[Trevor]

On 4/05/2016 12:21 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
The one thing that I loved, and still love, about digital recording is that
the low end doesn't get screwed up in the tape machine.

"ONE thing"! Hell there are at least a dozen things or more I love about
digital recording over analog tape! :-)

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/5/2016 5:11 AM, Trevor wrote:
"ONE thing"! Hell there are at least a dozen things or more I love about
digital recording over analog tape!

Are any of them making you any money?

--
For a good time call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "On 5/5/2016 5:11 AM, Trevor wrote:
"ONE thing"! Hell there are at least a dozen things or more I love about
digital recording over analog tape!

Are any of them making you any money?
- show quoted text -"

Oh Geez.. Flaming the 'format wars'
again?

[Frank Stearns]

Mike Rivers writes:

On 5/5/2016 5:11 AM, Trevor wrote:
"ONE thing"! Hell there are at least a dozen things or more I love about
digital recording over analog tape!

Are any of them making you any money?

Good point, but there's another way to look at that one as well -- cost to get in
and ongoing costs to maintain and operate.

Passable, even very good digital, is now relatively cheap, not to mention several
hundred hours of 24 track that can be put on a drive costing much less than half
that of 30 minutes of analog 24 track. There are even options to degrade digital so
that it sounds like tape. Operation and maintenance... well, that one should be
fairly self-evident.

However, as always, YMMV. If you can "sell the romance" of fully amortized older
gear, by all means, go for it. But for what I do, it's impossible to match the
sonic quality I get with digital (which is a cornerstone of what I sell to clients).

It'd be even more impossible still to do the kinds of things I can do in post in
digital, things I could only dream about back in those days of staring at china
marker scribbles on a ribbon of dark plastic parked in a splicing block.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[None]

theckma-the-reeeeeetard @ dum****s.shortbus.edu wrote in message
...
Oh Geez.. Flaming the 'format wars' again?

I see you're circling back to your hobbyhorse again; because you're
too much of a dumb **** to control your compulsion to flog the rotting
corpse. You should really put your hockey helmet on and get back on
the short bus, before you hurt yourself by being a moron.

HTH. FCKWAFA. YSANFDS? KJFS!

[JackA]

On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 7:38:51 AM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
Mike Rivers writes:

On 5/5/2016 5:11 AM, Trevor wrote:
"ONE thing"! Hell there are at least a dozen things or more I love about
digital recording over analog tape!

Are any of them making you any money?

Good point, but there's another way to look at that one as well -- cost to get in
and ongoing costs to maintain and operate.

Passable, even very good digital, is now relatively cheap, not to mention several
hundred hours of 24 track that can be put on a drive costing much less than half
that of 30 minutes of analog 24 track. There are even options to degrade digital so
that it sounds like tape. Operation and maintenance... well, that one should be
fairly self-evident.

However, as always, YMMV. If you can "sell the romance" of fully amortized older
gear, by all means, go for it. But for what I do, it's impossible to match the
sonic quality I get with digital (which is a cornerstone of what I sell to clients).

It'd be even more impossible still to do the kinds of things I can do in post in
digital, things I could only dream about back in those days of staring at china
marker scribbles on a ribbon of dark plastic parked in a splicing block.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--
.

Note aimed at you, Frank....

Who, or what popular song, ever utilized 24 tracks? I know McCartney returned from the UK to US to gain access to 24 Tracks, for Band On The Run album, but as far as I'm concerned, those additional tracks (greater than 16 in UK) may have never been used in the final "mix". It's why I believe some "alternate" versions can be created from those unused tracks, such as with Fleetwood Mac, even Van Morrison. Why "alternate version" is often used, since there are no real "Takes".

As far as analog vs digital recordings? Who cares? It's not like one will be significantly better than the other. Human hearing sucks.

OT: Like, what musicians would play electric guitar to a drum machine?...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...lastsummer.mp3

Jack

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns wrote:

It'd be even more impossible still to do the kinds of things I can do in post in
digital, things I could only dream about back in those days of staring at china
marker scribbles on a ribbon of dark plastic parked in a splicing block.

Whereas I consider the inability to do those things to be an advantage in
the analogue world.

The two things that are a big win for me in the digital world are the flat
and clean low end and the ability to do fine time delays accurately and
consistently. I can line up spots with the main pair set wherever I want,
rather than having to set the main pair set 33 ms out because that's the
amount that sel-sync gets me.

Still, being able to say "we can't window edit, you have to get it all
right in one take" can be a powerful tool even when it's actually a lie.

I'm very happy having both available to me and I'm pleased to switch
from one to the other as is appropriate for a given job.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 7:38:51 AM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
Mike Rivers writes:

On 5/5/2016 5:11 AM, Trevor wrote:
"ONE thing"! Hell there are at least a dozen things or more I love about
digital recording over analog tape!

Are any of them making you any money?

Good point, but there's another way to look at that one as well -- cost to get in
and ongoing costs to maintain and operate.

Passable, even very good digital, is now relatively cheap, not to mention several
hundred hours of 24 track that can be put on a drive costing much less than half
that of 30 minutes of analog 24 track.

Which means that anybody with a "bedroom studio" can now compete with you.

So digital is wonderful yes, but maybe not so much for your business model.

Maybe that was Mike's point? IDK?

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 7:38:51 AM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
Passable, even very good digital, is now relatively cheap, not to mention several
hundred hours of 24 track that can be put on a drive costing much less than half
that of 30 minutes of analog 24 track.

Which means that anybody with a "bedroom studio" can now compete with you.

Nahh, not at all. It means that you have to sell yourself based upon your
room and your skills, not based upon your equipment.

Unfortunately the room is more expensive than ever and the skills aren't
getting cheaper to develop either.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Trevor]

On 5/05/2016 8:31 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/5/2016 5:11 AM, Trevor wrote:
"ONE thing"! Hell there are at least a dozen things or more I love about
digital recording over analog tape!

Are any of them making you any money?

Yep, the HUGE reduction in my costs for a start! :-)

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

TheKman quotes self: "Mike Rivers wrote: "On 5/5/2016 5:11 AM, Trevor wrote:
"ONE thing"! Hell there are at least a dozen things or more I love about
digital recording over analog tape!

Are any of them making you any money?
- show quoted text -"

Oh Geez.. Flaming the 'format wars'
again? "


Just to note I *did* specify format wars - not
the other kind. The biggest audible difference
between analog and digital formats exists
between the chair and the controls - nothing
to get all upset about!

[JackA]

On Friday, May 6, 2016 at 6:32:08 AM UTC-4, wrote:
TheKman quotes self: "Mike Rivers wrote: "On 5/5/2016 5:11 AM, Trevor wrote:
"ONE thing"! Hell there are at least a dozen things or more I love about
digital recording over analog tape!

Are any of them making you any money?
- show quoted text -"

Oh Geez.. Flaming the 'format wars'
again? "


Just to note I *did* specify format wars - not
the other kind. The biggest audible difference
between analog and digital formats exists
between the chair and the controls - nothing
to get all upset about!

I like that!

Jack

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

Frank Stearns wrote:

It'd be even more impossible still to do the kinds of things I can do in post in
digital, things I could only dream about back in those days of staring at china
marker scribbles on a ribbon of dark plastic parked in a splicing block.

Whereas I consider the inability to do those things to be an advantage in
the analogue world.

The two things that are a big win for me in the digital world are the flat
and clean low end and the ability to do fine time delays accurately and
consistently. I can line up spots with the main pair set wherever I want,
rather than having to set the main pair set 33 ms out because that's the
amount that sel-sync gets me.

Still, being able to say "we can't window edit, you have to get it all
right in one take" can be a powerful tool even when it's actually a lie.

I'm very happy having both available to me and I'm pleased to switch
from one to the other as is appropriate for a given job.

Those are surely all true statements in a broad sense, but for a specialist like me
who stays mostly in the classical/acoustic arena, tape no longer has any
application. For quite a while I recorded digital and mixed analog, but even that
hybrid no longer has any real appeal, given how far ITB has come in just the past
five years.

The classical/acoustic people I work with seem to be better disciplined musicians
(in the broadest terms) so when they screw up it's not likely they'll fall "into the
traps" of micro editing, and most don't go in with the attitude "that anything can
be fixed, so just play any old way you'd like." I have seen that, but it's rare.

Many don't have those world-class player chops. Endless retakes to fix
some little thing I can do in seconds with a digital razor blade might not get us
any further along, and in fact might degrade the other items yet to be done in the
session. But as long as the underlying musicianship is there I can move the
technical aspects of their playing quite a ways in that world-class direction. They
like that.

Just a specailized opinion.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Frank Stearns]

writes:

On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 7:38:51 AM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
Mike Rivers writes:

On 5/5/2016 5:11 AM, Trevor wrote:
"ONE thing"! Hell there are at least a dozen things or more I love about
digital recording over analog tape!

Are any of them making you any money?

Good point, but there's another way to look at that one as well -- cost to get in
and ongoing costs to maintain and operate.

Passable, even very good digital, is now relatively cheap, not to mention several
hundred hours of 24 track that can be put on a drive costing much less than half
that of 30 minutes of analog 24 track.

Which means that anybody with a "bedroom studio" can now compete with you.

So digital is wonderful yes, but maybe not so much for your business model.

Well, actually, I've made some pretty good "new" money with those very folks
bringing their "home studio" tracks to be edited and mixed. They get frustrated,
really don't know what to do because the "sound just isn't there". They're in a
crappy room with bad monitoring, don't really know how to use their tools, etc. So
I'll do a demo mix and bring life out of tracks they didn't think existed, and
suddenly the job is mine.

I have to admit, though, the first few projects I did like that were maddening. But
certain kinds of common mistakes I found again and again and over time managed to
cobble some useful countermeasures. Once in a while I've made these folks re-record
something, but 95% of the time I can work with what's there -- provided there's
underlying musicianship.

And this can be true further up the food chain as well. Just a few months back I
took a job away from some Grammy-winning rock mixer because he simply applied his
"rock" template to something that was more acoustic in nature. He apparently never
really just listened to the tracks to understand the music lurking within. When I
did that and came back with a mix that revealed the music within, the producer
immediately gave me the entire project.

The home studios don't spook me, I embrace them. As a bonus, some of the folks
coming out of those places are very nice people, and eager to learn.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
I like that!

Jack "


Hey, it needed to be said - and I don't
give a crap WHO it angers!

[None]

Theckmah @ dumm****.shortbus.k12 crapped in message
news:97f1a373-e8a3-49da-873a-
Hey, it needed to be said

In case there was someone who hadn't noticed that you're a dumb ****\?

[JackA]

On Friday, May 6, 2016 at 4:44:11 PM UTC-4, None wrote:
Theckmah @ dumm****.shortbus.k12 crapped in message
news:97f1a373-e8a3-49da-873a-
Hey, it needed to be said

In case there was someone who hadn't noticed that you're a dumb ****\?

And this needed to be said - Thank you, Mark (participant) for reconsidering. I value your ability to hear a difference!

Jack

[[email protected]]

None wrote:
Theckmah @ dumm****.shortbus.k12 crapped in message
news:97f1a373-e8a3-49da-873a-
Hey, it needed to be said

In case there was someone who hadn't noticed that you're a dumb ****\? "

And someone is angered! Clearly this cracker's
got something to lose by the exposure of studio
trickery to make something sound different. A
financial interest. A washed up former industry
insider overwhelmed by the fact that DAWs
can exist in every other household on a typical
block.

Otherwise mentioning it wouldn't upset it so much.
Come on. Military secrets aren't being exposed
here, just bad audio engineering practices! Lighten
up, people!

[None]

BrainDeadRetard @g THECKMAH.dumb****sRthekma.org wrote in message
...
None wrote:
Theckmah @ dumm****.shortbus.k12 crapped in message
news:97f1a373-e8a3-49da-873a-
Hey, it needed to be said

In case there was someone who hadn't noticed that you're a dumb
****\? "

And someone is angered! Clearly this cracker's
got something to lose by the exposure of studio
trickery to make something sound different. A
financial interest.

There goes the retarded dumb****, riding that "financial interest"
hobbyhorse, as if he's bragging about how little (or nothing) he knows
about the recording industry. It's like walking around with a big
picket sign saying, "I'm THECKMA! I'm a Dumb****!

A washed up former industry
insider overwhelmed by the fact that DAWs
can exist in every other household on a typical block.

No. li'l buddy, I'm not in the recording industry any more because I
changed careers to something much, much, more lucrative. I really
don't give a **** who has a DAW. I have them for personal use; not
professional. I have two. I'm very familiar which how to use them. You
have no idea, because you're too retarded. The brain damage has
ensured that your IQ will never rise above your shoe size.

Where does your fantasy come from, that anyone who understands audio
must be evil? Is it because digital audio involves numbers, and you're
too brain damaged to understand numbers? Numbers must really scare
you, lil buddy. Maybe they remind you of your three years in first
grade, or your six years at a two-year junior college.

It's very fortunate for you that you found a job with a company who's
mission is to hire unemployable retards. But you should stop whinging
about management wanting to keep you away from the audio equipment.
Not for retards to play with, li'l KKKKKKKKKrissie ........ It was
probably a bad idea to tell the boss that you wanted to go into the
audio closet to fondle the big knob.

Otherwise mentioning it wouldn't upset it so much.
Come on. Military secrets aren't being exposed
here, just bad audio engineering practices!

You have no comprehension of audio engineering practice. You don't
have the mental ability to comprehend it, probably because of all the
many times you were dropped on your head. You're obviuolsy completely
unable to learn evan a tiny speck of information; it would never get
past the thick layer of stupid that suyrrounds your entire existens.

Lighten up, people!

The short bus is here to tale you to retard school. li'l Krissie! Put
your hockey helmet on, you stupid dumb****, get on the short bus, and
off to your retard job.