Oh God, the loudness wars again?Dakota wrote:Barcoded releases have better signal to noise ratio.
bwaaaaaaaaaahaahahahahahahahhahaha
I maintain that analog tape is right for about 60% of sounds- at least that's about how often I prefer the sound of tape for the source.mr. nick wrote:Comparing an analog and digital recording of the same take through the exact same signal path and monitoring situation. My digital system is more accurate, I can't believe I'd ever write this. I get that the analog format can have some glue to it when used right, but, the stereo image and depth of field, and character of the digital recording sounds more accurate to the intent of the recording session I setup. I expect the playback to mirror the recording.
@?,*???&? wrote:Your biggest discussion here should be about signal to noise ratio and dynamic range.
With tape you sacrifice both. With digital both improve.
In the Musician/Engineer Survey, a little over half of the 600+ folks responding favored dynamic range over frequency response.
http://www.myspace.com/musicianengineer ... A381295%7D
I agree. 24-bit digital feels loose, open and uncontained to me. I think digital sounds like ass, but try telling the industry this. Cheap and affordable wins hands down against sound quality. Ask Joel Hamilton how much he actually rents reels of tape to clients. Uh, can you say "Never" on an annual basis?ofajen wrote:Precisely... dynamic range is the enemy. I want to sacrifice it in the way tape does. Tracking and mixing.@?,*???&? wrote:Your biggest discussion here should be about signal to noise ratio and dynamic range.
With tape you sacrifice both. With digital both improve.
Cheers,
Otto
True enough. I don't have lot more to offer than my sympathy. I record myself, my kids and my other musical friends and I get to make the call. The last thing I want to be accused of is resembling today's "industry standard" in any signficant way. Maybe the standards of the late 60s...@?,*???&? wrote:I agree. 24-bit digital feels loose, open and uncontained to me. I think digital sounds like ass, but try telling the industry this. Cheap and affordable wins hands down against sound quality. Ask Joel Hamilton how much he actually rents reels of tape to clients. Uh, can you say "Never" on an annual basis?
once i get some money coming back in we'll take you up on that offer, hombre.MoreSpaceEcho wrote:oh please. even my otari 1/2" 8 track has a perfectly excellent dynamic range and a noise floor i have to crank the monitors to hear. i'm actually thinking of putting that sucker back into service for recording drums, as the tape compression just makes them so much easier to deal with later.
Yeah, it's one of those things you can sometimes hear that doesn't really matter. No doubt when I tracked to and mixed from my M-56 1" 8-track the individual tracks had a bit lower noise floor, as did the mixed signal going to the 2-track, and I can hear the difference when there is no signal. OTOH, it's really irrelevant, since I never notice the difference when listening to actual music. I suppose it does mean I need to be a bit more exacting in setting levels to minimize noise without having the signal too bent when it comes back off the tape.MoreSpaceEcho wrote:oh please. even my otari 1/2" 8 track has a perfectly excellent dynamic range and a noise floor i have to crank the monitors to hear.
omg what on earth does this MEAN? this is an amazing quote even for you.@?,*???&? wrote:24-bit digital feels loose, open and uncontained to me.
dude, like 5 posts ago you were calling me a layman and touting the benefits of digital's superior dynamic range. now it sounds like ass? WHICH IS IT ROBINSON?I think digital sounds like ass
It's really nice when the Mastering Engineer makes the first conversion (except for efects).honkyjonk wrote:Nobody has mentioned the cumulative effect of A to D conversion, and then D to A (during mixing) of every track, when tracking to digital.
Conversely, if you can do everything on the analog multi track, and then mix to digital, that's only 2 tracks of A to D. I would prefer this, (if not for the previously mentioned opportunity to hit tape at different levels according to source which is also a bonus,) but for the drastically reduced number digital conversions.
To play devil's advocate, if you mix in the box you only A to D once, and D to A doesn't happen until mastering, if then. Hell, you could keep it entirely in the digital domain until it gets to the consumer if you play your cards right.honkyjonk wrote:Nobody has mentioned the cumulative effect of A to D conversion, and then D to A (during mixing) of every track, when tracking to digital.
Conversely, if you can do everything on the analog multi track, and then mix to digital, that's only 2 tracks of A to D. I would prefer this, (if not for the previously mentioned opportunity to hit tape at different levels according to source which is also a bonus,) but for the drastically reduced number digital conversions.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 92 guests