Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#201
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#215
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording and Mixing Questions
On 08/02/2015 10:45, 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. 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. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#216
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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." |
#218
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording and Mixing Questions
|
#219
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
mixing stereo recording | Pro Audio | |||
mixing stereo recording | Pro Audio | |||
mixing live jazz recording (Earlier Thread Recording Jazz Drum Kit) | Pro Audio | |||
Help mixing a live recording...please :) | Pro Audio | |||
recording or mixing ? | Pro Audio |