B
lonewhitefly
Active member
i think the limitations of analog (particularly small track counts) makes the producer/engineer/musician think in more creative ways. many people claim to use computers as a "tape machine" but working within actual limitations (compared to self-imposed limitations) yields different types of results. i get very frustrated at times working within these limitations, but i believe that they are the very elements that give analog recordings "character", for better or worse.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
I don't consciously apply specific limitations, even though I dump from my 16-track into my DAW where I have all the tracks I could want, but still, I rarely exceed 24 total tracks in the DAW. Most times I'm in the 18-20 track count, and 4-6 of those tracks are just splits from existing tracks that I use to create delays, which is no different than using an external delay with a tape deck, but it's just so easy to do it in the DAW, that I got rid of all my external delay boxes.
I use to work with a 4-track for a long time, and while it certainly does make you think about what/where/how...I never found that to be a major benefit for the specific song production, in the long run. Sure, it helps you think about the production a little more rather than just laying down endless tracks, but it also limits you a great deal even if you don't want to be limited.
I would rather be able to decide for myself how many tracks and how to use/mix them rather than have that dictated entirely by a small track count.
That said...I wouldn't have any problem working with just 8 tracks if need be, but I wouldn't always want to be limited by and thinking about track counts, rather than the production I would like to do for a given song.
Of course...if I was working with a whole band instead of just by myslef...that would make small track counts even easier to deal with.
I use to work with a 4-track for a long time, and while it certainly does make you think about what/where/how...I never found that to be a major benefit for the specific song production, in the long run. Sure, it helps you think about the production a little more rather than just laying down endless tracks, but it also limits you a great deal even if you don't want to be limited.
I would rather be able to decide for myself how many tracks and how to use/mix them rather than have that dictated entirely by a small track count.
That said...I wouldn't have any problem working with just 8 tracks if need be, but I wouldn't always want to be limited by and thinking about track counts, rather than the production I would like to do for a given song.
Of course...if I was working with a whole band instead of just by myslef...that would make small track counts even easier to deal with.
S
soulsonic
New member
Same here. In the 10+ years I used DAWs with "unlimited" tracks, I rarely exceeded 18-20 tracks. And that's recording all kinds of music too. But, I'm one of those guys who thinks using 8 or more tracks just for drums is completely excessive. LOL
I never mic hi-hats separately... they always bleed into EVERYTHING anyway. LOL
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
4 tracks - a stereo OH pair, spot on the Kick and spot on the Snare...done.
Never miked a HH....they're such pesky things, but you can't do without them.
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
Hate that too. Great thing about the AKAI, it's pretty much like the 488 to work, with real faders and stuff. But with the advantage of editing that saves me a whole load of wahala and the dreaded razor !Yeah, me neither. It's almost as bad (But not quite) as moving virtual faders one at a time with a mouse. Yuck!
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
I used to be Mr Authenticity. I had a Hammond organ, an upright piano, a double bass, a Hohner clavinet, a Fender Rhodes electric piano, a cello, a sitar, a tambura......I dug the authentic sound and still do. I was defeated by space and kids, but I would never have gone the VSTi route if I didn't feel they were close in sound to the real thing. The sitar is the only one I would say leaves alot to be desired at times. I use mainly real instruments and real people that sing and the vstis are mainly colouring. Whether I'm recording on tape or in the DAW, I use them in the same way. I play them live. It's funny, I've heard about sequencers for 20+ years, but until recently, I knew nothing about them. As far as I know !Until soft synths start sounding as good as the real ones I have I’ll still be doing it that way. My Moog, Ensoniq, Roland and Kurzweil synths are safe… they don’t have to worry about being replaced anytime soon.
I didn't grow up with digitalia at all. I was 41 when I first went digi and closer to 42 when I managed to connect it all and get it working ! Analog was without doubt easier to get moving on from the get~go.
Funny thing about records, even before the advent of CDs, I used to rearrange my albums to my desired order then put them on tape. I still do ! There's very few albums that survived the artists' original order but I do still think of those ones in terms of side one and two. But I ceased to actively operate that way in 1979 and even then it was only till I could afford the tape to record them onto !!
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
I don't agree with this. Well, not totally. I agree that small track counts caused those with big ideas to think in ways that they would never have done so if they'd had twice the amount of tracks. Albums like "Sergeant Pepper", "SF Sorrow", "Revolver" and others from the mid to late~ish 60s that were recorded on 4 tracks had to involve alot of forethought and bouncing {reduction mixes} and mixing on the fly. But the very fact that some of "Pepper" was recorded slaving two 4 tracks together {actually 7 tracks, one was a sync track, but this hadn't been done in a British studio prior to then} shows that far from spurring greater creativity, smaller track counts were felt by all concerned to be a hinderance to creativity. As soon as independent studios got hold of an 8 track, the Beatles, the Stones and their compadres started using them more and more. Can you name one major or minor artist that continued recording on 4 track once 8 came along ? And soon 16 track became the norm. Then 24......
I don't agree with that either. I think invention, creativity and character are not in any way dependent on the format. People making music deal with whatever tools they have to hand. Digital hasn't made my recordings better or worse. They're still pretty ropey ! I still have many of the same difficulties. And I'm still progressing in small steps. Just like in my totally analogue days.
D
desmond22
New member
cant delete...
Last edited:
D
desmond22
New member
Right on. The best music as far as im concerned was made in the analog domain, which is why i use it now for the last year. Used pro tools for 8 years , but once i got the tape machine i havent used PT since. My computer died at Xmas and i didnt even buy another one! i happily sacrifice 48 tracks and mega effects for 8 tracks and one reverb unit. it kicks, for real.
VESSEL2020
Somewhere in Space
Because I like tape saturation. 
I will probably die with a cassette in my pocket.
I will probably die with a cassette in my pocket.
A
Astralography
New member
Do things right.
Personally, I think digitized music of any sort sounds like garbage. But this is because I listen to music properly presented through a very nice restored vintage Scott 340 B Tube amp, have a good quality turntable (Music Hall with goldring) and a set of Klipsch Forte II speakers with 12" and 15" woofers and two horn drivers on each side. It's a quality set up. I can very much hear what is going on in a recording.
The beauty of having a good system is that you can hear what the groups and producers where up to when they were making these records. I am totally convinced that the digital revolution is killing music every year it exists a all levels. Music is analog. Our ears cannot and never will hear digital sound files. The converters are simply never going to get there. It's impossible. This last generation is only getting exposed to digital sound. They don't know, they are uneducated, and not much is being done about it.
It started with solid state.. pushed along by drum machines, digital processors midi and sampling. Music needs to be played either solo or in unison with other musicians to get the best possible chance at real magic and connection. A live performance. Every step away from this is a step away from the highest ideals. The best thing you can do is be as fine a musician and player as you can... perform the best songs you can with the best possible instruments you can get your hands on. Record them as honestly as you can onto tape through quality microphones that match the frequency range of the instruments. Play in a room that sounds good, and it doesn't hurt to have a few people around either.. an audience to vibe and play off. They you have a chance at doing something noble and worthwhile.
Diamonds will always be worth more than grains of sand.
Personally, I think digitized music of any sort sounds like garbage. But this is because I listen to music properly presented through a very nice restored vintage Scott 340 B Tube amp, have a good quality turntable (Music Hall with goldring) and a set of Klipsch Forte II speakers with 12" and 15" woofers and two horn drivers on each side. It's a quality set up. I can very much hear what is going on in a recording.
The beauty of having a good system is that you can hear what the groups and producers where up to when they were making these records. I am totally convinced that the digital revolution is killing music every year it exists a all levels. Music is analog. Our ears cannot and never will hear digital sound files. The converters are simply never going to get there. It's impossible. This last generation is only getting exposed to digital sound. They don't know, they are uneducated, and not much is being done about it.
It started with solid state.. pushed along by drum machines, digital processors midi and sampling. Music needs to be played either solo or in unison with other musicians to get the best possible chance at real magic and connection. A live performance. Every step away from this is a step away from the highest ideals. The best thing you can do is be as fine a musician and player as you can... perform the best songs you can with the best possible instruments you can get your hands on. Record them as honestly as you can onto tape through quality microphones that match the frequency range of the instruments. Play in a room that sounds good, and it doesn't hurt to have a few people around either.. an audience to vibe and play off. They you have a chance at doing something noble and worthwhile.
Diamonds will always be worth more than grains of sand.
B
Beck
Guest
saads
Baka
You have to realize not everyone is a music aficionado. The average young(ish) person listens to music in their car/bus on their way to work/school on an ipod or radio. Or in clubs, which is mostly techno. Few people want to take time out to listen to music on a turntable; and I doubt educating them will change that. The best way to move forward is to try to go with the flow as best as you can.
That said, I do agree with this a hundred percent VV
A
Astralography
New member
The #1 rule of art is to do it for yourself. That being said, remember, it's your art.. and you have a right to present it how you like. If others don't get it.. who cares really. If you are only trying to make money in music, go play on a cruise ship.
If you are serious about music, you need to spend some time studying how great records were made. If you can't hear what is going on because you are listening to music on an ipod, that's about the equivalent of showing up to biology class with a pair of bifocals while everyone else has a neutron microscope.
If you are serious about music, you need to spend some time studying how great records were made. If you can't hear what is going on because you are listening to music on an ipod, that's about the equivalent of showing up to biology class with a pair of bifocals while everyone else has a neutron microscope.
B
bruiser1964
Member
What can I say? your an idiot, you are trying to convince everybody (including yourself) that your spend on high end audio was worthwhile. I bet you're one of those fools who buys gold interconnects and little stands for your speaker cables
Get off your high horse, my ears hear digital sounds just fine, I can sell you some cotton buds if you can't ( special magic audio ones) for $10 each.
S
soulsonic
New member
Dude, the hi-fi system he described is very modest. There's a world of difference between a nice modest hi-fi and the obnoxious $100K+ systems you see on the pages of Stereophile.What can I say? your an idiot, you are trying to convince everybody (including yourself) that your spend on high end audio was worthwhile. I bet you're one of those fools who buys gold interconnects and little stands for your speaker cables
J
James K
Member
block vtvictor45? Mod?
O
ofajen
Daddy-O Daddy-O Baby
That's another reason I track and mix with tape. Given the hyper-compressed, drum-replaced, cut-and-pasted, autotuned, beat-locked crap that is all over the place in "professionally" recorded music, the last thing I want to be accused of is being "industry standard."
You are such a newcomer to this forum that I have no idea how many decades you have been recording, but rest assured that if your purpose is to carefully record a beautiful, dynamic, minimalist, high-resolution recording of authentic music played live or in complete, well-rehearsed tracks, the use of well-maintained tape machines is not a hindrance, and is generally a significant aid in that effort. The fact that this aim is so far from most professional recording practice these days is an indictment of the latter, not of the utility of the machines.
Cheers,
Otto
A
Astralography
New member
I find this post unacceptable, completely disrespectful and inappropriate.