Skippy?!? Analogue v Digital and other crap only marginally Orb related
Ok, so who the hell is Skippy and how the hell am I supposed to ask him (her or it) anything? Kris, your answers are always as clear as mud. Fucking lunatic. Because of you I'm going to re-open the analogue v. digital debate. Just so you know when it's time to take the blame! So you recorded Track 3 digitally. Some of the sources were analogue. Like the voices. Right? It wasn't completely generated inside the computer. Parts of it were recorded digitally from an analogue source, am I right? Despite the fact you weren't mixing it "on the fly," manually twisting nobs as the recording played back it's still analogue sound. Now we can get into the nuance end of it and you may be right. I'll agree, if you take a master of a song, put it on a DAT, play the DAT through two channels of Nieve set flat, and record the output to another DAT the second DAT will sound better than the first. It's subtle but true. But I don't think that's what you're talking about here. You're inferring that somehow it's inferior to have charted out the volume changes and pans, etc. on a computer instead of twisting the nobs in real time. I've been there, watching the clock waiting to bump up channels 15 and 16 by three db at 4:24 for the tenth pass to master. But if you understand what the computer is doing, what is the difference between programming it into software as opposed to making the movement with your fingers? Other than that it will be exactly the way you want it to be with every pass and that with every pass you can add more changes on top? I hate to straddle the fence on this issue but I can't help it. There is something really special about the sound quality of a good lp or a really hi-fidelity tape recording. No matter how slowly you move the source there is a perfect feed. With digital even at incredibly high resolution (which won't be replicated in a cd anyway) you cannot get that ultra smooth pitch change hardly at all, much less down near to zero hz. And then there's the analogue signal path going through the eq's volume pots, etc. that is so orgasmically sweet with high-end stuff and so noisey and awful with the cheap crap. But sometimes that awful noiseyness is perfect and digital can't replicate it. As a complete aside, at one point I had been in the studio for almost a year with two projects. One was my work with a long-time partner, Jugdish in work under the moniker Beefcake and the second was us with the Reverend Goat Carson. We had the opportunity to go into Kingsway studio in New Orleans one night to copy our master DAT. The board in the studio was originally in Electric Ladyland. The monitor speakers are the originals from Abbey Road. Believe me, you could hear the difference. But with digital you get this raw purity that analogue cannot reproduce. Analogue processing introduces noise at every point so that from the relatively quiet master tape (if you've got a really good recorder) to the end you've piled on a bunch of hiss and other distortion. With digital you can fuck with a sound forever and still have the same s/n ratio as the original. The cost ration cannot be ignored in this equation. My home recording studio has run me around $10,000. Twenty years ago I could not have approached the recording capabilities I have in my house without spending a million dollars and using ten times the space. Ten years ago it would've cost $100,000. The analogue side of my set-up will not get any less expensive but I don't need a half a million dollar recording console, a $100,000 set of multi-track tape machines, and thousands of dollars worth of tape. I can store on one cd-r the equivalent of one 15 minute 2 inch tape... they cost around $150 and break down unless stored under perfect conditions. Don't knock yourself for the organic-ness of the "Track" recordings, Kris. Take the G4 over to Abbey Road and run it through their Neive channels. Then claim you did it all using vinyl. It's all tools. Use them until they break. I can't play an lp in my car but I can play the mp3 I made of the lp. I would like to point out that I'm a big fan of analogue synths and even have one in my rig. http://www.ifpr.homestead.com/s_studioequip.html Ok, my breathren. Your favorite neighborhood windbag, Alan Evil
Clear as an un-mudded lake sir , clear as un-muddied lake.. Don't diss the hiss... Analog rules no question But digital techniques are way too useful to ditch Oh well we'll have to use both somehow I did run the tracks through Neumann limiters And signal path etc.. At the cut ... Made it sound better....but... The thing about digital signal processing Is it always comes out sounding like a washing machine I just cant figure it out!! I tried to make it organic in the programming Everything is programmed mostly nothing is played Well its all played and then programmed.. Sort of trying to keep some of the original timing nuances Mmm yeah analog costs cash.. But its worth it Damn have to make some more bloody commercial music.. In fact analog desks these days are pretty cheap... Neve desks are cumbersome and not many people want the hassle When they can plug their 896 into their laptop and go Which is good for the rest of us Aii true enough rasta Respeck anyway and laters ------------------------------------------------------- back to the mission..... kdx: justablip.dyndns.org ( www.haxial.com ) mail: mail@justablip.net -----Original Message----- From: orb-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:orb-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Alan Sent: 13 December 2002 05:52 To: Orb@mailman.xmission.com Subject: [Orb] Skippy?!? Analogue v Digital and other crap only marginally Orb related Ok, so who the hell is Skippy and how the hell am I supposed to ask him (her or it) anything? Kris, your answers are always as clear as mud. Fucking lunatic. Because of you I'm going to re-open the analogue v. digital debate. Just so you know when it's time to take the blame! So you recorded Track 3 digitally. Some of the sources were analogue. Like the voices. Right? It wasn't completely generated inside the computer. Parts of it were recorded digitally from an analogue source, am I right? Despite the fact you weren't mixing it "on the fly," manually twisting nobs as the recording played back it's still analogue sound. Now we can get into the nuance end of it and you may be right. I'll agree, if you take a master of a song, put it on a DAT, play the DAT through two channels of Nieve set flat, and record the output to another DAT the second DAT will sound better than the first. It's subtle but true. But I don't think that's what you're talking about here. You're inferring that somehow it's inferior to have charted out the volume changes and pans, etc. on a computer instead of twisting the nobs in real time. I've been there, watching the clock waiting to bump up channels 15 and 16 by three db at 4:24 for the tenth pass to master. But if you understand what the computer is doing, what is the difference between programming it into software as opposed to making the movement with your fingers? Other than that it will be exactly the way you want it to be with every pass and that with every pass you can add more changes on top? I hate to straddle the fence on this issue but I can't help it. There is something really special about the sound quality of a good lp or a really hi-fidelity tape recording. No matter how slowly you move the source there is a perfect feed. With digital even at incredibly high resolution (which won't be replicated in a cd anyway) you cannot get that ultra smooth pitch change hardly at all, much less down near to zero hz. And then there's the analogue signal path going through the eq's volume pots, etc. that is so orgasmically sweet with high-end stuff and so noisey and awful with the cheap crap. But sometimes that awful noiseyness is perfect and digital can't replicate it. As a complete aside, at one point I had been in the studio for almost a year with two projects. One was my work with a long-time partner, Jugdish in work under the moniker Beefcake and the second was us with the Reverend Goat Carson. We had the opportunity to go into Kingsway studio in New Orleans one night to copy our master DAT. The board in the studio was originally in Electric Ladyland. The monitor speakers are the originals from Abbey Road. Believe me, you could hear the difference. But with digital you get this raw purity that analogue cannot reproduce. Analogue processing introduces noise at every point so that from the relatively quiet master tape (if you've got a really good recorder) to the end you've piled on a bunch of hiss and other distortion. With digital you can fuck with a sound forever and still have the same s/n ratio as the original. The cost ration cannot be ignored in this equation. My home recording studio has run me around $10,000. Twenty years ago I could not have approached the recording capabilities I have in my house without spending a million dollars and using ten times the space. Ten years ago it would've cost $100,000. The analogue side of my set-up will not get any less expensive but I don't need a half a million dollar recording console, a $100,000 set of multi-track tape machines, and thousands of dollars worth of tape. I can store on one cd-r the equivalent of one 15 minute 2 inch tape... they cost around $150 and break down unless stored under perfect conditions. Don't knock yourself for the organic-ness of the "Track" recordings, Kris. Take the G4 over to Abbey Road and run it through their Neive channels. Then claim you did it all using vinyl. It's all tools. Use them until they break. I can't play an lp in my car but I can play the mp3 I made of the lp. I would like to point out that I'm a big fan of analogue synths and even have one in my rig. http://www.ifpr.homestead.com/s_studioequip.html Ok, my breathren. Your favorite neighborhood windbag, Alan Evil _______________________________________________ Orb mailing list Orb@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/orb
-----Original Message----- From: orb-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:orb-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Alan Sent: 13 December 2002 05:52 To: Orb@mailman.xmission.com Subject: [Orb] Skippy?!? Analogue v Digital and other crap only marginally Orb related
As a complete aside, at one point I had been in the studio for almost a year with two projects. One was my work with a long-time partner, Jugdish in work under the moniker Beefcake
the same Beefcake that did the album 'Drei'? Man that is some good stuff if that is the same Beefcake I am thinking of... -- ^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^ bli recordings http://www.hotweird.com/loaf/
participants (3)
-
+[doh )+ -
Alan -
omz