Post
by Mark Alan Miller » Tue Oct 31, 2006 6:23 am
I don't think that an all-analog chain nessesarily will be any better than one that is hybrid, or even all digital. We're past that point now. Sure, sure, there's always going to be the debate, those who can hear a difference, or claim to, and so on. At the end of the day a competent ME will get the job done properly and to the client's wishes, using whatever tools they know, like, and use.
Like Carl said, it's very little to do with a computer being in the chain, but more what tools, who's using them, and how they use them that makes all the difference.
On that note, I seriously suspect Jeff was urged to smash the levels on that record by someone in the band or at the label - all in the name of 'being competitive' (search around for threads relating to volume/loudness and mastering for my and others' thoughts on this.)
Jeff has mastered a whole lot of records that I've recorded, and only if the client requests it does he willingly smash the crap outta stuff.
Left to his own devices, his masters are more about clarity, dynamics, openness, impact, resolution, bandwidth, and so on. In my experience, at least.
To the original question, yes, I'm sure there are a folks out there doing all-analog mastering (or at least up until it has to be converted to digital for CD.) I don't know of any that do it specifically, but many could, if they selected only certain pieces in their rooms and worked accordingly. (Jeff could, I bet, if coming off of analog tape, stay analog until the final A/D...)
Of course the music was very compressed and not really my cup of tea (punk band The Unseen), but it made me curious if the old way of mastering is still practiced.
