For those that haven’t heard of Walter Sear of Sear sound, I suppose people like Robert Moog, Sir George Martin, Steve Albini and Bruce Swedien probably don’t ring a bell either… very sad.
Sorry, but it doesnt mean squat to me what he thinks. Technology is technology, music is music. Its not that music suddenly ceased to exist, I know a gazillion kickass musicians in my town alone. Mr Sears has a certain sentimentality, but its unfounded. Ye olde "They dont make em like they used to" argument doesnt really stand up. Musicians have become considerably better, and so has the technology to record them. As to why one hears shit on top 40 radio, thats a completely different subject and a different thread. If I thought ANYTHING sounded better, I would use it. My violin is 18 years old, the one I had before that was 311 years old.
Its just a tool. I would use one made outta polyester if it sounded better.
Mr. Sear may be the best thing since sliced bread, but the comment is equivalent to "this new piano is a pale imitation to the harpsichord".
A good classic recording to listen to is "Tommy". Thats one of the worst sounding albums I have ever heard, and some of the worst performances ever captured on tape.
Musicians, acousticians, technicians, etc didnt suddenly stop getting better, now or in any time in history. To suggest this would be insanity. In the past 20 years, some of the worlds great concert halls have been built. Others, like ours in Cleveland, have been refurbished and sound WAAAAY better. The Chicago symphony hall used to be so crappy that they would travel 150 miles to record at the Univ of Illinois. They finally re-did it and it sounds great.
Why would recording go the opposite?? It doesnt make sense, it just seems to be misguided nostalgia. I can only speak for myself, but I'm not an idiot.
Mr. Sear may be the best thing since sliced bread, but the comment is equivalent to "this new piano is a pale imitation to the harpsichord".
A good classic recording to listen to is "Tommy". Thats one of the worst sounding albums I have ever heard, and some of the worst performances ever captured on tape.
Musicians, acousticians, technicians, etc didnt suddenly stop getting better, now or in any time in history. To suggest this would be insanity. In the past 20 years, some of the worlds great concert halls have been built. Others, like ours in Cleveland, have been refurbished and sound WAAAAY better. The Chicago symphony hall used to be so crappy that they would travel 150 miles to record at the Univ of Illinois. They finally re-did it and it sounds great.
Why would recording go the opposite?? It doesnt make sense, it just seems to be misguided nostalgia. I can only speak for myself, but I'm not an idiot.
\
For some analog advocates, it might involve simply mastering to analog half-track... which by the way, and speaking of secrets, is still something that separates many commercial studios from home recordists.
Well, as to the first one, I think that is the pivot around which this whole stupid analog/digital argument spins and goes nowhere. There is no format that intrinsically "sounds better". Analog does not "sound better" than digital, or vice versa. It's 100%, entirely, completly, subjective - and ultimately indefensible to claim anything otherwise.
I just bought a used car with 90K on it. It's gonna last me many years (assuming it doesnt get STOLEN like my last one).
+1.
It's Bush's fault.
Well, Huckabee is a bass player.