Why Analog Gear Still Sounds Better

[Anderton]

Although this article is clearly part of a commercial entity's blog, it really explains the difference between analog gear and digital emulations pretty well: Why Analog Still Sounds Better

 

What I particularly like is the attitude. He's not some "analog is always better, digital is poo-poo, you lowly digital serf." He's very clear there are plenty of situations where digital does just fine, thank you. But he really gets into the nerd weeds about why sometimes, it really does matter whether you do something with analog or digital technology.

 

Food for thought...it probably gives some useful ammunition to the amp sim haters

[KenElevenShadows]

That actually seems like a good, lucidly written article. And while most of us record digitally now (I know I do), I think we can acknowledge where analog things can sound better while also acknowledging that you can also have really amazing recordings on a computer.

 

I miss the soundstage and musical quality of analog quite a bit, but if I went back to that, i would miss the added manipulations, strange editing, near-unlimited effects (and the ability to have tons of options of feeding effects into each other), automation, quickness, and signal routing possibilities that digital offers.

 

Good stuff!

[Anderton]

That actually seems like a good, lucidly written article.

 

I know! What a shock in today's ultra-polarized world. I found it highly educational.

 

[KenElevenShadows]

That actually seems like a good, lucidly written article.

 

I know! What a shock in today's ultra-polarized world. I found it highly educational.

 

Same here. I would probably need to read it several times to really retain the information since I am super technical, but I liked the premise of it, and really liked that it didn't feel like a dogmatic op-ed piece.

 

[dboomer]

First let me say that all of this gear is better than my ability to make music anyway

 

Now, let"s say all of his assertions are 100% correct. At what point are they past the perception of listeners to discern any difference anyway? At what point does a 2% rise in humidity make more difference to the sound than whatever is the difference between the technologies? At what point does the acoustic environment make more difference? Since we won"t ever be sitting in the control room where something was mixed, we"ll never hear the producer"s take on it anyway. The list goes on and on.

 

I remember being schooled by a brilliant engineer at Peavey (Jon R if you know him). I was making fun of all the hi-fi snake oil inventions e.g. special lacquer to paint the knobs of your amp, pebbles on top of your cd player, super ac power cables, etc. Then he showed me that every one of those thing actually does have a benefit that can be scientifically proven. Trouble is they are differences that cannot be discerned.

 

Due to my first point, I just don"t worry about it all that much. Just make yourself happy.

[KuruPrionz]

I read the linked article and watched the video, which has important visual information as well.

I understand exactly what they are discussing/demonstrating and why it happens.

 

I find it useful to consider. I have a couple of things to add. It seens the problem is more about the current limits of the upper frequencies being sampled (creating false and possibly dissonant harmonics) than any other cause.

 

The linked article may be interesting to others, I've known of this way of getting low notes out of smaller pipe organs for a long time. It seems relevant here as a lower note can be created from two higher ones in the analog realm. The problem is that current digital conversion is clipping one or both of the two notes and the lower note that is created is not our friend.

http://www.stephenbicknell.org/3.6.01.php

 

I suspect that you could digitally record analog electric/electronic musical instruments creating complex distortion and create similar unpleasant artifacts. Probaby not using speakers and microphones, you may not be able to capture frequencies that high while creating a pleasant tone at least.

 

I remember way back when, having a guitar rig with a distortion pedal and exploring high levels of distortion. Plugged into certain amps or speakers, I could do a double stop on the guitar, bend one of the notes and a third note would appear, descending when the stretched note ascended and vice versa. It was so ugly sounding that I really liked it. Pure analog and pretty much not something most people would want.

 

Of course, a ring modulator does that too, generating the sum and the difference of two notes from a single note input. It's a horrible sound!!!!! :- )

 

I start to wonder if the only way to reduce it would be to go back to tape? Not gonna do it!!!! Not finacially feasible unless I win the lottery.

I tend towards lower distortion levels these days. I also have recently begun recording a guitar track straight in, clean and dry. Then I will make multiple copies of that guitar track and add various amp sim plugins (Guitar Rig, Amplitude and sometimes Voxengo Boogex) a bit of pitch shifting, reverb and delay and use automation to blend and re-blend a more complex guitar track. Small amounts of a couple of distorted guitars blended with a clean guitar sounds good to me so far.

 

And then, there is this Korg thingie recording 1 bit audio at 5.6mhz. So I think 384khz is probably not too far off at this point.

https://www.korg.com/us/products/drs/mr_2000s/

 

Competition and articles like the OPs link should eventually phase out the lazy coders.

 

And, I no longer wonder why the tone of the older Line 6 amps used to make me grit my teeth!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

[Anderton]

And then, there is this Korg thingie recording 1 bit audio at 5.6mhz. So I think 384khz is probably not too far off at this point.

https://www.korg.com/us/products/drs/mr_2000s/

 

It is a wildly different technology, though. I'm don't consider myself a prissy golden ears type, but I do feel DSD sounds better than PCDM, generally speaking. However, I'm not convinced it's the conversion technology per se...I think it has more to do with the relaxed output filters in DSD systems. If you just twist a couple wires together and wire them across the output, that's probably enough

 

[Anderton]

I was making fun of all the hi-fi snake oil inventions e.g. special lacquer to paint the knobs of your amp, pebbles on top of your cd player, super ac power cables, etc. Then he showed me that every one of those thing actually does have a benefit that can be scientifically proven. Trouble is they are differences that cannot be discerned.

 

But that's what always comes back and bites me. Maybe we can't put our finger on it, but is there more to the story than that?

 

For example...I've done a lot of my "How to Create Compelling Mixes" seminars this year, which covers tempo changes. People may not be able to identify when the tempo is shifting, but they have an emotional reaction...they're feeling something.

 

[KuruPrionz]

I honsetly don't know a thing about them. I haven't seen or heard one or read any reviews.

 

That is a very high frequency. 24 bits is probably enough and 384khz is only double the current rate.

Chips keep getting more powerful at a fairly rapid rate. I know 1 bit at 5.6mhz doesn't really have an equivalent translation to 24 bits but 24 x 394,000 = 9.46 million (rounded off). That is less than double the calculations that the Korg is crunching, at least using simpleton math.

 

So it seems like that level of speed should be possible and fairly soon. More a matter of somebody working in R&D on A to D having a budget at that point.

Competition is fierce in interface world.

 

If you get there then your theoretical point of contention is 192khz. Rolling off everything above 96khz is likely to render any false harmonic artifacts inaudable unless you are creating a record for dogs.

You could easily go half that as long as you didn't tell picky weirdo that it was done and nobody would know the difference.

 

Meanwhile, I plan on seeing how far up that chain I can get with my current gear. I have it now!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mike Rivers]

I know I should read the whole article before making a comment, but I'll say this now: I've never poo-pooed digital audio recording and thought that it sounded worse than analog recording. I got into digital recording as soon as I could afford it. I was using a Sony PCM 501 digital processor recording to Beta video tape. Since, at that time (and again now) nearly all of my recording was straight to stereo, the lack of hiss and other noise, plus the cleaner bass and piano because of no perceptible flutter made my recordings sound better. I couldn't wait for an affordable audio interface for my computer to come along so that, even though there would be another digital-to-analog-to-digital conversion, though it took longer to get the job done, I was making better edits than I could with tape.

 

My problem with digital audio isn't with the surface quality - the sound. It's about the way work gets done, and how that affects the music. What musicians produce with their own instruments and voices is no longer enough. I'll save my rant about this for another time. I get encouraged when I read an article in a magazine about a band that wants to record with everyone playing together, I start to drift off when I find that there are 16 mics on the drums, the guitars are recorded through three amplifiers each with two or three mics, and the singer in an isolation booth (which may be proudly placed where he or she can see the rest of the band). Then there are the overdubs, the days of mixing, and the craft of the mastering engineer.

 

Then add this in - Back in "the day" we'd play our records until they wore out and then buy another copy. When you listen to a song over and over, a tiny mistake or off-pitch note eventually becomes something you notice every time you hear it, so there was a valid reason to try to get the released version to be as musically perfect as possible. But with today's disposable music, what's the point?

 

By the way, I like the idea of DSD. I bought, and still have, a Korg MR-1000. While it still sounds as good as it ever did, it's been totally abandoned. Some day its hard drive will fail, and that's where the software resides, so it'll become an inefficient door stop. They never provided a means for the user to replace the drive and/or reload the software, but they did a good job and it's not failed me yet. These days, when I'm doing a field recording, I use my TASCAM DR-44. I've never had a problem with how it sounds, it's more portable, records to external media, and is more easily replaced should it fail.

 

 

OK - I read the article. Bah! Humbug! All the problems with digital simulations of analog hardware that the author talks about have solutions. It's up to the software developers to decide how far to go - and that may be why there's still something to haggle over.

 

 

[The Real MC]

I keep an open mind. Being an engineer, I welcome any advances in technology.

 

But I learned early that while most plugins LOOK like the real thing, don't expect them to SOUND like the real thing.

 

Kudos to the author what I had known for years - digital simulation of analog circuits is not as simple as it looks, as you have to account for the nonlinearity of active devices and the reactive components including the parasitic elements. Textbook transfer equations are too abstract. Seasoned EEs know this but software developers won't. Plus there are processing that analog circuits will ALWAYS perform faster than digital. And the black magic of inductive components exploited in pro audio gear will leave the developers' heads spinning...

 

I watched the advances since the 1970s. Digital processing wasn't great at first but gradually got better. Digital recording has matured and I will never go back to the high maintenance of analog tape. Early guitar amp simulations only modeled the preamp; they crossed into maturity once they added a model of the power amp section - phase splitter, power tubes, AND output transformer have a significant impact on the sound than most players care to admit. That's why Line 6 owners grit their teeth...

 

It took a few tries to get it right. While guitar amp modelers are really good, I still keep a few tube guitar amps around as they still beat the modeler. When I played in a southern rock band, a real tube amp was my preference. I'm currently playing in a 70s/80s classic rock band and the amp modeler is the more convenient choice with all the different sounds I need to cover.

 

...and we haven't even touched on modeling guitar speakers and cabinets...oy!

 

Processors... time based modulators like chorus, flanging, haas, echo were early successes. Digital reverb... still prefer a standalone outboard over plugins. Once you use a pro audio outboard Eventide (H9000, 2016, etc) or legacy Lexicon (224, PCM70, variants) then you will understand. The outboard digital reverbs have the edge because they employ processing techniques that desktop computers are not capable of. Desktop computers have to share processing with too many peripherals while outboard processors have a completely dedicated processor system. Keep in mind that the dedicated processor system isn't just the CPU, it also includes the logic circuits which perform their job much faster than a CPU. Newer digital outboard reverbs like the Bricasti use multiple dedicated microcontrollers.

 

Then there are synthesizers. I've been an analog synth purist since the late 1970s and passed over the "fashion of the day" stuff like DX7, M1, D50, samplers, etc. As an engineer who maintains his own synth gear I've become quite familiar with their circuits. For a long time, the synthesizer modeler's achilles heel has been the voltage controlled filter. Abstract transfer functions out of a textbook does not come close. Frankly the early models of Moogs, Oberheims, ARPs, et al fell way short. Here was a good example of the need for better transfer functions of the representative circuits (and analyzing a VCF is not simple!). Most 70s/80s synth circuits used the CA3080 OTA which was not a high fidelity linear component (read: they distort the signal similar to a vacuum tube)... need to model that too! Where do you find OTAs? In the VCA circuit, and the subtle distortion of the OTA contributed to that "vintage sound". OTAs are a key component in the Oberheim VCF used in SEMs and OBX (more subtle distortion). You'll also find OTAs sprinkled in gain recovery amps of ladder filters, and wherever voltage control is needed for programmability... Analog synths are easily the most difficult tools to model.

 

While we're on the topic of OTAs and other gain control devices, simulations of compressors fall short for many of the same reasons. Besides the gain control element, modeling the detector circuits is a challenge in itself (especially RMS detectors). Now a generic RMS detector is easy in digital, but if you're attempting to model the RMS detector in a legacy device that's a whole different ball game. For me, analog synths and compressors sound better in the analog domain.

 

Frankly, a digital processor has a BUSY JOB. By the time you derive the transfer functions of all the nonlinear components, the CPU has a LOT of number crunching to do. Imperfections can be a good thing, and can be difficult to model. Some things are easier in the digital domain, some are easier in the analog domain... often a case of pick your poison as you have to pick convenience over authenticity.

 

All said, digital does offer something valuable - they are a great entry point for students. You don't have to worry about parts wearing out (tubes, caps, etc), you don't have to worry about synth VCOs needing calibration, you don't have to worry about pots and switches breaking. And modelers are much cheaper for students. When students reach the point where they are ready for something better, they can shell out for the real thing if they desire.

[Anderton]

It's up to the software developers to decide how far to go.

 

I think that was his point. It gets so complex, so fast as to become impractical.

 

[Anderton]

Digital reverb... still prefer a standalone outboard over plugins. Once you use a pro audio outboard Eventide (H9000, 2016, etc) or legacy Lexicon (224, PCM70, variants) then you will understand.

 

Well just to keep it real...no reverb can match a real acoustic space. When I was teaching an audio course several years ago, there was a church nearby. I made everyone go in there and clap their hands to remember what real reverb sounds like

 

As to the current crop, though, I have to admit I've been completely blown away by Waves Abbey Road Chambers. They devour CPU - two Waves RVerbs use 6% the CPU of two Waves Abbey Road Chambers! But the sound is phenomenal.

 

As to other reverbs, yes I do have a PCM70...but with "in the box" reverbs, I can do things like multiband them, put them in series, use two reverbs and send from one into the other, etc. Although these may seem like workarounds, I've been able to get sounds I can't achieve with outboard reverb. Now, maybe if I had two or three PCM70s I could get the same sounds, but that's not practical.

 

 

 

[KuruPrionz]

"Well just to keep it real...no reverb can match a real acoustic space."

 

This.

 

I live in a condo with an underground parking garage. Guessing a 12' ceiling and there are about 40 parking spaces so it's a good sized cement box. Fantastic multi-delay and reverb sound. Blend can be controlled by proximity of the microphones to the source and the room.

I took my Tascam DR40 down there and recorded slamming the trunk, hood and doors of my car. Sounds amazing, one of my projects is to create a set of samples down there. EVERYTHING sounds great. I want to get some paper cups and stomp on them like we used to do in elementary school. I also want to capture hand claps while moving across the stereo field. A 12 string acoustic sounds celestial down there.

 

Since I am on the first floor I have been tempted to drill a 1/4" hole all the way through the floor/ceiling and then I could drop a speaker cable down there. Play a mix of a tune at 3am when it's nice and quiet and re-record it with the DR40.

 

A big echo-ey space is a golden treasure indeed!

 

2 years ago on the 4th of July I set the Tascam up on a friend's deck, he lives on Lake Whatcom. There are fireworks going off well past midnight. Some of them are really loud.

Long, rolling stereo echos. Very 3d sounding - I spread the built in mics. Haven't figured out a use for it yet, probably need to base a compsition around it.

[Theo Verelst]

I took a few minutes to go over the article, and it's ok, I guess, it makes the points without becoming specific about what causes what, except for a few (correct) observations.

 

The thing is, if you want to use analog on a digital track, you still need a perfect DAC you don't have. And then, when you record the analog processed signal, you'd need to prepare that result to sound good through the digital playback chain, including the inaccurately reconstructing DAC. So your sound will get different, but still not great.

 

T.

[Anderton]

Since I am on the first floor I have been tempted to drill a 1/4" hole all the way through the floor/ceiling and then I could drop a speaker cable down there. Play a mix of a tune at 3am when it's nice and quiet and re-record it with the DR40.

 

Bluetooth!! Set up a Bluetooth-friendly powered speaker, and assuming your computer has Bluetooth on it, set it to transmit. Or record the track in a smartphone and transmit from there. Bluetooth does have a hard time with walls and such, but I get 30' easy through multiple walls. If you can set up the transmitter close enough to where the receiver is, you should be good to go.

 

[The Real MC]

As to other reverbs, yes I do have a PCM70...but with "in the box" reverbs, I can do things like multiband them, put them in series, use two reverbs and send from one into the other, etc. Although these may seem like workarounds, I've been able to get sounds I can't achieve with outboard reverb. Now, maybe if I had two or three PCM70s I could get the same sounds, but that's not practical.

 

I found the same thing OTB with my Korg SDD-3300 and Lexicon PCM60. I wound up standardizing this combination for my synth effects system. There's more detail on my webpage, and this combination has enabled a lot of effects that isn't possible with single outboard reverb or multi-effects box (although the Eventide H9000 might be a strong contender). The range and quality of FX was so good that I bought multiples of this effects system for each of my synths. I think I'm up to six sets now.

 

[Nathanael_I]

Things I love about digital - amazing clarity. Vanishingly low noise on clean captures with excellent gear. Fantastic new synth modes that cannot be executed with analog technology (we have more than enough 2 OSC mono synths, don't you think?).

 

I have a Sonosax SX-R4+ recorder. It is one of the finest recorders in the world in terms of technical specification. It has dual-ADC chips and offers 135dB of dynamic range. It has integrated mic preamps that are exceptionally clean and neutral. It has NO DAW features. There is no overdub, no punch in. It just records up to 16ch of PCM up to 192Khz. It is like a manual Leica camera. It has all the essential controls, and no more. You start recording by toggling a switch, and stop it by toggling it again. That's it. The raw files are exquisite. If not run through eq's, compressors, and other things that mess up the transients, the resulting recordings are truly excellent. It is as close to "straight wire with gain" that I have found. There is an "ease" to the sound for lack of a better term. Using excellent omni's in a good space with fine acoustic instruments is a pleasure. Recording piano with it is marvelous, or acoustic guitars, really anything. Because the mic-pre and ADC are all integrated, there is just a lot less circuitry, and the overall file is much better than even Rupert Neve preamps into my Focusrite Dante network.

 

I can't see the point of pining for tape decks and huge consoles of yesteryear. The inner nerd would like a new Rupert Neve 32ch console, but my studio space would not be well served by that investment.

 

There's a reason high-end classical went digital and stayed there. On technical merit, digital wins easily at this point.

 

But much of that article was about non-linearities. This is a musician thing, in my opinion - a sound design consideration. Yes, I also have a tube guitar amp for exactly that reason. But for recording? I'll happily digitize it with short, direct paths. I don't really want a Studer 24 track, a console and racks of outboard. (Even though it looks cool)

 

Digital processing? It is what you make it. If you string lots of plugins together, the degradation in sound quality is apparent. But being able to use linear EQ without phase shift? Wonderful. Dynamic EQ that comes and goes only when needed? magical. Compressors that you truly can't hear, but that just quietly do their job? These are tools only possible in a digital world. Sometimes one doesn't want color. But that said, the Slate Digital vari-mu mix buss compressor.... that is wonderful sonic glue, and it is NOT transparent - definitely raises the noise floor.

 

Analog processing? So much wonderful gear. But it is a big commitment to use it in a modern studio - lots of extra I/O to purchase. Many top mixers figured out how to get the sound digitally and have not looked back, so I think the handwriting is clear.

 

I do think if more people used digital as a tape deck, and not as a "fix it" tool, many would be surprised at just how good things can sound.

 

It is also true that microphones and speakers are analog and always will be. But in my studio, everything is digital after mic pre's until it hits the Genelec monitors. The signal is just CLEAN and beautiful. I had an outstanding Grace monitor controller before, but now, eliminating all that circuitry? the imaging is better and the noise floor is now simply gone. I don't miss it.

 

I've chosen a digital world and am learning to optimize the sound quality it offers - not chase sounds of the 70's. I know I'm not alone in that. But obviously, the easiest way to get a past sound is just to use that gear. I'm personally much more interested in what today's state-of-the-art offers than in re-living the past. For me, analog color is: instruments, mics and pre's. Everything else is digital by choice.

[Mike Rivers]

Well just to keep it real...no reverb can match a real acoustic space.

As to the current crop, though, I have to admit I've been completely blown away by Waves Abbey Road Chambers. They devour CPU - two Waves RVerbs use 6% the CPU of two Waves Abbey Road Chambers! But the sound is phenomenal.

 

As to other reverbs, yes I do have a PCM70...but with "in the box" reverbs, I can do things like multiband them, put them in series, use two reverbs and send from one into the other, etc. Although these may seem like workarounds, I've been able to get sounds I can't achieve with outboard reverb.

 

When you're manipulating reverbs like that, you're not re-creating acoustic space, you're designing a sound. No acoustic space can sound like what you can make with a computer. And that's all OK in the right context. You can create musical instruments with synthesis that can't be built from wood and brass, so why not create acoustic space that can't be built? But you can't record the school choir in the gym and make it sound just like they're in a famous church somewhere. Or maybe some day, you can.

 

 

 

[dboomer]

Digital reverb... still prefer a standalone outboard over plugins. Once you use a pro audio outboard Eventide (H9000, 2016, etc) or legacy Lexicon (224, PCM70, variants) then you will understand.

 

Well just to keep it real...no reverb can match a real acoustic space.

 

 

The question is ... in terms of what? What you can hear, measure or theorize? Does 'perfect' acoustic reverb even sound the best? I know some surf guitarists that would kill before they would let you take away their springs.

 

Funny, cuz i. The article he talks about digital artifacts. Well artifacts are exactly why people will pay big bucks for a Fairchild compressor or an LA-2. They like the way it screws up the sound.

 

I am reminded of an old book by Don Novello (Father Guido Sardici) in which he pranked McDonalds because they wouldn"t give him jam for his Big Mac but they would for his Egg McMuffin. Now I don"t know if a Big Mac with jam tastes better, but it no longer will taste like a Big Mac. So are some things 'better' with the flaws removed or not? Hmmmm!

[The Real MC]

Digital reverb... still prefer a standalone outboard over plugins. Once you use a pro audio outboard Eventide (H9000, 2016, etc) or legacy Lexicon (224, PCM70, variants) then you will understand.

 

Well just to keep it real...no reverb can match a real acoustic space.

 

My goal wasn't to realize a real acoustic space. My goal was to use a reverb that works without muddying up the mix. The short ambient rooms in the 2016 and PCM60 are very very good at "lifting" an instrument in the mix without turning it up. Very few digital reverbs can pull off that trick. Works great on percussion, vocals, keys, guitar. Bob Katz was right "it's not how loud you make it, it's how you make it loud."

 

The principal algorithm developers at Lexicon have acknowledged that they enjoy attending classical concerts for the music and that the ambient qualities of those concert halls were an inspiration for the reverb algorithms. Reaching that level of authenticity may had been a higher barrier than they anticipated and they likely had to compromise. And it is doubtful that anyone tried harder than Lexicon esp with Dr David Greisinger at the helm. No digital reverb will match a real acoustic space, but the legacy Lexicons got the closest. When I want reverbs with medium to long tails, I reach for my Lexicon M200.

 

[KuruPrionz]

"Bluetooth!! Set up a Bluetooth-friendly powered speaker, and assuming your computer has Bluetooth on it, set it to transmit. Or record the track in a smartphone and transmit from there. Bluetooth does have a hard time with walls and such, but I get 30' easy through multiple walls. If you can set up the transmitter close enough to where the receiver is, you should be good to go."

 

Great suggestion, thanks!

[Anderton]

Digital reverb... still prefer a standalone outboard over plugins. Once you use a pro audio outboard Eventide (H9000, 2016, etc) or legacy Lexicon (224, PCM70, variants) then you will understand.

 

Well just to keep it real...no reverb can match a real acoustic space.

 

 

The question is ... in terms of what? What you can hear, measure or theorize? Does 'perfect' acoustic reverb even sound the best? I know some surf guitarists that would kill before they would let you take away their springs.

 

Funny, cuz i. The article he talks about digital artifacts. Well artifacts are exactly why people will pay big bucks for a Fairchild compressor or an LA-2. They like the way it screws up the sound.

 

I think the point is that people want choices. For example on classical projects, if something was recorded in a studio and not a concert hall, I want the most realistic-sounding reverb possible. But for my songs, I might want something that's more akin to sound design...or springs for surf music

 

It's the same thing with artifacts. Sometimes people prefer the woolier sound of something with foldover distortion compared to an artifact-free version. But sometimes it's the reverse.

 

I think the ultimate goal isn't to produce a specific sound, but to be able to choose whatever sound you want to produce the effect you want. I tend to prefer "CGI" type audio with round edges and shiny surfaces But that wouldn't work for the new album from the Snot Puppies with Jonny Vomit.

 

[The Real MC]

Digital reverb algorithm development is an empirical process unfortunately. Even the best minds in the industry don't hit paydirt every time. The algorithms that do show promise demand a lot of tweaking - and compromise.

 

Convolution reverbs are convenient but they have their limits.

 

It's all in the target application... Snot Puppies with Jonny Vomit aren't going to need the "best".

[dboomer]

Hey C ... No doubt people want choices. But lets smoke one and consider what things would be like if there were no choices. There was only one kind of mic, one kind of reverb, one kind of recorder. Then I guess we"d have to worry about the music.

 

Wow, what if only one kind of music. You"d have to chose between country OR western

 

[Anderton]

Hey C ... No doubt people want choices. But lets smoke one and consider what things would be like if there were no choices. There was only one kind of mic, one kind of reverb, one kind of recorder. Then I guess we"d have to worry about the music.

 

Most people don't have a lot of choices in their particular setup, unless they have a ton o' bucks so they can have everything at their fingertips. But for example if all I did was record classical guitar, I could get by with only one kind of mic, one kind of reverb, and one kind of recorder. But it would involve the same choices that the Snot Puppies would make for their limited budget

 

Once at a workshop, a guy said he had 600 kick drum samples, and how could he choose the right one. I said "Start with sample 1. If you don't like that, try sample 2. As soon as you find a sample you like, STOP."

 

[Theo Verelst]

In the a grade world of music and the serious science, everything could and usually was explained to the point where what sounds good or bad isn't the main question. Maybe even digital sounds rubbish often because the "good samples" have been hidden away by people that didn't want their work to be used by certain parties of imposing musicians, and I'm sure certain analog device makers *could* tune their machines to sound great when recorded digital, but consciously and conscientiously do not...

 

T