If I can ask a (potentially) stupid question about digital recording and vinyl...

Audiophallic

Audiophallic

New member
So yeah, who the hell would want to cut a lacquer from a cd (besides idiots and posers) and all that, but I've had a question for a while, and thought of it again after reading this:

sweetbeats said:
I'm thinking I need to re-label the two-track return switch in the monitor section of my mixer to "awesome" or "nice" or something like that because that's pretty much how it makes stereo digital program material sound.

Its just astounding.

I think I'm done ever participating in any digital vs. analog debates. It just has to be heard. I suppose my question, if ever I do participate in such a discussion, would be "Have you ever done realtime A/B comparison of playback of digital program material and then took the same playback, in realtime, and monitored off the repro head of a high-speed (i.e. 15ips) mastering recorder (i.e. halftrack 1/4 inch or better) that is in good repair while recording?"

There's just no debate. It takes that digital material and opens up the mix and softens the edge and livens up the low frequencies...it just can't be described. Sold. Done.

Its also valuable to be able to push the input level and hear how the deck reponds to increased levels.

I'm going to have to recal the peak LED's on the BR's VU's because even when they are going nuts the material coming off the repro is still clean. I'll do that when I get around to doing a complete cal on the BR. BTW I'm using fresh SM-900.
Click to expand...

So Sweetbeats, didn't want to hijack your thread, so I started my own.

MY QUESTION: how worthwhile/possible would it be to take a digital recording at 192kB (is that the highest quality?) straight off the comp and record it to 1/4" half-track at 15ips - with the intention of cutting a lacquer with absolutely no (further) digital processing? Though I'm sure it's not as good as recording/mixing everything on tape, shouldn't it still sound much better than cutting a lacquer from a damn cd?

The only reason I ask is because I'm PRETTY sure it wasn't discussed on the first 100 or so pages of threads I've read so far...if I just missed it in my browsings, please excuse me. If not, I'd love to hear what you guys have to say on the subject!

Actually, Sweetbeats, I don't know if this is the exact thing you were talking about, but when I first read it, I assumed you were just recording a cd to tape.
 
Audiophallic said:
So yeah, who the hell would want to cut a lacquer from a cd (besides idiots and posers) and all that, but I've had a question for a while, and thought of it again after reading this:



So Sweetbeats, didn't want to hijack your thread, so I started my own.

MY QUESTION: how worthwhile/possible would it be to take a digital recording at 192kB (is that the highest quality?) straight off the comp and record it to 1/4" half-track at 15ips - with the intention of cutting a lacquer with absolutely no (further) digital processing? Though I'm sure it's not as good as recording/mixing everything on tape, shouldn't it still sound much better than cutting a lacquer from a damn cd?

The only reason I ask is because I'm PRETTY sure it wasn't discussed on the first 100 or so pages of threads I've read so far...if I just missed it in my browsings, please excuse me. If not, I'd love to hear what you guys have to say on the subject!

Actually, Sweetbeats, I don't know if this is the exact thing you were talking about, but when I first read it, I assumed you were just recording a cd to tape.
Click to expand...

In my own humble opinion, it's very much worth it. I've done it for a couple different bands at this point and the difference is significant and worthwhile.
 
I've noticed improvement on a simple high bias cassette mix. That's not to say the cassette didn't introduce hiss and that I would opt for a cassette over CD, but the stereo imaging was obvious. My friend who's music it was we were working on is blind and has perfect pitch and he immediately noticed it too.
 
I was trying it with all sorts of stuff...160kb/s .wma's, 128kb/s mp3's, 44.1kHz/16-bit "lossless" rips, 96kHz/24-bit digital project masters...whatever I had handy. The footnote here is that they were all reproduced from the computer via two outputs on my Yamaha i88x A/D/A box, then up to the EXT1 inputs on my mixer (dedicated stereo inputs accessible in the monitor select section...no level controls so as uncolored an input as can be found on the mixer), and straight to the BR-20T's inputs via foldback jacks off the EXT1 inputs. Then the outputs of the BR-20T were connected to the EXT2 inputs. So in that way I could, using two fingers, instantly toggle between the i88x output and the BR-20T output.

Yeah.

Anybody can argue with me all they like and I simply don't care. I know what I heard and it was so exciting I wanted to cry. Its not like my rig is super special, my ears are just finally hearing what I hoped they would when I headed back into the analog world several years ago and I've basically been on a wild track acuiring and refurbing gear then changing direction, aqcuiring, refurbing...learned a bunch but it nearly sent my life in the wrong direction. So now instead I've backed way off on the projects, the acquiring, the posting here...getting caught up on more important stuff and in the midst of working on a project for a local band I decided to see what things sounded like when mixed through the BR-20T.

How much time and stupid wandering I could have saved if I'd just done that so long ago...didn't want to run the deck before going through it. Duh. Yeah the grooves in the heads are causing some edge flake, and who knows how close the bias is for the SM-900 I'm running...don't know, don't care at this point. It sounds wonderful and exciting and it handles tape so great and just...works. I'll deal with the cal later.

Interesting to note: when I track to digital what is coming off the repro head the things I hear when monitoring straight off the analog deck get somewhat lost...I can still hear them to some degree when A/B'ing the original digital track and BR-20T'ized digital track, but much gets lost in translation back to digital...the statement is much more poignant when monitoring straight off the analog deck. This wouldn't apply to your idea where you are considering cutting an analog disc from a tape master.

And, BTW, no noise reduction...no need at all.

MAN its crazy...that people could leave analog in the production world and still sleep at night after selling it to their clients.
 
The facts are, as I see it anyway, that we were sold digital recording in all it's guises as an soundwise upgrade on analogue. Certainly in the prosumer & home recording areas.

The new product was much cheaper to manufacture & perhaps made recording available to a wider userbase. Recording Technology magazines told unwary readers that digital was the future & analog was dead. CD quality recording, remember that???? LOL!!

However, the last generations of semi professional analog reel to reel recorders command higher prices in the used market than the first & second generation digital tape & hard disk machines that supposedly replaced them.

Only now, many years later, are the digital converters on affordable DAW hardware finally of a decent standard. For years, many like myself have had to rely on a an external stereo unit for critical digital tracking, in my case recently a Drawmer Masterflow.

Obviously digital has many advantages, ease of editing being the most obvious, which we see with many bands still tracking to analog even in high end studios & then using DAW for editing & mixdown, sometimes through analog consoles.

I've never tried recording a stereo mixdown from a DAW project which was tracked only in the box, but it wouldn't be a shock to hear that it sounded better!!!

I know that some digital multitrack drum recordings that I had a drummer record for a project vastly improved with certain tracks being processed via my old Revox PR99. I used the tape versions of six out of nine miked drum tracks, only the toms pair & the bottom snare mic tracks sounded better kept in digital.
 
I love digital. I hope I'm never misinterpreted as a digital-hater; as a close-minded individual in that way. On the other hand I want to be recognized as an analog-o-phile first.

Digital is indeed time-efficient (if I'm not getting lost in a see of wayward plugins), *much* more portable...recently did a location multitrack session an hour away from home and packed the DAW rig in the back of the car. 24-track simultaneous. It would have been much harder to do that if it was a 2" analog machine and the mixer to drive it. So digital allowed it to happen just from a portability standpoint, plus I don't have nor can I afford such gear. Plus all the post-session track selections and mixing are being done at a distance now which would require 2" machines in two other cities and the people to run them. I'm ftp'ing gigabytes of data direct to band member's computers and remote controlling over the internet to setup their DAWs so they can listen back to the takes/tracks and make their selections at their convenience. Being able to do this trumps the schedule conflicts that would literally cripple the project. I think it would sound better all analog. BUT, it is sounding really great as a digital project too and the alternative is that it wouldn't happen at all. Digital addresses the symptoms of a society that is too amped up and busy. That's another reason I like analog...it forces a slower pace in some ways, but this project needed to happen, we are all stupid busy. Digital is there to allow it to happen and to enable the process from a distance. Its great. But I know in my heart of hearts from my ears analog sounds so much better. Trancedental brings up a great point too that when you have both at your disposal it is prudent to learn which medium works best for different source material...the advantage of a hybrid studio. But, hands down, I need to get things setup to be able to master to tape before going to digital, at least according to what my ears hear. I'm sure that others would have different preferences and I respect those and enjoy being able to hone my own perspectives from other's, but analog is where it is at for me as a primary tracking and mastering tool. I was sold before and I'm locked in now. Indespensable irreplaceable tools are these spooling machines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top