Slouching Raymond
Well-known member
I came accross this one today:
rob aylestone
Moderator
You know he's got a real point - something I'd not considered.
TalismanRich
Well-known member
I saw that yesterday. For me, his arguments just don't hold up.
RE: workflow. Just because you have unlimited tracks or unlimited takes of a single track doesn't mean that you have to do it that way. If you blow a track, erase it and start over, just like you would with that old tape machine. Someone's lack of discipline isn't a condemnation of the equipment, it's a condemnation of their attitude. The tape machine and computer don't give a rats ass whether you can play something well or not. It's just capturing what it's fed.
RE: permanance. I had two boxes of tapes in the basement when a heavy rainstorm backed up 18" of water into my basement. It trashed both boxes of tape. There were no backups. My AW16G was also in the box on the floor. I took it out, opened it up and rinsed out the muck, replaced the CD drive, dried out the display and it worked again. It still does. I was able to transfer all the tracks off to my other computer and network drive so now I have the tracks backed up. Yeah, computers become "obsolete" and break, but so do tape decks. You don't HAVE to buy a new computer if the old one is still working. I've got old computers that still work. I transferred all the data off my old 386 system (which still works) to my network drive and a spare USB drive. Oh yeah, that computer was on the floor of the basement too.. .it still works today.
The original Dokorder that I bought is sitting in the basement. It doesn't work anymore. The 3340 that I mixed my sister's concert on is long gone, so the one reel of tape that I have left just sits. I have my brother's Sony stereo deck which works, but the takeup reel brake doesn't work very well. Plus the speed is slightly off, which it apparently was when bought in the 70s since his recorded tapes play on pitch but prerecorded tapes are a half step down.
I don't know that having to wait around for the tape to rewind before doing another take is a compelling reason for using tape. And paying $100 or $200 for a reel of tape for 15 minutes of recording isn't in the cards for me. I can use my Zoom R24 to do the same thing. I just bought 10 32GB SD cards for $60. That's about 80 hours of 8 track recording at 48/24. Being a retiree on a fixed income (I love using that line!) tape becomes impractical.
If I'm in a studio and paying $100/hr to record my song, do I really want to spend 20% of it waiting for the tape to rewind so I can try again? Maybe if you're Fleetwood Mac and the studio is yours for 6-8 months and the record company is paying the tab, you don't care about waiting for the tape to rewind while you get a cup of coffee and a smoke or the fact that you've got a dozen reels of tape sitting on the shelf.
Rob, you said he's got a point, but didn't you just go through the whole "buy a Revox" episode about a year ago? It that still rockin'? Have you recorded any concerts on it?
I remain unconvinced.
But that's my personal perspective. Anyone is welcome to do things however it inspires them.
RE: workflow. Just because you have unlimited tracks or unlimited takes of a single track doesn't mean that you have to do it that way. If you blow a track, erase it and start over, just like you would with that old tape machine. Someone's lack of discipline isn't a condemnation of the equipment, it's a condemnation of their attitude. The tape machine and computer don't give a rats ass whether you can play something well or not. It's just capturing what it's fed.
RE: permanance. I had two boxes of tapes in the basement when a heavy rainstorm backed up 18" of water into my basement. It trashed both boxes of tape. There were no backups. My AW16G was also in the box on the floor. I took it out, opened it up and rinsed out the muck, replaced the CD drive, dried out the display and it worked again. It still does. I was able to transfer all the tracks off to my other computer and network drive so now I have the tracks backed up. Yeah, computers become "obsolete" and break, but so do tape decks. You don't HAVE to buy a new computer if the old one is still working. I've got old computers that still work. I transferred all the data off my old 386 system (which still works) to my network drive and a spare USB drive. Oh yeah, that computer was on the floor of the basement too.. .it still works today.
The original Dokorder that I bought is sitting in the basement. It doesn't work anymore. The 3340 that I mixed my sister's concert on is long gone, so the one reel of tape that I have left just sits. I have my brother's Sony stereo deck which works, but the takeup reel brake doesn't work very well. Plus the speed is slightly off, which it apparently was when bought in the 70s since his recorded tapes play on pitch but prerecorded tapes are a half step down.
I don't know that having to wait around for the tape to rewind before doing another take is a compelling reason for using tape. And paying $100 or $200 for a reel of tape for 15 minutes of recording isn't in the cards for me. I can use my Zoom R24 to do the same thing. I just bought 10 32GB SD cards for $60. That's about 80 hours of 8 track recording at 48/24. Being a retiree on a fixed income (I love using that line!) tape becomes impractical.
If I'm in a studio and paying $100/hr to record my song, do I really want to spend 20% of it waiting for the tape to rewind so I can try again? Maybe if you're Fleetwood Mac and the studio is yours for 6-8 months and the record company is paying the tab, you don't care about waiting for the tape to rewind while you get a cup of coffee and a smoke or the fact that you've got a dozen reels of tape sitting on the shelf.
Rob, you said he's got a point, but didn't you just go through the whole "buy a Revox" episode about a year ago? It that still rockin'? Have you recorded any concerts on it?
I remain unconvinced.
But that's my personal perspective. Anyone is welcome to do things however it inspires them.
R
RFR
Well-known member
Saw that. Lot of valid points. As to the longevity aspect I’ve lost more files due to digital storage than I have with analog formats.
rob aylestone
Moderator
er, no. The Revox 2tr and the tascam 4 track are just sitting there, untouched since that topic - to be honest the killer is the quality. It's just not as good as I have, so a downwards direction. I buy loads of expensive and cheap gear, and the Chinese interface I'm using in my temporary location, that cost £40 sounds better than the reel to reels in every way measurable. frequency response, signal to noise etc and just works. I said he'd got a point but didn't explain. the point I agree with is the bit about 'caring'. I record a take, and un less I really mess up, I can use it. He is right - I don't have to practice, there's no need for me to practice the piano or saxophone part, because I can always fix it. I'd forgotten how we used to rehearse drop ins, so we could hit the record at just the right moment and play just the right volume and style to be seamless. I really had forgotten messing up drop ins and having to go backwards playing more and more to not mess up the join. I'd forgotten the bouncing to recover tracks that left a nasty poorly balanced section far too loud when you'd added the tracks together. Not including the quiet section because the damn hiss was there. Some of these things improved your playing and musicianship, but now I am lazy. Because I had bought the reel to reels, I was expecting magic and it didn't happen. Worse, I found the opposite of the guy in the video. The few old tapes I had revealed the old 4 track recordings to be pretty poor. memory said they were great. They weren't!
RFR's comment is my experience too. Far too many old drives that died without me doing proper backups. One drive I archived was full of tracks labelled with Cubase default titles like bass_tk 3_ hundreds of them and no way to find out which song they belonged to! My fault - but because they were not in properly labelled folders - pretty useless
RFR's comment is my experience too. Far too many old drives that died without me doing proper backups. One drive I archived was full of tracks labelled with Cubase default titles like bass_tk 3_ hundreds of them and no way to find out which song they belonged to! My fault - but because they were not in properly labelled folders - pretty useless
Slouching Raymond
Well-known member
Backing up a tape takes a long time, but backing up SSD drives on a fast PC is much quicker.
The big advantage of tape, as he explains, is that there is a real reason to get your playing right, because re-takes are going to cost you time.
Also, if you have to do lots of tidying up and corrections, the creative impetus gets lost.
The big advantage of tape, as he explains, is that there is a real reason to get your playing right, because re-takes are going to cost you time.
Also, if you have to do lots of tidying up and corrections, the creative impetus gets lost.
TalismanRich
Well-known member
To me, these are all cases of taking the easy road. I don't tend to do punch ins. In my basement with the computer in the corner and me in the middle of the room, it's a pain to set up points, try to play along with the track and then have the computer record 12 seconds of stuff to cover up a mistake. Just delete the guitar track and rerecord, the same as you might do with tape. I'll redo vocals, and that's probably the main place where I might piece together tracks. In that case, I'll just cut a whole verse at a time. Usually it's because I forget lyrics or something. I'm not into the "100 track / cut n paste samples" style of music production. I want to try playing a song. It pisses me off that I have to use a drum plugin sometimes. It would be much cooler if I could go to my buddy's house and have him record the drum to a scratch track. It would be easier than trying to program a drum track, and probably more interesting.
Using the R24 or AW1600 is basically the same as having tape. Editing on those things is a pain to me. Get the track right and recorded, then mix it down.
Can you imagine what the tape costs for the Beatle's later albums would be today? When they have 10 or 12 takes of a song, and the tape is running while they work out stuff. The poor engineer is swapping out reels about 4 or 5 times a hour. How's a $1000/hour tape cost sound?
The nature of recording has expanded. The difference between the Beatles cutting I Want to Hold Your Hand and Paul McCartney recording Maybe I'm Amazed by himself was huge. Most of my personal recordings are just me. The opposite is recording the live jams that I've done every year. That's all live, 3 to 8 people at one time, playing a song that hasn't been rehearsed, and what happens is what you hear.
The recording equipment is just a means to an end. Talent is still the element that is needed.
Using the R24 or AW1600 is basically the same as having tape. Editing on those things is a pain to me. Get the track right and recorded, then mix it down.
Can you imagine what the tape costs for the Beatle's later albums would be today? When they have 10 or 12 takes of a song, and the tape is running while they work out stuff. The poor engineer is swapping out reels about 4 or 5 times a hour. How's a $1000/hour tape cost sound?
The nature of recording has expanded. The difference between the Beatles cutting I Want to Hold Your Hand and Paul McCartney recording Maybe I'm Amazed by himself was huge. Most of my personal recordings are just me. The opposite is recording the live jams that I've done every year. That's all live, 3 to 8 people at one time, playing a song that hasn't been rehearsed, and what happens is what you hear.
The recording equipment is just a means to an end. Talent is still the element that is needed.
TalismanRich
Well-known member
I was browsing around "another forum" (Yeah, that one) and a discussion about this same video came up. It's up to 27 pages, and has descended into an argument on whether 1+1=2! It's comical to read the arguments. I haven't seen anything like this since... well... since the Trump/Biden arguments in Prime Time before the election. It make me wonder what a coach would say if this were a high school debate team.
"The topic for debate is It's Not About The Sound"
Team A: "1+1=2"
Team B:"No it's not. You have to think out of the box"
Team A:"Mathematics are correct"
Team B:"1 cloud + 1 cloud =1 cloud"
Team A:"That's a meaningless statement. Math has rules"
Team B:"I wouldn't hire because you're not a creative thinker"
Coach: "Sorry, both teams lose! You guys just like to argue."
No they don't.
Yes they do.
You're stupid!
You're stupid!
Well at least we can agree on something!
"The topic for debate is It's Not About The Sound"
Team A: "1+1=2"
Team B:"No it's not. You have to think out of the box"
Team A:"Mathematics are correct"
Team B:"1 cloud + 1 cloud =1 cloud"
Team A:"That's a meaningless statement. Math has rules"
Team B:"I wouldn't hire because you're not a creative thinker"
Coach: "Sorry, both teams lose! You guys just like to argue."
No they don't.
Yes they do.
You're stupid!
You're stupid!
Well at least we can agree on something!