The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Burl Mothership or 2" Tape Machine? Digital Converters
Old 12th March 2018
  #301
Lives for gear
 
skybluerental's Avatar
 

Quote:
Did I make this up, then?
Quote:
A medium can't sound better.

Saying something cannot sound "better" is not the same as saying there is no difference.
Those are two very different assertions.

Show me someone on this thread who said there is no difference between the sound of analog and digital.

View most liked answer
Old 12th March 2018
  #302
Lives for gear
 
skybluerental's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drpeacock View Post



No, I don't. That's factually incorrect. If I seem that way to you then I suspect you haven't read the posts I've been making, as I've been quite careful and gone out of my way to reiterate that I am not arguing one is better than the other. Several times. Pointing out how people's behavior doesn't match with their dialogue is not being quick to comment on what other people like, it's observing that they don't act in accordance with what they say.

You said this:

"So a person who tells me that they prefer the sound of digital, yet routinely uses tape emulation plug-ins, or runs every mix through a Zulu or Silver Bullet or Culture Vulture or uses some other method to make their mixes sound "less digital" is someone that I think is confused about what they really do like."

Hence, what I said, which is that you have made yourself the arbiter of what other people think is better, is factually correct.

People generally are not confused about what they like.
I am fairly certain that people who you do not know at all probably know what they like more than you know what they like.
Just saying.........
Old 12th March 2018
  #303
Lives for gear
 
skybluerental's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by burns46824 View Post
You are spot on about this...

Having said that, I want you to give me one example, ONE example, of an engineer who was making great records during the tape era who made records of the same quality during the digital era.
You are asking for an objective answer about quality of art.
That does not exist.
The notion of "same quality" will be different for every person.

Do me a favor.
Go to the link below and answer 2 questions:

1. Which tracks sound best to you?

2. Which ones were tracked analog and which ones were done all digital?

Anthony Gravino | MUSIC
Old 12th March 2018
  #304
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skybluerental View Post
You said this:

"So a person who tells me that they prefer the sound of digital, yet routinely uses tape emulation plug-ins, or runs every mix through a Zulu or Silver Bullet or Culture Vulture or uses some other method to make their mixes sound "less digital" is someone that I think is confused about what they really do like."

Hence, what I said, which is that you have made yourself the arbiter of what other people think is better, is factually correct.

People generally are not confused about what they like.
I am fairly certain that people who you do not know at all probably know what they like more than you know what they like.
Just saying.........
I believe that was the first thing I addressed, wasn't it? You pointed out a possibility that I hadn't considered prior to writing that sentence and I acknowledged that. What is it you still don't understand?

I'd like an acknowledgement that you were factually wrong on what you told me I was factually wrong about, given that I posted the proof.
Old 12th March 2018
  #305
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skybluerental View Post
Quote:
Did I make this up, then?
Quote:
A medium can't sound better.

Saying something cannot sound "better" is not the same as saying there is no difference.
Those are two very different assertions.

Show me someone on this thread who said there is no difference between the sound of analog and digital.
The poster to whom I originally responded basically said there was no practically significant difference. And I suspect you know that. You're being pedantic.

And I believe you are logically incorrect. An assertion that it is impossible for one medium to sound better than another (which is easily disproven in practical terms, thus my challenge to that poster to mix his next record on a cassette tape medium) presupposes a few things.

1. It either is presupposing that no matter what it sounds like, no one can say it's better or worse despite the difference in sound between the mediums because that determination is infinitely subjective. That there are literally no parameters that anyone can use to call it objectively better or worse than another...OR

2. It presupposes that there literally ARE no differences between mediums, which is indeed, "Saying something cannot sound "better" is not the same as saying there is no difference." Quite literally, in fact.

I can't think of a third possibility...maybe you can, as you came up with the donkey dressed as a camel possibility.

We know #2 above is not true. You can insist theoretically that number one is true, but no one acts as though that is true. Including the poster to whom I was responding. Remember, his entire argument boils down to, "My mixes sound better than yours, thus I am correct."

Well, if number one above is true, all I have to say is, "Not to me they don't." No matter what they sound like.
Old 12th March 2018
  #306
Lives for gear
 
jjblair's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by burns46824 View Post
You are spot on about this...

Having said that, I want you to give me one example, ONE example, of an engineer who was making great records during the tape era who made records of the same quality during the digital era.
I'll give you names of guys I know have eschewed tape, and are making great records: Al Schmitt, Ross Hogarth, Mick Guzauski, Niko Bolas, Ed Cherney, Jim Scott. I know this, because I've had this talk with them.

When I was still holding onto the analog superiority concept in 2003 (which was the year of the last fully analog record I made), Supergrass put out "Life On Other Planets," which was recorded digitally. Love that record. And converters are only much better now. Everything that sounds awesome about that record has nothing to do with the medium, and the digital recording is not a detriment to the sound.
Old 12th March 2018
  #307
Gear Guru
 
Drumsound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by drpeacock View Post

Second, putting your name on an internet board has nothing to do with integrity (I notice you aren't here under your name either), it has to do with in some way advertising yourself. There's nothing wrong with that, btw, but it is what it is.
His name, in real life, is his screen name. JJ Blair. just add one space.
Old 12th March 2018
  #308
Lives for gear
 
jjblair's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by drpeacock View Post
First of all, you've not answered a single question I've asked you over the course of this discussion so I see no reason to answer any of yours.
OK, calling BS. First, I answered your question about doing A/B testing in detail. Second, you're continuing to hide, so I can't judge your work in order to judge your opinion.

Quote:
Second, putting your name on an internet board has nothing to do with integrity (I notice you aren't here under your name either), it has to do with in some way advertising yourself. There's nothing wrong with that, btw, but it is what it is.
I'm not under my name? Are you daft? This is my name. Try Google. And no, you actually don't know why I use my name in all forums I participate in, whether or not there's anything to advertise. It's a concept that Klaus introduced me to, which is accountability on the internet. Try it.

The value of using your real name is that I've said stuff that could have damaged somebody's livelihood, for which I've had to make amends, and not being anonymous made me accountable. I believe in accountability. Accountability makes people learn and grow.

Quote:
Third, my work has nothing to do with this. That's another thing you don't seem to get, and probably the crux of this whole argument.
Your work let's me know the weight of your opinion. If I listen to your recordings and think they suck, then what you have to offer in terms of opinion lets me know how seriously to take you. Step out of the shadows, and let yourself be known.

Quote:
You've made unsupportable, self-contradictory claims and I have addressed them on the basis of the logic (or lack thereof), not on the basis of, "My recordings sound better than yours, so I'm right."

You make assertion A, I challenge you on it and you can't defend it. You make assertion B, I show that it's self-contradictory and you can't refute it. You make assertion C, I address it logically and your response is for me to show you my work.
Actually, I said TLDR, because it was "too long" and I "didn't read" it. All I saw was you start to make up stuff about my intentions, and I lost interest, and didn't bother reading the next ten paragraphs.

Quote:
Your work could literally be 100 times better than mine and it wouldn't make you correct in the discussion.
Somebody's work being better is subjective. But I will always give more weight to the opinion of an expert. If I admire your work, then I'm more apt to take your opinion seriously.

Quote:
It wouldn't prove that digital was just as good as tape...
Which I never said. I said that I find the difference between the two in this day and age to be not worth the detriment to the work flow or the expense. I also said that "good" is subjective. They both have pluses and minuses.

[quote]it wouldn't somehow make your claim that Gearslutz exists to fool unwitting people into buying tape machines true[/quote

This place is about selling gear. Why do you think it exists? Who pays for this place? People come here, see gear, get GAS, say "I need that," and then they follow the link to Reverb or VK, whose dollars support this existence of this place. Look at the bottom of the page showing links to pieces of gear being discussed in any thread. THIS PLACE EXISTS TO SELL GEAR. If you cannot understand that, then I have to seriously doubt your powers of observation.

Also, the neophytes I know who have convinced themselves that tape is the magic bullet to their recording equation are not hearing this from the seasoned veterans of recording. They are hearing it from people like yourself. I was doing a panel at NAMM a couple years ago, and somebody in the audience asked how to get that tape sound, and Jim Scott said, "Run it through a Neve module." Nobody on the panels said "Buy a tape machine."

Quote:
it wouldn't make a bit of difference to anything we've discussed. And I suspect you know that, which is also why I suspect that you couldn't take the time to read my post, but you could take time to search around to try to find me and my studio.
Answered above. When you start making up my motivations, I don't bother reading. I don't care for fiction. I took about 3 minutes, and couldn't find squat.

Quote:
The answer to you feeling like you won this discussion wasn't to be found in my post, but if you can argue by authority, which is all your comments have been an exercise in, you would feel like you could discount all of the points I've made.
Actually, I conceded defeat. I said that you win. I didn't see you make any points that I felt need defending, other than claims about me, which I ignored.

Quote:
I have no doubt your recordings are better than mine will ever be.

But I recommend a remedial course in logic and reason. You don't seem to have trouble making good recordings. Just good arguments.
That's the first time I've heard that, so I'll take it with a grain of salt. (The argument part.) But I also take when people compliment my work with a grain of salt, because I like to surround myself with people whom I consider better than myself, so I can keep striving to get to another level.

Quote:
Your entire premise is argument from authority. I told you that in the first exchange we had, and here we are full circle.
No. My premise is from experience. In my world, experience > opinion, hence my personal quote below.

Quote:
Making great recordings doesn't make you correct, especially about some of the outlandish things you've claimed during the course of this discussion. It means you know at least one way to make great recordings. That's it.
Outlandish? Interesting. What's outlandish? That tape is the least important part of the signal path? That's pretty much been my whole argument, unless your claim that I'm saying there's a conspiracy here to sell gear is outlandish, which I proved above. I don't think it's a conspiracy, though. It's just the brilliant business model that Jules is employing.

This is the last you get out of me until you reveal yourself. Otherwise, save your breath and fingertips. I get the overwhelming sense that nobody here takes you seriously, which is understandable. Answering this post has served my purpose of procrastinating from work for the afternoon. Again, reveal or be ignored.

Last edited by jjblair; 12th March 2018 at 10:38 PM..
Old 13th March 2018
  #309
Quote:
Originally Posted by drpeacock View Post
No, I disagree. As stated before, I think the debate is that all other things being equal, tape is going to sound better. And as I also state earlier, I'm not making that claim. But I do think that's the claim that's being made.



Of course that's nonsense. If you disagree, I'd like for you to mix your next commercial project to cassette tape.



Which is exactly why the claim is ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, tape sounds better. Which, again, is a claim that I personally am not making.



No, that's not the premise of the discussion. That's the straw man that you and the other poster are committed to, though.



I guess it might be if:

1. It was a fact and not just your opinion
2. Anybody was actually making that claim in the first place

You literally altered what I wrote by leaving pieces out so that you could argue with incomplete statements that don't reflect what I was saying.

As far as I'm concerned that's an unethical approach to communication.

More importantly it means you miss the points and obfuscate them for everyone else reading this.
Old 13th March 2018
  #310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyeguy View Post
You mean, it is.

Exactly as I implied...before this little game of round and round and round we go...where it stops is where you(and others) don't wanna go. . .

The system is designed to replace a tape machine in function. That's why the price is, what it is. Ahem. Function also includes unique converters(read: proprietary).

When you string all this stuff together, it just all kinda makes sense, right? I certainly picked up on it? ...over the last twenty odd years?




So let's not go around, and around, and around the merry go round, now that we both agree...

Maybe ralf wants to chime in? How do I like my own post?

In that case all DAWs and converters were designed to replace a tape machine.
Old 13th March 2018
  #311
Quote:
Originally Posted by burns46824 View Post
You are spot on about this...

Having said that, I want you to give me one example, ONE example, of an engineer who was making great records during the tape era who made records of the same quality during the digital era.

That's subjective and is influenced more by the underlying music and performance than sonic properties.
Old 13th March 2018
  #312
Quote:
Originally Posted by drpeacock View Post
So a person who tells me that they prefer the sound of digital, yet routinely uses tape emulation plug-ins, or runs every mix through a Zulu or Silver Bullet or Culture Vulture or uses some other method to make their mixes sound "less digital" is someone that I think is confused about what they really do like.

If you go to all of those lengths to make your digital mixes "more analog" sounding, then you are going to have a hard time convincing me you like the sound of a DAW—you spend all your time trying to cover up that sound! That's why all of these posts about "compensating" are basically making the opposite case of what those people think they're proving.
This is the core of the issue. People attribute things to "tape" and "analog" which may be as simple as liking the sound of distortion or a specific compression ratio.


If someone likes the sound of a low compression ratio, or one that varies with the dynamics and they get that when using tape, but they don't know that's what they like and use high ratios when working in digital their results will follow a pattern of tape sounding better when it's a lack of skill/awareness as to what they're drawn to and how to get it.


If you run something through tape and like the sound do you know every way in which the sound is being changed? Is there a way to isolate just the THD or just the compression or just the EQ changes and A/B to know whether it's one single aspect or the specific combination?

All tape stocks are different, yet people compare tape and digital without specifying a tape stock as if what they're saying is identically true for each tape stock.

Engineers are very sloppy in identifying what's actually happening and communicating it accurately.


The best example is when people communicate how much compression they use. The truth is most people have no idea because their gear doesn't have compression meters, it has gain reduction meters.


Compare two meter readings on two compressors. One show 20dB of gain reduction and the other shows 3dB. Which one is compressing more?


The answer in this case is the the second one with 3dB and if you got the answer wrong it's from not considering the signal - which I left out.


In this example the first signal was a sine wave - a steady state signal with no dynamics, so 0dB of compression happened. The piece of gear was functioning as a 20dB pad with whatever makeup gain was applied.

The second signal was a dynamic vocal where 3dB actually lowered levels in spots so the dynamic range was compressed.


So the engineer who shared their "secret" by saying they like to slam their sine waves with 20dB of compression was wrong.

They may say the like the sound of "a lot of compression" but if there's actually a change it's either distortion from driving the input or some tonal characteristic imparted by the circuitry.


It's the same issue with the terms "analog" or "tape" they're too broad and engineers use them without really knowing the specific sonic process that they're liking.
Old 13th March 2018
  #313
Quote:
Originally Posted by skybluerental View Post
Quote:
Did I make this up, then?
Quote:
A medium can't sound better.

Saying something cannot sound "better" is not the same as saying there is no difference.
Those are two very different assertions.

Show me someone on this thread who said there is no difference between the sound of analog and digital.
Exactly.

Thank you.
Old 13th March 2018
  #314
Quote:
Originally Posted by skybluerental View Post
You said this:

"So a person who tells me that they prefer the sound of digital, yet routinely uses tape emulation plug-ins, or runs every mix through a Zulu or Silver Bullet or Culture Vulture or uses some other method to make their mixes sound "less digital" is someone that I think is confused about what they really do like."

Hence, what I said, which is that you have made yourself the arbiter of what other people think is better, is factually correct.

People generally are not confused about what they like.
I am fairly certain that people who you do not know at all probably know what they like more than you know what they like.
Just saying.........
I think people know whether they like A vs B better, but something like "tape" is a list of differences.

Engineers are not always in a position to asses whether it's one item on the list or multiple items on the list that are responsible for their preference.
Old 13th March 2018
  #315
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
I posted this on another thread - and I like recycling. Thought it would be of interest here as well....

Things that contribute to the "tape" sound.....

Most tape based recordings utilized most if not all of these things in the pursuit of a world class recording / album. ALL of them contribute (more or less) to the sound people attribute to "tape" alone.

1. 2 minimum, lots of times 6-8 passes through the console during production. Lots of discrete electronics, transformers, etc. -- all adding analog distortion, crosstalk, etc. every time through the console.
2. A properly designed control room. Giving engineers the creative opportunity to make proper production decisions. A far cry from working in a semi-treated bedroom - which makes up a large portion of what you hear on albums today.
3. A properly designed live room. Again, a HUGE rarity in most (not all) modern digital recordings. Proper acoustics - beyond the artists ability and creativity - are the #1 way to get a great sounding recording. (IMO)
4. A recording engineer that's made it to the top of his class, and is afforded the top dog position at any particular studio. A studio which, BTW, almost certainly cost upwards of $500,000-2M due to the economics of the era that is equipped with golden era gear. Compared to a local college grad in his parents basement with 2 57's and a rode mic.
5. Real outboard gear. Not to be overlooked. It's what almost every plug is "emulating". Some of which is virtually unobtanium at this point. (Fairchilds and the like...)
6. The real mic classics in the mic closet in those classic tape studios - in comparison to a bazillion "copycat" mics that attempt to copy the classic which abound in virtually every low end digital studio.
7. Real musicians recording in a real space, with bleed, groove, feel, timing errors, playing off one another, and the magic that happens whenever you put a bunch of talented guys in the room together!
8. And yes, of course, tape itself.

Tape by itself cannot be isolated and quantified. This is my personal opinion, although no doubt some will disagree. From my observation, no one says yeah, I need that tape sound. No, they say "I want the sound of a classic motown record"...or whatever they're after. They cannot disect the recording and isolate the sound of tape itself - because none of those records would exists without tape -- AND....all the other things listed.

So IMO, this parsing of tape details is akin to....well....let's just say it's a flawed concept.

IMO of course. Heaven forbid I might disagree with someone's opinion.
Old 13th March 2018
  #316
Lives for gear
 
jjblair's Avatar
What Caffrey said reminded me of something. Years ago, I produced an artist, and I started with some tracks that he recorded. I think the only thing we kept was his vocal and MPC programming. Somebody then asked me what vocal mic it was, because they loved the vocal sound. It was a 57 through a Mackie to a DA88. I EQ'd it on a 1073 and compressed the **** out of it on a 1176, and I think it was the compression on the 1176 that they were responding to, personally. It made it very immediate and intimate.

Frequently, people attribute a sound to something that may be actually the result of another part of the signal path. I know I've done it.
Old 13th March 2018
  #317
Lives for gear
 
IanBSC's Avatar
I think the end format is pretty crucial in this discussion. If you release a recording as analogue mastered vinyl, then the difference between tracking and mixing to digital or tape will have more impact than if your end format is 16/44.1. What is an insignificant difference with the context of a 44.1 recording might not be the same for an analogue, DSD, or 24/192 release.
Old 13th March 2018
  #318
Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
Most tape based recordings utilized most if not all of these things in the pursuit of a world class recording / album. ALL of them contribute (more or less) to the sound people attribute to "tape" alone.
Exactly !

I have made in my studio following observation.

I have a good maintained 2" 24 track and a really good console.
Both together in combination have that magic sound, beyond doubt.

But when I play the tracks from my console PB 'From Tape' in my DAW, the magic completely gone.
I lost the most magic on stereo or 3D signals like a real Hammond Organ, or OH and Room Mics.....
(Like Mr. JJ Blair written on one of the posts earlier in this thread)


The big question is, where's occur the magic in the signal chain ?

I personally believe that the magic is the connection between a tape machine AND a GOOD console.
They was made for each other.

Tape alone is NOT the magic !
But with a great desk, the signal emerge into magic.

But on the other hand.
When I play a signal through a good mic, a good mic pre like the Chandler Redd47 into my hardware and through my Burl converters, there's also grow anything like magic.
Not like a tape machine and console magic, logically, because of tape compression and wow and flutter, but in the same magic direction.

It is always the completely chain, not individual components.


As ever, my two cents.



R.

Last edited by Rolf Ebitsch; 14th March 2018 at 06:45 PM..
Old 13th March 2018
  #319
Lives for gear
 
illacov's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rolf Ebitsch View Post
Exactly !

I have made in my studio following observation.

I have a good maintained 2" 24 track and a really good console.
Both together in combination have that magic sound, beyond doubt.

But when I play the tracks fron my console PB 'From Tape' in my DAW, the magic completely gone.
I lost the most magic on stereo or 3D signals like a real Hammond Organ, or OH and Room Mics.....
(Like Mr. JJ Blair written on one of the posts earlier in this thread)


The big question is, where's occur the magic in the signal chain ?

I personally believe that the magic is the connection between a tape machine AND a GOOD console.
They was made for each other.

Tape alone is NOT the magic !
But with a great desk, the signal emerge into magic.

But on the other hand.
When I play a signal through a good mic, a good mic pre like the Chandler Redd47 into my hardware and through my Burl converters, there's also grow anything like magic.
Not like a tape machine and console magic logically, because of tape compression, and wow and flutter, but in the same magic direction.

It is always the completely chain, not individual components.


As ever, my two cents.



R.
As mentioned before in my WCA interview, these devices (mic preamps, eqs, busses, compressors) "saw," each other, the way you see the anchor man in a relay race. The handoff of the baton makes or breaks the outcomes.

Tape is not the answer to everything but it's definitely something that I feel made everything else make sense. Over emphasizing one component as a contributor does a disservice to every other piece of gear. Just simply parking a mix through a vintage console channel strip/pick your flavor is not the same thing as creating loads of interference along the way, like that same channel strip on every channel, which then feeds into busses, those busses feeding into a master buss. Alot accumulates. And even moreso, adding in tape to the end result only, versus adding tape to every track and the final mix is a totally different outcome. But when you pile on all of that energy and you get that harmonic joyful thing happening, there's bits of detail that people tend to fight in digital that I never fought when I was jockeying my Tascam 1/2" or 2" machines, it just wasn't there. The unwanted detail. Its like how machined parts need to be deburred, well imagine if they didn't. That's one detail nobody wants LOL


I don't think you need a tape machine anymore than you need a vintage mic to get the results you're after respectively. Not anymore. If we can accept owning a vintage microphone emulator (that accomplishes its results via software), then we should have no issue adopting tape emulators, console emulators and so on.

And if these are done in the analog realm, it should be no less a feat of the imagination either. We can't somehow imply that analog design is hallowed ground while we load up our reverb emulators and vintage channel strip plugins. That's bordering on crazy talk.

Regarding using tape for it's sound: If those are the sounds that people want, then going on about how tape's sound is dated or pastiche, the same as using those old consoles vs ITB, its pointless. Nothing is new once its known, but preference is preference. Why use a vintage guitar amp if you can get a new one for less money? Sound is sound is sound right?

Me personally I really liked the way the Burl converters sounded, the first time I heard to the last time I heard them. They do some great things to digital captures that just don't happen otherwise, far different than just a nice vintage mic preamp or compressor. The transfer function was just a different result altogether. Its what pushed me to go in the direction I went when I began designing my stuff, knowing that its really about the end of the process rather than just the beginning.

I will say this as well, when gear is near failure, especially on stuff with fast transients like drums or picked guitars, or things that are approaching sine waves like low notes on pianos or good old fashioned bass, microphone preamps are very different beasts, especially when you think about getting the level out of them that tape was happy with. To me ignoring that part of the standard procedure is omitting some key information. We under drive our equipment now by comparison to when we cut on tape, mainly because we have to. We attenuate the output of our 1073s or put a pad on our 312s because our converters won't be happy with the potential for hot levels. Those choices effect tone and outcomes.

Food for thought.

Thanks
-L.
Old 13th March 2018
  #320
Gear Nut
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weepit View Post
Artists make records, engineers record them.

Buncha audio janitors arguing about trash cans.
Can't agree with this..

There's a reason most artists reach the peak of their fame in their 20s and 30s. but most great producers, engineers etc. are far older than that, 40s, 50s, by the time they master their craft and reach the peak of their careers.

From personal experience, I've known and grew up with lots of amature musicians who write original music. I've heard several of them write songs that I liked just as much as songs from major releases by established artists. But I haven't heard one of them yet make a recording of one of those songs that could compete with any classic or major. And that's the reason that nobody has heard of them. They haven't made the recording that could blow them up into stardom.

I think it's way harder to make a professional-grade recording, than to make a professional-grade song. An 18-year-old with a beat up acoustic guitar can write a great song. Can any of the same make a great record?

For me at least, I finished writing an album of songs that I don't wonder if they are good enough to be great relative to my genre. I'm pleased with them.

But I'm still here on this forum, (unintentionally instigating an analog vs digital race war) because even after recording for 14 years now, I still know that my ability to produce and record an album that can compete with the classics in terms of sonics, is not there. When I hear my productions, I can hear that I have not made something up to the standards I am striving for. And I'm far from a layperson at this point.
Old 13th March 2018
  #321
Lives for gear
 
burns46824's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Moss View Post
But I'm still here on this forum, (unintentionally instigating an analog vs digital race war) because even after recording for 14 years now, I still know that my ability to produce and record an album that can compete with the classics in terms of sonics, is not there. When I hear my productions, I can hear that I have not made something up to the standards I am striving to. And I'm far from a layperson at this point.
You took the words right out of my heart.
Old 14th March 2018
  #322
Lives for gear
 
Cardinal_SINE's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Moss View Post
I haven't heard one of them yet make a recording of one of those songs that could compete with any classic or major.
Probably because they don't have a good studio to record and mix in.
Old 14th March 2018
  #323
Gear Nut
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardinal_SINE View Post
Probably because they don't have a good studio to record and mix in.
Not sure if this is sarcasm or what?

An 18-year-old kid with emotions in his heart and a love of music can write a song great enough to be a hit, without any help or direction, and without years of studying the craft of songwriting in a deliberate purposeful way.

That same 18-year-old kid, probably can not then go into a studio, no matter what it is equipped with and then make a great recording of themselves.. by themselves... Average kid musician doesn't know what a preamp is, let alone how to mix a multi-track.
Old 14th March 2018
  #324
Lives for gear
 
Cardinal_SINE's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Moss View Post
Not sure if this is sarcasm or what?

An 18-year-old kid with emotions in his heart and a love of music can write a song great enough to be a hit, without any help or direction, and without years of studying the craft of songwriting in a deliberate purposeful way.

That same 18-year-old kid, probably can not then go into a studio, no matter what it is equipped with and then make a great recording of themselves.. by themselves... Average kid musician doesn't know what a preamp is, let alone how to mix a multi-track.
No it's not sarcasm, If you have a great room and great gear its going to sound great. It's going to sound better recorded by a professional but in general it's the room and the gear.
Old 14th March 2018
  #325
Gear Nut
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by burns46824 View Post
You took the words right out of my heart.
Pretty sure we hear audio the same way!

Cheers
Old 14th March 2018
  #326
Gear Nut
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardinal_SINE View Post
No it's not sarcasm, If you have a great room and great gear its going to sound great. It's going to sound better recorded by a professional but in general it's the room and the gear.

I hope that kid knows that U87s need phantom power.
Old 14th March 2018
  #327
Lives for gear
 
Cardinal_SINE's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Moss View Post
I hope that kid knows that U87s need phantom power.
I think most musicians know what phantom power is
Old 14th March 2018
  #328
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjblair View Post
I'll give you names of guys I know have eschewed tape, and are making great records: Al Schmitt....
"Great" is a big word. Open to a lot of varying definition.

If Al were going to tackle a project to get his sound from.... oh, say the Astronauts records...or...

let's say someone wants an Al/Jefferson Airplane "Watch Her Ride" approach/sonic/end result here in the 21st century....

Al wouldn't be firing up Pro Tools. Not that he'd want the gig anyway.

Anyhow, there are great Al records and there are great Al records. Pro Tools wouldn't work for every "Al" approach.
Old 14th March 2018
  #329
Gear Nut
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardinal_SINE View Post
I think most musicians know what phantom power is
Oh yeah? How about a pop filter? How many do you think would know to put one up when they record their vocal?

How many do you think could figure out how to route a signal through a giant Neve console to a multi-track in our hypothetical awesome studio?

How many of those bright stars will then know how to figure out which knob is the preamp gain, and correctly set input level?

How many of them know how to place their mics so perfectly that no EQ will be required? Or know what EQ is, and have developed their listening skills well enough to even know when they need it?

How about compression? Or does our 18 year old wunderkind play with such dynamic control that none of the tracks on his mix will need any?

How about the skills to mix an entire multi-track?

How about even being able to route on a console to do any mixing?

Automation?

How many of them after they've perfectly mixed a record will then grasp that their level isn't as loud as commercial releases, independently discover mastering, and master their own record to a professional standard?


How many 18-year-old singer-songwriter kids can do all these things?



Professional assistance will be required.
Old 14th March 2018
  #330
Lives for gear
 
Cardinal_SINE's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Moss View Post
Oh yeah? How about a pop filter? How many do you think would know to put one up when they record their vocal?
Not sure

Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Moss View Post
How many do you think could figure out how to route a signal through a giant Neve console to a multi-track in our hypothetical awesome studio?
How many big name producers know this?? actually not many

Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Moss View Post
How many of those bright stars will then know how to figure out which knob is the preamp gain, and correctly set input level?
I think they could figure it out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Moss View Post
How many of them know how to place their mics so perfectly that no EQ will be required? Or know what EQ is, and have developed their listening skills well enough to even know when they need it?
if you placed a mic perfectly why would you need eq?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Moss View Post
How about compression? Or does our 18 year old wunderkind play with such dynamic control that none of the tracks on his mix will need any?
well it depends on the 18 year old.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Moss View Post
How about the skills to mix an entire multi-track?
How about even being able to route on a console to do any mixing?

Automation?

How many of them after they've perfectly mixed a record will then grasp that their level isn't as loud as commercial releases, independently discover mastering, and master their own record to a professional standard?


How many 18-year-old singer-songwriter kids can do all these things?



Professional assistance will be required.
If you can play an instrument well and you are a musical person you can learn any of this ^
It's easier to master recording than it is to master a musical instrument.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump