yep pro-tools still sucks

I guess it's irrelevant as tape will be all but gone very soon anyway ... and that the vast majority of music being made now doesn't touch a magnetic reel already ........

You may or may not be right about which format musicians will choose. The digital 'revolution' has been and gone, and are people consuming less music now because it was recorded on Pro Tools?

It all sounds the same on 128kbps MP3 anyway.
 
Actually most of the "better known" artists/bands record to and mix from tape. Even those who use pro-tools bounce there FROM tape for easy editing (nobody wants to cut or splice tape these days). This is one of those little secrets they don't want the home recording people to know.

Trust me, the industry is desperate because Indy labels and home recording shops are eating them up more and more each day. ANY secret they can keep from the home recording pro is a big plus to them. They want you to think that analog is obsolete. Sit in on one of their "big" sessions and see what they use. You'd be surprised.

That said, you're probably still right. The majority still uses pro-tools, but aren't indepent based / home recording studios quickly moving toward the majority mark these days? hmm...
 
Another factor is cost. This session I'm mentioning also cost around $800 for used tape. People pay this because it really sounds good and is worth it. The band after experiencing this felt happy and justified for paying for the tape and definitely felt it was worth the cost. Don't get me wrong you can do a decent mix on protools but I still find tape with analog console mixdown kills it. But then again the delivery system for consumers has been spiraling downward ever since the 40's and 50's when folks at home had 1/4" reel to reels. By the way I did some 1/2" splicing on this session, it's really pretty easy when you are comfortable with it. It can be nerve-wracking for the band though.
 
Eh...personally I do too much flying around (yea...I like to arrange post-recording sometimes) for tape to be convenient. If I could afford it, I'd still record to tape and dump into DAW for editing though.

As it is, i'm poor so I do what I can with my little Firebox (recently aquired) and Cubase :(.

I get no complaints, but I know what the best can sound like...and mine isn't there yet. Of course recording to tape isn't gonna magically change that, but it would certainly help bring the goal a bit closer...:D
 
sweetnubs said:
All right I watched the set up clip. They are not mixing off of tape. They are comparing an analog console mix to a protools. I mixed off of and onto tape. TAPE! Besides SSL on board dynamics are questionable, especially the compressors
Click to expand...

I was aware that what they were doing on the video wasn't the same as what we were discussing, that's why I said and I quote
GOODLAND said:
It's not exactly what were discussing but it's still worth watching.

http://www.digidesign.com/index.cfm?...9&itemid=25669

http://www.digidesign.com/xtras/medi...458&langid=100
Click to expand...
 
sweetnubs said:
Awesome listen to the quality of protools presented by digidesign on compressed audio over computer speakers.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you have hooked up to your computer, but I don't have a set of cheap ass computer speakers.
Also, When you download the audio files to listen to, it's 27mbs for 1:24 of audio, so it isn't very compressed at all, if any.
 
sweetnubs said:
Stick with your emulations, I'll stick with the gear being emulated. Roar!
Click to expand...

sure..and I'll be throwing on 25 of those compressors that you only have 1 or 2 of, and I'll spend the 20 minutes it takes you to re-set up all your gear making music...and I'll be doing great non-destructive edits while you are splicing tape...Oh yes, and I won't have to use algorythmic reverbs.. I'll be using convolution reverbs of actual acoustic spaces. BAAAAM BOOOOAAAYYEEE!
 
sweetnubs said:
Just to clarify all tracking was done on a Studer 827 24 track 2" and Mixed on a Neve 5316. The only difference was mixdown to a protools HD system then to the Ampex 1/2". The 1/2" mix killed the digital mix. It was obviously apparent. How would you great well of knowledge about the mysteries of the "Digital Audio Realm" improved a simple dump into a two track mixdown? By the way nearly everytime I do this comparison the bands almost always pick the analog mixdown.
Click to expand...


ummm duh..because you mix differently for analog as you do for digital. That's like taking your mastered CD mix and pressing/cutting it to vinyl and expecting great results. It'll just sound like butt, regardless of the fact that a well mastered vinyl disc sounds wonderful. If you spent some time with it, you could probably get it sounding as good as tape, albiet with just a bit more know-how required... remeber digial is not as out of the box (which drives all those old school engineers NUTS!) as analog. They're two different styles of working, that can achieve similar results with the right person in front of the speakers.
 
sweetnubs said:
The contention being a raw mix off the 1/2" killed the raw mix into from the pro-tools turd delivery system yet again.
Click to expand...

also, remember pro tools is one of the least pleasent sounding pieces of pro audio software out there (and is really starting to become a thing of the past). I take tracks from logic and mix it in PT and there is a MONSTER difference between the quality in every way (louder, more gelled, clearer, richer, and in some cases warmer)
 
GOODLAND said:
Not sure what you have hooked up to your computer, but I don't have a set of cheap ass computer speakers.
Also, When you download the audio files to listen to, it's 27mbs for 1:24 of audio, so it isn't very compressed at all, if any.
Click to expand...

yeah haha I have my computer hooked up to my Tannoy sytem 800s http://www.tannoy-speakers.com/s.php?product=161&title=System+800A&s=40... they are pretty decent powered monitors. My buddy has his computer hooked up to a pair of custom made Dynaudio Acoustics Mark 2s. http://www.dynaudioacoustics.com/Default.asp?Id=282 Shitty computer speakers?

Is this a thread straight out of 10 years ago, or what? What next, are we going to debate DAT vs DA88s?
 
Just as a general statement,
The harder you push the levels on analog, the warmer it gets.
The harder you push the levels on digital, the harsher and shittier it sounds. Even if the level meter doesn't hit red, that doesn't mean the sound isn't being degraded.
So be careful and don't try and track with your levels red hot, just doesn't help you in the digital world.

Also, when dealing with high frequency instruments like cymbals and strings, you want to make sure to stay far away from the red when tracking.
Because the level meters in DAWs can't react quick enough to very high frequencies, therefore you may very well be clipping and not even realize it.
 
I'm not sure the recording software has as much to do with the sound of a recording as the hardware does. I think for the most part a DAW is a DAW. Converters is where the sound quality comes from in the digital arena. I love the analog media a lot but cost is the issue!
 
Micter said:
I'm not sure the recording software has as much to do with the sound of a recording as the hardware does. I think for the most part a DAW is a DAW. Converters is where the sound quality comes from in the digital arena. I love the analog media a lot but cost is the issue!
Click to expand...

True. But when you start getting into the high end Pro Tools HD Interfaces and PCIe cards it's not too cheap.
 
Trell Blaze said:
Actually most of the "better known" artists/bands record to and mix from tape. Even those who use pro-tools bounce there FROM tape for easy editing (nobody wants to cut or splice tape these days). This is one of those little secrets they don't want the home recording people to know.

Trust me, the industry is desperate because Indy labels and home recording shops are eating them up more and more each day. ANY secret they can keep from the home recording pro is a big plus to them. They want you to think that analog is obsolete. Sit in on one of their "big" sessions and see what they use. You'd be surprised.

That said, you're probably still right. The majority still uses pro-tools, but aren't indepent based / home recording studios quickly moving toward the majority mark these days? hmm...
Click to expand...

Hate to burst your bubble, but this isn't an industry secret. And if any of you think todays top engineers can't produce a high quality product from pro tools you're fucking dumbasses. Also which ever moron said pro tools is the least pleasant sounding software obviously doesn't have the ability to step back and take a look at the huge plethora of variables one would have to overcome to actually get an accurate answer to that hypothesis.
 
GOODLAND said:
True. But when you start getting into the high end Pro Tools HD Interfaces and PCIe cards it's not too cheap.
Click to expand...


It isn't for the equivalent in most other daws either. While it is cheaper to go other routes, none of them offer the extra processing you get with the cards, you have to go third party for that and then your stuck running those plugs from that particular piece of hardware. As expensive as audio is, it's cheaper now than it was even 20 years ago
 
jonnyc said:
Hate to burst your bubble, but this isn't an industry secret. And if any of you think todays top engineers can't produce a high quality product from pro tools you're fucking dumbasses. Also which ever moron said pro tools is the least pleasant sounding software obviously doesn't have the ability to step back and take a look at the huge plethora of variables one would have to overcome to actually get an accurate answer to that hypothesis.
Click to expand...


I think the consensus is that great things can be done with any DAW. Hell do you know how many times a mastering engineer has called me and said "you recorded & mixed that in WHAT?!?!". I reply..."yea...cubase...no expensive pre's, no apogee converters..." Actually I still don't even have a true pre...

Personally I think it's much easier to get a pleasent sound through analogue. The mixes I achieve take great effort and sometimes weeks (I nitpick the shit out of em). Last time I worked on an SSL console it felt like magic...

As it is, I can't afford that stuff, so it's just me and my firebox...:D

BTW, it might not be a secret to some of us around these forums but you'd be surprised how many "engineers" don't realize that analogue is still very much in use on many hit records...
 
TerraMortim said:
sure..and I'll be throwing on 25 of those compressors that you only have 1 or 2 of, and I'll spend the 20 minutes it takes you to re-set up all your gear making music...and I'll be doing great non-destructive edits while you are splicing tape...Oh yes, and I won't have to use algorythmic reverbs.. I'll be using convolution reverbs of actual acoustic spaces. BAAAAM BOOOOAAAYYEEE!
Click to expand...


Ummm I've been engineering for over 25 years. I have my own studio and freelance at others.
This particular session of which you I spoke of I had access to a tube tech stereo compressor, a dbx 160, a dbx 162, an 2x 1176, an 1178, 2 la3's, a 2 distressors, a spectrasonics 610, a la2a and a shure level loc, m'kay. I'm sure your fancy convolution reverbs that emulate actual acoustical spaces is nice but I used room mics and the reverb chamber at the studio which equates to actual real reverb. Also I used the EMT-140 tube plate at the studio. All mixing was done on a Neve console off 2" tape and no digital effects were used whatsoever.
 
why are we hearing all talk and not hearing any samples?

this argument is not worth crap unless we have examples people can listen to and make their own judgement. As far as I know the volume level of the tape mix was just hotter...and as most musicians think "louder is better...we like this one!"
 
bennychico11 said:
why are we hearing all talk and not hearing any samples?

this argument is not worth crap unless we have examples people can listen to and make their own judgement. As far as I know the volume level of the tape mix was just hotter...and as most musicians think "louder is better...we like this one!"
Click to expand...

seconds out.......................lets hear the results

what a thread, what an awesome thread. I'm a protools user & I aint changing now as I (we) sank an awful lot of money into it & I'm getting results that please me & the people I have in to record

the ultimate scenario for me would be to marry either 16 or 24 2" tape & whatever top end DAW is on the go at the given time a potential fantasy could be realised

OTOH audio is over rated & will never catch on:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top