I actually laughed when I read this ....

  • Thread starter Thread starter cjacek
  • Start date Start date
Oh Brother!

Ha ha, I guess reading a stack of product brochures can pass for investigative journalism in USA Today.

It’s funny and sad at the same time. Kinda puts all the other news items you read in perspective, eh? ;)

This quote kills me:

“Not long ago, only professional recording studios, stocked with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gear, could do what Phoenix does in his apartment. Quantum leaps in digital technology in the past decade have changed that.”

Who wants to step in for George Martin here and go beg Phoenix to trade his PC for a bunch of old worthless analog crap? Ah, he’ll probably never fall for it.

I always chuckle when I hear stuff like, “before the personal computer we couldn’t dream of this or that.” The reality being the home studio revolution, as we know it began in the 70’s and exploded in the 80’s with analog recording and MIDI.

Our culture has become so computercentric we have a whole generation that believes everything from great sex to great music is just a mouse click away. :eek:

Nothing against the featured artist in the article – he’s just like us - probably having the time of his life getting his music down on something. DAWs provide great opportunities to learn and grow as an artist. God willing he’ll grow right out of it. :D
 
Last edited:
That's right Tim.

Digital may have changed the way people record but it certainly does not mean it's an advancement in the art of sound recording.

~Daniel
 
"Josh Phoenix, 25, records music in his Seattle home."

Yeah? BFD!

This whole article was nothing but a "hop on the DAW bandwagon, e'one with a 'puter can do recording like George Martin" propaganda piece.

I didn't see this article 23 years ago: "Dave records music in his Glendale apartment, on the amazing Tascam 244,... technology that was never available before, get it now for less than $1200! You can too!" :eek: ;)
 
Wow, I'm so depressed now. With $3500 and an SM58 I could have been another George Martin. I guess I just wasted the other $25,000-Richie
 
It certainly reads like a recital of products out of the latest recording mag!

..................;)
 
... You need to plug the mike in somewhere....
Click to expand...

the article clearly is targeting (written for) 'specific' group of people who may find it 'as informative and educative' ... ;)

/respects
 
Last edited:
I guess im going to have to order a sm58 now and get rid of my 57,s :rolleyes:
 
Yes, I too fell for that old digital hype back in the late 90’s. Sure glad I still have all my old analog stuff. I heard a rumor the other day that reality is analog.
 
I still think Sir George (and his wife) would have appreciated a DAW during those 4am Pepper sessions.
 
Just like "monty", I too fell into the digital pit before quickly recovering and "going analog" ;) . I think that calling it being "brainwashed", at least from my side of things, would be pretty accurate. :eek:

Btw, "reality is analog" ... I like that! :D

~Daniel
 
regebro said:
Maybe it's more in how you use the equipment, than how much analogs per cubic inch it has?
Click to expand...
I used to have such notion as "religion" in recording/production for long time. It took me many many "miles on the way" ... working through pretty sophisticated digital-domain production platform to realize that it's just not so. And then at some point I've actually tried going analog-way as main media for recording. And the truth is - analog is just better. BUT! It is harder (I mean that it is actually easier to get 'better' recording, but it is hard to record (plus the package of issues related to analog recording and analog recording machines and media you have to deal with) ;)... while with digital gear it is much easier to record and it is very hard (sometimes impossible) to make any 'good' recordings).
The other problem is, however, that 'i-tunes generation' actually have no idea what 'good recording' means.... :( ... so... mhhhhmmmm

/respects
 
USA Today

Of course...the real question is what would George Martin have done if he had indeed had access to a modest DAW back then - I imagine he would be able to push it far further than many of us can now, rather than using it as a simple tape recorder with effects!

best

Pauly
 
I saw another Ebay description that made me laugh!

It said, (para),...

Here is the Tascam Pocketstudio 5. It enables you to record your band in tracks and add effects,... like Pro Tools!

Pffffffffffffffffffffffffff!

I laughed pretty hard at that one!
:D :confused: :eek: :D :rolleyes: ;)
 
Yeah! It arrived 2 days ago.

Talk about adequate packing!

I've not had a chance to unpack it yet, but I'm sure it's fine. I'll leave positive f/b my next time out on Ebay.

Thanx! ;)
 
Dr ZEE said:
I used to have such notion as "religion" in recording/production for long time. It took me many many "miles on the way" ... working through pretty sophisticated digital-domain production platform to realize that it's just not so. And then at some point I've actually tried going analog-way as main media for recording. And the truth is - analog is just better. BUT! It is harder (I mean that it is actually easier to get 'better' recording, but it is hard to record (plus the package of issues related to analog recording and analog recording machines and media you have to deal with) ;)... while with digital gear it is much easier to record and it is very hard (sometimes impossible) to make any 'good' recordings).
The other problem is, however, that 'i-tunes generation' actually have no idea what 'good recording' means.... :( ... so... mhhhhmmmm

/respects
Click to expand...


So, analog sounds objectively speaking better than digital, and people who don't agree are deaf/stupid/blasphemous, and that's a scientific fact and not a religion.

Mmmkay.... :D
 
regebro said:
So, analog sounds objectively speaking better than digital, and people who don't agree are deaf/stupid/blasphemous, and that's a scientific fact and not a religion.

Mmmkay.... :D
Click to expand...

Yup, you pretty much summed it up .. ;)
 
regebro said:
So, analog sounds objectively speaking better than digital, and people who don't agree are deaf/stupid/blasphemous, and that's a scientific fact and not a religion.

Mmmkay.... :D
Click to expand...

heh heh ...wehewww! it's gettin' hotter here :D

It's pretty objective. Well it's objective as much as my personal experience and my 'hearing' can be objective. So, to me - Yes, it is objective.
Do I need to read some 'scientific lab report' on it to back up what I hear (heard through the years of recording in various ways) ? - no, I personally don't. ;)
Actually reading 'scientific facts' may well be the reason why I was 'dragged into' and 'cought like a prisoner for somewhat long time in digital domain.
Also many 'scientific reports' are nothing more than a 'commercial trick'.

...people who don't agree are deaf/stupid/blasphemous
Click to expand...

Some of them are. Maybe too many of them are. I don't know. However! Just being around and communicating with different producers and with music fans as well, I know for sure that one of the reason that many people don't agree is simply because they don't know, meaning they never heard analog-based recordings or if they did hear it, then it was something totally 'uncool' from the past (so it was not worthy of paying attention: it sucks regardless of the way it sounds - not cool). Or it was heard the first and the last time as 'mp3 file on their computer or mp3-player, or mp3-CD: 'i-tunes' generation that is :p . This is not their fault. That's what out there. The best what's available is maybe 'so called digitally re-mastered' oldies/classic rock/pop etc CDs. Some of them are pretty good actually. Again, who listen to these things? Good question.
Some producers DID pay attention! And they just had to ask themselves: "Hell!???? This was produced in 70s/80s! ...no computers, no all the greatest tools we have here now...and why in the hell it all sounds so freaking great while what we record and produce sounds like sh*t (in relative way, when comparing)? So, those producers have taken time and energy (and yes, some cash) and 'invested it into looking "back" into analog recording.
Is it smart thing to do? hmmmmm I don't know. The only way to know is to try. Try it. Just do it... :D
Producers who have strted using analog recording (with or without digital technology support/add ons, most if not all producers nowdays do use digital equipment one way or the other regardless - you just have to) and producers, who never gave up analog recording to begin with - they DO produce BETTER product. Objectively better ;)...

/respects
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top