RICK FITZPATRICK
New member
Hahahahahaha, maybe on your planet.......thats why my ears have resonance comparison circuits to the brain huh? Otherwise they would have A/D's. Oh yea, I guess soundwaves are squarewaves too huh?
Just curious as to why still analog??
- Thread starter Tim Walker
- Start date
Dr ZEE said:true. Actually, I'd say: "... certain sound that is sought after by MOST producers and engineers, regardless of how exactly (from technical point) they are trying to get it"Btw, analog gear "emulation" software is a HUGE business... no wonder why
That's not necessaryly a bad thing. It makes musicians to play better music and to play better periodAnother words, if the band members (or musician) are (is) not happy with the result, then they (he/she) look "at the mirror", rather than at "what's in drop-down menue".
well, that's a no brainer. I'd say, however, that arguing for or against either format is NOT useless, if you simply compare apple to apple, compare your own result when working on a specific task - it's all yours: tallent, instrument, gear you use, your knowledge, your experience, your taste, your goal.... and see for yourself. You'll know what's better for what, and then you also may start leaning one way or the other in general.
/respects
Yeah. That is why it is useless to argue for or against either format. If you use both and find one you like over the other, or find both to be great for any given project, then you have found out for yourself and not spent so much time arguing which is better. I like them both and find both to be useful depending on what I want the given project to sound like.
I like your analogy about comparing apple to apple, because it is what I was trying to say. It is better to use the stuff and make up your mind with real experiences. BTW I was listening to that song by the Dire Straights "Money for Nothing" and it sounds really great. That was done totally digital and in 1985-86. A great recording that sounds so analog it is incredible.
Dr ZEE
Anti-Pro Circles Insider
I guess the keyword here's "argue". How bout replacing it with "discuss"... then it may make better 'useful' sense. 'Argueing' may be pretty useless, I'd say.Quantagee said:
Did you see this interview: Blah Blah Blah with neil_dorfsman ? Check it out, if you did not
This part of the inteview made me 'smile in a very crippled way'
Guys, I don't know... say what you say, but I really have problem believing that this is something else, but not a "set-up interview". It's just does not sound real... if you know what I mean. "Oops. There goes my “golden ears” rep." ...arghhhhhhh, give me a break, babe, like you really rally really had no a slight F*ng idea about how Neil produces his stuff. B.S.
Also, when guys like N Dorfsman say things like "total Pro Tools record", it makes me puke... Yah, right, nothing in his studio was used at all - just 100% pure ProTools. Aha.... - shut up!
well, it's MIX Magazine ... so. Know your sources, and remeber... there's no such thing as 'money for nothing'. We advertize in you magazine - you publish an interview for us - there you have it. Buy ProTools now!
anyhow... it's a good read for anyone, just don't take the words as they are absolute truth...
*******
btw, regardless: Mark Knopfler rules ! (pure and simple
)/respects
Last edited:
Herm said:
That is because you can use an analog machine for recording on it's own, or for an effect. It doesn't really mean he needed it. You can have a natural reverb of a room, or add it for an effect. The first and current use of the digital format is in recording classical performances. The performance is recorded as is and digital has provided the greatest classical recordings ever. This is one avenue that is strictly digital from start to finish.
To each his/her own.
Dr ZEE
Anti-Pro Circles Insider
Herm said:
yeah, man, .. , you know, you really don't need to dig into details etc to 'hear through smokin' dust' there, .... , I just wish to see his face, when he said "total protools". heh heh... just imagine it. I'd imagine the facial expression of: "I'm sooooooo cool, man, and I'm so laid-back"
lol,
of course, if this 'interview' actually was an interview...
anyhow,
/respects
Dr ZEE
Anti-Pro Circles Insider
Quantagee said:
oyyyy
. Sorry, but I just can't disagree more than ever on this one. And I am not talking about performance at all... I'm talking about the recording/production sound. And do not just 'take out of the picture' all the pre-recording stage equipment, used when recording classical music.... that's where everything is done for the most. Choice of digital or analog as 'recording bed' ... that's the same deal here, same headache, tough choice./respects
Last edited:
Dr ZEE
Anti-Pro Circles Insider
Herm said:
I'm telling, you man, this guy is a "hot s*t"
Here, you gotta read this "interview" (that's a word of wisdom from a "digital fan"
, as example: Neil Dorfsman: Many Sounds, One Brauner VMA Tube Mic *******
NOTE!: for better understanding, please, read the following quote with soft, "honest" and very mellow tone of voice,
aaaaaah... hah hah. "Sadly?" , oh man, how sad are you? Neil?
He goes to commercial studio for "social interaction". Geeee...
alright, we've got it, dude... Now we all run to buy Brauner VMA.
...shut up!
/respects
B
Beck
Guest
Digital recordings of classical music hurt my ears most of all. Same goes for Celtic. If its older analog recordings on CD its ok, but if it was tracked digitally it is pure agony. Bagpipes absolutely cannot be captured with Pro Tools. When they can I will say digital has arrived.
B
Beck
Guest
High End Analog vs. Digital Article - Interesting
The original article first appeared in 1997, which is about the time large studios began bringing analog back into the process. The return of analog has continued to the present despite 20 and 24-bit digital.
http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule_id=11/pmdmode=fullscreen/pageadder_page_id=37/
-Tim
The original article first appeared in 1997, which is about the time large studios began bringing analog back into the process. The return of analog has continued to the present despite 20 and 24-bit digital.
http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule_id=11/pmdmode=fullscreen/pageadder_page_id=37/
-Tim
Beck said:The original article first appeared in 1997, which is about the time large studios began bringing analog back into the process. The return of analog has continued to the present despite 20 and 24-bit digital.
http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule_id=11/pmdmode=fullscreen/pageadder_page_id=37/
-Tim
He is talking about "Bad (inexpensive) digital" vs. "Good (expensive) analog".
Bad anything is worse than good anything period.
Dr ZEE
Anti-Pro Circles Insider
Quantagee said:
heh heh
Yeah, Tim.... this article may sound like overall to the point, but really it's...how shall I put it? - it's like boneless moosh-mash potato. While I was reading through this I really had hard time not to keep replying in my mind things like "No sh*t"...or "Dohhh"
and at the end it simply left me with sense of "discovery": "Expansive gear is good, cheap gear is bad" ...heh heh , lol.... nevermindbut couple of things in the article I have to notice and reply:
Wrong. It was Heaven.
Wrong. Comparing to digital - analog is a friendly fuzzball. You have to watch every step on the way in digital recording, not to mention digital signal processing - arghhhhhhhhhhh - that's a "silent slowly progressing lethal illness within the production process" if you do not watch your "diet, blood pressure, sugar and cholesterol" - it'll kill your work.
I have to agree with this one.
it was good read,
thanks Tim
/respects
RICK FITZPATRICK
New member
Did you ever wonder why people who are so fimly "digital" oriented, visit here so often? That tells me something. What the fuck do they care about analog.....unless.....their sonic tastebuds are still unhappy hmmm
fitZ
fitZ
Dr ZEE said:heh heh
Yeah, Tim.... this article may sound like overall to the point, but really it's...how shall I put it? - it's like boneless moosh-mash potato. While I was reading through this I really had hard time not to keep replying in my mind things like "No sh*t"...or "Dohhh"
but couple of things in the article I have to notice and reply:
Wrong. It was Heaven.
Wrong. Comparing to digital - analog is a friendly fuzzball. You have to watch every step on the way in digital recording, not to mention digital signal processing - arghhhhhhhhhhh - that's a "silent slowly progressing lethal illness within the production process" if you do not watch your "diet, blood pressure, sugar and cholesterol" - it'll kill your work.
I have to agree with this one.
it was good read,
thanks Tim
/respects
You are really too used to the "new" analog tape machines. The machines from the 60s were f*in horrible disasters that worked when they felt like it. The machines of the early 70s were only a tad better. You can't mix up the TASCAM, FOSTEX and Otari consumer machnes with the pro machines that he is talking about. Really, they are totally different beasts.
Dr ZEE
Anti-Pro Circles Insider
and the Heaven it was. You get the best gear of your time...and you are in heaven.acorec said:
acorec said:
Ahhh. I see. Thanks for clearing this up.
*********
As a side note: As I do not live by 'the book', since I've got to the point where I'd rather "write books, than read them", - I Can (mix up, that is). I can mix anything I want with anything I want.
I do mix pro gear with consumer gear and with not-really-gear at all. I do it Allegorically speaking and literally speaking. I do it all the time. That's why 'they call me' 'carelessly guilty Dr ZEE' You see, my goal is much more primitive - just to produce music. I don't have to worry about "client satifaction 24/7/365", and that's why 'consumer' and 'pro' categorization is out of picture for me, I simply look at the gear like at just another gear' (not like it's an investment) and I evaluate the gear by its characteristics and by usefulness in regard to my goal - producing music. So I do mix things... and have no problems doing it
/respects
Dr ZEE said:and the Heaven it was. You get the best gear of your time...and you are in heaven.
Ahhh. I see. Thanks for clearing this up.
*********
As a side note: As I do not live by 'the book', since I've got to the point where I'd rather "write books, than read them", - I Can (mix up, that is). I can mix anything I want with anything I want.
You see, my goal is much more primitive - just to produce music. I don't have to worry about "client satifaction 24/7/365", and that's why 'consumer' and 'pro' categorization is out of picture for me, I simply look at the gear like at just another gear' (not like it's an investment) and I evaluate the gear by its characteristics and by usefulness in regard to my goal - producing music. So I do mix things... and have no problems doing it
/respects
What are you talking about?
Dr ZEE
Anti-Pro Circles Insider
acorec said:
They are totally different beasts if you look at them from point of view of a professional recording studio engineer (or better say manager), yes, from that point they are - they are designed to serve the purpose of professional recording studio - satisfy the client weekdays through working hours year-round, while maintaining performance and prove its profitability.
From point of view of JUST a music producer.... they are the same - just gear, machines with a function(s).
In respect to a conversation we had, you said "You can't mix them up". Meaning what?
The guy is saying, that in 60s recording was HELL. It was too hard. Right? well, - let's say - right? Comparing to what? Comparing to the way recording is today? Well, you can maybe say it today.... but back in 60s - that's just the way it was. You don't know the future and how "easy" it is going to be.... so how on earth can you "feel" that it's 'HELL'.?
arghhhhhhhhhhh.... the whole blah is justa' blah... anyway
Now, what the heck all this has to do with "consumer" and "pro" machines... and how 'different beasts they are' .... You tell me
?/respects