Need a new Mixer
adam79
have Pro Tools LE w/ a MBox 2. It only has two inputs. I'm 2nd guessing
my choice to buy PT, since you can only use their products for I/O
devices. I'm thinking that it might be a good move to sell my PT
software and gear, and switch over to a different tracking program that
is more flexible with I/O hardware. Any suggestions on a mixer, and a
replacement for PT? I want to eventually get a reel to reel for all the
tracking, so I'm keeping that in mind as I go into the market for a
Mixer. I don't need something with 48 tracks. 16 or 24 should be more
than enough.
-Adam
Laurence Payne
You could look at the Mackie Onyx mixers, with the Firewire option.
This gives you 16 + 2 channels of input to any DAW program.
Why do you want to track to tape? If you believe in tape "magic", mix
to a widetrack format if you must. But 16/24 tape is just, well,
worse than digital in every way.
Scott Dorsey
What's your budget?
Are you going to use the console for tracking or just mixdown?
Do you have a good outboard preamp are are you going to use the console
preamps for everything?
Do you mind buying something used? Do you know how to solder?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Mike Rivers
> I need a new mixer for the home studio I'm slowly building. I currently
> have Pro Tools LE w/ a MBox 2. It only has two inputs. I'm 2nd guessing
> my choice to buy PT, since you can only use their products for I/O
> devices.
I'm not sure how long that's going to last. They have a version of ProTools
that works with some M-Audio gear, and now Mackie is in on that deal. Their
current line of Firewire mixers, the i series, will work with the
M-Powered version
of ProTools (for an extra $50 for the extra driver). I don't know if
Digidesign has
a cross-grade price for M-Powered ProTools if you already have LE, but I
wouldn't
be surprised if they do, or soon will. I'll bet it'll be in demand.
The Mackie will work with any software that recognizes an ASIO driver,
so you're
not limited to ProTools with it, but you have ProTools as an option if
you want to
stick with it or go back to it after trying other DAW programs.
> I want to eventually get a reel to reel for all the
> tracking, so I'm keeping that in mind as I go into the market for a
> Mixer.
You should consider the Allen & Heath ZED-R16. It's a real analog mixer
(like
the Mackie) with Firewire and ADAT optical digital I/O as well as
analog, so
it'll work with the analog recorder you're dreaming of as well as a
computer. What
it offers that the Mackie doesn't is that the faders and a set of knobs
and buttons
(including "transport control" buttons) can operate a DAW, so you can
mix in the
computer, using the mixer's faders. In this mode, the channels have
unity gain
so you can use it easily as an analog summing bus for 16 tracks coming
back from
your DAW, Or you can sum in your DAW and monitor through the mixer. I
had one
in here for review and liked it a whole lot. It was $3,000 when I wrote
it up about a
year ago, but I've seen it in a recent Musician's Friend catalog for
$2,000, just a
little more than the Mackie 1640i.
David Ivić
start in PT (version 4) and everyday have some problems. Logic is the best
(for me) DAW.
Mackie Onyx mixers are great but firewire card is optional, and, of course
you need extra money.
On 2009.12.11 20:19, in article hfu5vn$18i$1...@panix2.panix.com, "Scott
Mike Rivers
> Mackie Onyx mixers are great but firewire card is optional, and, of course
> you need extra money.
The current "compact" Onyx series of mixers (up to 16 channels)
have the Firewire interface built in. If you want one without the Firewire
interface, there's the roughly equivalent VLZ3 series. The larger Onyx
mixers (24 channels, series 80) haven't had the "i" update with the
built-in Firewire yet.
Only the 1640i has a Firewire return on every channel. The smaller models
have only stereo Firewire return for playback of a mix made within the
computer, though in the current (smaller) models, unlike the original, the
stereo Firewire return can be routed through a stereo channel in addition
to just the monitor section.
None of the Onyx models (nor the A&H or PreSonus StudioLive) have
moving faders, but of the lot, only the A&H offers some DAW control surface
functionality.
adam79
>
> Why do you want to track to tape? If you believe in tape "magic", mix
> to a widetrack format if you must. But 16/24 tape is just, well,
> worse than digital in every way.
Has digital recording really gotten to the point where it can compete
with the warmth of analog, reel to reel tracking?
Laurence Payne
Ok, you believe in magic. So get hold of a wide-track stereo tape
machine and run your mix through it.
Scott Dorsey
It's different.
But I will say that low-end bargain basement digital is a lot less nasty
than low-end bargain basement analogue.
Sean Conolly
news:qYydnWPdBJimD7_W...@posted.toastnet...
We used one of the new Presonus StudioLive mixers the other night - didn't
get into it depth but sounded great.
http://www.presonus.com/products/Detail.aspx?ProductId=52
16 class A preamps, digital EQ and dynamics, fireware for recording, etc.
There was one on Ebay for $1600, which is about what I paid for my Crest
XR-20 a few years ago.
Sean
Richard Crowley
> Has digital recording really gotten to the point where it can compete
> with the warmth of analog, reel to reel tracking?
No, it's a lot cleaner than that.
Les Cargill
One (digital) reproduces pretty much what you throw at it,
the other is an effect.
"Which is better" depends on your project.
--
Les Cargill
Scott Dorsey
>adam79 wrote:
>> Laurence Payne wrote:
>>>
>>> Why do you want to track to tape? If you believe in tape "magic", mix
>>> to a widetrack format if you must. But 16/24 tape is just, well,
>>> worse than digital in every way.
>>
>> Has digital recording really gotten to the point where it can compete
>> with the warmth of analog, reel to reel tracking?
>
>One (digital) reproduces pretty much what you throw at it,
>the other is an effect.
I dunno, I can make analogue tape pretty damn transparent if that's what the
customer wants.
And, the fancy effects in the digital world get better and better every
day.
>"Which is better" depends on your project.
If anything, I am a major fan of working on analogue tape because it
forces you into a reasonable and organized workflow. Some people hate it
for the same reason.
Les Cargill
> Les Cargill <lcarg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> adam79 wrote:
>>> Laurence Payne wrote:
>>>> Why do you want to track to tape? If you believe in tape "magic", mix
>>>> to a widetrack format if you must. But 16/24 tape is just, well,
>>>> worse than digital in every way.
>>> Has digital recording really gotten to the point where it can compete
>>> with the warmth of analog, reel to reel tracking?
>> One (digital) reproduces pretty much what you throw at it,
>> the other is an effect.
>
> I dunno, I can make analogue tape pretty damn transparent if that's what the
> customer wants.
>
True enough. It's expensive, though. There was something about being
around the big machines that was kinda magical, anyway.
> And, the fancy effects in the digital world get better and better every
> day.
>
>> "Which is better" depends on your project.
>
> If anything, I am a major fan of working on analogue tape because it
> forces you into a reasonable and organized workflow. Some people hate it
> for the same reason.
> --scott
>
These days, I pretty much use digital as if it were tape. I will
from time to time modify arrangements by editing ( add a bridge, or
dupe a chorus ) , but that's about it. And that's in context of writing,
so it's a little less evil.
--
Les Cargill
Tracy Wintermute
<l...@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote:
>Why do you want to track to tape? If you believe in tape "magic", mix
>to a widetrack format if you must. But 16/24 tape is just, well,
>worse than digital in every way.
Oh, now you've gone and done it. You've likely awakened the ghost of
Tom Scholz's past... but I suppose it really IS about time for his
annual "hey! remember me?" rant......
Arny Krueger
A very tired troll.
Sean Conolly
news:hg1u4l$kis$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Les Cargill <lcarg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> adam79 wrote:
>>>> Laurence Payne wrote:
>>>>> Why do you want to track to tape? If you believe in tape "magic", mix
>>>>> to a widetrack format if you must. But 16/24 tape is just, well,
>>>>> worse than digital in every way.
>>>> Has digital recording really gotten to the point where it can compete
>>>> with the warmth of analog, reel to reel tracking?
>>> One (digital) reproduces pretty much what you throw at it,
>>> the other is an effect.
>>
>> I dunno, I can make analogue tape pretty damn transparent if that's what
>> the
>> customer wants.
>>
>
> True enough. It's expensive, though. There was something about being
> around the big machines that was kinda magical, anyway.
Yeah, still remember the awe I felt when I saw my first big tape machine (a
16 track Otari, I think). Even using a 'desktop' sized tape recorder would
give me a sense that we here to do business, not screw around. It's hard to
get that same feeling from a bunch of tracks displayed on an LCD screen.
Sean
geoff
Warm ? You mean "restricted frequency response" ?
geoff
geoff
>
> If anything, I am a major fan of working on analogue tape because it
> forces you into a reasonable and organized workflow. Some people
> hate it for the same reason.
> --scott
Could use a DAW and just get somebody to spank you regularly !
geoff
Scott Dorsey
Not here. Cal to within 1dB from 18Hz to 35Khz at 15ips. Thank you,
Flux Magnetics!
PStamler
Actually not so restricted. A decent analog recorder at 15 ips, IF
properly set up, will be -3dB at about 35kHz, which is of course a lot
better than 44.1kHz sampled digital. The same machine at 30 ips will
reach out to 40kHz or more.
There are lots of things to criticize in analog recording, but
frequency response isn't one of them, again IF the machine has been
properly calibrated.
Peace,
Paul
geoff
I strongly suspect the level of machine the op was referring to would likely
be somewhat restricted in freq response to give the effect of 'warmth'...
geoff
Arny Krueger
news:hg3qoi$58a$1...@panix2.panix.com
> geoff <ge...@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote:
>> adam79 wrote:
>>> Laurence Payne wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why do you want to track to tape? If you believe in
>>>> tape "magic", mix to a widetrack format if you must.
>>>> But 16/24 tape is just, well, worse than digital in
>>>> every way.
>>>
>>> Has digital recording really gotten to the point where
>>> it can compete with the warmth of analog, reel to reel
>>> tracking?
>>
>> Warm ? You mean "restricted frequency response" ?
>
> Not here. Cal to within 1dB from 18Hz to 35Khz at 15ips.
> Thank you, Flux Magnetics!
Even at 0 dB?
Hmm FS in a digital system is more like +6 or more in an analog tape system,
right? What's the FR in that nice analog tape system at +6?
No need to answer Scott... we both know the answer... ;-)
Arny Krueger
news:9e082870-6312-4d38...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com
> Actually not so restricted. A decent analog recorder at
> 15 ips, IF properly set up, will be -3dB at about 35kHz,
> which is of course a lot better than 44.1kHz sampled
> digital. The same machine at 30 ips will reach out to
> 40kHz or more.
Let's be clear and admit that this sort of exceptional response is
contingent on very fine azimuth adjustment, tape tension and media
consistency, that may not hold up during even during an end-to-end playback
of a single roll of tape. Furthermore, no way is this going to happen at 0
dB or the even higher peak levels that analog tape are commonly recorded at.
Apples-to-apples comparison, a 24/96 digital recording can easily be a
highly consistent 0 dB @ 35 KHz, 3.5 Hz, almost without regard to what you
do right or just a little suboptimal, no matter what digital media you
choose or how often you play it, as long as there is any recording ->
playback response at all.
Scott Dorsey
>> Thank you, Flux Magnetics!
>
>Even at 0 dB?
Yup, because I cal at +3 over 185 nW instead of some crazy high output
level.
>Hmm FS in a digital system is more like +6 or more in an analog tape system,
>right? What's the FR in that nice analog tape system at +6?
It's pretty good at +6 with RMGI 468. If I went for something like the ATR
Magnetics tape and kept cal at +3 over 185 nW, it would probably be flat as
a rail since that's still way below the 20KHz saturation level of the ATR tape.
>No need to answer Scott... we both know the answer... ;-)
Yes, the MOL on analogue tape is lower at high frequencies than at low
frequencies. Most of the time that's fine, since typical musical signals
have a lot more high frequencies than low. When it's not fine, you can
reduce your operating level.
A lot of people today like to drive tapes at crazy operating levels to get
high frequency limiting. That's a useful thing to be able to do, but most
of the time I don't want to do that. The tape machine gives me the choice.
Scott Dorsey
>> 15 ips, IF properly set up, will be -3dB at about 35kHz,
>> which is of course a lot better than 44.1kHz sampled
>> digital. The same machine at 30 ips will reach out to
>> 40kHz or more.
>
>Let's be clear and admit that this sort of exceptional response is
>contingent on very fine azimuth adjustment, tape tension and media
>consistency, that may not hold up during even during an end-to-end playback
>of a single roll of tape.
This is all true. However, the economics of today have meant that very
high precision tape machines are now available at shockingly low prices.
The bad news is that the labour to keep them that way is a lot more expensive
than it used to be, but that's just how life is.
>Furthermore, no way is this going to happen at 0
>dB or the even higher peak levels that analog tape are commonly recorded at.
Depends on what you decide 0dB is.
>Apples-to-apples comparison, a 24/96 digital recording can easily be a
>highly consistent 0 dB @ 35 KHz, 3.5 Hz, almost without regard to what you
>do right or just a little suboptimal, no matter what digital media you
>choose or how often you play it, as long as there is any recording ->
>playback response at all.
Sure, but with great freedom comes great responsibility too, as McArthur
said...
PStamler
> "PStamler" <pstam...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9e082870-6312-4d38...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com
>
> > Actually not so restricted. A decent analog recorder at
> > 15 ips, IF properly set up, will be -3dB at about 35kHz,
> > which is of course a lot better than 44.1kHz sampled
> > digital. The same machine at 30 ips will reach out to
> > 40kHz or more.
>
> Let's be clear and admit that this sort of exceptional response is
> contingent on very fine azimuth adjustment, tape tension and media
> consistency, that may not hold up during even during an end-to-end playback
> of a single roll of tape. Furthermore, no way is this going to happen at 0
> dB or the even higher peak levels that analog tape are commonly recorded at.
Not so, on multiple levels. "Very fine azimuth adjustment"? I adjusted
the machine with an Allen wrench and an Eico 460 scope in XY mode,
plus an MRL alignment tape. The machine in question is a Studer A807,
and it hold its adjustment for at least 4 months (that's how often I
show the students how to adjust azimuth; when I arrive, it's always
spot-on from last time). Tape tension on these machines also holds
well, and does hold up from end to end of a reel of tape.
The bandwidths in question, 35kHz for 15 ips and 40kHz for 30 ips,
were measured at 0 VU = 320nW/m using RMG 911 tape biased per
manufacturers recommendation. The response of the tape is almost
certainly better than that at 30 ips, since the machine is -3dB @
40kHz in input mode, presumably limited by the input transformers.
According to the spec sheet for the tape, there should be 10dB of
headroom over 320nW/m for 10kHz at 15 ips, and 7dB of headroom at
16kHz. At 30 ips the numbers are slightly higher, 11dB and 9dB
respectively.
As I said in the earlier post, there are problems with analog
recording, but if the machine is kept properly maintained, restricted
bandwidth isn't one of them.
> Apples-to-apples comparison, a 24/96 digital recording can easily be a
> highly consistent 0 dB @ 35 KHz, 3.5 Hz, almost without regard to what you
> do right or just a little suboptimal, no matter what digital media you
> choose or how often you play it, as long as there is any recording ->
> playback response at all.
Irrelevant. I was responding to the assertion that "warm sound" in
analog recording comes from bandwidth restriction. It doesn't.
Peace,
Paul
Arny Krueger
<snip some really eye-opening stuff about analog tape dynamic range in the
later days>
> Irrelevant. I was responding to the assertion that "warm
> sound" in analog recording comes from bandwidth
> restriction. It doesn't.
Relevant. Not every analog machine was aligned with the latest-greatest tape
around, and by an expert. Furthermore, the urban legend about analog tape
warmth dates back at least 25 years, to the advent of digital.
If analog tape is providing +/- 0.3 dB from 50 to 15 KHz with smooth
rolloffs outside of that, and about 70 dB dynamic range over the range of
amplitudes that it was actually being used, then its a tough challenge to
hear the difference between it, and good digital. The legend of analog
warmth would then be an artifact of days gone by, when analog was nowhere
near that good.
Scott Dorsey
>later days>
>
>> Irrelevant. I was responding to the assertion that "warm
>> sound" in analog recording comes from bandwidth
>> restriction. It doesn't.
>
>Relevant. Not every analog machine was aligned with the latest-greatest tape
>around, and by an expert.
These days they have to be, because that's all the tape you can get.
>Furthermore, the urban legend about analog tape
>warmth dates back at least 25 years, to the advent of digital.
A lot of that had to do with the fact that digital systems 25 years ago
sounded pretty awful. Thank God things have got better.
>If analog tape is providing +/- 0.3 dB from 50 to 15 KHz with smooth
>rolloffs outside of that, and about 70 dB dynamic range over the range of
>amplitudes that it was actually being used, then its a tough challenge to
>hear the difference between it, and good digital.
If that's what you want, it can be _very_ tough to do so. Add Dolby SR
and you will be very hard-pressed to tell the difference between an ATR-100
with a typical digital system.
>The legend of analog
>warmth would then be an artifact of days gone by, when analog was nowhere
>near that good.
Analogue has been that good since the late 1970s, really. And even back
in the red oxide tape days of the fifties, analogue studio recorders were
pretty damn good.
If you _don't_ want a transparent sound from an analogue machine, you can
get that in a number of ways, and it can give you a huge variety of useful
effects. But if you do want a transparent sound, there's no reason you
can't get it today with analogue as well as digital.
Cyberserf
I've always understood the Mojo of analogue (particularly with regards
to tape) as an artifact of the results obtained through "saturation",
"grumble", "distortion" and other "musical" artifacts (touch the
flange of the reel or some other techystique)...I've certainly
understood that the greater resolution now possible with digital
equipment provides a lot more headroom than yesteryears' analogies and
that's no triviality, indeed, I am reminded of the possibilities with
every new VST replicating the "analog" sound....people didn't make
great recordings because of the technology....people made great
recordings despite it...embrace tomorrow, it'll all change before you
know it.
great debate, cheers, CS
Scott Dorsey
>I've always understood the Mojo of analogue (particularly with regards
>to tape) as an artifact of the results obtained through "saturation",
>"grumble", "distortion" and other "musical" artifacts (touch the
>flange of the reel or some other techystique)...
Some of the artifacts are useful and powerful. But if you don't want
the artifacts, you don't have to have them.
When I was an assistant engineer, tape overload would have got you fired
from a session in a minute. Saturation was just a thing that wasn't done
in polite company. Now it's a very popular effect. Times change.
>I've certainly
>understood that the greater resolution now possible with digital
>equipment provides a lot more headroom than yesteryears' analogies and
>that's no triviality, indeed, I am reminded of the possibilities with
>every new VST replicating the "analog" sound....people didn't make
>great recordings because of the technology....people made great
>recordings despite it...embrace tomorrow, it'll all change before you
>know it.
The thing is, digital systems give you the chance to have new and
different subtle effects. So it's that much more disturbing that kids
keep getting hung up on this silly attempt to model analogue tape
artifacts. There's no reason to limit yourself to that today.
PStamler
> The thing is, digital systems give you the chance to have new and
> different subtle effects. So it's that much more disturbing that kids
> keep getting hung up on this silly attempt to model analogue tape
> artifacts. There's no reason to limit yourself to that today.
And, as Scott noted in the snipped portion, they're trying to model
the stuff we all worked hard to *avoid* when analog was the only thing
around.
As for the "analog adds warmth" business...google "head bumps"
sometime. Really good analog doesn't do that.
Peace,
Paul
adam79
>
> This is all true. However, the economics of today have meant that very
> high precision tape machines are now available at shockingly low prices.
> The bad news is that the labour to keep them that way is a lot more expensive
> than it used to be, but that's just how life is.
>
What are some of the brand/models that are considered high-end
professional reel to reel recorders. I know the cost varies depending on
the quality of the unit, but what is the average price for a quality
16-24 track recorder? I'm assuming from the comments that if the machine
runs on anything less than 2" tape, it's not worth it. Actually, even
that seems like a waste of money according to all the responses.
In terms of the mixer, it would be nice to be able to run a mixer that
can send and return signals from the recording software. One of you
mentioned that the M-Powered version of PT is allowing more 3rd party
vendors compatibility. I've read that the M-Powered version of PT is
inferior to LE, is this true?
Thanks for all the help,
-Adam
david correia
Laurence Payne <l...@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:19:12 -0500, adam79 <ada...@toast.net> wrote:
>
> >> Why do you want to track to tape? If you believe in tape "magic", mix
> >> to a widetrack format if you must. But 16/24 tape is just, well,
> >> worse than digital in every way.
> >
> >Has digital recording really gotten to the point where it can compete
> >with the warmth of analog, reel to reel tracking?
>
> Ok, you believe in magic. So get hold of a wide-track stereo tape
> machine and run your mix through it.
It's not uncommon for a lot of very talented mastering engineers to do
exactly that.
If you worship specs, then digital is king. If you know how to drive the
car, there are things analog tape can do that are absolutely wonderful.
Thus the many analog tape plug-ins. Even Rupert makes a "True Tape" box.
With a 7.5/15 button. Anyone ever spent time with it?
http://rupertneve.com/products/portico-5042/
David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com
Badmuts
"Laurence Payne" <l...@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6s45i5ll2v7088ikj...@4ax.com...
> You could look at the Mackie Onyx mixers, with the Firewire option.
> This gives you 16 + 2 channels of input to any DAW program.
If you're on a budget you get the same and more functionality from the
Phonic Helix Board 24 MKII
Mike Rivers
> What are some of the brand/models that are considered high-end
> professional reel to reel recorders. I know the cost varies depending on
> the quality of the unit, but what is the average price for a quality
> 16-24 track recorder?
That isn't an easy question to answer. The easiest answer is that there
is no answer because you cannot buy a new 16-24 track recorder today
unless Studer still has one in the warehouse. That would be around $50,000.
Used Ampex, Otari, MCI, 3M, and Studer multitracks go for as little as
$1,000 and
generally not more than $3,000, but being used, you're never really sure of
the condition, and therefore, its ability to ever be "quality."
ATR Service will fix you up with a better-than-new Ampex MM1200 at a price
depending on the electronics that you want with it and what needed to be
fixed/updated. And you can take your chances on eBay.
> I'm assuming from the comments that if the machine
> runs on anything less than 2" tape, it's not worth it. Actually, even
> that seems like a waste of money according to all the responses.
It all depends on why you want it. If you want to set up a "vintage" studio
and use it as your primary recorder, then I wouldn't bother with a 1" or
1/2" 16 or 24 track recorder, though the Otari 1" MX70 isn't too bad. If
you
want to record your drums analog, a 1" 8 track will probably do the job. And
many people find what they're seeking by mixing down their ProTools tracks
to a 1/2" or 1/4" 2-track recorder or running a track or two through it,
using
it as an effect processor.
If you want "that warm analog sound" you aren't going to get it
from a narrow gauge 16-track, but it will give you the workflow of a
multitrack
analog recorder. Some like it better than using a DAW, others only see the
time necessary to rewind the tape to the beginning of the take or punch-in
point as being a distraction and wasted time.
> In terms of the mixer, it would be nice to be able to run a mixer that
> can send and return signals from the recording software.
That would be the class known as a multitrack recording console. There's
actually a separate section of the mixer (though in an in-line design it's
integrated with the channel strips) that's devoted to monitoring (tape
returns)
while tracking.
> One of you
> mentioned that the M-Powered version of PT is allowing more 3rd party
> vendors compatibility. I've read that the M-Powered version of PT is
> inferior to LE, is this true?
The differences aren't in "software quality" but in number of tracks
available
and stuff bundled in with the package. Of course the difference between
a TDM
and a "native" ProTools system is huge, as is the difference in cost.
Arny Krueger
news:noemail-125E3A...@forte.easynews.com
> In article <ttv7i5dj617adgfae...@4ax.com>,
> Laurence Payne <l...@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:19:12 -0500, adam79
>> <ada...@toast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Why do you want to track to tape? If you believe in
>>>> tape "magic", mix to a widetrack format if you must.
>>>> But 16/24 tape is just, well, worse than digital in
>>>> every way.
>>>
>>> Has digital recording really gotten to the point where
>>> it can compete with the warmth of analog, reel to reel
>>> tracking?
>>
>> Ok, you believe in magic. So get hold of a wide-track
>> stereo tape machine and run your mix through it.
> It's not uncommon for a lot of very talented mastering
> engineers to do exactly that.
Just because you're talented doesn't mean you use the latest tools. But
talent does tend to keep up with technology.
> If you worship specs, then digital is king.
If you want sonic accuracy and freedom from didling with the hardware, then
digital is king.
> If you know
> how to drive the car, there are things analog tape can do
> that are absolutely wonderful.
It's all about costs and benefits, and in the end the market spoke - the
cost of analog makes it prohibitively expensive in time and effort except
for niche applications.
> Thus the many analog tape plug-ins. Even Rupert makes a
> "True Tape" box. With a 7.5/15 button. Anyone ever spent
> time with it?
> http://rupertneve.com/products/portico-5042/
Just another example of how it is far eaiser to take a clean signal and
errr, process it to add noise and distortion, as opposed to trying to clean
the trash out of a medium that has audible flaws and/or maintenance and
setup issues that proved egregious to the vast majority of all recordists,
regardless of the level they work at.
Arny Krueger
message news:4b27432c$0$29392$2e0e...@news.tweakdsl.nl
Right, that's an interesting combination of functions. Look at it as a 24
channel in/2 out audio interface with 16 mic preamps and potentially usable
analog monitoring facilities.
But what about the reliability of the controls and connectors after say, 5
years?
hank alrich
> That isn't an easy question to answer. The easiest answer is that there
> is no answer because you cannot buy a new 16-24 track recorder today
> unless Studer still has one in the warehouse. That would be around $50,000.
> Used Ampex, Otari, MCI, 3M, and Studer multitracks go for as little as
> $1,000 and
> generally not more than $3,000, but being used, you're never really sure of
> the condition, and therefore, its ability to ever be "quality."
Don't know if Studer still has machines, but at one point not so long
ago they were selling the last A827's w/full remote for about $22K and
shipping.
--
ha
shut up and play your guitar
http://www.armadillomusicproductions.com/CarryMeHome.htm
http://hankalrich.com/
Scott Dorsey
>What are some of the brand/models that are considered high-end
>professional reel to reel recorders.
Look for machines made by Ampex, Studer, MCI, and the like. Those three
had most of the US market for a long time. They made a wide variety of
machines from low end broadcast machines to high end studio machines.
>I know the cost varies depending on
>the quality of the unit, but what is the average price for a quality
>16-24 track recorder?
The problem is that the economics are all inverted these days. The
tape machine is basically worth whatever the heads are worth, and the
head life almost completely determines the value of a machine today.
I have seen Ampex MM1100 machines in the $1k range, with 24 track headstacks
that are in decent shape.
The cost of the hardware is artificially low, but the cost of the labour is
still very high. If you are not a good technician, you can very quickly
find yourself spending $10k or so having a tech replace capacitors and
bearings to bring an old machine up to good reliability and factory specs.
>I'm assuming from the comments that if the machine
> runs on anything less than 2" tape, it's not worth it. Actually, even
>that seems like a waste of money according to all the responses.
If you want 16 tracks, yes. But there are 1" 8-track machines out there
that are quite good, and there are even some 1/2" 4-track Ampex 440s available
for very little which are fairly easy machines to work on. Tape costs are
cheaper, and they will force you into working in a more careful way.
>In terms of the mixer, it would be nice to be able to run a mixer that
>can send and return signals from the recording software. One of you
>mentioned that the M-Powered version of PT is allowing more 3rd party
>vendors compatibility. I've read that the M-Powered version of PT is
>inferior to LE, is this true?
Any analogue mixer will do this. Try some, pick the one that feels most
comfortable under your hands.
Scott Dorsey
>
>If you want sonic accuracy and freedom from didling with the hardware, then
>digital is king.
I wish this were true.
I spend too damn much time diddling with digital hardware.
Scott Dorsey
>Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>
>> That isn't an easy question to answer. The easiest answer is that there
>> is no answer because you cannot buy a new 16-24 track recorder today
>> unless Studer still has one in the warehouse. That would be around $50,000.
>> Used Ampex, Otari, MCI, 3M, and Studer multitracks go for as little as
>> $1,000 and
>> generally not more than $3,000, but being used, you're never really sure of
>> the condition, and therefore, its ability to ever be "quality."
>
>Don't know if Studer still has machines, but at one point not so long
>ago they were selling the last A827's w/full remote for about $22K and
>shipping.
I think those are all gone now. Nagra will still sell you a brand new
2-track machine for a very fearful price, though.
Mike Rivers
> It's all about costs and benefits, and in the end the market spoke - the
> cost of analog makes it prohibitively expensive in time and effort except
> for niche applications.
What's wrong with this picture? Analog recording was never prohibitively
expensive before, and it's no more expensive today. Tape cost is probably
greater, but you can make that up easily when you consider today's cost
of a 30 year old recorder.
What's wrong is that the willingness to spend has gone way down. 30 years
ago, only people with $20,000 to spend had the ambition to make (and sell)
records. Today, anyone with $100 and a song wants to, and finds a way to
do it.
Mike Rivers
> Don't know if Studer still has machines, but at one point not so long
> ago they were selling the last A827's w/full remote for about $22K and
> shipping.
Such a deal! I think that was when I was told that they had about five left
and didn't intend to make any more. Then they said they'd make more if
the orders came in. So I dunno. Anyhow, I expect that whatever the cost
for a new Studer A827, it's more than anyone posting here would be able
or willing to pay.
Predrag Trpkov
"hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message
news:1jarbrt.1tk7rgfjcsd26N%walk...@nv.net...
> Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>
>> That isn't an easy question to answer. The easiest answer is that there
>> is no answer because you cannot buy a new 16-24 track recorder today
>> unless Studer still has one in the warehouse. That would be around
>> $50,000.
>> Used Ampex, Otari, MCI, 3M, and Studer multitracks go for as little as
>> $1,000 and
>> generally not more than $3,000, but being used, you're never really sure
>> of
>> the condition, and therefore, its ability to ever be "quality."
>
> Don't know if Studer still has machines, but at one point not so long
> ago they were selling the last A827's w/full remote for about $22K and
> shipping.
If what I read somewhere on the Net is true than they don't. Allegedly an
order came from Harman, around two years ago, to destroy Studer's entire
analog stock, a warehouse-worth of analog equipment, spare parts and tools,
including two brand new Gold Edition A827s. The estimated value was
something between 5 and 10 million Euro. Harman had a team of supervisors
flown over from the U.S. to make sure not a single item escapes the hammer.
The people at Studer weren't allowed to save anything, not even for their
museum.
Predrag
Predrag Trpkov
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:19:12 -0500, adam79 <ada...@toast.net> wrote:
>
>>> Why do you want to track to tape? If you believe in tape "magic", mix
>>> to a widetrack format if you must. But 16/24 tape is just, well,
>>> worse than digital in every way.
>>
>>Has digital recording really gotten to the point where it can compete
>>with the warmth of analog, reel to reel tracking?
>
> Ok, you believe in magic. So get hold of a wide-track stereo tape
> machine and run your mix through it.
Just don't go too far. The wider the tape, the less magic. That's why 1/4"
is still so popular.
Predrag
PStamler
> adam79 <ada...@toast.net> wrote:
> >What are some of the brand/models that are considered high-end
> >professional reel to reel recorders.
>
> Look for machines made by Ampex, Studer, MCI, and the like. Those three
> had most of the US market for a long time. They made a wide variety of
> machines from low end broadcast machines to high end studio machines.
If you're really interested, I'd suggest being very cautious about MCI
machines. Before they were taken over by Sony, they had serious
problems with, among other things, bias stability.
If you're interested in an 8-track 1" machine, look also at at the
Scully. A lot of good records were made on those.
Peace,
Paul
Scott Dorsey
>On Dec 15, 9:17=A0am, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>> adam79 =A0<ada...@toast.net> wrote:
>> >What are some of the brand/models that are considered high-end
>> >professional reel to reel recorders.
>>
>e
>> had most of the US market for a long time. =A0They made a wide variety of
>> machines from low end broadcast machines to high end studio machines.
>
>If you're really interested, I'd suggest being very cautious about MCI
>machines. Before they were taken over by Sony, they had serious
>problems with, among other things, bias stability.
SOME models are like this. Some of them are not. And there are a bunch
of very different machines all sold as "JH-110".... the JH-110C has no
stability issues but some earlier models had problems.
>If you're interested in an 8-track 1" machine, look also at at the
>Scully. A lot of good records were made on those.
That is, the Scully 280B. Not the Scully 280, which is a different machine
altogether (and a horrible nightmare of one). And for God's sake, stay
away from the Scully 100, if there are any of them still out there running.
Predrag Trpkov
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:nu-dnVaX1PqaE7rW...@giganews.com...
It's all about convenience when it comes to pop/rock and many other styles.
Analog is cheap as dirt nowadays, but recording is no longer about capturing
(integral) performances. Construction is the name of the game and that's
where digital wins. It's superior both in operational convenience and sonic
transparency, but quite often it wins because of the former and in spite of
the latter.
>> Thus the many analog tape plug-ins. Even Rupert makes a
>> "True Tape" box. With a 7.5/15 button. Anyone ever spent
>> time with it?
>
>> http://rupertneve.com/products/portico-5042/
>
> Just another example of how it is far eaiser to take a clean signal and
> errr, process it to add noise and distortion, as opposed to trying to
> clean the trash out of a medium that has audible flaws and/or maintenance
> and setup issues that proved egregious to the vast majority of all
> recordists, regardless of the level they work at.
It's easy to add noise and distortion to a clean digital signal, but not all
trash is made equal. Isn't it ironic that there's been a whole industry,
constantly growing, designing product after product in an attempt to emulate
the colourations you so easily dismiss? How do you feel about the fact that
the very best brains in pro audio have been engaged for some time now in
bringing back the egregious audible flaws of analog as faithfully as
possible? And the demand is growing. And they're still trying.
As you say, the market spoke.
Predrag
Arny Krueger
news:hg89m9$mjk$1...@news.eternal-september.org
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> It's all about costs and benefits, and in the end the
>> market spoke - the cost of analog makes it prohibitively
>> expensive in time and effort except for niche
>> applications.
>
> What's wrong with this picture? Analog recording was
Really?
In or about 1970 I purchased a Revox A77. Street price was $569 if memory
serves. It seriously underperformed the true pro decks of the day (Ampex,
Scully, Studer). At the time I was making about $7000 a year, so this was
about a month's pay for me, and I was making several times the minimum wage.
> and it's no more expensive today.
Other than maintenance and media costs.
> Tape cost is probably greater, but you
> can make that up easily when you consider today's cost of
> a 30 year old recorder.
The digital equivalent bought today would cost maybe $130 and vastly
outperform the Revox A77. This is less than a half week's wage, even at
just the minimum wage.
> What's wrong is that the willingness to spend has gone
> way down. 30 years ago, only people with $20,000 to spend
> had the ambition to make (and sell) records. Today,
> anyone with $100 and a song wants to, and finds a way to
> do it.
I would say that from a musical options and availability standpoint, this is
a good thing. Music is now far more about labor and creativity than
capital.
Scott Dorsey
>
>I would say that from a musical options and availability standpoint, this is
>a good thing. Music is now far more about labor and creativity than
>capital.
If this were actually the case, the quality of music today would be far
better than it were when we were young.
mikea
> Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>
>>I would say that from a musical options and availability standpoint, this is
>>a good thing. Music is now far more about labor and creativity than
>>capital.
>
> If this were actually the case, the quality of music today would be far
> better than it were when we were young.
Some people think it is. I emphatically am not among them, but some
people think it is.
No matter how hard you work on a mud pie, no matter how skillfully you
shape it, it remains a mud pie.
--
Mike Andrews, W5EGO
mi...@mikea.ath.cx
Tired old sysadmin
Cyberserf
wrote:
> It's easy to add noise and distortion to a clean digital signal, but not all
> trash is made equal. Isn't it ironic that there's been a whole industry,
> constantly growing, designing product after product in an attempt to emulate
> the colourations you so easily dismiss? How do you feel about the fact that
> the very best brains in pro audio have been engaged for some time now in
> bringing back the egregious audible flaws of analog as faithfully as
> possible? And the demand is growing. And they're still trying.
>
> As you say, the market spoke.
>
> Predrag
That's what I'm talking about. Now, I don't have near Scott's
experience with tape and I'm sure he and other have the ability to
prove me wrong, but I can say that for *me* it is difficult (and to
correct, potentially expensive) to make my analog recordings sound as
transparent as my digital stuff. On the other hand, there is an
industry that is built around making tools to help me turn that
digital sound into something analogous to analog, and by-and-large, it
is thriving and to my ear, effectively so. Uhmmm...is this the best of
both worlds? Maybe. Certainly, compared to its "vintage" forbearer
(wax?), tape and vinyl had something to add which gave it a
preeminence for a time. However, for me (again), people make great
music despite the technology, seldom because of it and frankly, IMHO,
if we (like those vintage artists of old) pushed the tools we have
towards the future rather than staunchly holding to those tools that
where, we may indeed jump to the next groove. I'm hoping for something
with a Reggae like offbeat and some iambic constructions from a
lyrical perspective.
Regards, CS
Mike Rivers
> The digital equivalent bought today would cost maybe $130 and vastly
> outperform the Revox A77. This is less than a half week's wage, even at
> just the minimum wage.
Well, maybe $200 for a hand-sized recorder. Or $300 for one that has mic
inputs that you can use. But if you need to edit you need a computer that
costs as much as the Revox.
My point was that 30 years ago, recording was for professionals who spend
as much money as was necessary to equip themselves to get work. It wasn't
for hobbyists who are only doing it because it's so inexpensive.
> I would say that from a musical options and availability standpoint, this is
> a good thing. Music is now far more about labor and creativity than
> capital.
That can't be good for professional musicians. <g>
geoff
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> This is all true. However, the economics of today have meant that
>> very high precision tape machines are now available at shockingly low
>> prices. The bad news is that the labour to keep them that way is a lot
>> more
>> expensive than it used to be, but that's just how life is.
>>
>
> What are some of the brand/models that are considered high-end
> professional reel to reel recorders. I know the cost varies depending
> on the quality of the unit, but what is the average price for a
> quality 16-24 track recorder? I'm assuming from the comments that if
> the machine runs on anything less than 2" tape, it's not worth it.
> Actually, even that seems like a waste of money according to all the
> responses.
I think your whole premise that you are likely to improve something by way
of this bizarre routing is "not worth it".
geoff
geoff
Yeah, I just picked one up 'cheap' to replace a Mackie SDR24/96 for
'convenience' recording of live performances. Not for critcical recording.
The analogue seems no worse than any Mackie (or similar level analogue
mixer) I've ever heard, and the AD seems just fine. And just about
EVERYTHING is solo-able. And what's more is that the FW seems to work
straight off into my lapop.
geoff
geoff
Running you tracks thru a shellac stage will impart even more quality to you
music.
geoff
Scott Dorsey
>That's what I'm talking about. Now, I don't have near Scott's
>experience with tape and I'm sure he and other have the ability to
>prove me wrong, but I can say that for *me* it is difficult (and to
>correct, potentially expensive) to make my analog recordings sound as
>transparent as my digital stuff.
Well, then use digital stuff when you want transparency. That's what
I do most of the time these days. It's less expensive and it's mostly
reliable now. Take advantage of it.
> On the other hand, there is an
>industry that is built around making tools to help me turn that
>digital sound into something analogous to analog, and by-and-large, it
>is thriving and to my ear, effectively so.
And this is what I think is a bad thing. People get all caught up on
"it sounds analogue" or "it doesn't sound analogue enough" when they
need only to be worrying about whether it sounds good.
The digital world gives you a very different palette of effects than the
analogue world, but it gives you a really big palette of good effects
and that's a good thing.
>Uhmmm...is this the best of
>both worlds? Maybe. Certainly, compared to its "vintage" forbearer
>(wax?), tape and vinyl had something to add which gave it a
>preeminence for a time. However, for me (again), people make great
>music despite the technology, seldom because of it and frankly, IMHO,
>if we (like those vintage artists of old) pushed the tools we have
>towards the future rather than staunchly holding to those tools that
>where, we may indeed jump to the next groove.
Right, and that is why I am disturbed at all of these attempts to model
analogue artifacts in the digital domain, because it is holding people
back in an analogue model.
I already know how to get a huge palette of analogue tape sounds, and
I have a tape machine for that. What makes digital good is the ability
to get different and new sounds that you can't get from tape.
>I'm hoping for something
>with a Reggae like offbeat and some iambic constructions from a
>lyrical perspective.
People worry too damn much. Either it sounds good or it doesn't sound
good.
geoff
>> On the other hand, there is an
>> industry that is built around making tools to help me turn that
>> digital sound into something analogous to analog, and by-and-large,
>> it is thriving and to my ear, effectively so.
>
> And this is what I think is a bad thing. People get all caught up on
> "it sounds analogue" or "it doesn't sound analogue enough" when they
> need only to be worrying about whether it sounds good.
Funny thing is that analogue has always striven to acquire the qualities
that all but the worst digital has had for years, if not decades.
geoff
david correia
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> "david correia" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:noemail-125E3A...@forte.easynews.com
> > In article <ttv7i5dj617adgfae...@4ax.com>,
> > Laurence Payne <l...@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:19:12 -0500, adam79
> >> <ada...@toast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Why do you want to track to tape? If you believe in
> >>>> tape "magic", mix to a widetrack format if you must.
> >>>> But 16/24 tape is just, well, worse than digital in
> >>>> every way.
> >>>
> >>> Has digital recording really gotten to the point where
> >>> it can compete with the warmth of analog, reel to reel
> >>> tracking?
> >>
> >> Ok, you believe in magic. So get hold of a wide-track
> >> stereo tape machine and run your mix through it.
>
> > It's not uncommon for a lot of very talented mastering
> > engineers to do exactly that.
>
> Just because you're talented doesn't mean you use the latest tools. But
> talent does tend to keep up with technology.
>
> > If you worship specs, then digital is king.
>
> If you want sonic accuracy and freedom from didling with the hardware, then
> digital is king.
Putting tape aside for the moment, what I strive for as a recording
engineer are great sounds. And great mixes. Not some virginal ideal of
sonic accuracy. Cuz sometimes accuracy totally blows.
> > If you know
> > how to drive the car, there are things analog tape can do
> > that are absolutely wonderful.
>
> It's all about costs and benefits, and in the end the market spoke - the
> cost of analog makes it prohibitively expensive in time and effort except
> for niche applications.
Nobody's talking costs or the market. Just a simple statement that there
are things that analog tape can do that are absolutely wonderful.
>
> > Thus the many analog tape plug-ins. Even Rupert makes a
> > "True Tape" box. With a 7.5/15 button. Anyone ever spent
> > time with it?
>
> > http://rupertneve.com/products/portico-5042/
>
> Just another example of how it is far eaiser to take a clean signal and
> errr, process it to add noise and distortion, as opposed to trying to clean
> the trash out of a medium that has audible flaws and/or maintenance and
> setup issues that proved egregious to the vast majority of all recordists,
> regardless of the level they work at.
I gotta laugh that you think what Rupert created is misguided.
Recording engineers, and guys like Rupert, *really* like to fuck with
sound. It's what we do for a living!
Only if we're good at it, of course ;>
David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com
Arny Krueger
news:hg8m1i$oue$1...@panix2.panix.com
> Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>
>> I would say that from a musical options and availability
>> standpoint, this is a good thing. Music is now far more
>> about labor and creativity than capital.
>
> If this were actually the case, the quality of music
> today would be far better than it were when we were young.
> --scott
"Better" has many dimensions. One dimension of better can be personal
familiarity with the performer and/or composer. The degree of familiarity is
maximized when the performer and/or composer is you. Clearly, the changing
economy of recording has increased this kind of better.
Predrag Trpkov
The ultimate result of that kind of familiarity is that the only audience is
you. That's probably for the better, too.
Predrag
Scott Dorsey
Yes, although I think saying "decades" is an extreme exaggeration.
I remember the first time I heard the PCM F-1... the first thing that
amazed me was how wonderful and solid the low end was. It seemed like
the first time I'd actually heard real low end from an orchestral recording.
It was only a little bit later that I realized the top end squawk was
giving me a headache.
We got analogue stuff working hard to get the characteristics of digital,
and digital systems working hard to get the characteristics of analogue.
It's sort of like how black folks use skin lightening creams and white folks
go to the tanning salon.... it's just a weird world we live in.
Richard Crowley
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>I would say that from a musical options and availability standpoint, this
>>is
>>a good thing. Music is now far more about labor and creativity than
>>capital.
>
> If this were actually the case, the quality of music today would be far
> better than it were when we were young.
Is that a philosophical statement or a technical one?
Perhaps the perception that music today is NOT better could be
attributed to a couple of things:
1) The lower cost of halfway decent equipment has put the capability
into a larger cadre of unskilled, amateur technical hands. This makes
it more likely that we will get to hear poorer recordings from people
who haven't learned better yet (or maybe never will, who knows?)
In the day of the big labels, nothing but professionally-produced,
economically-viable recordings ever got released. And "released"
meant a significant financial investment in manufacturing and
distributing discs, etc.
2) Same as #1 above, but applied to the performers on the other
side of the microphone(s).
Or, perhaps #3, we just don't find contemporary "music" very
appealing or even interesting because it is written by/for a
younger generation of customers.
OTOH, I was an old fuddy-duddy even in high school. I was the
only one in the school (AFAIK) who didn't appreciate the latest
mega-sensation, The Beatles. I still don't care for them as
performers, but SOME of their compositions are appealing
when performed by others in significant arrangements.
Mike Rivers
> Perhaps the perception that music today is NOT better could be
> attributed to a couple of things:
>
> 1) The lower cost of halfway decent equipment has put the capability
> into a larger cadre of unskilled, amateur technical hands. This makes
> it more likely that we will get to hear poorer recordings from people
> who haven't learned better yet (or maybe never will, who knows?)
I can forgive mediocre recording. But the lower cost of recording equipment
and, in addition, the new methods of distribution of recorded music that
doesn't depend on an expensive initial order of product has prompted
people whose music doesn't have broad appeal (I'm being very diplomatic
here) has diluted the pool of potentially interesting, well crafted, and
well performed music. There's too much to choose from.
> In the day of the big labels, nothing but professionally-produced,
> economically-viable recordings ever got released. And "released"
> meant a significant financial investment in manufacturing and
> distributing discs, etc.
Yup. And also, it was pre-filtered - the best (or at least near the top)
of its genre. So what if there were only 1000 records released a year
rather than 1000 released every week? At least I know that someone
else has listened to it before I did and pronounced it "a good rendition
of what it is."
> Or, perhaps #3, we just don't find contemporary "music" very
> appealing or even interesting because it is written by/for a
> younger generation of customers.
I don't think it's a matter of being for the younger generation, but
rather being executed by the younger generation without the
benefit of the experience of the older generation. Too many self-
produced recordings.
> OTOH, I was an old fuddy-duddy even in high school. I was the
> only one in the school (AFAIK) who didn't appreciate the latest
> mega-sensation, The Beatles. I still don't care for them as
> performers, but SOME of their compositions are appealing
> when performed by others in significant arrangements.
I appreciate The Beatles more today than when I was in college.
Too bad they aren't still making records. They had some pretty
crazy ideas, but also had the guidance of good engineers and
producers to help pull them off successfully. A fifteen year old
with an M-Box who plays guitar, bass, and drums just couldn't
pull something like that off alone in his bedroom today.
Neil Gould
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>
>> Perhaps the perception that music today is NOT better could be
>> attributed to a couple of things:
>>
>> 1) The lower cost of halfway decent equipment has put the capability
>> into a larger cadre of unskilled, amateur technical hands. This makes
>> it more likely that we will get to hear poorer recordings from people
>> who haven't learned better yet (or maybe never will, who knows?)
>
> I can forgive mediocre recording. But the lower cost of recording
> equipment and, in addition, the new methods of distribution of
> recorded music that doesn't depend on an expensive initial order of
> product has prompted people whose music doesn't have broad appeal
> (I'm being very diplomatic here) has diluted the pool of potentially
> interesting, well crafted, and well performed music. There's too much
> to choose from.
>
quality of the recording. A good song can transcend a bad recording, but the
reverse is seldom true. Some of my favorite records have lousy sound
quality, and this is from folks that also have high-quality recordings. For
example, I prefer my bootleg of the "Let It Be" album to any of the versions
that were commercially released. Others with "OK" recording quality... John
Mayal's Bluesbreakers or "Chicken Shack" for instance... are at least as
interesting to listen to than most of the highly-produced but formulaic
records that some members of those bands put out later. Others that are
musically quite relevant had poor to horrible sound quality, such as Magic
Sam, John Lee Hooker, Big Mama Thornton, etc.
>> In the day of the big labels, nothing but professionally-produced,
>> economically-viable recordings ever got released. And "released"
>> meant a significant financial investment in manufacturing and
>> distributing discs, etc.
>
> Yup. And also, it was pre-filtered - the best (or at least near the
> top) of its genre. So what if there were only 1000 records released a
> year rather than 1000 released every week? At least I know that
> someone
> else has listened to it before I did and pronounced it "a good
> rendition of what it is."
>
As I recall it, from the '50s to early '70s most anyone could get a
recording out, largely because "the industry" didn't have a clue about what
"the kids" might buy, and by the early '60s the pop hits were swamping the
sales of the traditional artists "the industry" pushed.
>> Or, perhaps #3, we just don't find contemporary "music" very
>> appealing or even interesting because it is written by/for a
>> younger generation of customers.
>
> I don't think it's a matter of being for the younger generation, but
> rather being executed by the younger generation without the
> benefit of the experience of the older generation. Too many self-
> produced recordings.
>
What would that imply about Buddy Holly and "The Crickets" or Walter/Wendy
Carlos? Self-produced gems hold their value, I'd say, and modern technology
should be a boon to folk artists. Stick an H2 on the table, and if you have
something relevant to say, it can be recorded with far better quality than
in times past.
--
Best,
Neil
Les Cargill
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>
> I appreciate The Beatles more today than when I was in college.
> Too bad they aren't still making records.
Paul is. I'm of that age band where "The Beatles were the band
Paul was in before Wings." Indeed, all three (plus Ringo) released
music a lot of people got very into after, arguably more
output than they'd had together. After all, three in
parallel...
I've seen several films. They were broke. Brian Epstein's death
left them to quickly run through what funds they had, and that
was that. The whole thing was so out of control when Allan
Klein got hold of it....
And frankly, Lennon got very deeply into drugs, was utterly
and totally clueless about the real world (his immigration
problems were for utterly stupid reasons ) and showed every
sign of being burned out.
> They had some pretty
> crazy ideas, but also had the guidance of good engineers and
> producers to help pull them off successfully. A fifteen year old
> with an M-Box who plays guitar, bass, and drums just couldn't
> pull something like that off alone in his bedroom today.
Dunno about "fifteen", but I've heard some darn fine tuneage outta
garages and bedrooms. Good production usually would
have improved it, though - not everybody is an arranger.
And for some reason, here I think of Emmit Rhodes...
--
Les Cargill
Don Pearce
Together Lennon and McCartney could make magic. Apart neither did
anything worth crossing the room to flip the on switch.
d
Les Cargill
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:54:58 -0500, Les Cargill
>
> Together Lennon and McCartney could make magic. Apart neither did
> anything worth crossing the room to flip the on switch.
>
> d
No accounting for taste :) I respect the work, but it's not magic
to me. The Ronettes are magic to me.
"Missed it by *this* much" - Agent 86....
--
Les Cargill
Don Pearce
<lcarg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:54:58 -0500, Les Cargill
><snip>
>>
>> Together Lennon and McCartney could make magic. Apart neither did
>> anything worth crossing the room to flip the on switch.
>>
>> d
>
>No accounting for taste :) I respect the work, but it's not magic
>to me. The Ronettes are magic to me.
>
As you say - chac un a son gout. To me the Ronettes are simply
contrived and formulaic.
d
Les Cargill
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:19:26 -0500, Les Cargill
> <lcarg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:54:58 -0500, Les Cargill
>> <snip>
>>> Together Lennon and McCartney could make magic. Apart neither did
>>> anything worth crossing the room to flip the on switch.
>>>
>>> d
>> No accounting for taste :) I respect the work, but it's not magic
>> to me. The Ronettes are magic to me.
>>
> As you say - chac un a son gout. To me the Ronettes are simply
> contrived and formulaic.
>
> d
Ronnie never was.
Y'know, there's a lady who was on Charlie Rose
recently who specializes in being able to perceive what
areas of the brain are stimulated by different... stimuli, and
she said nothing at all about music.
Like, WTF?
No video that I can find, but it's The Brain Series, Part II.
And, again, zombie Lennon says: "All you need is BRAAAAAIIIINS....."
--
Les Cargill
geoff
>
> Together Lennon and McCartney could make magic. Apart neither did
> anything worth crossing the room to flip the on switch.
I cross the room and flip a switch for Double Fantasy and at least half a
dozens Wings/Macca ablums.
geoff
Don Pearce
wrote:
You know you just said that out loud?
d
Arny Krueger
news:4b2a87c3....@news.eternal-september.org
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:19:26 -0500, Les Cargill
> <lcarg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:54:58 -0500, Les Cargill
>> <snip>
>>> Together Lennon and McCartney could make magic. Apart
>>> neither did anything worth crossing the room to flip
>>> the on switch.
>> No accounting for taste :)
...or lack thereof.
The world is full of things that on the face of it are pretty grim, but once
you develop a taste for them... ;-)
I'm thinking about Fish and Chips! What a horrid thing to do with perfectly
healthful and delicious fish and potatoes.
>> I respect the work, but it's
>> not magic to me. The Ronettes are magic to me.
> As you say - chac un a son gout. To me the Ronettes are
> simply contrived and formulaic.
Of course the Ronettes were contrived and formulaic. But at the time... ;-)
Arny Krueger
message news:hg8eij$hha$1...@ss408.t-com.hr
> "hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message
> If what I read somewhere on the Net is true than they
> don't. Allegedly an order came from Harman, around two
> years ago, to destroy Studer's entire analog stock, a
> warehouse-worth of analog equipment, spare parts and
> tools, including two brand new Gold Edition A827s. The
> estimated value was something between 5 and 10 million
> Euro. Harman had a team of supervisors flown over from
> the U.S. to make sure not a single item escapes the
> hammer. The people at Studer weren't allowed to save
> anything, not even for their museum.
Sounds pretty weird given that some of Harman's retailers are still trying
to sell those A827s.
Can you document this?
Don Pearce
wrote:
>The world is full of things that on the face of it are pretty grim, but once
>you develop a taste for them... ;-)
>
But why would you even try? Edgar Nye, the critic, emerged from a new
piece of Wagner and declared "Wagner's music is better than it
sounds".
>I'm thinking about Fish and Chips! What a horrid thing to do with perfectly
>healthful and delicious fish and potatoes.
Or the equally horrid things that are done to a piece of beef
(mechanically reclaimed or otherwise).
d
Arny Krueger
> We got analogue stuff working hard to get the
> characteristics of digital, and digital systems working
> hard to get the characteristics of analogue. It's sort of
> like how black folks use skin lightening creams and white
> folks go to the tanning salon.... it's just a weird
> world we live in. --scott
Books like "This is your brain on music" explain it all quite nicely.
Pleasure becomes associated with certain sounds, sometimes without regard to
some or even any of the usual measures of goodness that we commonly use to
apply to recorded or even just played music.
If you spent too much time err doing highly pleasurable things while
listening to a Dansette (or its US equivalent) playing scratchy old LPs, you
may be ruined for quality audio for life! ;-)
It's possible that my adversity for LPs started backn in the late 60s when I
was forced to try to find sleep in an Army barracks sleeping bay while
others were listening to Motown and/or the Doors on one of those $15 PX
record players with just a tube, a 2-pole motor and a crystal cartridge in a
plastic tone arm with a stack of pennies on the stylus end.
Mike Rivers
> It's possible that my adversity for LPs started backn in the late 60s when I
> was forced to try to find sleep in an Army barracks sleeping bay while
> others were listening to Motown and/or the Doors on one of those $15 PX
> record players with just a tube, a 2-pole motor and a crystal cartridge in a
> plastic tone arm with a stack of pennies on the stylus end.
Any of part of that would put someone off. However, today you may be able
to find new or old, unplayed, and expensive pressings of Motown or Doors,
and play them on a $15,000 turntable with a moving coil cartridge and a
stack
of hundred dollar bills on the titanium tone arm.
Richard Webb
>> If this were actually the case, the quality of music today would be far
>> better than it were when we were young.
> Is that a philosophical statement or a technical one?
From my pov both, but I can't answer for Scott, of course.
> Perhaps the perception that music today is NOT better could be
> attributed to a couple of things:
> 1) The lower cost of halfway decent equipment has put the capability
> into a larger cadre of unskilled, amateur technical hands. This
> makes it more likely that we will get to hear poorer recordings from
> people who haven't learned better yet (or maybe never will, who
> knows?) In the day of the big labels, nothing but
> professionally-produced, economically-viable recordings ever got
> released. And "released" meant a significant financial investment
> in manufacturing and distributing discs, etc.
Yah, now we see folks operating on the "throw enough mud at
a wall some of it's gonna stick" principle.
> 2) Same as #1 above, but applied to the performers on the other side
> of the microphone(s).
I think both are a major factor. YEs you mention a third,
that we're just old geezer types who don't like the music.
I could maybe find myself liking some of the music if it
were better captured, but some of it I couldn't find myself
liking no matter what they did with it, because it isn't a
compelling tune or performance.
> OTOH, I was an old fuddy-duddy even in high school. I was the only
> one in the school (AFAIK) who didn't appreciate the latest
> mega-sensation, The Beatles. I still don't care for them as
> performers, but SOME of their compositions are appealing
> when performed by others in significant arrangements.
AS I grew a bit older the early works of the Beatl didn't
turn me on, but I started getting into the arrangements and
production. Then they went elsewhere than George Martin. I also found i wasn't that turned on by the solo works of the
various Beatles either.
But, Duke Ellington and MIles DAvis even were holding my
interest. Still took me until into my thirties to get
Coltrane.
For me, the dislike spans genres as well. I get tired of
what's called "country" these days that is all the straight
ahead mid tempo straight four beat it seems, rare to hear a
good up tempo swing or anything else. Back in my younger
days if you played country you'd better throw 'em a waltz, a good two stepper or two, a midtempo rocker and a couple
different tempos of shuffle then a belly rubber or two if
you wanted to get a return engagement booked.
I think a lot of what turns me off though is due to no
mentoring, no real development of the artists and arrangers
that produce this stuff. There aren't the venues to play
and hone one's skills before an audience that there once
were, and, when produced isolated without going to the
studio one doesn't get the benefit of experience. Some guy
sitting in his back bedroom can pump this stuff out by the
truckload, and never interact with those who would act as
mentors and guides.
As was said elsewhere, the technology can make it even
easier to capture a compelling performance, but there are
too few of those. When you sit alone in your little room
it's all good shit.
Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
hank alrich
> It's possible that my adversity for LPs started backn in the late 60s when I
> was forced to try to find sleep in an Army barracks sleeping bay while
> others were listening to Motown and/or the Doors on one of those $15 PX
> record players with just a tube, a 2-pole motor and a crystal cartridge in a
> plastic tone arm with a stack of pennies on the stylus end.
My journey into guitar started with one of those! Mind you, the guitar
was even worse.
--
ha
shut up and play your guitar
http://www.armadillomusicproductions.com/CarryMeHome.html
http://hankalrich.com/
Richard Webb
>> We got analogue stuff working hard to get the
>> characteristics of digital, and digital systems working
>> hard to get the characteristics of analogue. It's sort of
>> like how black folks use skin lightening creams and white
>> folks go to the tanning salon.... it's just a weird
>> world we live in. --scott
> Books like "This is your brain on music" explain it all quite
> nicely.
INdeed, I enjoyed that one too. I"m still awaiting the big
distribution center in Utah to send me volume three, read
the braille edition, at least the first two volumes, but #3
never arrived here <grumble>>
An interesting read though.
adam79
>
> If this were actually the case, the quality of music today would be far
> better than it were when we were young.
Totally agree. The loudness wars are killing music, with those dynamic
loudness compressors.. yuk! Have you seen that wikipedia site showing
the wave form of a Beatles song remastered over the year ('83, '88, '93
and '00)? In '83, the wave form is a perfect double helix, by 2000 the
wave form looks more like a chainsaw, super compressed, and just on the
verge of clipping. All the organic dynamics are diminished, and with the
normalization process, it takes parts that are ment to be softer, and
makes more of an average volume throughout the songs. The new Alice in
Chains album supposedly broke all kinds of loudness thresh hold records;
people who reviewed the vinyl release commented on a clearer, sonically
sound recording. Just something to think about.
What is the average asking price for a higher end professional 2" reel
to reel recorder?
Thanks,
-Adam
Laurence Payne
>Totally agree. The loudness wars are killing music, with those dynamic
>loudness compressors.. yuk! Have you seen that wikipedia site showing
>the wave form of a Beatles song remastered over the year ('83, '88, '93
>and '00)? In '83, the wave form is a perfect double helix, by 2000 the
>wave form looks more like a chainsaw, super compressed, and just on the
>verge of clipping. All the organic dynamics are diminished, and with the
>normalization process, it takes parts that are ment to be softer, and
>makes more of an average volume throughout the songs. The new Alice in
>Chains album supposedly broke all kinds of loudness thresh hold records;
>people who reviewed the vinyl release commented on a clearer, sonically
>sound recording. Just something to think about.
>
>What is the average asking price for a higher end professional 2" reel
>to reel recorder?
Who cares? It's your choice to use a technically superior digital
system but NOT compress the shit out of your recordings!
Tom McCreadie
>.... Edgar Nye, the critic, emerged from a new
>piece of Wagner and declared "Wagner's music is better than it
>sounds".
Certain composers just invite terse put downs. Someone once observed::
"Gustav Mahler is in grave danger of being taken too seriously."
>
>Or the equally horrid things that are done to a piece of beef
>(mechanically reclaimed or otherwise).
Which US comedian said:
"If God wanted us to be vegetarians, how come He made cows out of meat?"
--
Tom McCreadie
Tinnitus is a pain in the neck