🚀 go-pugleaf

> Lewis Lang wrote:
> > It used to be said that even though digital recording is cleaner and
> > has certain advantages like no generation loss, tape recording gives a
> > warmer sound. Some people listen to CDs and say that it does not sound
> > as good as a record. Does this still apply to modern day hard disk
> > recording vs 2 inch tape? Insights?
> 
> 1) Digital provides a power that has taken time to master with respect
>     to creating good-sounding recordings.

The art of recording great sounding music, is in the quality of the instrument's tone, the musical
quality of the composition, and the goal of the engineer to reproduce it AS IS!!!!!!!!!!!

Today, the digital offers a tool to CREATE sounds that are not of this natural world.

So, the term is no longer to REPRODUCE, but to CREATE, good sounding records through the use of this
world of computer driven digital audio processing.

It seems the responsibility for the goal of the great sounds in music has shifted from the artist,
to the engineer.  The yield results in an *AS IS* recording being now substandard, and has to be
FIXED by the use of this available digital technology.

From this practice, there is the grown dependency to use it, as the old school arts in recording are
lost.

Yeah, you can use the model for this mic and that, as well as the model for this room and that. 
But, is that recording from the REAL world?  Or, was it someone's fantasy of another world they
imagined for us to visit as the listener of their concept recording.

These are the artificial musical worlds, that don't exist in the real world.  Which leads us down
the road of being forced to use the SAME technology, to be used for the LIVE SOUND presentation to
the audience.

So AGAIN, we are not REPRODUCING what is found on the stage, but through the use of technology,
CREATING something that doesn't exist, in the REAL world on that stage.

The more this is done to excess, the more phony it becomes to the listener.  It's over produced, and
lip sync being found out is resented by the audience BIG TIME.

There is an integrity factor, or line not to be crossed with the listener.  

When the HUMAN factor is removed from the music, you have CROSSED that line.

That line was only approached while things were still all analog.  Now is it crossed too many times
with this exercise that is more a showcase of the digital technology, than it is a exercise and
showcase of actual music REPRODUCTION.



 
> 2) Analog tape can change sound through tape saturation in a way that
>     we like.  But there are other (digital) ways to record/create sound
>     that we like.  The trick is to work on finding them.

No, just REPRODUCE the original as was done in the old days.  Many of these old recordings STILL
surpass the sonic quality, and accuracy in reproduction than the majority of what is handed us
today.  The real art of recording has been lost, to this dependency to technology.

There are still some instruments that in the digital world, doesn't sound REAL.

So, you need digital TRICKS now.

It's much easier to place a mic in the right places in ia good sounding room the first place, than
to correct all the errors in same, with the use of the modeling plug ins for mics and rooms.

The bottom line here is that, the Pro Tools studio is now what is required, to record, FIX and
produced Polished Turds.  

Not one of these recent modern Rock bands have the talent to play through an old school TAKE #1, and
go to press with out a pile of punches.  Or, singers with timing or pitch corrections.

No wonder, none can perform today WITHOUT the technology, bare ass naked on the stage.
 

Pro Tools has become the tool of deception, and an allows the production of Polished Turds.





> 3) Tools in the hands of a hack will still result in junk.  IMHO it
>     is possible to create a quality sound on inexpensive digital
>     equipment, but it takes skill, just like analog equipment use.

You keep using the word CREATE.

Try a new approach, and use the word REPROCUCE, from now on.

I think, that will help.

 
> 4) Quantegy, the last U.S. manufacturer of analog tape, announced
>     their bankruptcy recently.  Analog tape use has fallen off
>     significantly in recent years, and will likely continue to do so.
> 
> http://broadcastengineering.com/newsletters/bth/20050109/analog-tape-facility-20050109/

Things have changed, we will have tape for years to come.


 
>     We'll all be using digital methods whether we like it or not.  Better
>     practice.

Well, the world will tire from a diet of Polished Turds at some point.

Then, what are you going to do, when they ask you the reproduce the REAL world.

For you computer audio engineers, that can be a scary thought.

Hey George, where should I place that mic to record the flute player, without the trumpets bleeding
though.

Good Luck. 



Harvey Gerst wrote:
> 
> "C, TFM" <ctfm@yourisp.net> wrote:
> 
> >kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
> >news:cu65i1$aeh$1@panix2.panix.com:
> >
> >> Ethan Winer <ethanw at ethanwiner dot com> wrote:
> >>>Gary,
> >>>
> >>>> We'll all be using digital methods whether we like it or not. Better
> >>>practice. <
> >>>
> >>>Great post. Those were all excellent points.
> >>
> >> Coming into rec.audio.pro and asking about digital vs. analogue is sort
> >> of like going into a bar and asking about Catholicism vs. Protestantism.
> >> You won't learn very much, and you might very well get hurt in the
> >> process. --scott
> 
> >Those guys in rec.audio.pro are a complete bunch of wankers anyway.
> >C.
> 
> Yes, we're wankers, but no, we weren't "complete" - until you showed up.
> 
> Harvey Gerst
> Indian Trail Recording Studio
> http://www.ITRstudio.com/

-- 


Regards,

Rich Koerner,
Time Electronics.
http://www.timeelect.com

Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering, 
       Music & Studio Production, 
Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers