Computers vs. Recorders

[HWBossHoss]

OK, I am going to be upgrading my home studio, and I want to get some opinions.
The way I see it, there are two basic choices: computer-based recording (such
as ProTools) and what I call "box" recording (any of the self-contained digital
recorders from Korg, Roland, Tascam, etc.). I want to know the pros and cons
of both methods. I am willing to make a genuine investment into whichever
method I can decide will give me the most performance for the buck.

I will say that I am kind of an "old school" home recordist who likes to fiddle
with actual sound processors instead of software plug-ins. My compressors are
two FMR Audio RNC 1773's (for everything) and a dbx 1066 (mainly for drums). I
have a Lexicon MPX-1 and a junky old Alesis Midiverb III for effects. At the
moment, my mic preamps are supplied by the "ghost" type preamps in my
Soundcraft Spirit M8 mixer, but I am looking into units by Focusrite and
Avalon. I plan to add some kind of EQ capability as soon as I can decide what
the best EQ is for me. Hell, I've even considered one of the Alesis digital
EQ's.

Anyway, down to business: As you may already be able to tell, I'm leaning
toward the digital recorder method. One of the biggest reasons for this is
simple: I just do not understand a lot of what is involved in computer-based
recording. (Firewire? Huh? Exeternal A/D converters? Needed or not? Sound
card? Needed or not? The list goes on...)

Lots of folks are buying the Digidesign Digi 002 Protools rig, and the way they
strut around, convinced that they have the "ultimate" home recording rig leads
me to believe that they must be on to something....but I'm wondering if I can
use my beloved "old fashioned" sound processors with such a rig...AND I wonder
if buying a Digidesign rig AUTOMATICALLY means that it is "better" than a
dedicated digital recorder in terms of sound quality, flexibility, and ease of
use. A lot of what I've heard from the ProTools method sounds way too
"processed" and flat, but that could just be "operator error" and not a
reflection on ProTools itself.

Another big factor regarding the computer-based method is this: I'm pretty sure
that I will need to buy a better computer than what I already have in order to
use ProTools effectively. That will be a considerable expense, I'm sure. And
I would rather use that money to buy microphones and other "fun" stuff if at
all possible! :-)

There you have it. I have only scratched the surface when it comes to the
sheer volume of questions I have about both methods of recording, but I hope
you get the general idea of what is confusing me. I guess my question is
really this: Can someone give me some DEFINITE, CONCRETE reasons why
computer-based recording is "better" than using a dedicated digital recorder
along with some high-quality outboard sound processors?

[Chris Warner]

Seeing the wave form makes editing better, the Protools HD system allows you
to do some pretty cool DSP stuff, the 002 gear uses the CPU, yes you can use
your current signal processors, most software recording tools can input and
output and record simultaneously. I don't have experience with the box
tools, but the only thing I can tell is lacking is the wave form
visualization.

My ,02 worth.
Chris

"HWBossHoss" > wrote in message
...
> OK, I am going to be upgrading my home studio, and I want to get some
opinions.
> The way I see it, there are two basic choices: computer-based recording
(such
> as ProTools) and what I call "box" recording (any of the self-contained
digital
> recorders from Korg, Roland, Tascam, etc.). I want to know the pros and
cons
> of both methods. I am willing to make a genuine investment into whichever
> method I can decide will give me the most performance for the buck.
>
> I will say that I am kind of an "old school" home recordist who likes to
fiddle
> with actual sound processors instead of software plug-ins. My compressors
are
> two FMR Audio RNC 1773's (for everything) and a dbx 1066 (mainly for
drums). I
> have a Lexicon MPX-1 and a junky old Alesis Midiverb III for effects. At
the
> moment, my mic preamps are supplied by the "ghost" type preamps in my
> Soundcraft Spirit M8 mixer, but I am looking into units by Focusrite and
> Avalon. I plan to add some kind of EQ capability as soon as I can decide
what
> the best EQ is for me. Hell, I've even considered one of the Alesis
digital
> EQ's.
>
> Anyway, down to business: As you may already be able to tell, I'm leaning
> toward the digital recorder method. One of the biggest reasons for this
is
> simple: I just do not understand a lot of what is involved in
computer-based
> recording. (Firewire? Huh? Exeternal A/D converters? Needed or not?
Sound
> card? Needed or not? The list goes on...)
>
> Lots of folks are buying the Digidesign Digi 002 Protools rig, and the way
they
> strut around, convinced that they have the "ultimate" home recording rig
leads
> me to believe that they must be on to something....but I'm wondering if I
can
> use my beloved "old fashioned" sound processors with such a rig...AND I
wonder
> if buying a Digidesign rig AUTOMATICALLY means that it is "better" than a
> dedicated digital recorder in terms of sound quality, flexibility, and
ease of
> use. A lot of what I've heard from the ProTools method sounds way too
> "processed" and flat, but that could just be "operator error" and not a
> reflection on ProTools itself.
>
> Another big factor regarding the computer-based method is this: I'm pretty
sure
> that I will need to buy a better computer than what I already have in
order to
> use ProTools effectively. That will be a considerable expense, I'm sure.
And
> I would rather use that money to buy microphones and other "fun" stuff if
at
> all possible! :-)
>
> There you have it. I have only scratched the surface when it comes to the
> sheer volume of questions I have about both methods of recording, but I
hope
> you get the general idea of what is confusing me. I guess my question is
> really this: Can someone give me some DEFINITE, CONCRETE reasons why
> computer-based recording is "better" than using a dedicated digital
recorder
> along with some high-quality outboard sound processors?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.682 / Virus Database: 444 - Release Date: 5/14/2004

[Chris Warner]

Seeing the wave form makes editing better, the Protools HD system allows you
to do some pretty cool DSP stuff, the 002 gear uses the CPU, yes you can use
your current signal processors, most software recording tools can input and
output and record simultaneously. I don't have experience with the box
tools, but the only thing I can tell is lacking is the wave form
visualization.

My ,02 worth.
Chris

"HWBossHoss" > wrote in message
...
> OK, I am going to be upgrading my home studio, and I want to get some
opinions.
> The way I see it, there are two basic choices: computer-based recording
(such
> as ProTools) and what I call "box" recording (any of the self-contained
digital
> recorders from Korg, Roland, Tascam, etc.). I want to know the pros and
cons
> of both methods. I am willing to make a genuine investment into whichever
> method I can decide will give me the most performance for the buck.
>
> I will say that I am kind of an "old school" home recordist who likes to
fiddle
> with actual sound processors instead of software plug-ins. My compressors
are
> two FMR Audio RNC 1773's (for everything) and a dbx 1066 (mainly for
drums). I
> have a Lexicon MPX-1 and a junky old Alesis Midiverb III for effects. At
the
> moment, my mic preamps are supplied by the "ghost" type preamps in my
> Soundcraft Spirit M8 mixer, but I am looking into units by Focusrite and
> Avalon. I plan to add some kind of EQ capability as soon as I can decide
what
> the best EQ is for me. Hell, I've even considered one of the Alesis
digital
> EQ's.
>
> Anyway, down to business: As you may already be able to tell, I'm leaning
> toward the digital recorder method. One of the biggest reasons for this
is
> simple: I just do not understand a lot of what is involved in
computer-based
> recording. (Firewire? Huh? Exeternal A/D converters? Needed or not?
Sound
> card? Needed or not? The list goes on...)
>
> Lots of folks are buying the Digidesign Digi 002 Protools rig, and the way
they
> strut around, convinced that they have the "ultimate" home recording rig
leads
> me to believe that they must be on to something....but I'm wondering if I
can
> use my beloved "old fashioned" sound processors with such a rig...AND I
wonder
> if buying a Digidesign rig AUTOMATICALLY means that it is "better" than a
> dedicated digital recorder in terms of sound quality, flexibility, and
ease of
> use. A lot of what I've heard from the ProTools method sounds way too
> "processed" and flat, but that could just be "operator error" and not a
> reflection on ProTools itself.
>
> Another big factor regarding the computer-based method is this: I'm pretty
sure
> that I will need to buy a better computer than what I already have in
order to
> use ProTools effectively. That will be a considerable expense, I'm sure.
And
> I would rather use that money to buy microphones and other "fun" stuff if
at
> all possible! :-)
>
> There you have it. I have only scratched the surface when it comes to the
> sheer volume of questions I have about both methods of recording, but I
hope
> you get the general idea of what is confusing me. I guess my question is
> really this: Can someone give me some DEFINITE, CONCRETE reasons why
> computer-based recording is "better" than using a dedicated digital
recorder
> along with some high-quality outboard sound processors?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.682 / Virus Database: 444 - Release Date: 5/14/2004

[Arny Krueger]

HWBossHoss wrote:

> I guess my question is really this: Can someone give me some
> DEFINITE, CONCRETE reasons why computer-based recording is "better"
> than using a dedicated digital recorder along with some high-quality
> outboard sound processors?

First we have to define "better".

To understand the goals of computer-based recording we start must out with a
definition of "better" that relates to cleaner sound, with reduced noise and
distortion from unintended sources, such as those found in the analog
domain.

Then we have to accept that digital, computer simulations of effects
commonly obtained from outboard sound processors can be artistically and
technically acceptable.

We then find that computer-based recording provides us with more of what we
want, and less of what we don't want, during the production process.

It might be ironic that at least in terms of noise and distortion from
unintended sources, Pro Tools has historically been one of the poorer tools
around. Not that it can't be entirely acceptable.

[Arny Krueger]

HWBossHoss wrote:

> I guess my question is really this: Can someone give me some
> DEFINITE, CONCRETE reasons why computer-based recording is "better"
> than using a dedicated digital recorder along with some high-quality
> outboard sound processors?

First we have to define "better".

To understand the goals of computer-based recording we start must out with a
definition of "better" that relates to cleaner sound, with reduced noise and
distortion from unintended sources, such as those found in the analog
domain.

Then we have to accept that digital, computer simulations of effects
commonly obtained from outboard sound processors can be artistically and
technically acceptable.

We then find that computer-based recording provides us with more of what we
want, and less of what we don't want, during the production process.

It might be ironic that at least in terms of noise and distortion from
unintended sources, Pro Tools has historically been one of the poorer tools
around. Not that it can't be entirely acceptable.

[EganMedia]

>Can someone give me some DEFINITE, CONCRETE reasons why
>computer-based recording is "better" than using a dedicated digital recorder
>along with some high-quality outboard sound processors?

No. That is why there are products from Mackie, Tascam, Fostex, IZ, Roland,
etc. There are people who prefer working that way. There are workflow issues,
reliability issues, issues of size, of compatibility, of sonics and of
ergonomics. You need to decide what you need a recorder to do and then find
the one that best suits your needs.


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

[EganMedia]

>Can someone give me some DEFINITE, CONCRETE reasons why
>computer-based recording is "better" than using a dedicated digital recorder
>along with some high-quality outboard sound processors?

No. That is why there are products from Mackie, Tascam, Fostex, IZ, Roland,
etc. There are people who prefer working that way. There are workflow issues,
reliability issues, issues of size, of compatibility, of sonics and of
ergonomics. You need to decide what you need a recorder to do and then find
the one that best suits your needs.


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> The way I see it, there are two basic choices: computer-based recording (such
> as ProTools) and what I call "box" recording (any of the self-contained digital
> recorders from Korg, Roland, Tascam, etc.). I want to know the pros and cons
> of both methods.

What about the third choice - a dedicated recorder and a dedicated
mixer, connected together by cables? You can still do that both with
analog and digital equipment, and you can mix the two formats.

> I will say that I am kind of an "old school" home recordist who likes to fiddle
> with actual sound processors instead of software plug-ins.

Then you have a very good basis for making the decision yourself. Do
you want to get rid of all that clutter and have something neat that
will fit on your kitchen table but will lock you in to certain ways of
doing things, or do you want to have the flexibility of doing things
your way?

> Anyway, down to business: As you may already be able to tell, I'm leaning
> toward the digital recorder method. One of the biggest reasons for this is
> simple: I just do not understand a lot of what is involved in computer-based
> recording. (Firewire? Huh? Exeternal A/D converters? Needed or not? Sound
> card? Needed or not? The list goes on...)

I understand those sorts of things (interfaces are pretty easy to
learn) but what I, and I fear many people who use computers as
recorders and mixers, don't understand well is what goes on under the
hood. It all boils down to the science of interfacing things (it's
called "system engineering") and when you assemble boxes as you have,
what's inside the box just plain works (or doesn't - then we say it's
broken and we fix or replace it) and you only need to deal with
interfacing the connectors on the outside of the box. In a computer,
there are many internal interfaces that are hidden from the outside
world and they aren't always as obviously correct or incorrect as
interfaces to hardware boxes. There is no hardware equivalent to
"download the latest drivers" or operating system adjustments, tweaks,
or downright removing or changing things that have been optimized for
"normal use" computing. Those are the things that many of us have read
how to do but don't understand what we're doing. That's what scares
me about depending on a computer as the heart of my studio.

An integrated box has all of those things optimized (presumably) by
the manufacturer and there's little opportunity to go in and change
anything. You're not likely to break it, but you aren't likely to make
it any better than it is either. Not everybody can improve the sound
of a mic preamp by replacing capacitors, but at least you can see what
you're doing and can easily go back to where you started even if you
didn't prepare for disaster when you began.

> Lots of folks are buying the Digidesign Digi 002 Protools rig, and the way they
> strut around, convinced that they have the "ultimate" home recording rig leads
> me to believe that they must be on to something.

Well, if it suits their needs, then they ARE on to something. I'm
convinced that it's possible to buy into the Digidesign world, use the
computer and operating system they recommend, get all the upgrades
from them, and have a smooth running system that will be compatible
with a lot of other studios, should you decide to work elsewhere on
certain phases of your project.

> ...but I'm wondering if I can
> use my beloved "old fashioned" sound processors with such a rig...

Yes, but the problem with both a computer plus external hardware and a
dedicated recorder/mixer in a box is that they tend to be shy on
connectors to the outside world. Also, in many cases, those connectors
aren't dedicated to specific functions - for instance you may not find
a channel insert between the mic preamp and the A/D converter into
which you can patch your compressor (I'm not sure if the Digi002 has
them) so you'll have to work around it by sending the mic preamp
signal to an output (which will render that ouput unavailable for
something else), through the compressor, and bringing the compressor
back into the 002 through another input for recording. So the way we
usually work around that is to record an uncompressed signal and then
compress it in software using a plug-in after it's recorded. Similarly
if you want to use an external signal processor for reverb or
amplifier distortion, you'll have to "build" an auxiliary send,
assigning a control to the function, then assigning the signal to an
output jack. So rather than that, we learn to make do (sometimes for
the worse but often for the better) with software plug-ins. It does
make things a bit more difficult to hear how your project is
developing as you build up tracks, however, since it's often
impossible or clumsy to apply processing in real time.

> Another big factor regarding the computer-based method is this: I'm pretty sure
> that I will need to buy a better computer than what I already have in order to
> use ProTools effectively. That will be a considerable expense, I'm sure. And
> I would rather use that money to buy microphones and other "fun" stuff if at
> all possible! :-)

One of the great fallicies of computer-based recording is that you
already have the computer, so that part is free. When you're on a
tight budget, that can be a big temptation. If you have a reasonable
budget you'll find that the computer that you really need to do the
job, and that you can dedicate to audio without worrying about whether
you'll pick up an e-mail virus or something in loading up a new game
will change your highly tweaked audio settings, really isn't that much
more expensive than a good microphone or outboard preamp. Don't forget
that if you can't hear what you're doing or what you've done, it
doesn't matter how pristine the gear is or how skilled you are -
you're not going to do a good job. A good monitoring system (which
includes the room you're working in) is going to be the most important
and probably the most expensive part of your setup.

What you DO have to realize, and I believe you do, is that if the
Digi002 costs $2,000, you don't have a complete recording studio for
$2,000. You can make very good sounding recordings on one, but it's
not because it's a Digi002, it's because you will have surrounded it
with a reasonable suite of other equipment and software, and you will
have developed your engineering and listening skills to the point
where you can make a good sounding recording on just about anything.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> The way I see it, there are two basic choices: computer-based recording (such
> as ProTools) and what I call "box" recording (any of the self-contained digital
> recorders from Korg, Roland, Tascam, etc.). I want to know the pros and cons
> of both methods.

What about the third choice - a dedicated recorder and a dedicated
mixer, connected together by cables? You can still do that both with
analog and digital equipment, and you can mix the two formats.

> I will say that I am kind of an "old school" home recordist who likes to fiddle
> with actual sound processors instead of software plug-ins.

Then you have a very good basis for making the decision yourself. Do
you want to get rid of all that clutter and have something neat that
will fit on your kitchen table but will lock you in to certain ways of
doing things, or do you want to have the flexibility of doing things
your way?

> Anyway, down to business: As you may already be able to tell, I'm leaning
> toward the digital recorder method. One of the biggest reasons for this is
> simple: I just do not understand a lot of what is involved in computer-based
> recording. (Firewire? Huh? Exeternal A/D converters? Needed or not? Sound
> card? Needed or not? The list goes on...)

I understand those sorts of things (interfaces are pretty easy to
learn) but what I, and I fear many people who use computers as
recorders and mixers, don't understand well is what goes on under the
hood. It all boils down to the science of interfacing things (it's
called "system engineering") and when you assemble boxes as you have,
what's inside the box just plain works (or doesn't - then we say it's
broken and we fix or replace it) and you only need to deal with
interfacing the connectors on the outside of the box. In a computer,
there are many internal interfaces that are hidden from the outside
world and they aren't always as obviously correct or incorrect as
interfaces to hardware boxes. There is no hardware equivalent to
"download the latest drivers" or operating system adjustments, tweaks,
or downright removing or changing things that have been optimized for
"normal use" computing. Those are the things that many of us have read
how to do but don't understand what we're doing. That's what scares
me about depending on a computer as the heart of my studio.

An integrated box has all of those things optimized (presumably) by
the manufacturer and there's little opportunity to go in and change
anything. You're not likely to break it, but you aren't likely to make
it any better than it is either. Not everybody can improve the sound
of a mic preamp by replacing capacitors, but at least you can see what
you're doing and can easily go back to where you started even if you
didn't prepare for disaster when you began.

> Lots of folks are buying the Digidesign Digi 002 Protools rig, and the way they
> strut around, convinced that they have the "ultimate" home recording rig leads
> me to believe that they must be on to something.

Well, if it suits their needs, then they ARE on to something. I'm
convinced that it's possible to buy into the Digidesign world, use the
computer and operating system they recommend, get all the upgrades
from them, and have a smooth running system that will be compatible
with a lot of other studios, should you decide to work elsewhere on
certain phases of your project.

> ...but I'm wondering if I can
> use my beloved "old fashioned" sound processors with such a rig...

Yes, but the problem with both a computer plus external hardware and a
dedicated recorder/mixer in a box is that they tend to be shy on
connectors to the outside world. Also, in many cases, those connectors
aren't dedicated to specific functions - for instance you may not find
a channel insert between the mic preamp and the A/D converter into
which you can patch your compressor (I'm not sure if the Digi002 has
them) so you'll have to work around it by sending the mic preamp
signal to an output (which will render that ouput unavailable for
something else), through the compressor, and bringing the compressor
back into the 002 through another input for recording. So the way we
usually work around that is to record an uncompressed signal and then
compress it in software using a plug-in after it's recorded. Similarly
if you want to use an external signal processor for reverb or
amplifier distortion, you'll have to "build" an auxiliary send,
assigning a control to the function, then assigning the signal to an
output jack. So rather than that, we learn to make do (sometimes for
the worse but often for the better) with software plug-ins. It does
make things a bit more difficult to hear how your project is
developing as you build up tracks, however, since it's often
impossible or clumsy to apply processing in real time.

> Another big factor regarding the computer-based method is this: I'm pretty sure
> that I will need to buy a better computer than what I already have in order to
> use ProTools effectively. That will be a considerable expense, I'm sure. And
> I would rather use that money to buy microphones and other "fun" stuff if at
> all possible! :-)

One of the great fallicies of computer-based recording is that you
already have the computer, so that part is free. When you're on a
tight budget, that can be a big temptation. If you have a reasonable
budget you'll find that the computer that you really need to do the
job, and that you can dedicate to audio without worrying about whether
you'll pick up an e-mail virus or something in loading up a new game
will change your highly tweaked audio settings, really isn't that much
more expensive than a good microphone or outboard preamp. Don't forget
that if you can't hear what you're doing or what you've done, it
doesn't matter how pristine the gear is or how skilled you are -
you're not going to do a good job. A good monitoring system (which
includes the room you're working in) is going to be the most important
and probably the most expensive part of your setup.

What you DO have to realize, and I believe you do, is that if the
Digi002 costs $2,000, you don't have a complete recording studio for
$2,000. You can make very good sounding recordings on one, but it's
not because it's a Digi002, it's because you will have surrounded it
with a reasonable suite of other equipment and software, and you will
have developed your engineering and listening skills to the point
where you can make a good sounding recording on just about anything.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Gary]

I don't see that Pro Tools is the ONLY way to go with PC based
production, but let's just say that most audio/MIDI sequencers allow
you to do mostly the same types of things. People have preferences -
mine is SONAR, but have I used Cubase? No I haven't - I just kept
upgrading Cakewalk products for the last 10 years or so and have
learned to use it.

Back to your point, I have tried some hw recorders, mostly low end
ones, and find them pretty tough to use, both because the ones I used
lacked any type of waveform edit and menu structures require a lot of
memorization and button pushing which IME interferes with the creative
process.

As already mentioned, being able to edit waveforms can be pretty darn
handy when you are punching in or trying to build up a performance,
you can easily back up multiple versions of an arrangement in the
event you're not too sure about something, it's easy to encode an MP3
and e-mail it to someone, etc.

You might want to check out a demo of a sw seq to make sure you don't
want to go that way.

[Gary]

I don't see that Pro Tools is the ONLY way to go with PC based
production, but let's just say that most audio/MIDI sequencers allow
you to do mostly the same types of things. People have preferences -
mine is SONAR, but have I used Cubase? No I haven't - I just kept
upgrading Cakewalk products for the last 10 years or so and have
learned to use it.

Back to your point, I have tried some hw recorders, mostly low end
ones, and find them pretty tough to use, both because the ones I used
lacked any type of waveform edit and menu structures require a lot of
memorization and button pushing which IME interferes with the creative
process.

As already mentioned, being able to edit waveforms can be pretty darn
handy when you are punching in or trying to build up a performance,
you can easily back up multiple versions of an arrangement in the
event you're not too sure about something, it's easy to encode an MP3
and e-mail it to someone, etc.

You might want to check out a demo of a sw seq to make sure you don't
want to go that way.

[Laurence Payne]

On 23 May 2004 03:35:03 GMT, (HWBossHoss) wrote:

>
>There you have it. I have only scratched the surface when it comes to the
>sheer volume of questions I have about both methods of recording, but I hope
>you get the general idea of what is confusing me. I guess my question is
>really this: Can someone give me some DEFINITE, CONCRETE reasons why
>computer-based recording is "better" than using a dedicated digital recorder
>along with some high-quality outboard sound processors?

No, of course not.

But look at it this way. A hardware recorder is just a
single-purpose computer with a dedicated control surface. If that
interface suits you - fine. I can't imagine going back to editing
without a full-screen graphic interface. Some hardware units offer
this (but, in doing so, become even more like none-program
computers;-)

If you do decide to go the computer route, remember ProTools isn't the
only game in town. It's well established in professional circles -
if portability of your projects is an issue (and you're working at the
expensive end of the market) you need to consider it. Otherwise I
suggest you discount it completely. It's WAY overpriced for what it
does.

If a ProTools recording sounded "processed and flat", it's because it
was made that way. Don't blame the system.

You can, of course, continue to use your favourite outboard effects
whichever system you choose.

>I just do not understand a lot of what is involved in computer-based
>recording. (Firewire? Huh? Exeternal A/D converters? Needed or not?
>Sound card? Needed or not? The list goes on...)

Firewire is a way of connecting devices to a computer.

On any system, computer or otherwise, you have the choice of using a
built-in ADC or an external one.

A Sound Card is the audio interface to a computer. But you knew that
really :-)




CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[Laurence Payne]

On 23 May 2004 03:35:03 GMT, (HWBossHoss) wrote:

>
>There you have it. I have only scratched the surface when it comes to the
>sheer volume of questions I have about both methods of recording, but I hope
>you get the general idea of what is confusing me. I guess my question is
>really this: Can someone give me some DEFINITE, CONCRETE reasons why
>computer-based recording is "better" than using a dedicated digital recorder
>along with some high-quality outboard sound processors?

No, of course not.

But look at it this way. A hardware recorder is just a
single-purpose computer with a dedicated control surface. If that
interface suits you - fine. I can't imagine going back to editing
without a full-screen graphic interface. Some hardware units offer
this (but, in doing so, become even more like none-program
computers;-)

If you do decide to go the computer route, remember ProTools isn't the
only game in town. It's well established in professional circles -
if portability of your projects is an issue (and you're working at the
expensive end of the market) you need to consider it. Otherwise I
suggest you discount it completely. It's WAY overpriced for what it
does.

If a ProTools recording sounded "processed and flat", it's because it
was made that way. Don't blame the system.

You can, of course, continue to use your favourite outboard effects
whichever system you choose.

>I just do not understand a lot of what is involved in computer-based
>recording. (Firewire? Huh? Exeternal A/D converters? Needed or not?
>Sound card? Needed or not? The list goes on...)

Firewire is a way of connecting devices to a computer.

On any system, computer or otherwise, you have the choice of using a
built-in ADC or an external one.

A Sound Card is the audio interface to a computer. But you knew that
really :-)




CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[Eli Krantzberg]

(HWBossHoss) wrote in message >...

> Can someone give me some DEFINITE, CONCRETE reasons why
> computer-based recording is "better" than using a dedicated digital >recorder along with some high-quality outboard sound processors?

This is a large question, with multilayers of possible answers. But
one thing you haven't mentioned, which could be relevant is this: Do
you anticipate working at all with with midi instruments of any sort;
or will it be strictly live audio that you want to work with?

If you are thingking about any portion of your projects containing
programmed midi parts, the computer based route will have trememdous
advantages. You can get into the whole world of soft synths and loops,
etc. without having to buy outboard midi modules.

Another big question to ask yourself is what level of editing you want
to get into with all of this. The computer based route will definitely
offer you much finer more nuanced control over editing and processing
your recorded audio. Whether this is a good thing for you or not, is a
question you have to ask yourself.

Another thing to consider is that the computer based systems are more
expandable. You can add plugins, extra drive space, additional I/O,
etc. The stand alone systems are generally closed end systems (ie:
less upgradeable). Again, this is not inherantly a bad thing; just
something you have to consider. I am a firm believer in the relative
absence of limitations being an impediment to creativity. Therefore
equipment limitations can be, and often are, good!

Eli

[Eli Krantzberg]

(HWBossHoss) wrote in message >...

> Can someone give me some DEFINITE, CONCRETE reasons why
> computer-based recording is "better" than using a dedicated digital >recorder along with some high-quality outboard sound processors?

This is a large question, with multilayers of possible answers. But
one thing you haven't mentioned, which could be relevant is this: Do
you anticipate working at all with with midi instruments of any sort;
or will it be strictly live audio that you want to work with?

If you are thingking about any portion of your projects containing
programmed midi parts, the computer based route will have trememdous
advantages. You can get into the whole world of soft synths and loops,
etc. without having to buy outboard midi modules.

Another big question to ask yourself is what level of editing you want
to get into with all of this. The computer based route will definitely
offer you much finer more nuanced control over editing and processing
your recorded audio. Whether this is a good thing for you or not, is a
question you have to ask yourself.

Another thing to consider is that the computer based systems are more
expandable. You can add plugins, extra drive space, additional I/O,
etc. The stand alone systems are generally closed end systems (ie:
less upgradeable). Again, this is not inherantly a bad thing; just
something you have to consider. I am a firm believer in the relative
absence of limitations being an impediment to creativity. Therefore
equipment limitations can be, and often are, good!

Eli

[EggHd]

<< The way I see it, there are two basic choices: computer-based recording
(such
as ProTools) and what I call "box" recording (any of the self-contained digital
recorders from Korg, Roland, Tascam, etc.). >>

And a thirs which would be RADAR, Alesis, Mackie or Tascam stand alone hard
disc recorders and a mixer from analog to digital.

<< I want to know the pros and cons
of both methods. >>

Tough to say as it would be different for every user.

<< I will say that I am kind of an "old school" home recordist who likes to
fiddle
with actual sound processors instead of software plug-ins. >>

Tne maybe an alesis hard disc recorder and a Souncraft Ghost?

<< Lots of folks are buying the Digidesign Digi 002 Protools rig, and the way
they
strut around, convinced that they have the "ultimate" home recording rig leads
me to believe that they must be on to something.... >>

For 1100 bucks includine interface, monitoring system and software with bundles
plug ins it's a great deal but you will need a good computer. You can put
together a killer PC system for around 600 bucks that will be all the power you
need.

<< AND I wonder
if buying a Digidesign rig AUTOMATICALLY means that it is "better" than a
dedicated digital recorder in terms of sound quality, flexibility, and ease of
use. >>

Just different.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< The way I see it, there are two basic choices: computer-based recording
(such
as ProTools) and what I call "box" recording (any of the self-contained digital
recorders from Korg, Roland, Tascam, etc.). >>

And a thirs which would be RADAR, Alesis, Mackie or Tascam stand alone hard
disc recorders and a mixer from analog to digital.

<< I want to know the pros and cons
of both methods. >>

Tough to say as it would be different for every user.

<< I will say that I am kind of an "old school" home recordist who likes to
fiddle
with actual sound processors instead of software plug-ins. >>

Tne maybe an alesis hard disc recorder and a Souncraft Ghost?

<< Lots of folks are buying the Digidesign Digi 002 Protools rig, and the way
they
strut around, convinced that they have the "ultimate" home recording rig leads
me to believe that they must be on to something.... >>

For 1100 bucks includine interface, monitoring system and software with bundles
plug ins it's a great deal but you will need a good computer. You can put
together a killer PC system for around 600 bucks that will be all the power you
need.

<< AND I wonder
if buying a Digidesign rig AUTOMATICALLY means that it is "better" than a
dedicated digital recorder in terms of sound quality, flexibility, and ease of
use. >>

Just different.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Raymond]

(HWBossHoss) wrote in message
>...
>
>> Can someone give me some DEFINITE, CONCRETE reasons why
>> computer-based recording is "better" than using a dedicated digital
>>recorder along with some high-quality outboard sound processors?
>

I think not, you will have to make that choice on your own. You should talk to
someone near bye who has a set up like your thinking about getting and ask if
they will let you have a go at it. Buying a turn-key system is a really good
way to go, there are lot's of guys and companies that will do this and include
a great bit of tech support (you'll need that to) in the mean time you can look
at these popular system's.

http://motu.com/

http://www.digidesign.com/

[Raymond]

(HWBossHoss) wrote in message
>...
>
>> Can someone give me some DEFINITE, CONCRETE reasons why
>> computer-based recording is "better" than using a dedicated digital
>>recorder along with some high-quality outboard sound processors?
>

I think not, you will have to make that choice on your own. You should talk to
someone near bye who has a set up like your thinking about getting and ask if
they will let you have a go at it. Buying a turn-key system is a really good
way to go, there are lot's of guys and companies that will do this and include
a great bit of tech support (you'll need that to) in the mean time you can look
at these popular system's.

http://motu.com/

http://www.digidesign.com/

[david]

In article >, Arny Krueger
> wrote:

> HWBossHoss wrote:
>
> > I guess my question is really this: Can someone give me some
> > DEFINITE, CONCRETE reasons why computer-based recording is "better"
> > than using a dedicated digital recorder along with some high-quality
> > outboard sound processors?
>
> First we have to define "better".
>
> To understand the goals of computer-based recording we start must out with a
> definition of "better" that relates to cleaner sound, with reduced noise and
> distortion from unintended sources, such as those found in the analog
> domain.




C'mon. Most all the big guys mix to half-inch 2 track.

And, if you asked him, Bob Ludwig would tell you he prefers analog
masters.

"Better" is for each engineer to learn for themselves. It's about what
moves you and about what works. It is not particularly a digital vs
analog or a good spec vs. bad spec thing. It's about what works best
for whatever the hell you happen to be doing.

One of my fave pieces of gear is a racked pair of LA3's. Each of them
has a different sound.They def do not create a cleaner, reduced noise
or reduced distorted signal. But they do makes lotsa stuff sound
"better."

Better is about your ears and your experience.





David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island


www.CelebrationSound.com

[david]

In article >, Arny Krueger
> wrote:

> HWBossHoss wrote:
>
> > I guess my question is really this: Can someone give me some
> > DEFINITE, CONCRETE reasons why computer-based recording is "better"
> > than using a dedicated digital recorder along with some high-quality
> > outboard sound processors?
>
> First we have to define "better".
>
> To understand the goals of computer-based recording we start must out with a
> definition of "better" that relates to cleaner sound, with reduced noise and
> distortion from unintended sources, such as those found in the analog
> domain.




C'mon. Most all the big guys mix to half-inch 2 track.

And, if you asked him, Bob Ludwig would tell you he prefers analog
masters.

"Better" is for each engineer to learn for themselves. It's about what
moves you and about what works. It is not particularly a digital vs
analog or a good spec vs. bad spec thing. It's about what works best
for whatever the hell you happen to be doing.

One of my fave pieces of gear is a racked pair of LA3's. Each of them
has a different sound.They def do not create a cleaner, reduced noise
or reduced distorted signal. But they do makes lotsa stuff sound
"better."

Better is about your ears and your experience.





David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island


www.CelebrationSound.com

[Paul Motter]

Hi...

I juat found this NG, but I have many years as a pro engineer MANY
years ago (my pro career ended around 1983). I am just in the last 6
months getting BACK to recording as a hobby... I will save the gory
details for later.

I started 6 months ago with a "box" - a dedicated Zoom HD recorder. I
found it to be frustrating. Adding effects, mixing,... all involve
running through endless menus, the manuals are cryptic and in the long
run you are severely limted by what the manufacturer descides to
include in the box. Even with Zoom, known for effects, for compressors
I had two choices: limiter or compressor. For EQ I was limited to
their pre-set frequencies. Reverb had maybe 4 pre-sets. Get my drift?
Even with a more expandable system navigating the LCD menus will make
you crazy.

I dumped it and now have the Digi002 w/ Protools. I love it. But I
will tell you a secret. It is the software that makes it great, not
the hardware. When you mix on PT all the effects are at your
fingertips and you see great visual representations of them. EQ with
sweepable parametric, limiting/compressing, etc. Mixing is a breeze
on PT. Editing is unbelievable when you can see waveforms, too.

On the hardware side, the Digi002 LOOKS cooler than it really is. I
thought I needed it because I needed hands-on, but I realize that if
money is an issue I could live without it. It basically only mimics
what the software is doing onscreen. That being said, the step down,
the faderless Digi001 is being discontinued, and the bottom line M-box
is said to be limited. However, you can get an M-box on Ebay for about
$350. A decent price to get up and running and see if you like
Protools. Ebay is great, but I have spent this much on my "hobby" so
far:

Digi002 = $1600
antares autotune= $280
sampletank XL2 = $348
Roland Digital Monitors = $300
Computer (I built) $950
Glyph external firewire = $290

There are other systems: Sonar etc. I haven't tried them. I figured as
long as was learning something from scratch it might as well be the
industry-compatible standard. There are a lot of PT alternative
adherents, though. Go to www.recording.org to meet them.

I am fairly computer geeky. but reading about the firewire, etc before
I got started was a lot more intimidating than it is in real life. YOu
see al the "problems" people supposedly have reading messages online,
but basically, you plug it and it works. I have had very few problems
- none really, with my setup.

The hard part was getting used to the PT software, as a PC user and
analog engineer I found PT to be very non-intuitive at first (It acts
more like a MAC program, even on the PC). But be patient and soon
you're flying.

When you think about it: PT gives you 32 audio tracks, plus midi. Many
of the effects are built in (verb, compressors, EQ, delay) so you
don't need to buy them. Compare that to a 24-trk Roland box and you
are getting a good deal. I am much happier with the Protools.

[Paul Motter]

Hi...

I juat found this NG, but I have many years as a pro engineer MANY
years ago (my pro career ended around 1983). I am just in the last 6
months getting BACK to recording as a hobby... I will save the gory
details for later.

I started 6 months ago with a "box" - a dedicated Zoom HD recorder. I
found it to be frustrating. Adding effects, mixing,... all involve
running through endless menus, the manuals are cryptic and in the long
run you are severely limted by what the manufacturer descides to
include in the box. Even with Zoom, known for effects, for compressors
I had two choices: limiter or compressor. For EQ I was limited to
their pre-set frequencies. Reverb had maybe 4 pre-sets. Get my drift?
Even with a more expandable system navigating the LCD menus will make
you crazy.

I dumped it and now have the Digi002 w/ Protools. I love it. But I
will tell you a secret. It is the software that makes it great, not
the hardware. When you mix on PT all the effects are at your
fingertips and you see great visual representations of them. EQ with
sweepable parametric, limiting/compressing, etc. Mixing is a breeze
on PT. Editing is unbelievable when you can see waveforms, too.

On the hardware side, the Digi002 LOOKS cooler than it really is. I
thought I needed it because I needed hands-on, but I realize that if
money is an issue I could live without it. It basically only mimics
what the software is doing onscreen. That being said, the step down,
the faderless Digi001 is being discontinued, and the bottom line M-box
is said to be limited. However, you can get an M-box on Ebay for about
$350. A decent price to get up and running and see if you like
Protools. Ebay is great, but I have spent this much on my "hobby" so
far:

Digi002 = $1600
antares autotune= $280
sampletank XL2 = $348
Roland Digital Monitors = $300
Computer (I built) $950
Glyph external firewire = $290

There are other systems: Sonar etc. I haven't tried them. I figured as
long as was learning something from scratch it might as well be the
industry-compatible standard. There are a lot of PT alternative
adherents, though. Go to www.recording.org to meet them.

I am fairly computer geeky. but reading about the firewire, etc before
I got started was a lot more intimidating than it is in real life. YOu
see al the "problems" people supposedly have reading messages online,
but basically, you plug it and it works. I have had very few problems
- none really, with my setup.

The hard part was getting used to the PT software, as a PC user and
analog engineer I found PT to be very non-intuitive at first (It acts
more like a MAC program, even on the PC). But be patient and soon
you're flying.

When you think about it: PT gives you 32 audio tracks, plus midi. Many
of the effects are built in (verb, compressors, EQ, delay) so you
don't need to buy them. Compare that to a 24-trk Roland box and you
are getting a good deal. I am much happier with the Protools.

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> C'mon. Most all the big guys mix to half-inch 2 track.

I'm not sure most do, even if you narrow down the "big guys" to a
dozen or so (and what bearing does that have on the 50,000 others?)
Sometimes a song will be mixed to multiple formats and they'll pick
the one they like the best. Sometimes they'll bring in something they
don't own like a 1" 2-track. Sometimes they'll just mix to the
computer and never leave the digital domain. The important thing about
the "big guys" is that they don't have to worry about which option to
use, they have many available and don't have to make only one choice.

> And, if you asked him, Bob Ludwig would tell you he prefers analog
> masters.

He has a fair amount of analog processing gear, and an analog master
takes one D/A conversion out of the chain.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> C'mon. Most all the big guys mix to half-inch 2 track.

I'm not sure most do, even if you narrow down the "big guys" to a
dozen or so (and what bearing does that have on the 50,000 others?)
Sometimes a song will be mixed to multiple formats and they'll pick
the one they like the best. Sometimes they'll bring in something they
don't own like a 1" 2-track. Sometimes they'll just mix to the
computer and never leave the digital domain. The important thing about
the "big guys" is that they don't have to worry about which option to
use, they have many available and don't have to make only one choice.

> And, if you asked him, Bob Ludwig would tell you he prefers analog
> masters.

He has a fair amount of analog processing gear, and an analog master
takes one D/A conversion out of the chain.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Charles Robertson, Psy.D.]

I understand your dilema. I went through the same angst about 2 years ago
when I dumped my ADAT based system. I posted my worries about reliability
etc. of computer based recording to this group and a kind member posted a
reply to help me make the leap. He reminded me that ADATs are single
purpose computers that crash and are harder to back up than most computer
based systems. Outboard processors such as my DP/4s and my compressors were
also single purpose computers. They get their characteristic sounds from
their internal algorithms as much as from their components. Those algorithms
( and many others ) can be easily included in or added to a PC system as
various inserts.

I kept one analogue feature in my system - an anologue mic pre ( Avalon
747 ) which really sets up the sound recorded. My Soundcraft board had
mediocre mic pre's which gave me mediocre tracks. A PC based system will
not flatten good tracks but will accurately reflect tracks that were flat or
creepy to begin with. I am straight out of the Avalon into MOTU 896
firewire AD/DA converters with no interface headaches ( still have ADAT
lightpipe on these if needed ).

Finally, I do my work in Samplitude Pro which I find to be an excellent
editor with a very sweet convolution reverb and decent mastering and CD
burning features. I echo remarks from others about the ease of use and
benefits of visual editing. Setting punch-in/out points, looping,
scrubbing, object editing, and many other features make the tracking process
a breeze.

I took the plunge, never looked back, and have no regrets. Good luck!
chuck robertson
"HWBossHoss" > wrote in message
...
> OK, I am going to be upgrading my home studio, and I want to get some
opinions.
> The way I see it, there are two basic choices: computer-based recording
(such
> as ProTools) and what I call "box" recording (any of the self-contained
digital
> recorders from Korg, Roland, Tascam, etc.). I want to know the pros and
cons
> of both methods. I am willing to make a genuine investment into whichever
> method I can decide will give me the most performance for the buck.
>
> I will say that I am kind of an "old school" home recordist who likes to
fiddle
> with actual sound processors instead of software plug-ins. My compressors
are
> two FMR Audio RNC 1773's (for everything) and a dbx 1066 (mainly for
drums). I
> have a Lexicon MPX-1 and a junky old Alesis Midiverb III for effects. At
the
> moment, my mic preamps are supplied by the "ghost" type preamps in my
> Soundcraft Spirit M8 mixer, but I am looking into units by Focusrite and
> Avalon. I plan to add some kind of EQ capability as soon as I can decide
what
> the best EQ is for me. Hell, I've even considered one of the Alesis
digital
> EQ's.
>
> Anyway, down to business: As you may already be able to tell, I'm leaning
> toward the digital recorder method. One of the biggest reasons for this
is
> simple: I just do not understand a lot of what is involved in
computer-based
> recording. (Firewire? Huh? Exeternal A/D converters? Needed or not?
Sound
> card? Needed or not? The list goes on...)
>
> Lots of folks are buying the Digidesign Digi 002 Protools rig, and the way
they
> strut around, convinced that they have the "ultimate" home recording rig
leads
> me to believe that they must be on to something....but I'm wondering if I
can
> use my beloved "old fashioned" sound processors with such a rig...AND I
wonder
> if buying a Digidesign rig AUTOMATICALLY means that it is "better" than a
> dedicated digital recorder in terms of sound quality, flexibility, and
ease of
> use. A lot of what I've heard from the ProTools method sounds way too
> "processed" and flat, but that could just be "operator error" and not a
> reflection on ProTools itself.
>
> Another big factor regarding the computer-based method is this: I'm pretty
sure
> that I will need to buy a better computer than what I already have in
order to
> use ProTools effectively. That will be a considerable expense, I'm sure.
And
> I would rather use that money to buy microphones and other "fun" stuff if
at
> all possible! :-)
>
> There you have it. I have only scratched the surface when it comes to the
> sheer volume of questions I have about both methods of recording, but I
hope
> you get the general idea of what is confusing me. I guess my question is
> really this: Can someone give me some DEFINITE, CONCRETE reasons why
> computer-based recording is "better" than using a dedicated digital
recorder
> along with some high-quality outboard sound processors?

[Charles Robertson, Psy.D.]

I understand your dilema. I went through the same angst about 2 years ago
when I dumped my ADAT based system. I posted my worries about reliability
etc. of computer based recording to this group and a kind member posted a
reply to help me make the leap. He reminded me that ADATs are single
purpose computers that crash and are harder to back up than most computer
based systems. Outboard processors such as my DP/4s and my compressors were
also single purpose computers. They get their characteristic sounds from
their internal algorithms as much as from their components. Those algorithms
( and many others ) can be easily included in or added to a PC system as
various inserts.

I kept one analogue feature in my system - an anologue mic pre ( Avalon
747 ) which really sets up the sound recorded. My Soundcraft board had
mediocre mic pre's which gave me mediocre tracks. A PC based system will
not flatten good tracks but will accurately reflect tracks that were flat or
creepy to begin with. I am straight out of the Avalon into MOTU 896
firewire AD/DA converters with no interface headaches ( still have ADAT
lightpipe on these if needed ).

Finally, I do my work in Samplitude Pro which I find to be an excellent
editor with a very sweet convolution reverb and decent mastering and CD
burning features. I echo remarks from others about the ease of use and
benefits of visual editing. Setting punch-in/out points, looping,
scrubbing, object editing, and many other features make the tracking process
a breeze.

I took the plunge, never looked back, and have no regrets. Good luck!
chuck robertson
"HWBossHoss" > wrote in message
...
> OK, I am going to be upgrading my home studio, and I want to get some
opinions.
> The way I see it, there are two basic choices: computer-based recording
(such
> as ProTools) and what I call "box" recording (any of the self-contained
digital
> recorders from Korg, Roland, Tascam, etc.). I want to know the pros and
cons
> of both methods. I am willing to make a genuine investment into whichever
> method I can decide will give me the most performance for the buck.
>
> I will say that I am kind of an "old school" home recordist who likes to
fiddle
> with actual sound processors instead of software plug-ins. My compressors
are
> two FMR Audio RNC 1773's (for everything) and a dbx 1066 (mainly for
drums). I
> have a Lexicon MPX-1 and a junky old Alesis Midiverb III for effects. At
the
> moment, my mic preamps are supplied by the "ghost" type preamps in my
> Soundcraft Spirit M8 mixer, but I am looking into units by Focusrite and
> Avalon. I plan to add some kind of EQ capability as soon as I can decide
what
> the best EQ is for me. Hell, I've even considered one of the Alesis
digital
> EQ's.
>
> Anyway, down to business: As you may already be able to tell, I'm leaning
> toward the digital recorder method. One of the biggest reasons for this
is
> simple: I just do not understand a lot of what is involved in
computer-based
> recording. (Firewire? Huh? Exeternal A/D converters? Needed or not?
Sound
> card? Needed or not? The list goes on...)
>
> Lots of folks are buying the Digidesign Digi 002 Protools rig, and the way
they
> strut around, convinced that they have the "ultimate" home recording rig
leads
> me to believe that they must be on to something....but I'm wondering if I
can
> use my beloved "old fashioned" sound processors with such a rig...AND I
wonder
> if buying a Digidesign rig AUTOMATICALLY means that it is "better" than a
> dedicated digital recorder in terms of sound quality, flexibility, and
ease of
> use. A lot of what I've heard from the ProTools method sounds way too
> "processed" and flat, but that could just be "operator error" and not a
> reflection on ProTools itself.
>
> Another big factor regarding the computer-based method is this: I'm pretty
sure
> that I will need to buy a better computer than what I already have in
order to
> use ProTools effectively. That will be a considerable expense, I'm sure.
And
> I would rather use that money to buy microphones and other "fun" stuff if
at
> all possible! :-)
>
> There you have it. I have only scratched the surface when it comes to the
> sheer volume of questions I have about both methods of recording, but I
hope
> you get the general idea of what is confusing me. I guess my question is
> really this: Can someone give me some DEFINITE, CONCRETE reasons why
> computer-based recording is "better" than using a dedicated digital
recorder
> along with some high-quality outboard sound processors?

[Arny Krueger]

david wrote:

> In article >, Arny Krueger
> > wrote:

>> HWBossHoss wrote:

>>> I guess my question is really this: Can someone give me some
>>> DEFINITE, CONCRETE reasons why computer-based recording is "better"
>>> than using a dedicated digital recorder along with some high-quality
>>> outboard sound processors?

>> First we have to define "better".

>> To understand the goals of computer-based recording we start must
>> out with a definition of "better" that relates to cleaner sound,
>> with reduced noise and distortion from unintended sources, such as
>> those found in the analog domain.

> C'mon. Most all the big guys mix to half-inch 2 track.

I seriously doubt that. Besides, what bearing might that have on what you or
I are going to do later on today? The "big guys" live in their worlds and
the rest of us are someplace else.

> And, if you asked him, Bob Ludwig would tell you he prefers analog
> masters.

Analog recording isn't just recording. It's recording plus a clearly audible
EFX. If you want that EFX then it's great, and if you don't it really sucks.
Furthermore that EFX can, in the ears of many, be reasonably well-duplicated
by digital circuitry or software.

Keeping an analog tape machine working really well is a job for someone who
has time and money for that sort of thing. Lots of people just want to make
music.

> "Better" is for each engineer to learn for themselves. It's about what
> moves you and about what works. It is not particularly a digital vs
> analog or a good spec vs. bad spec thing. It's about what works best
> for whatever the hell you happen to be doing.

Learning certain things is sufficiently time-consuming and expensive that
lots of people can't or won't be bothered.

> One of my fave pieces of gear is a racked pair of LA3's. Each of them
> has a different sound.They def do not create a cleaner, reduced noise
> or reduced distorted signal. But they do makes lotsa stuff sound
> "better."

...in your judgement.

> Better is about your ears and your experience.

It's also about your personal priorities. Like I said, lots of people just
want to make music, not be what they perceive to be slaves to legacy
hardware.

[Arny Krueger]

david wrote:

> In article >, Arny Krueger
> > wrote:

>> HWBossHoss wrote:

>>> I guess my question is really this: Can someone give me some
>>> DEFINITE, CONCRETE reasons why computer-based recording is "better"
>>> than using a dedicated digital recorder along with some high-quality
>>> outboard sound processors?

>> First we have to define "better".

>> To understand the goals of computer-based recording we start must
>> out with a definition of "better" that relates to cleaner sound,
>> with reduced noise and distortion from unintended sources, such as
>> those found in the analog domain.

> C'mon. Most all the big guys mix to half-inch 2 track.

I seriously doubt that. Besides, what bearing might that have on what you or
I are going to do later on today? The "big guys" live in their worlds and
the rest of us are someplace else.

> And, if you asked him, Bob Ludwig would tell you he prefers analog
> masters.

Analog recording isn't just recording. It's recording plus a clearly audible
EFX. If you want that EFX then it's great, and if you don't it really sucks.
Furthermore that EFX can, in the ears of many, be reasonably well-duplicated
by digital circuitry or software.

Keeping an analog tape machine working really well is a job for someone who
has time and money for that sort of thing. Lots of people just want to make
music.

> "Better" is for each engineer to learn for themselves. It's about what
> moves you and about what works. It is not particularly a digital vs
> analog or a good spec vs. bad spec thing. It's about what works best
> for whatever the hell you happen to be doing.

Learning certain things is sufficiently time-consuming and expensive that
lots of people can't or won't be bothered.

> One of my fave pieces of gear is a racked pair of LA3's. Each of them
> has a different sound.They def do not create a cleaner, reduced noise
> or reduced distorted signal. But they do makes lotsa stuff sound
> "better."

...in your judgement.

> Better is about your ears and your experience.

It's also about your personal priorities. Like I said, lots of people just
want to make music, not be what they perceive to be slaves to legacy
hardware.

[Analogeezer]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
> david wrote:
>
> > In article >, Arny Krueger
> > > wrote:
>
> >> HWBossHoss wrote:
>
> >>> I guess my question is really this: Can someone give me some
> >>> DEFINITE, CONCRETE reasons why computer-based recording is "better"
> >>> than using a dedicated digital recorder along with some high-quality
> >>> outboard sound processors?
>
> >> First we have to define "better".
>
> >> To understand the goals of computer-based recording we start must
> >> out with a definition of "better" that relates to cleaner sound,
> >> with reduced noise and distortion from unintended sources, such as
> >> those found in the analog domain.
>
> > C'mon. Most all the big guys mix to half-inch 2 track.
>
> I seriously doubt that. Besides, what bearing might that have on what you or
> I are going to do later on today? The "big guys" live in their worlds and
> the rest of us are someplace else.

To my ears at least, 1/4" half track sounds better than DAT, CD-R, and
I prefer it's sound (notice I say prefer, not that it's
better...that's a bit more subjective) to 24 bit digital.

These machines are cheap and readily available. Actually unless you
buy a brand new ATR102 from Spitz, 1/2" analog isn't all that
expensive.

>
> > And, if you asked him, Bob Ludwig would tell you he prefers analog
> > masters.
>
> Analog recording isn't just recording. It's recording plus a clearly audible
> EFX. If you want that EFX then it's great, and if you don't it really sucks.
> Furthermore that EFX can, in the ears of many, be reasonably well-duplicated
> by digital circuitry or software.

Maybe you used a Wollensack but I don't find this to be the case at
all. Analog is not an EFX processor, unless you hit it hard for tape
compression, and you have the option not to do that.


> Keeping an analog tape machine working really well is a job for someone who
> has time and money for that sort of thing. Lots of people just want to make
> music.

I'm am so ****ing tired of hearing this load of crap....let me tell
you I have spent at least 10 TIMES the time and effort getting my
computer and digital crap to play well together than I have
maintaining my analog tape machines....they have been far, far more
reliable.

I find that I make a lot more music with the analog gear than with the
digital...and I use both - too many choices with the computer, you are
always dicking around with it, and then it decides to do something
screwy. Then there are the ever present driver updates, you gotta get
new hardware, etc. the torture never stops.


> > "Better" is for each engineer to learn for themselves. It's about what
> > moves you and about what works. It is not particularly a digital vs
> > analog or a good spec vs. bad spec thing. It's about what works best
> > for whatever the hell you happen to be doing.
>
> Learning certain things is sufficiently time-consuming and expensive that
> lots of people can't or won't be bothered.
>
> > One of my fave pieces of gear is a racked pair of LA3's. Each of them
> > has a different sound.They def do not create a cleaner, reduced noise
> > or reduced distorted signal. But they do makes lotsa stuff sound
> > "better."
>
> ..in your judgement.
>
> > Better is about your ears and your experience.
>
> It's also about your personal priorities. Like I said, lots of people just
> want to make music, not be what they perceive to be slaves to legacy
> hardware.

I've been a lot more of a slave to my friggin computers than I ever
have to legacy hardware....hardware just flat out works and when it
doesn't it's easy to troubleshoot and fix, chances are one of the RAP
regulars can tell you exactly what is wrong, what parts to buy, and
who can fix it or how to fix it.

You have a problem with a computer, and ask around here, you'll get
fourteen different flavors of what is wrong, and maybe, just maybe one
of those will apply to your situation.

My last bit of computer problem cost me a week of downtime....my
analog stuff has never failed, much less been down for a week.

Like I said, I have and I use both....you can't sack analog as
"unreliable" and more trouble.

If what you are after is dicking with waveforms and using 27 plugins,
fine, or if you need 98 tracks and to edit stuff together, then
computers make sense...but pushing this computer crap on guys that
just want to record their blues bands is bull****.

Analogeezer

[Analogeezer]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
> david wrote:
>
> > In article >, Arny Krueger
> > > wrote:
>
> >> HWBossHoss wrote:
>
> >>> I guess my question is really this: Can someone give me some
> >>> DEFINITE, CONCRETE reasons why computer-based recording is "better"
> >>> than using a dedicated digital recorder along with some high-quality
> >>> outboard sound processors?
>
> >> First we have to define "better".
>
> >> To understand the goals of computer-based recording we start must
> >> out with a definition of "better" that relates to cleaner sound,
> >> with reduced noise and distortion from unintended sources, such as
> >> those found in the analog domain.
>
> > C'mon. Most all the big guys mix to half-inch 2 track.
>
> I seriously doubt that. Besides, what bearing might that have on what you or
> I are going to do later on today? The "big guys" live in their worlds and
> the rest of us are someplace else.

To my ears at least, 1/4" half track sounds better than DAT, CD-R, and
I prefer it's sound (notice I say prefer, not that it's
better...that's a bit more subjective) to 24 bit digital.

These machines are cheap and readily available. Actually unless you
buy a brand new ATR102 from Spitz, 1/2" analog isn't all that
expensive.

>
> > And, if you asked him, Bob Ludwig would tell you he prefers analog
> > masters.
>
> Analog recording isn't just recording. It's recording plus a clearly audible
> EFX. If you want that EFX then it's great, and if you don't it really sucks.
> Furthermore that EFX can, in the ears of many, be reasonably well-duplicated
> by digital circuitry or software.

Maybe you used a Wollensack but I don't find this to be the case at
all. Analog is not an EFX processor, unless you hit it hard for tape
compression, and you have the option not to do that.


> Keeping an analog tape machine working really well is a job for someone who
> has time and money for that sort of thing. Lots of people just want to make
> music.

I'm am so ****ing tired of hearing this load of crap....let me tell
you I have spent at least 10 TIMES the time and effort getting my
computer and digital crap to play well together than I have
maintaining my analog tape machines....they have been far, far more
reliable.

I find that I make a lot more music with the analog gear than with the
digital...and I use both - too many choices with the computer, you are
always dicking around with it, and then it decides to do something
screwy. Then there are the ever present driver updates, you gotta get
new hardware, etc. the torture never stops.


> > "Better" is for each engineer to learn for themselves. It's about what
> > moves you and about what works. It is not particularly a digital vs
> > analog or a good spec vs. bad spec thing. It's about what works best
> > for whatever the hell you happen to be doing.
>
> Learning certain things is sufficiently time-consuming and expensive that
> lots of people can't or won't be bothered.
>
> > One of my fave pieces of gear is a racked pair of LA3's. Each of them
> > has a different sound.They def do not create a cleaner, reduced noise
> > or reduced distorted signal. But they do makes lotsa stuff sound
> > "better."
>
> ..in your judgement.
>
> > Better is about your ears and your experience.
>
> It's also about your personal priorities. Like I said, lots of people just
> want to make music, not be what they perceive to be slaves to legacy
> hardware.

I've been a lot more of a slave to my friggin computers than I ever
have to legacy hardware....hardware just flat out works and when it
doesn't it's easy to troubleshoot and fix, chances are one of the RAP
regulars can tell you exactly what is wrong, what parts to buy, and
who can fix it or how to fix it.

You have a problem with a computer, and ask around here, you'll get
fourteen different flavors of what is wrong, and maybe, just maybe one
of those will apply to your situation.

My last bit of computer problem cost me a week of downtime....my
analog stuff has never failed, much less been down for a week.

Like I said, I have and I use both....you can't sack analog as
"unreliable" and more trouble.

If what you are after is dicking with waveforms and using 27 plugins,
fine, or if you need 98 tracks and to edit stuff together, then
computers make sense...but pushing this computer crap on guys that
just want to record their blues bands is bull****.

Analogeezer

[Analogeezer]

(HWBossHoss) wrote in message >...
> OK, I am going to be upgrading my home studio, and I want to get some opinions.
> The way I see it, there are two basic choices: computer-based recording (such
> as ProTools) and what I call "box" recording (any of the self-contained digital
> recorders from Korg, Roland, Tascam, etc.). I want to know the pros and cons
> of both methods. I am willing to make a genuine investment into whichever
> method I can decide will give me the most performance for the buck.
>
> I will say that I am kind of an "old school" home recordist who likes to fiddle
> with actual sound processors instead of software plug-ins. My compressors are
> two FMR Audio RNC 1773's (for everything) and a dbx 1066 (mainly for drums). I
> have a Lexicon MPX-1 and a junky old Alesis Midiverb III for effects. At the
> moment, my mic preamps are supplied by the "ghost" type preamps in my
> Soundcraft Spirit M8 mixer, but I am looking into units by Focusrite and
> Avalon. I plan to add some kind of EQ capability as soon as I can decide what
> the best EQ is for me. Hell, I've even considered one of the Alesis digital
> EQ's.
>
> Anyway, down to business: As you may already be able to tell, I'm leaning
> toward the digital recorder method. One of the biggest reasons for this is
> simple: I just do not understand a lot of what is involved in computer-based
> recording. (Firewire? Huh? Exeternal A/D converters? Needed or not? Sound
> card? Needed or not? The list goes on...)
>

<BIG SNIP>

Just reading between the lines, you sound like a guy that does not
want to dick with computers.

I run a full analog rig (analog multitrack, mixdown deck, and console)
as well as a hybrid digital rig (computer and plugins, but I usually
route it through my console and use some outboard F/X, compression,
and EQ...but I can mix fully in the computer).

I know a fair amount about computers, my keyboard player is an IT
engineer.

My experience has been that even knowing a lot and getting great
advice here, I have still had a lot of problems getting things to work
properly, plugins to work, etc. whereas my analog rig never gives me
any trouble.

The bottom line is you're gonna have to get into computers A LOT in
order to use them...are you ready to do that? It's like being a
plumber and getting wet...it's gonna happen you need to make sure that
you want to do that.

A third suggestion has been made and I think it might be the best bet
for you...get a dedicated rackmount hard disc recorder....The Alesis
is probably the best bet, unless you want to spring for the big bucks
and get an IZ Radar.

A used HD24 (Alesis) would be a good bet because the only moving parts
are the hard drives, which you will replace at some point anyway. The
current market value of a used HD24 is around $1000, new ones are only
$1500 so it's pretty easy to find used ones for cheap.

Get that machine, and an analog console with 24 - 32 channels (the
Soundcraft Ghost was mentioned as a new choice, there are some great
used values but sometimes used consoles can be a problem).

If you have to get a computer, just get one to mix to (two channel
soundcard), then you can look at some demo software, etc. and decide
later on if you really want to go that direction.

Even if you do later on get the computer bug, you can use the Alesis
as an easy tracking machine, or for remote gigs, then blow that into
the computer and go from there.

Most of your buddies with the big woodies over their Digi systems have
convinced themselves they are cool because they are running Pro
Tools...well they are creating Pro Tools files, but have any of them
actually gone to a bigtime studio with Pro Tools and dumped their
files and used a "Pro Tools" facility?

If all they are doing is mixing in their boxes, and not transporting
those files to a commercial facility, there is no inherent advantage
to using the Digi 001/002 hardware. Well they can brag "I'm running
Pro Tools dude"...

I actually had a guy tell me this ("yeah I run Pro Tools) that was
running Digital Performer through an Audiomedia III card, but he
thought he was a badass...called it Pro Tools even though it was not.

I'm on sort of an anti-computer rant today, but trust me, it looks
easy on the surface and cheap, but after you've bought all the stuff
and software you need, gotten over the learning curve, you'll find you
are like the guy that bought a small plane and took flying lessons to
save on Commercial Airline airfare, you actually spent a lot more
money and time than you have saved.

Unless you need the editing power, the unlimited track counts, or the
visual aid of looking at tracks on a screen, then I wouldn't go the
computer route.

If you don't know what Firewire is, or whether or not you need
external converters, you're pretty low on the learning curve (this is
not an insult, just an observation) for the computer recording thing.

FWIW, I have many many friends that got sucked into this, thinking it
would be easy...they had no prior recording experience, and hardware
to them was scary, it seemed too hard to figure out. They thought "oh
I'll just get a computer and some cheap software, it can't be that
hard"

Two years later, none of these guys are using their rigs, just too
complicated for a middle aged computer newbie to figure out. One of
the guys I know went back to using his portastudio...as he says "it
sounds like crap but hey I know how to work it".

Just my two cents, but if I were you I'd look at an HD24 and an
appropriate console. This would also allow you to use your current
outboard gear.

Analogeezer

[Analogeezer]

(HWBossHoss) wrote in message >...
> OK, I am going to be upgrading my home studio, and I want to get some opinions.
> The way I see it, there are two basic choices: computer-based recording (such
> as ProTools) and what I call "box" recording (any of the self-contained digital
> recorders from Korg, Roland, Tascam, etc.). I want to know the pros and cons
> of both methods. I am willing to make a genuine investment into whichever
> method I can decide will give me the most performance for the buck.
>
> I will say that I am kind of an "old school" home recordist who likes to fiddle
> with actual sound processors instead of software plug-ins. My compressors are
> two FMR Audio RNC 1773's (for everything) and a dbx 1066 (mainly for drums). I
> have a Lexicon MPX-1 and a junky old Alesis Midiverb III for effects. At the
> moment, my mic preamps are supplied by the "ghost" type preamps in my
> Soundcraft Spirit M8 mixer, but I am looking into units by Focusrite and
> Avalon. I plan to add some kind of EQ capability as soon as I can decide what
> the best EQ is for me. Hell, I've even considered one of the Alesis digital
> EQ's.
>
> Anyway, down to business: As you may already be able to tell, I'm leaning
> toward the digital recorder method. One of the biggest reasons for this is
> simple: I just do not understand a lot of what is involved in computer-based
> recording. (Firewire? Huh? Exeternal A/D converters? Needed or not? Sound
> card? Needed or not? The list goes on...)
>

<BIG SNIP>

Just reading between the lines, you sound like a guy that does not
want to dick with computers.

I run a full analog rig (analog multitrack, mixdown deck, and console)
as well as a hybrid digital rig (computer and plugins, but I usually
route it through my console and use some outboard F/X, compression,
and EQ...but I can mix fully in the computer).

I know a fair amount about computers, my keyboard player is an IT
engineer.

My experience has been that even knowing a lot and getting great
advice here, I have still had a lot of problems getting things to work
properly, plugins to work, etc. whereas my analog rig never gives me
any trouble.

The bottom line is you're gonna have to get into computers A LOT in
order to use them...are you ready to do that? It's like being a
plumber and getting wet...it's gonna happen you need to make sure that
you want to do that.

A third suggestion has been made and I think it might be the best bet
for you...get a dedicated rackmount hard disc recorder....The Alesis
is probably the best bet, unless you want to spring for the big bucks
and get an IZ Radar.

A used HD24 (Alesis) would be a good bet because the only moving parts
are the hard drives, which you will replace at some point anyway. The
current market value of a used HD24 is around $1000, new ones are only
$1500 so it's pretty easy to find used ones for cheap.

Get that machine, and an analog console with 24 - 32 channels (the
Soundcraft Ghost was mentioned as a new choice, there are some great
used values but sometimes used consoles can be a problem).

If you have to get a computer, just get one to mix to (two channel
soundcard), then you can look at some demo software, etc. and decide
later on if you really want to go that direction.

Even if you do later on get the computer bug, you can use the Alesis
as an easy tracking machine, or for remote gigs, then blow that into
the computer and go from there.

Most of your buddies with the big woodies over their Digi systems have
convinced themselves they are cool because they are running Pro
Tools...well they are creating Pro Tools files, but have any of them
actually gone to a bigtime studio with Pro Tools and dumped their
files and used a "Pro Tools" facility?

If all they are doing is mixing in their boxes, and not transporting
those files to a commercial facility, there is no inherent advantage
to using the Digi 001/002 hardware. Well they can brag "I'm running
Pro Tools dude"...

I actually had a guy tell me this ("yeah I run Pro Tools) that was
running Digital Performer through an Audiomedia III card, but he
thought he was a badass...called it Pro Tools even though it was not.

I'm on sort of an anti-computer rant today, but trust me, it looks
easy on the surface and cheap, but after you've bought all the stuff
and software you need, gotten over the learning curve, you'll find you
are like the guy that bought a small plane and took flying lessons to
save on Commercial Airline airfare, you actually spent a lot more
money and time than you have saved.

Unless you need the editing power, the unlimited track counts, or the
visual aid of looking at tracks on a screen, then I wouldn't go the
computer route.

If you don't know what Firewire is, or whether or not you need
external converters, you're pretty low on the learning curve (this is
not an insult, just an observation) for the computer recording thing.

FWIW, I have many many friends that got sucked into this, thinking it
would be easy...they had no prior recording experience, and hardware
to them was scary, it seemed too hard to figure out. They thought "oh
I'll just get a computer and some cheap software, it can't be that
hard"

Two years later, none of these guys are using their rigs, just too
complicated for a middle aged computer newbie to figure out. One of
the guys I know went back to using his portastudio...as he says "it
sounds like crap but hey I know how to work it".

Just my two cents, but if I were you I'd look at an HD24 and an
appropriate console. This would also allow you to use your current
outboard gear.

Analogeezer

[HWBossHoss]

>I find that I make a lot more music with the analog gear than with the
>digital...and I use both - too many choices with the computer, you are
>always dicking around with it, and then it decides to do something
>screwy. Then there are the ever present driver updates, you gotta get
>new hardware, etc. the torture never stops.

>If what you are after is dicking with waveforms and using 27 plugins,
>fine, or if you need 98 tracks and to edit stuff together, then
>computers make sense...but pushing this computer crap on guys that
>just want to record their blues bands is bull****.


Analogeezer:

Bravo! I just read your post on rec.audio.pro in response to my "Computers vs.
Recorders" thread. I could not have put it better myself!

Believe it or not, the things you have said are EXACTLY what I have always
suspected about computer-based recording. I know that my preference for
hardware-based recorders like the Tascam, Korg, and Roland units isn't very far
from the computer world, but at least it is sufficiently HARDware based, which
simply just "feels" more natural to me.

I recently scored a short independent film. I went over to the apartment of
the film's sound editor, where he had--you guessed it--a Digidesign Digi 002
setup hooked to his Mac Powerbook. Despite his know-it-all attitude, he had
plenty of glitches and odd moments trying to get that setup to work. His
computer froze up a couple of times and crashed completely one time, and then,
when I wanted to do some overdubs, he couldn't get the damn thing to give me a
pure headphone signal without delay in it! Try overdubbing when you hear your
previously recorded track in real time and your currently-recording track
DELAYED on top of it! What a nightmare.

I think I have made up my mind. I will use my computer for games and web
surfing. I will use a hardware-based recorder for my recording. And (almost)
never the twain shall meet.

[HWBossHoss]

>I find that I make a lot more music with the analog gear than with the
>digital...and I use both - too many choices with the computer, you are
>always dicking around with it, and then it decides to do something
>screwy. Then there are the ever present driver updates, you gotta get
>new hardware, etc. the torture never stops.

>If what you are after is dicking with waveforms and using 27 plugins,
>fine, or if you need 98 tracks and to edit stuff together, then
>computers make sense...but pushing this computer crap on guys that
>just want to record their blues bands is bull****.


Analogeezer:

Bravo! I just read your post on rec.audio.pro in response to my "Computers vs.
Recorders" thread. I could not have put it better myself!

Believe it or not, the things you have said are EXACTLY what I have always
suspected about computer-based recording. I know that my preference for
hardware-based recorders like the Tascam, Korg, and Roland units isn't very far
from the computer world, but at least it is sufficiently HARDware based, which
simply just "feels" more natural to me.

I recently scored a short independent film. I went over to the apartment of
the film's sound editor, where he had--you guessed it--a Digidesign Digi 002
setup hooked to his Mac Powerbook. Despite his know-it-all attitude, he had
plenty of glitches and odd moments trying to get that setup to work. His
computer froze up a couple of times and crashed completely one time, and then,
when I wanted to do some overdubs, he couldn't get the damn thing to give me a
pure headphone signal without delay in it! Try overdubbing when you hear your
previously recorded track in real time and your currently-recording track
DELAYED on top of it! What a nightmare.

I think I have made up my mind. I will use my computer for games and web
surfing. I will use a hardware-based recorder for my recording. And (almost)
never the twain shall meet.

[Arny Krueger]

Analogeezer wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >...
>> david wrote:

>>> In article >, Arny Krueger
>>> > wrote:

>>>> HWBossHoss wrote:

>>>>> I guess my question is really this: Can someone give me some
>>>>> DEFINITE, CONCRETE reasons why computer-based recording is
>>>>> "better" than using a dedicated digital recorder along with some
>>>>> high-quality outboard sound processors?

>>>> First we have to define "better".

>>>> To understand the goals of computer-based recording we start must
>>>> out with a definition of "better" that relates to cleaner sound,
>>>> with reduced noise and distortion from unintended sources, such as
>>>> those found in the analog domain.

>>> C'mon. Most all the big guys mix to half-inch 2 track.

>> I seriously doubt that. Besides, what bearing might that have on
>> what you or I are going to do later on today? The "big guys" live in
>> their worlds and the rest of us are someplace else.

> To my ears at least, 1/4" half track sounds better than DAT, CD-R, and
> I prefer it's sound (notice I say prefer, not that it's
> better...that's a bit more subjective) to 24 bit digital.

As you say, to your ears...

Fact of the matter is that nobody has ever provided me with an transcription
of the test material I contributed to the RAP 5 CD set, looped through the
analog tape domain, that I can't distinguish from the original. OTOH, I've
looped that material through a number of fine digital conversions, others
have done the same for me. In many but not all cases I can't hear any
difference in a DBT. I conclude that analog tape isn't generally sonically
transparent, but digital conversion can be.

> These machines are cheap and readily available. Actually unless you
> buy a brand new ATR102 from Spitz, 1/2" analog isn't all that
> expensive.

IME the right $59 sound card is sonically transparent for one generation of
conversions, and that's for 4 concurrent channels. You can try this test out
for yourself by downloading files from
http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm . Of course the results of
sighted evaluations are not interesting.

>>> And, if you asked him, Bob Ludwig would tell you he prefers analog
>>> masters.

>> Analog recording isn't just recording. It's recording plus a clearly
>> audible EFX. If you want that EFX then it's great, and if you don't
>> it really sucks. Furthermore that EFX can, in the ears of many, be
>> reasonably well-duplicated by digital circuitry or software.

> Maybe you used a Wollensack but I don't find this to be the case at
> all.

A friend of mine tried this with a machine that some find to be a little
nicer than a Wollensak:

http://www.pcavtech.com/ABX/abx_tapg.htm

He was once one of the finest analog tape technicians in this part of the
country, but digital kinda put a crimp in his bread-and-butter which was
dominated by repairing and maintaining analog tape recorders used for audio
production.

>Analog is not an EFX processor, unless you hit it hard for tape
> compression, and you have the option not to do that.

Analog tape makes audible changes to the music it processes. Given that we
have the option of using equipment that doesn't make audible changes...

>> Keeping an analog tape machine working really well is a job for
>> someone who has time and money for that sort of thing. Lots of
>> people just want to make music.

> I'm am so ****ing tired of hearing this load of crap....let me tell
> you I have spent at least 10 TIMES the time and effort getting my
> computer and digital crap to play well together than I have
> maintaining my analog tape machines....they have been far, far more
> reliable.

That would be your experience. I don't if that is an indictment of your
abilities with computers or what. People who used to have lots of business
repairing and maintaining analog tape recorders used for audio production
seem to be finding other things to do with their time.

> I find that I make a lot more music with the analog gear than with the
> digital...and I use both - too many choices with the computer, you are
> always dicking around with it, and then it decides to do something
> screwy.

That would be your experience. I don't if that is an indictment of your
abilities with computers or what.

<snip remainder of rant about bad experiences with computers that I can't
relate to>

[Arny Krueger]

Analogeezer wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >...
>> david wrote:

>>> In article >, Arny Krueger
>>> > wrote:

>>>> HWBossHoss wrote:

>>>>> I guess my question is really this: Can someone give me some
>>>>> DEFINITE, CONCRETE reasons why computer-based recording is
>>>>> "better" than using a dedicated digital recorder along with some
>>>>> high-quality outboard sound processors?

>>>> First we have to define "better".

>>>> To understand the goals of computer-based recording we start must
>>>> out with a definition of "better" that relates to cleaner sound,
>>>> with reduced noise and distortion from unintended sources, such as
>>>> those found in the analog domain.

>>> C'mon. Most all the big guys mix to half-inch 2 track.

>> I seriously doubt that. Besides, what bearing might that have on
>> what you or I are going to do later on today? The "big guys" live in
>> their worlds and the rest of us are someplace else.

> To my ears at least, 1/4" half track sounds better than DAT, CD-R, and
> I prefer it's sound (notice I say prefer, not that it's
> better...that's a bit more subjective) to 24 bit digital.

As you say, to your ears...

Fact of the matter is that nobody has ever provided me with an transcription
of the test material I contributed to the RAP 5 CD set, looped through the
analog tape domain, that I can't distinguish from the original. OTOH, I've
looped that material through a number of fine digital conversions, others
have done the same for me. In many but not all cases I can't hear any
difference in a DBT. I conclude that analog tape isn't generally sonically
transparent, but digital conversion can be.

> These machines are cheap and readily available. Actually unless you
> buy a brand new ATR102 from Spitz, 1/2" analog isn't all that
> expensive.

IME the right $59 sound card is sonically transparent for one generation of
conversions, and that's for 4 concurrent channels. You can try this test out
for yourself by downloading files from
http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm . Of course the results of
sighted evaluations are not interesting.

>>> And, if you asked him, Bob Ludwig would tell you he prefers analog
>>> masters.

>> Analog recording isn't just recording. It's recording plus a clearly
>> audible EFX. If you want that EFX then it's great, and if you don't
>> it really sucks. Furthermore that EFX can, in the ears of many, be
>> reasonably well-duplicated by digital circuitry or software.

> Maybe you used a Wollensack but I don't find this to be the case at
> all.

A friend of mine tried this with a machine that some find to be a little
nicer than a Wollensak:

http://www.pcavtech.com/ABX/abx_tapg.htm

He was once one of the finest analog tape technicians in this part of the
country, but digital kinda put a crimp in his bread-and-butter which was
dominated by repairing and maintaining analog tape recorders used for audio
production.

>Analog is not an EFX processor, unless you hit it hard for tape
> compression, and you have the option not to do that.

Analog tape makes audible changes to the music it processes. Given that we
have the option of using equipment that doesn't make audible changes...

>> Keeping an analog tape machine working really well is a job for
>> someone who has time and money for that sort of thing. Lots of
>> people just want to make music.

> I'm am so ****ing tired of hearing this load of crap....let me tell
> you I have spent at least 10 TIMES the time and effort getting my
> computer and digital crap to play well together than I have
> maintaining my analog tape machines....they have been far, far more
> reliable.

That would be your experience. I don't if that is an indictment of your
abilities with computers or what. People who used to have lots of business
repairing and maintaining analog tape recorders used for audio production
seem to be finding other things to do with their time.

> I find that I make a lot more music with the analog gear than with the
> digital...and I use both - too many choices with the computer, you are
> always dicking around with it, and then it decides to do something
> screwy.

That would be your experience. I don't if that is an indictment of your
abilities with computers or what.

<snip remainder of rant about bad experiences with computers that I can't
relate to>

[Sdwesteen1]

After reading all of these dilligent and informed responses, there's
one very simple trick I can reccomend.

Run and don't walk to a music store and purchase a low cost version of
PC based recording software just to get your hands on it. The $49.00
Cakewalk for example has audio, midi, and effects. You won't regret
it. If you go with the hard disk recorder, you'll still find some use
for the PC based recording anyway. Your biggest risk is that you may
find yourself very satisfied with the product and stick with something
that is not considered cool, expensive, or "pro audio."

It's a handy springboard that will give you all the information you
need to decide if you want to take the plunge in a larger PC based
system, or if you hate PC(not likely) altogether.

I did this myself after staring at catalogs and reading reviews etc.
One day I saw an advertisement for a $20 version of Cakewalk guitar
tracks and took a simple low cost plunge.

I liken the art of PC based recording to being like a painter. A
painter doesn't dream of someday hoping to have enoung money, space,
connections, opportunity to come up with a color for his painting. He
just creates the color and paints with it in seconds or minutes. PC
based recording, with enough effects, can be the same way. You
already have a decent hardware foundation to compliment the software.

[Sdwesteen1]

After reading all of these dilligent and informed responses, there's
one very simple trick I can reccomend.

Run and don't walk to a music store and purchase a low cost version of
PC based recording software just to get your hands on it. The $49.00
Cakewalk for example has audio, midi, and effects. You won't regret
it. If you go with the hard disk recorder, you'll still find some use
for the PC based recording anyway. Your biggest risk is that you may
find yourself very satisfied with the product and stick with something
that is not considered cool, expensive, or "pro audio."

It's a handy springboard that will give you all the information you
need to decide if you want to take the plunge in a larger PC based
system, or if you hate PC(not likely) altogether.

I did this myself after staring at catalogs and reading reviews etc.
One day I saw an advertisement for a $20 version of Cakewalk guitar
tracks and took a simple low cost plunge.

I liken the art of PC based recording to being like a painter. A
painter doesn't dream of someday hoping to have enoung money, space,
connections, opportunity to come up with a color for his painting. He
just creates the color and paints with it in seconds or minutes. PC
based recording, with enough effects, can be the same way. You
already have a decent hardware foundation to compliment the software.

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> > Keeping an analog tape machine working really well is a job for someone who
> > has time and money for that sort of thing. Lots of people just want to make
> > music.
>
> I'm am so ****ing tired of hearing this load of crap....let me tell
> you I have spent at least 10 TIMES the time and effort getting my
> computer and digital crap to play well together than I have
> maintaining my analog tape machines....they have been far, far more
> reliable.

I can't say as I've spent ten times the effort keeping my computers
maintained as I have in keeping my analog gear maintained, but I know
I've been ten times as frustrated with computers than I have with
hardware. At least when I fix a piece of hardware I know exactly what
I did, and why I did it. More often than not, when I fix a computer, I
do what someone suggests, something that I never would have thought of
(because I've already done everything that made sense to me to do).
Either it works and I don't know why (but I wonder if it REALLY worked
or it just looks that way) or what was suggested doesn't work either.
I just don't feel very confident in my software repairs.

Today I recorded cicadas with my Mackie hard disk recorder and
transferred the recordings to my TASCAM CD recorder. All analog in
between. No surprises (other than as the day progressed, while the SPL
on my Radio Shack meter didn't increase noticably, the peaks in the
recorded signal increased as the day went on.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> > Keeping an analog tape machine working really well is a job for someone who
> > has time and money for that sort of thing. Lots of people just want to make
> > music.
>
> I'm am so ****ing tired of hearing this load of crap....let me tell
> you I have spent at least 10 TIMES the time and effort getting my
> computer and digital crap to play well together than I have
> maintaining my analog tape machines....they have been far, far more
> reliable.

I can't say as I've spent ten times the effort keeping my computers
maintained as I have in keeping my analog gear maintained, but I know
I've been ten times as frustrated with computers than I have with
hardware. At least when I fix a piece of hardware I know exactly what
I did, and why I did it. More often than not, when I fix a computer, I
do what someone suggests, something that I never would have thought of
(because I've already done everything that made sense to me to do).
Either it works and I don't know why (but I wonder if it REALLY worked
or it just looks that way) or what was suggested doesn't work either.
I just don't feel very confident in my software repairs.

Today I recorded cicadas with my Mackie hard disk recorder and
transferred the recordings to my TASCAM CD recorder. All analog in
between. No surprises (other than as the day progressed, while the SPL
on my Radio Shack meter didn't increase noticably, the peaks in the
recorded signal increased as the day went on.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Dean]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
> david wrote:
>
> > In article >, Arny Krueger
> > > wrote:
>
> >> HWBossHoss wrote:
>
> >>> I guess my question is really this: Can someone give me some
> >>> DEFINITE, CONCRETE reasons why computer-based recording is "better"

Pro Tools or some of the the other software packages are DEFINITELY
better because they are more visual. You can see the wavs. You can cut
and paste music like words in a word processor. you can quickly cut
loud breaths and coughs from vocals from these wav graphics. cutting
noise from tracks quickly because you can see exactly where the
problem lies. Cut and paste (import) tracks from other files, drag
tracks with precision to sync up with what you've recorded. Just with
the basic pro tools package (and I am not saying this is the best) you
get over a dozen plug ins such as
reverb/echo/gain/normalizing/pitch/limiting/compression/chorus/ and a
bunch more.You can use multiple plug ins on each track. You can
process your wavs with this graphically, or do it via a CRT mixing
board.

You will have the "old school" engineers here who say Pro Tools LE is
sonically inferior for whatever reason.

But if you are a songwriter like me, and your frame of reference is
building songs. This is the sh&t. Fast, powerful, easy, and sounds
pretty darned good too. When you think about what the average joe had
to work with ten years ago this is truely a revolution.
dB

[Dean]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
> david wrote:
>
> > In article >, Arny Krueger
> > > wrote:
>
> >> HWBossHoss wrote:
>
> >>> I guess my question is really this: Can someone give me some
> >>> DEFINITE, CONCRETE reasons why computer-based recording is "better"

Pro Tools or some of the the other software packages are DEFINITELY
better because they are more visual. You can see the wavs. You can cut
and paste music like words in a word processor. you can quickly cut
loud breaths and coughs from vocals from these wav graphics. cutting
noise from tracks quickly because you can see exactly where the
problem lies. Cut and paste (import) tracks from other files, drag
tracks with precision to sync up with what you've recorded. Just with
the basic pro tools package (and I am not saying this is the best) you
get over a dozen plug ins such as
reverb/echo/gain/normalizing/pitch/limiting/compression/chorus/ and a
bunch more.You can use multiple plug ins on each track. You can
process your wavs with this graphically, or do it via a CRT mixing
board.

You will have the "old school" engineers here who say Pro Tools LE is
sonically inferior for whatever reason.

But if you are a songwriter like me, and your frame of reference is
building songs. This is the sh&t. Fast, powerful, easy, and sounds
pretty darned good too. When you think about what the average joe had
to work with ten years ago this is truely a revolution.
dB

[Laurence Payne]

On 24 May 2004 20:21:15 GMT, (HWBossHoss) wrote:

>Analogeezer:
>
>Bravo! I just read your post on rec.audio.pro in response to my "Computers vs.
>Recorders" thread. I could not have put it better myself!
>
>Believe it or not, the things you have said are EXACTLY what I have always
>suspected about computer-based recording. I know that my preference for
>hardware-based recorders like the Tascam, Korg, and Roland units isn't very far
>from the computer world, but at least it is sufficiently HARDware based, which
>simply just "feels" more natural to me.

OK. So you've got the answer you wanted.

I hope it was the answer you needed :-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[Laurence Payne]

On 24 May 2004 20:21:15 GMT, (HWBossHoss) wrote:

>Analogeezer:
>
>Bravo! I just read your post on rec.audio.pro in response to my "Computers vs.
>Recorders" thread. I could not have put it better myself!
>
>Believe it or not, the things you have said are EXACTLY what I have always
>suspected about computer-based recording. I know that my preference for
>hardware-based recorders like the Tascam, Korg, and Roland units isn't very far
>from the computer world, but at least it is sufficiently HARDware based, which
>simply just "feels" more natural to me.

OK. So you've got the answer you wanted.

I hope it was the answer you needed :-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[HWBossHoss]

>Pro Tools or some of the the other software packages are DEFINITELY
>better because they are more visual. You can see the wavs. You can cut
>and paste music like words in a word processor. you can quickly cut
>loud breaths and coughs from vocals from these wav graphics. cutting
>noise from tracks quickly because you can see exactly where the
>problem lies. Cut and paste (import) tracks from other files, drag
>tracks with precision to sync up with what you've recorded. Just with
>the basic pro tools package (and I am not saying this is the best) you
>get over a dozen plug ins such as
>reverb/echo/gain/normalizing/pitch/limiting/compression/chorus/ and a
>bunch more.You can use multiple plug ins on each track. You can
>process your wavs with this graphically, or do it via a CRT mixing
>board.

What you have said here is typical of what I have heard from several software
fans. But I find it ironic that what you are raving about is how these
software packages help you VISUALLY. It's really cool that you can see the
waveforms and you can perform visual drag-and-drop editing....but isn't the
SOUND the actual thing that we should pay the most attention to?

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure that it these software features are extremely
convenient, not to mention precise, and I'm sure that there are those who have
not only embraced this convenience but who have also come to rely upon it. I
am appreciative of the fact that these visual features were designed to help
the process, not harm it.

BUT...

I'm a big believer in the "use it or lose it" philosophy. If you keep relying
on your EYES to create recordings and make judgements about them, how will your
EARS ever gain the experience and listening skills that they need in order to
help you become a discerning recordist? I am certainly NOT claiming to have
"golden ears." I'm not even close to that! But I would rather make decisions
about my recordings based upon how they SOUND, and not how cool some software
program makes them look. And even if I do need to do some fancy tweaking
and/or editing, I would still prefer to do it the hard way...by LISTENING to
problem areas and then making my own decisions about how best to deal with
them. And if I have to resort to some fancy surgical-quality editing (which I
have done quite successfully), it can only flex my ear muscles that much more.
And that's a healthy thing! Not to put too fine a point on it, but if
listening is the FIRST (and foremost) step in the process, I can't help but
think that I'm automatically doing things the best way for me.

As for plug-ins...at the risk of sounding like someone who does claim to have
golden ears, I still feel that there's nothing quite like an actual sound
processor "box." I think this is especially true if you are trying to go for
really high-quality sound. Case in point: The Empirical Lab Distressor is
advertised as having great sound that no plug-in could ever have. I'm sorry,
but I tend to believe that. I am no electronics OR software expert by any
means, but on the surface it does seem rather far-fetched that a meticulously
designed signal processor, manufactured with only the highest quality
electronic components, and engineered to give nothing but the highest possible
quality of sound--can be faithfully replicated with just a few lines of
programming code. I'm sorry but I just have trouble buying into that.

But hey, if it works for you and for all of the millions of other software
devotees, then who the heck am I to argue? Let's just all make some great
recordings! :-)

[HWBossHoss]

>Pro Tools or some of the the other software packages are DEFINITELY
>better because they are more visual. You can see the wavs. You can cut
>and paste music like words in a word processor. you can quickly cut
>loud breaths and coughs from vocals from these wav graphics. cutting
>noise from tracks quickly because you can see exactly where the
>problem lies. Cut and paste (import) tracks from other files, drag
>tracks with precision to sync up with what you've recorded. Just with
>the basic pro tools package (and I am not saying this is the best) you
>get over a dozen plug ins such as
>reverb/echo/gain/normalizing/pitch/limiting/compression/chorus/ and a
>bunch more.You can use multiple plug ins on each track. You can
>process your wavs with this graphically, or do it via a CRT mixing
>board.

What you have said here is typical of what I have heard from several software
fans. But I find it ironic that what you are raving about is how these
software packages help you VISUALLY. It's really cool that you can see the
waveforms and you can perform visual drag-and-drop editing....but isn't the
SOUND the actual thing that we should pay the most attention to?

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure that it these software features are extremely
convenient, not to mention precise, and I'm sure that there are those who have
not only embraced this convenience but who have also come to rely upon it. I
am appreciative of the fact that these visual features were designed to help
the process, not harm it.

BUT...

I'm a big believer in the "use it or lose it" philosophy. If you keep relying
on your EYES to create recordings and make judgements about them, how will your
EARS ever gain the experience and listening skills that they need in order to
help you become a discerning recordist? I am certainly NOT claiming to have
"golden ears." I'm not even close to that! But I would rather make decisions
about my recordings based upon how they SOUND, and not how cool some software
program makes them look. And even if I do need to do some fancy tweaking
and/or editing, I would still prefer to do it the hard way...by LISTENING to
problem areas and then making my own decisions about how best to deal with
them. And if I have to resort to some fancy surgical-quality editing (which I
have done quite successfully), it can only flex my ear muscles that much more.
And that's a healthy thing! Not to put too fine a point on it, but if
listening is the FIRST (and foremost) step in the process, I can't help but
think that I'm automatically doing things the best way for me.

As for plug-ins...at the risk of sounding like someone who does claim to have
golden ears, I still feel that there's nothing quite like an actual sound
processor "box." I think this is especially true if you are trying to go for
really high-quality sound. Case in point: The Empirical Lab Distressor is
advertised as having great sound that no plug-in could ever have. I'm sorry,
but I tend to believe that. I am no electronics OR software expert by any
means, but on the surface it does seem rather far-fetched that a meticulously
designed signal processor, manufactured with only the highest quality
electronic components, and engineered to give nothing but the highest possible
quality of sound--can be faithfully replicated with just a few lines of
programming code. I'm sorry but I just have trouble buying into that.

But hey, if it works for you and for all of the millions of other software
devotees, then who the heck am I to argue? Let's just all make some great
recordings! :-)

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> I conclude that analog tape isn't generally sonically
> transparent, but digital conversion can be.

I don't think that anyone will disagree with that. However recording
(the job) involves more than not being able to tell the difference
between the original and the final product. In fact, I think that in
most cases, we're thankful that we CAN tell the difference. Sonic
transparency does make some decisions easier, but if you have to fight
in order to get something to listen to, that makes decisions harder.

We aren't talking necessarily about analog tape here, but rather
reducing the dependence on a general purpose computer.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> I conclude that analog tape isn't generally sonically
> transparent, but digital conversion can be.

I don't think that anyone will disagree with that. However recording
(the job) involves more than not being able to tell the difference
between the original and the final product. In fact, I think that in
most cases, we're thankful that we CAN tell the difference. Sonic
transparency does make some decisions easier, but if you have to fight
in order to get something to listen to, that makes decisions harder.

We aren't talking necessarily about analog tape here, but rather
reducing the dependence on a general purpose computer.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[EggHd]

<< But I find it ironic that what you are raving about is how these
software packages help you VISUALLY. >>

OK So I am working in a full analog room. I see all the same things VISUALLY
expect for wave forms.

I see the fader levels, EQ settings on all channels at ones, every piece of
outboard compression and EQ is visual. Boost, cut, freq., Q ... Compressor
settings including gain reduction and input/ouput.

Not making a comment on the sound of the system it's very visual in an analog
studio.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< But I find it ironic that what you are raving about is how these
software packages help you VISUALLY. >>

OK So I am working in a full analog room. I see all the same things VISUALLY
expect for wave forms.

I see the fader levels, EQ settings on all channels at ones, every piece of
outboard compression and EQ is visual. Boost, cut, freq., Q ... Compressor
settings including gain reduction and input/ouput.

Not making a comment on the sound of the system it's very visual in an analog
studio.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Andy Peake]

(HWBossHoss) wrote in message >...
> OK, I am going to be upgrading my home studio, and I want to get some opinions.
> The way I see it, there are two basic choices: computer-based recording (such
> as ProTools) and what I call "box" recording (any of the self-contained digital
> recorders from Korg, Roland, Tascam, etc.). I want to know the pros and cons
> of both methods. I am willing to make a genuine investment into whichever
> method I can decide will give me the most performance for the buck.
>
> I will say that I am kind of an "old school" home recordist who likes to fiddle
> with actual sound processors instead of software plug-ins. My compressors are
> two FMR Audio RNC 1773's (for everything) and a dbx 1066 (mainly for drums). I
> have a Lexicon MPX-1 and a junky old Alesis Midiverb III for effects. At the
> moment, my mic preamps are supplied by the "ghost" type preamps in my
> Soundcraft Spirit M8 mixer, but I am looking into units by Focusrite and
> Avalon. I plan to add some kind of EQ capability as soon as I can decide what
> the best EQ is for me. Hell, I've even considered one of the Alesis digital
> EQ's.
>
> Anyway, down to business: As you may already be able to tell, I'm leaning
> toward the digital recorder method. One of the biggest reasons for this is
> simple: I just do not understand a lot of what is involved in computer-based
> recording. (Firewire? Huh? Exeternal A/D converters? Needed or not? Sound
> card? Needed or not? The list goes on...)
>
> Lots of folks are buying the Digidesign Digi 002 Protools rig, and the way they
> strut around, convinced that they have the "ultimate" home recording rig leads
> me to believe that they must be on to something....but I'm wondering if I can
> use my beloved "old fashioned" sound processors with such a rig...AND I wonder
> if buying a Digidesign rig AUTOMATICALLY means that it is "better" than a
> dedicated digital recorder in terms of sound quality, flexibility, and ease of
> use. A lot of what I've heard from the ProTools method sounds way too
> "processed" and flat, but that could just be "operator error" and not a
> reflection on ProTools itself.
>
> Another big factor regarding the computer-based method is this: I'm pretty sure
> that I will need to buy a better computer than what I already have in order to
> use ProTools effectively. That will be a considerable expense, I'm sure. And
> I would rather use that money to buy microphones and other "fun" stuff if at
> all possible! :-)
>
> There you have it. I have only scratched the surface when it comes to the
> sheer volume of questions I have about both methods of recording, but I hope
> you get the general idea of what is confusing me. I guess my question is
> really this: Can someone give me some DEFINITE, CONCRETE reasons why
> computer-based recording is "better" than using a dedicated digital recorder
> along with some high-quality outboard sound processors?


I record into an Alesis HD-24 "Box" recorder. It will edit certain
functions very effectively onboard, albeit using just your ears and
locate points as opposed to wave forms. It works very well for those
types of editing. I copy, cut, paste, move and more constantly. It
uses inexpensive and easily repaceable EIDE drives that you can
purchase from any computer store. Also, with Alesis' "Fireport"
firewire unit, you can dump 24 tracks of 24 bit files (in any of
several file formats) into a computer in just a couple of minutes for
waveform editing and leave it there or dump it back into the HD-24. It
more closely resembles a tape recorder in appearance and has a very
low probability of crashing (unlike some underqualified computers). As
soon as you record a song, you can back it up onto a completely
separate hard drive contained in the same HD-24. It has many
advantages as a simple recorder. It has many disadvantages also in
that it does not mix, affect, etc. but I use it in combination with
Cubase, Reason and other software. It also has several I/O options
built in. You will need a console or at least a 24 channel mixer with
it. As you can see, I like using it. I am relatively old and cut my
teeth in tape-based recording. This unit bridges the gap IMO. Oh, and
I think it sounds good too.
Andy

[Andy Peake]

(HWBossHoss) wrote in message >...
> OK, I am going to be upgrading my home studio, and I want to get some opinions.
> The way I see it, there are two basic choices: computer-based recording (such
> as ProTools) and what I call "box" recording (any of the self-contained digital
> recorders from Korg, Roland, Tascam, etc.). I want to know the pros and cons
> of both methods. I am willing to make a genuine investment into whichever
> method I can decide will give me the most performance for the buck.
>
> I will say that I am kind of an "old school" home recordist who likes to fiddle
> with actual sound processors instead of software plug-ins. My compressors are
> two FMR Audio RNC 1773's (for everything) and a dbx 1066 (mainly for drums). I
> have a Lexicon MPX-1 and a junky old Alesis Midiverb III for effects. At the
> moment, my mic preamps are supplied by the "ghost" type preamps in my
> Soundcraft Spirit M8 mixer, but I am looking into units by Focusrite and
> Avalon. I plan to add some kind of EQ capability as soon as I can decide what
> the best EQ is for me. Hell, I've even considered one of the Alesis digital
> EQ's.
>
> Anyway, down to business: As you may already be able to tell, I'm leaning
> toward the digital recorder method. One of the biggest reasons for this is
> simple: I just do not understand a lot of what is involved in computer-based
> recording. (Firewire? Huh? Exeternal A/D converters? Needed or not? Sound
> card? Needed or not? The list goes on...)
>
> Lots of folks are buying the Digidesign Digi 002 Protools rig, and the way they
> strut around, convinced that they have the "ultimate" home recording rig leads
> me to believe that they must be on to something....but I'm wondering if I can
> use my beloved "old fashioned" sound processors with such a rig...AND I wonder
> if buying a Digidesign rig AUTOMATICALLY means that it is "better" than a
> dedicated digital recorder in terms of sound quality, flexibility, and ease of
> use. A lot of what I've heard from the ProTools method sounds way too
> "processed" and flat, but that could just be "operator error" and not a
> reflection on ProTools itself.
>
> Another big factor regarding the computer-based method is this: I'm pretty sure
> that I will need to buy a better computer than what I already have in order to
> use ProTools effectively. That will be a considerable expense, I'm sure. And
> I would rather use that money to buy microphones and other "fun" stuff if at
> all possible! :-)
>
> There you have it. I have only scratched the surface when it comes to the
> sheer volume of questions I have about both methods of recording, but I hope
> you get the general idea of what is confusing me. I guess my question is
> really this: Can someone give me some DEFINITE, CONCRETE reasons why
> computer-based recording is "better" than using a dedicated digital recorder
> along with some high-quality outboard sound processors?


I record into an Alesis HD-24 "Box" recorder. It will edit certain
functions very effectively onboard, albeit using just your ears and
locate points as opposed to wave forms. It works very well for those
types of editing. I copy, cut, paste, move and more constantly. It
uses inexpensive and easily repaceable EIDE drives that you can
purchase from any computer store. Also, with Alesis' "Fireport"
firewire unit, you can dump 24 tracks of 24 bit files (in any of
several file formats) into a computer in just a couple of minutes for
waveform editing and leave it there or dump it back into the HD-24. It
more closely resembles a tape recorder in appearance and has a very
low probability of crashing (unlike some underqualified computers). As
soon as you record a song, you can back it up onto a completely
separate hard drive contained in the same HD-24. It has many
advantages as a simple recorder. It has many disadvantages also in
that it does not mix, affect, etc. but I use it in combination with
Cubase, Reason and other software. It also has several I/O options
built in. You will need a console or at least a 24 channel mixer with
it. As you can see, I like using it. I am relatively old and cut my
teeth in tape-based recording. This unit bridges the gap IMO. Oh, and
I think it sounds good too.
Andy

[Paul Stamler]

"HWBossHoss" > wrote in message
...

> As for plug-ins...at the risk of sounding like someone who does claim to
have
> golden ears, I still feel that there's nothing quite like an actual sound
> processor "box." I think this is especially true if you are trying to go
for
> really high-quality sound. Case in point: The Empirical Lab Distressor is
> advertised as having great sound that no plug-in could ever have. I'm
sorry,
> but I tend to believe that. I am no electronics OR software expert by any
> means, but on the surface it does seem rather far-fetched that a
meticulously
> designed signal processor, manufactured with only the highest quality
> electronic components, and engineered to give nothing but the highest
possible
> quality of sound--can be faithfully replicated with just a few lines of
> programming code. I'm sorry but I just have trouble buying into that.

It ain't just a few lines of code; the decent simulators are serious
computer hogs. I agree, though, that they don't sound quite like the analog
processors they emulate. They don't sound bad, necessarily, but they don't
sound the same.

On the other hand, a lot of the external processors out there use digital
processing (reverbs, multi-effects boxes, etc.) and those can be emulated
quite nicely in a computer plug-in; you'll skip the extra A/D and D/A
conversion in the processor, but that's hardly a loss. The processing can be
made identical if the person writing the software knows the exact algorithm
used in the processor.

Peace,
Paul

[Paul Stamler]

"HWBossHoss" > wrote in message
...

> As for plug-ins...at the risk of sounding like someone who does claim to
have
> golden ears, I still feel that there's nothing quite like an actual sound
> processor "box." I think this is especially true if you are trying to go
for
> really high-quality sound. Case in point: The Empirical Lab Distressor is
> advertised as having great sound that no plug-in could ever have. I'm
sorry,
> but I tend to believe that. I am no electronics OR software expert by any
> means, but on the surface it does seem rather far-fetched that a
meticulously
> designed signal processor, manufactured with only the highest quality
> electronic components, and engineered to give nothing but the highest
possible
> quality of sound--can be faithfully replicated with just a few lines of
> programming code. I'm sorry but I just have trouble buying into that.

It ain't just a few lines of code; the decent simulators are serious
computer hogs. I agree, though, that they don't sound quite like the analog
processors they emulate. They don't sound bad, necessarily, but they don't
sound the same.

On the other hand, a lot of the external processors out there use digital
processing (reverbs, multi-effects boxes, etc.) and those can be emulated
quite nicely in a computer plug-in; you'll skip the extra A/D and D/A
conversion in the processor, but that's hardly a loss. The processing can be
made identical if the person writing the software knows the exact algorithm
used in the processor.

Peace,
Paul

[david]

In article >, Arny Krueger
> wrote:

> >> To understand the goals of computer-based recording we start must
> >> out with a definition of "better" that relates to cleaner sound,
> >> with reduced noise and distortion from unintended sources, such as
> >> those found in the analog domain.
>
> > C'mon. Most all the big guys mix to half-inch 2 track.
>
> I seriously doubt that.


Doubt it all you want.



> > "Better" is for each engineer to learn for themselves. It's about what
> > moves you and about what works. It is not particularly a digital vs
> > analog or a good spec vs. bad spec thing. It's about what works best
> > for whatever the hell you happen to be doing.
>
> Learning certain things is sufficiently time-consuming and expensive
> that
> lots of people can't or won't be bothered.


Not a response I would expect here on rap. Go ahead. Don't be bothered.



> > One of my fave pieces of gear is a racked pair of LA3's. Each of them
> > has a different sound.They def do not create a cleaner, reduced noise
> > or reduced distorted signal. But they do makes lotsa stuff sound
> > "better."
>
> ..in your judgement.


Whatdafrick else is there??

Hope sometime you get to run a vocal thru an nice LA3 and listen.





David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island


www.CelebrationSound.com

[david]

In article >, Arny Krueger
> wrote:

> >> To understand the goals of computer-based recording we start must
> >> out with a definition of "better" that relates to cleaner sound,
> >> with reduced noise and distortion from unintended sources, such as
> >> those found in the analog domain.
>
> > C'mon. Most all the big guys mix to half-inch 2 track.
>
> I seriously doubt that.


Doubt it all you want.



> > "Better" is for each engineer to learn for themselves. It's about what
> > moves you and about what works. It is not particularly a digital vs
> > analog or a good spec vs. bad spec thing. It's about what works best
> > for whatever the hell you happen to be doing.
>
> Learning certain things is sufficiently time-consuming and expensive
> that
> lots of people can't or won't be bothered.


Not a response I would expect here on rap. Go ahead. Don't be bothered.



> > One of my fave pieces of gear is a racked pair of LA3's. Each of them
> > has a different sound.They def do not create a cleaner, reduced noise
> > or reduced distorted signal. But they do makes lotsa stuff sound
> > "better."
>
> ..in your judgement.


Whatdafrick else is there??

Hope sometime you get to run a vocal thru an nice LA3 and listen.





David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island


www.CelebrationSound.com

[Paul Motter]

Well . . .

I *DO* know a lot about computers and that may be why I was so lucky,
but with my new Protools rig I have had almost NO problems getting it
installed and up and running with all kinds of plugins. I was actually
surprised how stable everything is. I installed PT on my computer,
turned on my Digi002 and the first thing it did was connect to the Web
and install its own firmware updates. When I needed to upgrade my
software Digidesign sent me the discs overnight (I had them within
hours of ordering them online).

I only had one snag - with Sampletank demo installing files to a
folder I did not expect. Once I founbd them and moved them all was
well.

That being said - the learning curve on the software was really the
sticking point. There are some basic differences between PT and analog
recording style that took me awhile to figure out. Once I got it,
though, the ease and sound of the software made up for it.

I do agree with Audiogeezer, though. I would prefer the standalone
recorder and mixing console config to the all-in-one box. Interesting-
I started with a Zoom recorder and when I bought PT I loaded the files
from the 2 songs I had recorded off of it and into Protools. The
upgrade in sound quality knocked me off my feet.

BTW- there is a FREE version of Protools at www.digidesign.com, but it
only runs on Windows ME. I also have an M Audio sound card w/ Sonar
2 I will sell for $60. That will get you up and running.

[Paul Motter]

Well . . .

I *DO* know a lot about computers and that may be why I was so lucky,
but with my new Protools rig I have had almost NO problems getting it
installed and up and running with all kinds of plugins. I was actually
surprised how stable everything is. I installed PT on my computer,
turned on my Digi002 and the first thing it did was connect to the Web
and install its own firmware updates. When I needed to upgrade my
software Digidesign sent me the discs overnight (I had them within
hours of ordering them online).

I only had one snag - with Sampletank demo installing files to a
folder I did not expect. Once I founbd them and moved them all was
well.

That being said - the learning curve on the software was really the
sticking point. There are some basic differences between PT and analog
recording style that took me awhile to figure out. Once I got it,
though, the ease and sound of the software made up for it.

I do agree with Audiogeezer, though. I would prefer the standalone
recorder and mixing console config to the all-in-one box. Interesting-
I started with a Zoom recorder and when I bought PT I loaded the files
from the 2 songs I had recorded off of it and into Protools. The
upgrade in sound quality knocked me off my feet.

BTW- there is a FREE version of Protools at www.digidesign.com, but it
only runs on Windows ME. I also have an M Audio sound card w/ Sonar
2 I will sell for $60. That will get you up and running.

[Paul Motter]

<<OK So I am working in a full analog room. I see all the same things
VISUALLY
expect for wave forms.>>

FWIW - I also believed I wanted to have a hands-on system before I
went ProTools, which is why I bought the Digi002. I wanted to be able
to see and feel everything.

I was wrong. I actually see MORE with PT than I did in an analog
studio because I can switch from my "MIX" view to my waveform view
they call "EDIT" with the touch of a button. The MIX view is exactly
like looking at a console except I can also see an icon for every
compressor, EQ 'verb and other outboards I have plugged in to every
channel, so I see MORE. Like having a map of your patch bay plugs
right in front of you.

Then the EDIT view is the icing on the cake, I was the best
razor-blade editor I knew back in 1980. Today, I constantly tighten up
parts rhythmically by slipping them a hemidemisemiquaver one way or
the other, or replace sloppy parts with notes from other sections of
songs, and I can do it in seconds. Neither dedicated recorder/mixers
or an all-in-one box will do that nearly as easily. I clammed an
A-note in a bass part yesterday, but instead of punching it in I just
grabbed one from a different part of the song and pasted it in. Cool.
It took me about 5 seconds. Most parts of songs repeat, so I edit more
than I punch in these days.

This is, I believe by the way, one advantage of Protools over other
DAW software: the on-screen information is easier to access than other
programs. There are basically only 2 main windows whereas other
software systems may have 1/2 dozen you need to juggle through all the
time.

Here is another reason for computer recording. The price of ROM. I
can buy a soft-synth smapler with GBs of sounds. With hardware all of
those sounds need to be permanently burnt into ROM memory, but with
soft-synth samplers (romplers) and plug-ins you load samples and
effects algorhythms into the RAM memory in the computer as needed.

The Digi002 was the most expensive part of my system, and I like it,
but it isn't necessary. You can get started with a copy of Sonar and a
good soundcard for a few hundred bucks, or an M-box and Protools for
about $375.

[Paul Motter]

<<OK So I am working in a full analog room. I see all the same things
VISUALLY
expect for wave forms.>>

FWIW - I also believed I wanted to have a hands-on system before I
went ProTools, which is why I bought the Digi002. I wanted to be able
to see and feel everything.

I was wrong. I actually see MORE with PT than I did in an analog
studio because I can switch from my "MIX" view to my waveform view
they call "EDIT" with the touch of a button. The MIX view is exactly
like looking at a console except I can also see an icon for every
compressor, EQ 'verb and other outboards I have plugged in to every
channel, so I see MORE. Like having a map of your patch bay plugs
right in front of you.

Then the EDIT view is the icing on the cake, I was the best
razor-blade editor I knew back in 1980. Today, I constantly tighten up
parts rhythmically by slipping them a hemidemisemiquaver one way or
the other, or replace sloppy parts with notes from other sections of
songs, and I can do it in seconds. Neither dedicated recorder/mixers
or an all-in-one box will do that nearly as easily. I clammed an
A-note in a bass part yesterday, but instead of punching it in I just
grabbed one from a different part of the song and pasted it in. Cool.
It took me about 5 seconds. Most parts of songs repeat, so I edit more
than I punch in these days.

This is, I believe by the way, one advantage of Protools over other
DAW software: the on-screen information is easier to access than other
programs. There are basically only 2 main windows whereas other
software systems may have 1/2 dozen you need to juggle through all the
time.

Here is another reason for computer recording. The price of ROM. I
can buy a soft-synth smapler with GBs of sounds. With hardware all of
those sounds need to be permanently burnt into ROM memory, but with
soft-synth samplers (romplers) and plug-ins you load samples and
effects algorhythms into the RAM memory in the computer as needed.

The Digi002 was the most expensive part of my system, and I like it,
but it isn't necessary. You can get started with a copy of Sonar and a
good soundcard for a few hundred bucks, or an M-box and Protools for
about $375.

[Arny Krueger]

HWBossHoss wrote:

> What you have said here is typical of what I have heard from several
> software fans. But I find it ironic that what you are raving about
> is how these software packages help you VISUALLY.

OK let me rave about how these software packages help me Sonically.

(1) The ability to isolate, listen to, and modify sounds, regardless of how
small or short they are. Sample-level editing is feasible, even easy, and
can be the tool that gets certain jobs done best.

(2) The ability to listen to sounds at any point in a recording without
waiting to traverse tape to get there. Never have to wait to rewind.

(3) The ability to modify recordings anyplace I can take a laptop computer
and a pair of headphones, and in ways that would actually take a room full
of effects processors.

(4) Furthermore, I can apply effects and edits a dozen or more times faster
than real time. This means that it is practical to do a lot more "Try this,
how does it sound, undo that, try something else".

(5) Yes, everything I do is virtually instantly reversible and I can make as
many perfect archival or back up copies in very short amounts of time. With
computers in the 2 GHz range of clock speeds and modern hard drive, common
tape operations that aren't just plain instant, happen something like 10-20
times faster than real time. Bottom line, it's more likely that I'll spend
much more time listening, and much less time waiting for the reels to spin.

(6) The ability to do the equivalent of "edit and listen" to what would be
the same piece of tape over and over again, and in ways that would quickly
reduce that tape to a pile of shreds if we were still tied down to the razor
blade and splicing tape.

> It's really cool
> that you can see the waveforms and you can perform visual
> drag-and-drop editing....but isn't the SOUND the actual thing that we
> should pay the most attention to?

Visualizing sound as these software packages do, is at least as old as the
oscilloscope and/or the strip recorder. It's probably more like the strip
recorder, because the displays aren't necessarily transient and fleeting.
The displays can be static or moved slowly for as long as you need to look
at it to see what you need to see.

> Don't get me wrong. I'm sure that it these software features are
> extremely convenient, not to mention precise, and I'm sure that there
> are those who have not only embraced this convenience but who have
> also come to rely upon it. I am appreciative of the fact that these
> visual features were designed to help the process, not harm it.
>
> BUT...
>
> I'm a big believer in the "use it or lose it" philosophy. If you
> keep relying on your EYES to create recordings and make judgments
> about them, how will your EARS ever gain the experience and listening
> skills that they need in order to help you become a discerning
> recordist?

It's not eyes instead of ears, but eyes and addition to ears. For example, I
can see where people might not be aware of some clipping when they are
tracking with tape. If it's short, if its infrequent, if the tape kinda
hides it, you can miss it. Been there, done that. OTOH, if you have some
clipping when you're tracking or reviewing the track digitally, it's really
just plain your fault. It's not hidden!

>I am certainly NOT claiming to have "golden ears." I'm
> not even close to that! But I would rather make decisions about my
> recordings based upon how they SOUND, and not how cool some software
> program makes them look.

Obviously, you do both, look and hear.. In fact, listening is where most of
my digital editing time goes. It's really the only thing I still have to do
in real time besides tracking..

If you have unlimited time to do a project, then you can turn time with
analog tape into the kind of flexibility you get with digital editing, to
some degree. If you only have a certain amount of time to do the work,
you're going to have more time to listen if you do the project digitally.

>And even if I do need to do some fancy
> tweaking and/or editing, I would still prefer to do it the hard
> way...by LISTENING to problem areas and then making my own decisions
> about how best to deal with them.

I generally don't know any way to avoid listening with digital editing,
other than say looking for overs, which I almost never have because I
generally track with so much headroom. And that's another advantage of
digital recording. Due to the extreme greater amounts of dynamic range in
the medium, its perfectly feasible to track with what might seem like
immense amounts of headroom. My vocal tracks typically peak out at -15,
which is a good thing because I track off the console inserts, more-or-less
blindly. I'm doing the live mix when he fat lady sings! Yet, my tracks have
no less dynamic range than they would if I was tracking to tape and pushing
the levels. My noise floor is still set by the room and my mics and preamps,
not the recorder.

>And if I have to resort to some
> fancy surgical-quality editing (which I have done quite
> successfully), it can only flex my ear muscles that much more. And
> that's a healthy thing!

I think you vastly underestimate how easy it is to do digital editing that
is so fine that almost nobody ever did anything like it, with analog tape.
Especially of the cut and try (i.e., listen) variety.

> Not to put too fine a point on it, but if
> listening is the FIRST (and foremost) step in the process, I can't
> help but think that I'm automatically doing things the best way for
> me.

Even though I track more or less blindly, that process is based on how I use
my ears to set trims during rehearsals.

> As for plug-ins...at the risk of sounding like someone who does claim
> to have golden ears, I still feel that there's nothing quite like an
> actual sound processor "box." I think this is especially true if you
> are trying to go for really high-quality sound. Case in point: The
> Empirical Lab Distressor is advertised as having great sound that no
> plug-in could ever have. I'm sorry, but I tend to believe that. I
> am no electronics OR software expert by any means, but on the surface
> it does seem rather far-fetched that a meticulously designed signal
> processor, manufactured with only the highest quality electronic
> components, and engineered to give nothing but the highest possible
> quality of sound--can be faithfully replicated with just a few lines
> of programming code. I'm sorry but I just have trouble buying into
> that.

Many digital effects aren't the results of just a few lines of code. Exactly
duplicating or more-or-less exactly duplicating some common analog effects
like tape saturation takes some very non-trivial amounts of programming.

However, many modern effects boxes are themselves digital, so all the
software implementation does it avoid some gratuitous trips through the
converters.

Other common computer digital effects such as so-called FFT equalization (no
phase shift!) really had no practical equivalent in the world of analog.
It's dirty work, but we have to do it - notching out spurious noises and
hums, is something that digital filters excel at.

> But hey, if it works for you and for all of the millions of other
> software devotees, then who the heck am I to argue? Let's just all
> make some great recordings! :-)

Exactly. Its the sound of the results that counts. We had some great
sounding-recordings in the days when analog was all we had, and we can still
enjoy them, too.

[Arny Krueger]

HWBossHoss wrote:

> What you have said here is typical of what I have heard from several
> software fans. But I find it ironic that what you are raving about
> is how these software packages help you VISUALLY.

OK let me rave about how these software packages help me Sonically.

(1) The ability to isolate, listen to, and modify sounds, regardless of how
small or short they are. Sample-level editing is feasible, even easy, and
can be the tool that gets certain jobs done best.

(2) The ability to listen to sounds at any point in a recording without
waiting to traverse tape to get there. Never have to wait to rewind.

(3) The ability to modify recordings anyplace I can take a laptop computer
and a pair of headphones, and in ways that would actually take a room full
of effects processors.

(4) Furthermore, I can apply effects and edits a dozen or more times faster
than real time. This means that it is practical to do a lot more "Try this,
how does it sound, undo that, try something else".

(5) Yes, everything I do is virtually instantly reversible and I can make as
many perfect archival or back up copies in very short amounts of time. With
computers in the 2 GHz range of clock speeds and modern hard drive, common
tape operations that aren't just plain instant, happen something like 10-20
times faster than real time. Bottom line, it's more likely that I'll spend
much more time listening, and much less time waiting for the reels to spin.

(6) The ability to do the equivalent of "edit and listen" to what would be
the same piece of tape over and over again, and in ways that would quickly
reduce that tape to a pile of shreds if we were still tied down to the razor
blade and splicing tape.

> It's really cool
> that you can see the waveforms and you can perform visual
> drag-and-drop editing....but isn't the SOUND the actual thing that we
> should pay the most attention to?

Visualizing sound as these software packages do, is at least as old as the
oscilloscope and/or the strip recorder. It's probably more like the strip
recorder, because the displays aren't necessarily transient and fleeting.
The displays can be static or moved slowly for as long as you need to look
at it to see what you need to see.

> Don't get me wrong. I'm sure that it these software features are
> extremely convenient, not to mention precise, and I'm sure that there
> are those who have not only embraced this convenience but who have
> also come to rely upon it. I am appreciative of the fact that these
> visual features were designed to help the process, not harm it.
>
> BUT...
>
> I'm a big believer in the "use it or lose it" philosophy. If you
> keep relying on your EYES to create recordings and make judgments
> about them, how will your EARS ever gain the experience and listening
> skills that they need in order to help you become a discerning
> recordist?

It's not eyes instead of ears, but eyes and addition to ears. For example, I
can see where people might not be aware of some clipping when they are
tracking with tape. If it's short, if its infrequent, if the tape kinda
hides it, you can miss it. Been there, done that. OTOH, if you have some
clipping when you're tracking or reviewing the track digitally, it's really
just plain your fault. It's not hidden!

>I am certainly NOT claiming to have "golden ears." I'm
> not even close to that! But I would rather make decisions about my
> recordings based upon how they SOUND, and not how cool some software
> program makes them look.

Obviously, you do both, look and hear.. In fact, listening is where most of
my digital editing time goes. It's really the only thing I still have to do
in real time besides tracking..

If you have unlimited time to do a project, then you can turn time with
analog tape into the kind of flexibility you get with digital editing, to
some degree. If you only have a certain amount of time to do the work,
you're going to have more time to listen if you do the project digitally.

>And even if I do need to do some fancy
> tweaking and/or editing, I would still prefer to do it the hard
> way...by LISTENING to problem areas and then making my own decisions
> about how best to deal with them.

I generally don't know any way to avoid listening with digital editing,
other than say looking for overs, which I almost never have because I
generally track with so much headroom. And that's another advantage of
digital recording. Due to the extreme greater amounts of dynamic range in
the medium, its perfectly feasible to track with what might seem like
immense amounts of headroom. My vocal tracks typically peak out at -15,
which is a good thing because I track off the console inserts, more-or-less
blindly. I'm doing the live mix when he fat lady sings! Yet, my tracks have
no less dynamic range than they would if I was tracking to tape and pushing
the levels. My noise floor is still set by the room and my mics and preamps,
not the recorder.

>And if I have to resort to some
> fancy surgical-quality editing (which I have done quite
> successfully), it can only flex my ear muscles that much more. And
> that's a healthy thing!

I think you vastly underestimate how easy it is to do digital editing that
is so fine that almost nobody ever did anything like it, with analog tape.
Especially of the cut and try (i.e., listen) variety.

> Not to put too fine a point on it, but if
> listening is the FIRST (and foremost) step in the process, I can't
> help but think that I'm automatically doing things the best way for
> me.

Even though I track more or less blindly, that process is based on how I use
my ears to set trims during rehearsals.

> As for plug-ins...at the risk of sounding like someone who does claim
> to have golden ears, I still feel that there's nothing quite like an
> actual sound processor "box." I think this is especially true if you
> are trying to go for really high-quality sound. Case in point: The
> Empirical Lab Distressor is advertised as having great sound that no
> plug-in could ever have. I'm sorry, but I tend to believe that. I
> am no electronics OR software expert by any means, but on the surface
> it does seem rather far-fetched that a meticulously designed signal
> processor, manufactured with only the highest quality electronic
> components, and engineered to give nothing but the highest possible
> quality of sound--can be faithfully replicated with just a few lines
> of programming code. I'm sorry but I just have trouble buying into
> that.

Many digital effects aren't the results of just a few lines of code. Exactly
duplicating or more-or-less exactly duplicating some common analog effects
like tape saturation takes some very non-trivial amounts of programming.

However, many modern effects boxes are themselves digital, so all the
software implementation does it avoid some gratuitous trips through the
converters.

Other common computer digital effects such as so-called FFT equalization (no
phase shift!) really had no practical equivalent in the world of analog.
It's dirty work, but we have to do it - notching out spurious noises and
hums, is something that digital filters excel at.

> But hey, if it works for you and for all of the millions of other
> software devotees, then who the heck am I to argue? Let's just all
> make some great recordings! :-)

Exactly. Its the sound of the results that counts. We had some great
sounding-recordings in the days when analog was all we had, and we can still
enjoy them, too.

[Laurence Payne]

On 25 May 2004 01:27:10 GMT, (HWBossHoss) wrote:

>What you have said here is typical of what I have heard from several software
>fans.

As you KNOW hardware is better, and are poised to shoot down any
arguments in favour of computers, I see little point in this
discussion :-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[Laurence Payne]

On 25 May 2004 01:27:10 GMT, (HWBossHoss) wrote:

>What you have said here is typical of what I have heard from several software
>fans.

As you KNOW hardware is better, and are poised to shoot down any
arguments in favour of computers, I see little point in this
discussion :-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Pro Tools or some of the the other software packages are DEFINITELY
> better because they are more visual.

This is a good reason why an AUDIO tool is better? I still find it
much easier to locate an edit point by ear and there's no better way
to do that than by rocking an analog tape reel. DAWs come close with
their imitation "scrub" action, but the hand-to-ear coordination isn't
really there. So you have to substitute the visual representation.

> But if you are a songwriter like me, and your frame of reference is
> building songs. This is the sh&t. Fast, powerful, easy, and sounds
> pretty darned good too.

The key word here is "building." A DAW is a great construction tool.
No argument there. But I prefer the song to be built by the singer,
and performed for recording, rather than recorded for construction.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Pro Tools or some of the the other software packages are DEFINITELY
> better because they are more visual.

This is a good reason why an AUDIO tool is better? I still find it
much easier to locate an edit point by ear and there's no better way
to do that than by rocking an analog tape reel. DAWs come close with
their imitation "scrub" action, but the hand-to-ear coordination isn't
really there. So you have to substitute the visual representation.

> But if you are a songwriter like me, and your frame of reference is
> building songs. This is the sh&t. Fast, powerful, easy, and sounds
> pretty darned good too.

The key word here is "building." A DAW is a great construction tool.
No argument there. But I prefer the song to be built by the singer,
and performed for recording, rather than recorded for construction.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Arny Krueger]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article >
> writes:
>
>> Pro Tools or some of the other software packages are DEFINITELY
>> better because they are more visual.

> This is a good reason why an AUDIO tool is better? I still find it
> much easier to locate an edit point by ear and there's no better way
> to do that than by rocking an analog tape reel.

True for you since you say so, but not true for everybody.

> DAWs come close with
> their imitation "scrub" action, but the hand-to-ear coordination isn't
> really there.

Yes, a crutch.

> So you have to substitute the visual representation.

Nobody ever did sample-level editing with a razor blade and by rocking tape.
Plenty of people have done sample-level editing visually. Visual editing is
not a substitute once you get tuned into it. It's The Next Step.

>>But if you are a songwriter like me, and your frame of reference is
>> building songs. This is the sh&t. Fast, powerful, easy, and sounds
>> pretty darned good too.

> The key word here is "building." A DAW is a great construction tool.
> No argument there. But I prefer the song to be built by the singer,
> and performed for recording, rather than recorded for construction.

Recorded music is the combination of art and science.

[Arny Krueger]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article >
> writes:
>
>> Pro Tools or some of the other software packages are DEFINITELY
>> better because they are more visual.

> This is a good reason why an AUDIO tool is better? I still find it
> much easier to locate an edit point by ear and there's no better way
> to do that than by rocking an analog tape reel.

True for you since you say so, but not true for everybody.

> DAWs come close with
> their imitation "scrub" action, but the hand-to-ear coordination isn't
> really there.

Yes, a crutch.

> So you have to substitute the visual representation.

Nobody ever did sample-level editing with a razor blade and by rocking tape.
Plenty of people have done sample-level editing visually. Visual editing is
not a substitute once you get tuned into it. It's The Next Step.

>>But if you are a songwriter like me, and your frame of reference is
>> building songs. This is the sh&t. Fast, powerful, easy, and sounds
>> pretty darned good too.

> The key word here is "building." A DAW is a great construction tool.
> No argument there. But I prefer the song to be built by the singer,
> and performed for recording, rather than recorded for construction.

Recorded music is the combination of art and science.

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> FWIW - I also believed I wanted to have a hands-on system before I
> went ProTools, which is why I bought the Digi002. I wanted to be able
> to see and feel everything.
>
> I was wrong.

That could be that with the Digi002, you CAN'T see and feel
everything. You have one knob and one fader per channel, and you have
only eight of them even if you have more channels. The 002 replaces
the mouse for certain functions, but it in no way replaces a console.

> Then the EDIT view is the icing on the cake, I was the best
> razor-blade editor I knew back in 1980. Today, I constantly tighten up
> parts rhythmically by slipping them a hemidemisemiquaver one way or
> the other, or replace sloppy parts with notes from other sections of
> songs, and I can do it in seconds.

I prefer to work with musicians and genres that don't require that
degree of reassembly. What works for you doesn't necessarily work for
me. You do have the edge, though, since there are more people working
with assembled music than played-and-captured music, so that's what
the industry is going to support most heavily.

> I clammed an
> A-note in a bass part yesterday, but instead of punching it in I just
> grabbed one from a different part of the song and pasted it in. Cool.

I would have difficulty finding that A note, and once I found it, I
would have difficulty in fitting it in place. I'm not a very visual
person. I would have no problem punching it in, however. And if I
didn't discover the problem until after the musician had gone on tour,
well boo on me. I didn't do my job as producer/engineer.

> It took me about 5 seconds. Most parts of songs repeat, so I edit more
> than I punch in these days.

I doubt that I could do it in ten minutes, but then I don't record (or
even listen to) music that's so predictable and repetitive. Also,
since much of my recording is more than one instruent at a time, I'd
have to work harder than you to find a replacement note that had the
same leakage on it, and the bad note may also be on another track.

> This is, I believe by the way, one advantage of Protools over other
> DAW software: the on-screen information is easier to access than other
> programs. There are basically only 2 main windows whereas other
> software systems may have 1/2 dozen you need to juggle through all the
> time.

But a window is only so wide. If the song is four minutes long, you're
trying to replace a note in the first fifteen seconds and you find a
suitable replacement close to the end of the song, you need to zoom in
to two different places. This means you need to remember a lot of
things - you need to zoom in and set a locate point to get you to the
point where you want to replace the note, you need to zoom out to get
in the ballpark of the replacement note, you need to zoom in, find the
note, copy it, go back to your "insert" locate point, zoom in, do the
edit, listen, locate, move it a bit, listen, locate, move it a bit,
ahhhh. Tell me how you can do that in five seconds.

I think you can move a drum beat a bit ahead or behind in five
seconds. But replace a note? I think you exaggerate.

> Here is another reason for computer recording. The price of ROM. I
> can buy a soft-synth smapler with GBs of sounds. With hardware all of
> those sounds need to be permanently burnt into ROM memory, but with
> soft-synth samplers (romplers) and plug-ins you load samples and
> effects algorhythms into the RAM memory in the computer as needed.

I'll agree. A stick of RAM and a sample CD costs somewhat less than a
fine acoustic guitar, a good microphone, and a suitable room for
recording.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> FWIW - I also believed I wanted to have a hands-on system before I
> went ProTools, which is why I bought the Digi002. I wanted to be able
> to see and feel everything.
>
> I was wrong.

That could be that with the Digi002, you CAN'T see and feel
everything. You have one knob and one fader per channel, and you have
only eight of them even if you have more channels. The 002 replaces
the mouse for certain functions, but it in no way replaces a console.

> Then the EDIT view is the icing on the cake, I was the best
> razor-blade editor I knew back in 1980. Today, I constantly tighten up
> parts rhythmically by slipping them a hemidemisemiquaver one way or
> the other, or replace sloppy parts with notes from other sections of
> songs, and I can do it in seconds.

I prefer to work with musicians and genres that don't require that
degree of reassembly. What works for you doesn't necessarily work for
me. You do have the edge, though, since there are more people working
with assembled music than played-and-captured music, so that's what
the industry is going to support most heavily.

> I clammed an
> A-note in a bass part yesterday, but instead of punching it in I just
> grabbed one from a different part of the song and pasted it in. Cool.

I would have difficulty finding that A note, and once I found it, I
would have difficulty in fitting it in place. I'm not a very visual
person. I would have no problem punching it in, however. And if I
didn't discover the problem until after the musician had gone on tour,
well boo on me. I didn't do my job as producer/engineer.

> It took me about 5 seconds. Most parts of songs repeat, so I edit more
> than I punch in these days.

I doubt that I could do it in ten minutes, but then I don't record (or
even listen to) music that's so predictable and repetitive. Also,
since much of my recording is more than one instruent at a time, I'd
have to work harder than you to find a replacement note that had the
same leakage on it, and the bad note may also be on another track.

> This is, I believe by the way, one advantage of Protools over other
> DAW software: the on-screen information is easier to access than other
> programs. There are basically only 2 main windows whereas other
> software systems may have 1/2 dozen you need to juggle through all the
> time.

But a window is only so wide. If the song is four minutes long, you're
trying to replace a note in the first fifteen seconds and you find a
suitable replacement close to the end of the song, you need to zoom in
to two different places. This means you need to remember a lot of
things - you need to zoom in and set a locate point to get you to the
point where you want to replace the note, you need to zoom out to get
in the ballpark of the replacement note, you need to zoom in, find the
note, copy it, go back to your "insert" locate point, zoom in, do the
edit, listen, locate, move it a bit, listen, locate, move it a bit,
ahhhh. Tell me how you can do that in five seconds.

I think you can move a drum beat a bit ahead or behind in five
seconds. But replace a note? I think you exaggerate.

> Here is another reason for computer recording. The price of ROM. I
> can buy a soft-synth smapler with GBs of sounds. With hardware all of
> those sounds need to be permanently burnt into ROM memory, but with
> soft-synth samplers (romplers) and plug-ins you load samples and
> effects algorhythms into the RAM memory in the computer as needed.

I'll agree. A stick of RAM and a sample CD costs somewhat less than a
fine acoustic guitar, a good microphone, and a suitable room for
recording.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Arny Krueger]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> But a window is only so wide. If the song is four minutes long, you're
> trying to replace a note in the first fifteen seconds and you find a
> suitable replacement close to the end of the song, you need to zoom in
> to two different places. This means you need to remember a lot of
> things - you need to zoom in and set a locate point to get you to the
> point where you want to replace the note, you need to zoom out to get
> in the ballpark of the replacement note, you need to zoom in, find the
> note, copy it, go back to your "insert" locate point, zoom in, do the
> edit, listen, locate, move it a bit, listen, locate, move it a bit,
> ahhhh. Tell me how you can do that in five seconds.
>
> I think you can move a drum beat a bit ahead or behind in five
> seconds. But replace a note? I think you exaggerate.

In Audition/CE you can use cue marks to remember these points for you.

[Arny Krueger]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> But a window is only so wide. If the song is four minutes long, you're
> trying to replace a note in the first fifteen seconds and you find a
> suitable replacement close to the end of the song, you need to zoom in
> to two different places. This means you need to remember a lot of
> things - you need to zoom in and set a locate point to get you to the
> point where you want to replace the note, you need to zoom out to get
> in the ballpark of the replacement note, you need to zoom in, find the
> note, copy it, go back to your "insert" locate point, zoom in, do the
> edit, listen, locate, move it a bit, listen, locate, move it a bit,
> ahhhh. Tell me how you can do that in five seconds.
>
> I think you can move a drum beat a bit ahead or behind in five
> seconds. But replace a note? I think you exaggerate.

In Audition/CE you can use cue marks to remember these points for you.

[HWBossHoss]

>As you KNOW hardware is better, and are poised to shoot down any
>arguments in favour of computers, I see little point in this
>discussion :-)

Nothing could be further from the truth. Several people in this discussion
have argued in favor of computer-based recording, and I have read, enjoyed, and
gained something from every one of their responses. Yes, I am leaning toward a
hardware-based system, but I fully recognize the attributes of a computer-based
system...and have already said as much.

[HWBossHoss]

>As you KNOW hardware is better, and are poised to shoot down any
>arguments in favour of computers, I see little point in this
>discussion :-)

Nothing could be further from the truth. Several people in this discussion
have argued in favor of computer-based recording, and I have read, enjoyed, and
gained something from every one of their responses. Yes, I am leaning toward a
hardware-based system, but I fully recognize the attributes of a computer-based
system...and have already said as much.

[Arny Krueger]

HWBossHoss wrote:

>Laurence Payne wrote with tongue in cheek:

>> As you KNOW hardware is better, and are poised to shoot down any
>> arguments in favour of computers, I see little point in this
>> discussion :-)

> Nothing could be further from the truth. Several people in this
> discussion have argued in favor of computer-based recording, and I
> have read, enjoyed, and gained something from every one of their
> responses. Yes, I am leaning toward a hardware-based system, but I
> fully recognize the attributes of a computer-based system...and have
> already said as much.

If I was considering a dedicated hardware-based system, I would be drawn
that way if I wanted something that was low-cost, simple to acquire, simple
in function, and simple to use by people who aren't already really
comfortable with computers. There's still lots of people with this need and
God bless 'em, they deserve to make good music, too.

For example, at the low end those small portable 4-track recorders are
difficult or impossible to beat with a PC-ized approach at the size and
price.

I think a lot of people have ended up with a bad taste in their mouth for
PC-ized approaches when they have vastly underestimated the potential costs
and complexity. At the worst, some people naively think that they can plug a
couple of good mics into a SoundBlaster card in a low-end commodity PC and
be sure of making really good recordings with the in-the-box software that
came with the Soundblaster. If you read and believe the wrong ads, they may
encourage this belief.

It seems like PC-ized approaches are now most effective against dedicated
hardware in middle-and-upper part of the marketplace for hardware-based
DAWs. At the top and the bottom, the dedicated hardware DAW is hard to
duplicate with a computer, for completely different reasons.

[Arny Krueger]

HWBossHoss wrote:

>Laurence Payne wrote with tongue in cheek:

>> As you KNOW hardware is better, and are poised to shoot down any
>> arguments in favour of computers, I see little point in this
>> discussion :-)

> Nothing could be further from the truth. Several people in this
> discussion have argued in favor of computer-based recording, and I
> have read, enjoyed, and gained something from every one of their
> responses. Yes, I am leaning toward a hardware-based system, but I
> fully recognize the attributes of a computer-based system...and have
> already said as much.

If I was considering a dedicated hardware-based system, I would be drawn
that way if I wanted something that was low-cost, simple to acquire, simple
in function, and simple to use by people who aren't already really
comfortable with computers. There's still lots of people with this need and
God bless 'em, they deserve to make good music, too.

For example, at the low end those small portable 4-track recorders are
difficult or impossible to beat with a PC-ized approach at the size and
price.

I think a lot of people have ended up with a bad taste in their mouth for
PC-ized approaches when they have vastly underestimated the potential costs
and complexity. At the worst, some people naively think that they can plug a
couple of good mics into a SoundBlaster card in a low-end commodity PC and
be sure of making really good recordings with the in-the-box software that
came with the Soundblaster. If you read and believe the wrong ads, they may
encourage this belief.

It seems like PC-ized approaches are now most effective against dedicated
hardware in middle-and-upper part of the marketplace for hardware-based
DAWs. At the top and the bottom, the dedicated hardware DAW is hard to
duplicate with a computer, for completely different reasons.

[Michael]

In article <znr1085485449k@trad>, says...
>
> In article > writes:
>
> > Then the EDIT view is the icing on the cake, I was the best
> > razor-blade editor I knew back in 1980. Today, I constantly tighten up
> > parts rhythmically by slipping them a hemidemisemiquaver one way or
> > the other, or replace sloppy parts with notes from other sections of
> > songs, and I can do it in seconds.
>
> I prefer to work with musicians and genres that don't require that
> degree of reassembly. What works for you doesn't necessarily work for
> me. You do have the edge, though, since there are more people working
> with assembled music than played-and-captured music, so that's what
> the industry is going to support most heavily.

But we've done the very same thing for years with razor blades.
The new software tools are simply replacing the old hardware tools.
You can still record musicians in one take, analogue or digital.
You can still cut-and-paste parts either analogue or digital, you
just do it with a mouse here and a razor blade there. In either
studio you can add EQ, compression, delay, etc; it's just that in
one you use rackmounted devices, in the other you use plug-ins.
The point is that you still go after the SOUND no matter which
toolset you use. They each present their own set of advantages
and disadvantages, as far as maintenance, utility, convenience,
etc. is concerned. But in the end, both engineers are going
after the sound they want to hear.
The tools may be different, but the desired result is the same,
and I firmly believe it can be achieved either way.
---Michael (of APP)...

[Michael]

In article <znr1085485449k@trad>, says...
>
> In article > writes:
>
> > Then the EDIT view is the icing on the cake, I was the best
> > razor-blade editor I knew back in 1980. Today, I constantly tighten up
> > parts rhythmically by slipping them a hemidemisemiquaver one way or
> > the other, or replace sloppy parts with notes from other sections of
> > songs, and I can do it in seconds.
>
> I prefer to work with musicians and genres that don't require that
> degree of reassembly. What works for you doesn't necessarily work for
> me. You do have the edge, though, since there are more people working
> with assembled music than played-and-captured music, so that's what
> the industry is going to support most heavily.

But we've done the very same thing for years with razor blades.
The new software tools are simply replacing the old hardware tools.
You can still record musicians in one take, analogue or digital.
You can still cut-and-paste parts either analogue or digital, you
just do it with a mouse here and a razor blade there. In either
studio you can add EQ, compression, delay, etc; it's just that in
one you use rackmounted devices, in the other you use plug-ins.
The point is that you still go after the SOUND no matter which
toolset you use. They each present their own set of advantages
and disadvantages, as far as maintenance, utility, convenience,
etc. is concerned. But in the end, both engineers are going
after the sound they want to hear.
The tools may be different, but the desired result is the same,
and I firmly believe it can be achieved either way.
---Michael (of APP)...

[Michael]

In article <znr1085436718k@trad>, says...
>
> In article > writes:
>
> > I conclude that analog tape isn't generally sonically
> > transparent, but digital conversion can be.
>
> I don't think that anyone will disagree with that. However recording
> (the job) involves more than not being able to tell the difference
> between the original and the final product. In fact, I think that in
> most cases, we're thankful that we CAN tell the difference. Sonic
> transparency does make some decisions easier, but if you have to fight
> in order to get something to listen to, that makes decisions harder.
>
> We aren't talking necessarily about analog tape here, but rather
> reducing the dependence on a general purpose computer.
>
There is a good point here, for anyone who's had a session interrupted
with constant software problems. They aren't easy to diagnose and fix,
and can stop a session dead with no hope of any immediate resolution.
For this very reason we acquired one of the Mackie hard-disk recorders,
and use it for tracking. We can play games in the software later, but
it doesn't interrupt the talent and the flow of the session that way,
when the inevitable Micro$oft problem rears its ugly head.
Since I only use MIDI and sequencing in music composition and not
performance, the lack of a computer during a session is a Good Thing.
---Michael (of APP)...

[Michael]

In article <znr1085436718k@trad>, says...
>
> In article > writes:
>
> > I conclude that analog tape isn't generally sonically
> > transparent, but digital conversion can be.
>
> I don't think that anyone will disagree with that. However recording
> (the job) involves more than not being able to tell the difference
> between the original and the final product. In fact, I think that in
> most cases, we're thankful that we CAN tell the difference. Sonic
> transparency does make some decisions easier, but if you have to fight
> in order to get something to listen to, that makes decisions harder.
>
> We aren't talking necessarily about analog tape here, but rather
> reducing the dependence on a general purpose computer.
>
There is a good point here, for anyone who's had a session interrupted
with constant software problems. They aren't easy to diagnose and fix,
and can stop a session dead with no hope of any immediate resolution.
For this very reason we acquired one of the Mackie hard-disk recorders,
and use it for tracking. We can play games in the software later, but
it doesn't interrupt the talent and the flow of the session that way,
when the inevitable Micro$oft problem rears its ugly head.
Since I only use MIDI and sequencing in music composition and not
performance, the lack of a computer during a session is a Good Thing.
---Michael (of APP)...

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Nobody ever did sample-level editing with a razor blade and by rocking tape.
> Plenty of people have done sample-level editing visually.

But WHY? You can't hear a single sample. I'll concede that there are
exceptions where a sample-level view may be the only way to make
something work, but those are pretty rare. I make nearly all edits on
my computer without zooming down to the cycle level and I'm impressed
with how well edits work even when I expect that they will not.

> Visual editing is
> not a substitute once you get tuned into it. It's The Next Step.

but a step that I don't need to take - and because it's offered AS A
REPLACEMENT FOR something that's funcionally simpler (though
admittedly perhaps much more difficult to implement with the software
and hardware horsepower available) it tends to complicate my workflow.

> Recorded music is the combination of art and science.

But it's mostly art. The science makes the recording process work, it
shouldn't make the music what it isn't. If it's constructed music,
that's one thing - a DAW is clearly the best way to go, far better
than splicing together bits of tape.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Nobody ever did sample-level editing with a razor blade and by rocking tape.
> Plenty of people have done sample-level editing visually.

But WHY? You can't hear a single sample. I'll concede that there are
exceptions where a sample-level view may be the only way to make
something work, but those are pretty rare. I make nearly all edits on
my computer without zooming down to the cycle level and I'm impressed
with how well edits work even when I expect that they will not.

> Visual editing is
> not a substitute once you get tuned into it. It's The Next Step.

but a step that I don't need to take - and because it's offered AS A
REPLACEMENT FOR something that's funcionally simpler (though
admittedly perhaps much more difficult to implement with the software
and hardware horsepower available) it tends to complicate my workflow.

> Recorded music is the combination of art and science.

But it's mostly art. The science makes the recording process work, it
shouldn't make the music what it isn't. If it's constructed music,
that's one thing - a DAW is clearly the best way to go, far better
than splicing together bits of tape.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Arny Krueger]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article >
> writes:
>
>> Nobody ever did sample-level editing with a razor blade and by
>> rocking tape. Plenty of people have done sample-level editing
>> visually.
>
> But WHY? You can't hear a single sample.

No, but you can hear about six of them, AKA a tic on a LP.

>I'll concede that there are
> exceptions where a sample-level view may be the only way to make
> something work, but those are pretty rare. I make nearly all edits on
> my computer without zooming down to the cycle level and I'm impressed
> with how well edits work even when I expect that they will not.

Depends on the context. With live music I never go down to the sample level.
But I do like those nice tight edits with automatic smoothing.

>> Visual editing is
>> not a substitute once you get tuned into it. It's The Next Step.

> but a step that I don't need to take - and because it's offered AS A
> REPLACEMENT FOR something that's functionally simpler (though
> admittedly perhaps much more difficult to implement with the software
> and hardware horsepower available) it tends to complicate my workflow.

Whether rocking tape is functionally simpler than visual editing, is not a
given in my mind. Done both, but get lots more done quickly on the CRT and
mouse.

>> Recorded music is the combination of art and science.

> But it's mostly art. The science makes the recording process work, it
> shouldn't make the music what it isn't. If it's constructed music,
> that's one thing - a DAW is clearly the best way to go, far better
> than splicing together bits of tape.

Since I don't as a rule, as you put it construct music, I don't relate to
your argument at all. All the music I work with is transcribed or recorded
live.

Here's the advantages of computer editing I put into another post this
morning"

OK let me rave about how these software packages help me Sonically.

(1) The ability to isolate, listen to, and modify sounds, regardless of how
small or short they are. Sample-level editing is feasible, even easy, and
can be the tool that gets certain jobs done best.

(2) The ability to listen to sounds at any point in a recording without
waiting to traverse tape to get there. Never have to wait to rewind.

(3) The ability to modify recordings anyplace I can take a laptop computer
and a pair of headphones, and in ways that would actually take a room full
of effects processors.

(4) Furthermore, I can apply effects and edits a dozen or more times faster
than real time. This means that it is practical to do a lot more "Try this,
how does it sound, undo that, try something else".

(5) Yes, everything I do is virtually instantly reversible and I can make as
many perfect archival or back up copies in very short amounts of time. With
computers in the 2 GHz range of clock speeds and modern hard drive, common
tape operations that aren't just plain instant, happen something like 10-20
times faster than real time. Bottom line, it's more likely that I'll spend
much more time listening, and much less time waiting for the reels to spin.

(6) The ability to do the equivalent of "edit and listen" to what would be
the same piece of tape over and over again, and in ways that would quickly
reduce that tape to a pile of shreds if we were still tied down to the razor
blade and splicing tape.

[Arny Krueger]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article >
> writes:
>
>> Nobody ever did sample-level editing with a razor blade and by
>> rocking tape. Plenty of people have done sample-level editing
>> visually.
>
> But WHY? You can't hear a single sample.

No, but you can hear about six of them, AKA a tic on a LP.

>I'll concede that there are
> exceptions where a sample-level view may be the only way to make
> something work, but those are pretty rare. I make nearly all edits on
> my computer without zooming down to the cycle level and I'm impressed
> with how well edits work even when I expect that they will not.

Depends on the context. With live music I never go down to the sample level.
But I do like those nice tight edits with automatic smoothing.

>> Visual editing is
>> not a substitute once you get tuned into it. It's The Next Step.

> but a step that I don't need to take - and because it's offered AS A
> REPLACEMENT FOR something that's functionally simpler (though
> admittedly perhaps much more difficult to implement with the software
> and hardware horsepower available) it tends to complicate my workflow.

Whether rocking tape is functionally simpler than visual editing, is not a
given in my mind. Done both, but get lots more done quickly on the CRT and
mouse.

>> Recorded music is the combination of art and science.

> But it's mostly art. The science makes the recording process work, it
> shouldn't make the music what it isn't. If it's constructed music,
> that's one thing - a DAW is clearly the best way to go, far better
> than splicing together bits of tape.

Since I don't as a rule, as you put it construct music, I don't relate to
your argument at all. All the music I work with is transcribed or recorded
live.

Here's the advantages of computer editing I put into another post this
morning"

OK let me rave about how these software packages help me Sonically.

(1) The ability to isolate, listen to, and modify sounds, regardless of how
small or short they are. Sample-level editing is feasible, even easy, and
can be the tool that gets certain jobs done best.

(2) The ability to listen to sounds at any point in a recording without
waiting to traverse tape to get there. Never have to wait to rewind.

(3) The ability to modify recordings anyplace I can take a laptop computer
and a pair of headphones, and in ways that would actually take a room full
of effects processors.

(4) Furthermore, I can apply effects and edits a dozen or more times faster
than real time. This means that it is practical to do a lot more "Try this,
how does it sound, undo that, try something else".

(5) Yes, everything I do is virtually instantly reversible and I can make as
many perfect archival or back up copies in very short amounts of time. With
computers in the 2 GHz range of clock speeds and modern hard drive, common
tape operations that aren't just plain instant, happen something like 10-20
times faster than real time. Bottom line, it's more likely that I'll spend
much more time listening, and much less time waiting for the reels to spin.

(6) The ability to do the equivalent of "edit and listen" to what would be
the same piece of tape over and over again, and in ways that would quickly
reduce that tape to a pile of shreds if we were still tied down to the razor
blade and splicing tape.

[Analogeezer]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
> Analogeezer wrote:
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > >...
> >> david wrote:
>
> >>> In article >, Arny Krueger
> >>> > wrote:
>
> >>>> HWBossHoss wrote:
>
> >>>>> I guess my question is really this: Can someone give me some
> >>>>> DEFINITE, CONCRETE reasons why computer-based recording is
> >>>>> "better" than using a dedicated digital recorder along with some
> >>>>> high-quality outboard sound processors?
>
> >>>> First we have to define "better".
>
> >>>> To understand the goals of computer-based recording we start must
> >>>> out with a definition of "better" that relates to cleaner sound,
> >>>> with reduced noise and distortion from unintended sources, such as
> >>>> those found in the analog domain.
>
> >>> C'mon. Most all the big guys mix to half-inch 2 track.
>
> >> I seriously doubt that. Besides, what bearing might that have on
> >> what you or I are going to do later on today? The "big guys" live in
> >> their worlds and the rest of us are someplace else.
>
> > To my ears at least, 1/4" half track sounds better than DAT, CD-R, and
> > I prefer it's sound (notice I say prefer, not that it's
> > better...that's a bit more subjective) to 24 bit digital.
>
> As you say, to your ears...
>
> Fact of the matter is that nobody has ever provided me with an transcription
> of the test material I contributed to the RAP 5 CD set, looped through the
> analog tape domain, that I can't distinguish from the original. OTOH, I've
> looped that material through a number of fine digital conversions, others
> have done the same for me. In many but not all cases I can't hear any
> difference in a DBT. I conclude that analog tape isn't generally sonically
> transparent, but digital conversion can be.
>
> > These machines are cheap and readily available. Actually unless you
> > buy a brand new ATR102 from Spitz, 1/2" analog isn't all that
> > expensive.
>
> IME the right $59 sound card is sonically transparent for one generation of
> conversions, and that's for 4 concurrent channels. You can try this test out
> for yourself by downloading files from
> http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm . Of course the results of
> sighted evaluations are not interesting.
>
> >>> And, if you asked him, Bob Ludwig would tell you he prefers analog
> >>> masters.
>
> >> Analog recording isn't just recording. It's recording plus a clearly
> >> audible EFX. If you want that EFX then it's great, and if you don't
> >> it really sucks. Furthermore that EFX can, in the ears of many, be
> >> reasonably well-duplicated by digital circuitry or software.
>
> > Maybe you used a Wollensack but I don't find this to be the case at
> > all.
>
> A friend of mine tried this with a machine that some find to be a little
> nicer than a Wollensak:
>
> http://www.pcavtech.com/ABX/abx_tapg.htm
>
> He was once one of the finest analog tape technicians in this part of the
> country, but digital kinda put a crimp in his bread-and-butter which was
> dominated by repairing and maintaining analog tape recorders used for audio
> production.
>
> >Analog is not an EFX processor, unless you hit it hard for tape
> > compression, and you have the option not to do that.
>
> Analog tape makes audible changes to the music it processes. Given that we
> have the option of using equipment that doesn't make audible changes...
>
> >> Keeping an analog tape machine working really well is a job for
> >> someone who has time and money for that sort of thing. Lots of
> >> people just want to make music.
>
> > I'm am so ****ing tired of hearing this load of crap....let me tell
> > you I have spent at least 10 TIMES the time and effort getting my
> > computer and digital crap to play well together than I have
> > maintaining my analog tape machines....they have been far, far more
> > reliable.
>
> That would be your experience. I don't if that is an indictment of your
> abilities with computers or what. People who used to have lots of business
> repairing and maintaining analog tape recorders used for audio production
> seem to be finding other things to do with their time.
>
> > I find that I make a lot more music with the analog gear than with the
> > digital...and I use both - too many choices with the computer, you are
> > always dicking around with it, and then it decides to do something
> > screwy.
>
> That would be your experience. I don't if that is an indictment of your
> abilities with computers or what.
>
> <snip remainder of rant about bad experiences with computers that I can't
> relate to>

Well gee Arny I know you love computers so goody for you.

It was pretty obvious to me that the OP was not a good candidate for
computer based recording...many people are not.

There is no sense into talking somebody into computers just because
"they are better than analog".

Just because a computer records your test tones "more accurately" and
can pass a double blind test without you hearing it does not make it a
better tool for everyone.

For some people yes, but not for everyone.

I just get tired of the suggestion that once you convert to a computer
it will be more reliable than an analog based setup....for many, many
people that is simply not the case.

You really ought to try running two rigs (digital and analog) and see
this for yourself...I believe you are basing your anti-analog bias on
some past history, my computer vs. analog experience is current.

Analogeezer

[Analogeezer]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
> Analogeezer wrote:
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > >...
> >> david wrote:
>
> >>> In article >, Arny Krueger
> >>> > wrote:
>
> >>>> HWBossHoss wrote:
>
> >>>>> I guess my question is really this: Can someone give me some
> >>>>> DEFINITE, CONCRETE reasons why computer-based recording is
> >>>>> "better" than using a dedicated digital recorder along with some
> >>>>> high-quality outboard sound processors?
>
> >>>> First we have to define "better".
>
> >>>> To understand the goals of computer-based recording we start must
> >>>> out with a definition of "better" that relates to cleaner sound,
> >>>> with reduced noise and distortion from unintended sources, such as
> >>>> those found in the analog domain.
>
> >>> C'mon. Most all the big guys mix to half-inch 2 track.
>
> >> I seriously doubt that. Besides, what bearing might that have on
> >> what you or I are going to do later on today? The "big guys" live in
> >> their worlds and the rest of us are someplace else.
>
> > To my ears at least, 1/4" half track sounds better than DAT, CD-R, and
> > I prefer it's sound (notice I say prefer, not that it's
> > better...that's a bit more subjective) to 24 bit digital.
>
> As you say, to your ears...
>
> Fact of the matter is that nobody has ever provided me with an transcription
> of the test material I contributed to the RAP 5 CD set, looped through the
> analog tape domain, that I can't distinguish from the original. OTOH, I've
> looped that material through a number of fine digital conversions, others
> have done the same for me. In many but not all cases I can't hear any
> difference in a DBT. I conclude that analog tape isn't generally sonically
> transparent, but digital conversion can be.
>
> > These machines are cheap and readily available. Actually unless you
> > buy a brand new ATR102 from Spitz, 1/2" analog isn't all that
> > expensive.
>
> IME the right $59 sound card is sonically transparent for one generation of
> conversions, and that's for 4 concurrent channels. You can try this test out
> for yourself by downloading files from
> http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm . Of course the results of
> sighted evaluations are not interesting.
>
> >>> And, if you asked him, Bob Ludwig would tell you he prefers analog
> >>> masters.
>
> >> Analog recording isn't just recording. It's recording plus a clearly
> >> audible EFX. If you want that EFX then it's great, and if you don't
> >> it really sucks. Furthermore that EFX can, in the ears of many, be
> >> reasonably well-duplicated by digital circuitry or software.
>
> > Maybe you used a Wollensack but I don't find this to be the case at
> > all.
>
> A friend of mine tried this with a machine that some find to be a little
> nicer than a Wollensak:
>
> http://www.pcavtech.com/ABX/abx_tapg.htm
>
> He was once one of the finest analog tape technicians in this part of the
> country, but digital kinda put a crimp in his bread-and-butter which was
> dominated by repairing and maintaining analog tape recorders used for audio
> production.
>
> >Analog is not an EFX processor, unless you hit it hard for tape
> > compression, and you have the option not to do that.
>
> Analog tape makes audible changes to the music it processes. Given that we
> have the option of using equipment that doesn't make audible changes...
>
> >> Keeping an analog tape machine working really well is a job for
> >> someone who has time and money for that sort of thing. Lots of
> >> people just want to make music.
>
> > I'm am so ****ing tired of hearing this load of crap....let me tell
> > you I have spent at least 10 TIMES the time and effort getting my
> > computer and digital crap to play well together than I have
> > maintaining my analog tape machines....they have been far, far more
> > reliable.
>
> That would be your experience. I don't if that is an indictment of your
> abilities with computers or what. People who used to have lots of business
> repairing and maintaining analog tape recorders used for audio production
> seem to be finding other things to do with their time.
>
> > I find that I make a lot more music with the analog gear than with the
> > digital...and I use both - too many choices with the computer, you are
> > always dicking around with it, and then it decides to do something
> > screwy.
>
> That would be your experience. I don't if that is an indictment of your
> abilities with computers or what.
>
> <snip remainder of rant about bad experiences with computers that I can't
> relate to>

Well gee Arny I know you love computers so goody for you.

It was pretty obvious to me that the OP was not a good candidate for
computer based recording...many people are not.

There is no sense into talking somebody into computers just because
"they are better than analog".

Just because a computer records your test tones "more accurately" and
can pass a double blind test without you hearing it does not make it a
better tool for everyone.

For some people yes, but not for everyone.

I just get tired of the suggestion that once you convert to a computer
it will be more reliable than an analog based setup....for many, many
people that is simply not the case.

You really ought to try running two rigs (digital and analog) and see
this for yourself...I believe you are basing your anti-analog bias on
some past history, my computer vs. analog experience is current.

Analogeezer

[Analogeezer]

(EggHd) wrote in message >...
> << But I find it ironic that what you are raving about is how these
> software packages help you VISUALLY. >>
>
> OK So I am working in a full analog room. I see all the same things VISUALLY
> expect for wave forms.
>
> I see the fader levels, EQ settings on all channels at ones, every piece of
> outboard compression and EQ is visual. Boost, cut, freq., Q ... Compressor
> settings including gain reduction and input/ouput.
>
> Not making a comment on the sound of the system it's very visual in an analog
> studio.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> "I know enough to know I don't know enough"

Point well taken but it's still not exactly the same. When I'm working
with my DAW, I often find myself staring at the waveforms and suddenly
I realize my ears have been shut off for the past few minutes.

I actually have to turn away from the screen periodically to make sure
I'm actually listening.

Analogeezer

[Analogeezer]

(EggHd) wrote in message >...
> << But I find it ironic that what you are raving about is how these
> software packages help you VISUALLY. >>
>
> OK So I am working in a full analog room. I see all the same things VISUALLY
> expect for wave forms.
>
> I see the fader levels, EQ settings on all channels at ones, every piece of
> outboard compression and EQ is visual. Boost, cut, freq., Q ... Compressor
> settings including gain reduction and input/ouput.
>
> Not making a comment on the sound of the system it's very visual in an analog
> studio.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> "I know enough to know I don't know enough"

Point well taken but it's still not exactly the same. When I'm working
with my DAW, I often find myself staring at the waveforms and suddenly
I realize my ears have been shut off for the past few minutes.

I actually have to turn away from the screen periodically to make sure
I'm actually listening.

Analogeezer

[ScotFraser]

<< > Visual editing is
> not a substitute once you get tuned into it. It's The Next Step.>

>but a step that I don't need to take - and because it's offered AS A
REPLACEMENT FOR something that's funcionally simpler (though
admittedly perhaps much more difficult to implement with the software
and hardware horsepower available) it tends to complicate my workflow.>>

Mike:
I made exactly these arguments for the many years that I attempted
unsuccessfully to get defective products from Digidesign & Apple to work
together. I rocked tape for 25 years & never needed to see waveforms, I edited
at frame level accuracy with Tascam DA38s, & I scrubbed with AKAI HD recorders
without seeing anything more than a timecode readout. However, when I finally
moved to Digital Performer (although it could have been any DAW) suddenly I
didn't miss scrubbing at all, (DP scrubbing is worthless BTW,) & I edit all day
long visually. The editing process is much more straightforward, & the
organization & naming of takes makes what could be a stressful process into a
walk in the park. Many impossible edits on analog are possible with creative
DAW crossfades, which has saved a lot of takes that otherwise would have to
have been redone to fix one tiny error. I wouldn't bother to mention any of
this if you & I hadn't both spent decades in the analog editing trenches. If
you commit to a DAW lifestyle, I suspect you'll never miss your razor blades.
Scott Fraser

[ScotFraser]

<< > Visual editing is
> not a substitute once you get tuned into it. It's The Next Step.>

>but a step that I don't need to take - and because it's offered AS A
REPLACEMENT FOR something that's funcionally simpler (though
admittedly perhaps much more difficult to implement with the software
and hardware horsepower available) it tends to complicate my workflow.>>

Mike:
I made exactly these arguments for the many years that I attempted
unsuccessfully to get defective products from Digidesign & Apple to work
together. I rocked tape for 25 years & never needed to see waveforms, I edited
at frame level accuracy with Tascam DA38s, & I scrubbed with AKAI HD recorders
without seeing anything more than a timecode readout. However, when I finally
moved to Digital Performer (although it could have been any DAW) suddenly I
didn't miss scrubbing at all, (DP scrubbing is worthless BTW,) & I edit all day
long visually. The editing process is much more straightforward, & the
organization & naming of takes makes what could be a stressful process into a
walk in the park. Many impossible edits on analog are possible with creative
DAW crossfades, which has saved a lot of takes that otherwise would have to
have been redone to fix one tiny error. I wouldn't bother to mention any of
this if you & I hadn't both spent decades in the analog editing trenches. If
you commit to a DAW lifestyle, I suspect you'll never miss your razor blades.
Scott Fraser

[ScotFraser]

<< I actually have to turn away from the screen periodically to make sure
I'm actually listening. >>


I tell clients to not watch the monitor when checking edits. They (& I) tend to
believe they hear an edit when they see the cursor running past the splice.
Sounds different when you don't see it.

Scott Fraser

[ScotFraser]

<< I actually have to turn away from the screen periodically to make sure
I'm actually listening. >>


I tell clients to not watch the monitor when checking edits. They (& I) tend to
believe they hear an edit when they see the cursor running past the splice.
Sounds different when you don't see it.

Scott Fraser

[Monte P McGuire]

In article >,
HWBossHoss > wrote:
>Believe it or not, the things you have said are EXACTLY what I have always
>suspected about computer-based recording. I know that my preference for
>hardware-based recorders like the Tascam, Korg, and Roland units isn't very far
>from the computer world, but at least it is sufficiently HARDware based, which
>simply just "feels" more natural to me.

By all means, use what you like. There are tradeoffs to everything,
and if you can identify what you want to do and what tools you need to
get that done, then move forward with what works best.

>I recently scored a short independent film. I went over to the apartment of
>the film's sound editor, where he had--you guessed it--a Digidesign Digi 002
>setup hooked to his Mac Powerbook. Despite his know-it-all attitude, he had
>plenty of glitches and odd moments trying to get that setup to work. His
>computer froze up a couple of times and crashed completely one time, and then,
>when I wanted to do some overdubs, he couldn't get the damn thing to give me a
>pure headphone signal without delay in it! Try overdubbing when you hear your
>previously recorded track in real time and your currently-recording track
>DELAYED on top of it! What a nightmare.

Well, some folks are clue-impaired. Don't assume that everyone
working with a DAW has these problems, because it isn't necessarily so.

IMHO the biggest problem to relatively cheap 002-ish systems is that
folks think that the 002 (or whatever model they chose) is the most
expensive part of the system. Nothing could be farther from the
truth. To effectively use a DAW, you need about 10x that investment
in the rest of the room to make it _really_ work. Stuff like control
room monitors, a monitor controller, a control room, mikes, monitoring
hardware, and outboard. Your friend desperately needs an analog mixer
with some splits to allow analog monitoring of overdubs with the 002
rig. Yeah, that'd cost about as much (or more) than the 002. Or, he
needs to figure out how to use the built in 002 hardware mixer, if you
want to go that route.

You get my drift... the DAW itself isn't the problem. The attitude
that "all I need to record is the 002" sometimes prevents people from
figuring out _everything_ they need to do a good job of this.

>I think I have made up my mind. I will use my computer for games and web
>surfing. I will use a hardware-based recorder for my recording. And (almost)
>never the twain shall meet.

Think about backups. This is relatively easy to do (and reliable) on
a computer, and sometimes next to impossible with some digital
'slabs'. This favors tape based recording, but it's hard to slip
tracks on tape.

....see what I mean about tradeoffs?


Best of luck,

Monte McGuire

[Monte P McGuire]

In article >,
HWBossHoss > wrote:
>Believe it or not, the things you have said are EXACTLY what I have always
>suspected about computer-based recording. I know that my preference for
>hardware-based recorders like the Tascam, Korg, and Roland units isn't very far
>from the computer world, but at least it is sufficiently HARDware based, which
>simply just "feels" more natural to me.

By all means, use what you like. There are tradeoffs to everything,
and if you can identify what you want to do and what tools you need to
get that done, then move forward with what works best.

>I recently scored a short independent film. I went over to the apartment of
>the film's sound editor, where he had--you guessed it--a Digidesign Digi 002
>setup hooked to his Mac Powerbook. Despite his know-it-all attitude, he had
>plenty of glitches and odd moments trying to get that setup to work. His
>computer froze up a couple of times and crashed completely one time, and then,
>when I wanted to do some overdubs, he couldn't get the damn thing to give me a
>pure headphone signal without delay in it! Try overdubbing when you hear your
>previously recorded track in real time and your currently-recording track
>DELAYED on top of it! What a nightmare.

Well, some folks are clue-impaired. Don't assume that everyone
working with a DAW has these problems, because it isn't necessarily so.

IMHO the biggest problem to relatively cheap 002-ish systems is that
folks think that the 002 (or whatever model they chose) is the most
expensive part of the system. Nothing could be farther from the
truth. To effectively use a DAW, you need about 10x that investment
in the rest of the room to make it _really_ work. Stuff like control
room monitors, a monitor controller, a control room, mikes, monitoring
hardware, and outboard. Your friend desperately needs an analog mixer
with some splits to allow analog monitoring of overdubs with the 002
rig. Yeah, that'd cost about as much (or more) than the 002. Or, he
needs to figure out how to use the built in 002 hardware mixer, if you
want to go that route.

You get my drift... the DAW itself isn't the problem. The attitude
that "all I need to record is the 002" sometimes prevents people from
figuring out _everything_ they need to do a good job of this.

>I think I have made up my mind. I will use my computer for games and web
>surfing. I will use a hardware-based recorder for my recording. And (almost)
>never the twain shall meet.

Think about backups. This is relatively easy to do (and reliable) on
a computer, and sometimes next to impossible with some digital
'slabs'. This favors tape based recording, but it's hard to slip
tracks on tape.

....see what I mean about tradeoffs?


Best of luck,

Monte McGuire

[Monte P McGuire]

In article >,
Arny Krueger > wrote:
>Analogeezer wrote:
>> To my ears at least, 1/4" half track sounds better than DAT, CD-R, and
>> I prefer it's sound (notice I say prefer, not that it's
>> better...that's a bit more subjective) to 24 bit digital.
>
>As you say, to your ears...
>
>Fact of the matter is that nobody has ever provided me with an transcription
>of the test material I contributed to the RAP 5 CD set, looped through the
>analog tape domain, that I can't distinguish from the original.

....that would be the point, no? How else could something make a
signal 'better' if the end result was indistinguishable from the
original?

My wife used to be a software consultant and she has a funny
observation about this phenomenon: most clients wanted her to make
their system exactly the same only better.


You can't have both...


Regards,

Monte McGuire

[Monte P McGuire]

In article >,
Arny Krueger > wrote:
>Analogeezer wrote:
>> To my ears at least, 1/4" half track sounds better than DAT, CD-R, and
>> I prefer it's sound (notice I say prefer, not that it's
>> better...that's a bit more subjective) to 24 bit digital.
>
>As you say, to your ears...
>
>Fact of the matter is that nobody has ever provided me with an transcription
>of the test material I contributed to the RAP 5 CD set, looped through the
>analog tape domain, that I can't distinguish from the original.

....that would be the point, no? How else could something make a
signal 'better' if the end result was indistinguishable from the
original?

My wife used to be a software consultant and she has a funny
observation about this phenomenon: most clients wanted her to make
their system exactly the same only better.


You can't have both...


Regards,

Monte McGuire

[Monte P McGuire]

In article >,
Arny Krueger > wrote:
>Analogeezer wrote:
>> To my ears at least, 1/4" half track sounds better than DAT, CD-R, and
>> I prefer it's sound (notice I say prefer, not that it's
>> better...that's a bit more subjective) to 24 bit digital.
>
>As you say, to your ears...
>
>Fact of the matter is that nobody has ever provided me with an transcription
>of the test material I contributed to the RAP 5 CD set, looped through the
>analog tape domain, that I can't distinguish from the original.

....that would be the point, no? How else could something make a
signal 'better' if the end result was indistinguishable from the
original?

My wife used to be a software consultant and she has a funny
observation about this phenomenon: most clients wanted her to make
their system exactly the same only better.


You can't have both...


Regards,

Monte McGuire

[Monte P McGuire]

In article <znr1085490043k@trad>, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>But WHY? You can't hear a single sample. I'll concede that there are
>exceptions where a sample-level view may be the only way to make
>something work, but those are pretty rare. I make nearly all edits on
>my computer without zooming down to the cycle level and I'm impressed
>with how well edits work even when I expect that they will not.

If you get down to the wavefrom-cycle level, you can do a greater
range of edits more transparently.

In particular, editing within the sustained portion of a note is only
possible when you zoom in to the waveform level - you must match
waveform phase at the in and outpoint to get those edits to work.
Lengthening or shortening notes is also best done at the waveform
level for the same reason.

Basically, anytime you're cutting within a sound, you better be zoomed
in deep enough to see any cycles. Sure, not all edits require this,
but a good number of edits work out better when done this way.


Regards,

Monte McGuire

[Monte P McGuire]

In article <znr1085490043k@trad>, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>But WHY? You can't hear a single sample. I'll concede that there are
>exceptions where a sample-level view may be the only way to make
>something work, but those are pretty rare. I make nearly all edits on
>my computer without zooming down to the cycle level and I'm impressed
>with how well edits work even when I expect that they will not.

If you get down to the wavefrom-cycle level, you can do a greater
range of edits more transparently.

In particular, editing within the sustained portion of a note is only
possible when you zoom in to the waveform level - you must match
waveform phase at the in and outpoint to get those edits to work.
Lengthening or shortening notes is also best done at the waveform
level for the same reason.

Basically, anytime you're cutting within a sound, you better be zoomed
in deep enough to see any cycles. Sure, not all edits require this,
but a good number of edits work out better when done this way.


Regards,

Monte McGuire

[Monte P McGuire]

In article <znr1085490043k@trad>, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>But WHY? You can't hear a single sample. I'll concede that there are
>exceptions where a sample-level view may be the only way to make
>something work, but those are pretty rare. I make nearly all edits on
>my computer without zooming down to the cycle level and I'm impressed
>with how well edits work even when I expect that they will not.

If you get down to the wavefrom-cycle level, you can do a greater
range of edits more transparently.

In particular, editing within the sustained portion of a note is only
possible when you zoom in to the waveform level - you must match
waveform phase at the in and outpoint to get those edits to work.
Lengthening or shortening notes is also best done at the waveform
level for the same reason.

Basically, anytime you're cutting within a sound, you better be zoomed
in deep enough to see any cycles. Sure, not all edits require this,
but a good number of edits work out better when done this way.


Regards,

Monte McGuire

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> In Audition/CE you can use cue marks to remember these points for you.

That's typical of most DAWs. What can I use to remind me to set those
cue points?



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> In Audition/CE you can use cue marks to remember these points for you.

That's typical of most DAWs. What can I use to remind me to set those
cue points?



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> In Audition/CE you can use cue marks to remember these points for you.

That's typical of most DAWs. What can I use to remind me to set those
cue points?



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article <MPG.1b1d0afe8c38109b98974a@newshost> writes:

> The new software tools are simply replacing the old hardware tools.
> You can still record musicians in one take, analogue or digital.
> You can still cut-and-paste parts either analogue or digital, you
> just do it with a mouse here and a razor blade there.

But while the mouse may replace the razor blade, the tape transport,
at least to me, hasn't been satisfactorily replaced. While cue points
may be more convenient than a tape counter, with some familiarity with
the material, the monkey chatter eliminates the need for either. I can
gage, without remembering numbers, about how far into the song I am
from the look and feel of the transport, but on screeen, one ten
second slice looks the same as any other ten second slice, and a four
minute slice doesn't have the resolution to get close to the edit
point.

> The point is that you still go after the SOUND no matter which
> toolset you use.

Right. I've got mine, you've got yours. If I find yours harder to use
than mine, I'll stick with mine. It's nice to know that your tools are
available, though, for the occasions when mine won't do the job.
Besides, what's the hurry? I like to listen to the music while I'm
editing. And who wants to work fewer hours so you can bill for fewer
hours?


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article <MPG.1b1d0afe8c38109b98974a@newshost> writes:

> The new software tools are simply replacing the old hardware tools.
> You can still record musicians in one take, analogue or digital.
> You can still cut-and-paste parts either analogue or digital, you
> just do it with a mouse here and a razor blade there.

But while the mouse may replace the razor blade, the tape transport,
at least to me, hasn't been satisfactorily replaced. While cue points
may be more convenient than a tape counter, with some familiarity with
the material, the monkey chatter eliminates the need for either. I can
gage, without remembering numbers, about how far into the song I am
from the look and feel of the transport, but on screeen, one ten
second slice looks the same as any other ten second slice, and a four
minute slice doesn't have the resolution to get close to the edit
point.

> The point is that you still go after the SOUND no matter which
> toolset you use.

Right. I've got mine, you've got yours. If I find yours harder to use
than mine, I'll stick with mine. It's nice to know that your tools are
available, though, for the occasions when mine won't do the job.
Besides, what's the hurry? I like to listen to the music while I'm
editing. And who wants to work fewer hours so you can bill for fewer
hours?


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article <MPG.1b1d0afe8c38109b98974a@newshost> writes:

> The new software tools are simply replacing the old hardware tools.
> You can still record musicians in one take, analogue or digital.
> You can still cut-and-paste parts either analogue or digital, you
> just do it with a mouse here and a razor blade there.

But while the mouse may replace the razor blade, the tape transport,
at least to me, hasn't been satisfactorily replaced. While cue points
may be more convenient than a tape counter, with some familiarity with
the material, the monkey chatter eliminates the need for either. I can
gage, without remembering numbers, about how far into the song I am
from the look and feel of the transport, but on screeen, one ten
second slice looks the same as any other ten second slice, and a four
minute slice doesn't have the resolution to get close to the edit
point.

> The point is that you still go after the SOUND no matter which
> toolset you use.

Right. I've got mine, you've got yours. If I find yours harder to use
than mine, I'll stick with mine. It's nice to know that your tools are
available, though, for the occasions when mine won't do the job.
Besides, what's the hurry? I like to listen to the music while I'm
editing. And who wants to work fewer hours so you can bill for fewer
hours?


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[EggHd]

<< I tell clients to not watch the monitor when checking edits. >>

Like watching the splices go by.


---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< I tell clients to not watch the monitor when checking edits. >>

Like watching the splices go by.


---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< I tell clients to not watch the monitor when checking edits. >>

Like watching the splices go by.


---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> > But WHY? You can't hear a single sample.
> No, but you can hear about six of them, AKA a tic on a LP.

Aw, shucks, that's almost 2 thousanths of an inch of tape at 15 IPS.
Plenty of room for an edit. <g>

> Here's the advantages of computer editing I put into another post this
> morning"

Different strokes. In reality, I don't do enough editing to really
care. I can handle it either way.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> > But WHY? You can't hear a single sample.
> No, but you can hear about six of them, AKA a tic on a LP.

Aw, shucks, that's almost 2 thousanths of an inch of tape at 15 IPS.
Plenty of room for an edit. <g>

> Here's the advantages of computer editing I put into another post this
> morning"

Different strokes. In reality, I don't do enough editing to really
care. I can handle it either way.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> > But WHY? You can't hear a single sample.
> No, but you can hear about six of them, AKA a tic on a LP.

Aw, shucks, that's almost 2 thousanths of an inch of tape at 15 IPS.
Plenty of room for an edit. <g>

> Here's the advantages of computer editing I put into another post this
> morning"

Different strokes. In reality, I don't do enough editing to really
care. I can handle it either way.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> You really ought to try running two rigs (digital and analog) and see
> this for yourself...I believe you are basing your anti-analog bias on
> some past history, my computer vs. analog experience is current.

Arny wouldn't bother to do that because it wouldn't be a double blind
test. <g>

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> You really ought to try running two rigs (digital and analog) and see
> this for yourself...I believe you are basing your anti-analog bias on
> some past history, my computer vs. analog experience is current.

Arny wouldn't bother to do that because it wouldn't be a double blind
test. <g>

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> You really ought to try running two rigs (digital and analog) and see
> this for yourself...I believe you are basing your anti-analog bias on
> some past history, my computer vs. analog experience is current.

Arny wouldn't bother to do that because it wouldn't be a double blind
test. <g>

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> If you get down to the wavefrom-cycle level, you can do a greater
> range of edits more transparently.

True, but but first you have to need to make those edits. I live a
simple life. I arrange songs in order. I might attach the ending of
one take to another take. I don't record my LPs and then edit out the
clicks. I don't move drum beats. I have occasionally replaced a bass
note (on the Mackie HDR).

I actually haven't done a razor blade edit for several years, but I
also haven't significantly increased my editing activity just because
I can.

> In particular, editing within the sustained portion of a note is only
> possible when you zoom in to the waveform level - you must match
> waveform phase at the in and outpoint to get those edits to work.
> Lengthening or shortening notes is also best done at the waveform
> level for the same reason.

Sometime I'll have to get you a copy of the Jew's harp solo I edited.
It's ALL continuous tone. Razor blade, no problem. If you were to look
at the waveform, you're likely to see something you don't like, but it
sounds just fine.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> If you get down to the wavefrom-cycle level, you can do a greater
> range of edits more transparently.

True, but but first you have to need to make those edits. I live a
simple life. I arrange songs in order. I might attach the ending of
one take to another take. I don't record my LPs and then edit out the
clicks. I don't move drum beats. I have occasionally replaced a bass
note (on the Mackie HDR).

I actually haven't done a razor blade edit for several years, but I
also haven't significantly increased my editing activity just because
I can.

> In particular, editing within the sustained portion of a note is only
> possible when you zoom in to the waveform level - you must match
> waveform phase at the in and outpoint to get those edits to work.
> Lengthening or shortening notes is also best done at the waveform
> level for the same reason.

Sometime I'll have to get you a copy of the Jew's harp solo I edited.
It's ALL continuous tone. Razor blade, no problem. If you were to look
at the waveform, you're likely to see something you don't like, but it
sounds just fine.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> If you get down to the wavefrom-cycle level, you can do a greater
> range of edits more transparently.

True, but but first you have to need to make those edits. I live a
simple life. I arrange songs in order. I might attach the ending of
one take to another take. I don't record my LPs and then edit out the
clicks. I don't move drum beats. I have occasionally replaced a bass
note (on the Mackie HDR).

I actually haven't done a razor blade edit for several years, but I
also haven't significantly increased my editing activity just because
I can.

> In particular, editing within the sustained portion of a note is only
> possible when you zoom in to the waveform level - you must match
> waveform phase at the in and outpoint to get those edits to work.
> Lengthening or shortening notes is also best done at the waveform
> level for the same reason.

Sometime I'll have to get you a copy of the Jew's harp solo I edited.
It's ALL continuous tone. Razor blade, no problem. If you were to look
at the waveform, you're likely to see something you don't like, but it
sounds just fine.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <znr1085502976k@trad>, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>In article > writes:
>
>> In Audition/CE you can use cue marks to remember these points for you.
>
>That's typical of most DAWs. What can I use to remind me to set those
>cue points?

China marker on the screen, of course!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <znr1085502976k@trad>, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>In article > writes:
>
>> In Audition/CE you can use cue marks to remember these points for you.
>
>That's typical of most DAWs. What can I use to remind me to set those
>cue points?

China marker on the screen, of course!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <znr1085502976k@trad>, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>In article > writes:
>
>> In Audition/CE you can use cue marks to remember these points for you.
>
>That's typical of most DAWs. What can I use to remind me to set those
>cue points?

China marker on the screen, of course!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Michael]

In article <znr1085503328k@trad>, says...
>
> But while the mouse may replace the razor blade, the tape transport,
> at least to me, hasn't been satisfactorily replaced. While cue points
> may be more convenient than a tape counter, with some familiarity with
> the material, the monkey chatter eliminates the need for either. I can
> gage, without remembering numbers, about how far into the song I am
> from the look and feel of the transport, but on screeen, one ten
> second slice looks the same as any other ten second slice, and a four
> minute slice doesn't have the resolution to get close to the edit
> point.

The weird thing for me is that (probably because of years of
working in electronics, using all sorts of test equipment) I can
look at that ten second slice of waveform on the PC and "see"
the music quite well, mostly by identifying drumkit activity
(cymbals, snare/bass hits, that sort of thing). It's become
fairly simple for me, a lot easier than my clumsy attempts at
blade-editing years ago.
However, like you, I'd rather not edit ANYTHING at all. I
do it when necessary, but I try to avoid it if possible. I
don't record on a PC, either; we use a Mackie HD recorder, to
keep the sessions flowing without interruption from Bill Gates...
---Michael (of APP)...

[Michael]

In article <znr1085503328k@trad>, says...
>
> But while the mouse may replace the razor blade, the tape transport,
> at least to me, hasn't been satisfactorily replaced. While cue points
> may be more convenient than a tape counter, with some familiarity with
> the material, the monkey chatter eliminates the need for either. I can
> gage, without remembering numbers, about how far into the song I am
> from the look and feel of the transport, but on screeen, one ten
> second slice looks the same as any other ten second slice, and a four
> minute slice doesn't have the resolution to get close to the edit
> point.

The weird thing for me is that (probably because of years of
working in electronics, using all sorts of test equipment) I can
look at that ten second slice of waveform on the PC and "see"
the music quite well, mostly by identifying drumkit activity
(cymbals, snare/bass hits, that sort of thing). It's become
fairly simple for me, a lot easier than my clumsy attempts at
blade-editing years ago.
However, like you, I'd rather not edit ANYTHING at all. I
do it when necessary, but I try to avoid it if possible. I
don't record on a PC, either; we use a Mackie HD recorder, to
keep the sessions flowing without interruption from Bill Gates...
---Michael (of APP)...

[Michael]

In article <znr1085503328k@trad>, says...
>
> But while the mouse may replace the razor blade, the tape transport,
> at least to me, hasn't been satisfactorily replaced. While cue points
> may be more convenient than a tape counter, with some familiarity with
> the material, the monkey chatter eliminates the need for either. I can
> gage, without remembering numbers, about how far into the song I am
> from the look and feel of the transport, but on screeen, one ten
> second slice looks the same as any other ten second slice, and a four
> minute slice doesn't have the resolution to get close to the edit
> point.

The weird thing for me is that (probably because of years of
working in electronics, using all sorts of test equipment) I can
look at that ten second slice of waveform on the PC and "see"
the music quite well, mostly by identifying drumkit activity
(cymbals, snare/bass hits, that sort of thing). It's become
fairly simple for me, a lot easier than my clumsy attempts at
blade-editing years ago.
However, like you, I'd rather not edit ANYTHING at all. I
do it when necessary, but I try to avoid it if possible. I
don't record on a PC, either; we use a Mackie HD recorder, to
keep the sessions flowing without interruption from Bill Gates...
---Michael (of APP)...

[Arny Krueger]

Analogeezer wrote:

> Well gee Arny I know you love computers so goody for you.

In reality I have the love/hate relationship that comes from working with
them professionaly for (gadzooks!) 40 years.

> It was pretty obvious to me that the OP was not a good candidate for
> computer based recording...many people are not.

He also asked an abstract question, which is the part of his post that I
responded to.

> There is no sense into talking somebody into computers just because
> "they are better than analog".

I was answering an abstract question.

> Just because a computer records your test tones "more accurately" and
> can pass a double blind test without you hearing it does not make it a
> better tool for everyone.

People who have a pathological hatred of computers should stay away from
them as much as possible.


> For some people yes, but not for everyone.

People who don't already know how to work effectively with computers and are
too old to learn new tricks should stay away from computers as much as
possible.

> I just get tired of the suggestion that once you convert to a computer
> it will be more reliable than an analog based setup....for many, many
> people that is simply not the case.

If someone runs their car off a straight road and into a tree because they
went so fast over a small rise in the road that the car became airborne and
when it landed, the wheels felss off, do we blame automotive technology for
what is obviously an operator error? (This happened a few weeks ago in
Detroit with fatal results).

> You really ought to try running two rigs (digital and analog) and see
> this for yourself...

I'm 58 and have been making the best recordings I can since I was 12. I
literally cut my recording teeth on one of those Walllensaks, but along the
way I made my way up to high end stuff made by Sony, Studer, and etc. So
again, what knowlege is it that I'm supposed to not posesss about the
relative reliability of analog and computer-based recording equipment?

>I believe you are basing your anti-analog bias on
> some past history, my computer vs. analog experience is current.

Something about never having had to adjust azimuth, bias, or record eq on
any of my computers...

[Arny Krueger]

Analogeezer wrote:

> Well gee Arny I know you love computers so goody for you.

In reality I have the love/hate relationship that comes from working with
them professionaly for (gadzooks!) 40 years.

> It was pretty obvious to me that the OP was not a good candidate for
> computer based recording...many people are not.

He also asked an abstract question, which is the part of his post that I
responded to.

> There is no sense into talking somebody into computers just because
> "they are better than analog".

I was answering an abstract question.

> Just because a computer records your test tones "more accurately" and
> can pass a double blind test without you hearing it does not make it a
> better tool for everyone.

People who have a pathological hatred of computers should stay away from
them as much as possible.


> For some people yes, but not for everyone.

People who don't already know how to work effectively with computers and are
too old to learn new tricks should stay away from computers as much as
possible.

> I just get tired of the suggestion that once you convert to a computer
> it will be more reliable than an analog based setup....for many, many
> people that is simply not the case.

If someone runs their car off a straight road and into a tree because they
went so fast over a small rise in the road that the car became airborne and
when it landed, the wheels felss off, do we blame automotive technology for
what is obviously an operator error? (This happened a few weeks ago in
Detroit with fatal results).

> You really ought to try running two rigs (digital and analog) and see
> this for yourself...

I'm 58 and have been making the best recordings I can since I was 12. I
literally cut my recording teeth on one of those Walllensaks, but along the
way I made my way up to high end stuff made by Sony, Studer, and etc. So
again, what knowlege is it that I'm supposed to not posesss about the
relative reliability of analog and computer-based recording equipment?

>I believe you are basing your anti-analog bias on
> some past history, my computer vs. analog experience is current.

Something about never having had to adjust azimuth, bias, or record eq on
any of my computers...

[Arny Krueger]

Analogeezer wrote:

> Well gee Arny I know you love computers so goody for you.

In reality I have the love/hate relationship that comes from working with
them professionaly for (gadzooks!) 40 years.

> It was pretty obvious to me that the OP was not a good candidate for
> computer based recording...many people are not.

He also asked an abstract question, which is the part of his post that I
responded to.

> There is no sense into talking somebody into computers just because
> "they are better than analog".

I was answering an abstract question.

> Just because a computer records your test tones "more accurately" and
> can pass a double blind test without you hearing it does not make it a
> better tool for everyone.

People who have a pathological hatred of computers should stay away from
them as much as possible.


> For some people yes, but not for everyone.

People who don't already know how to work effectively with computers and are
too old to learn new tricks should stay away from computers as much as
possible.

> I just get tired of the suggestion that once you convert to a computer
> it will be more reliable than an analog based setup....for many, many
> people that is simply not the case.

If someone runs their car off a straight road and into a tree because they
went so fast over a small rise in the road that the car became airborne and
when it landed, the wheels felss off, do we blame automotive technology for
what is obviously an operator error? (This happened a few weeks ago in
Detroit with fatal results).

> You really ought to try running two rigs (digital and analog) and see
> this for yourself...

I'm 58 and have been making the best recordings I can since I was 12. I
literally cut my recording teeth on one of those Walllensaks, but along the
way I made my way up to high end stuff made by Sony, Studer, and etc. So
again, what knowlege is it that I'm supposed to not posesss about the
relative reliability of analog and computer-based recording equipment?

>I believe you are basing your anti-analog bias on
> some past history, my computer vs. analog experience is current.

Something about never having had to adjust azimuth, bias, or record eq on
any of my computers...

[Arny Krueger]

Monte P McGuire wrote:
> In article >,
> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>> Analogeezer wrote:
>>> To my ears at least, 1/4" half track sounds better than DAT, CD-R,
>>> and I prefer it's sound (notice I say prefer, not that it's
>>> better...that's a bit more subjective) to 24 bit digital.
>>
>> As you say, to your ears...

>> Fact of the matter is that nobody has ever provided me with an
>> transcription of the test material I contributed to the RAP 5 CD
>> set, looped through the analog tape domain, that I can't distinguish
>> from the original.

> ...that would be the point, no?

Sue me for wanting my audible distortion a la carte.

> How else could something make a
> signal 'better' if the end result was indistinguishable from the
> original?

Following that logic, let's just add more and more of that noise and
distortion that is inherent in analog tape recording, until your masters
sound like they were made on a cassette machine.

> My wife used to be a software consultant and she has a funny
> observation about this phenomenon: most clients wanted her to make
> their system exactly the same only better.

That isn't as silly as it sounds if you understand the idea that they are
trying to convey.

> You can't have both...

Given the choice of paying for a regular dinner with lots of things I don't
like, or ordering and paying less for an a la carte selection of just what I
want, it seems like not that much of a serious decision-making sitaution.

[Arny Krueger]

Monte P McGuire wrote:
> In article >,
> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>> Analogeezer wrote:
>>> To my ears at least, 1/4" half track sounds better than DAT, CD-R,
>>> and I prefer it's sound (notice I say prefer, not that it's
>>> better...that's a bit more subjective) to 24 bit digital.
>>
>> As you say, to your ears...

>> Fact of the matter is that nobody has ever provided me with an
>> transcription of the test material I contributed to the RAP 5 CD
>> set, looped through the analog tape domain, that I can't distinguish
>> from the original.

> ...that would be the point, no?

Sue me for wanting my audible distortion a la carte.

> How else could something make a
> signal 'better' if the end result was indistinguishable from the
> original?

Following that logic, let's just add more and more of that noise and
distortion that is inherent in analog tape recording, until your masters
sound like they were made on a cassette machine.

> My wife used to be a software consultant and she has a funny
> observation about this phenomenon: most clients wanted her to make
> their system exactly the same only better.

That isn't as silly as it sounds if you understand the idea that they are
trying to convey.

> You can't have both...

Given the choice of paying for a regular dinner with lots of things I don't
like, or ordering and paying less for an a la carte selection of just what I
want, it seems like not that much of a serious decision-making sitaution.

[Arny Krueger]

Monte P McGuire wrote:
> In article >,
> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>> Analogeezer wrote:
>>> To my ears at least, 1/4" half track sounds better than DAT, CD-R,
>>> and I prefer it's sound (notice I say prefer, not that it's
>>> better...that's a bit more subjective) to 24 bit digital.
>>
>> As you say, to your ears...

>> Fact of the matter is that nobody has ever provided me with an
>> transcription of the test material I contributed to the RAP 5 CD
>> set, looped through the analog tape domain, that I can't distinguish
>> from the original.

> ...that would be the point, no?

Sue me for wanting my audible distortion a la carte.

> How else could something make a
> signal 'better' if the end result was indistinguishable from the
> original?

Following that logic, let's just add more and more of that noise and
distortion that is inherent in analog tape recording, until your masters
sound like they were made on a cassette machine.

> My wife used to be a software consultant and she has a funny
> observation about this phenomenon: most clients wanted her to make
> their system exactly the same only better.

That isn't as silly as it sounds if you understand the idea that they are
trying to convey.

> You can't have both...

Given the choice of paying for a regular dinner with lots of things I don't
like, or ordering and paying less for an a la carte selection of just what I
want, it seems like not that much of a serious decision-making sitaution.

[Arny Krueger]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article >
> writes:

>> In Audition/CE you can use cue marks to remember these points for
>> you.

> That's typical of most DAWs. What can I use to remind me to set those
> cue points?

Apparently more pain, trying to do the sort of editing you just described,
without them. ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article >
> writes:

>> In Audition/CE you can use cue marks to remember these points for
>> you.

> That's typical of most DAWs. What can I use to remind me to set those
> cue points?

Apparently more pain, trying to do the sort of editing you just described,
without them. ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article >
> writes:

>> In Audition/CE you can use cue marks to remember these points for
>> you.

> That's typical of most DAWs. What can I use to remind me to set those
> cue points?

Apparently more pain, trying to do the sort of editing you just described,
without them. ;-)

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 18:10:32 +0000 (UTC), (Monte
P McGuire) wrote:

>My wife used to be a software consultant and she has a funny
>observation about this phenomenon: most clients wanted her to make
>their system exactly the same only better.

Indeed. I maintain computers for a local business. His
payroll/accounting program was a dos program. Eventually, the makers
just stopped supporting the dos version. He needed the current
features (yes he really did NEED them:-). So he had to move to the
Windows version.

He was on the 'phone to me, almost in tears. "Give me back my old
program!". He coped, of course. Now can't imagine how he managed
without the neat features of the Windows program.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 18:10:32 +0000 (UTC), (Monte
P McGuire) wrote:

>My wife used to be a software consultant and she has a funny
>observation about this phenomenon: most clients wanted her to make
>their system exactly the same only better.

Indeed. I maintain computers for a local business. His
payroll/accounting program was a dos program. Eventually, the makers
just stopped supporting the dos version. He needed the current
features (yes he really did NEED them:-). So he had to move to the
Windows version.

He was on the 'phone to me, almost in tears. "Give me back my old
program!". He coped, of course. Now can't imagine how he managed
without the neat features of the Windows program.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 18:10:32 +0000 (UTC), (Monte
P McGuire) wrote:

>My wife used to be a software consultant and she has a funny
>observation about this phenomenon: most clients wanted her to make
>their system exactly the same only better.

Indeed. I maintain computers for a local business. His
payroll/accounting program was a dos program. Eventually, the makers
just stopped supporting the dos version. He needed the current
features (yes he really did NEED them:-). So he had to move to the
Windows version.

He was on the 'phone to me, almost in tears. "Give me back my old
program!". He coped, of course. Now can't imagine how he managed
without the neat features of the Windows program.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[philicorda]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 17:21:27 +0000, ScotFraser wrote:

> << I actually have to turn away from the screen periodically to make sure
> I'm actually listening. >>
>
>
> I tell clients to not watch the monitor when checking edits. They (& I) tend to
> believe they hear an edit when they see the cursor running past the splice.
> Sounds different when you don't see it.
>
> Scott Fraser

I get this when mastering CDs. It's almost impossible to tell if the gap
between two songs is correct if you can see the little cursor moving
between the songs.

Another thing, and this is getting off topic...

Does anyone else find that gaps between tracks on a CD somehow sound
shorter when you get it back?
The CD length+track times are the same but somehow the gaps sound
slightly shorter. I've taken to adding another 1/4 second to all gaps
after getting them 'right' to compensate. Strange how perception changes.

[philicorda]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 17:21:27 +0000, ScotFraser wrote:

> << I actually have to turn away from the screen periodically to make sure
> I'm actually listening. >>
>
>
> I tell clients to not watch the monitor when checking edits. They (& I) tend to
> believe they hear an edit when they see the cursor running past the splice.
> Sounds different when you don't see it.
>
> Scott Fraser

I get this when mastering CDs. It's almost impossible to tell if the gap
between two songs is correct if you can see the little cursor moving
between the songs.

Another thing, and this is getting off topic...

Does anyone else find that gaps between tracks on a CD somehow sound
shorter when you get it back?
The CD length+track times are the same but somehow the gaps sound
slightly shorter. I've taken to adding another 1/4 second to all gaps
after getting them 'right' to compensate. Strange how perception changes.

[philicorda]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 17:21:27 +0000, ScotFraser wrote:

> << I actually have to turn away from the screen periodically to make sure
> I'm actually listening. >>
>
>
> I tell clients to not watch the monitor when checking edits. They (& I) tend to
> believe they hear an edit when they see the cursor running past the splice.
> Sounds different when you don't see it.
>
> Scott Fraser

I get this when mastering CDs. It's almost impossible to tell if the gap
between two songs is correct if you can see the little cursor moving
between the songs.

Another thing, and this is getting off topic...

Does anyone else find that gaps between tracks on a CD somehow sound
shorter when you get it back?
The CD length+track times are the same but somehow the gaps sound
slightly shorter. I've taken to adding another 1/4 second to all gaps
after getting them 'right' to compensate. Strange how perception changes.

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 09:42:15 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>If I was considering a dedicated hardware-based system, I would be drawn
>that way if I wanted something that was low-cost, simple to acquire, simple
>in function, and simple to use by people who aren't already really
>comfortable with computers. There's still lots of people with this need and
>God bless 'em, they deserve to make good music, too.
>
>For example, at the low end those small portable 4-track recorders are
>difficult or impossible to beat with a PC-ized approach at the size and
>price.

And even that choice may be a personal or maybe generational thing. A
couple years ago I bought a PortaStudio for a GenX musician friend
and she never used it. Too complicated.

Her boyfriend showed her (one time!) how to record into Cool Edit Pro
and she never looked back.

I hate young people.

Chris Hornbeck
"Art perhaps unfortunately is not the sphere of good intentions."
Pauline Kael 1956

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 09:42:15 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>If I was considering a dedicated hardware-based system, I would be drawn
>that way if I wanted something that was low-cost, simple to acquire, simple
>in function, and simple to use by people who aren't already really
>comfortable with computers. There's still lots of people with this need and
>God bless 'em, they deserve to make good music, too.
>
>For example, at the low end those small portable 4-track recorders are
>difficult or impossible to beat with a PC-ized approach at the size and
>price.

And even that choice may be a personal or maybe generational thing. A
couple years ago I bought a PortaStudio for a GenX musician friend
and she never used it. Too complicated.

Her boyfriend showed her (one time!) how to record into Cool Edit Pro
and she never looked back.

I hate young people.

Chris Hornbeck
"Art perhaps unfortunately is not the sphere of good intentions."
Pauline Kael 1956

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 09:42:15 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>If I was considering a dedicated hardware-based system, I would be drawn
>that way if I wanted something that was low-cost, simple to acquire, simple
>in function, and simple to use by people who aren't already really
>comfortable with computers. There's still lots of people with this need and
>God bless 'em, they deserve to make good music, too.
>
>For example, at the low end those small portable 4-track recorders are
>difficult or impossible to beat with a PC-ized approach at the size and
>price.

And even that choice may be a personal or maybe generational thing. A
couple years ago I bought a PortaStudio for a GenX musician friend
and she never used it. Too complicated.

Her boyfriend showed her (one time!) how to record into Cool Edit Pro
and she never looked back.

I hate young people.

Chris Hornbeck
"Art perhaps unfortunately is not the sphere of good intentions."
Pauline Kael 1956

[Laurence Payne]

On 25 May 2004 15:09:36 -0400, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>But while the mouse may replace the razor blade, the tape transport,
>at least to me, hasn't been satisfactorily replaced. While cue points
>may be more convenient than a tape counter, with some familiarity with
>the material, the monkey chatter eliminates the need for either. I can
>gage, without remembering numbers, about how far into the song I am
>from the look and feel of the transport, but on screeen, one ten
>second slice looks the same as any other ten second slice, and a four
>minute slice doesn't have the resolution to get close to the edit
>point.

There's a science fiction story. They resurrect Richard Strauss.
Before he can have a performance of his new composition he has to pass
the entrance tests for the Musicians' Union. They pass him a
waveform printout. "What instruments are these? And just whistle the
tune?"

I don't know about recognising melody and instrumentation. But I can
certainly find my way around a track from the waveform.

I'll listen to arguments about system stability. I'll buy the "tape
sound", though I suspect digital processing can emulate it pretty
well. But for ergonomics, it's graphical editing on a computer. No
contest.

I'm a musician who records. The music is my overriding
preoccupation. Technical quality, though important, comes in a very
definite second place. If that makes any difference :-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[Laurence Payne]

On 25 May 2004 15:09:36 -0400, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>But while the mouse may replace the razor blade, the tape transport,
>at least to me, hasn't been satisfactorily replaced. While cue points
>may be more convenient than a tape counter, with some familiarity with
>the material, the monkey chatter eliminates the need for either. I can
>gage, without remembering numbers, about how far into the song I am
>from the look and feel of the transport, but on screeen, one ten
>second slice looks the same as any other ten second slice, and a four
>minute slice doesn't have the resolution to get close to the edit
>point.

There's a science fiction story. They resurrect Richard Strauss.
Before he can have a performance of his new composition he has to pass
the entrance tests for the Musicians' Union. They pass him a
waveform printout. "What instruments are these? And just whistle the
tune?"

I don't know about recognising melody and instrumentation. But I can
certainly find my way around a track from the waveform.

I'll listen to arguments about system stability. I'll buy the "tape
sound", though I suspect digital processing can emulate it pretty
well. But for ergonomics, it's graphical editing on a computer. No
contest.

I'm a musician who records. The music is my overriding
preoccupation. Technical quality, though important, comes in a very
definite second place. If that makes any difference :-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[Laurence Payne]

On 25 May 2004 15:09:36 -0400, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>But while the mouse may replace the razor blade, the tape transport,
>at least to me, hasn't been satisfactorily replaced. While cue points
>may be more convenient than a tape counter, with some familiarity with
>the material, the monkey chatter eliminates the need for either. I can
>gage, without remembering numbers, about how far into the song I am
>from the look and feel of the transport, but on screeen, one ten
>second slice looks the same as any other ten second slice, and a four
>minute slice doesn't have the resolution to get close to the edit
>point.

There's a science fiction story. They resurrect Richard Strauss.
Before he can have a performance of his new composition he has to pass
the entrance tests for the Musicians' Union. They pass him a
waveform printout. "What instruments are these? And just whistle the
tune?"

I don't know about recognising melody and instrumentation. But I can
certainly find my way around a track from the waveform.

I'll listen to arguments about system stability. I'll buy the "tape
sound", though I suspect digital processing can emulate it pretty
well. But for ergonomics, it's graphical editing on a computer. No
contest.

I'm a musician who records. The music is my overriding
preoccupation. Technical quality, though important, comes in a very
definite second place. If that makes any difference :-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[philicorda]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 23:55:24 +0100, Laurence Payne wrote:

> On 25 May 2004 15:09:36 -0400, (Mike Rivers)
> wrote:
>
>>But while the mouse may replace the razor blade, the tape transport,
>>at least to me, hasn't been satisfactorily replaced. While cue points
>>may be more convenient than a tape counter, with some familiarity with
>>the material, the monkey chatter eliminates the need for either. I can
>>gage, without remembering numbers, about how far into the song I am
>>from the look and feel of the transport, but on screeen, one ten
>>second slice looks the same as any other ten second slice, and a four
>>minute slice doesn't have the resolution to get close to the edit
>>point.
>
> There's a science fiction story. They resurrect Richard Strauss.
> Before he can have a performance of his new composition he has to pass
> the entrance tests for the Musicians' Union. They pass him a
> waveform printout. "What instruments are these? And just whistle the
> tune?"

Ah, I remember that story. I remember it ends up with the resurrected
Strauss realising that his composition is just a pale shadow of what he
was capable of, as his recreated self is just a shadow of his true
personality, imposed apon the mind of another.

The sad thing is, and he realises this just before he is erased, that
nobody who hears the concert notices this lack. At the end of the
concert they are not applauding him, but the doctors whose engineering
feats made his return possible.

Some resonances to this discussion. :)

> I don't know about recognising melody and instrumentation. But I can
> certainly find my way around a track from the waveform.
>
> I'll listen to arguments about system stability. I'll buy the "tape
> sound", though I suspect digital processing can emulate it pretty well.
> But for ergonomics, it's graphical editing on a computer. No contest.

For me, ergonomics is having someone else do the editing. :)

>
> I'm a musician who records. The music is my overriding preoccupation.
> Technical quality, though important, comes in a very definite second
> place. If that makes any difference :-)
>
> CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
> "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[philicorda]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 23:55:24 +0100, Laurence Payne wrote:

> On 25 May 2004 15:09:36 -0400, (Mike Rivers)
> wrote:
>
>>But while the mouse may replace the razor blade, the tape transport,
>>at least to me, hasn't been satisfactorily replaced. While cue points
>>may be more convenient than a tape counter, with some familiarity with
>>the material, the monkey chatter eliminates the need for either. I can
>>gage, without remembering numbers, about how far into the song I am
>>from the look and feel of the transport, but on screeen, one ten
>>second slice looks the same as any other ten second slice, and a four
>>minute slice doesn't have the resolution to get close to the edit
>>point.
>
> There's a science fiction story. They resurrect Richard Strauss.
> Before he can have a performance of his new composition he has to pass
> the entrance tests for the Musicians' Union. They pass him a
> waveform printout. "What instruments are these? And just whistle the
> tune?"

Ah, I remember that story. I remember it ends up with the resurrected
Strauss realising that his composition is just a pale shadow of what he
was capable of, as his recreated self is just a shadow of his true
personality, imposed apon the mind of another.

The sad thing is, and he realises this just before he is erased, that
nobody who hears the concert notices this lack. At the end of the
concert they are not applauding him, but the doctors whose engineering
feats made his return possible.

Some resonances to this discussion. :)

> I don't know about recognising melody and instrumentation. But I can
> certainly find my way around a track from the waveform.
>
> I'll listen to arguments about system stability. I'll buy the "tape
> sound", though I suspect digital processing can emulate it pretty well.
> But for ergonomics, it's graphical editing on a computer. No contest.

For me, ergonomics is having someone else do the editing. :)

>
> I'm a musician who records. The music is my overriding preoccupation.
> Technical quality, though important, comes in a very definite second
> place. If that makes any difference :-)
>
> CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
> "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[philicorda]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 23:55:24 +0100, Laurence Payne wrote:

> On 25 May 2004 15:09:36 -0400, (Mike Rivers)
> wrote:
>
>>But while the mouse may replace the razor blade, the tape transport,
>>at least to me, hasn't been satisfactorily replaced. While cue points
>>may be more convenient than a tape counter, with some familiarity with
>>the material, the monkey chatter eliminates the need for either. I can
>>gage, without remembering numbers, about how far into the song I am
>>from the look and feel of the transport, but on screeen, one ten
>>second slice looks the same as any other ten second slice, and a four
>>minute slice doesn't have the resolution to get close to the edit
>>point.
>
> There's a science fiction story. They resurrect Richard Strauss.
> Before he can have a performance of his new composition he has to pass
> the entrance tests for the Musicians' Union. They pass him a
> waveform printout. "What instruments are these? And just whistle the
> tune?"

Ah, I remember that story. I remember it ends up with the resurrected
Strauss realising that his composition is just a pale shadow of what he
was capable of, as his recreated self is just a shadow of his true
personality, imposed apon the mind of another.

The sad thing is, and he realises this just before he is erased, that
nobody who hears the concert notices this lack. At the end of the
concert they are not applauding him, but the doctors whose engineering
feats made his return possible.

Some resonances to this discussion. :)

> I don't know about recognising melody and instrumentation. But I can
> certainly find my way around a track from the waveform.
>
> I'll listen to arguments about system stability. I'll buy the "tape
> sound", though I suspect digital processing can emulate it pretty well.
> But for ergonomics, it's graphical editing on a computer. No contest.

For me, ergonomics is having someone else do the editing. :)

>
> I'm a musician who records. The music is my overriding preoccupation.
> Technical quality, though important, comes in a very definite second
> place. If that makes any difference :-)
>
> CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
> "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[Marc Wielage]

On Mon, 24 May 2004 18:27:10 -0700, HWBossHoss wrote:

> If you keep relying
> on your EYES to create recordings and make judgements about them, how will
> your
> EARS ever gain the experience and listening skills that they need in order to
> help you become a discerning recordist?
>--------------------------------snip----------------------------------<

Small side-comment to this (very passionate) discussion.

Like Arny, Bill Sommerwerck, and many others, I also spent years and years
using every variety of analog tape recorder you can imagine -- going all the
way back to rim-drive open-reel portables in 1965, when I was a little kid.
(Yeeesh!) There's no question to me that, for what I do, recording digitally
is an enormous improvement over any analog format I used in the past,
particularly for editing.

More importantly, the reality is that recording audio on computers is a
juggernaut nobody can stop. Whether or not we all agree it's better or
worse, it's the reality of the way the world works today for most pro
recording studios. (Though I concede that a standalone hard drive digital
recorder might work for many people.)

Still, Mr. "Boss Hoss" does raise an interesting point. I find whenever I
have to make an extremely subtle, critical evaluation or adjustment at my
workstation, it seems to work better if I close my eyes, relax, and listen as
hard as I can. Hell, sometimes I work in the dark (or nearly so), just to
focus 100% of my attention on the music. Works much better than watching a
waveform draw itself on the screen.

--MFW

[Marc Wielage]

On Mon, 24 May 2004 18:27:10 -0700, HWBossHoss wrote:

> If you keep relying
> on your EYES to create recordings and make judgements about them, how will
> your
> EARS ever gain the experience and listening skills that they need in order to
> help you become a discerning recordist?
>--------------------------------snip----------------------------------<

Small side-comment to this (very passionate) discussion.

Like Arny, Bill Sommerwerck, and many others, I also spent years and years
using every variety of analog tape recorder you can imagine -- going all the
way back to rim-drive open-reel portables in 1965, when I was a little kid.
(Yeeesh!) There's no question to me that, for what I do, recording digitally
is an enormous improvement over any analog format I used in the past,
particularly for editing.

More importantly, the reality is that recording audio on computers is a
juggernaut nobody can stop. Whether or not we all agree it's better or
worse, it's the reality of the way the world works today for most pro
recording studios. (Though I concede that a standalone hard drive digital
recorder might work for many people.)

Still, Mr. "Boss Hoss" does raise an interesting point. I find whenever I
have to make an extremely subtle, critical evaluation or adjustment at my
workstation, it seems to work better if I close my eyes, relax, and listen as
hard as I can. Hell, sometimes I work in the dark (or nearly so), just to
focus 100% of my attention on the music. Works much better than watching a
waveform draw itself on the screen.

--MFW

[Marc Wielage]

On Mon, 24 May 2004 18:27:10 -0700, HWBossHoss wrote:

> If you keep relying
> on your EYES to create recordings and make judgements about them, how will
> your
> EARS ever gain the experience and listening skills that they need in order to
> help you become a discerning recordist?
>--------------------------------snip----------------------------------<

Small side-comment to this (very passionate) discussion.

Like Arny, Bill Sommerwerck, and many others, I also spent years and years
using every variety of analog tape recorder you can imagine -- going all the
way back to rim-drive open-reel portables in 1965, when I was a little kid.
(Yeeesh!) There's no question to me that, for what I do, recording digitally
is an enormous improvement over any analog format I used in the past,
particularly for editing.

More importantly, the reality is that recording audio on computers is a
juggernaut nobody can stop. Whether or not we all agree it's better or
worse, it's the reality of the way the world works today for most pro
recording studios. (Though I concede that a standalone hard drive digital
recorder might work for many people.)

Still, Mr. "Boss Hoss" does raise an interesting point. I find whenever I
have to make an extremely subtle, critical evaluation or adjustment at my
workstation, it seems to work better if I close my eyes, relax, and listen as
hard as I can. Hell, sometimes I work in the dark (or nearly so), just to
focus 100% of my attention on the music. Works much better than watching a
waveform draw itself on the screen.

--MFW

[Matthew Coffay]

> I recently scored a short independent film. I went over to the apartment of
> the film's sound editor, where he had--you guessed it--a Digidesign Digi 002
> setup hooked to his Mac Powerbook. Despite his know-it-all attitude, he had
> plenty of glitches and odd moments trying to get that setup to work. His
> computer froze up a couple of times and crashed completely one time, and then,
> when I wanted to do some overdubs, he couldn't get the damn thing to give me a
> pure headphone signal without delay in it! Try overdubbing when you hear your
> previously recorded track in real time and your currently-recording track
> DELAYED on top of it! What a nightmare.
>

Well, as far as the computer crashing and freezing, that was probably
his processor. Depending on what version of Protools he was running
on his Powerbook, you'd need at least a G4 and plenty of RAM to run it
smoothly. The same goes for the delay on the vocals--most systems can
put the data back out and into some headphones with FireWire pretty
much instantaneously; or, as someone else suggested, he could use the
digital mixer.

I'm not saying that DAW isn't difficult or sometimes more expensive
than something else--but I'd hate for someone who's considering
Protools to have read the above post and go "oh god! Nevermind, I
don't want Protools or a DigiRack," cos if I hadn't done my own
research into system stability and that sort of thing, that probably
would have crossed my mind. Luckily, I *did* do some research, and I
know that a DigiRack and Protools is right for me and my band--maybe
it isn't for you, but I hate to see a post like that without any
explanation as to what was actually probably going on with the guy's
setup.

-mc

[Matthew Coffay]

> I recently scored a short independent film. I went over to the apartment of
> the film's sound editor, where he had--you guessed it--a Digidesign Digi 002
> setup hooked to his Mac Powerbook. Despite his know-it-all attitude, he had
> plenty of glitches and odd moments trying to get that setup to work. His
> computer froze up a couple of times and crashed completely one time, and then,
> when I wanted to do some overdubs, he couldn't get the damn thing to give me a
> pure headphone signal without delay in it! Try overdubbing when you hear your
> previously recorded track in real time and your currently-recording track
> DELAYED on top of it! What a nightmare.
>

Well, as far as the computer crashing and freezing, that was probably
his processor. Depending on what version of Protools he was running
on his Powerbook, you'd need at least a G4 and plenty of RAM to run it
smoothly. The same goes for the delay on the vocals--most systems can
put the data back out and into some headphones with FireWire pretty
much instantaneously; or, as someone else suggested, he could use the
digital mixer.

I'm not saying that DAW isn't difficult or sometimes more expensive
than something else--but I'd hate for someone who's considering
Protools to have read the above post and go "oh god! Nevermind, I
don't want Protools or a DigiRack," cos if I hadn't done my own
research into system stability and that sort of thing, that probably
would have crossed my mind. Luckily, I *did* do some research, and I
know that a DigiRack and Protools is right for me and my band--maybe
it isn't for you, but I hate to see a post like that without any
explanation as to what was actually probably going on with the guy's
setup.

-mc

[Matthew Coffay]

> I recently scored a short independent film. I went over to the apartment of
> the film's sound editor, where he had--you guessed it--a Digidesign Digi 002
> setup hooked to his Mac Powerbook. Despite his know-it-all attitude, he had
> plenty of glitches and odd moments trying to get that setup to work. His
> computer froze up a couple of times and crashed completely one time, and then,
> when I wanted to do some overdubs, he couldn't get the damn thing to give me a
> pure headphone signal without delay in it! Try overdubbing when you hear your
> previously recorded track in real time and your currently-recording track
> DELAYED on top of it! What a nightmare.
>

Well, as far as the computer crashing and freezing, that was probably
his processor. Depending on what version of Protools he was running
on his Powerbook, you'd need at least a G4 and plenty of RAM to run it
smoothly. The same goes for the delay on the vocals--most systems can
put the data back out and into some headphones with FireWire pretty
much instantaneously; or, as someone else suggested, he could use the
digital mixer.

I'm not saying that DAW isn't difficult or sometimes more expensive
than something else--but I'd hate for someone who's considering
Protools to have read the above post and go "oh god! Nevermind, I
don't want Protools or a DigiRack," cos if I hadn't done my own
research into system stability and that sort of thing, that probably
would have crossed my mind. Luckily, I *did* do some research, and I
know that a DigiRack and Protools is right for me and my band--maybe
it isn't for you, but I hate to see a post like that without any
explanation as to what was actually probably going on with the guy's
setup.

-mc

[Scott Dorsey]

Matthew Coffay > wrote:
>
>Well, as far as the computer crashing and freezing, that was probably
>his processor. Depending on what version of Protools he was running
>on his Powerbook, you'd need at least a G4 and plenty of RAM to run it
>smoothly. The same goes for the delay on the vocals--most systems can
>put the data back out and into some headphones with FireWire pretty
>much instantaneously; or, as someone else suggested, he could use the
>digital mixer.

True. But my Magnasync dubbers and Bauer interlock system never do that.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Matthew Coffay > wrote:
>
>Well, as far as the computer crashing and freezing, that was probably
>his processor. Depending on what version of Protools he was running
>on his Powerbook, you'd need at least a G4 and plenty of RAM to run it
>smoothly. The same goes for the delay on the vocals--most systems can
>put the data back out and into some headphones with FireWire pretty
>much instantaneously; or, as someone else suggested, he could use the
>digital mixer.

True. But my Magnasync dubbers and Bauer interlock system never do that.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Matthew Coffay > wrote:
>
>Well, as far as the computer crashing and freezing, that was probably
>his processor. Depending on what version of Protools he was running
>on his Powerbook, you'd need at least a G4 and plenty of RAM to run it
>smoothly. The same goes for the delay on the vocals--most systems can
>put the data back out and into some headphones with FireWire pretty
>much instantaneously; or, as someone else suggested, he could use the
>digital mixer.

True. But my Magnasync dubbers and Bauer interlock system never do that.
--scott

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

[Paul Stamler]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Analogeezer wrote:

> > It was pretty obvious to me that the OP was not a good candidate for
> > computer based recording...many people are not.
>
> He also asked an abstract question, which is the part of his post that I
> responded to.

And if y'all go back to that original question...he was asking about two
possibilities, computer editing and all-in-one digital boxes. Didn't mention
analog at all, so that part of the discussion is our own construct. I'm glad
somebody opened up a third possibility for him, though, which was a
standalone digital recorder like the Alesis or Mackie. These gadgets with
the associated separate hardware (mixing console at the least, preamps and
effects boxes) are a lot more flexible than the all-in-one boxes, and mostly
they're better-sounding too. (I say mostly because I haven't heard the
latest generation of all-in-one boxes, and maybe they aren't as awful as the
earlier ones.) And even a Mackie mixer will get you better sound in the
analog part of the job (mike pres, mainly) than the circuits in the
all-in-ones.

So if the O.P. decides not to go computer, I'd recommend looking into
something like the Alesis hard-disk recorder. Plus, if s/he needs to do a
lot of cutting, pasting, etc., the possibility of using a computer for
editing only, but dumping the results back onto the hard-disk recorder for
mixing, etc.. Of course, that means opening the computer can-o-worms after
all.

Peace,
Paul

[Paul Stamler]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Analogeezer wrote:

> > It was pretty obvious to me that the OP was not a good candidate for
> > computer based recording...many people are not.
>
> He also asked an abstract question, which is the part of his post that I
> responded to.

And if y'all go back to that original question...he was asking about two
possibilities, computer editing and all-in-one digital boxes. Didn't mention
analog at all, so that part of the discussion is our own construct. I'm glad
somebody opened up a third possibility for him, though, which was a
standalone digital recorder like the Alesis or Mackie. These gadgets with
the associated separate hardware (mixing console at the least, preamps and
effects boxes) are a lot more flexible than the all-in-one boxes, and mostly
they're better-sounding too. (I say mostly because I haven't heard the
latest generation of all-in-one boxes, and maybe they aren't as awful as the
earlier ones.) And even a Mackie mixer will get you better sound in the
analog part of the job (mike pres, mainly) than the circuits in the
all-in-ones.

So if the O.P. decides not to go computer, I'd recommend looking into
something like the Alesis hard-disk recorder. Plus, if s/he needs to do a
lot of cutting, pasting, etc., the possibility of using a computer for
editing only, but dumping the results back onto the hard-disk recorder for
mixing, etc.. Of course, that means opening the computer can-o-worms after
all.

Peace,
Paul

[Paul Stamler]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Analogeezer wrote:

> > It was pretty obvious to me that the OP was not a good candidate for
> > computer based recording...many people are not.
>
> He also asked an abstract question, which is the part of his post that I
> responded to.

And if y'all go back to that original question...he was asking about two
possibilities, computer editing and all-in-one digital boxes. Didn't mention
analog at all, so that part of the discussion is our own construct. I'm glad
somebody opened up a third possibility for him, though, which was a
standalone digital recorder like the Alesis or Mackie. These gadgets with
the associated separate hardware (mixing console at the least, preamps and
effects boxes) are a lot more flexible than the all-in-one boxes, and mostly
they're better-sounding too. (I say mostly because I haven't heard the
latest generation of all-in-one boxes, and maybe they aren't as awful as the
earlier ones.) And even a Mackie mixer will get you better sound in the
analog part of the job (mike pres, mainly) than the circuits in the
all-in-ones.

So if the O.P. decides not to go computer, I'd recommend looking into
something like the Alesis hard-disk recorder. Plus, if s/he needs to do a
lot of cutting, pasting, etc., the possibility of using a computer for
editing only, but dumping the results back onto the hard-disk recorder for
mixing, etc.. Of course, that means opening the computer can-o-worms after
all.

Peace,
Paul

[ScotFraser]

<< Does anyone else find that gaps between tracks on a CD somehow sound
shorter when you get it back? >>

No, I find the gap feels different every single time I play it.


Scott Fraser

[ScotFraser]

<< Does anyone else find that gaps between tracks on a CD somehow sound
shorter when you get it back? >>

No, I find the gap feels different every single time I play it.


Scott Fraser

[ScotFraser]

<< Does anyone else find that gaps between tracks on a CD somehow sound
shorter when you get it back? >>

No, I find the gap feels different every single time I play it.


Scott Fraser

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> He was on the 'phone to me, almost in tears. "Give me back my old
> program!". He coped, of course. Now can't imagine how he managed
> without the neat features of the Windows program.

My mail and news reader is DOS.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> He was on the 'phone to me, almost in tears. "Give me back my old
> program!". He coped, of course. Now can't imagine how he managed
> without the neat features of the Windows program.

My mail and news reader is DOS.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> He was on the 'phone to me, almost in tears. "Give me back my old
> program!". He coped, of course. Now can't imagine how he managed
> without the neat features of the Windows program.

My mail and news reader is DOS.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article <pan.2004.05.25.22.49.04.313089@nossppammmmntlworld .com> writes:

> Does anyone else find that gaps between tracks on a CD somehow sound
> shorter when you get it back?
> The CD length+track times are the same but somehow the gaps sound
> slightly shorter.

Maybe they get compressed so much during mastering that you hear more
of the fadeout or tail at the end of the song afterward than when you
mixed and assembled it.

Another possibilty is that the mastering engineer separates your
tracks into files on his workstation, then puts them in order
according to your log sheet, but misses a little.

Still another possibility is that he might think your project needs a
little less space between songs. You know, our attention span is
getting shorter, and if you leave the standard 5 seconds between songs
that we did with LPs, you'll think the CD is over and go off and do
something else.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article <pan.2004.05.25.22.49.04.313089@nossppammmmntlworld .com> writes:

> Does anyone else find that gaps between tracks on a CD somehow sound
> shorter when you get it back?
> The CD length+track times are the same but somehow the gaps sound
> slightly shorter.

Maybe they get compressed so much during mastering that you hear more
of the fadeout or tail at the end of the song afterward than when you
mixed and assembled it.

Another possibilty is that the mastering engineer separates your
tracks into files on his workstation, then puts them in order
according to your log sheet, but misses a little.

Still another possibility is that he might think your project needs a
little less space between songs. You know, our attention span is
getting shorter, and if you leave the standard 5 seconds between songs
that we did with LPs, you'll think the CD is over and go off and do
something else.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article <pan.2004.05.25.22.49.04.313089@nossppammmmntlworld .com> writes:

> Does anyone else find that gaps between tracks on a CD somehow sound
> shorter when you get it back?
> The CD length+track times are the same but somehow the gaps sound
> slightly shorter.

Maybe they get compressed so much during mastering that you hear more
of the fadeout or tail at the end of the song afterward than when you
mixed and assembled it.

Another possibilty is that the mastering engineer separates your
tracks into files on his workstation, then puts them in order
according to your log sheet, but misses a little.

Still another possibility is that he might think your project needs a
little less space between songs. You know, our attention span is
getting shorter, and if you leave the standard 5 seconds between songs
that we did with LPs, you'll think the CD is over and go off and do
something else.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Laurence Payne]

On 26 May 2004 05:58:56 -0400, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>> He was on the 'phone to me, almost in tears. "Give me back my old
>> program!". He coped, of course. Now can't imagine how he managed
>> without the neat features of the Windows program.
>
>My mail and news reader is DOS.

Congratulations :-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[Laurence Payne]

On 26 May 2004 05:58:56 -0400, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>> He was on the 'phone to me, almost in tears. "Give me back my old
>> program!". He coped, of course. Now can't imagine how he managed
>> without the neat features of the Windows program.
>
>My mail and news reader is DOS.

Congratulations :-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[Laurence Payne]

On 26 May 2004 05:58:56 -0400, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>> He was on the 'phone to me, almost in tears. "Give me back my old
>> program!". He coped, of course. Now can't imagine how he managed
>> without the neat features of the Windows program.
>
>My mail and news reader is DOS.

Congratulations :-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[Paul Motter]

MIke... Sorry I missed your long response to me. Here it is....


In article >
writes:

> FWIW - I also believed I wanted to have a hands-on system before I
> went ProTools, which is why I bought the Digi002. I wanted to be able
> to see and feel everything.
>
> I was wrong.

That could be that with the Digi002, you CAN'T see and feel
everything. You have one knob and one fader per channel, and you have
only eight of them even if you have more channels. The 002 replaces
the mouse for certain functions, but it in no way replaces a console.

ME: You are absolutely right, which is why I say in other posts that
I thought I needed it because I was a "hands-on" guy, too. But I was
wrong. It just mimics what you see on the screen. It eventually
becomes an asset, but you have to learn its pecadillos. I was a little
disapponted when I realized that fact after first buying it. Now I
have gotten pretty fast with it, though, and it is better than the
mouse.

> Then the EDIT view is the icing on the cake, I was the best
> razor-blade editor I knew back in 1980. Today, I constantly tighten up
> parts rhythmically by slipping them a hemidemisemiquaver one way or
> the other, or replace sloppy parts with notes from other sections of
> songs, and I can do it in seconds.

I prefer to work with musicians and genres that don't require that
degree of reassembly. What works for you doesn't necessarily work for
me. You do have the edge, though, since there are more people working
with assembled music than played-and-captured music, so that's what
the industry is going to support most heavily.

ME: the only musician I prefer to work with is myself. My pro days are
over so everything I do is me playing everything. That being said, as
a pro I was an engineer who could read musical charts and had decent
pitch, so if I was asked to punch in that Bb eighth note in the 13 bar
I knew exactly what they meant.

> I clammed an
> A-note in a bass part yesterday, but instead of punching it in I just
> grabbed one from a different part of the song and pasted it in. Cool.

I would have difficulty finding that A note, and once I found it, I
would have difficulty in fitting it in place. I'm not a very visual
person. I would have no problem punching it in, however. And if I
didn't discover the problem until after the musician had gone on tour,
well boo on me. I didn't do my job as producer/engineer.

ME: when you play it yourself you know every note in the song, hence
on screen. In any case, with my ear-training I can usually tell you
what any note I'm hearing is at any given time (as long as I know the
key, I have relative, not perfect pitch). If you miss the clam because
it was buried and the bass has been put away, editing is much better
than getting the bass, matching up the sound, and punching it in.

That being said, I was not opposed to flying in parts from other parts
of songs even in my analog days. I once had to fly in an entire verse
from a bass player who passed away. Copied it to two-track and
wild-synced it back into the master in another spot.

> It took me about 5 seconds. Most parts of songs repeat, so I edit more
> than I punch in these days.

I doubt that I could do it in ten minutes, but then I don't record (or
even listen to) music that's so predictable and repetitive. Also,
since much of my recording is more than one instruent at a time, I'd
have to work harder than you to find a replacement note that had the
same leakage on it, and the bad note may also be on another track.

ME: My music tends to be somewhat repetitive and predictable. I would
say the vast majority of commercial music is. And there are only 12
notes in an octave and most instruments have a usuable range of about
4 octaves. It isn't that hard to find the right note. True, leakage is
a factor. This was a DI bass, but editing drums is more of a challenge
because a kit is by nature very ambient.

> This is, I believe by the way, one advantage of Protools over other
> DAW software: the on-screen information is easier to access than other
> programs. There are basically only 2 main windows whereas other
> software systems may have 1/2 dozen you need to juggle through all the
> time.

But a window is only so wide. If the song is four minutes long, you're
trying to replace a note in the first fifteen seconds and you find a
suitable replacement close to the end of the song, you need to zoom in
to two different places. This means you need to remember a lot of
things - you need to zoom in and set a locate point to get you to the
point where you want to replace the note, you need to zoom out to get
in the ballpark of the replacement note, you need to zoom in, find the
note, copy it, go back to your "insert" locate point, zoom in, do the
edit, listen, locate, move it a bit, listen, locate, move it a bit,
ahhhh. Tell me how you can do that in five seconds.

I think you can move a drum beat a bit ahead or behind in five
seconds. But replace a note? I think you exaggerate.

ME: You look at that screen long enough and you know exactly where
everything is. I had a section with "stops" (easy to see visually) so
I had the perfect note and I knew exactly where it was. 5 seconds may
have been an exageration - it may have been 10 seconds, Sorry, but
only because the replacement note was a quarter instead of a dotted
eighth so I had to use the time trimmer to shorten it.

> Here is another reason for computer recording. The price of ROM. I
> can buy a soft-synth smapler with GBs of sounds. With hardware all of
> those sounds need to be permanently burnt into ROM memory, but with
> soft-synth samplers (romplers) and plug-ins you load samples and
> effects algorhythms into the RAM memory in the computer as needed.

I'll agree. A stick of RAM and a sample CD costs somewhat less than a
fine acoustic guitar, a good microphone, and a suitable room for
recording.

ME: what, you don't use electronic instruments? Let's try a little
perspective here. You seem pretty anti-change with this DAW stuff, Do
you realize there was a time when a LOT of engineers had the exact
same kind of reservations you have, except their beef was multi-track
recording with its punch-in capability? "It makes musicians lazy,
there is no magic to the performance, there is no interaction between
players, sloppy musicians can get away with murder, they can't
reproduce it live..."

[Paul Motter]

MIke... Sorry I missed your long response to me. Here it is....


In article >
writes:

> FWIW - I also believed I wanted to have a hands-on system before I
> went ProTools, which is why I bought the Digi002. I wanted to be able
> to see and feel everything.
>
> I was wrong.

That could be that with the Digi002, you CAN'T see and feel
everything. You have one knob and one fader per channel, and you have
only eight of them even if you have more channels. The 002 replaces
the mouse for certain functions, but it in no way replaces a console.

ME: You are absolutely right, which is why I say in other posts that
I thought I needed it because I was a "hands-on" guy, too. But I was
wrong. It just mimics what you see on the screen. It eventually
becomes an asset, but you have to learn its pecadillos. I was a little
disapponted when I realized that fact after first buying it. Now I
have gotten pretty fast with it, though, and it is better than the
mouse.

> Then the EDIT view is the icing on the cake, I was the best
> razor-blade editor I knew back in 1980. Today, I constantly tighten up
> parts rhythmically by slipping them a hemidemisemiquaver one way or
> the other, or replace sloppy parts with notes from other sections of
> songs, and I can do it in seconds.

I prefer to work with musicians and genres that don't require that
degree of reassembly. What works for you doesn't necessarily work for
me. You do have the edge, though, since there are more people working
with assembled music than played-and-captured music, so that's what
the industry is going to support most heavily.

ME: the only musician I prefer to work with is myself. My pro days are
over so everything I do is me playing everything. That being said, as
a pro I was an engineer who could read musical charts and had decent
pitch, so if I was asked to punch in that Bb eighth note in the 13 bar
I knew exactly what they meant.

> I clammed an
> A-note in a bass part yesterday, but instead of punching it in I just
> grabbed one from a different part of the song and pasted it in. Cool.

I would have difficulty finding that A note, and once I found it, I
would have difficulty in fitting it in place. I'm not a very visual
person. I would have no problem punching it in, however. And if I
didn't discover the problem until after the musician had gone on tour,
well boo on me. I didn't do my job as producer/engineer.

ME: when you play it yourself you know every note in the song, hence
on screen. In any case, with my ear-training I can usually tell you
what any note I'm hearing is at any given time (as long as I know the
key, I have relative, not perfect pitch). If you miss the clam because
it was buried and the bass has been put away, editing is much better
than getting the bass, matching up the sound, and punching it in.

That being said, I was not opposed to flying in parts from other parts
of songs even in my analog days. I once had to fly in an entire verse
from a bass player who passed away. Copied it to two-track and
wild-synced it back into the master in another spot.

> It took me about 5 seconds. Most parts of songs repeat, so I edit more
> than I punch in these days.

I doubt that I could do it in ten minutes, but then I don't record (or
even listen to) music that's so predictable and repetitive. Also,
since much of my recording is more than one instruent at a time, I'd
have to work harder than you to find a replacement note that had the
same leakage on it, and the bad note may also be on another track.

ME: My music tends to be somewhat repetitive and predictable. I would
say the vast majority of commercial music is. And there are only 12
notes in an octave and most instruments have a usuable range of about
4 octaves. It isn't that hard to find the right note. True, leakage is
a factor. This was a DI bass, but editing drums is more of a challenge
because a kit is by nature very ambient.

> This is, I believe by the way, one advantage of Protools over other
> DAW software: the on-screen information is easier to access than other
> programs. There are basically only 2 main windows whereas other
> software systems may have 1/2 dozen you need to juggle through all the
> time.

But a window is only so wide. If the song is four minutes long, you're
trying to replace a note in the first fifteen seconds and you find a
suitable replacement close to the end of the song, you need to zoom in
to two different places. This means you need to remember a lot of
things - you need to zoom in and set a locate point to get you to the
point where you want to replace the note, you need to zoom out to get
in the ballpark of the replacement note, you need to zoom in, find the
note, copy it, go back to your "insert" locate point, zoom in, do the
edit, listen, locate, move it a bit, listen, locate, move it a bit,
ahhhh. Tell me how you can do that in five seconds.

I think you can move a drum beat a bit ahead or behind in five
seconds. But replace a note? I think you exaggerate.

ME: You look at that screen long enough and you know exactly where
everything is. I had a section with "stops" (easy to see visually) so
I had the perfect note and I knew exactly where it was. 5 seconds may
have been an exageration - it may have been 10 seconds, Sorry, but
only because the replacement note was a quarter instead of a dotted
eighth so I had to use the time trimmer to shorten it.

> Here is another reason for computer recording. The price of ROM. I
> can buy a soft-synth smapler with GBs of sounds. With hardware all of
> those sounds need to be permanently burnt into ROM memory, but with
> soft-synth samplers (romplers) and plug-ins you load samples and
> effects algorhythms into the RAM memory in the computer as needed.

I'll agree. A stick of RAM and a sample CD costs somewhat less than a
fine acoustic guitar, a good microphone, and a suitable room for
recording.

ME: what, you don't use electronic instruments? Let's try a little
perspective here. You seem pretty anti-change with this DAW stuff, Do
you realize there was a time when a LOT of engineers had the exact
same kind of reservations you have, except their beef was multi-track
recording with its punch-in capability? "It makes musicians lazy,
there is no magic to the performance, there is no interaction between
players, sloppy musicians can get away with murder, they can't
reproduce it live..."

[Paul Motter]

MIke... Sorry I missed your long response to me. Here it is....


In article >
writes:

> FWIW - I also believed I wanted to have a hands-on system before I
> went ProTools, which is why I bought the Digi002. I wanted to be able
> to see and feel everything.
>
> I was wrong.

That could be that with the Digi002, you CAN'T see and feel
everything. You have one knob and one fader per channel, and you have
only eight of them even if you have more channels. The 002 replaces
the mouse for certain functions, but it in no way replaces a console.

ME: You are absolutely right, which is why I say in other posts that
I thought I needed it because I was a "hands-on" guy, too. But I was
wrong. It just mimics what you see on the screen. It eventually
becomes an asset, but you have to learn its pecadillos. I was a little
disapponted when I realized that fact after first buying it. Now I
have gotten pretty fast with it, though, and it is better than the
mouse.

> Then the EDIT view is the icing on the cake, I was the best
> razor-blade editor I knew back in 1980. Today, I constantly tighten up
> parts rhythmically by slipping them a hemidemisemiquaver one way or
> the other, or replace sloppy parts with notes from other sections of
> songs, and I can do it in seconds.

I prefer to work with musicians and genres that don't require that
degree of reassembly. What works for you doesn't necessarily work for
me. You do have the edge, though, since there are more people working
with assembled music than played-and-captured music, so that's what
the industry is going to support most heavily.

ME: the only musician I prefer to work with is myself. My pro days are
over so everything I do is me playing everything. That being said, as
a pro I was an engineer who could read musical charts and had decent
pitch, so if I was asked to punch in that Bb eighth note in the 13 bar
I knew exactly what they meant.

> I clammed an
> A-note in a bass part yesterday, but instead of punching it in I just
> grabbed one from a different part of the song and pasted it in. Cool.

I would have difficulty finding that A note, and once I found it, I
would have difficulty in fitting it in place. I'm not a very visual
person. I would have no problem punching it in, however. And if I
didn't discover the problem until after the musician had gone on tour,
well boo on me. I didn't do my job as producer/engineer.

ME: when you play it yourself you know every note in the song, hence
on screen. In any case, with my ear-training I can usually tell you
what any note I'm hearing is at any given time (as long as I know the
key, I have relative, not perfect pitch). If you miss the clam because
it was buried and the bass has been put away, editing is much better
than getting the bass, matching up the sound, and punching it in.

That being said, I was not opposed to flying in parts from other parts
of songs even in my analog days. I once had to fly in an entire verse
from a bass player who passed away. Copied it to two-track and
wild-synced it back into the master in another spot.

> It took me about 5 seconds. Most parts of songs repeat, so I edit more
> than I punch in these days.

I doubt that I could do it in ten minutes, but then I don't record (or
even listen to) music that's so predictable and repetitive. Also,
since much of my recording is more than one instruent at a time, I'd
have to work harder than you to find a replacement note that had the
same leakage on it, and the bad note may also be on another track.

ME: My music tends to be somewhat repetitive and predictable. I would
say the vast majority of commercial music is. And there are only 12
notes in an octave and most instruments have a usuable range of about
4 octaves. It isn't that hard to find the right note. True, leakage is
a factor. This was a DI bass, but editing drums is more of a challenge
because a kit is by nature very ambient.

> This is, I believe by the way, one advantage of Protools over other
> DAW software: the on-screen information is easier to access than other
> programs. There are basically only 2 main windows whereas other
> software systems may have 1/2 dozen you need to juggle through all the
> time.

But a window is only so wide. If the song is four minutes long, you're
trying to replace a note in the first fifteen seconds and you find a
suitable replacement close to the end of the song, you need to zoom in
to two different places. This means you need to remember a lot of
things - you need to zoom in and set a locate point to get you to the
point where you want to replace the note, you need to zoom out to get
in the ballpark of the replacement note, you need to zoom in, find the
note, copy it, go back to your "insert" locate point, zoom in, do the
edit, listen, locate, move it a bit, listen, locate, move it a bit,
ahhhh. Tell me how you can do that in five seconds.

I think you can move a drum beat a bit ahead or behind in five
seconds. But replace a note? I think you exaggerate.

ME: You look at that screen long enough and you know exactly where
everything is. I had a section with "stops" (easy to see visually) so
I had the perfect note and I knew exactly where it was. 5 seconds may
have been an exageration - it may have been 10 seconds, Sorry, but
only because the replacement note was a quarter instead of a dotted
eighth so I had to use the time trimmer to shorten it.

> Here is another reason for computer recording. The price of ROM. I
> can buy a soft-synth smapler with GBs of sounds. With hardware all of
> those sounds need to be permanently burnt into ROM memory, but with
> soft-synth samplers (romplers) and plug-ins you load samples and
> effects algorhythms into the RAM memory in the computer as needed.

I'll agree. A stick of RAM and a sample CD costs somewhat less than a
fine acoustic guitar, a good microphone, and a suitable room for
recording.

ME: what, you don't use electronic instruments? Let's try a little
perspective here. You seem pretty anti-change with this DAW stuff, Do
you realize there was a time when a LOT of engineers had the exact
same kind of reservations you have, except their beef was multi-track
recording with its punch-in capability? "It makes musicians lazy,
there is no magic to the performance, there is no interaction between
players, sloppy musicians can get away with murder, they can't
reproduce it live..."

[Marc Wielage]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 19:02:02 -0700, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> True. But my Magnasync dubbers and Bauer interlock system never do that.
>--------------------------------snip----------------------------------<

On the other hand, my ProTools system has never gone into ultra-high-speed
hyperwind, like a MagnaTech mag machine is prone to do, when some idiot put a
bunch of adhesive tape on the very end of the reel.

--MFW

[Marc Wielage]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 19:02:02 -0700, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> True. But my Magnasync dubbers and Bauer interlock system never do that.
>--------------------------------snip----------------------------------<

On the other hand, my ProTools system has never gone into ultra-high-speed
hyperwind, like a MagnaTech mag machine is prone to do, when some idiot put a
bunch of adhesive tape on the very end of the reel.

--MFW

[Marc Wielage]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 19:02:02 -0700, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> True. But my Magnasync dubbers and Bauer interlock system never do that.
>--------------------------------snip----------------------------------<

On the other hand, my ProTools system has never gone into ultra-high-speed
hyperwind, like a MagnaTech mag machine is prone to do, when some idiot put a
bunch of adhesive tape on the very end of the reel.

--MFW

[Scott Dorsey]

Marc Wielage > wrote:
>On Tue, 25 May 2004 19:02:02 -0700, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> True. But my Magnasync dubbers and Bauer interlock system never do that.
>
>On the other hand, my ProTools system has never gone into ultra-high-speed
>hyperwind, like a MagnaTech mag machine is prone to do, when some idiot put a
>bunch of adhesive tape on the very end of the reel.

This is a feature! After all, the Scully recorders had that wonderful
runaway mode that would shoot reels across the room, so it's no wonder
that other manufacturers might want to pick up on this.

Was this a machine with an optical sensor to read sprocket holes by any
chance? I know some of the Kinoton electronic machines can be really
buggered up by tape in the wrong place.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Marc Wielage > wrote:
>On Tue, 25 May 2004 19:02:02 -0700, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> True. But my Magnasync dubbers and Bauer interlock system never do that.
>
>On the other hand, my ProTools system has never gone into ultra-high-speed
>hyperwind, like a MagnaTech mag machine is prone to do, when some idiot put a
>bunch of adhesive tape on the very end of the reel.

This is a feature! After all, the Scully recorders had that wonderful
runaway mode that would shoot reels across the room, so it's no wonder
that other manufacturers might want to pick up on this.

Was this a machine with an optical sensor to read sprocket holes by any
chance? I know some of the Kinoton electronic machines can be really
buggered up by tape in the wrong place.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Marc Wielage > wrote:
>On Tue, 25 May 2004 19:02:02 -0700, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> True. But my Magnasync dubbers and Bauer interlock system never do that.
>
>On the other hand, my ProTools system has never gone into ultra-high-speed
>hyperwind, like a MagnaTech mag machine is prone to do, when some idiot put a
>bunch of adhesive tape on the very end of the reel.

This is a feature! After all, the Scully recorders had that wonderful
runaway mode that would shoot reels across the room, so it's no wonder
that other manufacturers might want to pick up on this.

Was this a machine with an optical sensor to read sprocket holes by any
chance? I know some of the Kinoton electronic machines can be really
buggered up by tape in the wrong place.
--scott

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

[EggHd]

<< After all, the Scully recorders had that wonderful
runaway mode that would shoot reels across the room, so it's no wonder
that other manufacturers might want to pick up on this. >>

Stephens machines in the scan mode if left unattended would creat a tape
tornado like one has never seen.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< After all, the Scully recorders had that wonderful
runaway mode that would shoot reels across the room, so it's no wonder
that other manufacturers might want to pick up on this. >>

Stephens machines in the scan mode if left unattended would creat a tape
tornado like one has never seen.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< After all, the Scully recorders had that wonderful
runaway mode that would shoot reels across the room, so it's no wonder
that other manufacturers might want to pick up on this. >>

Stephens machines in the scan mode if left unattended would creat a tape
tornado like one has never seen.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[hollywood_steve]

(Paul Motter) wrote in message >...
> Well . . .
>
> I *DO* know a lot about computers

Me to, but for appropriate applications like risk modelling and
project simulations. When it comes to audio, I'd go with a dedicated
hard disk recorder. Unless you believe that you will be editing
individual beats, I find that a dedicated recorder has very
significant advantages over a combination spreadsheet /porn library /
music-maker. For the type of work I do (recording traditional
acoustic music, performed by musicians in real time), a dedicated
recorder can't be beat - not even a contest.

Evaluate what you really need out of your system. If you want to
capture recordings of music performed by musicians, go with a
recorder. If you want to set yourself up as the grand wizard of
borrowed beats, get a computer.

steve

[hollywood_steve]

(Paul Motter) wrote in message >...
> Well . . .
>
> I *DO* know a lot about computers

Me to, but for appropriate applications like risk modelling and
project simulations. When it comes to audio, I'd go with a dedicated
hard disk recorder. Unless you believe that you will be editing
individual beats, I find that a dedicated recorder has very
significant advantages over a combination spreadsheet /porn library /
music-maker. For the type of work I do (recording traditional
acoustic music, performed by musicians in real time), a dedicated
recorder can't be beat - not even a contest.

Evaluate what you really need out of your system. If you want to
capture recordings of music performed by musicians, go with a
recorder. If you want to set yourself up as the grand wizard of
borrowed beats, get a computer.

steve

[hollywood_steve]

(Paul Motter) wrote in message >...
> Well . . .
>
> I *DO* know a lot about computers

Me to, but for appropriate applications like risk modelling and
project simulations. When it comes to audio, I'd go with a dedicated
hard disk recorder. Unless you believe that you will be editing
individual beats, I find that a dedicated recorder has very
significant advantages over a combination spreadsheet /porn library /
music-maker. For the type of work I do (recording traditional
acoustic music, performed by musicians in real time), a dedicated
recorder can't be beat - not even a contest.

Evaluate what you really need out of your system. If you want to
capture recordings of music performed by musicians, go with a
recorder. If you want to set yourself up as the grand wizard of
borrowed beats, get a computer.

steve

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 26 May 2004 20:23:39 GMT, (EggHd) wrote:

><< After all, the Scully recorders had that wonderful
>runaway mode that would shoot reels across the room, so it's no wonder
>that other manufacturers might want to pick up on this. >>
>
>Stephens machines in the scan mode if left unattended would creat a tape
>tornado like one has never seen.

The 800 series Crowns, otherwise unpretentious, were also
very impressive in this category, even well attended.

Chris Hornbeck
"Art perhaps unfortunately is not the sphere of good intentions."
Pauline Kael 1956

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 26 May 2004 20:23:39 GMT, (EggHd) wrote:

><< After all, the Scully recorders had that wonderful
>runaway mode that would shoot reels across the room, so it's no wonder
>that other manufacturers might want to pick up on this. >>
>
>Stephens machines in the scan mode if left unattended would creat a tape
>tornado like one has never seen.

The 800 series Crowns, otherwise unpretentious, were also
very impressive in this category, even well attended.

Chris Hornbeck
"Art perhaps unfortunately is not the sphere of good intentions."
Pauline Kael 1956

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 26 May 2004 20:23:39 GMT, (EggHd) wrote:

><< After all, the Scully recorders had that wonderful
>runaway mode that would shoot reels across the room, so it's no wonder
>that other manufacturers might want to pick up on this. >>
>
>Stephens machines in the scan mode if left unattended would creat a tape
>tornado like one has never seen.

The 800 series Crowns, otherwise unpretentious, were also
very impressive in this category, even well attended.

Chris Hornbeck
"Art perhaps unfortunately is not the sphere of good intentions."
Pauline Kael 1956

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> ME: what, you don't use electronic instruments? Let's try a little
> perspective here. You seem pretty anti-change with this DAW stuff

I acknowledge that there are very good uses for a DAW, and I have,
throughout this thread. However, I'm trying to present the other side,
the places where a DAW isn't necessarily an advantage, and because I'd
have to spend a lot of money and time eqipping myself to work that, it
simply doesn't make sense for me to make the move. If I was just
starting out today, I'd certainly consider going that route and just
learning the DAW like I learned traditional recording and production
techniques, and learning software maintenance like I learned
electronic maintenance.

If I was a full time working studio, I would have to use a DAW in
order to keep working. But I'm a hobbyist with some pretty good
equipment that I use now and then. I'm just a little bit of a musician
who has no aspirations to record myself, so all the work I do, I do
for others, about as much as favors as for pay. So as long as what I
have works, I'll continue to use it, and to support it, and to not
discourge others from doing the same (but I'll discourage someone from
using a 1/2" 8-track analog recorder as a signal processor for his DAW
because he thinks it'll give him that warm analog sound).

> Do
> you realize there was a time when a LOT of engineers had the exact
> same kind of reservations you have, except their beef was multi-track
> recording with its punch-in capability? "It makes musicians lazy,
> there is no magic to the performance, there is no interaction between
> players, sloppy musicians can get away with murder, they can't
> reproduce it live..."

A few say that, but most welcomed multitrack recording because it
offered more options in mixing. Punching in came along later, and the
concept of musicians on a project never actually playing together was
really more of a novelty than anything else when it was first
conceived. However, all of those innovations were embraced by the
artists and the record labels, and they were paying the bills. When
you don't have anyone paying the bills, you have to think about how
much you want to keep up with the rest of the starving artists who
record themselves.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> ME: what, you don't use electronic instruments? Let's try a little
> perspective here. You seem pretty anti-change with this DAW stuff

I acknowledge that there are very good uses for a DAW, and I have,
throughout this thread. However, I'm trying to present the other side,
the places where a DAW isn't necessarily an advantage, and because I'd
have to spend a lot of money and time eqipping myself to work that, it
simply doesn't make sense for me to make the move. If I was just
starting out today, I'd certainly consider going that route and just
learning the DAW like I learned traditional recording and production
techniques, and learning software maintenance like I learned
electronic maintenance.

If I was a full time working studio, I would have to use a DAW in
order to keep working. But I'm a hobbyist with some pretty good
equipment that I use now and then. I'm just a little bit of a musician
who has no aspirations to record myself, so all the work I do, I do
for others, about as much as favors as for pay. So as long as what I
have works, I'll continue to use it, and to support it, and to not
discourge others from doing the same (but I'll discourage someone from
using a 1/2" 8-track analog recorder as a signal processor for his DAW
because he thinks it'll give him that warm analog sound).

> Do
> you realize there was a time when a LOT of engineers had the exact
> same kind of reservations you have, except their beef was multi-track
> recording with its punch-in capability? "It makes musicians lazy,
> there is no magic to the performance, there is no interaction between
> players, sloppy musicians can get away with murder, they can't
> reproduce it live..."

A few say that, but most welcomed multitrack recording because it
offered more options in mixing. Punching in came along later, and the
concept of musicians on a project never actually playing together was
really more of a novelty than anything else when it was first
conceived. However, all of those innovations were embraced by the
artists and the record labels, and they were paying the bills. When
you don't have anyone paying the bills, you have to think about how
much you want to keep up with the rest of the starving artists who
record themselves.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> ME: what, you don't use electronic instruments? Let's try a little
> perspective here. You seem pretty anti-change with this DAW stuff

I acknowledge that there are very good uses for a DAW, and I have,
throughout this thread. However, I'm trying to present the other side,
the places where a DAW isn't necessarily an advantage, and because I'd
have to spend a lot of money and time eqipping myself to work that, it
simply doesn't make sense for me to make the move. If I was just
starting out today, I'd certainly consider going that route and just
learning the DAW like I learned traditional recording and production
techniques, and learning software maintenance like I learned
electronic maintenance.

If I was a full time working studio, I would have to use a DAW in
order to keep working. But I'm a hobbyist with some pretty good
equipment that I use now and then. I'm just a little bit of a musician
who has no aspirations to record myself, so all the work I do, I do
for others, about as much as favors as for pay. So as long as what I
have works, I'll continue to use it, and to support it, and to not
discourge others from doing the same (but I'll discourage someone from
using a 1/2" 8-track analog recorder as a signal processor for his DAW
because he thinks it'll give him that warm analog sound).

> Do
> you realize there was a time when a LOT of engineers had the exact
> same kind of reservations you have, except their beef was multi-track
> recording with its punch-in capability? "It makes musicians lazy,
> there is no magic to the performance, there is no interaction between
> players, sloppy musicians can get away with murder, they can't
> reproduce it live..."

A few say that, but most welcomed multitrack recording because it
offered more options in mixing. Punching in came along later, and the
concept of musicians on a project never actually playing together was
really more of a novelty than anything else when it was first
conceived. However, all of those innovations were embraced by the
artists and the record labels, and they were paying the bills. When
you don't have anyone paying the bills, you have to think about how
much you want to keep up with the rest of the starving artists who
record themselves.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Marc Wielage]

On Wed, 26 May 2004 12:45:50 -0700, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Was this a machine with an optical sensor to read sprocket holes by any
> chance?
>--------------------------------snip----------------------------------<

No, just your standard Magnatech 35mm transport. Very mechanical, no fancy
sprocket-reading stuff. All the ones I've used have been modified for
high-speed following, with the big roller arms. I dunno how they compare to
Magnasync, since I haven't used those.

The Magnatech's are still capable of surprisingly good fidelity, particularly
with Dolby SR, but most studios have moved away from giving us 35mm mags for
features any more. Nowadays, it's either DA88, or in some cases, a hard
drive that's driven by a Tascam MMR-8.





> I know some of the Kinoton electronic machines can be really
> buggered up by tape in the wrong place.
>--------------------------------snip----------------------------------<

Actually, for a couple of months, I used a Kinoton projector to compare a
film image to a digital image. That thing had a helluva good transport --
probably the closest thing to "feeling" like a VTR or audio transport I've
ever seen, from a 35mm film projector. They're very expensive, though.
Never had a problem with tape splices on the thing, though it might
momentarily bump vertically a little bit at that point.

--MFW

[Marc Wielage]

On Wed, 26 May 2004 12:45:50 -0700, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Was this a machine with an optical sensor to read sprocket holes by any
> chance?
>--------------------------------snip----------------------------------<

No, just your standard Magnatech 35mm transport. Very mechanical, no fancy
sprocket-reading stuff. All the ones I've used have been modified for
high-speed following, with the big roller arms. I dunno how they compare to
Magnasync, since I haven't used those.

The Magnatech's are still capable of surprisingly good fidelity, particularly
with Dolby SR, but most studios have moved away from giving us 35mm mags for
features any more. Nowadays, it's either DA88, or in some cases, a hard
drive that's driven by a Tascam MMR-8.





> I know some of the Kinoton electronic machines can be really
> buggered up by tape in the wrong place.
>--------------------------------snip----------------------------------<

Actually, for a couple of months, I used a Kinoton projector to compare a
film image to a digital image. That thing had a helluva good transport --
probably the closest thing to "feeling" like a VTR or audio transport I've
ever seen, from a 35mm film projector. They're very expensive, though.
Never had a problem with tape splices on the thing, though it might
momentarily bump vertically a little bit at that point.

--MFW

[Marc Wielage]

On Wed, 26 May 2004 12:45:50 -0700, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Was this a machine with an optical sensor to read sprocket holes by any
> chance?
>--------------------------------snip----------------------------------<

No, just your standard Magnatech 35mm transport. Very mechanical, no fancy
sprocket-reading stuff. All the ones I've used have been modified for
high-speed following, with the big roller arms. I dunno how they compare to
Magnasync, since I haven't used those.

The Magnatech's are still capable of surprisingly good fidelity, particularly
with Dolby SR, but most studios have moved away from giving us 35mm mags for
features any more. Nowadays, it's either DA88, or in some cases, a hard
drive that's driven by a Tascam MMR-8.





> I know some of the Kinoton electronic machines can be really
> buggered up by tape in the wrong place.
>--------------------------------snip----------------------------------<

Actually, for a couple of months, I used a Kinoton projector to compare a
film image to a digital image. That thing had a helluva good transport --
probably the closest thing to "feeling" like a VTR or audio transport I've
ever seen, from a 35mm film projector. They're very expensive, though.
Never had a problem with tape splices on the thing, though it might
momentarily bump vertically a little bit at that point.

--MFW

[Scott Dorsey]

Marc Wielage > wrote:
>On Wed, 26 May 2004 12:45:50 -0700, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>No, just your standard Magnatech 35mm transport. Very mechanical, no fancy
>sprocket-reading stuff. All the ones I've used have been modified for
>high-speed following, with the big roller arms. I dunno how they compare to
>Magnasync, since I haven't used those.

They are a hell of a lot better than the Magnasyncs. It has taken some
very serious engineering work just to get my Magnasync 2000 machines to
sound decent at all. The Magnatech machines are really hard to beat
for stability and low flutter. The Magnasync machines were designed to
be cheap.

>The Magnatech's are still capable of surprisingly good fidelity, particularly
>with Dolby SR, but most studios have moved away from giving us 35mm mags for
>features any more. Nowadays, it's either DA88, or in some cases, a hard
>drive that's driven by a Tascam MMR-8.

I'm pretty much a bottom feeder in that market and I am just getting the
occasional indy production that edits on magfilm. Most always 16mm mag
even for dialogue but occasionally 35 and occasionally a mix of DA-88 and
mag tracks. Everything around here is pretty obsolete, but there is much
less of a market for obsolete film mix facilities than music recording
facilities. It's paid for, though.

>> I know some of the Kinoton electronic machines can be really
>> buggered up by tape in the wrong place.
>
>Actually, for a couple of months, I used a Kinoton projector to compare a
>film image to a digital image. That thing had a helluva good transport --
>probably the closest thing to "feeling" like a VTR or audio transport I've
>ever seen, from a 35mm film projector. They're very expensive, though.

Our local art house is running a pair of the electronic Kinotons, and
they are really amazing.

I'm running the Bauer interlock projectors for 16mm, and one of the
Magnasync projectors for 35mm. The Magnasyncs feel very much like an
audio transport and very easily can be rocked back and forth, but at
the expense of a prism assembly that results in really, really rotten
image quality. The Kinoton electronic machines are really the first
boxes around that can do that kind of thing and actually look good.

So, how did your film/digital comparison look?

>Never had a problem with tape splices on the thing, though it might
>momentarily bump vertically a little bit at that point.

They are REALLY good about dealing with bad splices and you never have to
worry about losing the loop on bad and shrunken film. The problem is
with hold-down tapes. If they come loose and get stuck over some of the
sensors the machine can go berserk in various ways.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Marc Wielage > wrote:
>On Wed, 26 May 2004 12:45:50 -0700, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>No, just your standard Magnatech 35mm transport. Very mechanical, no fancy
>sprocket-reading stuff. All the ones I've used have been modified for
>high-speed following, with the big roller arms. I dunno how they compare to
>Magnasync, since I haven't used those.

They are a hell of a lot better than the Magnasyncs. It has taken some
very serious engineering work just to get my Magnasync 2000 machines to
sound decent at all. The Magnatech machines are really hard to beat
for stability and low flutter. The Magnasync machines were designed to
be cheap.

>The Magnatech's are still capable of surprisingly good fidelity, particularly
>with Dolby SR, but most studios have moved away from giving us 35mm mags for
>features any more. Nowadays, it's either DA88, or in some cases, a hard
>drive that's driven by a Tascam MMR-8.

I'm pretty much a bottom feeder in that market and I am just getting the
occasional indy production that edits on magfilm. Most always 16mm mag
even for dialogue but occasionally 35 and occasionally a mix of DA-88 and
mag tracks. Everything around here is pretty obsolete, but there is much
less of a market for obsolete film mix facilities than music recording
facilities. It's paid for, though.

>> I know some of the Kinoton electronic machines can be really
>> buggered up by tape in the wrong place.
>
>Actually, for a couple of months, I used a Kinoton projector to compare a
>film image to a digital image. That thing had a helluva good transport --
>probably the closest thing to "feeling" like a VTR or audio transport I've
>ever seen, from a 35mm film projector. They're very expensive, though.

Our local art house is running a pair of the electronic Kinotons, and
they are really amazing.

I'm running the Bauer interlock projectors for 16mm, and one of the
Magnasync projectors for 35mm. The Magnasyncs feel very much like an
audio transport and very easily can be rocked back and forth, but at
the expense of a prism assembly that results in really, really rotten
image quality. The Kinoton electronic machines are really the first
boxes around that can do that kind of thing and actually look good.

So, how did your film/digital comparison look?

>Never had a problem with tape splices on the thing, though it might
>momentarily bump vertically a little bit at that point.

They are REALLY good about dealing with bad splices and you never have to
worry about losing the loop on bad and shrunken film. The problem is
with hold-down tapes. If they come loose and get stuck over some of the
sensors the machine can go berserk in various ways.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Marc Wielage > wrote:
>On Wed, 26 May 2004 12:45:50 -0700, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>No, just your standard Magnatech 35mm transport. Very mechanical, no fancy
>sprocket-reading stuff. All the ones I've used have been modified for
>high-speed following, with the big roller arms. I dunno how they compare to
>Magnasync, since I haven't used those.

They are a hell of a lot better than the Magnasyncs. It has taken some
very serious engineering work just to get my Magnasync 2000 machines to
sound decent at all. The Magnatech machines are really hard to beat
for stability and low flutter. The Magnasync machines were designed to
be cheap.

>The Magnatech's are still capable of surprisingly good fidelity, particularly
>with Dolby SR, but most studios have moved away from giving us 35mm mags for
>features any more. Nowadays, it's either DA88, or in some cases, a hard
>drive that's driven by a Tascam MMR-8.

I'm pretty much a bottom feeder in that market and I am just getting the
occasional indy production that edits on magfilm. Most always 16mm mag
even for dialogue but occasionally 35 and occasionally a mix of DA-88 and
mag tracks. Everything around here is pretty obsolete, but there is much
less of a market for obsolete film mix facilities than music recording
facilities. It's paid for, though.

>> I know some of the Kinoton electronic machines can be really
>> buggered up by tape in the wrong place.
>
>Actually, for a couple of months, I used a Kinoton projector to compare a
>film image to a digital image. That thing had a helluva good transport --
>probably the closest thing to "feeling" like a VTR or audio transport I've
>ever seen, from a 35mm film projector. They're very expensive, though.

Our local art house is running a pair of the electronic Kinotons, and
they are really amazing.

I'm running the Bauer interlock projectors for 16mm, and one of the
Magnasync projectors for 35mm. The Magnasyncs feel very much like an
audio transport and very easily can be rocked back and forth, but at
the expense of a prism assembly that results in really, really rotten
image quality. The Kinoton electronic machines are really the first
boxes around that can do that kind of thing and actually look good.

So, how did your film/digital comparison look?

>Never had a problem with tape splices on the thing, though it might
>momentarily bump vertically a little bit at that point.

They are REALLY good about dealing with bad splices and you never have to
worry about losing the loop on bad and shrunken film. The problem is
with hold-down tapes. If they come loose and get stuck over some of the
sensors the machine can go berserk in various ways.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Dean]

(Mike Rivers) wrote in message news:<znr1085452312k@trad>...
> In article > writes:
I still find it much easier to locate an edit point by ear and
>>>there's no better way to do that than by rocking an analog tape
reel.<< DAWs come close with their imitation "scrub" action, but the
hand-to-ear coordination isn't
> really there. So you have to substitute the visual representation.

> The key word here is "building." A DAW is a great construction tool.
> No argument there. But I prefer the song to be built by the singer,
> and performed for recording, rather than recorded for construction.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I know you are like the Pope here, but Martin Luther has nailed his
computer graphic message to the church door.

You say there is no better way to locate an edit point than rocking an
analog reel? You must be "reeling in the years".

Art versus science is another red herring. For example; I've heard
engineers say
that, low end sounds muddy, let me (artistically) apply some EQ to
that low end.

On the level of science however maybe the kick drum is tuned to an
augmented 4th from the tonic of the song, and no amount of eq is going
to keep it from sounding like dissonant feces.

Does an artist with a finished song (not needing construction) prefer
to (almost literally) blindly lay tracks down, or do the want to see
the wavs, and be able to instantly manipulate their creation!? I give
you credit for trying to find a hole in my argument. You must be
playing the devil's advocate. You must be since you work with graphics
too. Your argument doesn't hold up.

And no offense, I respect the Pope, just as I respect you for
everything you are doing here on this board. dB

[Dean]

(Mike Rivers) wrote in message news:<znr1085452312k@trad>...
> In article > writes:
I still find it much easier to locate an edit point by ear and
>>>there's no better way to do that than by rocking an analog tape
reel.<< DAWs come close with their imitation "scrub" action, but the
hand-to-ear coordination isn't
> really there. So you have to substitute the visual representation.

> The key word here is "building." A DAW is a great construction tool.
> No argument there. But I prefer the song to be built by the singer,
> and performed for recording, rather than recorded for construction.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I know you are like the Pope here, but Martin Luther has nailed his
computer graphic message to the church door.

You say there is no better way to locate an edit point than rocking an
analog reel? You must be "reeling in the years".

Art versus science is another red herring. For example; I've heard
engineers say
that, low end sounds muddy, let me (artistically) apply some EQ to
that low end.

On the level of science however maybe the kick drum is tuned to an
augmented 4th from the tonic of the song, and no amount of eq is going
to keep it from sounding like dissonant feces.

Does an artist with a finished song (not needing construction) prefer
to (almost literally) blindly lay tracks down, or do the want to see
the wavs, and be able to instantly manipulate their creation!? I give
you credit for trying to find a hole in my argument. You must be
playing the devil's advocate. You must be since you work with graphics
too. Your argument doesn't hold up.

And no offense, I respect the Pope, just as I respect you for
everything you are doing here on this board. dB

[Dean]

(Mike Rivers) wrote in message news:<znr1085452312k@trad>...
> In article > writes:
I still find it much easier to locate an edit point by ear and
>>>there's no better way to do that than by rocking an analog tape
reel.<< DAWs come close with their imitation "scrub" action, but the
hand-to-ear coordination isn't
> really there. So you have to substitute the visual representation.

> The key word here is "building." A DAW is a great construction tool.
> No argument there. But I prefer the song to be built by the singer,
> and performed for recording, rather than recorded for construction.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I know you are like the Pope here, but Martin Luther has nailed his
computer graphic message to the church door.

You say there is no better way to locate an edit point than rocking an
analog reel? You must be "reeling in the years".

Art versus science is another red herring. For example; I've heard
engineers say
that, low end sounds muddy, let me (artistically) apply some EQ to
that low end.

On the level of science however maybe the kick drum is tuned to an
augmented 4th from the tonic of the song, and no amount of eq is going
to keep it from sounding like dissonant feces.

Does an artist with a finished song (not needing construction) prefer
to (almost literally) blindly lay tracks down, or do the want to see
the wavs, and be able to instantly manipulate their creation!? I give
you credit for trying to find a hole in my argument. You must be
playing the devil's advocate. You must be since you work with graphics
too. Your argument doesn't hold up.

And no offense, I respect the Pope, just as I respect you for
everything you are doing here on this board. dB

[Scott Dorsey]

Dean > wrote:
>
>You say there is no better way to locate an edit point than rocking an
>analog reel? You must be "reeling in the years".

No, you can rock the same way on a lot of digital systems. The Orban did
a wonderful job of it. It's not a matter of just finding a quiet spot,
it's a matter of finding a spot that blends sometimes. That's easier to
do with real tape or a scrubbing function on a DAW. It's a shame that a
lot of newer DAW systems don't have real scrubbing, but it's not a hard
thing to implement and it's worth a few bytes.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Dean > wrote:
>
>You say there is no better way to locate an edit point than rocking an
>analog reel? You must be "reeling in the years".

No, you can rock the same way on a lot of digital systems. The Orban did
a wonderful job of it. It's not a matter of just finding a quiet spot,
it's a matter of finding a spot that blends sometimes. That's easier to
do with real tape or a scrubbing function on a DAW. It's a shame that a
lot of newer DAW systems don't have real scrubbing, but it's not a hard
thing to implement and it's worth a few bytes.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Dean > wrote:
>
>You say there is no better way to locate an edit point than rocking an
>analog reel? You must be "reeling in the years".

No, you can rock the same way on a lot of digital systems. The Orban did
a wonderful job of it. It's not a matter of just finding a quiet spot,
it's a matter of finding a spot that blends sometimes. That's easier to
do with real tape or a scrubbing function on a DAW. It's a shame that a
lot of newer DAW systems don't have real scrubbing, but it's not a hard
thing to implement and it's worth a few bytes.
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Does an artist with a finished song (not needing construction) prefer
> to (almost literally) blindly lay tracks down, or do the want to see
> the wavs, and be able to instantly manipulate their creation!?

Depends on the artist. If it's you, I guess you want to look at the
waveforms and manipulate them. Guess that song wasn't quite as
finished as you thought it was, eh?

The artists I prefer to work with say "That was a great take" and move
on to the next one. The don't need to look at anything, just listen.

> You must be
> playing the devil's advocate. You must be since you work with graphics
> too. Your argument doesn't hold up.

I do? How so? I have said, perhaps even in this thread, that I'm not a
very visually oriented person. Sure, like everybody else who has to
put together digital recordings, I have a DAW, and it has graphics.
But if I have to do some editing, I resist the temptation to zoom down
to the cycle level and just edit where my ears tell me. It works far
more often than it doesn't, and takes less time than zooming.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Does an artist with a finished song (not needing construction) prefer
> to (almost literally) blindly lay tracks down, or do the want to see
> the wavs, and be able to instantly manipulate their creation!?

Depends on the artist. If it's you, I guess you want to look at the
waveforms and manipulate them. Guess that song wasn't quite as
finished as you thought it was, eh?

The artists I prefer to work with say "That was a great take" and move
on to the next one. The don't need to look at anything, just listen.

> You must be
> playing the devil's advocate. You must be since you work with graphics
> too. Your argument doesn't hold up.

I do? How so? I have said, perhaps even in this thread, that I'm not a
very visually oriented person. Sure, like everybody else who has to
put together digital recordings, I have a DAW, and it has graphics.
But if I have to do some editing, I resist the temptation to zoom down
to the cycle level and just edit where my ears tell me. It works far
more often than it doesn't, and takes less time than zooming.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Does an artist with a finished song (not needing construction) prefer
> to (almost literally) blindly lay tracks down, or do the want to see
> the wavs, and be able to instantly manipulate their creation!?

Depends on the artist. If it's you, I guess you want to look at the
waveforms and manipulate them. Guess that song wasn't quite as
finished as you thought it was, eh?

The artists I prefer to work with say "That was a great take" and move
on to the next one. The don't need to look at anything, just listen.

> You must be
> playing the devil's advocate. You must be since you work with graphics
> too. Your argument doesn't hold up.

I do? How so? I have said, perhaps even in this thread, that I'm not a
very visually oriented person. Sure, like everybody else who has to
put together digital recordings, I have a DAW, and it has graphics.
But if I have to do some editing, I resist the temptation to zoom down
to the cycle level and just edit where my ears tell me. It works far
more often than it doesn't, and takes less time than zooming.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Richard Kuschel]

(EggHd) wrote in message
>...
>> << But I find it ironic that what you are raving about is how these
>> software packages help you VISUALLY. >>
>>
>> OK So I am working in a full analog room. I see all the same things
VISUALLY
>> expect for wave forms.
>>
>> I see the fader levels, EQ settings on all channels at ones, every piece
>of
>> outboard compression and EQ is visual. Boost, cut, freq., Q ... Compressor
>> settings including gain reduction and input/ouput.
>>
>> Not making a comment on the sound of the system it's very visual in an
>analog
>> studio.
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------
>> "I know enough to know I don't know enough"
>
>Point well taken but it's still not exactly the same. When I'm working
>with my DAW, I often find myself staring at the waveforms and suddenly
>I realize my ears have been shut off for the past few minutes.
>
>I actually have to turn away from the screen periodically to make sure
>I'm actually listening.
>
>Analogeezer
>
>

The human has a brain which is analogous to a computer with limited RAM.

When you really want to hear music, you shut your eyes you hear the music
better. The brain isn't doing so much multitasking.

When you do this while mixing, you can still keep your hands on the faders and
mix.

Doing this with a mouse or even most interfaces is really a PITA.

Can I be more accurate with a DAW? Certainly! Is it better? Not necessarily,
it may have been ProTooled to death.
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

[Richard Kuschel]

(EggHd) wrote in message
>...
>> << But I find it ironic that what you are raving about is how these
>> software packages help you VISUALLY. >>
>>
>> OK So I am working in a full analog room. I see all the same things
VISUALLY
>> expect for wave forms.
>>
>> I see the fader levels, EQ settings on all channels at ones, every piece
>of
>> outboard compression and EQ is visual. Boost, cut, freq., Q ... Compressor
>> settings including gain reduction and input/ouput.
>>
>> Not making a comment on the sound of the system it's very visual in an
>analog
>> studio.
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------
>> "I know enough to know I don't know enough"
>
>Point well taken but it's still not exactly the same. When I'm working
>with my DAW, I often find myself staring at the waveforms and suddenly
>I realize my ears have been shut off for the past few minutes.
>
>I actually have to turn away from the screen periodically to make sure
>I'm actually listening.
>
>Analogeezer
>
>

The human has a brain which is analogous to a computer with limited RAM.

When you really want to hear music, you shut your eyes you hear the music
better. The brain isn't doing so much multitasking.

When you do this while mixing, you can still keep your hands on the faders and
mix.

Doing this with a mouse or even most interfaces is really a PITA.

Can I be more accurate with a DAW? Certainly! Is it better? Not necessarily,
it may have been ProTooled to death.
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

[Richard Kuschel]

(EggHd) wrote in message
>...
>> << But I find it ironic that what you are raving about is how these
>> software packages help you VISUALLY. >>
>>
>> OK So I am working in a full analog room. I see all the same things
VISUALLY
>> expect for wave forms.
>>
>> I see the fader levels, EQ settings on all channels at ones, every piece
>of
>> outboard compression and EQ is visual. Boost, cut, freq., Q ... Compressor
>> settings including gain reduction and input/ouput.
>>
>> Not making a comment on the sound of the system it's very visual in an
>analog
>> studio.
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------
>> "I know enough to know I don't know enough"
>
>Point well taken but it's still not exactly the same. When I'm working
>with my DAW, I often find myself staring at the waveforms and suddenly
>I realize my ears have been shut off for the past few minutes.
>
>I actually have to turn away from the screen periodically to make sure
>I'm actually listening.
>
>Analogeezer
>
>

The human has a brain which is analogous to a computer with limited RAM.

When you really want to hear music, you shut your eyes you hear the music
better. The brain isn't doing so much multitasking.

When you do this while mixing, you can still keep your hands on the faders and
mix.

Doing this with a mouse or even most interfaces is really a PITA.

Can I be more accurate with a DAW? Certainly! Is it better? Not necessarily,
it may have been ProTooled to death.
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

[Richard Kuschel]

>
>I get this when mastering CDs. It's almost impossible to tell if the gap
>between two songs is correct if you can see the little cursor moving
>between the songs.
>
>Another thing, and this is getting off topic...
>
>Does anyone else find that gaps between tracks on a CD somehow sound
>shorter when you get it back?
>The CD length+track times are the same but somehow the gaps sound
>slightly shorter. I've taken to adding another 1/4 second to all gaps
>after getting them 'right' to compensate. Strange how perception changes.
>
>
>
>
>

I do, I think it's becauuse that when I do this that i tend to get in a hurry.

In the old analog days, the slower pace of cutting and pasting didn't allow
that to happen.
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

[Richard Kuschel]

>
>I get this when mastering CDs. It's almost impossible to tell if the gap
>between two songs is correct if you can see the little cursor moving
>between the songs.
>
>Another thing, and this is getting off topic...
>
>Does anyone else find that gaps between tracks on a CD somehow sound
>shorter when you get it back?
>The CD length+track times are the same but somehow the gaps sound
>slightly shorter. I've taken to adding another 1/4 second to all gaps
>after getting them 'right' to compensate. Strange how perception changes.
>
>
>
>
>

I do, I think it's becauuse that when I do this that i tend to get in a hurry.

In the old analog days, the slower pace of cutting and pasting didn't allow
that to happen.
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

[Richard Kuschel]

>
>I get this when mastering CDs. It's almost impossible to tell if the gap
>between two songs is correct if you can see the little cursor moving
>between the songs.
>
>Another thing, and this is getting off topic...
>
>Does anyone else find that gaps between tracks on a CD somehow sound
>shorter when you get it back?
>The CD length+track times are the same but somehow the gaps sound
>slightly shorter. I've taken to adding another 1/4 second to all gaps
>after getting them 'right' to compensate. Strange how perception changes.
>
>
>
>
>

I do, I think it's becauuse that when I do this that i tend to get in a hurry.

In the old analog days, the slower pace of cutting and pasting didn't allow
that to happen.
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

[Richard Kuschel]

> But WHY? You can't hear a single sample.
>
>No, but you can hear about six of them, AKA a tic on a LP.

I can hear a single sample if it is a tic or digital fart on a DAW.

also eliminate those easliy on a DAW
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

[Richard Kuschel]

> But WHY? You can't hear a single sample.
>
>No, but you can hear about six of them, AKA a tic on a LP.

I can hear a single sample if it is a tic or digital fart on a DAW.

also eliminate those easliy on a DAW
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

[Richard Kuschel]

> But WHY? You can't hear a single sample.
>
>No, but you can hear about six of them, AKA a tic on a LP.

I can hear a single sample if it is a tic or digital fart on a DAW.

also eliminate those easliy on a DAW
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

[ScotFraser]

<< When you really want to hear music, you shut your eyes you hear the music
better. >>

Doesn't work for me. When I close my eyes I hear the monkey chatter in my
brain, then fall asleep. I listen with my eyes open.


Scott Fraser

[ScotFraser]

<< When you really want to hear music, you shut your eyes you hear the music
better. >>

Doesn't work for me. When I close my eyes I hear the monkey chatter in my
brain, then fall asleep. I listen with my eyes open.


Scott Fraser

[ScotFraser]

<< When you really want to hear music, you shut your eyes you hear the music
better. >>

Doesn't work for me. When I close my eyes I hear the monkey chatter in my
brain, then fall asleep. I listen with my eyes open.


Scott Fraser

[Benjamin Maas]

"ScotFraser" > wrote in message ...
> << When you really want to hear music, you shut your eyes you hear the
music
> better. >>
>
> Doesn't work for me. When I close my eyes I hear the monkey chatter in my
> brain, then fall asleep. I listen with my eyes open.
>
>
> Scott Fraser

Hey Scott-

There are doctors and medications for the monkey chatter.... <VBG>

--Ben

--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com

Please remove "Nospam" from address for replies

[Benjamin Maas]

"ScotFraser" > wrote in message ...
> << When you really want to hear music, you shut your eyes you hear the
music
> better. >>
>
> Doesn't work for me. When I close my eyes I hear the monkey chatter in my
> brain, then fall asleep. I listen with my eyes open.
>
>
> Scott Fraser

Hey Scott-

There are doctors and medications for the monkey chatter.... <VBG>

--Ben

--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com

Please remove "Nospam" from address for replies

[Benjamin Maas]

"ScotFraser" > wrote in message ...
> << When you really want to hear music, you shut your eyes you hear the
music
> better. >>
>
> Doesn't work for me. When I close my eyes I hear the monkey chatter in my
> brain, then fall asleep. I listen with my eyes open.
>
>
> Scott Fraser

Hey Scott-

There are doctors and medications for the monkey chatter.... <VBG>

--Ben

--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com

Please remove "Nospam" from address for replies

[Aaron J. Grier]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
> Depends on the context. With live music I never go down to the sample
> level. But I do like those nice tight edits with automatic smoothing.

can you hear the difference? or just see it?

(and I have to ask:) I assume you've done ABX testing to prove the sonic
necessity of "tight edits with automatic smoothing" to yourself?

> (1) The ability to isolate, listen to, and modify sounds, regardless
> of how small or short they are. Sample-level editing is feasible, even
> easy, and can be the tool that gets certain jobs done best.

examples of these jobs?

> (3) The ability to modify recordings anyplace I can take a laptop
> computer and a pair of headphones, and in ways that would actually
> take a room full of effects processors.

and the ability to save and restore state, as opposed to writing down
patchbay and mixer configurations in a notebook.

> (4) Furthermore, I can apply effects and edits a dozen or more times
> faster than real time. This means that it is practical to do a lot
> more "Try this, how does it sound, undo that, try something else".

as opposed to dedicated devices which take longer than real time to
process data? (:

--
Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." |
"someday the industry will have throbbing frontal lobes and will be able
to write provably correct software. also, I want a pony." -- Zach Brown

[Aaron J. Grier]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
> Depends on the context. With live music I never go down to the sample
> level. But I do like those nice tight edits with automatic smoothing.

can you hear the difference? or just see it?

(and I have to ask:) I assume you've done ABX testing to prove the sonic
necessity of "tight edits with automatic smoothing" to yourself?

> (1) The ability to isolate, listen to, and modify sounds, regardless
> of how small or short they are. Sample-level editing is feasible, even
> easy, and can be the tool that gets certain jobs done best.

examples of these jobs?

> (3) The ability to modify recordings anyplace I can take a laptop
> computer and a pair of headphones, and in ways that would actually
> take a room full of effects processors.

and the ability to save and restore state, as opposed to writing down
patchbay and mixer configurations in a notebook.

> (4) Furthermore, I can apply effects and edits a dozen or more times
> faster than real time. This means that it is practical to do a lot
> more "Try this, how does it sound, undo that, try something else".

as opposed to dedicated devices which take longer than real time to
process data? (:

--
Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." |
"someday the industry will have throbbing frontal lobes and will be able
to write provably correct software. also, I want a pony." -- Zach Brown

[Arny Krueger]

Aaron J. Grier wrote:
> Arny Krueger > wrote:

>> Depends on the context. With live music I never go down to the sample
>> level. But I do like those nice tight edits with automatic
>> smoothing.

> can you hear the difference?

If you are mixing channels with similar contents, yes.

> or just see it?

It all depends.

> (and I have to ask:) I assume you've done ABX testing to prove the
> sonic necessity of "tight edits with automatic smoothing" to yourself?

Automatic smoothing at edit cut points can reduce transients to a very
clearly audible degree. Ever tried working with automatic smoothing turned
off and then turned on?

As far as the tight editing goes, my idea of tight editing is editing within
a millisecond. I've done DBTs that showed that displacements of 10 mSec can
be clearly audible, so my goal is to go 10 times better than that as a
general rule.

>> (1) The ability to isolate, listen to, and modify sounds, regardless
>> of how small or short they are. Sample-level editing is feasible,
>> even easy, and can be the tool that gets certain jobs done best.

> examples of these jobs?

Removing tics and pops from vinyl transcriptions.

>> (3) The ability to modify recordings anyplace I can take a laptop
>> computer and a pair of headphones, and in ways that would actually
>> take a room full of effects processors.

> and the ability to save and restore state, as opposed to writing down
> patchbay and mixer configurations in a notebook.

Agreed.

>> (4) Furthermore, I can apply effects and edits a dozen or more times
>> faster than real time. This means that it is practical to do a lot
>> more "Try this, how does it sound, undo that, try something else".

> as opposed to dedicated devices which take longer than real time to
> process data? (:

Exactly. It's starts out as simple as not having to rewind or fast-forward
tape.

[Arny Krueger]

Aaron J. Grier wrote:
> Arny Krueger > wrote:

>> Depends on the context. With live music I never go down to the sample
>> level. But I do like those nice tight edits with automatic
>> smoothing.

> can you hear the difference?

If you are mixing channels with similar contents, yes.

> or just see it?

It all depends.

> (and I have to ask:) I assume you've done ABX testing to prove the
> sonic necessity of "tight edits with automatic smoothing" to yourself?

Automatic smoothing at edit cut points can reduce transients to a very
clearly audible degree. Ever tried working with automatic smoothing turned
off and then turned on?

As far as the tight editing goes, my idea of tight editing is editing within
a millisecond. I've done DBTs that showed that displacements of 10 mSec can
be clearly audible, so my goal is to go 10 times better than that as a
general rule.

>> (1) The ability to isolate, listen to, and modify sounds, regardless
>> of how small or short they are. Sample-level editing is feasible,
>> even easy, and can be the tool that gets certain jobs done best.

> examples of these jobs?

Removing tics and pops from vinyl transcriptions.

>> (3) The ability to modify recordings anyplace I can take a laptop
>> computer and a pair of headphones, and in ways that would actually
>> take a room full of effects processors.

> and the ability to save and restore state, as opposed to writing down
> patchbay and mixer configurations in a notebook.

Agreed.

>> (4) Furthermore, I can apply effects and edits a dozen or more times
>> faster than real time. This means that it is practical to do a lot
>> more "Try this, how does it sound, undo that, try something else".

> as opposed to dedicated devices which take longer than real time to
> process data? (:

Exactly. It's starts out as simple as not having to rewind or fast-forward
tape.

[ScotFraser]

<< There are doctors and medications for the monkey chatter.... <VBG> >>

That involves electric shocks, doesn't it?


Scott Fraser

[ScotFraser]

<< There are doctors and medications for the monkey chatter.... <VBG> >>

That involves electric shocks, doesn't it?


Scott Fraser

[Kurt Albershardt]

ScotFraser wrote:
>>
>>> There are doctors and medications for the monkey chatter.... <VBG> >>
>>
>> That involves electric shocks, doesn't it?

Think Chlorpromazine (thorazine) or Risperidone. Scary ****.

[Kurt Albershardt]

ScotFraser wrote:
>>
>>> There are doctors and medications for the monkey chatter.... <VBG> >>
>>
>> That involves electric shocks, doesn't it?

Think Chlorpromazine (thorazine) or Risperidone. Scary ****.

[Paul Gitlitz]

I think the bottom line here is some folks hate change. I was
discussing two friend's totally opposite opinion of the new dance hall
at the Seattle Folklife fest with my honey, and she made this comment
(some folks hate change.) One of the folks under discussion happens to
be an archeologist, so I said "If nothing ever changed he'd have
nothing to dig up."
Maybe here the comment should be if nothing ever changed there'd be no
vintage gear or perhaps nothing to complain about or maybe nothing to
fondly reminisce about.

As far as stand alones they are fantastic for musicians who need to
get there stuff recorded without a lot of fuss and muss. They don't
want to take the time to learn to be engineers. I just hope they don't
put us out of business thinking it sounds good enough!

[Paul Gitlitz]

I think the bottom line here is some folks hate change. I was
discussing two friend's totally opposite opinion of the new dance hall
at the Seattle Folklife fest with my honey, and she made this comment
(some folks hate change.) One of the folks under discussion happens to
be an archeologist, so I said "If nothing ever changed he'd have
nothing to dig up."
Maybe here the comment should be if nothing ever changed there'd be no
vintage gear or perhaps nothing to complain about or maybe nothing to
fondly reminisce about.

As far as stand alones they are fantastic for musicians who need to
get there stuff recorded without a lot of fuss and muss. They don't
want to take the time to learn to be engineers. I just hope they don't
put us out of business thinking it sounds good enough!

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> I think the bottom line here is some folks hate change.

In my case, I don't like to change because what works is no longer
available. If the change makes things better for me, that's fine. But
if I don't have a problem, then I don't like having a solution forced
on me because manufacturers have decided that they've made all the
money they can from me with what I have and need something else to
sell me. So instead of selling me tape, they sell me software, for
which I have to buy hardware (or hardware, for which I have to buy
software).

> As far as stand alones they are fantastic for musicians who need to
> get there stuff recorded without a lot of fuss and muss. They don't
> want to take the time to learn to be engineers.

In that case, they should spend their money with engineers rather than
on equipment. Then, not only would they not have to learn to be
engineers, but they'd get the benefit of working with those who have
the experience.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> I think the bottom line here is some folks hate change.

In my case, I don't like to change because what works is no longer
available. If the change makes things better for me, that's fine. But
if I don't have a problem, then I don't like having a solution forced
on me because manufacturers have decided that they've made all the
money they can from me with what I have and need something else to
sell me. So instead of selling me tape, they sell me software, for
which I have to buy hardware (or hardware, for which I have to buy
software).

> As far as stand alones they are fantastic for musicians who need to
> get there stuff recorded without a lot of fuss and muss. They don't
> want to take the time to learn to be engineers.

In that case, they should spend their money with engineers rather than
on equipment. Then, not only would they not have to learn to be
engineers, but they'd get the benefit of working with those who have
the experience.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Roger W. Norman]

Bruce's Nebraska keeps coming to mind when we start talking about "sounding
good enough" with a basic song idea system. I look at most of these stand
alone systems like the Roland and Tascams as song scratchpads. Enough
thought and great things can come from them, but...

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Paul Gitlitz" > wrote in message
...
> I think the bottom line here is some folks hate change. I was
> discussing two friend's totally opposite opinion of the new dance hall
> at the Seattle Folklife fest with my honey, and she made this comment
> (some folks hate change.) One of the folks under discussion happens to
> be an archeologist, so I said "If nothing ever changed he'd have
> nothing to dig up."
> Maybe here the comment should be if nothing ever changed there'd be no
> vintage gear or perhaps nothing to complain about or maybe nothing to
> fondly reminisce about.
>
> As far as stand alones they are fantastic for musicians who need to
> get there stuff recorded without a lot of fuss and muss. They don't
> want to take the time to learn to be engineers. I just hope they don't
> put us out of business thinking it sounds good enough!
>
>

[Roger W. Norman]

Bruce's Nebraska keeps coming to mind when we start talking about "sounding
good enough" with a basic song idea system. I look at most of these stand
alone systems like the Roland and Tascams as song scratchpads. Enough
thought and great things can come from them, but...

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Paul Gitlitz" > wrote in message
...
> I think the bottom line here is some folks hate change. I was
> discussing two friend's totally opposite opinion of the new dance hall
> at the Seattle Folklife fest with my honey, and she made this comment
> (some folks hate change.) One of the folks under discussion happens to
> be an archeologist, so I said "If nothing ever changed he'd have
> nothing to dig up."
> Maybe here the comment should be if nothing ever changed there'd be no
> vintage gear or perhaps nothing to complain about or maybe nothing to
> fondly reminisce about.
>
> As far as stand alones they are fantastic for musicians who need to
> get there stuff recorded without a lot of fuss and muss. They don't
> want to take the time to learn to be engineers. I just hope they don't
> put us out of business thinking it sounds good enough!
>
>

[Analogeezer]

Paul Gitlitz > wrote in message >...
> I think the bottom line here is some folks hate change. I was
> discussing two friend's totally opposite opinion of the new dance hall
> at the Seattle Folklife fest with my honey, and she made this comment
> (some folks hate change.) One of the folks under discussion happens to
> be an archeologist, so I said "If nothing ever changed he'd have
> nothing to dig up."
> Maybe here the comment should be if nothing ever changed there'd be no
> vintage gear or perhaps nothing to complain about or maybe nothing to
> fondly reminisce about.
>
> As far as stand alones they are fantastic for musicians who need to
> get there stuff recorded without a lot of fuss and muss. They don't
> want to take the time to learn to be engineers. I just hope they don't
> put us out of business thinking it sounds good enough!


I think one good analogy is flying....you can fly from place to place
in a Piper Cub with virtually no instruments, or you can fly a
Gulfstream from place to place without ever looking out the window.

Some people like to actually fly, some people want to get there
quicker, some people find punching buttons and fiddling with avionics
is what gives them a woody.

I think that for many musicians, or people that don't want to get too
bogged down in technology, stand alone hardware (be it digital or
analog) is more fun and for them more efficient.

If I want to fly from one small airport to another close by airport to
do a touch and go, then come home, it's actually faster than the
Gulfstream, as you'd still be preflighting the thing after a half
hour.

If you want to fly to London from New York, obviously the Gulfstream
is the ticket.

No sense in buying the "ultimate tool" if you never use 97% of it, at
least to my way of thinking.

Analogeezer

[Analogeezer]

Paul Gitlitz > wrote in message >...
> I think the bottom line here is some folks hate change. I was
> discussing two friend's totally opposite opinion of the new dance hall
> at the Seattle Folklife fest with my honey, and she made this comment
> (some folks hate change.) One of the folks under discussion happens to
> be an archeologist, so I said "If nothing ever changed he'd have
> nothing to dig up."
> Maybe here the comment should be if nothing ever changed there'd be no
> vintage gear or perhaps nothing to complain about or maybe nothing to
> fondly reminisce about.
>
> As far as stand alones they are fantastic for musicians who need to
> get there stuff recorded without a lot of fuss and muss. They don't
> want to take the time to learn to be engineers. I just hope they don't
> put us out of business thinking it sounds good enough!


I think one good analogy is flying....you can fly from place to place
in a Piper Cub with virtually no instruments, or you can fly a
Gulfstream from place to place without ever looking out the window.

Some people like to actually fly, some people want to get there
quicker, some people find punching buttons and fiddling with avionics
is what gives them a woody.

I think that for many musicians, or people that don't want to get too
bogged down in technology, stand alone hardware (be it digital or
analog) is more fun and for them more efficient.

If I want to fly from one small airport to another close by airport to
do a touch and go, then come home, it's actually faster than the
Gulfstream, as you'd still be preflighting the thing after a half
hour.

If you want to fly to London from New York, obviously the Gulfstream
is the ticket.

No sense in buying the "ultimate tool" if you never use 97% of it, at
least to my way of thinking.

Analogeezer

[Laurence Payne]

On 3 Jun 2004 13:00:30 -0700,
(Analogeezer) wrote:

>
>
>I think one good analogy is flying....you can fly from place to place
>in a Piper Cub with virtually no instruments, or you can fly a
>Gulfstream from place to place without ever looking out the window.
>
>Some people like to actually fly, some people want to get there
>quicker, some people find punching buttons and fiddling with avionics
>is what gives them a woody.
>
>I think that for many musicians, or people that don't want to get too
>bogged down in technology, stand alone hardware (be it digital or
>analog) is more fun and for them more efficient.
>
>If I want to fly from one small airport to another close by airport to
>do a touch and go, then come home, it's actually faster than the
>Gulfstream, as you'd still be preflighting the thing after a half
>hour.
>
>If you want to fly to London from New York, obviously the Gulfstream
>is the ticket.
>
>No sense in buying the "ultimate tool" if you never use 97% of it, at
>least to my way of thinking.


Which is the Gulfstream, which the Piper Cub? I can see arguments
both ways :-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[Laurence Payne]

On 3 Jun 2004 13:00:30 -0700,
(Analogeezer) wrote:

>
>
>I think one good analogy is flying....you can fly from place to place
>in a Piper Cub with virtually no instruments, or you can fly a
>Gulfstream from place to place without ever looking out the window.
>
>Some people like to actually fly, some people want to get there
>quicker, some people find punching buttons and fiddling with avionics
>is what gives them a woody.
>
>I think that for many musicians, or people that don't want to get too
>bogged down in technology, stand alone hardware (be it digital or
>analog) is more fun and for them more efficient.
>
>If I want to fly from one small airport to another close by airport to
>do a touch and go, then come home, it's actually faster than the
>Gulfstream, as you'd still be preflighting the thing after a half
>hour.
>
>If you want to fly to London from New York, obviously the Gulfstream
>is the ticket.
>
>No sense in buying the "ultimate tool" if you never use 97% of it, at
>least to my way of thinking.


Which is the Gulfstream, which the Piper Cub? I can see arguments
both ways :-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect