will never go anywhere, so it's not that big of a difference. (there's always been piss poor music in the mainstream since the advent of recorded audio.)
Steve Henningsgard
New member
You have to admit though: if digital recordings had an artificial limit of 10 edits, you can bet your ass you'd get some better performances out of artists!
cusebassman
Freakin' sweet
I have to agree, that without editing capabilities, you are forced to perform far better than you otherwise would/might, if you didn't know something cold.
Fortunately, as a singer/songwriter type, I am less concerned with playing a part right and editing/not-editing later than I am with getting the damn recorded sound right... I am still having issues with too much low-end in recording acoustic guitar, and I bought a Taylor that has a thin bottom end
TerraMortim
New member
yeah but then my songwriting would be a nightmare.. I like to take the "compositional" route for writing... but lordy I hate notated music..it's a bit like writing music with math problems lol.
What I always do is just keep editing of the actual performance to only a last resort (the player is really struggling that day...etc..) Just cause the editing capabilities are there doesn't mean you don't HAVE to use them for everything. My vocal sessions are run with take after take after take after take, just how it was done before all this new fangled stuff. hehe. It's all about the approach you use. I'm still a big fan of coaching the players to play it with emotionality live, with as little ammount of editing as poss. That said, there are times where doing the edits can save the song, and save a fuckload of money too. There are a few times where I had to have a song to be ready for a radio interview/listening session in litterally two days.. I was thanking my lucky stars for Melodyne about that point lol...
I think the important thing for people to remember is to use the technology to enable you further, not as a crutch, which will end up disabling you in a way, and dumbing down the emotionality of the music.