Analog Fever!

Hello SoMm, and thanks for the reply. Hey, please don't take me wrong on this stuff, I'm a devils advocate sometimes:D I mean no disrespect to anyone here. My appreciation is due for all the help I receive from everyone here. I like underdogs, and respond accordingly. Ha! Anyway, thats cool, and I thought about a 2000 myself.
I am in the market for an analog mixer myself at this very moment. What do you like about the 2000. I thought that was a FOH mixer? I guess if your using direct outs, it wouldnt matter huh? Can you elaborate? I've seen a ton of big foh mixers, but do not understand enough to know the difference, if they have buss's anyway. Monitoring? or tape returns? I'm waiting for a Tascam 3700 with the JL Cooper add on automation. I believe it will compliment my 2 MSR-16'S, and 42b.. See, all my stuff is semi pro anyway, and its only for fun. There is no reason for me to upgrade to 1" or 2", as I'm only in it for the fun. And this fully satisfys my ears, and to tell you the truth, I doubt if the average listener could tell the difference between playback on a 1/2" or a 1", unless the music that was recorded took advantage of the higher spec of the bigger format machines. I know my ears suck:rolleyes: so semi pro will have to do.
fitz:)
 
Interesting thread.

In my (limited) experience, it seems that other than the quality of the musical source (including the room), the front end components like the microphone and pre, matter more than the format. A number of pro engineers have posted at RAP that if you get the right "sound" captured, you can make excellent recordings even on the cassette format. We're assuming minimum spec's on the cassette to be 16kHz, not an answering machine BTW.

Bruce, you may recall when I posted the thread about the guy who had a #1 hit in Britain with a Tascam 8 track(!) portastudio.
(Song was "Your Woman", by White Town)
And he used PZM's instead of an available U87 for the vocal too... :)

Chris
 
chessparov said:
Bruce, you may recall when I posted the thread about the guy who had a #1 hit in Britain with a Tascam 8 track(!) portastudio.
(Song was "Your Woman", by White Town)
And he used PZM's instead of an available U87 for the vocal too... :)

Chris
Click to expand...
Sure... I don't dispute that it *can* be done.... but you have to admit it would be atypical!
 
"In theory, you can get any kind of excellent sound out of a casette tape, as long as you just can get enough magnetism onto that narrow strip of tape"-regebro

wrong reggie. Quality is determined by tape speed and track width. The higher the tape speed and the wider the tracks the better s/n ratio, dynamic range and frequency response you get. I won't even go into wow and flutter, head alignment, harmonic distortion, etc. I have made the same statement on this harry and holly home recording board that my buddy blue balls is making: cheap digital is better than cheap analog. unless you are going 1" eight track or 2" 16/24 you might as well forget it. Of course there are a few exceptions with special machines (i've heard good 1/4" two tracks at 30 ips for example) If you don't know how to align and calibrate your deck forget it. record digital, mix analog if you can't afford good analog. nubs has spoken. thank you, i hope you enjoyed your stay.
 
sweetnubs said:
wrong reggie. Quality is determined by tape speed and track width.
Click to expand...

Ah, but WHY is it determined by this? And if it was only determined by that how come different tapes sound different?

Exactly, becuase the tapes have different magnetical properties. And if you found a tape whos magnetical propertoes were 'perfect', then you would get back exactly what you recorded, with zero noise and full bandwidth.

Gotcha there, didn't I. :)

Now of course, no tape has 'perfect' magnetical properties, but then you will never be able to create a perfect AD/DA either. Sure, with digital,even if you did have perfection in the conversion, you would have limitations of the format. Analog really don't have those built-in limitations, it's instead the implementation of the format the decides how good it will be.

Therefore, you can not compare 4-track tape to 44.1kHz 16 bit. And say that one is better than the other as a format. Or well, you can, but the *theoretical* limitations of the 4-track casette as a format is much higher than the ones of 16/44.1, so then you would be wrong.

However, the *practical* limitations of the 4-track is much lower than 16/44.1, but when you are talking practical limitations, you are talking specific implementation. And then you would have to compare the best 4-track tape recorder, which probably cost some $1000 new, with the best AD/DA, which will cost you ten times as much. And it isn't a fair comparison if you don't include the budget.

So, what you need to compare is implementations in a similar price. And yes, in the lower end of market you get better sound with digital than analog for the same price.
 
RICK FITZPATRICK said:
What do you like about the 2000. I thought that was a FOH mixer? I guess if your using direct outs, it wouldnt matter huh? Can you elaborate? I've seen a ton of big foh mixers, but do not understand enough to know the difference, if they have buss's anyway.
Click to expand...
The PM2000 is a FOH console. Some of the FOH consoles have tape outs and returns. But I sometimes like the idea of having 16 input channels one one side of the center and 16 just for mixing on the other side. But then again, the inline console I have now is pretty handy because I don't have to have 3 chairs. If I actually thought about it long enough about what I want, can afford and will fit in my house, an inline older console is where I'll end up. Anyhow, usually an FOH has separate input channels, and another set of outputs for feeding a multitude of different things. Mostly monitor sends to support wedges on stage, loud speakers, etc... they just have more places to send the audio than a studio console. which you have 3 or 4 places verses 16 for instance.
My personal tastes are big open layouts, 4 band parametric eq, 6 fx with stereo returns(3 for sends), tape i/o dedicated, inserts, phantom, phase, 8 buss, inserts on master, mute automations if its more than 16 channels, vertical back panel,
etc etc...OK, Maybe a Neve VR80 series is what I need:p

So you have 2 MRS16's huh? Do use one for making slaves or run them in tandem for 32 tracks?

Id like to have 2 MSR16 machines. Im frying the E-16, alot of bleed, but it kinda melds it if done right. Yeah, your setup is semi-pro by certain standards, but more than enough to make awesome recordings. Lots of guys have made albums on the MSR16, it is considered to be a professional format by the way. But your right, its gotta be fun or its all for not. I love recording, its weird. I wanted to be a rockstar for such a long time. I spent years preparing for live performance, practicing guitar standing up, playing in metal bands. I got into a pro studio and that was it. But working as an intern in a pro studio and then assist engineer for a few years turned me off to the biz side. Dealing with stoned guitarists having trips in the corner, constant band bickering, and crappy musicians with money and no talent made it less than enjoyable. I like the referral method. Anyhow since we have 2 subjects in this thread I have to comment that sweetnubs and regebro both said the samething..

sweetnubs said:
record digital, mix analog if you can't afford good analog.
Click to expand...

regebro said:
And yes, in the lower end of market you get better sound with digital than analog for the same price.
Click to expand...

Look the same to me?

SoMm
 
nubs has spoken.
Click to expand...
Oh crap, here we go again. You fuckwit. You STILL don't get HR, cause your fucking head is so far up your pompas ass you only see shit. Fuck you and your 2" and your protools and what ever else youv'e managed to drag down to your sewer pit. Not everybody, me especially, wants or needs caviar. I mean, who the fuck would want to waste their time on a bunch of fucking nimwit musicians anyway. Or music biz bullshit. Thats like buying yourself a job in a used car lot. Oh, I forgot though, being an AE is cool. Ha! What a joke. Mixermans forum proves everyday what THEY are about......so do you. Every time you post.

So go crawl back into the cesspool you crawled out of sweetnubs. You smell. Just like the music biz.


Napalm is the only answer for cockroaches.
 
But your right, its gotta be fun or its all for not. I love recording, its weird. I wanted to be a rockstar for such a long time. I spent years preparing for live performance, practicing guitar standing up, playing in metal bands. I got into a pro studio and that was it. But working as an intern in a pro studio and then assist engineer for a few years turned me off to the biz side. Dealing with stoned guitarists having trips in the corner, constant band bickering, and crappy musicians with money and no
talent made it less than enjoyable. I like the referral method. Anyhow since we have 2 subjects in this thread I have to comment that sweetnubs and regebro both said the samething..
Click to expand...

Hello SoMm, well excuse my rant. Some people have got so used to the smell, they think its normal. I DO respect ANYBODY who doesn't live in a daydream. And living in the rock and roll world is DEFINITELY a daydream. I spent many many years as a pro musician, and I have nothing against pro musicians. Rock and roll stars are another animal. GAWWWWWWWWD! Give me a break. Adolecents never cease to amaze me.
Even when their 40.

Give me a real, normal world anyday. At least one where AE's don't think they are a star too.
fitz:rolleyes:
 
Bruce it's "atypical" because you need the alignment of a compelling
performance, appropriate material, and marketing push.
Recording format is way in the distance behind those factors.

Chris
 
Hi Chris, say, hows the barbershop recording going?:D I understand you a very talented singer. No wonder you know vocal mics so well. And thats not all. Your posts are a-ok!
fitz:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top