Analog Fever!

  • Thread starter Thread starter ROBOTQUALITYREC
  • Start date Start date
WAR...I'll give you a FUCKING WAR PAL

Then WAR IT IS !!!
Click to expand...


Untill multitrack, ALL music was recorded "ensemble" live in the studio. How do you think they used to make records? I've seen OLD RCA mixers with 3 channels, and thats
all. No tape . Live to disc. Now THOSE were REAL audio engineers. And it wasn't that long ago either. The younger generation thinks so though.

And by the way. Who the fuck ever associated the term ENGINEER with audio. In the REAL world, "engineers" have to take a state exam that is covered by the "professions"
act. If half the so called audio engineers had their professional careers governed by a professional "bar" and law, most of the self proclaimed PRO "engineers" I've had the displeasure of trading dialog with, would have been centured by their professional societys at the least, and maybe to the law, if their actions in the PRO studios were covered by false representation laws the same way REAL engineers are.
How MANY musicians in so called BANDS that couldn't cut the mustard in the studio, have been replaced by session players, but still allowed to carry the STATUS of BAND MEMBER is beyond my guess, but it exists. And then go on to make a living and lifestyle beyond most people, because of a record THEY DIDN"T EVEN FUCKING PLAY ON!!!

To me, that is a conspiricy to DECEIVE the public, because if allowed to play, and their musicianship sucked to the point that the public WOULD NOT BUY it, what does that tell ya? It costs the LABLES money. SO THERE YOU HAVE THE ANSWER! FALSE MUSICIANSHIP, or the DOCTORING of MUSICIANSHIP, IS in my opinion, a simple mind boggleing act of DECEPTION...PERIOD. You may not look at it that way, but I do. Its no different than substituting SOYMEAL for hamburger at your local McDonalds.

And DIGITAL is the tool of choice for DOCTORING MUSICIANSHIP and don't pretend that it doesn't exist. Even here it is described EVERY day. Its just disquised in another name. So as far as I'm concerned, DIGITAL in this form is disgusting to me, as it fosters NO TALENT. AND plenty of lies. The public is not aware of it though. And do you think an AE would tell them? Ha!

Well, this ought to bring out the best in "engineers" so let the FLAME FEST begin, as that is EXACTLY what I'm talking about, so they might as well prove it HERE!!!

IN FACT, if you want to see AE at its "PROFESSIONAL" best, go over to PROSOUND WEB in Mixermans forum. What a fucking joke. If the REAL engineers of the world were to take part in net dialogs in the way the AE do there, they would be centured by professional societys so fast it would make their head spin. But the REAL engineers DON"T. And from my experience dealing with REAL engineers, the use of the word "engineer" by AE's is a FUCKING JOKE too. ANYONE can call themself an Audio Engineer, although living up to it is another animal. Still doesn't entitle them to the term "Engineer"
Try and call yourself a STRUCTURAL ENGINEER and you will find yourself in COURT!!!
So come on all you "PROFESSIONAL AE's, show us your stuff! Make my day.
fitz:rolleyes:
PS.. I have all the respect in the world for people who DESERVE the title.
 
Come on guys...everyone knows that both analog and digital have their pro's and con's. Ive used both alot and sometimes one is more suitable for some material. Just your choice of what converters can make it great or make it suck. Same with analog, a 2 inch 16 track kicks a 24 track 2 inch just because of the width per track is so much better, some folks are getting and syncing 2 each of the 2 inch 8 tracks out there. Run em at 30 ips and whoa..talk about band width.
If I had a choice, Id have both RADAR and a Studer 2 inch with a 16 track head stack. Yeah, guitars and drums onto tape, vocals, keys and cymbals onto digital. Mix it on an analog board down to 1 inch tape. Yeah Baby...Options to use what you need to get the job done it whats important. I hate editing, I'd rather make me do it over. As far as Moshe is concerned, I believe he has plenty of experience with 2 inch to know whether he likes it or not. But, he sounds as torn as I am. If you have to do editing, let it be with a mouse. But with alot of the Alsihad editing, producers have become to rely on edits rather than musicianship. What if Playboy starting to make the centerfolds from cut and paste to make the pictures, would it be tolerated or not...I think not. Music is not supposed to be a cut-n-paste of lifeless punch i/o, its supposed to be alive, which would include the things that make us human. IMO Get back to bring the musician to new levels instead of handing them a digital crutch.

Its all about the music. Digital or analog.

Peace,
SoMm
 
Oh yeh...this is the first Analog Versus Digital post I have ever seen

:eek:

For crying out loud....me and Emeric were bored last night and we saw this post. I was high on Coca Cola and he was downing beers.......Parody.....A freaking parody.....I give up..........




Oh....and Emeric..... your still a dickhead..........
 
And Im supposed to figure that out on a Monday Morning?
(i sensed it migh be a joke because Moshe never comes out swinging)

Keep it in the cave boys!


SoMm
 
Here is what I sold two Adats for and have never regretted it.

Only thing is I will have to admit 30ips is a killer on tape cost
 

Attachments

  • im000466.webp
    im000466.webp
    53.8 KB · Views: 345
Well dust my broom! Ok, I admit it, you had me goin for while
Peace. No offence.

Mighty fine Herm. You arn't the first one to trade their adats. I run (2) synched MSR-16s's myself.

And now for your punishment Shailat and emeric. For behavior unbecoming to the
analog brotherhood, fuck you.:p

fitz:D
 
Is this a 1/2" machine ?

I've got it's 8 track 1/4" little brother but gonna upgrae very soon !
 
Yea its a 16 track on 1/2 inch but it does a great job.

I used to have a couple of r8s and loved them!
 
How in the heck do you get it run at 30 ips, Ive been running at 15 ips and don't have the manual and never read it..Doh!


SoMm
 
The fostex was offered with an option to run at 30 if you wanted
to pay extra for it.
I dont know if they can be converted to 30 or not or how it is done.I wish I did though cause i think I would like to try 15 on this machine.

Since it runs at 30 I leave the noise reduction off.
 
I'm not extremely knowledgeable on this stuff, but my understanding has always been that analog gear sounds better because of its natural "imperfections", similar to tube amps vs. digital amps, the tubes breaking up smoothly, vs. digital not breaking up at all until it reaches clip, and suddenly NASTY!!!

I've heard that digital is too clean, but wouldn't an 8-track 1/2" machine run into a PC for editing, maintain this "warmth"? It is already there, wouldn't it be preserved by digital, as long as you don't run it to the clip level?
 
Analog sounds fuller because it's simply reproduces the sound in a "full" way rather than the converstions the recorded signal is applied on (analog to digital and than digital to analog) when recording digital.
 
I have a E16 running at 15ips and you can modify it to run at
30ips.Aside from tape costs another drawback to running at 30ips compared to 15ips is you will lose the low end frequency bump that you get running at 15ips.That low end frequency bump is one of the inherent qualities of recording drums,etc. on analog tape.You will have less audible hiss running at 30ips but like I said you also lose some of that perceived "warmth" that is associated with analog tape.
 
harley96 said:
Aside from tape costs another drawback to running at 30ips compared to 15ips is you will lose the low end frequency bump that you get running at 15ips.
Click to expand...


Weeeeell..... Typically you don't loose it. However, what happens is that it moves upwards one octave (quite as you expect). And the LF rolloff in the low end also moves, which means that you suddenly loose the really low end of tha bass, while the high-end of the bass gets a boost.

"Grunge legend" Jack Endino has made an excellent site about this: http://www.endino.com/graphs/
 
gilwe said:
Analog sounds fuller because it's simply reproduces the sound in a "full" way rather than the converstions the recorded signal is applied on (analog to digital and than digital to analog) when recording digital.
Click to expand...

This still cracks me up. :)
 
gilwe said:
Analog sounds fuller because it's simply reproduces the sound in a "full" way rather than the converstions the recorded signal is applied on (analog to digital and than digital to analog) when recording digital.
Click to expand...
SAY WHAT????????????

You been listening to Boray again???
 
gilwe said:
Sorry, was that a kind of a private joke ?
Click to expand...
The "Boray" part was a metaphor, but your "explanation" about fuller sound via analog vs. digital is the real confusion -- what the hell are you babbling about with that?

:confused:
 
Instead just talking nonsense, would you at least make up your point clearly ???? What are YOU talking about anyway ?

You even didn't say what your opinion is after all your "babbling"....

:rolleyes:
 
Crimony! What's so difficult to understand?

You posted this:
Originally posted by gilwe:
Analog sounds fuller because it's simply reproduces the sound in a "full" way rather than the converstions the recorded signal is applied on (analog to digital and than digital to analog) when recording digital.

...which is complete nonsense!

So I'm asking you to explain what the hell you're talking about by this statement.....

It wasn't a difficult question......... :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top