H
Heimcomputer
New member
How do I get my 1/4 tape recordings onto vinyl? Sorry, don't know if this is a really easy question I can't find any information about it! Just some basic help would be good.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Hammerstone
Out of style
aardvarkmastering.com/
This is a pretty comprehensive page, and it goes on to give links to individual pressing plants, so there's even MORE info! Hours of informative entertainment.
This is a pretty comprehensive page, and it goes on to give links to individual pressing plants, so there's even MORE info! Hours of informative entertainment.
briank
analog for the people!
You would need to find a mastering engineer with a cutting lathe and have them cut it for you, then it's off to the pressing plant for manufacturing. Pressing plants will usually also do the cutting for you as part of a pressing package. My last clients who released on vinyl used United Record Pressing to do everything, they just filled out the order form and sent the premastered digital files to them (in this case it was mixed to a digital format and had the mastering engineer master for vinyl then had the plant do everything from the cutting onward, but cutting off of 1/4" tape masters is ok too, just usually costs a little extra.
C
ckswartwood
New member
I might suggest getting digital files made from those tapes before going off to pressing. That way you know what the vinyl will sound like. You never can know what someone else'e machine sounds like or if they take the time to calibrate it for your tape. Fortunately for me, I live in Nashville, so United Record Pressing is right down the road from me 
Hammerstone
Out of style
Eeeeeew, I find something scary about people using cd's or even HD audio files as their source for cutting a lacquer. Seems like something I'd have to sacrifice a ram for, to make me ceremonially clean again...
W
WarmJetGuitar
New member
If you choose to send digital files just remember to use at least 48000 KHZ/24 bit for the DVD/whatever you might be sending. Otherwise you'll loose some of the superior fidelity of recording to tape in the first place and cutting to vinyl.
As said before it's a freaking shame to cut from a CD.
As said before it's a freaking shame to cut from a CD.
lonewhitefly
Active member
Simply sending in a tape doesn't ensure an all-analog cut. Most pressing plants use a digital delay (actually common since the '80s), making the CD vs. 1/4" a moot point in most cases.
You've got to find someone you trust who can cut it all-analog if you're concerned about that. This requires the cutter to bypass the delay entirely, or use a special tape machine.
lonewhitefly
Active member
I think most delay setups are 16-bit also ... you'll want to check with the plant or cutter beforehand. They might be able to bypass the delay line and set it up through their workstation instead.
kip4
Well-known member
Are there any videos of these lathes about i'm intrigued now?
Not trying to hijack just intrested thanks
Not trying to hijack just intrested thanks
jpmorris
Tape Wolf
briank
analog for the people!
You'd rather digital mixdowns got turned straight into mp3's instead of vinyl!? Lesser of evils, lesser of evils! ;-) The record I was talking about was at least hand mixed on a console, and the 150g vinyl really made up for being mixed down to digital. Kinda gained back what it lost in the conversions lol, go figure. The thing that bugged me was that URP insisted on being sent a CD to cut off of rather than 24bit 48k PCM files direct from the ME. I'm like, seriously? Their position was they had too much trouble with file formats and sequencing of files people were sending in and didn't want to deal with it, they wanted a standard jittertastic 16bits-o-perfect sound forever audio master CD
That being said, I'm in the process of installing and souping up an MCI 2-track analog deck so, ya know, hopefully a thing of the past unless the client reallllly doesn't wanna cough up the extra hundred bucks or whatever it is URP charges for analog source instead of digital. The tricky part there is finding an affordable mastering engineer who will work analog-to-analog in real time, they dropped like flies and the ones left know it's a valuable, tinnny niche, but unless you want to (or even CAN) cut directly off the mixdown reel....
Pardon the hijack!
Anyway, hopefully this provides the OP some insight to the process!
Last edited:
Hammerstone
Out of style
Yeah, so I've heard, and that scares me too. I would insist on taking everything digital out of the signal path, cutting it without digital delay, and everything else...keep the purity man!
You'd rather digital mixdowns got turned straight into mp3's instead of vinyl!? Lesser of evils, lesser of evils! ;-) The record I was talking about was at least hand mixed on a console, and the 150g vinyl really made up for being mixed down to digital. Kinda gained back what it lost in the conversions lol, go figure. The thing that bugged me was that URP insisted on being sent a CD to cut off of rather than 24bit 48k PCM files direct from the ME. I'm like, seriously? Their position was they had too much trouble with file formats and sequencing of files people were sending in and didn't want to deal with it, they wanted a standard jittertastic 16bits-o-perfect sound forever audio master CD
That being said, I'm in the process of installing and souping up an MCI 2-track analog deck so, ya know, hopefully a thing of the past unless the client reallllly doesn't wanna cough up the extra hundred bucks or whatever it is URP charges for analog source instead of digital. The tricky part there is finding an affordable mastering engineer who will work analog-to-analog in real time, they dropped like flies and the ones left know it's a valuable, tinnny niche, but unless you want to (or even CAN) cut directly off the mixdown reel....
Pardon the hijack!
Anyway, hopefully this provides the OP some insight to the process!
I really is sad how much quality has fallen by the wayside in favor of ease of use...not surprising, I guess, but still...
Now what about if it's done at half speed? Would that take some of the headache out of it? I think I remember reading that MoFi does that, so I always assumed that there was some sonic benefit of it all.
lonewhitefly
Active member
reality: most new vinyl is cut from digital masters and/or through a digital delay. in most cases, unless the label is making a big deal about an all-analog transfer, it's probably not all-analog.
and this makes sense: it's just business. it's time-consuming and expensive to even make an all-analog album, let alone master and press it all-analog. setting aside the fact that there are almost no recording artists recording all-analog in the first place, let's say you do have a 1/4" analog master ... the concept of 'mastering' is something else entirely. an all-analog mastering session (that is, mastering in real-time to another 1/4" or straight to lacquer, doing all the editing & sonic manipulation) is challenging, and most mastering engineers today probably have little experience doing this, or if they do they are out of practice because it's not a daily thing. Your budget for mastering could double quite easily. we're talking about the old-school method of 'mastering' (which is really quite minimal), and this starts at the recording stage -- it means mixing your track down essentially ready to go; it should sound complete on the mix reel. How many bands out there right now would be comfortable releasing a raw transfer of their mixes? And when you think about all of the sonic manipulation that occurs in mastering today, imagine these things being done in real-time with hardware compressors, limiters, EQ, etc ...
in a nutshell, the all-analog concept challenges the basic standards of modern music ... and not many artists, labels or producers are willing to commit to such a thing.
that said, if you are really careful in preparing your 1/4" master, getting the volume levels together, doing all of the processing during the mix, etc ... you could probably do it for just a little more than a digital file. but that's a tall order.
oh and for the record, I am 100% in favor of all-analog all the way ... just pointing out the very real uphill battle for a smaller band or label to accomplish such a thing. in many cases (lower-budget stuff), it may literally come down to: release the record with a digital stage, or don't have the option to release it at all.
Don't hate the player, hate the game !
and this makes sense: it's just business. it's time-consuming and expensive to even make an all-analog album, let alone master and press it all-analog. setting aside the fact that there are almost no recording artists recording all-analog in the first place, let's say you do have a 1/4" analog master ... the concept of 'mastering' is something else entirely. an all-analog mastering session (that is, mastering in real-time to another 1/4" or straight to lacquer, doing all the editing & sonic manipulation) is challenging, and most mastering engineers today probably have little experience doing this, or if they do they are out of practice because it's not a daily thing. Your budget for mastering could double quite easily. we're talking about the old-school method of 'mastering' (which is really quite minimal), and this starts at the recording stage -- it means mixing your track down essentially ready to go; it should sound complete on the mix reel. How many bands out there right now would be comfortable releasing a raw transfer of their mixes? And when you think about all of the sonic manipulation that occurs in mastering today, imagine these things being done in real-time with hardware compressors, limiters, EQ, etc ...
in a nutshell, the all-analog concept challenges the basic standards of modern music ... and not many artists, labels or producers are willing to commit to such a thing.
that said, if you are really careful in preparing your 1/4" master, getting the volume levels together, doing all of the processing during the mix, etc ... you could probably do it for just a little more than a digital file. but that's a tall order.
oh and for the record, I am 100% in favor of all-analog all the way ... just pointing out the very real uphill battle for a smaller band or label to accomplish such a thing. in many cases (lower-budget stuff), it may literally come down to: release the record with a digital stage, or don't have the option to release it at all.
Don't hate the player, hate the game !
briank
analog for the people!
Not necessarily, it doesn't have to be that much more expensive than digital recording, there's a new generation of analog-friendly engineers popping up (of which I admittedly am one, so there's my bias) and when you market this method as being an organic showcase of the artist's talent, you'll be happy to know that many in the latest generation of musicians are actually willing to consider it. It's not the money that necessarily stops a band from recording and mixing all-analog, it's the fact of having to nail down THE PERFORMANCE. What? You can't just fix my out of tune vocals with a plugin, I have to do it again? Can't we just fix that really lousy guitar intonation? What? We actually have to arrange our songs, rehearse them and be able to play our stuff properly? Gee, I can't sing my song all the way through to save my soul, how about we just do 30 shitty takes and comp together something that kind of sounds like I can actually sing this song?"
You see the problem, the digital era made musicians lazy, it takes a special kind of talented group of musicians who are actually willing to work out arrangements and performances going into the studio, but IF they work themselves out on the front end, you'll find that they can throw their material down live or partially live in a decently equipped mid level studio to tape pretty cheaply, and if the engineer is willing to do their own performance on an analog mix and the band is actually willing to call a song DONE and not request that one track get a 0.5dB tweak a month after the project wraps, making an all analog recording and mix doesn't have to break the bank, I'm working with a band right now that is doing analog up to the mixdown stage and they're totally self funded. They play gigs through the week/weekend and make some dough, come in, spend it on a couple days recording or mixing, rinse, repeat until the album is done, we rec to tape and then we mix off the tape through a console. The only thing "tainting" the mixes is a little bit of parallel digital delay on certain vocals on certain songs and even then it's not a "must-do" thing, that's about it until the songs get mixed into ProTools, and when I say mixed into ProTools, no funny business there, it's just a pass into a stereo track in PT as if it were a tape machine, that gets exported as is to send to mastering for heads/tails cleanup and processing. Now that I have a 2-track tape deck in, the second half of the album will probably get mixed down to tape as well, though for continuity and since it's being mastered digitally for CD pressing, the tape will ultimately get digitized anyway, and yes, that's a business thing, but for all my subsequent projects, all my clients WILL have the option to work totally analog or at least send out mixes on tape and the only thing extra it will cost is a couple reels of 1/4" tape to send out to mastering, so that's about a hundred bucks and honestly man, I'm cultivating a growing interest in analog in my market, there will be bands that will not have a problem buying a couple reels of 1/4" to make that happen. As it is, I keep "studio loaner" reels of 1" around for the multitracking so nobody has to buy tape unless they want to keep their tracks for posterity after the project wraps. Sorry to ramble, but my point is, it's doable and when you figure in all the time that gets spent chopping up takes and all the damn microediting that inevitably happens when recording to and mixing from ProTools, it does NOT have to cost any more in studio time. They kind of work out the same either way, the difference is the process.
Now there's the problem. There are still affordable mastering engineers who will work off an analog source, 15 bucks per program minute really is about the price of entry on a decent professional mastering job whether analog or digital and a lot of those guys and gals do still have a 2-track mastering deck in the studio...but the problem is, they mostly only have "a" deck...I've been checking around, there aren't a lot of MEs left that have two decks and will do an all-analog-to-analog chain, but I'm working on establishing a relationship with a couple cats that do have capability and reasonable rates so I can bring this type of project back and make it within reach for independently funded artists, but you're right, this part IS the tricky bit, I agree with you there. But I wouldn't be bothering if I didn't think there was a re-emerging market for it.
As far as the pressing, aside from the fee for pressing off tape being a little bit higher than off a CD source, it's like it costs way more to press a vinyl from one source or the other, we're talking maybe a hundred buck difference. Pressing vinyl is indeed not so cheap, it costs about twice as much to press a thousand vinyls with the full package (jackets, sleeves, shrinkwrap and all that) compared to the same thing on CD. Now mind you, the profit margins can certainly be better if you work the numbers right, but yes it's a bigger expense on the front end which is a concern for indie artists who don't have label funding. But SOME bands do find that their fanbase's interest can be captured better with vinyl these days than a CD, vinyl is making a real comback while CDs are turning into dust, I'm seeing more and more bands wanting to do vinyl for a hard copy, and they're sticking a digital download card in with the vinyl, and for digital distro they're getting their stuff up on iTunes/Rhapsody/Amazon etc in addition to the mp3 so all the bases are covered. So...there's that!
The biggest problem with doing an all-analog project with NO 1's and 0's ANYWHERE is indeed the issue of cutting the lacquer without any digital delay, if it weren't for that, all-analog really wouldn't be that big a deal. Hm, you've got me interested, I have a mind to contact some cutters and pick their brains about it.
You're right, digital has supplanted this production style, but I'm seeing a growing interest in it again, there are more people who are getting pretty weary of what the now-de rigueur digital cheats are doing to performance, obviously I'm not talking about your teen pop and uber-processed pop metal types, but indie rock genres and the more organic stuff like folk, jazz, blues, these kinds of cats are starting to come back around to more organic methods again, you'd be surprised. It's a niche, there's no doubt, but it's not like nobody is interested in analog anymore, that's just not true, it's on the way back up though will never supplant digital again of course. I see the two sides both having their place in the industry, but yes all-analog will always be a niche. Hybrid analog/digital productions are and will continue to gain in popularity this decade.
Most proper pro MEs still have all this stuff and still will pass through it, where they save time with digital techniques is with the editing and sequencing and any nitty-gritty turd polishing, that stuff is certainly quicker in the box, but if you're sending in a tape source that's already been spliced and ready to go and just needs the processing, then that can save time. The kicker is just that you have to pick the ME carefully, it's not like with a digital source where you can send a digital file out to 10 Joe Blow Mastering Dudes for a sample and pick the one you like best, you have to forge a relationship with a few MEs and find the right one with the right fit for the proj you're doing and hopefully it will be in budget. I don't see where the mastering cost will double, unless the ME charges by the hour for tape source instead of my program minute as they might with a digital source and digital processing, that does describe an ME or two that I've talked to about it. You're absolutely right that finding a ME with a full-blown all-analog-to-the-cutting lathe rig who has rates in reach of indies is tricky, I "THINK" I may have found one but don't want to jinx it lol...but yes, as much as I'm trying to play the devil's advocate here in this all-analog thing, you're absolutely right that in the end it's a special method that only appeals to certain bands and it takes a dedicated crew of musicians and engineers to make it happen, but to say nobody wants to do this anymore isn't true, it's a dangerous generalization in the face of an emerging in-the-box backlash, I guess that's the point I'm trying illustrate.
Word!
Word!
lonewhitefly
Active member
ha, you're preaching to the choir! I've never even recorded on a computer and don't really even know how to use one to record.
I was playing devil's advocate a bit -- Personally, I don't find it to be expensive to make an all-analog album; I think you can make one for the cost of a 4-track and a reel of tape. I mean, from the perspective of your average current band or label -- especially those who are kind of looking to polish themselves into a marketable thing.
All of my releases were recorded and mixed 100% analog. Then again, I had one album it took me 2 years to mix because it was so problematic, from a technical and creative standpoint! I can imagine a different group or label just saying, 'screw it -- send it off to someone else to fix in a computer!'
Although I do stand behind my statement 'setting aside the fact that there are almost no recording artists recording all-analog in the first place' -- yeh, I do know plenty of bands recording mostly analog, but I hardly know any recording all-analog ... I think this is an important distinction. I don't mean the vinyl vs. CD pressing, etc ... but the recording and mixdown process itself. Very few are willing to commit to the entire process, I think partially because it reveals more vulnerability in the music, and is more difficult to perfect.
I was playing devil's advocate a bit -- Personally, I don't find it to be expensive to make an all-analog album; I think you can make one for the cost of a 4-track and a reel of tape. I mean, from the perspective of your average current band or label -- especially those who are kind of looking to polish themselves into a marketable thing.
All of my releases were recorded and mixed 100% analog. Then again, I had one album it took me 2 years to mix because it was so problematic, from a technical and creative standpoint! I can imagine a different group or label just saying, 'screw it -- send it off to someone else to fix in a computer!'
Although I do stand behind my statement 'setting aside the fact that there are almost no recording artists recording all-analog in the first place' -- yeh, I do know plenty of bands recording mostly analog, but I hardly know any recording all-analog ... I think this is an important distinction. I don't mean the vinyl vs. CD pressing, etc ... but the recording and mixdown process itself. Very few are willing to commit to the entire process, I think partially because it reveals more vulnerability in the music, and is more difficult to perfect.
C
Chilljam
transitional phase
+1 to everything briank and lonewhitefly have said.
I think more than half of new albums that I have listened to in the last 2-3 years have been analog recorded. And it's not because I avoid digitally recorded music (how would I know without listening to it) but it's just that it's become very common amongst the best bands in the indie rock, alternative and folk styles I listen to. They all do it because they are top notch bands/artists that sound great live so they have no problems with recording a whole album live with very few overdubs straight to tape (of course the style of music doesn't always make this approach possible).
I've listened to a few albums recently that were advertised as 100%-no-1s-and-0s-all-analog-from-start-to-finish ('Ryan Adams-Ashes and Fire', 'Arcade Fire-The Suburbs' and 'Ariel Pink-Before Today' come to mind). Sure they all turned out to be great albums but to restrict yourself to 100% analog is like saying you are going to record an album using only acoustic instruments, it's good for a concept but then if you think adding an electric guitar to one song will make it sound better, sure you can't claim it's all acoustic... but guess what? one of the songs sound better which is more important.
Some recent albums I've listened to are by far the best, most organic sounding recordings I have ever heard from any era. I can hear they were recorded to tape, did they pass through a digital delay on the vinyl pressing? Shit, I don't know, some or all of the songs may have gone through AD converters.
I find that local artists around me generally sound crap when they I hear their EP or LP - either because they are in fact crap or the recording sounds like crap, hollow metallic crap digital recording done by someone with no clue what they are doing.
A local band recording to analog can be as cheap or as expensive as you want it to be.... just like recording vocals through a U87 or a SM57, both have been used before and both have sounded good before. You do what you can afford and you always do what is convenient, forget about idealistic... bands are full of musicians not recording engineers, barely any local bands can afford good engineers so why bother with too many subtleties. Bottom line for my local band, if you can afford it, have the time and it makes a noticeable difference then do it! You can't afford a Ferrari if you can't afford to repair it.
I think more than half of new albums that I have listened to in the last 2-3 years have been analog recorded. And it's not because I avoid digitally recorded music (how would I know without listening to it) but it's just that it's become very common amongst the best bands in the indie rock, alternative and folk styles I listen to. They all do it because they are top notch bands/artists that sound great live so they have no problems with recording a whole album live with very few overdubs straight to tape (of course the style of music doesn't always make this approach possible).
I've listened to a few albums recently that were advertised as 100%-no-1s-and-0s-all-analog-from-start-to-finish ('Ryan Adams-Ashes and Fire', 'Arcade Fire-The Suburbs' and 'Ariel Pink-Before Today' come to mind). Sure they all turned out to be great albums but to restrict yourself to 100% analog is like saying you are going to record an album using only acoustic instruments, it's good for a concept but then if you think adding an electric guitar to one song will make it sound better, sure you can't claim it's all acoustic... but guess what? one of the songs sound better which is more important.
Some recent albums I've listened to are by far the best, most organic sounding recordings I have ever heard from any era. I can hear they were recorded to tape, did they pass through a digital delay on the vinyl pressing? Shit, I don't know, some or all of the songs may have gone through AD converters.
I find that local artists around me generally sound crap when they I hear their EP or LP - either because they are in fact crap or the recording sounds like crap, hollow metallic crap digital recording done by someone with no clue what they are doing.
A local band recording to analog can be as cheap or as expensive as you want it to be.... just like recording vocals through a U87 or a SM57, both have been used before and both have sounded good before. You do what you can afford and you always do what is convenient, forget about idealistic... bands are full of musicians not recording engineers, barely any local bands can afford good engineers so why bother with too many subtleties. Bottom line for my local band, if you can afford it, have the time and it makes a noticeable difference then do it! You can't afford a Ferrari if you can't afford to repair it.
briank
analog for the people!
Ouch, that hurts!
If a band can't even afford a mid-level studio in their region that has a tape machine or two, it might be time to up their game a bit, stop playing for bar tabs and pizzas for one thing lol! It's not like you have to go to Ocean Way or Blackbird to make a good record, though I suppose the tricky bit is finding the affordable tape-friendly place (but then that's why I have one lol). I still say analog is on the way back up, always a niche, but a respectable and appealing one!
BTW I gotta thank lonewhitefly for lighting a fire under my tookus, I wound up talking to a ME in my region today who's installing a lathe and will soon be capable of all analog mastering/cutting at rates acceptable to we mere indie mortals, no digital delay. Mmmkay, now I realllly want to make a for-real-all-analog album
Wow, I gotta think the OP has plenty to chew on as far as how vinyls get pressed (and the intending economics and feasibility of all-analog production). Ah, I love it when we get carried away!
Last edited:
C
Chilljam
transitional phase
Very appealing indeed! I've recorded a number of analog albums... my ones have all been very cheap and the process works in favour of some of my bands I have recorded with! Recording the entire band live to tape should be a lot quicker and better than recording each section of the song and each instrument separately then putting it all together.
Just in regards to the comment about not being able to afford a good engineer... I should clear up that I was talking about the whole digital delay when pressing vinyl thing. Of course you don't have to record at Abbey Road (SM57 vs U87 comment) to sound good but I'd rather spend the extra bucks on a better studio RE and ME rather than on making sure the vinyl is 'pure' analog. I'm speaking from a bang-for-your-buck point of view for bands with realistic limited recording budgets.
Can't remember who brought up the whole digital delay when pressing vinyl thing... it was a few months ago on this forum, I for one had no idea about it. I'm not too phased about it, there are so many uncontrollable variables in the finished product anyway... you can't (afford) control everything
T
Tim Gillett
Banned
Just in regards to the comment about not being able to afford a good engineer... I should clear up that I was talking about the whole digital delay when pressing vinyl thing. Of course you don't have to record at Abbey Road (SM57 vs U87 comment) to sound good but I'd rather spend the extra bucks on a better studio RE and ME rather than on making sure the vinyl is 'pure' analog. I'm speaking from a bang-for-your-buck point of view for bands with realistic limited recording budgets.
Can't remember who brought up the whole digital delay when pressing vinyl thing... it was a few months ago on this forum, I for one had no idea about it. I'm not too phased about it, there are so many uncontrollable variables in the finished product anyway... you can't (afford) control everything
Chilljam your first comment puts the issue of an "all analog" to vinyl production in a much clearer perspective but still it doesnt nail the issue. The fact is, inserting a good digital delay into the signal line (to replace the "read ahead tape head") will do nothing to alter the sound, or nothing which is audible.
Some decades ago, did the vast majority of ME's all over the world switch to digital delay, believing it compromised the audio quality of their cuts? And why do so when the traditional "read ahead" tape head system had worked fine for decades previously?
Most likely all those ME's worldwide made the change because they knew adding the digital delay didnt compromise audio quality.
The only reason to produce an "all analog" release today is to be able to say to people who dont know any better that it is an "all analog" release. And that is deceptive advertising, because it makes them think the product sounds better because it didnt go through a digital delay line.
It's not true. Going through a digital delay line will not make it sound any better or any worse. But dont just take my word for it. Ask a few good ME's.
Should I speak the truth or should I say what I think certain people want to hear?
As to your second paragraph, I remember the discussion we had some months ago. The OP was from Europe. He only revealed later on in the discussion that he had already been to a ME who had advised him that the digital delay in the cutting process wouldnt alter the sound and using a digital delay rather than the tape head was the way it had been done for decades anyway.
We only learned later that the guy had rejected that expert's advice and had then come to us. Ironically we here didnt even know that a digital delay had been used on most vinyl releases for decades! The OP had to tell us that! And he was the one who was trying to go against not only the ME's advice but also the combined experience of most of the world's vinyl ME's on this for decades.
As a result some people on this forum now had a real problem. They had been under the illusion that their own collections of vinyls to which they listened with pleasure had been "all analog" or "pure analog" when they had had a digital stage in them all along! What a joke.
The "all analog" signal chain thing is fantasy. Why cant we just say that, in agreement the world's best vinyl mastering engineers?
Tim
Last edited:
Hammerstone
Out of style
Well I'd be willing to say that my collection is at least *mostly* all-analog, but that's because I don't listen to much stuff made after 1975. In fact, I'd be willing to buy more recent stuff/reissues if I knew beforehand that they weren't cutting a lacquer with digital delay...new albums aren't exactly cheap, so why spend hard-earned money on inferior product? Only from people I trust, now.
I wouldn't say that all people wouldn't notice the difference between digital delay and no. Suppose you're cutting off a tape/project recorded at 30ips, with a delicious amount of high freq that digital's not going to include...there's something right there.
Now, about all the mastering engineers...how much time did it take for people to come out and say that cd's don't really sound as good as everyone says they do? There was too much hype, and everyone bought into it, and since it's easier and can save a few bucks here and there, everyone in the business got behind digital, just about. After so many years, to admit you're wrong is one thing. To admit your bosses (record companies, etc) are wrong is something else. And to actually take a stand for what you believe is in a whole nother ball park. Because, ultimately, how many people care? Not many. The old-timers can't hear as well as they used, and the youngsters just don't know the difference.
I wouldn't say that all people wouldn't notice the difference between digital delay and no. Suppose you're cutting off a tape/project recorded at 30ips, with a delicious amount of high freq that digital's not going to include...there's something right there.
Now, about all the mastering engineers...how much time did it take for people to come out and say that cd's don't really sound as good as everyone says they do? There was too much hype, and everyone bought into it, and since it's easier and can save a few bucks here and there, everyone in the business got behind digital, just about. After so many years, to admit you're wrong is one thing. To admit your bosses (record companies, etc) are wrong is something else. And to actually take a stand for what you believe is in a whole nother ball park. Because, ultimately, how many people care? Not many. The old-timers can't hear as well as they used, and the youngsters just don't know the difference.