Broadcast/post/film=digital Music=analogue

[toulcit]

The title really says it all.

don't mean to sound like a twat, but why is it that in broadcast/post/film they use digital consoles a lot.

And a lot of times in the music bizz they use analogue systems.

But why is that?

I know analogue is more about color, and digital is about ease and working fast, and be able to recall it quickly.

I myself have got a Yamaha 01v96, and are in the middle of transition to a D&R console.

Don't get me wrong i'm a firm believer of analogue, and i have a lot of outboard. But the yamaha wasn't all to bad in my opinion. But i think the D&R has a better sound, more headroom, better eq's. And is easier to oversee. But i'm not affraid of recall sheets :D.

But if there will ever be a B studio, i'm thinking a yamaha won't be a bad choice (DM1000).

Sorry for another stupid thread :D

[Etch-A-Sketch]

To me, it seems like in post, people put more value on their skills than the tools they use. In Music, people put more value on their gear than on their skills.

Ask any re-recording mixer if he could do a great job on any console and they will say, "of course!" Ask most music mixers and they will say, "it as to be an SSL/Neve/API with 2" tape, etc..." Subsequently shooting themselves in the foot.

In the end it's the skill of the operator, not the tool being operated that makes something sound good. The ease of use, recall-ability, modularity, etc of digital consoles is a win-win for mixers. When the fidelity rests with the ears of the mixer, why wouldn't a mixer want to use a digital console!?!

[philper]

Well, one diff is that in music the original recording is likely to come thru the console, perhaps using its pres. The mix may run back through the console as well, and the whole effort involved might be one 5 min song at a time (each a separate "project" for the automation). In film/video the "original recording" was done on smaller mixers in the field (voices+fx), elsewhere on another console FAST (music) etc., and the mix that needs to be done could be combining anywhere from 12 to 300 channels with huge amounts of automation for durations well over 2 hours in a single project. This project may be mixing simultaneously to stereo, LtRt, 5.1, split stems and other submixes/stems, all from the same console, in real time. Analog (or digitally controlled analog) consoles can do this, but digital consoles (and control surfaces) put this kind of control into many more hands due to a lower price point and simpler hardware.

Philip Perkins

[iluvcapra]

Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch

To me, it seems like in post, people put more value on their skills than the tools they use. In Music, people put more value on their gear than on their skills.

Harsh. I have found that in post-production, "quality" is generally a matter of precision, and digital is very precise; and in post, you generally are looking for functionality, features, and the translation of audio to many different pieces of equipment and setups, and digital makes the whole "quality" issue objective.

Many people in post are focussed on making sure that audio passing through a channel is as good as it was delivered, no better or worse -- the fact that the chain from client turnover to client deliverable loses nothing is paramount. Post is like a production line, and very few people are in a position to oversee the entire process, so digital becomes part of a protocol for ensuring that audio passes from one person's hands to another without being compromised. It also helps that you can put all of the laybacks for a feature film on a thumb drive, whereas it used to require a truck.

In music, the "chain," from microphone to deliverable, may be much shorter, and all be contained within one building or one room, so the same ears that placed the microphone are making the master, and can bear the responsibility of losing 20 dB of s/n here or there in order to gain what in their experience and professional opinion is a better sound.