Worst commercial mix you've ever heard? MIX CRIMES

[Greg_L]

I think the fact that they were doing the "home rec" all-analog approach was an attempt to get "fresh"...I think they know they were running out of things to say.

I think they're lying and pandering to idiot hipsters and wannabe audiophiles that are all anti-digital now because it's hip to be analog. I don't see anyone walking around with a turntable hanging from their hip. Recording in analog and releasing it on CD and iTunes kind of defeats the purpose and is nothing more than a dumb marketing ploy that many dummies bought into hook, line, and sinker.

 

[miroslav]

I agree.

Tracking in analog is fine, and using analog processing and mixing...but there's nothing wrong with also combining it with digital editing and mixing and then just focusing on the product rather than the process used.

I would be curious to hear if they feel their all-analog version really made a difference rather than using some digital too....?
They would probably say yes.

 

[Greg_L]

Analog is great. So is digital. I personally don't give a shit. Denouncing one or the other is audio snob douchebaggery, and I have to suspect the motives of anyone that would make a point to announce "Hey, we didn't use any computers!". WTF? Only a retard would care.

 

[miroslav]

OK...since things didn't chill on their own...I've deleted the off-topic posts and edited a couple of others.
Let's not start it up again...it's all back on-topic now.

No one lost, no one won....game called on account of rain.

 

[moresound]

It's raining?

 

[miroslav]

I'm sure it is....somewhere.

 

[grimtraveller]

Analog is great. So is digital. I personally don't give a shit. Denouncing one or the other is audio snob douchebaggery, and I have to suspect the motives of anyone that would make a point to announce "Hey, we didn't use any computers!".

Five points, five sentences and from me, five agreements.

 

[haunt]

Recording in analog and releasing it on CD and iTunes kind of defeats the purpose and is nothing more than a dumb marketing ploy that many dummies bought into hook, line, and sinker.

I couldn't disagree more with the 1st part of this. Marketing ploy, perhaps...I've seen stranger things celebrated...but recording [for example] drums to 2" tape through a Trident console & rack of outboard gems like 1176s and la2as makes a big difference compared with using a digital Tascam or Zoom, even if the end product is to be exclusively released as a CD or iTunes. Do you also believe that mastering to 1/2" tape is pointless if in the end the release is to be digital-only?

Depending on musical style, it ranges from somewhat apparent to blatantly obvious for the listener to distinguish between which recording was spawned in the pro domain and a project studio, even if the comparison is done by listening to compressed 128kbps mp3s in the end. Playback equipment also plays a huge role as well. If you can't hear such a difference then perhaps it's because you are incapable of doing so, or simply don't want to....or the person who recorded it is some kind of audio wizard.

 

[sammol]

Most modern metal bands have the worst mix. Particularly on the drums. They have the best example of overprocessing.

 

[Beat Poet]

Has anybody heard the first Jim Jones Revue album? If you think Death Magnetic is distorted, try that.

 

[Greg_L]

I couldn't disagree more with the 1st part of this. Marketing ploy, perhaps...I've seen stranger things celebrated...but recording [for example] drums to 2" tape through a Trident console & rack of outboard gems like 1176s and la2as makes a big difference compared with using a digital Tascam or Zoom, even if the end product is to be exclusively released as a CD or iTunes. Do you also believe that mastering to 1/2" tape is pointless if in the end the release is to be digital-only?
.

So you're saying that the Foo Fighters' only options were high end vintage analog gear, or.......cheap digital shit they bought from Musicians Friend? Really? When you make ridiculous comparisons like that it tells me you have no valid points. Surely Dave Grohl has better digital equipment at his disposal than a friggin Zoom interface. I was talking about the Foo Fighters, not some shmoe in his basement. Dave Grohl throws away better stuff than most home-recorder project studios have. But to sort of answer your not-so-well-thought-out question, had you actually used some common sense and compared apples to apples, I'd say that the average listener, including you and me, wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an analog or digital recording through digital playback systems if it was done on either high end analog or high end digital gear.

 

[Guitargodgt]

I'd say that the average listener, including you and me, wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an analog or digital recording through digital playback systems if it was done on either high end analog or high end digital gear.

It's hard to make this comparison because nobody has (that I have known of) tried recording the same song twice, using the same mics and mic placements, and guitars etc and only changing gear from an all anolog setup to something all digital.

For what it's worth though, I have heard direct comparisons of CLA classic comps and a real 1176 and there is a difference... but it was slight. I was impressed at how close wavs got to the real deal.

 

[Greg_L]

It's hard to make this comparison because nobody has (that I have known of) tried recording the same song twice, using the same mics and mic placements, and guitars etc and only changing gear from an all anolog setup to something all digital.
.

Right but let's use common sense here and make an objective guess. Assume a professional elite-status band with virtually unlimited budget, such as the Foo Fighters, recorded an entire album using high end analog gear, and then the same album using high end digital gear. And then the two albums were mastered the same way by the same guy and put to CD or downloadable digital format. I'm betting that no one will be able to tell which is which using consumer playback devices and/or without knowing what they're actually listening for. And on top of that, it shouldn't even matter. Since when does the way something was recorded matter? Who buys or listens to music based on where or how it was recorded? That's dumb.

 

[miroslav]

I'm betting that no one will be able to tell which is which using consumer playback devices and/or without knowing what they're actually listening for. And on top of that, it shouldn't even matter. Since when does the way something was recorded matter? Who buys or listens to music based on where or how it was recorded? That's dumb.

I do agree that promoting how something was recorded is BS, and it's mainly marketing BS to try and excite the audio nostalgic crowd (in the case of the FF saying they did it all-analog). I guess it was some attempt to cash in on the "old-school" fans, as it's the same with anything, people always think it was better in the old-days.

I think that in your scenario...there would be some sonic difference going analog VS digital and then delivering either on CD, however those differences would be mainly of a subjective nature. There is no way that one would be "better/worse" than the other, unless they totally screwed up something when recording and didn't use either medium to it's fullest potential.

I'm a big analog fan...still track to tape, but I've long gotten over the "analog rules, digital sucks" mentality that was so prevalent 10-15 years ago (just like the Mac/PC wars). I use both in a hybrid setup, and both are workable to get a good end product.
That said, purely for the "cool" factor, if I had to choose which type of studio to record in or own (absolutely elite analog or elite digital)....mmmmmmmm....I would have to go for the analog.
Though how much I've gotten into digital editing and being able to manipulate the audio would certainly be missed!!!

 

[Greg_L]

I think that in your scenario...there would be some sonic difference going analog VS digital and then delivering either on CD, however those differences would be mainly of a subjective nature. There is no way that one would be "better/worse" than the other, unless they totally screwed up something when recording and didn't use either medium to it's fullest potential.

Right. I'm not talking about good or bad or better or worse though. I'm talking about giving some shmoe with earbuds the task of telling the difference between a professionally recorded analog album and a professionally recorded digital album. They might like one or the other better for whatever personal reasons they choose, but I'm betting they won't be able to say "this one is analog and that one is digital".

 

[miroslav]

.... but I'm betting they won't be able to say "this one is analog and that one is digital".

Yes...I agree that most wouldn't.
It might take some studio engineer dude who has extensive experience with both to be able to spot that...but the fans, not really.

I think what people do spot is when an album is trashed (which is really the subject of this thread)...and it is possible to trash something with either analog or digital gear.
Analog is no guarantee that it will sound perfect, and I bet with the majority of the "younger dudes" recording these days, analog would be more difficult for them to use than digital, mainly 'cuz they've grown up at the computer using DAWs.
That is obvious by how many of them still struggle at the analog front-end (mics, pres)...but then seem to be comfortable with the DAW mixing/processing stages.

 

[Guitargodgt]

Right but let's use common sense here and make an objective guess. Assume a professional elite-status band with virtually unlimited budget, such as the Foo Fighters, recorded an entire album using high end analog gear, and then the same album using high end digital gear. And then the two albums were mastered the same way by the same guy and put to CD or downloadable digital format. I'm betting that no one will be able to tell which is which using consumer playback devices and/or without knowing what they're actually listening for. And on top of that, it shouldn't even matter. Since when does the way something was recorded matter? Who buys or listens to music based on where or how it was recorded? That's dumb.

I would like to make it clear that I completely agree with you and analog snobs are nothing short of crazy.

But I'm willing to guess you could tell if something was 100% analog or 100% digital (using super high end products and hardware in both examples of course). I'm willing to bet on this because it's when one or the other starts getting stacked on top of each other that things become more noticeable. One track with CLA 1176 on it compared to one track of a real 1176 isn't a "holy shit listen to how crazy different that is" experience.

But you are right, in the end that shit doesn't matter. If it sounds good it is good.

 

[Greg_L]

But I'm willing to guess you could tell if something was 100% analog or 100% digital (using super high end products and hardware in both examples of course).

I agree on that. With high/pro level playback quality, one probably could tell the difference, or at least notice a difference. The average Joe on his earbuds is the opposite of that though.

 

[kidkage]

It's hard to make this comparison because nobody has (that I have known of) tried recording the same song twice, using the same mics and mic placements, and guitars etc and only changing gear from an all anolog setup to something all digital.

I dont really know if this is worth anything. And the song is annoying, but I'll take any opportunity to post a link to something.

 

[Guitargodgt]

Man I highly respect Steve, but he is dead ass wrong about the durability of tape. There is a reason the library of congress is transferring a lot of old recordings to the digital domain for future proofing. A lot of recordings are being lost due to it's lack of durability or shitty storage.