J
jeffree
New member
Billisa, interesting... any idea what Taylor's 16-bit setup was? A DAW?
J.
J.
B
billisa
New member
You know, I don't...
The album's producer (Frank Filipetti) was interviewed in one of the mags I get, so that's how I found out about the 16bit thing. I'm not sure what was available back when this was recorded (1997), but the sound is spectacular. Whether they used a DAW or not, I don't know. As I recall, Filipetti was really downplaying the need for 24/96 recording. He wasn't knocking it, just not seeing it as nearly a dire necessity. That's the beauty of where we're at today. Great quality is really accessible, and if you're willing to really learn the craft, then making fine recordings is possible for almost anyone. I'm sure more $$ or bits matter, but I think for less ambitious projects, it matters much less than it used to, and maybe sometimes not at all. Imagination and technique matter much more.
jeffree said:
The album's producer (Frank Filipetti) was interviewed in one of the mags I get, so that's how I found out about the 16bit thing. I'm not sure what was available back when this was recorded (1997), but the sound is spectacular. Whether they used a DAW or not, I don't know. As I recall, Filipetti was really downplaying the need for 24/96 recording. He wasn't knocking it, just not seeing it as nearly a dire necessity. That's the beauty of where we're at today. Great quality is really accessible, and if you're willing to really learn the craft, then making fine recordings is possible for almost anyone. I'm sure more $$ or bits matter, but I think for less ambitious projects, it matters much less than it used to, and maybe sometimes not at all. Imagination and technique matter much more.
tjohnston
New member
dink dink dink clink clink clinky
A Reel Person
It's Too Funky in Here!!!
I don't need 999 levels of "undo",...
and if I did need it, I think it would indicate a larger problem, and I'd probably give up music and recording altogether.
Cut, Copy & Paste?
-Don't need it.
Instantaneous FF/RW & Locate?
-So what- RW time has never been a big issue for me, and if it is for you, then maybe you should switch to a decaffienated blend.
Point & Click?
-Great for work, email & BBS's, but not part of my recording vocabulary.
The bulletproof nature of CD's and digital data integrity?
-A myth.
The "pristine" nature of digitally recorded sound?
-Another myth.
Computer/DAW recording is simple, friendly, & easy to use?
-NOT!
and if I did need it, I think it would indicate a larger problem, and I'd probably give up music and recording altogether.
Cut, Copy & Paste?
-Don't need it.
Instantaneous FF/RW & Locate?
-So what- RW time has never been a big issue for me, and if it is for you, then maybe you should switch to a decaffienated blend.
Point & Click?
-Great for work, email & BBS's, but not part of my recording vocabulary.
The bulletproof nature of CD's and digital data integrity?
-A myth.
The "pristine" nature of digitally recorded sound?
-Another myth.
Computer/DAW recording is simple, friendly, & easy to use?
-NOT!
MiXit-G
New member
I nearly bought a analog 8 track reel to reel but i need portability.
So everyones' needs are different if you are getting good results the im happy for you but dont try and make out that one format is "better" than the other, comes down to your needs your taste and your pocket.
There ok?
So everyones' needs are different if you are getting good results the im happy for you but dont try and make out that one format is "better" than the other, comes down to your needs your taste and your pocket.
There ok?
C
chessparov
New member
They used an ADAT (gasp!) for Hourglass.
There's an excellent book, "Behind The Glass", that talks about this record in more detail.
Another time honored tradition during analog "rewind" was that
many good engineers in a major studio knew a lot of jokes to entertain the musicians!
Chris
There's an excellent book, "Behind The Glass", that talks about this record in more detail.
Another time honored tradition during analog "rewind" was that
many good engineers in a major studio knew a lot of jokes to entertain the musicians!
Chris
H
Hawking
New member
MiXit-G said:
I agree.
As far as better or worse...music and sound in general is way to subjective of a topic to brand anything one way or the other. All of the decisions on analog vs. digital, cardioid vs. omni, 16 bit vs. 24 bit, are determined by many factors. There are a few absolutes, take 1/4 inch tape vs. 2 inch tape for example. Noone will dispute that one. But then again, if it's the sound you're looking for....
I suppose I'm just glad there's this many choices.
LocusLarsen
New member
jeffree said:
I don't know what Taylor's setup was, but I do understand that there was a grammy winning artist that recorded her album on a Roland VS1680. Thats what I got. But I got it before I found out...which is like finding out you have a Benz AFTER you bought it for a thousand bux.
Light
New member
James Taylors Hourglass was recorded on ADAT, using a Yamaha O2R. It was a really big deal, as it was the first time an engineering Gammy was won using a "prosummer" setup.
As to analog vs. digital, neither sounds inherently better. Cheap analog sucks a lot worse than cheap digital, and great analog and great digital both sound so good, it is really a toss up. At that point it becomes a matter of preference and experience. This was not always the case, but it has gotten to that point. Analog is a stagnant technology these days, and digital is a very new technology. As digital matures, it gets better.
If you want great sound in an analog format, you are looking at a very large investment. If you are spending less than $15,000 for a tape machine, you are not getting the point. And that is just for the machine, it does not include the tools needed for the daily maintenance, nor for the tape. 2" 24 track (which is a compromise format in the first place, needing noise reduction or increased speed in order to sound as good as it should) is hundreds of dollars a reel. For that you get about 15 minutes (at 30ips) to 30 Minutes (at 15 ips). For the best sound, you want 30 ips, without question.
You also need to buy (and from time to time rebuy) very expensive alignment tapes. These are tapes, recorded in laboratories, one at a time, with tones. They must be made with the same brand and mode if tape you are using in your studio. If you want to use a different brand of tape, you need to use a different alignment reel. You use these tones to adjust you machines at the beginning of a project. You record tones to the tape you are using for the project, and must realign the machine daily using these tones. VERY time consuming.
With analog, it is all about track width. For years the standard was (wonderfully) 1/8" per track. First, with 1/2" 4 track, then 1" 8 track, and finally, with 2" 16 track. Until you have heard 1/8" per track analog, you do not know how good analog can sound. When 2" 24 tracks came out, it was necessary to find a way to make it sound better. NR and/or higher speed were the solutions which were finally settled on, but the cost of tape at high speed is ridiculous. Unfortunately, anything less just is not up to snuff. Many people seem to like their 1/16" per track stuff, but I have heard that stuff, and it just really does not cut it. Cheap digital, for the most part, sounds better.
Now, you can spend just as much on the digital machines, but the upkeep is much less expensive, and much less frequent. And the media is cheap.
If you want to know how ridiculous it can get, listen to this. When Steely Dan was recording Aja, a friend of my watched the tracking sessions one day. They where recording drum tracks with Steve Gadd. Recording over a track in analog causes a number of sonic degradations. They wanted to avoid this, but being Steely Dan, they always wanted each track perfect. My friend watched them go through dozens of takes, and each time they would declare the performance was not acceptable, and before they would record the new take, they would switch to a virgin 2" reel. They had boxes of rejected tapes, which they ended up throwing out. This was in the late seventies, but that tape was still around $100 a reel. Now, this was the late seventies, and it was Steely Dan, so my friends recollections may well be, shall we say, comically enhanced. None the less, I would say it is a fairly reliable description of the basic scene.
All this considered, I must say that my favorite format is 2" 16 track, followed by 2" 24 track. Now, this is partially because I like the sound just a little bit more (though that is possibly just familiarity) and partially because I am a bit hide bound. If the budget is there, after I have taken care of all the more important stuff (like a great room, and a great console, and a great mic selection, etc.) I will spec 2" for a project.
The truth is, the format you record on has very little effect on the final product. The skills of the engineer go much further in assuring a good recording. Sure, it is fun to work on a Neve and a Studer, but it is very rarely cost effective. Even just working on a Sony or MCI 2" machine through a API, or whatever, is not really worth it very often. This is where the real benefit of digital lies. Both formats can sound great, if the engineer knows what they are doing.
Analog is great, and digital is getting great. In the end, the format is NOT what is going to make a difference. Your ears, your skills, and most importantly, your WORK are what will make a recording great.
As for TJohnston's dink dink dink clink clink clinky, I flat out guaranty you could not tell the difference between a well recorded acoustic guitars in any professional format. Sound is NOT about gear, it is about skill and work.
And there I go with another longwinded post. Sorry about that.
Light
"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
As to analog vs. digital, neither sounds inherently better. Cheap analog sucks a lot worse than cheap digital, and great analog and great digital both sound so good, it is really a toss up. At that point it becomes a matter of preference and experience. This was not always the case, but it has gotten to that point. Analog is a stagnant technology these days, and digital is a very new technology. As digital matures, it gets better.
If you want great sound in an analog format, you are looking at a very large investment. If you are spending less than $15,000 for a tape machine, you are not getting the point. And that is just for the machine, it does not include the tools needed for the daily maintenance, nor for the tape. 2" 24 track (which is a compromise format in the first place, needing noise reduction or increased speed in order to sound as good as it should) is hundreds of dollars a reel. For that you get about 15 minutes (at 30ips) to 30 Minutes (at 15 ips). For the best sound, you want 30 ips, without question.
You also need to buy (and from time to time rebuy) very expensive alignment tapes. These are tapes, recorded in laboratories, one at a time, with tones. They must be made with the same brand and mode if tape you are using in your studio. If you want to use a different brand of tape, you need to use a different alignment reel. You use these tones to adjust you machines at the beginning of a project. You record tones to the tape you are using for the project, and must realign the machine daily using these tones. VERY time consuming.
With analog, it is all about track width. For years the standard was (wonderfully) 1/8" per track. First, with 1/2" 4 track, then 1" 8 track, and finally, with 2" 16 track. Until you have heard 1/8" per track analog, you do not know how good analog can sound. When 2" 24 tracks came out, it was necessary to find a way to make it sound better. NR and/or higher speed were the solutions which were finally settled on, but the cost of tape at high speed is ridiculous. Unfortunately, anything less just is not up to snuff. Many people seem to like their 1/16" per track stuff, but I have heard that stuff, and it just really does not cut it. Cheap digital, for the most part, sounds better.
Now, you can spend just as much on the digital machines, but the upkeep is much less expensive, and much less frequent. And the media is cheap.
If you want to know how ridiculous it can get, listen to this. When Steely Dan was recording Aja, a friend of my watched the tracking sessions one day. They where recording drum tracks with Steve Gadd. Recording over a track in analog causes a number of sonic degradations. They wanted to avoid this, but being Steely Dan, they always wanted each track perfect. My friend watched them go through dozens of takes, and each time they would declare the performance was not acceptable, and before they would record the new take, they would switch to a virgin 2" reel. They had boxes of rejected tapes, which they ended up throwing out. This was in the late seventies, but that tape was still around $100 a reel. Now, this was the late seventies, and it was Steely Dan, so my friends recollections may well be, shall we say, comically enhanced. None the less, I would say it is a fairly reliable description of the basic scene.
All this considered, I must say that my favorite format is 2" 16 track, followed by 2" 24 track. Now, this is partially because I like the sound just a little bit more (though that is possibly just familiarity) and partially because I am a bit hide bound. If the budget is there, after I have taken care of all the more important stuff (like a great room, and a great console, and a great mic selection, etc.) I will spec 2" for a project.
The truth is, the format you record on has very little effect on the final product. The skills of the engineer go much further in assuring a good recording. Sure, it is fun to work on a Neve and a Studer, but it is very rarely cost effective. Even just working on a Sony or MCI 2" machine through a API, or whatever, is not really worth it very often. This is where the real benefit of digital lies. Both formats can sound great, if the engineer knows what they are doing.
Analog is great, and digital is getting great. In the end, the format is NOT what is going to make a difference. Your ears, your skills, and most importantly, your WORK are what will make a recording great.
As for TJohnston's dink dink dink clink clink clinky, I flat out guaranty you could not tell the difference between a well recorded acoustic guitars in any professional format. Sound is NOT about gear, it is about skill and work.
And there I go with another longwinded post. Sorry about that.
Light
"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
Speeddemon
New member
Light, I agree with you, but I don't think the track width is 1/8" wide. You must deduct the outer edges and inner-spaces, which are there to reduce crosstalk.
Í have a 2tr. 1/4" recorder, so that's around 1/8" per track eh? And it records at 15ips as well. Even 7,5ips is a great sound!
Í have a 2tr. 1/4" recorder, so that's around 1/8" per track eh? And it records at 15ips as well. Even 7,5ips is a great sound!
Light
New member
Speeddemon said:
Your right, it is a little less, but not much. 1/4" half track is great stuff. 1/2" half track is my favorite mix down format, but it used to be that mastering engineers would want a 1/2" master for vinyl and a 1/4" for cassette, so I have done a lot of 1/4" work too.
Light
"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
C
chessparov
New member
Excellent post, however, as you're probably aware, many engineers prefer 2" @ 15ips particulary for rock music as they think it has a thicker bottom than 30 ips.
30 ips wasn't used widely until around the early 1970's from what I've researched.
Somehow they managed to do "O.K." with all those 60's songs!
For those who don't need a lot of tracks, I think a 4 track 1/2"
reel to reel, is an excellent way to get world class sound for less $$ than monkeying around with digital + 10 bezillion plug-ins to try to replicate it-if that's the sound you want.
Chris
30 ips wasn't used widely until around the early 1970's from what I've researched.
Somehow they managed to do "O.K." with all those 60's songs!
For those who don't need a lot of tracks, I think a 4 track 1/2"
reel to reel, is an excellent way to get world class sound for less $$ than monkeying around with digital + 10 bezillion plug-ins to try to replicate it-if that's the sound you want.
Chris
Light
New member
chessparov said:
Yeah, though I never really felt that way. 15 IPS 2" 24 track just sounds (to me) like it is missing some high end. But I was mostly doing corprate stuff, so I also liked to waste the asshole clients money on 30 IPS. Yeah it sounded better, but fuck the corprate assholes too.
chessparov said:
30 ips wasn't used widely until around the early 1970's from what I've researched.
Somehow they managed to do "O.K." with all those 60's songs!
Well, 2" 24 track did not come around until the late seventies, so 30 IPS was not really needed. 15 IPS 2" 16 track sounds just as good (or better) as 30 IPS 2" 24 track.
Light
"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
Michael Jones
New member
This camp will always be split, but here's something to consider:
There's a local studio here called Cedar Creek Recording. The owner has been running this successful studio for over 20 years. He just finished recording the newest Dixie Chicks CD. (well, a year ago)
He has a 2" Studer that he now refers to as a $50,000 boat anchor!
The CD, which BTW won a grammy, was recorded using Nuendo at 24/96. (See Mix Magizine article from November 2002)
After I asked him about his latest endevour with the Dixie Chicks and his choice of format, he had this to say:
"No one in the studio, from the engineer, to the producer, to the artists, could tell the difference between the 2" and Nuendo in a blind A/B listening test." And these are industry pros with MANY years in the biz.
He keeps the Studer for the sole reason that there ARE people that will INSIST on 2".
Digital is here, it rocks, and its going to stay!
There's a local studio here called Cedar Creek Recording. The owner has been running this successful studio for over 20 years. He just finished recording the newest Dixie Chicks CD. (well, a year ago)
He has a 2" Studer that he now refers to as a $50,000 boat anchor!
The CD, which BTW won a grammy, was recorded using Nuendo at 24/96. (See Mix Magizine article from November 2002)
After I asked him about his latest endevour with the Dixie Chicks and his choice of format, he had this to say:
"No one in the studio, from the engineer, to the producer, to the artists, could tell the difference between the 2" and Nuendo in a blind A/B listening test." And these are industry pros with MANY years in the biz.
He keeps the Studer for the sole reason that there ARE people that will INSIST on 2".
Digital is here, it rocks, and its going to stay!
C
chessparov
New member
Light, based on your post, it seems that tape THICKNESS matters more than
tape SPEED. I've wondered about that, for example, on whether 1/4"
tape @ 30ips would be equal to 1/2" @ 15 ips.
Chris
tape SPEED. I've wondered about that, for example, on whether 1/4"
tape @ 30ips would be equal to 1/2" @ 15 ips.
Chris
C
chessrock
Banned
I always thought it had to do with how much magnetic particles are being used on the audio.
Very similar concept, basically, as how many bits are being used.
So if it's running at twice the speed, then twice as many magnetic particles are being used . . . same principle as twice the thickness.
That's just the way I was taught, and my prof was a pot-smoking hippie, anyway.
Very similar concept, basically, as how many bits are being used.
So if it's running at twice the speed, then twice as many magnetic particles are being used . . . same principle as twice the thickness.
That's just the way I was taught, and my prof was a pot-smoking hippie, anyway.
P
pundit
New member
When is this analog versus digital debate going to end? 
How many of you would be prepared to partake in double blind testing of unfamiliar recorded material and then state catogorically which is analog and which is digital? If you're wrong your testicals will be surgically removed and pickled in brine and then shoved up your ass!
Any takers?!
There seems to be so many experts out there that can obviously hear a mouse get a hard on in Siberia who shouldn't have any problems at all! So how about it!
Those who reckon they could tell everytime would undoubtably be distracted by 'HOD' syndrome!
My guess is, for most of us, the biggest sonic problems we face are people we record followed by the acoustics of the rooms we record in, then mics, pre's etc.
Sure if I want 'fuzt' up an electric guitar or bass I can run it through my Revox at +8 and then into my DAW. But I don't do it for everything because everything doesn't always sound good like that.
As far as the 'tink, tink, tink' of recording an acoustic guitar is concerned. Change you mics, pres and/or eq settings.
Yes hyped Chinese mics, cheap pres and handfuls of top end eq boost will likely sound more shit on digital because it doesn't smooth out the top end like analog. But that's the fault of the recording tecnique and choice of gear. Not of the medium.
If you like the coloration of analog on everything then fine.
It does change with level and frequency so it's a varying effect.
I like to get my sound the way I like it before I record it and then know I going to hear pretty much the same thing on playback.
I want to play around with I can. If not...
As for digital makes it go 'tink, tink' and analog doesn't?
Yeah right!
How many of you would be prepared to partake in double blind testing of unfamiliar recorded material and then state catogorically which is analog and which is digital? If you're wrong your testicals will be surgically removed and pickled in brine and then shoved up your ass!
Any takers?!
There seems to be so many experts out there that can obviously hear a mouse get a hard on in Siberia who shouldn't have any problems at all! So how about it!
Those who reckon they could tell everytime would undoubtably be distracted by 'HOD' syndrome!
My guess is, for most of us, the biggest sonic problems we face are people we record followed by the acoustics of the rooms we record in, then mics, pre's etc.
Sure if I want 'fuzt' up an electric guitar or bass I can run it through my Revox at +8 and then into my DAW. But I don't do it for everything because everything doesn't always sound good like that.
As far as the 'tink, tink, tink' of recording an acoustic guitar is concerned. Change you mics, pres and/or eq settings.
Yes hyped Chinese mics, cheap pres and handfuls of top end eq boost will likely sound more shit on digital because it doesn't smooth out the top end like analog. But that's the fault of the recording tecnique and choice of gear. Not of the medium.
If you like the coloration of analog on everything then fine.
It does change with level and frequency so it's a varying effect.
I like to get my sound the way I like it before I record it and then know I going to hear pretty much the same thing on playback.
I want to play around with I can. If not...
As for digital makes it go 'tink, tink' and analog doesn't?
Yeah right!
Light
New member
chessparov said:
Not thickness, width. And as chessrock said, the issue is the amount of magnetic particles available. You can get more particles by making the tape wider, or by running it faster. Either way, the amount of area which is use for each second of audio is high, and so more magnetic particles are available.
Tell me something, Pundit. Is it going to be the same source on both digital and analog formats? If so, yeah I could pass that test. Here is the test. You record an instrument, and split the signal off to both digital and analog formats. Doing it like this, I could and have passed this test. And I do not have amazing ears, only educated ones. But you are right, most people could not.
Light
"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
P
pundit
New member
Is that the current Dixie Chicks release? The current album sounds so incredibly thin and squashed to my ears.Michael Jones said:
Irrespective of whether it was recorded digital or analog it's almost unlistenable IMO. I guess it may be a case of the record company telling the mastering house to... "Make it loud!"
Michael Jones
New member
Its the one they won a grammy for. The one that has that song part on it where that little troll goes "Well maybeeeeeeeeeeeeee...."pundit said:Is that the current Dixie Chicks release? The current album sounds so incredibly thin and squashed to my ears.
Irrespective of whether it was recorded digital or analog it's almost unlistenable IMO. I guess it may be a case of the record company telling the mastering house to... "Make it loud!"
Doesn't sound thin to me.
But yeah, it was mastered at Sony.