Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default Recording and Mixing Questions

JackA wrote:

Rich, I didn't even know there were DAT machines offered to public!!
Probably high cost associated with them. I ASSUME they were used for the
very first digital (Pop music) recordings? Not sure how many tracks they
typically offered? Made me wonder how they digitally mixed, but as you
mentioned, output was analog!


And there we have it folks. Zilch. Nada.

No idea who Richard Kuschel is or what he does.

One ****ing ignorant ASSumption after another.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic
  #202   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default Recording and Mixing Questions

hank N0Ne alrich wrote: "One ****ing ignorant ASSumption
after another. "

No.

You're just upset that the r.a.p. good ole boys club
is being infiltrated by fresh voices and objective,
alternative viewpoints.

Now go ahead, go into your little phonebooth or
alleyway, put on your N0NE cape, and tell me what
a shortbus dum**** you claim I am!


Folks like JackA and I are willing to confront and
challenge the status quo, and "best" practices
that are destroying the quality of music.
  #203   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default Recording and Mixing Questions

On 8/02/2015 8:50 a.m., JackA wrote:

Rich, I didn't even know there were DAT machines offered to public!!
Probably high cost associated with them. I ASSUME they were used for
the very first digital (Pop music) recordings? Not sure how many
tracks they typically offered? Made me wonder how they digitally
mixed, but as you mentioned, output was analog!


The number of everyday common-knowledge things that you don't know
continues to astound everybody.


geoff
  #204   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Recording and Mixing Questions

On Saturday, February 7, 2015 at 7:15:53 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 8/02/2015 8:50 a.m., JackA wrote:

Rich, I didn't even know there were DAT machines offered to public!!
Probably high cost associated with them. I ASSUME they were used for
the very first digital (Pop music) recordings? Not sure how many
tracks they typically offered? Made me wonder how they digitally
mixed, but as you mentioned, output was analog!


The number of everyday common-knowledge things that you don't know
continues to astound everybody.


It's Alt not ALT!!!!

Jack :-)


geoff


  #205   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Recording and Mixing Questions

On Saturday, February 7, 2015 at 6:41:33 PM UTC-5, wrote:
hank N0Ne alrich wrote: "One ****ing ignorant ASSumption
after another. "

No.

You're just upset that the r.a.p. good ole boys club
is being infiltrated by fresh voices and objective,
alternative viewpoints.

Now go ahead, go into your little phonebooth or
alleyway, put on your N0NE cape, and tell me what
a shortbus dum**** you claim I am!


Folks like JackA and I are willing to confront and
challenge the status quo, and "best" practices
that are destroying the quality of music.


You know, K, brick-walling Hank's music might actually improve it!
But the odd thing with Hank's music, if you apply noise reduction, you end up with silence!!

You, I, and a couple others here add a touch a class!! :-)

Thanks, K'

Jack



  #206   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Recording and Mixing Questions

JackA wrote:
Rich, sorry, I did not understand.

Let me get this right, I hope - you had an external DAT machine, connected =
it to a computer and transferred the audio to a binary file?


Yes, this is how many people did live 2-track recording for many years.
It was a very convenient way to do field work.

If so, this is where my theory come in about external devices, tape decks, =
turntables, whatever. Don't feel it was a converter fault, but maybe a grou=
nding issue....


I'm still waiting for you to explain how a grounding issue can magically
cause DC offset.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #207   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Recording and Mixing Questions

JackA wrote:

Rich, I didn't even know there were DAT machines offered to public!! Probab=
ly high cost associated with them.
I ASSUME they were used for the very first digital (Pop music) recordings? =
Not sure how many tracks they typically offered? Made me wonder how they di=
gitally mixed, but as you mentioned, output was analog!


And once again, everything you think is totally wrong.

The DAT (which we should really call R-DAT) was originally intended as a
consumer recording medium. It never really took off, but it became a sort
standard professional format in spite of being kind of flaky. R-DAT is
a 2-track format with no ability to record the channels separately.

The first digital pop stuff was almost entirely multitracked... and really
digital recording (in the form of the horrible 3M, Mitsubishi, and DASH
machines didn't take off in the pop world at all.

In the pop world, there was really no reason to go the digital route, and
while a few folks used it, analogue production remained popular even decades
after the classical guys had all gone digital.

In the pop world, digital recording came in at the low end of the market
with the bargain basement ADAT machines making it possible for small studios
to have a lot of tracks for cheap and making running costs much cheaper.
The lower budget pop stuff was done digitally because it cost so much less.
Mind you, the ADAT gear didn't sound very good, but things improved.

It's just that I see many external devices used have greater or max DC offs=
et, but maybe caused by the computer, not strictly grounding.


Once it's in the digital domain, there's nothing to add DC offset to a signal.
Ground problems cannot add DC offset. DC offset is an artifact from the
conversion process, and it's one that was a lot more common back in the DAT
era than it is today.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #208   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Recording and Mixing Questions

On Saturday, February 7, 2015 at 8:43:53 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
JackA wrote:

Rich, I didn't even know there were DAT machines offered to public!! Probab=
ly high cost associated with them.
I ASSUME they were used for the very first digital (Pop music) recordings? =
Not sure how many tracks they typically offered? Made me wonder how they di=
gitally mixed, but as you mentioned, output was analog!


And once again, everything you think is totally wrong.

The DAT (which we should really call R-DAT) was originally intended as a
consumer recording medium. It never really took off, but it became a sort
standard professional format in spite of being kind of flaky. R-DAT is
a 2-track format with no ability to record the channels separately.

The first digital pop stuff was almost entirely multitracked... and really
digital recording (in the form of the horrible 3M, Mitsubishi, and DASH
machines didn't take off in the pop world at all.

In the pop world, there was really no reason to go the digital route, and
while a few folks used it, analogue production remained popular even decades
after the classical guys had all gone digital.

In the pop world, digital recording came in at the low end of the market





"LOS ANGELES, CA--(Marketwire - Sep 25, 2012) - From its very start as an independent record label in 1982, Dave Grusin and Larry Rosen's GRP Records broke ground, both artistically and commercially. Known as the DIGITAL MASTER COMPANY, they were the first record company to adopt digital recording technology for all its releases, launch every release on CD world-wide, and one of the earliest to market itself as a lifestyle brand".

FYI: Mainly Jazz artists!!!

Thank you for trying to foul my mind..

Jack




with the bargain basement ADAT machines making it possible for small studios
to have a lot of tracks for cheap and making running costs much cheaper.
The lower budget pop stuff was done digitally because it cost so much less.
Mind you, the ADAT gear didn't sound very good, but things improved.

It's just that I see many external devices used have greater or max DC offs=
et, but maybe caused by the computer, not strictly grounding.


Once it's in the digital domain, there's nothing to add DC offset to a signal.
Ground problems cannot add DC offset. DC offset is an artifact from the
conversion process, and it's one that was a lot more common back in the DAT
era than it is today.
--scott


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


  #209   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Luxey Luxey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default Recording and Mixing Questions

There's no doubt about our dumbness, as well as about the ignorance of your
counter part Jack.

What you two do not realise, your fresh voices make me lough out loud just about
every time I read anything you write on the group.
It's beyond imagination how stupid and ridiculous you both apear and how little
of ideaa you have about own appearance.
  #210   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Luxey Luxey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default Recording and Mixing Questions

недеља, 08. фебруар 2015. 00.41.33 UTC+1, је написао/ла:
hank N0Ne alrich wrote: "One ****ing ignorant ASSumption
after another. "

No.

You're just upset that the r.a.p. good ole boys club
is being infiltrated by fresh voices and objective,
alternative viewpoints.

Now go ahead, go into your little phonebooth or
alleyway, put on your N0NE cape, and tell me what
a shortbus dum**** you claim I am!


Folks like JackA and I are willing to confront and
challenge the status quo, and "best" practices
that are destroying the quality of music.


There's no doubt about your dumbness, as well as about the ignorance of your
counter part Jack.

What you two do not realise, your fresh voices make me lough out loud just
about every time I read anything you write on the group.
It's beyond imagination how stupid and ridiculous you both apear and how little
of ideaa you have about own appearance.


  #212   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default Recording and Mixing Questions

On Saturday, February 7, 2015 at 10:17:18 PM UTC-5, Luxey wrote:


What you two do not realise, your fresh voices make me lough out loud just
about every time I read anything you write on the group.
It's beyond imagination how stupid and ridiculous you both apear and how little
of ideaa you have about own appearance.

________________

LOUGH out loud, ehh?

Can't stand your little good ole' boy network shaken up by a few status-quo-shattering rebels, eh?

That's all rec.audio.pro is - a CLUB, where the opinions of only a FEW matter.
  #213   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
None None is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 782
Default Recording and Mixing Questions

the-dumb****i- @ shortbus-dot-com wrote in message
...
Can't stand your little good ole' boy network shaken up by a few
status-quo-shattering rebels, eh?
That's all rec.audio.pro is - a CLUB, where the opinions of only a
FEW matter.


Not really. It's really only the short-bus dumb****s like you and
Jersey Jack-off that don't matter. You're not rebelling or shattering
any status quo. You're just proving that you're morons.

  #214   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
John Williamson John Williamson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,753
Default Recording and Mixing Questions

On 08/02/2015 03:27, Rick Ruskin wrote:
On 7 Feb 2015 20:43:50 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

JackA wrote:

snip.............

The first digital pop stuff was almost entirely multitracked... and really
digital recording (in the form of the horrible 3M, Mitsubishi, and DASH
machines didn't take off in the pop world at all.


Why were these machines horrible? Bad sound? Unreliable? Cost?

All of the above.

In the pop world, there was really no reason to go the digital route, and
while a few folks used it, analogue production remained popular even decades
after the classical guys had all gone digital.

snip


No reason? Kindly explain.

There was a workflow in place when recording and editing popular music
that took a while to change. There was also a lot of money invested in
analogue equipment that worked very well indeed. The workflow for
classical music is much simpler, and there is less equipment involved.

The digital equipment quality took a while to get to the point where it
was worth making the effort to change for the pop guys. Just one
example, in the early days of digital, the early computers available
couldn't render plugins and effects in real time, so you had to record,
then apply the plugins, then you could mix down, and any changes in the
settings had to be applied off line before you had another go at the
mix. In analogue, this all happened in real time, and initially, at
least, in better quality. One random example to show how things have
changed is that in the early '90s, the average home PC took about twice
the playing time to convert a file from .wav format to .mp3. Now, even
the slowest PC in my collection can convert a 2 minute track in a few
seconds.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.
  #216   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Recording and Mixing Questions

Rick Ruskin wrote:
On 7 Feb 2015 20:43:50 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

JackA wrote:

snip.............

The first digital pop stuff was almost entirely multitracked... and really
digital recording (in the form of the horrible 3M, Mitsubishi, and DASH
machines didn't take off in the pop world at all.


Why were these machines horrible? Bad sound? Unreliable? Cost?


Converter issues for the most part.... all of the early ones tended to
sound pretty harsh and didn't handle reverb tails very well. The 3M
machines were almosty glassy-sounding.

Listen to the GRP album "Digital Duke" for an example of everything wrong
with early digital recording.

In the pop world, there was really no reason to go the digital route, and
while a few folks used it, analogue production remained popular even decades
after the classical guys had all gone digital.

snip

No reason? Kindly explain.


What does it buy you? You don't need the added dynamic range, you don't
need the deep low end detail. But what you lost was an enormous amount of
production flexibility.

Editing the digital stuff was nightmarish... the DASH machines had analogue
cue tracks so you could find the point to cut, but some of the machines
had no real editing ability and if you did find the point to cut, it might
take a couple tries to do it without a blip. (The Nagra-D would let you
do a very silent cut in spite of the helical scan nonsense... there
was an outrageous amount of electronics involved in making that work.)

Punching in and punching out was impossible on most of the earlier machines
although by the time the Mitsubishi multitracks came out it was possible
to do a seamless punch without glitching.

But, even after the digital machines got to the point where they were
respectable production tools, they still didn't really add anything to
pop and rock production. And, of course there was a huge backlash against
the harsh sound, although some artists managed to use that harshness to
their advantage (IGY by Fagen being the best example I can think of now).
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #217   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Recording and Mixing Questions

wrote:

That's all rec.audio.pro is - a CLUB, where the opinions of only a FEW matter.


I think the issue is less opinion as people spouting out patently incorrect
information... not opinions. People want to nip that in the bud because if
it continues, someone might actually believe it.

Opinions are fine, we have a wide variety of them here.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #219   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Luxey Luxey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default Recording and Mixing Questions

недеља, 08. фебруар 2015. 05.44.24 UTC+1, је написао/ла:

LOUGH out loud, ehh?

Can't stand your little good ole' boy network shaken up by a few status-quo-shattering rebels, eh?

That's all rec.audio.pro is - a CLUB, where the opinions of only a FEW matter.


Oh, ****, I made a typo, now I'm busted for goods.

You moron, over the years, out of the people you can see post here, there was
probably not a single one not get into fight over some issue with at least one
other contributor. We are not all "friends" here. I may be in more kill files
than you are. In spite, each and every contributor could not do otherwise but tell you how foolish you seem to be and ask you to stop spaamming.
  #220   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Recording and Mixing Questions

On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 5:46:14 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
On 08/02/2015 03:27, Rick Ruskin wrote:
On 7 Feb 2015 20:43:50 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

JackA wrote:

snip.............

The first digital pop stuff was almost entirely multitracked... and really
digital recording (in the form of the horrible 3M, Mitsubishi, and DASH
machines didn't take off in the pop world at all.


Why were these machines horrible? Bad sound? Unreliable? Cost?

All of the above.

In the pop world, there was really no reason to go the digital route, and
while a few folks used it, analogue production remained popular even decades
after the classical guys had all gone digital.

snip


No reason? Kindly explain.

There was a workflow in place when recording and editing popular music
that took a while to change. There was also a lot of money invested in
analogue equipment that worked very well indeed. The workflow for
classical music is much simpler, and there is less equipment involved.

The digital equipment quality took a while to get to the point where it
was worth making the effort to change for the pop guys. Just one
example, in the early days of digital, the early computers available
couldn't render plugins and effects in real time, so you had to record,
then apply the plugins, then you could mix down, and any changes in the
settings had to be applied off line before you had another go at the
mix. In analogue, this all happened in real time, and initially, at
least, in better quality. One random example to show how things have
changed is that in the early '90s, the average home PC took about twice
the playing time to convert a file from .wav format to .mp3. Now, even
the slowest PC in my collection can convert a 2 minute track in a few
seconds.


Twice the time? It wasn't until they had Windows' MP3 encoders that could handle a greater amount of data, the DOS versions took forever to encode, even at 128kbps!! I used to go shopping to kill timer, hoping the MP3 would be completed when I returned!! :-)

Jack


--
Tciao for Now!

John.




  #221   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Recording and Mixing Questions

On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 8:17:13 AM UTC-5, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 7 Feb 2015 20:44:21 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Saturday, February 7, 2015 at 10:17:18 PM UTC-5, Luxey wrote:


What you two do not realise, your fresh voices make me lough out loud just
about every time I read anything you write on the group.
It's beyond imagination how stupid and ridiculous you both apear and how little
of ideaa you have about own appearance.

________________

LOUGH out loud, ehh?

Can't stand your little good ole' boy network shaken up by a few status-quo-shattering rebels, eh?

That's all rec.audio.pro is - a CLUB, where the opinions of only a FEW matter.


Let me draw a Venn diagram for you. There is a large circle called new
ideas. Inside that is a tiny circle called new ideas with actual
value. What you and JackA need to demonstrate is that you are actually
inside that tiny circle. You don't get to be there by simply claiming
it.

The large circle you are deriding - the one of existing knowledge -
actually has demonstrated merit backing it up, not simply some hot
air. Time to put up, boys.


Watch it there with that "boys" comment!!!

Anyway, thanks for your invaluable input, Donald, not sure how this group survived without it!!

What, you shut down your site???...
http://www.pearce.uk.com/

Jack

d


  #222   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default Recording and Mixing Questions

On 8/02/2015 11:03 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote:

That's all rec.audio.pro is - a CLUB, where the opinions of only a FEW matter.


I think the issue is less opinion as people spouting out patently incorrect
information... not opinions. People want to nip that in the bud because if
it continues, someone might actually believe it.


Too late for that. The majority of the worlds population seems to
believe an unsupported ignorant opinion has just as much right of place
as proven fact. All the worlds politicians would be out of work
otherwise. :-(

Trevor.




  #223   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default Recording and Mixing Questions

On 8/02/2015 11:15 AM, geoff wrote:
On 8/02/2015 8:50 a.m., JackA wrote:
Rich, I didn't even know there were DAT machines offered to public!!
Probably high cost associated with them. I ASSUME they were used for
the very first digital (Pop music) recordings? Not sure how many
tracks they typically offered? Made me wonder how they digitally
mixed, but as you mentioned, output was analog!


The number of everyday common-knowledge things that you don't know
continues to astound everybody.


Actually I doubt many here are astounded any more. :-)

Trevor.


  #224   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default Recording and Mixing Questions

On 8/02/2015 10:16 PM, John Williamson wrote:
And while I remember, we are now in danger of losing access to a lot of
early digital recordings that were made using a Betamax video tape
transport, as the playback machines fail beyond repair, and the tape
deteriorates in storage so that the error correction can no longer cope.

An unintended side effect of tracking using analogue tape for recording
is that the signal can be recovered, albeit with reduced quality, long
after a digital one has fallen off the digital cliff.


And one intended benefit of digital is that the file can be losslessly
transferred to another storage format as necessary. Something always
impossible with analog.

Trevor.

  #225   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Recording and Mixing Questions

JackA wrote:

"LOS ANGELES, CA--(Marketwire - Sep 25, 2012) - From its very start as an i=
ndependent record label in 1982, Dave Grusin and Larry Rosen's GRP Records =
broke ground, both artistically and commercially. Known as the DIGITAL MAST=
ER COMPANY, they were the first record company to adopt digital recording t=
echnology for all its releases, launch every release on CD world-wide, and =
one of the earliest to market itself as a lifestyle brand".=20


Yes, this is why I mentioned Flim and the BBs and Digital Duke earlier in
this thread as examples of terrible-sounding early digital recordings.

GRP really was the last of the audiophile labels, heavy into gimmicky
technology and exaggerated technique. They were the Command of their
era.

FYI: Mainly Jazz artists!!!


Indeed, yes. Not rock/pop.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
mixing stereo recording skcamow Pro Audio 8 July 23rd 06 04:18 PM
mixing stereo recording skcamow Pro Audio 0 July 22nd 06 09:39 PM
mixing live jazz recording (Earlier Thread Recording Jazz Drum Kit) Chris Hermann Pro Audio 7 February 28th 06 04:14 PM
Help mixing a live recording...please :) StraightEight Pro Audio 1 June 7th 05 02:33 PM
recording or mixing ? seb Pro Audio 11 August 17th 04 09:30 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:40 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"