esactun
New member
Bdgr said:
Yeah, it's like taking a wet blanket off of your track lights. The difference is night and day.
Yeah, it's like taking a wet blanket off of your track lights. The difference is night and day.
smellyfuzz
New member
TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH...
Even though I SUCK at tracking & mixing,
I am amazed at how much better my CPU sounds
compared to my old Tascam 424.
Now the difference between my Otari & CPU, well you know the story there.
But I must admit... after hearing some of Blue Bears' recordings,
I'm becoming more of a believer in talent rather the equipment.
Which makes me wonder, what could Blue Bear, Sonusman or Sjoko2
do with my old 424 or my CPU or better yet, my wonderful Otari.
Sean
Even though I SUCK at tracking & mixing,
I am amazed at how much better my CPU sounds
compared to my old Tascam 424.
Now the difference between my Otari & CPU, well you know the story there.
But I must admit... after hearing some of Blue Bears' recordings,
I'm becoming more of a believer in talent rather the equipment.
Which makes me wonder, what could Blue Bear, Sonusman or Sjoko2
do with my old 424 or my CPU or better yet, my wonderful Otari.
Sean
TexRoadkill
Audio Bum
James Argo said:
When it comes to mastering the software is secondary to the room and monitors which are the main thing that seperates the boys from the men when it comes to mastering.
Shailat
New member
I'm way with Ed on this.
I don't want to rehash a debate that has opened and closed 3000 times all over the web....who ever thinks Digital is king then let him use it.
For me it boils down to how much effort are you willing to put into listening to the details of your audio. How important, is reaching out For a sound that most people at home really don't care for or see it as a major issue or can even hear the difference. Yet to say most people can't hear the difference just doesnt work for me. Be that the case I would skip half the things I do and save loads of money for clients and myself. I could buy a simple DAW with a computer and card for $2000 and sell off every thing I use.
Why spend $7,000 for Pultec Eq's if I can get the plug in (bomb factory) for $250 ?!? If Joe Shmo cant hear the difference any how?....Yet I'm sure many people wouldnt let joe shmoe set the standards in many fields. If Joe thinks McDonalds is a class A resturant are we going to close every gourmet place down becuase Joe can't tell the difference?
I work digital 98% of the time and work through a analog board. Not out of choice.
Nobody want to use "2" today and it collects dust.
Nobody wants to pay for the media
Nobody wants to waste the time to edit on a "2"
Nobody has the cash to spend the time it takes to record on "2"
People bring in Daws to transfer their tracks to PT
People want the ability to record 64 tracks.
People want auto tunes and quick plug in ability.
Things here are getting tight and budgets smaller. Even record company's are demanding CD's be made cheaper.
Time is money and Digital is definitly the king of time saving.
Yes digital has come far and yes today you can get a lot for cheap. Yet digital with all it's benefits still falls short in specific qualities were analog exccels. For once let the digital recoders prove the ability to get the sound of a kit recorded on a "2" and not the other way around.
If there are any Israeli's on board here or anybody willing to make the trip
then I would be glad to host them as my guests during a session and record the kit to a "2" and PT and have them compare the two.
I don't want to rehash a debate that has opened and closed 3000 times all over the web....who ever thinks Digital is king then let him use it.
For me it boils down to how much effort are you willing to put into listening to the details of your audio. How important, is reaching out For a sound that most people at home really don't care for or see it as a major issue or can even hear the difference. Yet to say most people can't hear the difference just doesnt work for me. Be that the case I would skip half the things I do and save loads of money for clients and myself. I could buy a simple DAW with a computer and card for $2000 and sell off every thing I use.
Why spend $7,000 for Pultec Eq's if I can get the plug in (bomb factory) for $250 ?!? If Joe Shmo cant hear the difference any how?....Yet I'm sure many people wouldnt let joe shmoe set the standards in many fields. If Joe thinks McDonalds is a class A resturant are we going to close every gourmet place down becuase Joe can't tell the difference?
I work digital 98% of the time and work through a analog board. Not out of choice.
Nobody want to use "2" today and it collects dust.
Nobody wants to pay for the media
Nobody wants to waste the time to edit on a "2"
Nobody has the cash to spend the time it takes to record on "2"
People bring in Daws to transfer their tracks to PT
People want the ability to record 64 tracks.
People want auto tunes and quick plug in ability.
Things here are getting tight and budgets smaller. Even record company's are demanding CD's be made cheaper.
Time is money and Digital is definitly the king of time saving.
Yes digital has come far and yes today you can get a lot for cheap. Yet digital with all it's benefits still falls short in specific qualities were analog exccels. For once let the digital recoders prove the ability to get the sound of a kit recorded on a "2" and not the other way around.
If there are any Israeli's on board here or anybody willing to make the trip
then I would be glad to host them as my guests during a session and record the kit to a "2" and PT and have them compare the two.
mixmkr
we don't need rest!!
but why don't you just pick up a reel to reel then? Tracking to a reel to reel is VERY workable. You know that...I know that...the world knows that. Get a 2" 16 track....or 24 track...whatever. They're certainly not THAT expensive nowadays. You know that, I know that...and the world knows that too. If ya gotta get mobile... hey...buy a van too!! chicks dig vans... you know that, I know that...most of the world knows that... oh yeah..this aint the 70's....sorry!sonusman said:
Bruce, to tell you the truth, I am STILL trying to find a workable way to track stuff to ANY analog first then dumping it to digital. But hey, that is just my inexperienced ears telling me lies I suppose eh?
but really...why not?...instead of grumbling.... life is too short... Buy the shit that makes you happy and put it to good use.
for me...a little [crappy] DAW suits my needs just fine. Small footprint, I love to edit on it, and the sound, TO ME is just fine. I'm not on the charts...and probably wouldn't be even if I recorded on a Studer/Neve. And...it sure sounds a lot better than the black faced ADATS... IN MY OPINION...which is ALL that counts...eh?
Now...if my Jack Russells started demanding vintage analog... well...I listen to them... they'd get the best... Fortunately, they don't seem to notice the difference.
pipelineaudio
Well-known member
The bear hit the nail on the head, Ive lost a clienbt or two to a ' analog" studio, that had a 1/4" 16 track or some shit!!!! hillarious, what words like ' analog" " tube" phat and others will do
a hi quality digital setup track for track is just as much or more per track/channle as a hi quality analog setup...a lot of comparisons are apples and oranges
a hi quality digital setup track for track is just as much or more per track/channle as a hi quality analog setup...a lot of comparisons are apples and oranges
Blue Bear Sound
New member
Shailat... and maybe Ed -- you've missed my point....
I was not commenting on simply digital vs. analog... I was commenting on the common novice misconception that when a pro talks about "analog" or "analog" sound, that they AREN'T talking about budget PortaStudios....
Nothing more insightful than that.......
This thread is NOT about digital vs. analog at all... actually, it's more about
budget analog vs. high-end analog...
Funny - when you look at it written out, it's like - well, duh! But novices still seem to equate analog to mean "any analog", and of course, this isn't true at all!
Pipelineaudio understood what I was getting at...........
I was not commenting on simply digital vs. analog... I was commenting on the common novice misconception that when a pro talks about "analog" or "analog" sound, that they AREN'T talking about budget PortaStudios....
Nothing more insightful than that.......
This thread is NOT about digital vs. analog at all... actually, it's more about
budget analog vs. high-end analog...
Funny - when you look at it written out, it's like - well, duh! But novices still seem to equate analog to mean "any analog", and of course, this isn't true at all!
Pipelineaudio understood what I was getting at...........
James Argo
Fancy Rock N' Roll
Yeah, I got the point Bruce. You're right. It's kinda like talking about great piano sample sound. Pro's talking about something like multilayered hundreds Mb sample on AKAI sample CD ROM, not 1,2 Mb free downloadable Soundfont...
C
CrazyMonkey
New member
Blue Bear Sound said:
But Blue Bear, recent advances in vintage processing technology have brought that vintage sound to today's budget analog. Modern technology gives today's low-cost analog devices a much more vintage sound than that crappy old high-end analog gear!
Son of Mixerman
Mix Junior
I think what Bruce says is true. I see alot of newbies who are equating pro analog machines to porta-studio. For several reason though. One reason is their newbies, and probably are not aware of the equipment found in high end pro analog studio's. Another reason, people who are starting out usually require a common element in what they are trying to do. Its no different than when kids play with toy cars and emulate their favorite make and model and even the drivers. Im not saying its kids play when using a portastudio, but its how the human brain processes information. Its part of growth.
Ive actually gone full circle in the last 15 years. I started in a project studio using an E-16 in a B studio. I bought a 4 track for home (writing), but I couldn't just record without trying to squeeze every db possible out of it. Ive used API' desks, and 2" machines. I nearly got a chance to work with some DASH stuff in a huge facility but it fell through because of some management dispute with the band I was working with. I have a Yamaha MD8 and sqeezed what I could out of it. I also own several PC based multi-track packages like Logic Audio, CakeWalk and recently N-Track. I have an E-16 again and Ramsa desk being installed in my garage. I know folks out there that could that could do more with a porta studio than an average project studio with ADATS. And I know guys with Da-88's than can give some enginers with 2" tapes a run for their jobs. Its all about the engineers ability to track and mix. Ive been proven wrong too many times by people who knew more than me with less than pro equipment.
Lets nurture the newbies instead of being somewhat condesending or even snooty at times. Try to word things as such to encourage the portstudio guys to keep learning and experimenting. Maybe they will upgrade to a mackie someday.
Homerecording is for everyone, from the newest 10 year old to the oldest pro. Were a community of recordists who all want to improve regardless of budget constraints and choices of favorite color.
Have a nice day
SoMm
Ive actually gone full circle in the last 15 years. I started in a project studio using an E-16 in a B studio. I bought a 4 track for home (writing), but I couldn't just record without trying to squeeze every db possible out of it. Ive used API' desks, and 2" machines. I nearly got a chance to work with some DASH stuff in a huge facility but it fell through because of some management dispute with the band I was working with. I have a Yamaha MD8 and sqeezed what I could out of it. I also own several PC based multi-track packages like Logic Audio, CakeWalk and recently N-Track. I have an E-16 again and Ramsa desk being installed in my garage. I know folks out there that could that could do more with a porta studio than an average project studio with ADATS. And I know guys with Da-88's than can give some enginers with 2" tapes a run for their jobs. Its all about the engineers ability to track and mix. Ive been proven wrong too many times by people who knew more than me with less than pro equipment.
Lets nurture the newbies instead of being somewhat condesending or even snooty at times. Try to word things as such to encourage the portstudio guys to keep learning and experimenting. Maybe they will upgrade to a mackie someday.
Homerecording is for everyone, from the newest 10 year old to the oldest pro. Were a community of recordists who all want to improve regardless of budget constraints and choices of favorite color.
Have a nice day
SoMm
Scooter B
New member
Well it sure started that way but threads have a mind of their own...LOL
Speaking of which
I had a question for Shaliat of whom it seems resides in Israel.Have you heard or worked with ESTA?
I heard them in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA at a college just on a whim and they were just AMAZING!
They play this eclectic "Mediteranian Fusion" as they call it. I bought a CD on the spot but was curious if they had a website or anything for more information. No luck with the web search yet.
Sorry to but in to your thread Blue Bear
scottboyher
New member
Bigus Dickus said:When I was 12 I did a nice analog recording. This should crack you up as well.
I wanted to record all four parts of a trumpet fanfare I had written. I had at my disposal: Small sony boombox/cassette recorder (actually very good recording quality compared to all the trash boomboxes I've heard in the fifteen years since), and a home stereo.
So, I played and recorded the first track to tape (cassette). I played that tape in the home stereo, and played along with it to record the second part (along with the playback of the first) to tape. Used that tape in the home stereo for playback and recorded the third part, and again for the fourth. It took several trials to get the levels more or less equal between parts.
Is that the "good analog sound" you're referring to?
you should post a sample of this tune in the mp3 clinic so we can compare analog to digital.
Blue Bear Sound
New member
No prob.... it had run its course anyways............Scooter B said:Sorry to but in to your thread Blue Bear
sonusman
Banned
Bruce, from time to time, I get people bringing in projects that they did on "cheapy" analog recorders. I am quite aware of what you were initially talking about.
What I am saying is that ANY analog has qualities to it that NO digital has. It certainly has it's limitations, just like lower end digital does!!! Okay, a little more noise. Great! But low end digital has a "sterile" sound. Which is better overall?
I will take a reel based analog machine, ANY reel based one for tracking something like guitars over digital any day of the week. The sound "gels" much better. Hell, I have cassette recordings where I did everything right and overcame the tape hiss to produce guitar sounds that are outstanding. No, not quite "big time", but sounds that are much more smooth, easy on the ear, and gels better in the end than any digitally recorded guitars I have done.
No, you will not find me going back to Portastudios to record, but sometimes, I sure wish I could get the qualities on some things that even a cheapy portastudio will get that you just cannot get on digital mediums.
You know, it would be interesting to track some stuff to cassette, while also going to a A/D. Dump the cassette into the computer and line it up. I think I might give that a try...having it already in digital give me a "line up" track...
Hmmmmmmmm.....Bruce, be prepared to eat your words....
Ed
What I am saying is that ANY analog has qualities to it that NO digital has. It certainly has it's limitations, just like lower end digital does!!! Okay, a little more noise. Great! But low end digital has a "sterile" sound. Which is better overall?
I will take a reel based analog machine, ANY reel based one for tracking something like guitars over digital any day of the week. The sound "gels" much better. Hell, I have cassette recordings where I did everything right and overcame the tape hiss to produce guitar sounds that are outstanding. No, not quite "big time", but sounds that are much more smooth, easy on the ear, and gels better in the end than any digitally recorded guitars I have done.
No, you will not find me going back to Portastudios to record, but sometimes, I sure wish I could get the qualities on some things that even a cheapy portastudio will get that you just cannot get on digital mediums.
You know, it would be interesting to track some stuff to cassette, while also going to a A/D. Dump the cassette into the computer and line it up. I think I might give that a try...having it already in digital give me a "line up" track...
Hmmmmmmmm.....Bruce, be prepared to eat your words....
Ed
Shailat
New member
Blue Bear Sound said:
I did get your point. I was just making an observation to the fact that Digital has not yet (for me at least) delivered the type of sound I'm interested in. It's not just all about analog=warm and digital sterile.....It's the width and depth of sound...it's cymbals with analog going KRAAASSSSSSHHHHH and with digital going krashhhhhhhh.....It's a mix sounding small and boxed.... I know a person who builds Vintage pre's and EQ's for a living and prefers 16 bit ADAT to PT.
The ease of use with digital is nothing short of amazing if you worked for years on a analog plain but the sound which is were it counts still doesnt do it for me in the same way.
You would think that analog is such a pain in the ass taking care of and forget editing.....yet the other day my HD with projects worth over $70,000 on it died....I'm also fed up with not enough RAM and not enough CPU and updating with drivers and this wont work and that won't work with that and only god knows why !?!?!?. What about the time the computer seems to be working and processing yet is stuck dead only for you to find out 5 min later you have to reboot
.....insisiting Clients buy their own HD yet them showing up with the wrong thing... And recording 44.1 ?!?!? no way dude...192 !!!! no way ......
3275478345683686389679443667 no way......... Lets not forget
eyes hurting...headaches....cramps in the hand.... back aches......
mixmkr
we don't need rest!!
sonusman said:
You know, it would be interesting to track some stuff to cassette, while also going to a A/D. Dump the cassette into the computer and line it up. I think I might give that a try...having it already in digital give me a "line up" track...
Hmmmmmmmm.....Bruce, be prepared to eat your words....
Ed
you'll find out that that method won't work. There have been no cassette machines on the market that won't drift in comparison to your "line up" track. You'll have to slice and dice to keep things in sync, and God forbid it is a musical passage containing a lot of legato parts that you'd need to slice into.
You'd also know that if you have tried to dump analog reel to reel tracks to digital source (like a DAW) in more than one pass. (without a time code or sync track now...)
R
Recording Engineer
Moderator
Hey guys, well NOTHING sure as hell beats analog ADATs!!!
I'm serious! I recently lost business to another studio running ADATs. The guy told his "manager" (bank roller) he didn't want to do his album at my studio because he doesn't think my quality is as good as the other studio running "analog ADATs"! And I'm focusing on getting away from ADATs!
What's even better is I JUST heard his first song... Besides him sucking, the recording quality was one of the worsts I've heard around these parts!
Guess I didn't loose anything afterall...
I'm serious! I recently lost business to another studio running ADATs. The guy told his "manager" (bank roller) he didn't want to do his album at my studio because he doesn't think my quality is as good as the other studio running "analog ADATs"! And I'm focusing on getting away from ADATs!
What's even better is I JUST heard his first song... Besides him sucking, the recording quality was one of the worsts I've heard around these parts!
Guess I didn't loose anything afterall...
jake-owa
Banned
This whole thread is ridiculous. If some homrecer wants to believe he is getting "that" analog sound out of a porta 2 more power to him! Analog sounds PHAT!! There, I said it. Fuck the digi snobs.
I own a 16 track1", a computer DAW, a four track cassette and have used blackface ADATs...they all record sound. I have cassettes that have a magic I can't relive with any other format. I also have Vegas sessions that will never be reproduced on 16 track. The magic is the session, feeling and spontaneous musical satisfaction that will never be recreated anywhere else because I'm not a proffesional musician. Yes portastudios do have an analog sound....duh. If it's not good enough for a big lame bear who cares.
This thread sucks and now so do I.
Geez.
I own a 16 track1", a computer DAW, a four track cassette and have used blackface ADATs...they all record sound. I have cassettes that have a magic I can't relive with any other format. I also have Vegas sessions that will never be reproduced on 16 track. The magic is the session, feeling and spontaneous musical satisfaction that will never be recreated anywhere else because I'm not a proffesional musician. Yes portastudios do have an analog sound....duh. If it's not good enough for a big lame bear who cares.
This thread sucks and now so do I.
Geez.
Blue Bear Sound
New member
Shailat
New member
Recording Engineer said:
I'll tell you something RE....ADATS are one of the most reliable formats I know of. Years and years of recording on ADATS and they have a fantastic track record of reliability. True that in a year they will be in a museum but I think they deserve a respectable place.