thane1200
Medicated Member
SonicAlbert said:
Good point. Well made.
Good point. Well made.
O
ozraves
New member
SonicAlbert said:
That's so true. Rule No. 1: Close your eyes and listen.
One thing I sort of noted at AES was how most guys talked about gear while a certain few talked about sound. I sort of agree with you on the analog mix. One of our daughters has this prefabbed Cheetah Girls CD. It's not bad for one of those Disney put together deals. But the ITB mix stinks it up. They could probably move about double the CDs if they'd just get it re"glued." Ha! Analog mix. Or a new digital mix. Anything would beat what they currently have.
C
chessrock
Banned
"Placebo" is my new personal favorite term these days.
And if the placebo gives you similar results as the real medicine, or if it causes a behavioral change based on expectations ... then I suppose it is "working" in it's own twisted way.
And if the placebo gives you similar results as the real medicine, or if it causes a behavioral change based on expectations ... then I suppose it is "working" in it's own twisted way.
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
Except what I'm talking about is not a placebo. I completely re-jiggered my studio based on what my ears were telling me. I hadn't really planned on going back to analog mixing, and didn't want to spend the money or go to the trouble to tear my studio apart yet again. But what I was hearing with ITB mixing was just undeniable, the stuff that was bothering me that is.
I'm not talking about reading things in a magazine or doing what everybody else is doing. I'm talking about hearing things with my own ears and making judgements based on that. In fact, if you want to talk placebo's, my studio is the opposite of that--strictly meat and potatoes now.
This is the real medicine not a placebo, as a placebo makes you *think* you feel better, but real medicine actually cures you.
I'm not talking about reading things in a magazine or doing what everybody else is doing. I'm talking about hearing things with my own ears and making judgements based on that. In fact, if you want to talk placebo's, my studio is the opposite of that--strictly meat and potatoes now.
This is the real medicine not a placebo, as a placebo makes you *think* you feel better, but real medicine actually cures you.
C
chessrock
Banned
I don't doubt that there are differences, and that certain people might be more sensitive to such differences (yourself, for example) than others. I just think that people need to be in the habbit of being more scientific in how they derive their conclusions. If Sonic Albert, for example, utilizes a carefully controlled process utilizing double-blind testing methodology in order to draw or to test his conclusions ... then he's doing it the right way and more people should follow that example.
If, on the other hand, Sonic Albert merely goes by what he thinks he's hearing without using very solid testing methodology with the aim of removing any and all possible psychological variables in order to test / verify what he's hearing ... then I fear he may run some risks of faulty judgement.
As a general rule, people just grossly underestimate the effects of their own expectations, and great care should be taken in removing them as a variable in the conclusions we draw ... lest our judgements run the risk of being highly skewed.
If, on the other hand, Sonic Albert merely goes by what he thinks he's hearing without using very solid testing methodology with the aim of removing any and all possible psychological variables in order to test / verify what he's hearing ... then I fear he may run some risks of faulty judgement.
As a general rule, people just grossly underestimate the effects of their own expectations, and great care should be taken in removing them as a variable in the conclusions we draw ... lest our judgements run the risk of being highly skewed.
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
Double blind testing is not the answer for everything. We are talking about music, an art form. When did "scientific" testing replace good taste and artistic decision-making? 
However, scientifically speaking: if you were to take a song and mix it analog and then take the same song and mix is ITB, the resulting mixes would *not* cancel themselves out if you lined them up. Not even close. So there will be substantial differences on an audio data level.
There are times to be scientific and times not to be scientific, in my opinion. This is part of the current disease in my opinion: it's gotten too scientific, or at least too scientific in wrong areas.
What happened to "feel" and "heart"? My ears and my heart tell me that for the music I do, mixing analog is the way to go. I've done both, and I felt a constant dissatisfaction with the results when I was doing all digital mixes. The music just didn't feel right, it didn't impact me the same way, if felt wrong.
Also, the *process* of mixing is much more to my liking using analog mixers and hardware outboard. It just feels better to me to do it this way. It's not necessarily easier, because I need to do extra work notating the mixes on recall sheets and take better notes, etc. But the process feels more natural to me and the "flow" of making music is a lot better. That's for me. For someone else, it might be different.
So I personally don't need double blind tests to tell me what's better. There is *so much more* involved than just comparing a couple of audio files. That's a useful technique for determining some things, but it's not a panacea. For me, both the work flow and the final results are better using my DAW as a multitrack and editor and mixing analog.
It's fun debating you, chessrock!
However, scientifically speaking: if you were to take a song and mix it analog and then take the same song and mix is ITB, the resulting mixes would *not* cancel themselves out if you lined them up. Not even close. So there will be substantial differences on an audio data level.
There are times to be scientific and times not to be scientific, in my opinion. This is part of the current disease in my opinion: it's gotten too scientific, or at least too scientific in wrong areas.
What happened to "feel" and "heart"? My ears and my heart tell me that for the music I do, mixing analog is the way to go. I've done both, and I felt a constant dissatisfaction with the results when I was doing all digital mixes. The music just didn't feel right, it didn't impact me the same way, if felt wrong.
Also, the *process* of mixing is much more to my liking using analog mixers and hardware outboard. It just feels better to me to do it this way. It's not necessarily easier, because I need to do extra work notating the mixes on recall sheets and take better notes, etc. But the process feels more natural to me and the "flow" of making music is a lot better. That's for me. For someone else, it might be different.
So I personally don't need double blind tests to tell me what's better. There is *so much more* involved than just comparing a couple of audio files. That's a useful technique for determining some things, but it's not a panacea. For me, both the work flow and the final results are better using my DAW as a multitrack and editor and mixing analog.
It's fun debating you, chessrock!
C
chessrock
Banned
Not to go too off-subject ... but I actually think that this is an aspect that is far under-rated. Just like I think people ignore the effects of placebo too often ... I also think people ignore the positive impact of "how they feel" when they mix. Whatever makes you feel more comfortable should also translate in to a better finished product.
NL5
Unpossible!
nkjanssen said:Just imagine all the "warmth" and "vibe" you'd get out of this:
Studio Projects TB-1 --> ART Tube MP --> Behringer T1950 Tube Warmer --> Behringer T1952 Tube Composer --> Computer running the AOpen AX4b-533 Tube Motherboard --> T-Racks Tube Warmer Plugin --> Steinberg Magneto Tape Emulation Plugin --> Cassette Tape.
That would be massive analog tooby goodness.
Thank you! That gave me quite a good laugh this morning. Especially the toob motherboard! That's what I've been missing dammit!
N
nkjanssen
New member
NL5 said:
I'm actually thinking of getting a vintage ENIAC for my recording computer. That thing has 19,000 tubes in it! It would sound so sweet and warm!! I think there might be some driver incompatabilities with MOTU hardware, though. I have to check that out.
Cuzme
New member
Cuzme said:
Cold blooded! I got a negative rep point for having a question. Or maybe it's because I used the word "warmth". Or maybe because I accidentally hijacked this thread. I'm sorry Philandon. I didn't mean to do it.
Much love.
C
chessrock
Banned
Or maybe it was because you responded to / quoted yourself?
Cuzme
New member
chessrock said:Or maybe it was because you responded to / quoted yourself?
Because whoever did it knew I was going to do that! Hmmmm...scary!
C
chessrock
Banned
chessrock said:Or maybe it was because you responded to / quoted yourself?
I do it all the time. Hmm. Maybe he was psychic.
Downside Studio
New member
Though i never really mixes made totally in the box i might not judge, but i do have my working experience with both analogue and digital. What makes me laugh the most is that the people who are shouting loudest about 'the analogue feel' are basicly full of crap. Let me explain that....someone who 'knows all' about the warmth of analogue is somebody who:
a. has his own prostudio and is a highly respected engineer or
b. just proclaims what he has heard on the internet and finds it rather cool to talk about analogue recording.
Other catagories are musicians. I have met too many guitarist or bassist who are totally convinced that their setup sounds the most fattest on the earth because they got all tubey stuff and i know what. And funny thing is that instead of listening to there sound they just buy as many stuff as possible. Better 3 things for 100 a piece than one for 300 because 3 is fatter than 1. Where a simple line6 pod provides a decent (neutral) clean signal, the sound of those guys is only flutter in a mix.
Same with recording. A 5000 analogue 24 track setup does not have many argueble advantages to a 5000 daw setup. I am now happy with my analogue console for making heavy mixes (60+ channels are very common overhere,) but it costs over 150K. For anything under lets say 50K I would prefer digital without a doubt. I would really really like to have an multitrack analogue recorder in my studio, but I know it has to be a REAL recorder to before it comes close to a digital.
To conclude: I think there is a difference to what everybody is always talking about on the street and that what the real pro's actually mean to say. If Alan Parsons states that analogue sounds better than digital...nobody sane would disagree....If they were in his situation!
Damn, this was supposed to be a short reply, but heck, im in holland, just had a recording session of 12 hours, and am now at home relaxing the 'dutch way' preparing for the comming days haha
a. has his own prostudio and is a highly respected engineer or
b. just proclaims what he has heard on the internet and finds it rather cool to talk about analogue recording.
Other catagories are musicians. I have met too many guitarist or bassist who are totally convinced that their setup sounds the most fattest on the earth because they got all tubey stuff and i know what. And funny thing is that instead of listening to there sound they just buy as many stuff as possible. Better 3 things for 100 a piece than one for 300 because 3 is fatter than 1. Where a simple line6 pod provides a decent (neutral) clean signal, the sound of those guys is only flutter in a mix.
Same with recording. A 5000 analogue 24 track setup does not have many argueble advantages to a 5000 daw setup. I am now happy with my analogue console for making heavy mixes (60+ channels are very common overhere,) but it costs over 150K. For anything under lets say 50K I would prefer digital without a doubt. I would really really like to have an multitrack analogue recorder in my studio, but I know it has to be a REAL recorder to before it comes close to a digital.
To conclude: I think there is a difference to what everybody is always talking about on the street and that what the real pro's actually mean to say. If Alan Parsons states that analogue sounds better than digital...nobody sane would disagree....If they were in his situation!
Damn, this was supposed to be a short reply, but heck, im in holland, just had a recording session of 12 hours, and am now at home relaxing the 'dutch way' preparing for the comming days haha
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
Downside Studio said:
I used to feel this way myself, which is one reason why my previous studio incarnation was all digital. I now think that a few carefully selected pieces of high quality analog gear along with a DAW and some great converters is the way to go on a budget. I use Speck XtraMix's to do my mixing, along with a bunch of outboard. For under 50k I still think you can get some of the advantages of analog.
I guess my point is that I feel what is ideal now (on a budget as you say) is to combine analog outboard and mixing with digital recording and editing in DAW's.
Downside Studio
New member
I totally agree. My post is a bit of black-white situation. But what you hear on the radio has some great vibe to it because it was recorded with god gifted people from teaboy to drummer. And most are probably done with partly analogue stuff.
I really like the cheaper tlaudio stuff. Their ivory series really rocks for the buck. And after the last sessions nobody is going to make me believe that a kurzweil 9000Xfantomghostwhatever sample sounds better than a well tuned old cracky peeping fender rhodes in mono haha, or a line6vetta aes/ebu out sounds better than putting 2 57's infront and hit record. But than again...i've also heard mucho recordings where an engineer would make the other option sound much better than mine. So what's the deal...might it be the musician or technician behind it all...?
I really like the cheaper tlaudio stuff. Their ivory series really rocks for the buck. And after the last sessions nobody is going to make me believe that a kurzweil 9000Xfantomghostwhatever sample sounds better than a well tuned old cracky peeping fender rhodes in mono haha, or a line6vetta aes/ebu out sounds better than putting 2 57's infront and hit record. But than again...i've also heard mucho recordings where an engineer would make the other option sound much better than mine. So what's the deal...might it be the musician or technician behind it all...?
Downside Studio
New member
I can see the first ad in front of me.....
FOR HIRE....TUBE GITARIST....analogue playing technique!
FOR HIRE....TUBE GITARIST....analogue playing technique!