Harder to get that "mesh" in digital than analog?

[producerkid]

Just a though that went through my head. I've noticed that most of the time when someone has a problem getting something to mesh in the mix well given a certain project, they are usually recording digital. To me, those who record in analog typically seem to have less questions and problems mxing than in the digital domain. When you hear a mix in say the mp3 mixing clinic that was analog its usually "great arrangement" or "good production standpoint" as to where Digital pro tools or t-racks users come in the forum with a mix and you always see, "that kick and bass need to be seperated a bit more", or "that guitar is a bit thin". There could be a couple different reasons supporting my "theory" persay. With digital you have SO MANY options for technique and editing and automation and yadda yadda 2% instead of whole milk on my cereal, etc. It can actually interfere with a good solid recording. Another reason could be that there isnt much of a learning curve for digital in a setup aspect. Anone can go buy PTLE or download Majix and get themselves a cheap condenser and a DMP3 and starting laying down tracks like a madman. Analog take a bit of sense to run and maintain properly. And finally, the same old same old comment on analog vs. digital (yes im going to say it), digital is way too sterile and bottomless.

Basicly what im getting at is, maybe the analog noise and crunch we all talk about is the glue that can hold a mix together that digital lacks. Its getting better, I'll give it that. Plugin writers have really started to outdo themselves, but theres something to tape and tubes that everyone still goes after. Shit "that sound" we hear on so many records.....you know there is a good 1500 dollar tube pre or studer 2" on MOST or at least alot of major label hits even still today. Digital cant copy it.

Just my thoughts. Anyone else?

 

[lpdeluxe]

"I've noticed that most of the time when someone has a problem getting something to mesh in the mix well given a certain project, they are usually recording digital."

Maybe because most of them are beginners? And maybe most of the guys using analog are experienced?

There are no magic bullets. Otherwise we'd all sell our gear and buy magic bullets.

 

[Track Rat]

The ONLY time people have a hard time getting anything to sit in a mix it's because it was tracked badly. It has nothing to do with the medium.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

The ONLY time people have a hard time getting anything to sit in a mix it's because it was tracked badly. It has nothing to do with the medium.

Bingo!!!!!!!!!

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

Just a though that went through my head. I've noticed that most of the time when someone has a problem getting something to mesh in the mix well given a certain project, they are usually recording digital. To me, those who record in analog typically seem to have less questions and problems mxing than in the digital domain.

Nonsense.....

And finally, the same old same old comment on analog vs. digital (yes im going to say it), digital is way too sterile and bottomless.

Again, bullshit.... if you think digital is sterile, get yourself a better signal chain, including better converters.

Basicly what im getting at is, maybe the analog noise and crunch we all talk about is the glue that can hold a mix together that digital lacks.

Good arrangement, good tracking and good mixing technique is what holds a mix together, as T-Rat said regardless of the medium.... nothing else.

 

[Projbalance]

I tend to think on both sides of the argument. Yes, there is something about working in the digital domain that just seems to make people over think things and make their jobs harder. So many people start thinking about the shape of a wave form that they stop trusting their ears. Do I think analog sounds better than digital just on merit of it's being analog? Not a chance. Analog can actually cover up some things that would stand out in a digital recording. I tend to think like Robert Rodriguez in regards to how he feels about shoot movies on High-Def video rather than film. What he says is, basically, with digital you take a lot of the esoterics and excess out of the mix and are basically left with a "what you see is what you get" kind of product. However things look in the monitor while you shoot is what you will get upon output. I tend to think of digital recording in the same manner. Theres nothing to hide what it is your recording, so if something doesnt work, it's because of what went on in the tracking and has nothing to do with the medium, as pointed out above. Personally, I think an ideal setup would incorporate both analog and digital to be used like you use any other piece of gear. Someone could come in and say, "I've got 6 songs and I'd like to do two of hem in analog for that certain sound", then you could just play into that like you would if you were choosing different mics or a different guitar. Not that I know anything about it though.

 

[producerkid]

Well, for argument's sake, i never seem to have much of a problem getting a good mix in either field. I started on a Tascam 244. That was real recording. I do recall, however, that I always liked what I heard upon playback, but i spent so many countless hourse trying to achieve the cleanliness and seperation that is so plentiful in the digital realm. Then when I got digital I missed the noisy but satisfying cream that the 244 allowed me to get. I know a 4-track has about as much cream as a slab of marble but it was enough to notice it was gone. I don't know there really isnt much point to any of this (lol), just me throwing out some random comments and thoughts some people might wanna flame me for.

I love you guys, lol.

the kid