Help with digital

[Shailat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: OK

Shailat,

I have to admit I'm more confused than ever. The first part of your last message said you mixed once within the computer and then once again through separate digital direct outs through an analog mixer. You said these two mixes were identical. This has been my point all along, that unless something is actually broken, there should be no meaningful difference.

No.
I mixed with in the computer (just simple panning and levels), and monitored via the Main left and right outputs, then I mixed the same mix by sending from the 001's 8 outputs( so to avoid summing) to the board and acheived the same mix using the mixer, and monitored the results so I reached the same mix meaning - I made sure the panning and levels were exactly the same (not the quality) so that when I would A/B them, a different balance would not effect my desicion.

Then you refer to a "bounced" mix which I don't understand:

> This part was amazingly nasty.... I took the 11 tracks and bounced them to a single wav file using the tweakhead option. <

To me, a bounce is a one-to-one transfer. You bounce a stereo mix from here to there. But how do you "bounce" 11 tracks to a single wave file without mixing them? Or do you mean all 11 tracks were in series, one after the other? Also, I have no idea what the "tweakhead option" means.

Every software has a different name for his - to bounce in PT means to take your multitracks and process them to a single stereo wav file, on your HD. So 11 tracks sitting in the software are mixed by panning and levels and then I created a single wav file by bouncing them to the HD.

PT gives you several options of bouncing acourding to the level you might want to get.." Tweakhead" is supposed to be the highest quality. Were as if you were bouncing say a recording of material that the audio quality is not as important to you, you have other faster options to bounce.

All in all....I'm not saying that people should ditch digital.
I couldnt do so myself knowing some of the great advatages you get using Digital. It's the combination of the two and knowing when to use each will get you the best results.
But with Digital all the way (in these days) I have yet to be trusty of.

I have to point out the the difference of sound to some of the users here might not make so much of a difference as they might claim "for me the difference is not so big as to make me feel its worth ditching Digital". And thats ok if they reach that conclusion
as digital has brought them several options they could never reach with out a DAW as well as getting some realy high quality sound.

But for others It can be the difference of the world.
Each to his own.

 

[sjoko2]

hey Shailat, I had high quality S/PIDF cables as well - almost new too.
Just go and get one Zaolla cable, just for fun, to try, and hook it up. You'll be in shock, like I was.

And the 001 converters really do suck

 

[chessparov]

FWIW, there have been some interesting threads at
www.prosoundweb.com (as some of you know!) about the
whole "analog vs. digital" question. (ala Alsihad)
Ethan, thanks for taking the time to express your viewpoint(s),
however, as you may know someone like "mixerman"-who I
have the greatest respect for, along with many other top
engineers/producers, etc. will always prefer analog until convinced
otherwise.(not that there's anything wrong with that...)

No doubt part of the "resistance" to digital is that in many genres
like rock, soul, jazz, etc., the vast majority of definitive recordings
were analog in origin-and associative critters that we are it makes
intuitive sense to us that analog "must be better".

P.S. I hope more people follow Ethan's reasoning-it helps me pick
up analog stuff for less $$$-just got a Teac 40-4 reel to
reel for $100! (fine condition BTW)

 

[UnderGround]

Guitar set up

When I record my guitar my set up consists of the following.
Gibson les paul or my custom srat,marshall head and 4x12 cab,an sm 57 going through a dbx 166 gate compressor then to the board. It works for me.

 

[chessparov]

underground, are you tracking to a digital or analog unit?

Welcome to the "boards" by the way!

 

[Jack Hammer]

The point is moot

Its very nice to argue the technical merits back and forth of digital and anaolgue even if it is complaring two completely different tings. But I can't imgaine the validity of this when the variables are not defined. It is therefore just pissing in the wind. For instance, what is the standard for analogue and what is the standard for digital that you are comparing. Are there not differing levels of quality in the digital domain as there are in the analogue. Therefore, on the most base level, there is analogue that is "better" than digital and digital that is "better" than analogue. So, fuck you too. I think some people just wants to try and show off their "techy" knowledge by engaging in a such discussions. This is not, NOT, scientific by any stretch. This does not involve recording technique. The bottom line is, for the newbies, for the home recording enthusiast whether professional, semi-professional, amatuer or, hobbyist, digital is what is used in this day and age. YES, I am aware that there are still professional studios that tsill have analogue outfits but this is more likely a function of economics, need, the fact that the old and familiar is comfortable to some, the fact that some engineers have spent their entire lives developing excellent technique in the analogue field and cannot or will not change. ULtimately, there will be change. I recall when CDs first came out, I knew someone who steadfastly and stubbornly held onto records with all his might. The interesting thing was that this was more a function of his personality than of any relative technical merits. Of course, he eventually changed to CD and why, probably becuase if nothing else, that is the medium on which most releases if not all are now offered. He was forced to. Yeah, I'll bet there were pilots that swore by propellers but evenetually, we came to live in the "jet age" and there are no or very few commercial propeller planes to speak of. I am quite sure there are things about propeller planes that are "better" than jets whatever that may be. In fact, for instance, whenever you see stunt flying, you see small propeller planes. Apparently they work better for this use. However, that also did not stop the "jet age" from comming and staying. Simlarly, waving the analogue banner to show that you have greater technical understanding than others to scratch your ego itch will not prevent the "digial age" from comming and staying. Analogue may not be dead but whether it is better for any particular use is so much besides the point. Why would anyone want to give up the advances in recording technique for an exteremly limited value that may, in the end, be mostly in the mind of the beholder. Why would anyone want to cross the Atlantic in a prop plane simply becuase it can do a loop-de- loop or whatever. And, what about recordings of classical music that has a WIDE dynamic range. For years people had to endure the noise in the soft sections becuase that was one of the limitations of analgue recording. Should this be tossed becuase of the myth that analogue is "better". I think not. Oh and by the way, I was drunk and just felt like pushing some buttons, soory, I suppose you'll just have to get a thicker skin. We cannot all be digitally perfect I suppose. Some of us lead analogue lives in a digital world and it can be difficult at times.

 

[sjoko2]

you really didn't have to type that you were drunk - it was obvious