THIS is why plugins are the way forward.
Old 22nd April 2012
  #2251
Lives for gear
 
mizzle's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post
Mizzle, if you find someone else's test flawed or care not to believe the opinions of others who are in the trenches using both analog AND digital and have gotten their hands dirty with their own testing then it leaves you with two choices. Express your opinion with no experience to base it on or do your own testing and post your observations and conclusions. Just frame your post accurately and contribute so like with all posters here we can tell if you are sincere in your beliefs or instead have an agenda or financial interest. Lastly, per your post in the old "Vinyl vs. CD" thread I have to wonder about your monitering setup. Is it possible you don't have it set up so you can hear pin point 3D info? I checked your user profile to see if there were any links to a studio site showing pictures and didn't see any. I'm not trying to slag you here but given the multitude of home setup pics I've seen on this site with two small nearfields on a desk pushed against a wall it's a legit question.
All you have to do is *listen* to the A/B samples provided in your link. A cursory one-time-though examination should yield the obvious panning differences in the high-hat. In light of the massive change in localization, this is something that could be heard on almost any system with basic stereophonic capabilities, including *gasp* a laptop or some earbuds.
Old 22nd April 2012
  #2252
sounds like the whole mix is opposite, like he hooked the cables up backwards...terrible comparison, many flaws...a lot of that going on around here...sad...
Old 22nd April 2012
  #2253
Lives for gear
 
UnderTow's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzle View Post
I checked out this thread and the audio example it is based on renders all the discussion fundamentally flawed. Why? Because the A/B samples here are of two different mixes! How do I know that? Because if you listen to the position of the high-hat, you will notice that it is almost dead-center in the A sample and about 50% left on the B sample. There are many differences that can appear in a change of mastering format, but simple panning information is not one of them! Given that no one seemed to notice this telltale flaw makes me question the veracity of any of the claims made subsequently.
Different mixes, different levels, different sections... And Bassmankr is questioning your listening setup?

Alistair
Old 22nd April 2012
  #2254
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by u b k View Post
....I don't get that at all. I think as much or more of the real innovation we experience, whether it be tech or conceptual or whatever, comes from left of center, outside the box, aberrant, accidental, experimental, randomly inspired genius.... Gut thinking, craftsmanship, intuition, practice, and happy accidents litter the stories of the people who push things outwards.

But the scientific method? Responsible for 'all of the machines' we use? I don't understand how that's the case.
And I don't understand how it can not be the case?

Would Guglielmo Marconi be able to invent the radio solely by being a "creative" out-of-the-box thinker? Or was it because he was born, raised, and educated in a world where Hertz, Maxwell, and Faraday had already done their extensive research into the nature of waves and electromagnetism?

Where did guys like Hertz, Maxwell and Faraday get their information? From rigorous testing and experimenting, removing variables. From the scientific method. And from studying the scientists who came before them. It was the rigor of each scientist's work that made it possible to build upon.


Why didn't somebody invent a radio in 1492 if the progression of scientific knowledge is not a prerequisite to invention? There were innovative craftsmen around then...

Consider how many of the "big" inventions of the last couple of centuries involved literal races to the patent office! Almost every inventor hero has a competitor's skeleton or two in his closet. The 'maverick thinking' of the inventor himself is obviously overrated if several people are always in the running for the title of "First".

That's because Accumulated Scientific Knowledge not only made the invention possible, Accumulated Scientific Knowledge made the invention inevitable.


I would turn the question around: how many examples of a machine we use that was created in total scientific ignorance? Invented in a vacuum as it were. By a guy who knew no science. In a world where the science behind the invention was unknown.

Someone who built a "radio" before anyone knew what electromagnetism was? Could the microphone exist before the understanding of electricity? It always can be traced back to the Hard Science of pure research, experiments and testing that figures out the behavior of the natural world - before the inventor figures out a way to capitalize on it.



Quote:
In other words, what's actually at stake if they're left to their ways? Will our field suffer? Will the state of the state decline? What is it we're *actually* talking about here?
Pet peeve. I discarded a very long answer to this. It involved Tobacco Company advertising from the 50's belittling cancer researchers, global warming, and children in China NOT having to listen to Creationism lectures in their Biology classes.

It's true, it doesn't matter much if the people who say the Loch Ness monster is 'real' are right. But it does matter if the Doctors are right or the Tobacco Company Shills are right, because people will get cancer and die regardless of what they "believe".

So our method (science) for determining which is the truth and which is the lie should be respected. When somebody attacks the scientific method Itself and says "it doesn't work" merely because they don't like the results it gave on power cables, that's bad for everyone in the long run. If we tolerate scientific illiteracy and ignorance in 'silly' things, we run the risk of tolerating it in the important things.
Quote
1
Old 22nd April 2012
  #2255
Lives for gear
 
UnderTow's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
If we tolerate scientific illiteracy and ignorance in 'silly' things, we run the risk of tolerating it in the important things.
Hear hear! You wrote many of the things I couldn't be bothered to write.

We get frustrated and even angry at some of the comments in these kind of threads because of what they represent: Hubris.

Alistair
Old 22nd April 2012
  #2256
Lives for gear
 
mizzle's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
Hear hear! You wrote many of the things I couldn't be bothered to write.

Alistair
+1

Technological discoveries are made by improving science, not by rejecting it.

Once certain questions have been answered, it becomes detrimental to progression if we continue asking the same questions and expect different results. From Platonic solids to subatomic particles, a lot of legwork has already been done for us. Lets not fritter it away on Cheetos and Coca-Cola.
Old 23rd April 2012
  #2257
Lives for gear
 
djui5's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by u b k View Post
DJUI5! When the f**k did you come back???


Gregory Scott - ubk
People keep sending me PM's I figured I would browse around while I was here. Things seem about the same. I love it. Plus I need two more posts to be at 6,666
Old 23rd April 2012
  #2258
Lives for gear
 

Mizzle, I'm talking about your comments in that thread to the guy posting about the Lou Reed song not about some test files there. I've never listened to those files myself so who knows what is going on there. What I have done on too many occasions to list is compare sources to capture methods and done the easy to do comparison between a CD release and Vinyl release of the SAME title which most of the posters in that thread and several other Vinyl vs. CD type threads are sharing their own testing experiences about (not about that paticular file either).

So I'm still curious as to your monitering setup (pics even) which you have not commented on yet. I brought up the question as you did not seem to understand his description of the background singers being pinpoint located between center and left and moving forward and eventually past the listening position. While he may not have used the best words to describe that sound event, anyone familar with 3D sound would have gotten what he was saying easily yet you decided to post about his particular words, hence me wondering about your monitering setup. While it's easy to get hung up arguing about ONE tree in the forest it is more important to look at the whole forest. I see plenty of pics of monitering setups here where I have to wonder if they can hear proper 3D at all. I'm just wondering if you fall in that group and if so what we can do to help you setup a better monitering enviroment to even hear what we are talking about in the first place. It's not necessarily about what speakers you use as I've said previously I've got a small pair of $20 KLH's by an internet box for listening to the radio and CD's that I get great 3D out of, it's mostly about the room and placement (when something is 3D I can hear it, when something is Flat I can hear it). Again I'm not trying to slag you but given your posts I have to wonder if you are hearing 3D in the first place.
Old 23rd April 2012
  #2259
Lives for gear
 

By the way Marconi DID'NT invent the radio, he just got credit for it.

http://www.km5kg.com/marconi.htm

None of us should ever stop learning and thus should be experimenting and testing. Look at every major sound engineer you can list and that is one of their core traits. While we may have firm beliefs in tools and methods it is just as important to continue to challenge them and post our personal experiences in comparing them. Get your hands dirty boys and find out for yourself, it will only make you a better engineer.
Old 23rd April 2012
  #2260
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post
By the way Marconi DID'NT invent the radio, he just got credit for it.

http://www.km5kg.com/marconi.htm
that is exactly my point:

Quote:
Originally Posted by me
Consider how many of the "big" inventions of the last couple of centuries involved literal races to the patent office! Almost every inventor hero has a competitor's skeleton or two in his closet. The 'maverick thinking' of the inventor himself is obviously overrated if several people are always in the running for the title of "First".

That's because Accumulated Scientific Knowledge not only made the invention possible, Accumulated Scientific Knowledge made the invention inevitable.
Old 23rd April 2012
  #2261
Gear addict
 
Fenris's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tha]-[acksaw View Post
In the analog world, I can't get infinite channels, with infinite storage space, with infinite processors, and all the automation in the world, for the price I paid for my computer alone. MATH DONE!
I have exactly the same capabilities in my studio, jackass. As I have said repeatedly, I HAVE a DAW and I USE a DAW. I just don't believe in making it the center of my studio or spending more than a few hundred bucks on it.

As for your complaints about all the money you've spent in the past fixing analog gear, that's because you're compariing OLD analog gear to BRAND-NEW digital gear. The digital gear will eventually break down too, the difference is that it won't be repairable.

Yes, maintaining analog gear is a pain in the ass. Yes, you sometimes end up with a piece of gear that's a lemon. But these problems are not magically solved by going digital. You're just trading them for a DIFFERENT and more annoying set of problems.

I will continue to discount most of what comes out of your mouth as fabrication.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
Originally Posted by Fenris
Analog ... offers a much wider range of sonic possibilities.

Do you really believe that?
Correction: USEFUL sonic possibilities. There's no sense in having 10,000 different sounds if 9,997 of them are useless.

Quote:
Give me an ICON or System 5 over any analogue console for ergonomics. You seem to be confusing digital and plugins on a laptop or something. (Although even with plugins, I prefer the ergonomics of an ICON. One set of permanent controls in a fixed physical location to control a vast array of processors.
That's exactly what I DON'T like about the ergonomics of DAW controllers. It's not as good as dedicated controls. The controls and the readouts are physically separated, instead of being in the same place.

What's more, I can buy a real console with preamps, EQ, monitoring, summing, and faders built-in, for a lot LESS than the cost of an ICON. And it won't become obsolete and unsupported 5 or 10 years down the road.

Like I keep saying, even when a DAW works perfectly, it just isn't that great.

Quote:
I'll +2 the tha]-[acksaw and psycho_monkey. Feel free to go. You are being extremely rude while not actually bringing anything interesting to the discussion.

Alistair
I'm just throwing "Hacksaw's" rudeness right back at him. He repeatedly claims that analog diehards are ignorant, stupid, incompetent, living in the past, et cetera. He started the fight.
Old 23rd April 2012
  #2262
Lives for gear
 
mizzle's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post
Mizzle, I'm talking about your comments in that thread to the guy posting about the Lou Reed song not about some test files there. I've never listened to those files myself so who knows what is going on there.
1. HEY! Get it together. You came here and posted a link to that thread which was based on the listening examples provided, and you now say you haven't even listened to the them? 0_o

2. As far as the Lou Reed piece, I was referring to the description given about stereo information which was clearly physically impossible. The description he gave was impossible under any circumstances with any stereo material and I was merely pointing out that 2+2?5. It's like saying your microwave works when it's not plugged in.

The monitoring setup is of little importance to the point I was making about the link that you provided and did not listen to. I was remarking about basic panning information of a high-hat which should be discernible on just about any 2-channel system.

If you do anymore backtracking of loopy, aberrant recontextualizations, I am going to ignore you. The conversation cannot progress if you don't even listen to an audio example that you yourself provide a link to.
Old 23rd April 2012
  #2263
Lives for gear
 
mizzle's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
I have exactly the same capabilities in my studio, jackass. As I have said repeatedly, I HAVE a DAW and I USE a DAW. I just don't believe in making it the center of my studio or spending more than a few hundred bucks on it.

As for your complaints about all the money you've spent in the past fixing analog gear, that's because you're compariing OLD analog gear to BRAND-NEW digital gear. The digital gear will eventually break down too, the difference is that it won't be repairable.

Yes, maintaining analog gear is a pain in the ass. Yes, you sometimes end up with a piece of gear that's a lemon. But these problems are not magically solved by going digital. You're just trading them for a DIFFERENT and more annoying set of problems.

I will continue to discount most of what comes out of your mouth as fabrication.

Correction: USEFUL sonic possibilities. There's no sense in having 10,000 different sounds if 9,997 of them are useless.

That's exactly what I DON'T like about the ergonomics of DAW controllers. It's not as good as dedicated controls. The controls and the readouts are physically separated, instead of being in the same place.

What's more, I can buy a real console with preamps, EQ, monitoring, summing, and faders built-in, for a lot LESS than the cost of an ICON. And it won't become obsolete and unsupported 5 or 10 years down the road.

Like I keep saying, even when a DAW works perfectly, it just isn't that great.


I'm just throwing "Hacksaw's" rudeness right back at him. He repeatedly claims that analog diehards are ignorant, stupid, incompetent, living in the past, et cetera. He started the fight.
You are the most boring broken record. Pun intended.
Quote
1
Old 23rd April 2012
  #2264
Gear addict
 
Fenris's Avatar
 

I'll repeat it as many times as necessary. As long as the digital mavens keep up their Nigel Tufnel "But this goes to 11" act, I'll continue to call bullshit on them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYINGJAY View Post
If AE's can't mix with these Plugins,the problem ain't the gear.
I can't mix with these plug-ins. At least not without a lot of recalls, tweaking, and frustration.

And yet, I CAN mix with a modest collection of lower-end outboard gear.

And I spend 10 years working entirely ITB before I ever used analog gear.

Funny how that works.

BTW, all this talk about A/B double-blind testing is BESIDE THE POINT. A simple A/B test tells you NOTHING about how a processor performs IN THE CONTEXT OF A FULL MIX with ADDITIONAL DOWNSTREAM PROCESSING.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, you're in the wrong business.
Old 23rd April 2012
  #2265
Gear Guru
 
theblue1's Avatar
 

I believe this is the first time I've looked into this thread -- though I've watched it snowball for a long time.

Mind you, the reason I never looked in was because I figured it would, sooner or later, become what I see it has certainly become.


But that doesn't exactly make me psychic.
Old 23rd April 2012
  #2266
Gear addict
 
Fenris's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by archfrenemy View Post
You still don't get what I am saying at all. Currently we are capturing samples and calculating them into "a" continuous waveform, not recording "the" continuous waveform. So you believe it is the identical thing... Fine. I am not convinced that we are already recording the full detail that can be perceived by the human ear. Please share any detailed studies found on the subject. Short of that, I am going to focus my time in the studio rather than continue repeating myself.
I strongly disagree with this. I think digital is just fine and does indeed reproduce everything that human hearing can resolve. The problem isn't "non-continuous waveforms." The problem is the whole idea that "accuracy" is the END-ALL and BE-ALL of sonic reproduction.

Digital converter technology was more or less "perfect" 15 years ago. It's the specific implementation, especially the analog circuitry, that affects the sound quality of a converter.

I'm perfectly happy mixing to digital, because by that point I've already got it sounding the way I want. I really CAN'T tell the difference between the desk output and the digital capture. Nor can I tell the difference between 24/96 and the same file donwsampled to 16/44.1.

It's TRACKING to digital that's a pain, because you're dealing with a far more dynamic signal and subjecting it to downstream processing, and that's where the tiny non-linearities start to become audible and the sound falls apart. That's why I track to tape. The non-linearities are far more euphonic, it smooths out the dynamics in a way that is very transparent, and it's much easier to mix.

It's all about REAL-WORLD PERFORMANCE. Any discussion of theory apart from the BIG PICTURE is a complete waste of time.
Old 23rd April 2012
  #2267
Lives for gear
 
tha]-[acksaw's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
I have exactly the same capabilities in my studio, jackass. As I have said repeatedly, I HAVE a DAW and I USE a DAW. I just don't believe in making it the center of my studio or spending more than a few hundred bucks on it.
Dood, you can dodge around the facts all day long. The bottom line is YOU can't have all these things in YOUR studio...

Quote:
Originally Posted by tha]-[acksaw View Post
infinite channels, with infinite storage space, with infinite processors, and all the automation in the world
...without your DAW. If you don't consider you DAW a centerpiece of your studio, fine. But I'd bet if you didn't have a DAW sitting around, you'd lose a ton of clients. Otherwise, based on your attitude, YOU WOULDNT OWN ONE! Seem pretty clear to me. You might wana consider respecting a piece of your gear that OBVIOUSLY need.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
I'm just throwing "Hacksaw's" rudeness right back at him. He repeatedly claims that analog diehards are ignorant, stupid, incompetent, living in the past, et cetera. He started the fight.
Fight? Come off it man. Your delusional.

You are so far off the reservation its not even funny. Do you take meds? Have you forgotten to take them? How do you so easily take reality and then warp it to fit your own rotten arguments. It's getting really SAD man!

The only person I've claimed to be "ignorant", and "living in the past", IS YOU! I have a great deal of respect for most of these "analog" guys. I'm learning new things from them every day.

And if you've come to the odd conclusion that I hate analog gear, you are high. I love analog just as much as the next guy. I've just chosen to only implement analog in my studio, were it makes the most sense to me, and my work flow.

The bottom line Fenris. You NEED TO UNSUBSCRIBE from the thread. You're not happy here. A good deal of us are tired of hearing you rude comments that offer nothing to the discussion. It's getting old. Do yourself, and the rest of us a favor.

Just UNSUBSCRIBE already!!!!!
Old 23rd April 2012
  #2268
Lives for gear
 
mizzle's Avatar
 

tha]-[acksaw= Here's my method. Tell me about your method and maybe we can both learn something.

Fenris= Here's my method. There is no other method. Everyone should be a Fenris Bot.
Old 23rd April 2012
  #2269
Lives for gear
 
tha]-[acksaw's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzle View Post
tha]-[acksaw= Here's my method. Tell me about your method and maybe we can both learn something.

Fenris= Here's my method. There is no other method. Everyone should be a Fenris Bot.
Blahahahaha! Mizzle, you get the award for best summary's of situations in less the 50 words. I wish I had the nack!!!

I'm the first to admit, I'm a hard headed fella. I like to do things my way, for a reason that makes sense to me. But, I'll be damned if I don't learn 70% of what I know watching and listening to others. I think most humans are like this, to varying degrees.

I don't think I've ever met someone quite like Mr. Fenris. Complete disregard for the opinions and experiences of others, to the point of ridiculousness. And a really outdated understanding of very basic and general modern recording related principals.

Converters were perfect 15 years ago? DAW's and computers are unreliable 90% of the time? You can build a good DAW for under $200? ALL plugins sound like garbage, on ALL sources? Computers, DAWs and Plugins have horrible usability and ergonomics? I, Fenris P Wulf have the greatest tape machine alive?

We should send a mole into his studio, wired with sound and video, and try to capture the experience. I can see it now. Client in a vocal booth trys to make a suggestion about something. Fenris screaming through the talk back mic "ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!! IT'S MY WAY OF THE HIGHWAY JACKASS!!!!!!"
Quote
1
Old 24th April 2012
  #2270
Lives for gear
 

Mizzle, I gave 4 links in my post about the GENERAL subject of "Vinyl vs. CD" which were just from the first two pages of threads using the search word "Vinyl". With a little effort you can find more. Instead of looking at what posters to those threads shared as their own hands on testing results you choose to pick one tree in the forest and rail against it. Classic missing the point / not looking at the forest and typical of someone trying to further an argument or justify an agenda. Given your posts I have doubts you have gotten your hands dirty with comparitive testing and with your avoidance of talking about your monitering twice now who knows if you could hear a difference to begin with (i see no sharing of that information). The whole divert the big picture by arguing about some single trees in the forest is growing old, share your personal experimentations like the rest of us as your opinion and be done with it. If you have not done the leg work and gotten your hands dirty like many of us or don't have properly setup monitering to hear what we are talking about (as some don't given the pics I've seen around here) then your posts of backtracking loopy, aberrant recontextualizations is just pointless.
Old 25th April 2012
  #2271
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenris View Post

I can't mix with these plug-ins.
That's all I needed to know,but I also know you didn't try them all!

So your lying.

Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz App
Old 25th April 2012
  #2272
Gear addict
 
Fenris's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tha]-[acksaw View Post
But I'd bet if you didn't have a DAW sitting around, you'd lose a ton of clients.
For the kind of work I do, which is underground music recorded quickly on a small budget, the analog gear is a much bigger draw. That's what the bands are excited about. I already had the DAW hardware, so I use it for more tracks. If I were starting from scratch, I'd spend the money to replace the 1" 8-track with a 2" 16-track. 90% of the projects I do could be done entirely on tape.

It kind of disproves the common perception that analog is an elitist/big-money trip. I use it for the opposite reason, because I can't afford to waste money or time.

I do like the DAW for mixdown, it makes it much easier to mix in sections, compile alternate mixes, and record stems.

As I've said repeatedly, I'm not criticizing anyone's skills or working method. I'm criticizing DISHONEST ADVERTISING HYPE that claims that DAW's are CLEARLY more cost-effective than analog. This claim is highly debatable, to say the least.

I don't know about "world's greatest tape machine." Studer has great transports, 3M or Ampex has great sound, MCI has great punch-in circuitry and is easiest to maintain. Sadly, the evolution of tape machines stopped about 20 years ago and we're never gonna get the perfect machine.

Us analog guys never hurt anybody, but you digital guys pretty much destroyed the sound, quality, and profitability of recorded music. Thanks a bunch.
Old 25th April 2012
  #2273
Gear addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
I would turn the question around: how many examples of a machine we use that was created in total scientific ignorance? Invented in a vacuum as it were. By a guy who knew no science. In a world where the science behind the invention was unknown.
Just to play devil's advocate here, quite a few scientific inventions/discoveries were the result of happy accidents: people trying to accomplish one thing and either screwing up or simply discovering that their experimental method/process/formula/etc. did something beneficial in an unexpected and completely different area than the one they were attempting to work in.
Old 25th April 2012
  #2274
Lives for gear
 
MadGuitrst's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
Us analog guys never hurt anybody, but you digital guys pretty much destroyed the sound, quality, and profitability of recorded music. Thanks a bunch.
Recording methods have nothing to do with the profitability of recorded music.
According to this logic, all of the studios using digital would have died long ago and the analog studios would be rolling around in their gold bullion.

I dig analog as much as the next guy, but that's just silly.
Old 25th April 2012
  #2275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
For the kind of work I do, which is underground music recorded quickly on a small budget, the analog gear is a much bigger draw. That's what the bands are excited about. I already had the DAW hardware, so I use it for more tracks. If I were starting from scratch, I'd spend the money to replace the 1" 8-track with a 2" 16-track. 90% of the projects I do could be done entirely on tape.
And there you go. This is obviously the right solution for you. However, few commercial rooms would be able to survive with such a mission statement, and so you can't claim it's the only way, or even the ideal way for most. I'm sure I could do a good garage rock style production your style, but neither you nor I could do a polished rock/electro hybrid type thing purely on 8 track tape. Whether you'd want to is irrelevant of course.
Old 25th April 2012
  #2276
Lives for gear
 
mizzle's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TimS View Post
Just to play devil's advocate here, quite a few scientific inventions/discoveries were the result of happy accidents: people trying to accomplish one thing and either screwing up or simply discovering that their experimental method/process/formula/etc. did something beneficial in an unexpected and completely different area than the one they were attempting to work in.
He was asking for examples. If you can think of "quite a few", name them.
Old 25th April 2012
  #2277
Lives for gear
 
archfrenemy's Avatar
 

I can kick off your list with the "theremin". It was invented by Professor Leon Theremin. He stumbled upon the new technology of oscillator frequency and gate/volume control via proximity of the human body while repairing a radio.

Of course he still had to use his knowledge of electronics to develop it into the theremin we know today.
Old 25th April 2012
  #2278
Lives for gear
 
mizzle's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by archfrenemy View Post
Of course he still had to use his knowledge of electronics to develop it into the theremin we know today.
Bingo.

Back to Joe's original question:
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post

I would turn the question around: how many examples of a machine we use that was created in total scientific ignorance? Invented in a vacuum as it were. By a guy who knew no science. In a world where the science behind the invention was unknown.
Old 25th April 2012
  #2279
Taking Down your Network
 
Boschen's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
SNIP
I would turn the question around: how many examples of a machine we use that was created in total scientific ignorance? Invented in a vacuum as it were. By a guy who knew no science. In a world where the science behind the invention was unknown.
SNIP
I immediately thought of Philo T Farnsworth. Not exactly what you describe, as no one works in a vacuum, but he came pretty close. There are always a few who work well outside the bounds of the establishment; usually their ideas are riduculed and ignored. And Philo had that stash of old tech magazines he found in his parent's attic, so it's not like he come totally out of nowhere. Even the ancient Greeks and Arabs built on each others ideas, and they practically invented math and geometry.


"Could those incidents have anything to do with my fear of flying, Doctor?"

"Yes, yes, it's all a rich tapestry."
Old 25th April 2012
  #2280
Lives for gear
 
tha]-[acksaw's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
For the kind of work I do, which is underground music recorded quickly on a small budget, the analog gear is a much bigger draw. That's what the bands are excited about. I already had the DAW hardware, so I use it for more tracks. If I were starting from scratch, I'd spend the money to replace the 1" 8-track with a 2" 16-track. 90% of the projects I do could be done entirely on tape.
First, cheers to you for working on more underground stuff. We need to get more of that stuff out there and the first step is getting it recorded.

Second, I agree with Mizzle. U really have the luxury of working for a very select group of people to preform a very specific type of task. And while I totally encourage and promote that type of work, its not very typical of ur "average" studio. And the way they attract business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
It kind of disproves the common perception that analog is an elitist/big-money trip. I use it for the opposite reason, because I can't afford to waste money or time.
I agree about the elitist thing. I dont think using analog makes anyone instantly and elitist, by any means. At the same time, based on my experience, most of the guys that have an elitist type attitude are really into their analog gear. Again, not that analog makes a person elitist. Maybe its the cost that makes people adopt a more elitist type attitude. Maybe its just the feeling u get from owning a bad a$$ piece of hardware. Regardless, it doesnt happen to every analog lover.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
As I've said repeatedly, I'm not criticizing anyone's skills or working method. I'm criticizing DISHONEST ADVERTISING HYPE that claims that DAW's are CLEARLY more cost-effective than analog. This claim is highly debatable, to say the least.
I think this is the root of ur issue, and part of the reason why u keep needlessly butting ur head around here. Gearslutz is a site for gear users to discuss the gear we use, and how we use it. Its not a forum on some companys site, where the main purpose is selling gear, or software, or any product. Sure, out of the two dozen people who regularly participate in this thread, there are a few people who run audio related businesses with the intent of selling a product. But I have yet to see one of those guys in here passing off their product "dishonestly", or with "hype", as you so suggest. Frankly, I dont seem them "pushing" their product what so ever.

If you wanna chastise someone for advertising dishonestly or overly hyping a product, then go find a company who's doing that, and take ur bi*ch to their site.

This isnt the place for it. No one is advertising here. We are only speaking about our experiences. If u cant find some way to view that as anything but advertising, then u might wanna consider leaving, cause ur gonna keep butting ur head into a wall around here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
Us analog guys never hurt anybody, but you digital guys pretty much destroyed the sound, quality, and profitability of recorded music. Thanks a bunch.
Who are these "analog guys" you are lumping yourself in with?

Who give you the right to say that anyone that advocates for digital or DAWs is destroying the sound, quality and profitability of recorded music? Really man... your starting to sound like the Catholic church trying to round up witches to be tared an feathered, and burned at the stake.

The viewpoint is a bit radical. Do you really believe that someone like myself, a simple end user, trying to run a business to put food on my table, has single handedly ruined recorded music as a whole? All cause I like to track to a different recording median then you do?

Let me guess. Next I'm gonna have to drink out of a different water fountain then you. Maybe even sit in the back of the same bus as you. Maybe a different bus altogether.

Really man... You gotta get real.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Jules / So much gear, so little time!
62

Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.