cjacek
Analogue Enthusiast
Re: Dead Quietenator
Now THAT is comedy! LOL!!
Thanks for the link FALKEN. 
Now THAT is comedy! LOL!!
Thanks for the link FALKEN. 
Flangerhans
Dodecahedronic member
That Mackie simulator on the sonic finger site is just what I've been looking for.."When the best is too good," indeed. +1
cjacek
Analogue Enthusiast
Dr ZEE
Anti-Pro Circles Insider
heh heh heh, good one!
totally rofl here: http://www.sonicfinger.com/DeadQuietenator.html
smart "web-page-codding" for a sharp satire portal, btw.
I want to see more new products!
totally rofl here: http://www.sonicfinger.com/DeadQuietenator.html
smart "web-page-codding" for a sharp satire portal, btw.
I want to see more new products!
M
MCI2424
New member
Slowrider said:Why can't they just make a super high quality RtoR instead of "Emulating" them? Besides, I don't trust shifty-eyed salesmen.
Because NO ONE WOULD BUY THEM. They went away because no one bought them. R to R machines are TOO EXPENSIVE to make because:
No one will buy them.
M
MCI2424
New member
Dr ZEE said:
a plug-in is a mathmatical function and interprets nothing. It is exact and 100% reproducable. All digital words are used to reconstruct an analog signal in the end. Therefore, the plug-in is an exact stenographer of a given mathmatical operation to existing digital words. Analog recording is storing data on magnetic tape and digital recording is storing data on hard drives or discs.
Dr ZEE
Anti-Pro Circles Insider
it's all right, MCI.MCI2424 said:
Beings deserve a breath of air. And so they breathe.
And so you type things and so you click 'submit'.
It's all good.
Dr ZEE
Anti-Pro Circles Insider
MCI2424 said: "mathmatical function interprets nothing".MCI2424 said:
it's all right, MCI.
And so they breath.
blackdavy
of the plains
Reel to reel machines went away because digital came in and made recording tools smaller and easier to use. Radio compresses the hell out of recordings anyway, so it didn't bother the hit-makers if they're recordings were sub-par quality.
Currently, Digital recording does not produce better quality than analog... and that's a scientific fact. In the future, Digital may be able to record and reproduce at a sound quality that is equivalent to analog... but that's way off. Digital actually has a larger dynamic range than analog tape, but as humans we can't hear the extra range represented there. Digital is missing A TON of data within its large dynamic range and does not reproduce a sound as natural as analog. That's why some people say digital sounds "stark" or "harsh" when they hear it. Look a visual wave representations for both digital and analog. You will see that a digital wave is very jagged compared to the smoothness of an analog wave.
So... the "math" is NOT there... nor is the technology to create an internal processor (or engine) that compares to analog. A plug-in is only as good as the internal processor (or engine).
I've used Cakewalk's Sonar Producer. It has a 64-bit internal engine and it does sound much better than anything else I've heard in the digital realm... but they're still quite a ways away.
Currently, Digital recording does not produce better quality than analog... and that's a scientific fact. In the future, Digital may be able to record and reproduce at a sound quality that is equivalent to analog... but that's way off. Digital actually has a larger dynamic range than analog tape, but as humans we can't hear the extra range represented there. Digital is missing A TON of data within its large dynamic range and does not reproduce a sound as natural as analog. That's why some people say digital sounds "stark" or "harsh" when they hear it. Look a visual wave representations for both digital and analog. You will see that a digital wave is very jagged compared to the smoothness of an analog wave.
So... the "math" is NOT there... nor is the technology to create an internal processor (or engine) that compares to analog. A plug-in is only as good as the internal processor (or engine).
I've used Cakewalk's Sonar Producer. It has a 64-bit internal engine and it does sound much better than anything else I've heard in the digital realm... but they're still quite a ways away.
Dr ZEE
Anti-Pro Circles Insider
M
MCI2424
New member
blackdavy said:
Reel to reel machines went away because the market went away. Any manufacturer of anything will manufacter any product that sells, has sold, and is currently paid for in capital tooling. TASCAM would have loved to make tape machines forever if they sold. Digital came in with all the promises and delivered 1 big promise. The systems were cheap (compared with tape and mixers) and everyone could have one in their hands. I am sure that 80% of people don't care or even notice if digital is better, worse or even comparable to reel to reel tape based recording. Only places like...........here do. The fact is that tape recorders are gone and digital is here to stay.
blackdavy
of the plains
I'm not sure if that was supposed to be an argument or not, because I couldn't agree with you more. Seems like you just expanded a bit on what I posted.
FALKEN
*************************
MCI2424 said:
Now wait a minute. I think there is a crucial part to this missing. Either that or I completely imagined this. But when pro tools came out, didn't all of the major label studios switch over? A big part of major label business is maintaining barriers to entry into the market. And the cost of producing a "major label" album was always one of those barriers. Didn't the majors switch over to protools because it was MORE expensive??? It was always my understanding that this backfired on them.....and had they stuck to tape machines maybe these larger studios would still be around, because they could still be saying "you can't compete at home".
B
BRDTS
Member
At the time Protools was released at that first Namm show, the industry was still heavily into it's sixth or seventh year of digital multitracks such as the 3m and Mitsubishi. Those had already pretty much killed the analog multitracks (MCI was absorbed and killed off etc) and the remaining high end guys (Studer) were really feeling the pinch from those new machines...so they came out with their own. Tascam was even fully gung-ho by then trying to get into the label-end market via their digital machine (which I believe was a d-a-s-h based reel-to-reel).
The high end analog mulitrack market then took another kamikaze blow when the da88 and adats came out..... because now, at a fairly achievable price point, all the mid level (and increasing independent producers) could have a bazillion digtal tracks for a fraction of what the 3m and Mitusbishi digital machines cost. Man, I remember tv/film production guys immediately tossing anything analog they had in order to buy 10 da88's at a shot. No Protools...we were in the land of adat and da88 at that point.
So THAT was the big gobbler of corporate funds at that point. Protools came in in the midst of that and was initially rejected by the high-end market as being too flakey/expensive...incidently the SAME reaction Fairlight and Synclavier were getting at the exact same time as they also tried to enter the same market Protools came into. For awhile there, none of the three could make a dent in getting into the label-end-high-studio-market. Moneywise, the 3m 24 track was somewhere around $190,000, the Mitusbishi was more like $250,000, a fully loaded Fairlight was around $200,000 and Synclaviar was simliar. Those first Protools systems were not even breaking $50,000 as I remember, so they would've been considered the "entry level" product if anything.
Regardless...as a self-sustaining product, analog multitrack divisions were already hitting the dirt everywhere. In early 1995, Tascam saw this huge jump in their da88 sales etc, and decided, man we're also outta this analog thing .... and that's when they ran that huge world-wide fire sale that summer, blowing out brand new crated 24 tracks /consoles etc for five thousand dollars etc.
Even then at that point in time, Protools was still considered to be an expensive toy by many. It certainly wasn't an industry standard yet even as late as 1997 or 1998 imo.
The high end analog mulitrack market then took another kamikaze blow when the da88 and adats came out..... because now, at a fairly achievable price point, all the mid level (and increasing independent producers) could have a bazillion digtal tracks for a fraction of what the 3m and Mitusbishi digital machines cost. Man, I remember tv/film production guys immediately tossing anything analog they had in order to buy 10 da88's at a shot. No Protools...we were in the land of adat and da88 at that point.
So THAT was the big gobbler of corporate funds at that point. Protools came in in the midst of that and was initially rejected by the high-end market as being too flakey/expensive...incidently the SAME reaction Fairlight and Synclavier were getting at the exact same time as they also tried to enter the same market Protools came into. For awhile there, none of the three could make a dent in getting into the label-end-high-studio-market. Moneywise, the 3m 24 track was somewhere around $190,000, the Mitusbishi was more like $250,000, a fully loaded Fairlight was around $200,000 and Synclaviar was simliar. Those first Protools systems were not even breaking $50,000 as I remember, so they would've been considered the "entry level" product if anything.
Regardless...as a self-sustaining product, analog multitrack divisions were already hitting the dirt everywhere. In early 1995, Tascam saw this huge jump in their da88 sales etc, and decided, man we're also outta this analog thing .... and that's when they ran that huge world-wide fire sale that summer, blowing out brand new crated 24 tracks /consoles etc for five thousand dollars etc.
Even then at that point in time, Protools was still considered to be an expensive toy by many. It certainly wasn't an industry standard yet even as late as 1997 or 1998 imo.
cjacek
Analogue Enthusiast
Analog tape machines went away because the lying, marketing skunks brainwashed the hell out of people that digital can do what analog could but better, for a lot less money.
As an aside, my favorite, laugh out loud moment was when TASCAM, in their own TSR-8 literature said something to the effect that it [TSR-8] produces near CD quality results. Oh my .....
Anyway, when the digital snowball started rolling, it couldn't be stopped. There was no turning back. It's almost like analog never existed, at least to the new generation.
As an aside, my favorite, laugh out loud moment was when TASCAM, in their own TSR-8 literature said something to the effect that it [TSR-8] produces near CD quality results. Oh my .....
Anyway, when the digital snowball started rolling, it couldn't be stopped. There was no turning back. It's almost like analog never existed, at least to the new generation.
blackdavy
of the plains
Yikes! I can't believe they charged that much for that stuff!
Thanks for the history lesson.
Thanks for the history lesson.
cjacek
Analogue Enthusiast
Yes, and what's even more scary is that you could have gotten a good, higher end analog 8 - 16 track for a hell lot less, brand new, which would have blown the doors off of the expensive digital or digital / analog hybrid systems....... and you know what ? Those analog recorders are still going strong, no software upgrades, compatability or support issues, crashes and it is certainly not a throw away technology. I wonder who got their money's worth, the people who bought the silly 200K digital / analog 24 track hybrids or the guys who popped for a nice 24 track analog tape studer, costing 1/3 - 1/4 that. The answer is obvious.
Dr ZEE
Anti-Pro Circles Insider
...to bring tape recorders back?MCI2424 said:
Apparently so - HERE 'YA GO.
What ever it is here to stay for - we'll take it gladly. Load us, baby, load as hard. We 'll take it all, gladly so.
*********
It's all right, MCI. It's all good.
And so they breathe. hmmmmmmmm, or do they?
/later
Dr ZEE
Anti-Pro Circles Insider
btw, BRDTS, post #114 - good one.
Which ever way one may look or think or what have you, but digital recording DID NOT come as a "cheaper", it rather came as "REVOLUTIONARY BETTER" and "royally expansive".
But you see, that's the way it works. To sell crap on massive scale one have to 'bias the public' first. And that is how you do it: sell a few 'things' at the price that only few "respected ones" can afford and let them brag about it for a while.
I've payed something like $2,400 or so for a CD-recorder. Geeeeeeee! Was I hot and on the edge or what? heh heh, I mean - Grrrrrrr-Brrrrrrrrrr, what a dumb-A%$ rather
Which ever way one may look or think or what have you, but digital recording DID NOT come as a "cheaper", it rather came as "REVOLUTIONARY BETTER" and "royally expansive".
But you see, that's the way it works. To sell crap on massive scale one have to 'bias the public' first. And that is how you do it: sell a few 'things' at the price that only few "respected ones" can afford and let them brag about it for a while.
I've payed something like $2,400 or so for a CD-recorder. Geeeeeeee! Was I hot and on the edge or what? heh heh, I mean - Grrrrrrr-Brrrrrrrrrr, what a dumb-A%$ rather
G
Good Friend
New member
oh crap
I read a pretty genius book by a biologist/psychologist who was also a music major and spent his whole life listening to music and learning songwriting techniques.
Im sure most people would disagree with this, but he wrote that most people who are unsatisfied with their artistic ability seek to improve control over their "art" by compensating with elaborate recording standards and setups. Gimmicks. He also claims that a well written song will be well recieved by the general public even if it is in near demo form, as long as it is in decent time and in decent tune and is above all a STRONG song. He basically recommends buying a simple recording setup that is easy to use above all, a microphone, an instrument or two, and then spending all your time working on developing a strong signature vocal style that will be recognizable as "you" no matter who tries to imitate you. He basically claims that time and money spent on equipment beyond the basic is just prolonging a persons denial that they may have no talent or signature style, and that they cant write strong songs in any genre.
I read a pretty genius book by a biologist/psychologist who was also a music major and spent his whole life listening to music and learning songwriting techniques.
Im sure most people would disagree with this, but he wrote that most people who are unsatisfied with their artistic ability seek to improve control over their "art" by compensating with elaborate recording standards and setups. Gimmicks. He also claims that a well written song will be well recieved by the general public even if it is in near demo form, as long as it is in decent time and in decent tune and is above all a STRONG song. He basically recommends buying a simple recording setup that is easy to use above all, a microphone, an instrument or two, and then spending all your time working on developing a strong signature vocal style that will be recognizable as "you" no matter who tries to imitate you. He basically claims that time and money spent on equipment beyond the basic is just prolonging a persons denial that they may have no talent or signature style, and that they cant write strong songs in any genre.