yep pro-tools still sucks

it might be he isn't able to give us samples of the band he recorded without their permission...and I understand that

I'm not saying that he's wrong either. It's kind of a ridiculous argument because since the beginning of digital everyone was saying it's inferior to analog. We've gone through all this before. But I'd like to know more specifics of the process you used.
Are you taking 24 tracks off of tape, using the mix bus on a console (which console?) and going back to tape?
Are you taking the same 24 tracks into PT individually and mixing down?
Are you taking the same 24 tracks through the consoles mix bus and going stereo into PT?
Have you gone from tape to console...back to tape...and then into PT to make the CD?
Have you compared analog summed CD versus digital summed CD?
What sample rate are you running at? Are you saying 44.1kHz is inferior to analog? Again, just a ridiculous statement to make because we all know this.

There are too many variables that you haven't given us. But when it comes down to it...we all know this. No one is disputing that analog sounds better at many stages than digital does. Hell, tape distortion might be most of what makes it sound better. But in today's digital world people prefer the flexibility and cost of digital. And, as has been said above, you can get a great mix/recording with either.
 
bennychico11 said:
it might be he isn't able to give us samples of the band he recorded without their permission...and I understand that

I'm not saying that he's wrong either. It's kind of a ridiculous argument because since the beginning of digital everyone was saying it's inferior to analog. We've gone through all this before. But I'd like to know more specifics of the process you used.
Are you taking 24 tracks off of tape, using the mix bus on a console (which console?) and going back to tape?
Are you taking the same 24 tracks into PT individually and mixing down?
Are you taking the same 24 tracks through the consoles mix bus and going stereo into PT?
Have you gone from tape to console...back to tape...and then into PT to make the CD?
Have you compared analog summed CD versus digital summed CD?
What sample rate are you running at? Are you saying 44.1kHz is inferior to analog? Again, just a ridiculous statement to make because we all know this.

There are too many variables that you haven't given us. But when it comes down to it...we all know this. No one is disputing that analog sounds better at many stages than digital does. Hell, tape distortion might be most of what makes it sound better. But in today's digital world people prefer the flexibility and cost of digital. And, as has been said above, you can get a great mix/recording with either.
Click to expand...

Yeah I can't give out unreleased material. All tracks were played off a studer 2" and mixed on a Neve 5316 console using only outboard gear. No digital outboard was ever used. The Master Bus went to protools Hd system at 24/96 for a 2 track stereo mixdown and then to the ampex atr-102 1/2" deck for mixdown. The band listened to both mixes straight off the computer and the 1/2", so no dithering/resampling was used. Monitors were ns-10's and Meyer Hd1's. Volume was equal between both mixes since I have a handy dandy spl meter ever present. No tape distortion/compression/saturation was used, I'm generally tame with analog levels since I like clean analog recordings, although some times i may saturate for effect but not normally. As a disclaimer I'm not saying you can't make a good mix on pro-tools. We also listened to the raw 1/2" mix, not to the final release format of a 1/2" mix mastered for cd. Although I'll take the vinyl version thank you very much. Good dilly day neighbor!
 
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...

All the artists I seem to get love the 2" but can't stand the cost of tape!

Some want my digital 24 track HD recorder.

I work with both and over time, I can't even remember which songs were recorded on what.

I think the "suck" factor is only temporary with decent analog and digital recorders.
 
I miss tape, really I do. Just not enough to give up non linear editing, instant SPP, and all the other goodies that come with digital. The way I make music today is incompatible with tape. The genie is long out of the bottle, but yes, we did pay a price.
 
jonnyc said:
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
Click to expand...

Oh yes, I agree, for what your getting it's a hell of a deal.
 
sweetnubs said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ok, so I guess another way of putting it is:

If you have millions of dollars and great acoustically treated spaces, 100 expensive compressors, a Neve console, a reverb chamber, then analog is better.

If you are a home recorder on a budget and don't have a million dollars, digital and convolution reverbs beat the hell out of little tape recorders with crappy EQs and poor sound quality.
 
I downloaded the files from the protools site . They are a MOV file? Never delt with those. Can I plunk them into Sonar....they dont seem to want to go.
 
jmorris said:
I downloaded the files from the protools site . They are a MOV file? Never delt with those. Can I plunk them into Sonar....they dont seem to want to go.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are quicktime video files, and the audio attached is uncompressed.

Watch this little video clip I made on how to turn the .mov file into a .wav file.

It's a 2mb file so it may take a second to start playing.

http://www.goletastudio.com/video/exportaswav.mov

If you don't have quicktime pro then just let me know, I'll hook you up with a registration key and username.
 
Robert D said:
The way I make music today is incompatible with tape.
Click to expand...


That makes two of us.

Still if I had the time/money/access I'd dump my mixes to tape at least for mastering.

As it is, I'm growing happier each day with my little digital Firebox as I learn it's strengths and flaws...:D
 
yeah I'd love a key, I dont have quicktime pro, that would be great! I thought it strange that they did not just present a wave file that could be used with any program ie. Sonar, Nuendo instead of locking it to PT. I would have thought PT people would want everyone to rey their samples on their own DAW.
Jim
 
jmorris said:
yeah I'd love a key, I dont have quicktime pro, that would be great! I thought it strange that they did not just present a wave file that could be used with any program ie. Sonar, Nuendo instead of locking it to PT. I would have thought PT people would want everyone to rey their samples on their own DAW.
Jim
Click to expand...

PM Sent With Quicktime Info
 
GOODLAND said:
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.
Click to expand...

Logic sounds kind of nice when you smash audio through the channel faders =D I sometimes massively overdrive the channel fader and then send it to a bus to mix it (usually with PSP vintage warmer as the volume control instead of the actual fader.. yum)
 
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...

sort of, but sort of not. There are some differences with how different software handles things like overdriving faders, etc... Logic, and Cubase I hear are the nicest for that.
 
sweetnubs said:
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.
Click to expand...

you miss my point. If I wanted to put that la2a plugin on 50 channels, or do multiple ones even on the same channel at small incriments, I can. My convolution reverbs will allow me to get VERY diverse reverbs with ease. I could even go into a space I like and do my own IR (I've done it many times) and you know what? It DOES sound quite a bit like the space. You also miss my point with digital. You said. Digital will sound like shit with the same mix. I said, yes, of course it willl, you are expecting an analog mix to instantly sound like tape. Tape sounds like tape right off the bat. You can really get the same sound if you know how to get it. btw...I always use room mics when I can, what is it with people. BLACK or WHITE, RIGHT or LEFT, can't anyone just be sane and do whatever works, instead of going off the deep end of whatever end they've decided is "keen"?

Your like the type of folks are really just silly old farts that are afraid of losing their old roost that they had since the way things are done has broadened from the simplicity of record, rewind, listen, re-record, rewind, listen, re-record, rewind listen. It's the type of person who refuses to keep up with current techniques because the way they did it is the only way they want to. They then see it fit to insult other people just because they have moved with the technology (instead of being like the old man in an easy chair waving his cane in the air about how in his day people would lick your asshole every time you walked by them and there was no crime at all, the atmosphere was made of cotton candy and you could legally murder your children if they talked back to you) If you enjoy analog production then great. I actually like the simplicity of getting a good sound in an analog mix. It surely is a lot quicker to get to with some of that top gear... however, it makes me laugh when you say ignorant shit about things that you have not a single clue about. Just the fact that you equate pro tools to the entire digital recording world shows that you're coming from a very outdated view of digital...obviously one of the folks that looked at digital when it first came out, realized it sounded like shit (it did), and then decided they would never use it as long as they lived, regardless of where the technology went, often just making excuses for how horrible it is, as a somewhat nerdy old school audio geek running joke. Digital is so bad... how bad is it? ... it's soo bad that.... I don't care if you've been doing audio since the edison gramaphone was considered a hi-fi piece of cutting edge technology. It doesn't impress me, and it doesn't mean that you are any good at all. You can run down the entire list of vintage gear from A to Z, but that only means that you have a lot of shit. That would be like me cutting down a fucking gigantic redwood tree and then telling everyone I was a master woodworker because look at this bitchin' piece of wood I have.... It COULD make a great piece of furnature (are you getting the connection?) There have been a long line of really crappy audio engineers and producer hacks throughout the history of recorded music. There WAS NO golden age, wake up. You're gear will only prove how much money you're willing to spend, not your skill. It may or may not help your recording depending on what your production requires. I tell you a reverb chamber would sound god awful or even downright absurd on some recordings.

I can't believe you're still carrying on the analog vs. digital arguement that was burried with the turn of the millenium. It's different, but neither is really better or worse, and the ideal situation is to work with both mediums depending on what each individual source requires.
 
sweetnubs said:
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.
Click to expand...


oh btw...to open your eyes from PR sales hype. Tube does not = good. It works for some sounds and not for others, it won't make you the god of audio no matter how many glowing glass things are in the back of your gear.
 
TerraMortim said:
Logic sounds kind of nice when you smash audio through the channel faders =D I sometimes massively overdrive the channel fader and then send it to a bus to mix it (usually with PSP vintage warmer as the volume control instead of the actual fader.. yum)
Click to expand...

I'm mainly talking about when tracking.
Of course a plug-in that emulates tape saturation is going to sound nice (sometimes), but when your tracking and are hitting red it is a very unpleasant sound, not professional in the least.
Once you having tracked at a decent level then you can add your PSP Warmer and smash it as much as you see fit.
 
Last edited:
TerraMortim said:
you miss my point. If I wanted to put that la2a plugin on 50 channels, or do multiple ones even on the same channel at small incriments, I can. My convolution reverbs will allow me to get VERY diverse reverbs with ease. I could even go into a space I like and do my own IR (I've done it many times) and you know what? It DOES sound quite a bit like the space. You also miss my point with digital. You said. Digital will sound like shit with the same mix. I said, yes, of course it willl, you are expecting an analog mix to instantly sound like tape. Tape sounds like tape right off the bat. You can really get the same sound if you know how to get it. btw...I always use room mics when I can, what is it with people. BLACK or WHITE, RIGHT or LEFT, can't anyone just be sane and do whatever works, instead of going off the deep end of whatever end they've decided is "keen"?

Your like the type of folks are really just silly old farts that are afraid of losing their old roost that they had since the way things are done has broadened from the simplicity of record, rewind, listen, re-record, rewind, listen, re-record, rewind listen. It's the type of person who refuses to keep up with current techniques because the way they did it is the only way they want to. They then see it fit to insult other people just because they have moved with the technology (instead of being like the old man in an easy chair waving his cane in the air about how in his day people would lick your asshole every time you walked by them and there was no crime at all, the atmosphere was made of cotton candy and you could legally murder your children if they talked back to you) If you enjoy analog production then great. I actually like the simplicity of getting a good sound in an analog mix. It surely is a lot quicker to get to with some of that top gear... however, it makes me laugh when you say ignorant shit about things that you have not a single clue about. Just the fact that you equate pro tools to the entire digital recording world shows that you're coming from a very outdated view of digital...obviously one of the folks that looked at digital when it first came out, realized it sounded like shit (it did), and then decided they would never use it as long as they lived, regardless of where the technology went, often just making excuses for how horrible it is, as a somewhat nerdy old school audio geek running joke. Digital is so bad... how bad is it? ... it's soo bad that.... I don't care if you've been doing audio since the edison gramaphone was considered a hi-fi piece of cutting edge technology. It doesn't impress me, and it doesn't mean that you are any good at all. You can run down the entire list of vintage gear from A to Z, but that only means that you have a lot of shit. That would be like me cutting down a fucking gigantic redwood tree and then telling everyone I was a master woodworker because look at this bitchin' piece of wood I have.... It COULD make a great piece of furnature (are you getting the connection?) There have been a long line of really crappy audio engineers and producer hacks throughout the history of recorded music. There WAS NO golden age, wake up. You're gear will only prove how much money you're willing to spend, not your skill. It may or may not help your recording depending on what your production requires. I tell you a reverb chamber would sound god awful or even downright absurd on some recordings.

I can't believe you're still carrying on the analog vs. digital arguement that was burried with the turn of the millenium. It's different, but neither is really better or worse, and the ideal situation is to work with both mediums depending on what each individual source requires.
Click to expand...

Is it really this easy for someone to convince themself that they know what they're talking about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top