Analog or Digital and why?

[SouthSIDE Glen]

So since I know that level of electronic assistance is basically a hindrance, then I must further conclude that recording is even worse.

I believe that's a misleading equation. That's akin to saying that because some food is bad for you that eating in general is a bad thing.

The core question IMHO is, "Should one listen only to live music? Or is some music worth recording in order to bring that music to more people who otherwise wouldn't have the opportunity to hear it live, or would like to hear it at times and locations of their choice, or simply to have a copy for posterity?"

The quality of the recording is a secondary consideration to the music itself. Actually the quality of the live sound is secondary to the music also. Or at least it should be. It should be about the music first and foremost.

Yes, the quality of the sound makes a difference, and when we record it we should strive to get the sonic quality as good as possible, but often times it's better to have an imperfect recording than no recording at all.

Would you prefer to live in a world where you never got to hear Duke Ellington's orchestra because the recording and playback technology in the early-mid 20th century wasn't all that great, or the Beatles' "Revolver" album never got recorded because those old EMI consoles just didn't sound like live music sounded, or the Planet Earth never heard "Bohemian Rhapsody" in it's classic form because the logistics for reproducing it live in the same form are prohibitive for most folks?

Saying that recording is a fool's errand simply because the technology has it's limitations for reproducing live reality is a cop out that focuses on the unimportant. To paraphrase that political cliche: "It's the music, stupid."

G.

 

[dodgeaspen]

I've been keeping up on the thread but haven't taken the time to read the sites ms had suggested. I'll get to it. I'm sure you'll be waiting for my findings.

 

[NYMorningstar]

Who cares? The problem is the sound before it hits the ADC or tape, not the recording medium so much. Go see an acoustic show instead if you are truly devoted to sound quality, that's a cheaper hobby.

On the money as usual, thank you!

 

[miroslav]

Go see an acoustic show instead if you are truly devoted to sound quality....

Mmmmmmm....it really depends on the style of music being played. Acoustic performances don't work for everything.
That "unplugged" phase so many acts went through, trying to give a different take on their music...for the most part sucked-ass.
NOOOOO...I say PLEEEEZ PLUG BACK IN!!!

 

[Chibi Nappa]

Try this experiment: buy the most expensive, highest quality microphone in the world, and patch it into the greatest PA of all time installed in an acoustically excellent hall. Put a cellist on stage and turn the PA on and off. The PA compared with the musician is like the difference between the painting of an old master and a kindergartener with crayons.

You are a bit harsh there. I have worked sound for a show featuring the first chair violin player from the Philadelphia orchestra. I have worked shows for world-class brass, woodwind, and piano players in large acoustic ball rooms. Sometimes we start sound check and decide there is no need for us to do anything and not a single bit of equipment is used. Sometimes we hook up mics and run the PA.

I can tell you first hand, we can get those mics sounding pretty invisible. The room, equipment, musicians, instruments, and soundmen are all world class, and the mix is very intentionally made to sound "not like a mix".

No, it's not as good as pure unamplified.
No, it's not anywhere near the difference between the painting of an old master and a kindergartner with crayons.

 

[moresound]

You are a bit harsh there. I have worked sound for a show featuring the first chair violin player from the Philadelphia orchestra. I have worked shows for world-class brass, woodwind, and piano players in large acoustic ball rooms. Sometimes we start sound check and decide there is no need for us to do anything and not a single bit of equipment is used. Sometimes we hook up mics and run the PA.

I can tell you first hand, we can get those mics sounding pretty invisible. The room, equipment, musicians, instruments, and soundmen are all world class, and the mix is very intentionally made to sound "not like a mix".

No, it's not as good as pure unamplified.
No, it's not anywhere near the difference between the painting of an old master and a kindergartner with crayons.

I get the same thing! There I sit with a full PA set up for what? The opening curtain speech from a talking head for maybe 3 minutes.

 

[mshilarious]

I believe that's a misleading equation. That's akin to saying that because some food is bad for you that eating in general is a bad thing.

No, it's like the difference between eating a tub of shortening and an apple pie. The pie makes eating the trans fat worthwhile, but that part still ain't good for ya.

The core question IMHO is, "Should one listen only to live music? Or is some music worth recording in order to bring that music to more people who otherwise wouldn't have the opportunity to hear it live, or would like to hear it at times and locations of their choice, or simply to have a copy for posterity?"

Reread my post, specifically the "Kind of Blue" argument.

You are a bit harsh there. I have worked sound for a show featuring the first chair violin player from the Philadelphia orchestra.

OK, reread my post where I mentioned Time for Three, Zachary DePue is concertmaster of the Indianapolis Symphony Orchestra, and all three of those guys are just astounding musicians. Plus they are hilarious and fun to work with. They brought their own mic rigs which as I recall were all DPA (can't remember what Ranaan Meyer used). Did it sound good? Sure. As good as acoustic? No. Did they really need to play that gig amplified? No, but see that is tough for a touring musician because they don't necessarily know if they are going to be playing in a good hall. So they work out a method that will work anywhere, but then they want to use it everywhere, except for the orchestral gigs where they are 100% certain it's a good hall.

But then in the same hall we get acts who demand no amplification, and they always sound great. Alison Balsom a few years back, or Matthew Van Hoose last year, the Virginia Symphony every year . . . or last month, this was not an OBX Forum show, but Soo Bae just did a recital there with no mics and that sounded incredible.

The next question, especially for classical music, is why bother to go to an amplified show? The sound quality isn't any better than a good stereo system, so just listen to the recording or watch the DVD. For rock, there is the light show and the drugs and filthy hippie chicks dancing naked. For jazz, there is improvisation and chatting up the more sophisticated chicks at the bar. But for classical?

See, I flip that around and say to audiophiles who drop $100K on their systems, why not just hire a quartet a couple of times a month to play your house? Or just buy one of those disklavier grand pianos or something . . .

 

[moresound]

For rock, there is the light show and the drugs and filthy hippie chicks dancing naked.

MSH ..... You get this kind of stuff at the Outer Banks Forum?

 

[DrewPeterson7]

Sure, not difficult at all if your into shrill, sterile, and ear piercing sounds. 1 question I'll ask, if digital is soooooooooo good why do people desperately seek plugins that mirror analog? Since you have so many posts under your belt I ask you oh most wise one.

People also desperately seek plugins that magically make their vocals recorded in small, untreated rooms with a MXL991 and a M-Box sound "pro." The fact so many people are seeking something doesn't prove anything, except maybe the intelligence of the average person.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Reread my post, specifically the "Kind of Blue" argument.

I've read and re-read your posts, and yeah, your "Kind of Blue" argument pretty much agrees with what I said. Which makes your final thesis, that recording is a fools errand, all that much more head scratching. You make no traversable argumentative bridge from "kind of Blue" to "Fools Errand", they are diametrically opposing POVs.

Is it a fool's errand to make a recording with the expectation that the recording be a perfect, 100% clone of a live performance? Yes, sure it is; but that's not a problem with the recording or the recording technology, that's a mental problem with improperly-managed expectations. But that does not make recording a fool's errand.

I will give you this much though; it is a fool's errand to record a performance that's not worth recording.

MSH ..... You get this kind of stuff at the Outer Banks Forum?

When he says "Outer", he means "Way-Outer"

G.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

people also desperately seek plugins that magically make their vocals recorded in small, untreated rooms with a mxl991 and a m-box sound "pro." the fact so many people are seeking something doesn't prove anything, except maybe the intelligence of the average person.

ding ding ding! +3



g.

 

[moresound]

Way Outer Banks ...... I like the ring of that.

 

[mshilarious]

I will give you this much though; it is a fool's errand to record a performance that's not worth recording.

And that most performances aren't worth recording. That doesn't mean they aren't good performances, just that the act of recording will devalue them. Take CD sales at concerts, for example. If the concert was good, the CD will have the same value as a t-shirt. If the concert sucked, then the t-shirt is worth more than the ticket or the CD . . .

 

[Bristol Posse]

The whole nothing is as pure as acoustic performance, is possibly true but I think a rather narrow world view to say this invalidates recording and recorded music

Many of us do not have the luxury of time to frequent live music venues regularly. If I were to maintain this point of view I would be lucky to hear music twice a year unless I could find some way to convince ACDC to come on a run with me (along with all their gear) Or cram the London Philharmonic into my car or buy enough seats to fit a big band around me a a cross country/trans Atlantic/trans Pacific flight

I would also never get to hear my own music played by me (some might say this is not a bad thing) unless I can figure a way to simultaneously sing lead, backup and harmonies while at the same time playing bass, keys, guitars, drums and managing samples off the turntable. I guess I could hire a bunch of session musicians but then this would no longer be my endevor and I would lose all of the joy and fun I get out of the process

Almost everything anyone does is far from perfect and requires some compromise to allow it to happen. Still people learn to play guitar even though they will never be as good as some stadium filling guitar god but they still record it to share with friends, they paint pictures that will never be a Van Gough and will never be as good as the real life subject, write poems that may never perfectly capture the poignancy of a real moment of emotion.
Personally I would never call any of this a fools errand however because it brings joy to those people and possibly (or may be not in the case of my recordings) to those close to them.
It would make me sad to think it not worthwhile because none of it was as pure as the original and so not worth even trying to capture

Anyway enough of the deep thought, back to ice cream and magic shell

Oh and to the original question. Use whatever works to give you the sound and feature set you want within your budget

 

[mshilarious]

Almost everything anyone does is far from perfect and requires some compromise to allow it to happen.

Yes, and that is why nobody should get too emotionally invested in one compromise vs. another. Remember nobody started recording because they loved physics.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

And that most performances aren't worth recording.

That doesn't make recording a fool's errand. That just means that fools shouldn't record fools.

G.

 

[mshilarious]

That doesn't make recording a fool's errand. That just means that fools shouldn't record fools.

G.

Well, that would make this forum shorter by exactly 3,447,546 posts

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Well, that would make this forum shorter by exactly 3,447,546 posts

I've been saying that for five years, and I've gotten myself so many new buttholes reamed that I look like Charlie Brown's Halloween Costume

G.

 

[bunt]

ya know, over in the luthiers forum there's a huge debate over maple vs. mahogany, cedar vs spruce... ebony over rosewood and how slathering urathane finishes over said woods is tantamount to brick wall limiting.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

ya know, over in the luthiers forum there's a huge debate over maple vs. mahogany, cedar vs spruce... ebony over rosewood and how slathering urathane finishes over said woods is tantamount to brick wall limiting.

That just goes to show you that us HR-ers have no monopoly over arguing over unimportant details. Give me the best botique hand-made guitar on the planet, and I'll still give you a version of "Pictures of Matchstick Men" that'll make you cringe and send your dog whimpering under the bed.

OTOH, give Stevie Ray Vaughn a cheap Japanese Guild knockoff, and he could still make your jaw drop and send you to a standing ovation (not to be confused with an Ovation )

Same thing with A vs. D.

G.