[D.M. Procida]

D.M. Procida wrote:

Unless you can get your hands on an 8-track Ampex AG440 you probably
won't find anything quite that forgiving. Maybe a Scully 280B? You'll
still have to learn some maintenance to use any multitrack analog
machine, but an Ampex or Scully won't be quite as touchy as some
other, fancier recorders.

If it's really going to be like that (i.e. quite so difficult and
expensive) I might as well just stick with the A3340. At least I know
where I am with that.

Not having anything more pressing to do today, I've dragged the A3340
out of the garage to see what sort of state it's in.

Well, I stripped it down and degummed and lubricated all the mechanical
parts (thanks to Scott for the advice on lubrication).

I haven't tacked the motors yet, except to put some very light oil into
the oil tubes on the three motors, and on the capstan and pinchwheel
shafts (not quite sure how much is enough for the motors - I'll save
dismantling the motors for another time).

Now that I've switched it on, it runs as beautifully as ever. The motors
are practically inaudible, the switchgear is as positive as when I last
used it in 1993, and my fingers remember all the controls, even with the
faceplate removed.

What a truly gorgeous machine. Even the inside of it is pleasant to work
with.

Anyway, thanks to everyone for your kind advice and suggestions, but the
last 24 hours taking this thing apart and putting it back together have
made it perfectly clear to me that whatever I do next it'll be with this
kind of machine, not a digital recorder. I just like it better.

Daniele

[Richard Crowley]

"hank alrich" wrote ...
Mike Rivers wrote:
hank alrich wrote:

Since Macs now ride on Unix, there are quite a few DAW apps for for
what
Scott's calling "regular" computers.

I was going to mention the Mac, but the problem is that the applications
don't let you in.

Of course they won't let me in. I'm not a programmer. I bet they let
programmers in.

They don't let programmers in, either.
Mac OSX is closed-source as are commercial DAQ and NLE apps.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers wrote:
hank alrich wrote:

Since Macs now ride on Unix, there are quite a few DAW apps for for what
Scott's calling "regular" computers.

I was going to mention the Mac, but the problem is that the applications
don't let you in. You don't actually see Unix unless you look for it,
and you don't usually fix problems there unless you don't expect to use
the Mac OS any more.

No, it's actually quite nice that you can go down to the shell and use
the debugger on your application and watch what it's doing. It is kind
of weird after all these years to be recommending the Mac because of the
great commandline interface, but there we have it.
--scott

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

[roughplanet[_2_]]

"soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"D.M. Procida" wrote in
message
...

Anyway, thanks to everyone for your kind advice and suggestions, but the
last 24 hours taking this thing apart and putting it back together have
made it perfectly clear to me that whatever I do next it'll be with this
kind of machine, not a digital recorder. I just like it better.

So in your view the recording process is for YOUR edification and
emotional
satisfaction, not your clients?
Sounds like a sick ****ing rational for being a recording engineer.

Good work! Bwian McCarty, the 'author' of that post has resorted to vulgar
language in order to let off steam. Keep the Queen's English flowing & this
poor, sad bugger (the US loser John West rejected) will probably self
destruct in one vile paragraph of four letter expletives :-).

ruff

[Mike Rivers]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

No, it's actually quite nice that you can go down to the [Mac OS] shell and use
the debugger on your application and watch what it's doing. It is kind
of weird after all these years to be recommending the Mac because of the
great commandline interface, but there we have it.

That's like saying you can open up your console, get out the schematic
and drawings of circuit board layout, and probe around with a scope to
see what it's doing. But like DAW users who are capable of using a
software debugger (usually without the help of source code), there are
few users who are capable of troubleshooting with a schematic.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[David Light]

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:11:50 -0500, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:

The 200CD oscillator should be pretty easy to round up, but where can he
find a counter with nixies?

There are still a few items we test that require a 200CD oscillator
due to the voltage it can swing. I haven't used one in years, but I
can still remember how heavy it was along with the Ballentine RMS
voltmeter and nixie tube freq. counter needed to set the oscillator up
accurately.

Anyway, Back on topic. There are lots of things I do miss about the
analog session days. The least of which is the gear I guess. There
was just a different mindset. Not so much "fix it in the mix" going
on.

[D.M. Procida]

David Light wrote:

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:11:50 -0500, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:

The 200CD oscillator should be pretty easy to round up, but where can he
find a counter with nixies?

There are still a few items we test that require a 200CD oscillator
due to the voltage it can swing. I haven't used one in years, but I
can still remember how heavy it was along with the Ballentine RMS
voltmeter and nixie tube freq. counter needed to set the oscillator up
accurately.

Anyway, Back on topic. There are lots of things I do miss about the
analog session days. The least of which is the gear I guess. There
was just a different mindset. Not so much "fix it in the mix" going
on.

I mentioned having done some recording recently at a digital studio,
with a vast number of tracks at our disposal, and the ability to cut and
paste between takes to get the best.

To his credit, the fellow doing the recording made a lot of effort to
get things like microphones set up properly before recording anything.
Even so, the knowledge even a misplaced syllable could be nudged back
into place or excised digitally changed the way we did everything,
especially in the later stages when we saw what could be done, and I
don't think it improved the performance.

Daniele

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 20:51:08 +0000,
(D.M. Procida) wrote:

To his credit, the fellow doing the recording made a lot of effort to
get things like microphones set up properly before recording anything.
Even so, the knowledge even a misplaced syllable could be nudged back
into place or excised digitally changed the way we did everything,
especially in the later stages when we saw what could be done, and I
don't think it improved the performance.

That was your problem, not the system's and it shouldn't have been.

As a musician, I find the possibility of easy digital editing very
liberating. I no longer feel pressure to "play safe" towards the end
of an otherwise satisfactory take. I can realise my compositions
without having to be a virtuoso on EVERY instrument. It helps me make
more music, more effeciently.

[Les Cargill]

D.M. Procida wrote:
David Light wrote:

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:11:50 -0500, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:

The 200CD oscillator should be pretty easy to round up, but where can he
find a counter with nixies?
There are still a few items we test that require a 200CD oscillator
due to the voltage it can swing. I haven't used one in years, but I
can still remember how heavy it was along with the Ballentine RMS
voltmeter and nixie tube freq. counter needed to set the oscillator up
accurately.

Anyway, Back on topic. There are lots of things I do miss about the
analog session days. The least of which is the gear I guess. There
was just a different mindset. Not so much "fix it in the mix" going
on.

I mentioned having done some recording recently at a digital studio,
with a vast number of tracks at our disposal, and the ability to cut and
paste between takes to get the best.

To his credit, the fellow doing the recording made a lot of effort to
get things like microphones set up properly before recording anything.
Even so, the knowledge even a misplaced syllable could be nudged back
into place or excised digitally changed the way we did everything,
especially in the later stages when we saw what could be done, and I
don't think it improved the performance.

Daniele

Roy: Doctor, doctor, it hurts when I do that.
Archie: So don't do that.

Set rules, like no punchins, no assembly-edits, leave small errors
intact, maximum of three tries at a solo or vocal before
calling it a day. It's not that difficult.

--
Les Cargill

[D.M. Procida]

Laurence Payne wrote:

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 20:51:08 +0000,
(D.M. Procida) wrote:

To his credit, the fellow doing the recording made a lot of effort to
get things like microphones set up properly before recording anything.
Even so, the knowledge even a misplaced syllable could be nudged back
into place or excised digitally changed the way we did everything,
especially in the later stages when we saw what could be done, and I
don't think it improved the performance.

That was your problem, not the system's and it shouldn't have been.

I disagree. I'm the human. The machines are at my service, not the other
way round. The system is supposed to be there for me, and it's
successful and useful to the extent that it works for me.

Obviously, not everyone's like us.

As a musician, I find the possibility of easy digital editing very
liberating. I no longer feel pressure to "play safe" towards the end
of an otherwise satisfactory take. I can realise my compositions
without having to be a virtuoso on EVERY instrument. It helps me make
more music, more effeciently.

I had the opposite experience. For example, zero rewinding time gave me
no help at all. Rewinding time provided a few useful moments for
relfection.

Daniele

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 22:07:26 +0000,
(D.M. Procida) wrote:

That was your problem, not the system's and it shouldn't have been.

I disagree. I'm the human. The machines are at my service, not the other
way round. The system is supposed to be there for me, and it's
successful and useful to the extent that it works for me.

Obviously, not everyone's like us.

As a musician, I find the possibility of easy digital editing very
liberating. I no longer feel pressure to "play safe" towards the end
of an otherwise satisfactory take. I can realise my compositions
without having to be a virtuoso on EVERY instrument. It helps me make
more music, more effeciently.

I had the opposite experience. For example, zero rewinding time gave me
no help at all. Rewinding time provided a few useful moments for
relfection.

Oh for f... sake! If you want a few moments, take them. You're
beginning to sound like one of the sillier articles in Tape Op :-)

[D.M. Procida]

Laurence Payne wrote:

I disagree. I'm the human. The machines are at my service, not the other
way round. The system is supposed to be there for me, and it's
successful and useful to the extent that it works for me.

Obviously, not everyone's like us.

As a musician, I find the possibility of easy digital editing very
liberating. I no longer feel pressure to "play safe" towards the end
of an otherwise satisfactory take. I can realise my compositions
without having to be a virtuoso on EVERY instrument. It helps me make
more music, more effeciently.

I had the opposite experience. For example, zero rewinding time gave me
no help at all. Rewinding time provided a few useful moments for
relfection.

Oh for f... sake! If you want a few moments, take them. You're
beginning to sound like one of the sillier articles in Tape Op

It doesn't matter how silly you think it is. If having pink curtains
helps someone do something better, then it helps them do it better, and
that's really the end of the story.

It might be interesting to find out why it helps them, but that's a
different question.

In my case I discovered that some of the limitations imposed by tape,
and lifted by digital recording, worked to my advantage and helped me.
I'm not asking that you or anyone else have the same experience.

Daniele

[Richard Crowley]

"D.M. Procida" wrote ...
Laurence Payne wrote:
D.M. Procida wrote:
To his credit, the fellow doing the recording made a lot of effort to
get things like microphones set up properly before recording anything.
Even so, the knowledge even a misplaced syllable could be nudged back
into place or excised digitally changed the way we did everything,
especially in the later stages when we saw what could be done, and I
don't think it improved the performance.

That was your problem, not the system's and it shouldn't have been.

I disagree. I'm the human. The machines are at my service, not the other
way round. The system is supposed to be there for me, and it's
successful and useful to the extent that it works for me.

Then consider the possibility that you don't know how to use the
machines properly (to your advantage). Most everyone else on the
planet is relieved by eliminating the mechanical monstrosity from the mix.

Obviously, not everyone's like us.

As a musician, I find the possibility of easy digital editing very
liberating. I no longer feel pressure to "play safe" towards the end
of an otherwise satisfactory take. I can realise my compositions
without having to be a virtuoso on EVERY instrument. It helps me make
more music, more effeciently.

I had the opposite experience. For example, zero rewinding time gave me
no help at all. Rewinding time provided a few useful moments for
relfection.

If you truly believe what you said ("The machines are at my service")
then you shouldn't feel compelled to press the play button until you
have had your "few useful moments for reflection". Sounds like you
are more a slave to the equipment than those of us who have moved
on to the digital era. I'm beginning to suspect a troll here.

[Richard Crowley]

"Les Cargill" wrote ...
Roy: Doctor, doctor, it hurts when I do that.
Archie: So don't do that.

Set rules, like no punchins, no assembly-edits, leave small errors
intact, maximum of three tries at a solo or vocal before
calling it a day. It's not that difficult.

I smell a troll.

Another classic vaudeville exchange...

Patient: "Doc, thanks for bandaging up my fingers, but will
I be able to play the violin?"
Doctor: Oh sure, as soon as they heal you will be able to
play the violin just fine!
Patient: Wow, thanks doc! I could never play it before! :-)

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 20:01:26 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

"D.M. Procida" wrote ...
I disagree. I'm the human. The machines are at my service, not the other
way round. The system is supposed to be there for me, and it's
successful and useful to the extent that it works for me.

Then consider the possibility that you don't know how to use the
machines properly (to your advantage). Most everyone else on the
planet is relieved by eliminating the mechanical monstrosity from the mix.

I feel compelled to come to D.M.'s philosophical defense. We
all will gladly accept a mechanical monstrosity when, for example,
cooking, that we wouldn't accept when ****ing.

Robert Rodriguez, in the extras of one of his "Mexico Trilogy"
movies makes the case better than I can. Strongly enough that
I was embarrassed that I had no longer considered myself a cook.
Ouch. Gotta fix that!


Lots of old-fashioned stuff lingers, and I'd argue that sometimes
(NOT ALWAYS!, okay?) it lingers for very good reasons. Sometimes
it's because the interesting part of its existence is its
interaction with a Human Bean. A late-50's/early-60's British
sports car would be an obvious example - yeah, a Toyota Corolla
is better in all measurable ways, but folks will still want to
drive an ancient MG-TD if given the opportunity. Like that.


Probably pushing my soapbox even further than the already beyond-,

We're living in a sanitized world of mandated-safety (great if your
child is in the seat-belted, crush-zoned modern car, and *not* an
MG-TD deathtrap) and easily-almost-distortionless-audio-performance
(great if that's your only goal).

But must we be so regimented that we can't allow for a consenting
adult to drive his MG-TD - well, you get the argument.


Human beans interact with the world in amazingly diverse ways,
is all I'm saying.

Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[Les Cargill]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Les Cargill" wrote ...
Roy: Doctor, doctor, it hurts when I do that.
Archie: So don't do that.

Set rules, like no punchins, no assembly-edits, leave small errors
intact, maximum of three tries at a solo or vocal before
calling it a day. It's not that difficult.

I smell a troll.


Muh? The feller said he didn't think it
improved the performance any. Maybe it's time to
treat the thing like a tape recorder.

But I don't know; wasn't there. FWIW, when I'm producing,
I pretty much use the rules I posted. I'll break 'em
in cases, but the pursuit of perfection is not
one of my favorite things...

Another classic vaudeville exchange...

Patient: "Doc, thanks for bandaging up my fingers, but will
I be able to play the violin?"
Doctor: Oh sure, as soon as they heal you will be able to
play the violin just fine!
Patient: Wow, thanks doc! I could never play it before! :-)



--
Les Cargill

[Richard Crowley]

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote ...
Human beans interact with the world in amazingly diverse ways,
is all I'm saying.

No question. But complaining that instantaneous rewind compels
one to immediately press the play button is a specious argument.

Maybe I really should make my rack-mount mechanical tape deck
simulator with spinning 10.5 inch reels connected to the command
functions of your favorite digital recorder (or DAW). I can even
offer programmable rewind time (and braking time and overshoot
for good measure :-)

Maybe I could even throw in a function to "run out of tape" at a
random moment. And degrade the audio quality if you don't
spend at least 15 minutes per day tweaking little screws :-))

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:25:27 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

Human beans interact with the world in amazingly diverse ways,
is all I'm saying.

No question. But complaining that instantaneous rewind compels
one to immediately press the play button is a specious argument.

Can't agree here, but no matter.

Maybe I really should make my rack-mount mechanical tape deck
simulator with spinning 10.5 inch reels connected to the command
functions of your favorite digital recorder (or DAW). I can even
offer programmable rewind time (and braking time and overshoot
for good measure :-)

Maybe I could even throw in a function to "run out of tape" at a
random moment. And degrade the audio quality if you don't
spend at least 15 minutes per day tweaking little screws :-))

Arf! But you've only included the sticks, and not any carrots.
Maybe the fundamental difference in our viewpoints is the very
existence of the carrots - both are IMO possibly valid viewpoints...

Here's my last (I promise!) attempt at a parallel/analogy:

Right now my old cat Silverton is sitting on me. If I'm home and
sit down for more than a minute, he sits on me. He sleeps tucked
up under my chin, and although currently down to only six and a
half pounds (from his prime of about 14), none of the other cats
dare mess with him.

Can somebody design me a simulator for Silverton, who I'll almost
certainly outlive? Because I surer'n **** won't want to live without
him.

A silly, extreme exaggeration?, yes of course, but a more complete
model, I submit. Why shouldn't the touchy-feelie of *everything*
be considered important? Why should the non-Human-Bean, robotic
aspects of the mechanical world be the only important parts? I say:
Bah Humbug!

Too much of a much of course. But much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[D.M. Procida]

Richard Crowley wrote:

I disagree. I'm the human. The machines are at my service, not the other
way round. The system is supposed to be there for me, and it's
successful and useful to the extent that it works for me.

Then consider the possibility that you don't know how to use the
machines properly (to your advantage).

I think I said that at the very beginning. Whereas many people found the
same Akai DAW I bought a fantastic tool, try as I might, I simply
couldn't get on with it.

On the other hand, I do know some machines inside out and can use them
extremely effectively, thank you very much.

I had the opposite experience. For example, zero rewinding time gave me
no help at all. Rewinding time provided a few useful moments for
relfection.

If you truly believe what you said ("The machines are at my service")
then you shouldn't feel compelled to press the play button until you
have had your "few useful moments for reflection".

I didn't, in that case. I was in a studio, someone else's, recording.

Having held up the recording process with one botched take after
another, with several other people anxious to move on to the next stage,
I missed the few moments that rewinding the tape used to give me to
recompose myself. Instead, within seconds, I'd hear a voice saying "OK,
ready to take that again". Under those circumstances, I didn't find it
easy to hold things up further by asking for more time.

That's just an example. I can think of other ways in which the
convenience, reliability and speed of digital recording eliminated
non-productive procedures and steps from the process, where it turned
out that I found those steps helped impose comfortable rhythms onto the
process, and the procedures were comfortable little rituals, both of
which I missed.

The fact that most other people don't miss them is irrelevant. They
aren't the ones who want to set up a studio in my garage.

Sounds like you are more a slave to the equipment than those of us who
have moved on to the digital era. I'm beginning to suspect a troll here.

You can suspect whatever you like. I'm not seeking your approval, either
for what I say or the way I prefer recording music.

Daniele

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 05:10:37 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
wrote:

Human beans interact with the world in amazingly diverse ways,
is all I'm saying.

True. If he'd just left it at "I like retro gear" it would have been
unanswerable. Rather like religion. "I have faith, and it enriches
me" can't be denied and might even inspire envy. It's the attempts to
analyse and justify that become ridiculius and easy to attack.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:14:48 +0000,
(D.M. Procida) wrote:

The fact that most other people don't miss them is irrelevant. They
aren't the ones who want to set up a studio in my garage.


OK, we've just about exhausted this one. Let's hear about the garage,
then we can start going on about how no amount of acoustic treatment
will turn it into a recording space worthy of even a Walkman :-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote ...

Human beans interact with the world in amazingly diverse
ways, is all I'm saying.

No question. But complaining that instantaneous rewind
compels one to immediately press the play button is a
specious argument.

To say the least.

Maybe I really should make my rack-mount mechanical tape
deck simulator with spinning 10.5 inch reels connected to
the command functions of your favorite digital recorder
(or DAW). I can even offer programmable rewind time (and
braking time and overshoot for good measure :-)

Your point being, nobody would inflict such a horrific thing on themselves
as a computer UI.

Maybe I could even throw in a function to "run out of
tape" at a random moment. And degrade the audio quality
if you don't spend at least 15 minutes per day tweaking
little screws :-))

Exactly. DAW software has made high-performance mixing and editing
accessible to millions who would never be able to afford or fathom analog
tape editing and mixing.

[Mike Rivers]

Richard Crowley wrote:

Maybe I really should make my rack-mount mechanical tape deck
simulator with spinning 10.5 inch reels connected to the command
functions of your favorite digital recorder (or DAW). I can even
offer programmable rewind time (and braking time and overshoot
for good measure :-)

You're looking at the wrong parts of the human/machine interaction. It's
not the spinning reels or running out of tape that's the problem for
those of us who aren't gleefully accepting DAWs as a way of life. It's
the controls. I like the performance of my Mackie HDR24/96. It has lower
distortion and flatter frequency response than any tape recorder that
I've ever owned. It has no flutter. It doesn't require cleaning or
adjustment. Other than three software updates in the nine years that
I've owned it, none of which have every broken anything, it's required
no maintenance.

Other owners haven't been so fortunate, but their problems have almost
always been resolved in the same way that computers get fixed -
reloading the software (a ten minute process, without the need to reload
dozens of applications), replacing the disk drive or power supply, or
cleaning and re-seating connectors. Though I'll concede that repairing a
computer that's essentially a replaceable commodity today has become
nearly as much a lost skill as aligning a tape deck.

But some working things that I like about the Mackie a

1. It has a tape-transport-like remote controller. I don't have to
scroll around or hunt the screen with a mouse cursor to arm a track for
recording. I realize that it's possible to purchase something like this
for a DAW, but few have been as user friendly as a real box full of
buttons.

2. It doesn't pretend to be a mixer and a patchbay, so I have freedom of
choice to get both the technical performance and user interface that
suits me. I use a Soundcraft 600 console with it. I can see the wires
that to to and come from it. I can easily find and fix a "lost" signal
because it can only go where I can see the wires.

3. If I choose to do so, I can perform many of the "editing" operations
available in a DAW. I can make volume adjustments to make a punch-in
match, I can move or remove a note, I can copy a phrase. I can un-do an
operation. I can't re-tune a track and if I want to compress or
equalize, I must use the old familiar hardware. That's no problem for me
with the kind of projects that I do.

4. My track count is limited (though I do have "virtual tracks"
available for alternate takes from which I can edit) so I can plan a
project and stick with the plan. My "recorder" doesn't expand to
indefinite size making it difficult both to choose what goes into the
final product and making it difficult to get around because I have to
continually expose hidden portions of the user interface as it grows
beyond a practical screen size.

Now I realize that it's possible to impose many of those restrictions on
myself when using a DAW, and indeed I've tried that. But so far the user
interface just doesn't work for me. No matter how I try, I can't seem to
get away from looking at the computer, and that takes my attention away
from what's going on musically. If I worked on projects that were more
about assembly and modification and less about capturing a performance,
I'd embrace the DAW since it offers features appropriate for that sort
of work. But as long as I limit myself to recording live music with just
a few enhancement, I'll keep the tools that work best for me.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[hank alrich]

Laurence Payne wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 05:10:37 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
wrote:

Human beans interact with the world in amazingly diverse ways,
is all I'm saying.

True. If he'd just left it at "I like retro gear" it would have been
unanswerable. Rather like religion. "I have faith, and it enriches
me" can't be denied and might even inspire envy. It's the attempts to
analyse and justify that become ridiculius and easy to attack.

As if that's actually necessary...

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

D.M. Procida wrote:

Having held up the recording process with one botched take after
another, with several other people anxious to move on to the next stage,
I missed the few moments that rewinding the tape used to give me to
recompose myself. Instead, within seconds, I'd hear a voice saying "OK,
ready to take that again". Under those circumstances, I didn't find it
easy to hold things up further by asking for more time.

This is where the skills of a producer enter (or not). A producer can
figure out how an artist likes to work, and manage sessions accordingly.

Many session players missed that bit of refelective time during tape
rewinding. It was part of the rhythm of a session and we had bercome
habituated to it.

Eventually the immediacy of digital "rewind" became second nature, and
players became as comfortable with it as they would be facing the next
measure of the song, had no one botched it.

Much of this comes down to experience and the time needed to gain it.

I really think what you want is an Alesis HD24 - it's reasonably
affordable and works like a tape deck.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

Richard Crowley wrote:

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote ...
Human beans interact with the world in amazingly diverse ways,
is all I'm saying.

No question. But complaining that instantaneous rewind compels
one to immediately press the play button is a specious argument.

I see it as a matter of experience, and a result of a session lacking a
producer. It's not about how one runs the machinery, per se; it's about
how one runs the session, and running the machinery derives therefrom.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Mike Rivers]

Arny Krueger wrote:

Your point being, nobody would inflict such a horrific thing on themselves
as a computer UI.

Not if there's a better alternative. I don't try to barbecue ribs in my
microwave oven even though both the microwave and the Weber cooker both
cook meat.

Exactly. DAW software has made high-performance mixing and editing
accessible to millions who would never be able to afford or fathom analog
tape editing and mixing.

It has also made it possible for millions people who have no concept of
playing or composing music to create something that they think is music.
It's a great source of amusement for the masses. I have no problem with
a DAW in competent hands, with an input from competent talent. It's just
a tool. But some tools are easier to learn to use (or easier to ignore
the parts that you don't need to use) than others.

For the most part, DAWs lead the user to do it "their" way, even those
with a highly configurable user interface. It takes months to explore
the options and decide how to configure the interface so we like it.
Most of us (speaking mainly for myself) simply give up. How long do I
have to use the damn thing before I can make an intelligent decision
about whether I want the tracks to show up in the programmer's choice of
colors, or alternating between two colors, or what color a punch-in will
be so that I can identify it on any track regardless of the track's
basic color? Or whether the F8 or F12 key will be more convenient for
banging all the tracks back to a size that fits them all on the screen?
Or whether I want to use Alt-Shift-R or Ctrl-* to enter record?




--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[D.M. Procida]

Laurence Payne wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 05:10:37 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
wrote:

Human beans interact with the world in amazingly diverse ways,
is all I'm saying.

True. If he'd just left it at "I like retro gear" it would have been
unanswerable. Rather like religion. "I have faith, and it enriches
me" can't be denied and might even inspire envy. It's the attempts to
analyse and justify that become ridiculius and easy to attack.

"Attack"? If you need something to attack, go and hit a tree or
something.

I like a certain kind of machine, and a certain way of interacting with
machines. I don't need to justify either of these likes to anyone, since
I'm not asking anyone else to do anything about them.

Anyone who doesn't try to analyse the things they like is dull.

Daniele

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

Your point being, nobody would inflict such a horrific
thing on themselves as a computer UI.

Not if there's a better alternative. I don't try to
barbecue ribs in my microwave oven even though both the
microwave and the Weber cooker both cook meat.

A microwave can be tricked up to do a credible job on ribs, but in the end
the grille seems to be more satisfying to use.

Exactly. DAW software has made high-performance mixing
and editing accessible to millions who would never be
able to afford or fathom analog tape editing and mixing.

It has also made it possible for millions people who have
no concept of playing or composing music to create
something that they think is music.

Is there a formal definition of music that we can use to make this decision,
or is this a purely subjective judgment?

It's a great source of amusement for the masses.

Some useful things have come from it, despite the other effects. ;-)

I have no problem with a DAW
in competent hands, with an input from competent talent.
It's just a tool. But some tools are easier to learn to
use (or easier to ignore the parts that you don't need to
use) than others.

Agreed.

For the most part, DAWs lead the user to do it "their"
way, even those with a highly configurable user
interface.

True in general.

It takes months to explore the options and
decide how to configure the interface so we like it.

Not me, boss. I pretty much take the software as it comes.

Most of us (speaking mainly for myself) simply give up.

Others of us jump from DAW to DAW pretty quickly. After you learn the second
one, its all downhill. ;-)

How long do I have to use the damn thing before I can make an
intelligent decision about whether I want the tracks to
show up in the programmer's choice of colors, or
alternating between two colors, or what color a punch-in
will be so that I can identify it on any track regardless
of the track's basic color?

I never worry about that kind of stuff.

Or whether the F8 or F12 key
will be more convenient for banging all the tracks back
to a size that fits them all on the screen? Or whether I
want to use Alt-Shift-R or Ctrl-* to enter record?

I pretty take software of any kind as it is, doing as little customization
as possible.

[Scott Dorsey]

Joanas McSwain wrote:
I had a Sculley and would reflect on whether or not the tape would end up
spilled all over the room

There is actually a fix for the 280 direction sensor problem now. Alan
Garren knows the details... it's changing out the horrible mechanical thing
with some sort of optical sensor and I am told that it stops most of the
dramatic tape spill issues with the 280. It still doesn't get the flutter
down, sadly.... the 280B transport is such an improvement on the original
280 it deserves a new name.

Still. the sound of the solenoids clanking, the smell of the splicing tape
glue, the feel of the razor in my hand, the pumping of the dbx units and so
forth bring back a lot of memories.

Seriously, I know in theory I can be a lot more productive for a lot less
money these days.
However, in practice, I wonder how true this really is.

I like analogue tape. I use it almost every day. But after years and years,
I still hate the Scully 280. And the Scully 100 too.
--scott


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

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:

...DAW software has made high-performance mixing and editing
accessible to millions who would never be able to afford or fathom analog
tape editing and mixing.

.... and it sometimes sounds like they never will fathom it.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Mike Rivers]

Arny Krueger wrote:

Is there a formal definition of music that we can use to make this decision,
or is this a purely subjective judgment?

Purely subjective. If I don't like it I don't listen to it. But I have
to listen to at least a portion of it to decide if I like it or not. And
given that there's no pre-sorting or filtering, I tend to make random
selections. Most turn out to be things I don't like. Can I be so unlucky
that this preference is inaccurately skewed? I don't think so.

Others of us jump from DAW to DAW pretty quickly. After you learn the second
one, its all downhill. ;-)

I haven't found that to be the case. Terminology is often different, as
are ways of doing things. I don't usually spend enough time on something
that doesn't appeal to me initially so that I learn its way of
expressing itself.

I pretty take software of any kind as it is, doing as little customization
as possible.

Maybe you just have a better memory than I do, or can keep track of
which program you're using. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me the
meaning, application, and significance of "Input buses," a much
ballyhooed feature of Acid Pro 7.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[John Albert]

[[ I think I said that at the very beginning. Whereas many
people found the same Akai DAW I bought a fantastic tool,
try as I might, I simply couldn't get on with it. ]]

Why don't you just buy a 24" iMac and use GarageBand?

- John

[D.M. Procida]

John Albert wrote:

[[ I think I said that at the very beginning. Whereas many
people found the same Akai DAW I bought a fantastic tool,
try as I might, I simply couldn't get on with it. ]]

Why don't you just buy a 24" iMac and use GarageBand?

I'm sitting in front of one right now. I don't much like GarageBand.
That's no slur on GarageBand, I just don't enjoy clicking around with a
mouse or tapping on a keyboard when recording.

Daniele

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
Mike Rivers wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

No, it's actually quite nice that you can go down to the [Mac OS] shell and use
the debugger on your application and watch what it's doing. It is kind
of weird after all these years to be recommending the Mac because of the
great commandline interface, but there we have it.

That's like saying you can open up your console, get out the schematic
and drawings of circuit board layout, and probe around with a scope to
see what it's doing.

Yes, that is PRECISELY what it's like. If you're running a big studio,
you need to have someone on staff who can do these things. If you're
running a small studio, you need to have access to someone whom you can
call out to do them when they are needed.

But like DAW users who are capable of using a
software debugger (usually without the help of source code), there are
few users who are capable of troubleshooting with a schematic.

That's unfortunate, but that's what the telephone is. You should be able
to hire someone to come out and troubleshoot when things go wrong, rather
than having to throw the entire console out and replace it when one of the
connectors goes bad. The same goes for the DAW. You don't want a console
that is all one epoxy-potted module inside, and you don't want software
built like that either. Trust me, I have had to work on Sontec equalizers
and they are built JUST LIKE Windows inside.
--scott

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

[hank alrich]

D.M. Procida wrote:

John Albert wrote:

[[ I think I said that at the very beginning. Whereas many
people found the same Akai DAW I bought a fantastic tool,
try as I might, I simply couldn't get on with it. ]]

Why don't you just buy a 24" iMac and use GarageBand?

I'm sitting in front of one right now. I don't much like GarageBand.
That's no slur on GarageBand, I just don't enjoy clicking around with a
mouse or tapping on a keyboard when recording.

Please understand that you can set up a DAW with key commands that mimic
the hardware controls of an analog recorder.

For instance, I can arm tracks in Logic, and hit 1 to start recording,
and 0 to stop.

The Metric Halo interfaces will stream audio straight to disc without a
DAW app to intermediate, but they don't work for overdubbing, yet.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Mike Rivers]

hank alrich wrote:

Please understand that you can set up a DAW with key commands that mimic
the hardware controls of an analog recorder.

For instance, I can arm tracks in Logic, and hit 1 to start recording,
and 0 to stop.

How odd. I'd want the 1-24 keys to arm the tracks. Uh . . . where's
the 15 key? You can customize some things, but not everything.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[David Light]

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 16:42:44 -0500, Les Cargill
wrote:

Set rules, like no punchins, no assembly-edits, leave small errors
intact, maximum of three tries at a solo or vocal before
calling it a day. It's not that difficult.

I agree in theory anyway. One of the hardest things to do is
declare a take "the best" or to declare a project "finished". It's
easy when I have my engineer hat on to see when more takes are like
beating a dead horse. When I am the musician then I can't help but
think I can do better next take.

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers wrote:

hank alrich wrote:

Please understand that you can set up a DAW with key commands that mimic
the hardware controls of an analog recorder.

For instance, I can arm tracks in Logic, and hit 1 to start recording,
and 0 to stop.

How odd. I'd want the 1-24 keys to arm the tracks. Uh . . . where's
the 15 key? You can customize some things, but not everything.

So you need a DAW controller, a hardware interface to mangle around.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Mike Rivers]

hank alrich wrote:

So you need a DAW controller, a hardware interface to mangle around.

Egg-zakly. But it has to be one that's designed by someone who has
actually used a multitrack recorder. Seems like there's always something
wrong with all of them, probably because of limitations as to what the
software can do.

For example, it boggles my mind that many DAWs are incapable of doing a
punch-in on a track in the conventional manner - arm the track, start
playing, then hit Record when you get to the punch-in point and either
Stop or Play when you get to the punch-out point. You can set it up for
auto-punch, but you can't do it manually. But that takes an extra pass
(or good bookkeeping) to set the punch points.

I suspect that the reason why this capability isn't present is because
they only think in DAW logic. With the availability of virtual tracks
and an unlimited track count, there's no need to punch in on a track.
You can just record an alternate take on another track and either edit
it or write mutes to play what you want to hear later on. But that's
something else you gotta do. If you do a punch-in, it's done. And with
the standard DAW capability, you can fine tune it later if it's not
quite right. It's just one more workflow thing.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)