Brand new reel to reel decks ?

ok ok

Let me guess that the ONLY WAY YOU CAN RECORD A DRUMSET AND HAVE IT MOVE PEOPLE is to put a 1000 dollar mic in every possible place around each drum, and have every mic running through some 3000 dollar Neve clone made by hand, and every mic into a seperate track of your 20000 dollar recorder. That even isnt enough. Now its time to pull out the boutique eq (the only "useable" eq that exists) and tweak endlessly. If that wasnt enough, lets get out the 660 tube limiter replicas that cost 10000 together and run it all through that. Because god knows that no one can hear an audible sound unless you do these things.

Next is guitar right? Well lets get a vintage ac30 and mic it in 6 ways then mic a twin reverb 6 ways and just for shits well mic a little crappy amp too and use a direct signal as well then combine them all for gods ultimate guitar sound even though the voice is what everyone hears when they hear a song.

Now were actually making music!!
 
even more off topic then ever

You know what should be the first step in any recording project? Reading "The Emperor's New Clothes".
 
mixmkr said:
I grew up learning on analog gear, but I love computer recording and won't look back.

The main thing is, I don't have the ears to hear the difference of a signal recorded into my computer, and the playback.

And furthermore, I am amazed at all the people with faaaaaar less recording time "under their belt" than I have, that hear all these fine "details." But, I don't claim to have the best analytical ear either. Although I place my ears ability highest on my food chain...above musicianship, writing, recording skills...etc.

Admittedly, there is nothing cooler looking (in a studio) than some 10.5" reels turning and some analog meters bouncing away. But I only hear the difference on a high end machine like a MCI, Studer, Ampex, etc... and NOT on the consumer stuff that hobbiests are grabbing up like hotcakes. Personally, I think there is a much bigger difference between a Studer and a 1/2" Tascam than people admit. Even though tape width may end up being the same, (1/2" 8 track -2" 24 track)the electronics are certainly not. And that said, from PERSONAL experience, I think a 24bit computer recording makes a (consumer)Tascam machine pale in comparision.

And honestly, I don't find the people raving about analog in the HOME RECORDING FORUMS, having the skills that it really makes that much difference anyway. They suffer from things like bad mic technique, poor musicianship, inadequate monitoring chains, lousy preamps, etc etc. These things are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more important in having these skills/equipment rather than what medium they are recording to.
Click to expand...

What are you from Kentucky or something? Ooops, never mind.
 
you want to know what?

You fuckers have inspired me. I am going to get the cheapest crap i can. I am going to get a bunch of old teac consumer reels and run them at slowest speed and use only dynamic mics made in the 60s. I might even bounce a track or two who knows. And when im done and it sounds like ass at least it will be my own ass that i cooked up myself. For mic technique i am jsut going to point the mic at the instrument and call it done. For monitors im going to use just some old pro4aa type. No eq. No compression. Nothing lame no tricks. For reverb ill use some old crappy spring type. And hopefully itll only be like 4 tracks so ill have to bounce a few times. And when im done ill make mono 45s instead of cds. And people will say i suck but at least they wont say i sound like creed's new album. Or 311's new album. Teenagers wont like it. It will not "bump" your system. There will be noise and anomolies and clicks. Chicks wont see an exciting future in the music and it will not trigger their hormones so that i can get laid. There will be no t-shirts made. I will not live forever. But at least i wont be some 40 something fat old bald man trying to compensate for his lack of creativity with a bunch of shiny objects that only the other fat old men care to even know about.

The only question left is, who is with me?!?!?
 
BRDTS said:
......."Things are done by individuals (just people) not by big corporations..."

Actually, that's what I said. The next machines on the boards are being made by individuals and small boutique companies rather than the large companies that could mass produce. Direct sales, 5%-10% above manufacturing costs. Costs of which will be several magnitudes higher than the components in a fuzz box.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I see what you are saying. Not much disagreement here, really...
what I was trying to point out was, i guess..., in general:
"Things are done by individuals (just people) not by big corporations..., and! corporations are among those things... :p , so you never know.
EH "story" reference, as I thought, could be as sort of example (or illustration):
First you find place and way to make THIS,
then THIS , sell them good
then you'd be able to make and sell THIS
and then some day some corporation will be making and selling THIS ... heh heh , which is pretty close to the cost of the components in a box ;)

/respects
 
My, this is a peppy thread… and I was only away for a few hours.

And it’s only January…

Think we’ll make it? :)
 
Beck said:
My, this is a peppy thread… and I was only away for a few hours.

And it’s only January…

Think we’ll make it? :)
Click to expand...

will it come with digital bias control? :D
 
BRDTS said:
96 and 192k stuff in computers is sounding incredible to me nowadays. With and without vintage frontend preamps. After being in this biz for all these decades, I LOVE where we are with computer recording.
Click to expand...

Same place we architects are with AutoCAD...working with digital 3D modeling, AutoCAD 2004, cut and paste this and that, etc., everything that makes working as a design professional much more efficient and profitable. It just makes good economic sense to digitize if you make your living this way and want to remain competitive.
Anyway, I'm sure the quality of digital technology in all of our lives will continue to increase as time goes by, and I'm really looking forward to the day when the tape emulation plug-ins do actually emulate the sound of tape.
 
Good Friend said:
You fuckers have inspired me. I am going to get the cheapest crap i can. I am going to get a bunch of old teac consumer reels and run them at slowest speed and use only dynamic mics made in the 60s. I might even bounce a track or two who knows. And when im done and it sounds like ass at least it will be my own ass that i cooked up myself. For mic technique i am jsut going to point the mic at the instrument and call it done. For monitors im going to use just some old pro4aa type. No eq. No compression. Nothing lame no tricks. For reverb ill use some old crappy spring type. And hopefully itll only be like 4 tracks so ill have to bounce a few times. And when im done ill make mono 45s instead of cds. And people will say i suck but at least they wont say i sound like creed's new album. Or 311's new album. Teenagers wont like it. It will not "bump" your system. There will be noise and anomolies and clicks. Chicks wont see an exciting future in the music and it will not trigger their hormones so that i can get laid. There will be no t-shirts made. I will not live forever. But at least i wont be some 40 something fat old bald man trying to compensate for his lack of creativity with a bunch of shiny objects that only the other fat old men care to even know about.

The only question left is, who is with me?!?!?
Click to expand...
well, thats kind of what im starting up. I dont need a $1000 mic, and a $15000 recorder. I think music is about the music, and about how you use the equipment you have. All that pop shit you speak of, its like its not about the music as much as it is about being "cool".
 
Well, now that we haven’t agreed on a medium, all we don’t need now is some music not worth recording, which is leastly what we haven’t… and in spades. :D
 
Good Friend said:
You fuckers have inspired me. I am going to get the cheapest crap i can...
Click to expand...
Good Friend said:
For reverb ill use some old crappy spring type.
Click to expand...
if you don't have one yet, then it will cost you Big Bucks ;)

Good Friend said:
And when im done ill make mono 45s instead of cds.
Click to expand...
This will definitely cost you Big Bucks :p

Good Friend said:
..There will be no t-shirts made.
Click to expand...
with such plan you really may want to reconsider this one. you may need to make some cash to break it even at the end ;)


/respects

P.S.
oh, and...
Good Friend said:
For mic technique i am jsut going to point the mic at the instrument.
Click to expand...
Good idea! :D
 
mixmkr said:
They suffer from things like bad mic technique, poor musicianship, inadequate monitoring chains, lousy preamps, etc etc. These things are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more important in having these skills/equipment rather than what medium they are recording to.
Click to expand...

I completely agree and, at the risk of betraying my analog brethren, I'd go as far as to say that if magically one of the higher end hard disc digital stand alone multitrackers was used at the beatles sessions over 30 years ago, we'd have essentially the same quality recordings as we know them today. I'll put it this way: there would not be a night and day difference.

Flame away at me .. :eek:
 
I'll go even further: give Sir George Martin a used $500 TASCAM 388, a box full of sm57 mics, a good room and amazing musicians and you're gonna get essentially the same masterpiece transferred to CD as if he were using a Gold edition 24 track studer, Neumann mics etc .... I can guarantee that the general public, most consumers, would not tell the difference.
 
cjacek said:
...if magically one of the higher end hard disc digital stand alone multitrackers was used at the beatles sessions over 30 years ago, we'd have essentially the same quality recordings as we know them today.
Click to expand...
...but there would be no such thing "as we know them today". Instead there would be something of the "same quality" :D
 
Point is that I use what I feel comfortable with and have left the digital vs analog sound arguments behind. I've heard amazing shit done on digital and awful crap made on analog and vice versa. I'll still say, however, that there's no way in hell I'm ever gonna go digital for tracking, no matter how good digital sound gets ... Hell, I'd rather produce my next cd on an ancient TEAC 4300 with no overdubbing capability and 7 1/2ips then on some esoteric digital workstation.
 
cjacek said:
I completely agree and, at the risk of betraying my analog brethren, I'd go as far as to say that if magically one of the higher end hard disc digital stand alone multitrackers was used at the beatles sessions over 30 years ago, we'd have essentially the same quality recordings as we know them today. I'll put it this way: there would not be a night and day difference.

Flame away at me .. :eek:
Click to expand...

Mixmkr is making “The all things being unequal” argument, which is skirting the issue of the medium. Proper technique is fundamental. The well-known (and lesser known) professionals that champion analog tape aren’t struggling with the fundamentals and are fully aware of the strengths and weaknesses of each format. The format isn’t unimportant simply because technique is of equal or greater importance.

If that were the case tape would have died a natural death long ago. Not only is it still alive but also has gained relative to its historical low. It’s not a romantic curiosity to pragmatists like me who chose it for its attributes.

It’s true enough though that excellence doesn’t normally determine the market. That's true with anything, including chicken nuggets. :)
 

Attachments

  • flame.jpg
    flame.jpg
    24.3 KB · Views: 62
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top