Farview
Well-known member
I stand corrected. But even that still isn't any better than editing analog tape.
I stand corrected. But even that still isn't any better than editing analog tape.
G
Greg_L
Banned
But you sure kept going anyway.
Didn't you say this was pointless? I was just restating your own words. You, them, aren't doing anything worthwhile here. I'm not either. This whole thread is dumb.
B
bongoboy
a clown without a circus
I just tried editing a track with a razor blade. Now I know what's inside a Samsung monitor.
DM60
Well-known member
You guys South of the Equator, how's the weather down there? Is it causing issues with your analog tape?
B
bongoboy
a clown without a circus
That would depend on how far South, wouldn't it?
bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
True, but sound quality wasn't so dependent on deck maintenance. For the most part what went in came out the same every time. To me that's the primary advantage of digital, consistency. You don't have to manage constantly shifting performance. Add budget constraints and it becomes even more of an advantage.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Well...I think we all did.
Yup...the whole A vs D crap is pointless.
Both formats have their good and bad sides.
G
Greg_L
Banned
I really don't understand, and frankly don't trust anyone that religiously adheres to one side or the other. I get why people may prefer either side, but fuck, this shit isn't this serious.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
I was like that about 10 years ago....ANALOG RULES!...DIGITAL IS EVIL!...and all that.
Then, being a day gig computer guy, and also working with multimedia and digital video....I started using digital more and more, and I'm talking like back in '95 I started using a DAW with my tape deck in my personal studio setup, including all the MIDI sampling & sequencing stuff...but I was still quite reserved about the digital and MIDI stuff.
I still had my "suspicions" about it...and all that.
Of course, back then, there was NOTHING like what we have today with DAWs. Even the MIDI sampling/sequencing was still pretty crude then....so I just clung to the analog mentality until the digital stuff slowly started coming around and I began messing more and more with digital audio and making direct comparisons and being as honest with myself as I could about that.
After awhile, I fell into the hybrid analog/digital mode that I've stuck with ever since, and the last 5 years or so, all the silly negative attitudes about digital have fallen away completely, purely by me using it side-by-side with my analog/tape gear.
I still have an affection for tape on the front end, but I love all my digital plugs, and the DAW environment absolutely ROCKS! for total production work.
I was recently saying on the Analog forum how I can easily see myself doing ITB mixing in the near future, rather than always using the console/rack gear approach. Not that I plan to give up the console/rack gear...just the fact that the current crop of plugs, and the latest DAW functionality and quality makes it appealing to me. I mean, it's there if I want/need to do ITB work. That said....I just can't let go of my tape for tracking up front. I mean, I have the decks, it's all tied in, so I have no reason to give it up...at least I see no "audio quality" reason to give up tape as my front end.
If I didn't have the decks already, I could easily get where I want these days by going pre-to-DAW when tracking.
It's just a difference in the sound....different flavors...and not so much about either being "better or worse".
So now days....I too can't understand the almost religious fanatic positions that some people still take on either side...like if they had to use the "other" format, their audio would just disintegrate into pure crap.
G
Greg_L
Banned
The first time I ever recorded digitally was in 1999. I don't even remember the setup. I think it was ADAT microdisk or something. I had no idea digital recording was even possible. I had run into an acquaintance that I had known previously but lost touch with and he told me about his recording studio and offered to record some stuff for me. I was like "sure", not expecting much from this burnout guy. At the very least we'd drink some beers and catch up with each other. Everything I'd done up to that point was straight tape, and only as the "talent", not the engineer/mixer. Anyway I went to his house, looked at all his computer shit, and thought "no way, this aint gonna work". But it did, and it was amazing to me. There I was, multitracking all by myself, just laying my own tracks in this dude's house, all on a computer. I never wanted to look at tape again.
muttley600
Banned
Thread = dumb..
Farview
Well-known member
I'm pretty sure that is why people started migrating away from analog.
haunt
Maker of Noise
Digital/Tape is better...except when it isn't
You're entitled to the uninformed position that "tape is tape" but please understand, you're technically wrong. As in factually incorrect/don't know what you're talking about. The tape and the machine themselves are both deterministic to the medium's potential and limitations. As is the user. In this case, you've admitted being a non-user...who has invested more effort trying to be right...while criticizing something you know little about...with minimal concern for getting the facts correct. Reminds me of a Plato quote...but I digress.
Enter confirmation bias. I was unaware one can become an expert on equipment they've never used, don't understand or possess any genuine interest in...by simply downloading and skimming the user manual to cherry pick numbers that suit a specific entrenched position.
Studio monitors do not benefit from THD, whereas tape can. Tape's intrinsic qualities can be used as an effect, monitors are engineered to be as transparent as possible by design; to reveal what has been captured to that point with minimal coloration. No effect. Apples & Oranges.
As a self-proclaimed, uninitiated critic of tape use at the pro level, is there anything you don't know about it?
"Digital recording is far better" as an absolute, is an opinion...or philosophy...and not a factual statement. It's a platitude I, too used to believe until my horizons expanded from experience and exploration.
Currently, I think *most* harmonic distortion makes *most* music sound better...especially if it's of the tube variety. No, I wouldn't buy monitors with high THD, as it defeats their point. But equipment for performance and/or tracking? Bring it on!
I use a 50 year old PA with 5% THD to give some extra character to my samplers, drum machines & synths. I could use an ultralinear amp...but minimal distortion and maximum transparency can get boring very quickly...and aren't necessarily flattering qualities to have in music. Certainly not as a catch-all. IMO YMMV and so on.
You're entitled to the uninformed position that "tape is tape" but please understand, you're technically wrong. As in factually incorrect/don't know what you're talking about. The tape and the machine themselves are both deterministic to the medium's potential and limitations. As is the user. In this case, you've admitted being a non-user...who has invested more effort trying to be right...while criticizing something you know little about...with minimal concern for getting the facts correct. Reminds me of a Plato quote...but I digress.
Enter confirmation bias. I was unaware one can become an expert on equipment they've never used, don't understand or possess any genuine interest in...by simply downloading and skimming the user manual to cherry pick numbers that suit a specific entrenched position.
Studio monitors do not benefit from THD, whereas tape can. Tape's intrinsic qualities can be used as an effect, monitors are engineered to be as transparent as possible by design; to reveal what has been captured to that point with minimal coloration. No effect. Apples & Oranges.
As a self-proclaimed, uninitiated critic of tape use at the pro level, is there anything you don't know about it?
"Digital recording is far better" as an absolute, is an opinion...or philosophy...and not a factual statement. It's a platitude I, too used to believe until my horizons expanded from experience and exploration.
Currently, I think *most* harmonic distortion makes *most* music sound better...especially if it's of the tube variety. No, I wouldn't buy monitors with high THD, as it defeats their point. But equipment for performance and/or tracking? Bring it on!
I use a 50 year old PA with 5% THD to give some extra character to my samplers, drum machines & synths. I could use an ultralinear amp...but minimal distortion and maximum transparency can get boring very quickly...and aren't necessarily flattering qualities to have in music. Certainly not as a catch-all. IMO YMMV and so on.
haunt
Maker of Noise
IDGI either, and certainly don't trust the judgement of cultists, myself.
Personal preferences are fine. We're all highly opinionated in some capacity (on an audio board, go figure!)
It's the Extremist/kool aid-drinkers who insist they know what's best in any given situation (their gospel) and sentiment trumps fact, I find obnoxious.
Such mentality reminds me of stuffy 'boomers who swear guitar rock died in the 80s because they lionize arena rock or the hair band, spandex-clad weedily-deedily shoehorned guitar solos...resenting "Alternative" and "Grunge" styles (which they're highly ignorant of) that are viewed with such hostility it causes them to cease being curious about the unknown (swearing one already knows everything worth knowing) and hinders experiencing bands like Sonic Youth, MBV, Bitch Magnet, Pixies, Slint, Polvo, Hum, Low, Unwound etc
c7sus
Disenfranchised Member
"..... and then we convert it to MP3 and post it on iTunes so folks can listen on $.49 earbuds or Dre's overhyped headphones."
thread//
thread//
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Yeah....there's always that "why bother" kind of reality....but you know, these days I don't much give a fuck about what it sounds like in that low-fi scenario. It may sound selfish, but for me the pleasure is in the sound when I'm recording and what I'm hearing on my playback system.
Sure, I try to make the MP3's sound as best as they can....but I really don't lose much sleep over what happens when converted to MP3.
It's kinda like saying...why drive a really fast sports car, when you have to drive with all the schmoes on the road in their stupid SUVs, doing 55MPH.
(I'm looking to buy an SUV for a second car.)
c7sus
Disenfranchised Member
Yeah....there's always that "why bother" kind of reality....but you know, these days I don't much give a fuck about what it sounds like in that low-fi scenario. It may sound selfish, but for me the pleasure is in the sound when I'm recording and what I'm hearing on my playback system.
Sure, I try to make the MP3's sound as best as they can....but I really don't lose much sleep over what happens when converted to MP3.
It's kinda like saying...why drive a really fast sports car, when you have to drive with all the schmoes on the road in their stupid SUVs, doing 55MPH.
(I'm looking to buy an SUV for a second car.)
I get that. I don't record a whole lot because to me it's like building a watch. These days I am much more into "sounds".
I always dug the Leslie sound so I got one. I always liked monosynths too so I picked up a Voyager and a Taurus 3. The Voyager through a cranked Leslie sounds like nothing else. Guitars sound great through a Leslie too. I have softsynths too, and some of them are pretty good. Sure, I would love to have a Wurlie or a Clavinet D6 or a Rhodes 73 or a B3 for that matter, but I can't justify the expense and don't have the room. Then there is maintaining those instruments over time. Samplers fill my needs for most of those types of sounds.
I'd rather play. I listen to a lot of live streams and love to noodle along with Phil & Friends or whomever on the Voyager. I can switch from a bass to a lead with just a few twists of a couple knobs. That's the one thing that just isn't as fun doing with samples or virtual synths.
To anybody out there, if you ever have the bread and desire to get into monosynths I HIGHLY recommend the Voyager. It is a truly amazing instrument.
In the end everything is just a tool. I remember the Guitar Rig thread and I'm sure there are lots of folks getting sounds they like from that approach. With guitars and synths I prefer everything in the path to be analog rather than digital. To my ears it just sounds better. Programming a patch or effect with a menu is much more tedious than twisting a couple knobs or stomping a switch. Besides, I didn't sink all this dough into analog synths and stompboxes just to ram it through a cheap A/D converter in a multi-FX box.
I can spend hours tweaking a phaser or chorus and just digging the results. I happen to like the artifacts of BBD chips. You can't get that sound out of a digital delay. I like adding feedback until it sounds like the speakers are gonna explode.
OTOH, as far as tape vs digital for recording, digital wins hands down for me. I don't want to mess around calibrating stuff and demagnetizing heads and trying to find tape. I see old decks all the time on Craigslist and think it would be fun to pick one up sometime. But when I record something I just want to record it. Like somebody mentioned earlier, digital recording is consistent. It doesn't require any maintenance. It takes up zero space in my room.
Which leaves me just enough space for a new Sub 37 Tribute.
B
Beck
Guest
True, and this is nothing new. The "Digital Revolution" was solely responsible for the "Tube (Valve) Revival" which followed closely on the heals of the Digital Revolution. Those of us who lived through the transformation from analog to digital remember digital sound was problematic from the start. We were always trying to "fix" it and we still are.
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
Well, let's put it this way. You know how sometimes you have to bake analogue tape that's been stored too long without winding through it? Well, just now we don't need an oven.
Ain't that the truth. The way people listen these days has a far bigger effect on quality than this esoteric and everlasting debate about analogue vs digital.
May I buy your rose coloured glasses. The amount of time I spent adjust azimuth and drive currents and everything else to just make a recording sound something near the original made me VERY happy when I did the conversion. If you like the effect that analogue has on your sound that's great and I fight for your right to use it. Just don't assume that's the only way to go.
Having said that, I have to say (with the greatest respect to ecc83) is that to judge analogue technology from a domestic cassette deck or a cheap Akai is not totally fair There WERE big differences in performance and quality when you stepped up to pro level gear.
...and that's one of the things about digital. It has hugely minimised the differences between "pro" and "amateur" equipment.
haunt
Maker of Noise
I get that. I don't record a whole lot because to me it's like building a watch. These days I am much more into "sounds".
I always dug the Leslie sound so I got one. I always liked monosynths too so I picked up a Voyager and a Taurus 3. The Voyager through a cranked Leslie sounds like nothing else. Guitars sound great through a Leslie too. I have softsynths too, and some of them are pretty good. Sure, I would love to have a Wurlie or a Clavinet D6 or a Rhodes 73 or a B3 for that matter, but I can't justify the expense and don't have the room. Then there is maintaining those instruments over time. Samplers fill my needs for most of those types of sounds.
I'd rather play. I listen to a lot of live streams and love to noodle along with Phil & Friends or whomever on the Voyager. I can switch from a bass to a lead with just a few twists of a couple knobs. That's the one thing that just isn't as fun doing with samples or virtual synths.
To anybody out there, if you ever have the bread and desire to get into monosynths I HIGHLY recommend the Voyager. It is a truly amazing instrument.
In the end everything is just a tool. I remember the Guitar Rig thread and I'm sure there are lots of folks getting sounds they like from that approach. With guitars and synths I prefer everything in the path to be analog rather than digital. To my ears it just sounds better. Programming a patch or effect with a menu is much more tedious than twisting a couple knobs or stomping a switch. Besides, I didn't sink all this dough into analog synths and stompboxes just to ram it through a cheap A/D converter in a multi-FX box.
I can spend hours tweaking a phaser or chorus and just digging the results. I happen to like the artifacts of BBD chips. You can't get that sound out of a digital delay. I like adding feedback until it sounds like the speakers are gonna explode.
OTOH, as far as tape vs digital for recording, digital wins hands down for me. I don't want to mess around calibrating stuff and demagnetizing heads and trying to find tape. I see old decks all the time on Craigslist and think it would be fun to pick one up sometime. But when I record something I just want to record it. Like somebody mentioned earlier, digital recording is consistent. It doesn't require any maintenance. It takes up zero space in my room.
Which leaves me just enough space for a new Sub 37 Tribute.
Underlined quotes for emphasis.
Tonehunting and sound synthesis sure is consuming. One can quickly get caught up in the GAS cycle, especially now that we're in the golden age of boutique stompboxes and effects. I've resisted getting a 500 series/Lunch Box because that will get out of hand quickly with Shadow Hills pres and Moog ladder filters, delay, passive parametrics...phew. Big bucks territory. But it will be realized someday and keep me interested in the spirit of exploration. I'm just finding my way out of nearly 3 years of guitar rig assembly and should check out that other thread to compare notes...
I think recording typically gets in the way of playing. One of the lesser romanticized benefits of digital recording is the ability to just let it run and record a 50 minute take without interruption or changing reels...and not burn up money in the process. Disk space is cheap, tape is not. This encourages all sorts of experimentation on the user end. So does assembling an intricate signal chain, be it for guitar, synths or whatever. Analog and/or digital.
Re: BBD chips. I'm right there with ya. I currently own five 30+ year old Deluxe Memory Man delays. All 5 knob versions, all slightly different from one another in response/sound/gain/decay/transient preservation etc. An effect that was created to simulate a tapeless EP-3, and wound up being so much more. Now I'm a time traveler looking to bask in artifacts from the past. The oscillations are otherworldly and mesmerizing. Could spend hours just tweaking a few knobs while basic breaks or arpeggios play.
I have similar affinity for the Uni Vibe, which was an *unsuccessful* attempt at simulating Leslie cabs but wound up being its own brand of iconic modulation. No UV emulation I've tried does it justice, capturing the low end throb without changing the mid/high end character of stacked fuzz. BBD chips, photocell+lamps, transformers and inductance coils all have their sounds, and deviation in component tolerances lead to happy accidents. When all technology has its limitations and perceived flaws, sometimes the flaws happen to be essential to the sound. With analog circuitry I find this is the rule more than the exception, and finding a way to utilize flaws to one's advantage is one of the most enriching paths to personal growth.
PS: I'm envious of anyone with a legit Leslie cab. And Voyager...Taurus...Sub 37 to round things out. Especially together in a single setup. That rules!