Does anyone still mix / master without viewing WAVs ??

cjogo · Post by **cjogo** » Wed Jul 28, 2010 2:13 pm

MoreSpaceEcho wrote:
cjogo wrote: that genre of music.
what genre of music would that be?

i'm in the middle of making a record with a classic rock band. we are using the computer.

We to only record with a computer these days (albeit 10 years old ) -- a genre asking for choppin/ moving/looping material around. A music style not complete without the fulfillment of WAV editing , maybe >> Classic rock could definitely be approached with a wav = not at all viewed -- its been done for years

MoreSpaceEcho · Post by **MoreSpaceEcho** » Wed Jul 28, 2010 2:23 pm

*yawns*

chris harris · Post by **chris harris** » Wed Jul 28, 2010 2:38 pm

Wait... So, you just work with better musicians than the rest of us, right? It's kind of amazing how much editing was done on The Beatles' recordings. I bet that they would have been thrilled to have a visual reference for those edits.

chris harris · Post by **chris harris** » Wed Jul 28, 2010 2:42 pm

Even the minor edits that you do on your Roland DAW would be ridiculously easier if you were doing them on a computer. But, you seem pretty committed to the approach that you're comfortable with. So, what's the point of this discussion? You want us to explain why it would be easier? Or, are you just here to proclaim that you're old school?

cjogo · Post by **cjogo** » Wed Jul 28, 2010 2:50 pm

subatomic pieces wrote:Wait... So, you just work with better musicians than the rest of us, right? It's kind of amazing how much editing was done on The Beatles' recordings. I bet that they would have been thrilled to have a visual reference for those edits.

Definitely not better by any means ~ one longer with a instrument in their hands does not produce perfection. They are just experienced musicians trying to record their personal tunes ,, it is just lucky we have gotten by without deep editing. Just a few strokes of the undo button and careful selecting of the punch-in parameters .

Beatles

:: started my performing days -- picked up the drums in 64/65 >> surely one of my main influences in music ~!

cjogo · Post by **cjogo** » Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:15 pm

subatomic pieces wrote:Even the minor edits that you do on your Roland DAW would be ridiculously easier if you were doing them on a computer. But, you seem pretty committed to the approach that you're comfortable with. So, what's the point of this discussion? You want us to explain why it would be easier? Or, are you just here to proclaim that you're old school?

Well I see by the tone of most here -- Wav editing is the standard these days. That's all I was asking at the first of the thread...

was anyone else still recording to my approach of engineering >> Like : Does anyone still record with effects going to track ? Just asking about methods of recording ...

Maybe because the Roland is more difficult to take on task, that many have to contend with in their methods of recording > there are not many who use them in their studios these days. ( Roland had sold 250k by 2002 -- we have 1 for each of the 3 studios )

I have to admit we have never ventured into anything else on a PC and will follow the Forum > as we move into Reaper sometime next year hopefully.

thanks kindly

Studio 2

MoreSpaceEcho · Post by **MoreSpaceEcho** » Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:59 pm

cjogo wrote: Like : Does anyone still record with effects going to track ?

sure. but what's that got to do with anything?

Nick Sevilla · Post by **Nick Sevilla** » Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:14 pm

l love how non productive this thread became as of a few days ago.

more useless meandering for internet crawlers!

cjogo · Post by **cjogo** » Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:17 pm

MoreSpaceEcho wrote:
cjogo wrote: Like : Does anyone still record with effects going to track ?
sure. but what's that got to do with anything?

Sorry, just was making an analogy to my simple question ::::: the topic of this thread was about a method of recording . The Conclusion ** a large portion of TAPE OP engineers ~~ Wav edit

cjogo · Post by **cjogo** » Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:36 pm

noeqplease wrote:l love how non productive this thread became as of a few days ago. more useless meandering for internet crawlers!

Ended up very productive for me

-- answered my original question --
Useless info to some -- is a welcomed knowledge for others

thanks everyone --

cjogo · Post by **cjogo** » Wed Jul 28, 2010 7:29 pm

MoreSpaceEcho wrote:*yawns*

Yeah > maybe should had made the thread a POLL -- and just tallied up the amount of users with Wav experience. Sorry

MoreSpaceEcho · Post by **MoreSpaceEcho** » Wed Jul 28, 2010 10:18 pm

anyway.

a story:

1994. a young(er) MSE gets himself an otari 8 track. i didn't have a band and i'm not really a songwriter, but i had to record something, right? so i had a sampler and i made a little drum loop. put that on track one. improvised bass on track 2. guitars and samples and whatever on the rest.

like you do.

so then i'm trying to mix it (on a mackie 24x8 which i still have if anyone wants to buy it and i know you all do) and give it some kinda form via the mute button. and it was just impossible to keep track of where all the good bits were.

and i remember thinking, man, if i could just see what i had on each track and just cut out the bad bits i could have this sounding amazing lickety split.

fast forward a few years and wouldya lookit that.

a damn miracle.

anyway,

cjogo wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJnKMLbX ... re=related

You can see a live tracking session -- at the studio >>

that's a really nice looking room you got there.

cjogo · Post by **cjogo** » Thu Jul 29, 2010 12:04 am

Jams from within http://www.songramp.com/mod/mps/srplay ... ckid=75818

Great Spot --- perfect for jams > which are the only sessions here, for sometime now ...I have been along for 3 years engineering ... Lots of percussion/ marvelous piano and a Roland VS is the house recorder ...

cjogo · Post by **cjogo** » Thu Jul 29, 2010 12:12 am

MoreSpaceEcho wrote: so then i'm trying to mix it (on a mackie 24x8 which i still have if anyone wants to buy it and i know you all do) and give it some kinda form via the mute button. and it was just impossible to keep track of where all the good bits were.

and i remember thinking, man, if i could just see what i had on each track and just cut out the bad bits i could have this sounding amazing lickety split.

cjogo wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJnKMLbX ... re=related

I have done hours of editing on those little screens on my Kurzweils -- it does have little faders for the 16 channels , but to move/ nudge/cut out the bad bits on the tracks >> you have to type in the values-- and scroll up & down all day. We have 3 midi'd together -- .

Adler · Post by **Adler** » Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:22 am

noeqplease wrote:
cjogo wrote:We record to Masterlink for our final ...but, have to convert to MP3 back in the office PC
Do you realize that you just gave yourself a big shot in the leg?

When you record onto the Masterlink device you are in fact converting your audio into a PCM audio file, much like a "wav" that you seem to dislike so much.

And then you convert that into another type of PCM audio file in your office.

So, you are using digital audio files, although they may not strictly speaking be ".WAV" format.

And just because you do not use a computer monitor to see the waveform, you are still in fact using digital audio.

Food for thought...

The MaserLink uses AIFF files when creating a CD24 data disc. When I receive them as a delivery format for mastering, I just import the files directly in to my DAW from the disc.

As for the topic of the original post, once I became familiar with my DAW and all of its editing possibilities I never looked back.

Chris

Message Board

Does anyone still mix / master without viewing WAVs ??

Who is online