Nice try, you stinkin' lying sob(s)!

[Dr ZEE]

anyone tried this stuff??

Do you mean we shall "get back" to quoting lines from manuals, tech. specifications sheets, musical equipment catalogs, promo brochures and reviews written by "respected ones" and pretending that we have "intelligent discussion"?
I have to think about it. It may be actually a good idea after all.

*******
thinking


thinking
*******
OK. It's a good idea.
Now,
here's the question for you, FALKEN.
Since not everyone in "home recording" community (like myself) is highly intelligent nor technically educated nor strictly technically oriented and thus act and react simply based on baseless emotions - what shall they do? Go away? Shut up? Go to "school", read some lines from manuals, tech. specifications sheets, musical equipment catalogs, promo brochures and reviews written by "respected ones", comprehend that stuff at least to the achievable point based on their level of deficiency of intelligency and then come back? Or what?
Help me out , please. I freakin' - confused that is.
***********
BTW, I do understand that brain work is tiring, sometimes exhausting. I know how it feels. It sucks.

/respect

 

[FALKEN]

my guess is you have to learn to hear things about the recording from the recording. so most people try to research their favorite recordings and figure out what factors and techniques are creating those sounds and then experiment with it.

recording with tape is more of a comprehensive way of doing things and thinking about the process....not just a "sound".

I agree that the PC recording age seems sort of desperate at times, but Digidesign didn't invent this. They are competing for customers.... I would agree that they probably expanded the market with their success. If they hadn't someone else would have. Same with squire guitars and guitar center putting all the local places out of business.

i bet it used to be all like "money for nothin and chicks for free" if you started a band in the 70s. Now if you start a band its near impossible to book a show much less one that pays....there are too many people doing it and there is too much shlock because of it.

The decentralization of music distribution promises to bring better music to more people but I am afraid it will just bring more crap and even less 'quality' music......

anywayz i still dont get the big deal about the plugin.

 

[Flangerhans]

If Digidesign were to tell you exactly what their new bit of sleight-of-hand does, it would be the equivalent of the Emperor showing off his new clothes. I am willing to bet that their tape simulation is no more than a fancy eq, perhaps with a compression algorithm and a warble effect. Thus, don't expect to get clued in on what they are doing by reading technical specifications, if they even make these available.
At any rate, they'll get my tape recorder when they pry it from my cold, dead hands...(doing my best Charlton Heston).

 

[The Ghost of FM]

Do you mean we shall "get back" to quoting lines from manuals, tech. specifications sheets, musical equipment catalogs, promo brochures and reviews written by "respected ones" and pretending that we have "intelligent discussion"?
I have to think about it. It may be actually a good idea after all.

*******
thinking


thinking
*******
OK. It's a good idea.
Now,
here's the question for you, FALKEN.
Since not everyone in "home recording" community (like myself) is highly intelligent nor technically educated nor strictly technically oriented and thus act and react simply based on baseless emotions - what shall they do? Go away? Shut up? Go to "school", read some lines from manuals, tech. specifications sheets, musical equipment catalogs, promo brochures and reviews written by "respected ones", comprehend that stuff at least to the achievable point based on their level of deficiency of intelligency and then come back? Or what?
Help me out , please. I freakin' - confused that is.
***********
BTW, I do understand that brain work is tiring, sometimes exhausting. I know how it feels. It sucks.

/respect

That's a thoughtful post and I agree with some part of it about educating one's self as best as is practical to better harness the tools that we use to create our music.

It might also be true that little or no knowledge of one's tools is a bad thing.

It might also be true that one doesn't need to know how the hammer was made, how it differs from all the other hammers out there, who made the best hammers or even why the manufacturers of the greatest hammers no longer see fit to manufacture them any longer.

Some times its sufficient to just pick it up and whack that blasted nail with it.

Recording gear is a lot like that silly hammer. It's also a lot like a paint brush and canvas to the painter.

Our recording tools are supposed to allow us to build our sound productions.

In the early days of recording, we had equipment that was very limited in its frequency response. It was noisy. It was wanting for dynamics. It could only be played a limited amount of times before it degraded even further from its original meager capabilities. But, we saw its limitations and strove to design something better and we've kept striving to make thing better for over 100 years at this point and still, we don't have a perfect technology for capturing our musical expressions and ideas that will last throughout the ages anywhere near as good as the original method of writing the notes down on paper in an invented language that future musicians could read and play back those initial ideas and expressions.

In many ways, written music, performed by trained musicians is the truest form of fidelity that we will ever experience in the art of musical reproduction. Everything after that point has been an attempt to get back to that earliest idea of faithful reproduction.

We can't stop mankind from trying to reinvent the wheel nor can we stop the human failings of sin which comes in many forms including the sin of bearing false witness.

Where am I going with all this?

I'm basically trying to state the sad fact that all of us wish to promote what makes sense and what works for ourselves as the means that others should follow when in fact, we may not be following the most righteous path and doctrines ourselves.

I use analog recording gear because it is what I was educated on and told to use. I became comfortable with it and learned to overlook its shortcomings. It is the hammer I was given and I banged in a good chunk of nails with it. But, it doesn't mean that someone else couldn't pick up a different hammer and learn how to use that instead, perhaps even creating better results then I achieved with my trusty tool.

At a very basic level and long struggled over point in time, we need to realize that so Long as we make good music, the tools that made it are of little importance in the final analysis.

Cheers!

 

[Dr ZEE]

These threads wouldn’t be so long ....

hmmmmmmmmm
yeah

 

[Dr ZEE]

At a very basic level and long struggled over point in time, we need to realize that so Long as we make good music, the tools that made it are of little importance in the final analysis.

Cheers!

Sounds good to me.
so, on that note, shall we get back to tweaking?
....
(what ever it may be - a pot or a hmmmmmmm - something)

 

[The Ghost of FM]

Sounds good to me.
so, on that note, shall we get back to tweaking?
....
(what ever it may be - a pot or a hmmmmmmm - something)

Knock yourselves out!

Good night.

And as always.....

Cheers!

 

[Beck]

anyone tried this stuff??

I didn't want to say anything, but since you brought it up, no I don't use it... I don't have to. See, they drew a pint of blood from me to make it, and I get a portion from every bottle sold. It was touch and go there for a while when they synthesized a mysterious substance from my blood (found in only 1 in 2000 males of Scottish royal lineage with green eyes) and tried to patent it, leaving me out of the deal. To make a long story short; the court ruled in my favor. These corporate types are all the same.

For more info see below. (Caution, it’s a little technical and somewhat cryptic)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10811176&dopt=Abstract

http://iipdm.haifa.ac.il/personal_homepages/Papers/relative_judgment_seems_to_be_the_key.pdf

http://www.clanmcalister.org/robbruce.html

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/barnette.html

http://www.greatdreams.com/apache/Chronology-1830-1890.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7925365/

 

[MCI2424]

Last I looked you:
Can't "EQ" digital words
Can"t set volume on digital words
Can't compress digital words
Can't expand digital words
Can't get "tape sound" from digital words.

All these plugins must be frauds too.

You can write/read digital words. That is all.

 

[Dr ZEE]

Last I looked you:
Can't "EQ" digital words
Can"t set volume on digital words
Can't compress digital words
Can't expand digital words
Can't get "tape sound" from digital words.

All these plugins must be frauds too.

You can write/read digital words. That is all.

NICE TRY, MCI.
A "plug in" is not about "ability" of a machine to "write a word", but rather is about ability of a machine to "write THE word" as a reaction to reading a word. To put it in a poetic fashion: It's about ability of a machine to "choose the right word" when replying to a word.
A "plug in" is (or, say, ment to be and thus expected by a designer or a user to perform like ) rather an "intelligent interpreter" than just a "stenographer".
*************
"These threads wouldn’t be so long ...." ~Beck

 

[Zaphod B]

If y'all will pardon my interruption, I'd like to share something interesting with you.

Disclaimer: I have no opinion whatsoever about Digidesign's Reel Tape Suite, so I don't know what they're doing or whether they're selling anything other than snake oil.

I work in the aerospace field. I know of past programs (long since "OBE" because of geopolitics) in which US companies built accurate replicas of Soviet surface-to-air missile radars. By "accurate replica" I mean a fully operational radar set that could set off the very sensitive and very selective radar warning receivers in Allied aircraft, and cause the RWRs to accurately identify the threat radar. These Soviet radar systems were all analog, tube-based systems with no solid state stuff in them and were dirty as hell, from a signal-purity point of view. (You can also imagine that they were a nightmare to maintain.)

You'd think that you would design a copy of a radar by starting with the same physical architecture and signal path of the radar set, and then tweak it so that the signals are indistinguishable.

You'd be wrong.

Here's how it was done, at least when digital signal processing technology became available. Signal gathering equipment would record the emissions from the Soviet radar sets by overflying them and getting their attention. Over and over again, in as many environments and scenarios as possible. This big pile of radar signature data was provided to a contractor. The contractor would reverse-engineer the signal signature in 100% solid state circuitry (except for the klystron transmitter, of course) and would introduce signal degradation digitally as necessary to replicate the analog Soviet signal. And guess what: with careful attention to detail, a digital radar system can actually fool a very expensive radar warning receiver into thinking it is receiving a signal from an old analog radar. Radar signals are much higher frequency than baseline audio frequencies, and I think it's safe to say that the composition of a radar signal from a nasty old Soviet analog radar was quite busy.

The moral of this story is that it is possible to replicate, at least to a specifically required level of accuracy, an analog signal with digital equipment, and it's been possible for years. It may not be cheap but it can be done. I'm also not suggesting that it can be done with a consumer sofware plug-in like Reel Tape Suite, but with smart enough engineers and a big fat contract, almost anything is possible!

 

[A Reel Person]

Nice!

Okay,... "Reel Tape Suite"(tm) is an analog tape-sim that has a really nice graphic of a reel, a meter and some knobs, that does ~something~ in DSP that "models" actual measurable analog phenomenon. That doesn't seem so complicated, does it?

Because the graphic is really good, it does not automatically translate that the sound of it is equally as good, nor is it true analog at it's basis at all, but it is what it is and you gotta take it at face value. It may sound good, or it may not, but I'll reserve judgment on that, not having heard it myself.

For some people who've "moved beyond" tape, and for those who've "never experienced" tape, it's apparently an adequate substitute. For those of us who are "into" tape, often no substitute will do or will be "good enough".

For those who think they've "captured analog tape in the box" with this product, they've simply bought into the idea that "digital-is-better-the-computer-can-do-anything" mentality,... and we should be happy for them.

That Mfg'rs are making tons of money on stuff like this,... just comes with the territory. Companies are not focused on reviving true analog. They're focused on simulating it in the box. It's a sign of the times, and you have to accept it, or it will drive you nuts!

For those who still want true analog, the digital revolution is actually a big boost for them in the turnaround, for as people leave analog for digital in droves, it's created a glut of cheap and acceptable analog gear for the rest of us. That's why you see Tascam 32's for $100, and ATR80/24's that have trouble selling at a low-low $3500. I see the digital recording "revolution" as a blessing in disguise for analog heads, though I have no great love of digital recording, myself.

I'd held off posting on this thread thus far, but that's my 2¢.

 

[Dr ZEE]

Zaphod B, good post imo.
In respect to the "moral" of your story I only can say this:
If Digidesign's Reel Tape 'tee'em Pack as advertised and introduced was priced something, hmmmmmmm ... I don't know, just a wild pick, say $250,000 a piece or something, then I would still have my second thoughts but I would not! say a stinkin'dirty word about it, except maybe something like: "Holy'crap! These guys really going after it. Good luck and respects for your dedication and persistence. "
And it has nothing to do with "expansive" = "good" thing. It just what it may cost.
But then again , the "required level of accuracy" is the key to "success" here.
And what is the "required level of accuracy" on the today's market for an "analog simulation" plug in (or, say, as another example - digital simulation of a tube guitar amp of any brand/any year what ever amp ever built)?
The answer is - NON. It's pretty much anything goes, as long as it has "MANY" in it in the form of "titles" and attractive preset names.

I've got them all in a little box. The price was good. I don't care if I was fooled, as long as it seems to meet "required level of accuracy" to provide me with a tool that gives me a chance to fool the others. Plug it in (or even better yet - click it in) and rokin'roll.

/respects

 

[Zaphod B]

Thanks, Dr ZEE, and I think you nailed it. It's all about what it takes to get the job done; whether the product actually does what it claims or not is another story!

 

[Dr ZEE]

It may sound good, or it may not, but I'll reserve judgment on that, not having heard it myself.

Me too.
Nor am I going to hear it ever. I am not interested, that's why. Also I would rather imagine that it DOES sound good, which translates to: "When you apply the 'process' to a 'recorded musical material' the result (or, say - the OUTPUT) is rather pleasing (or at least may be heared as pleasing).
It just has nothing to do with the "TITLE", nor it has anything to do with anything that you see on the screen, nor it has a thing to do with anything that is mentioned in the 'description' that one way or the other relates or being refered to the "TITLE" or anything that you see on the screen.

*********

The concept here is this: "Analog Recording is nothing more than just a missing digital effect. We hear your cry. And we are here to fulfill the demands of some and the wonders of some others"

So?
well, there you have it.
be you a "some" or be you a "some other"
...........
arghhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[SteveM]

What happened to DSD 1 bit audio? I thought that was supposed to be the next big amazing thing.

BTW I agree with Reel. The more they go digital the cheaper cool analog gear for me. hehe

 

[Dr ZEE]

The more they go digital the cheaper cool analog gear for me.

heh heh. yeah. But never forget that we have our own "obstacles" to slalom around and not to get our noses smashed bloody
it's a welcome to the jungle out there, yakhhhhhhh

 

[cjacek]

The one thing which we've rather missed, as in not talked about, is the experience of operating an analog recorder and THAT cannot be duplicated by anything else but the said machine. Also, I like to have some BEEF inside my playback / recording device. I mean, it's nice knowing there's 75lb of reel stuff inside!

Yes, definitely, if one is INTO tape, as A REEL PERSON points out, there's really nothing beyond that for the person.

 

[cjacek]

The concept here is this: "Analog Recording is nothing more than just a missing digital effect. We hear your cry. And we are here to fulfill the demands of some and the wonders of some others"

Well put, Doc.

 

[Beck]

If y'all will pardon my interruption, I'd like to share something interesting with you.

Disclaimer: I have no opinion whatsoever about Digidesign's Reel Tape Suite, so I don't know what they're doing or whether they're selling anything other than snake oil.

I work in the aerospace field. I know of past programs (long since "OBE" because of geopolitics) in which US companies built accurate replicas of Soviet surface-to-air missile radars. By "accurate replica" I mean a fully operational radar set that could set off the very sensitive and very selective radar warning receivers in Allied aircraft, and cause the RWRs to accurately identify the threat radar. These Soviet radar systems were all analog, tube-based systems with no solid state stuff in them and were dirty as hell, from a signal-purity point of view. (You can also imagine that they were a nightmare to maintain.)

You'd think that you would design a copy of a radar by starting with the same physical architecture and signal path of the radar set, and then tweak it so that the signals are indistinguishable.

You'd be wrong.

Here's how it was done, at least when digital signal processing technology became available. Signal gathering equipment would record the emissions from the Soviet radar sets by overflying them and getting their attention. Over and over again, in as many environments and scenarios as possible. This big pile of radar signature data was provided to a contractor. The contractor would reverse-engineer the signal signature in 100% solid state circuitry (except for the klystron transmitter, of course) and would introduce signal degradation digitally as necessary to replicate the analog Soviet signal. And guess what: with careful attention to detail, a digital radar system can actually fool a very expensive radar warning receiver into thinking it is receiving a signal from an old analog radar. Radar signals are much higher frequency than baseline audio frequencies, and I think it's safe to say that the composition of a radar signal from a nasty old Soviet analog radar was quite busy.

The moral of this story is that it is possible to replicate, at least to a specifically required level of accuracy, an analog signal with digital equipment, and it's been possible for years. It may not be cheap but it can be done. I'm also not suggesting that it can be done with a consumer sofware plug-in like Reel Tape Suite, but with smart enough engineers and a big fat contract, almost anything is possible!

PERFECT!!! AND THANK YOU!!!

EXACTLY WHAT I HOPED SOMEONE WOULD BRING UP… HOW INSTRTUMENTS CAN BE FOOLED BY EMULATION. WE ALL KNOW THIS (AT LEAST SOME OF US DO FROM VARIOUS BACKGROUNDS OUTSIDE OF MUSIC)

HOWEVER, MUSIC IS FOR THE HUMAN EAR, NOT FOR ELECTRONIC MEASURING INSTRUMENTS.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I’VE SAID BEFORE MANY TIMES. ALL OF THE DIGITAL-BASED ANALOG MODLING WE’VE SEEN, WHETHER SYNTHS, SIGNAL PATHS OR TAPE EMULATION ARE BASED ON MEASUEMNETS BY MACHINES. THIS IS WHY DIGITAL LOOKS SO GOOD ON PAPER.

THE HUMAN EAR, (AND I DARE SAY THE HUMAN SPIRIT) IS FAR MORE SENSETIVE TO COMPLEX MUSIC THAN ANY MEASURING APPARATUS WE CAN DEVISE.

THE MACHINE IS NOT THE STANDARD. MAN AND HIS NATURAL SENSES AND PERCEPTIONS ARE THE STANDARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THIS IS SOMETHING THE COMPUTER-GEEK ELEMENT OF THE MUSIC INDUSTRY (Who by the way now controls it) HAS NEVER UNDERSTOOD. RIGHT BRAIN VS. LEFT BRAIN? I DON’T KNOW. BUT WE ARE LIVING IN A TIME WHEN MACHINES ARE NO LONGER THE TOOLS OF THE ARTIST, BUT RATHER HIS MASTER. (Yes, I’m yelling… if it’s too loud, you’re too old)

HERE ENDETH THE LESSON.

I'm also not suggesting that it can be done with a consumer sofware plug-in like Reel Tape Suite, but with smart enough engineers and a big fat contract, almost anything is possible!

Dumb enough consumers and a big fat marketing budget will work the same magic.

Nice story by the way... appreciated by this old Air Force brat/ham radio guy.