Music Player Network
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,649
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,649
People obsess about sound quality in this digital era because serious sound degradation is a real liability with digital.
A well informed and experienced person can avoid this, with care, skill, and some luck.
Having manufacturers make reputable products to choose is at least part luck.
Wish us some of the good kind.

I'll be happy to ignore all these issues as soon as everything always sounds right, as in not screwed up.
Until then....
Ted


A WOP BOP A LU BOP, A LOP BAM BOOM!

"There is nothing I regret so much as my good behavior. What demon possessed me that I behaved so well?" -Henry David Thoreau
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 97
S
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 97
Ayyyyyyyyy.......

This gets a little bit esoteric.

You can bet a millinon bucks there is a FILM forum just like this one, where they talk about digital versus analog video editors, and which one is better.

We all watch movies.

I'd be willing to bet we never once considered what editing tools were used. We just watched the movie, the actors, and the plot.
If we liked the movie, we liked the movie, not because the analog editing gear produced better anti-aliasing at the contrasting edges of colorful scenes.

I agree with the above post, KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE BALL!!!

Let's just watch a good movie.

SH


---------------------------------
Seventh Heaven Studio
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 896
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 896
Quote:
You can bet a millinon bucks there is a FILM forum just like this one, where they talk about digital versus analog video editors, and which one is better.
Actually, it's a little scary (and a little funny) to hear the film guys talk. They are (I'm not kidding) throwing around statements like "film just looks warmer than digital," and "digital just seems too...perfect." It's not just audio people, folks!

As to the title of this thread...I felt it was actually a bit funny. A consensus? On an audio forum? \:D

-Danny


Grace, Peace, V, and Hz,

Danny
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 138
C
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
C
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 138
For me a big part of it isnt just the sound its the attitude and feeling of mixing analog. I got tired of messing around with my digi001, with all the plug ins and other crap. I wanted something I could put my hands on, turn REAL knobs (and sound better then computer eq's and comps) and be able to feel the music. I'm not saying you cant do this in a computer, but i cant. I like the idea of looking at my racks when I mix and knowing my audio is going thru tons of real gear, instead of some digital plug in that messes with the sound in ways i dont understand. I like being able to drive certain channels more then others and getting different textures from how I use the line trims and faders. I love tracking bands now and having a big mixing console in front of me with a rack full of cool equipment, so i can feel like im actually recording instead of doing taxes or something else computers are for. For me this keeps my mind on the vibe and how the music feels. But once again this is for me, not speaking for how the rest of you work. Sorry for rambling but am about to go to bed and didnt feel like spacing any of this out.

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 285
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 285
Yeah, SH, the film analogy is right on. And the same social and economic upheavel will follow in the film industry as it is now in the music industry.

We're about 6 years ahead of the film industry in terms of digital distortion -- the time-space continuum type. But just wait, fully digital movies are right around the corner and auto-tuned performences, visual syllabic editing, and on the fly background manipulation are waiting in the wings. The actors' 8x10 glossy will be scanned onto a wireframe puppet and manipulated in air-conditioned comfort aloof from those pesky corpuscles. To make room for all the computers this will require, the studio owners will have the writers' parking spots moved across the street to Taco Bell "where they belong." And guess what's going to happen: enmasse, we, the viewing audience will start pirating cheap mpeg copies of first run movies and watch them on our fucking computers. If you don't believe me, just ask Sony why they're scattering like chipmunks from a brushfire out of the content creation business.

I'd like to just "focus on the song" myself. But we have to debate this technically, philosophically, and morally. We do have an obligation beyond the song. If the music industry isn't first about being respectful of the reason for it: ie the talent, then it deserves to die. The other artifact of digital technology is the marginalization of true musical artistry and the unknown negative impact this will have on a democratic society.

Sorry for the soapboxing.

Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,950
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,950
no, we are behind the film industry. they have been using sgi workstations for YEARS. ever see shrek? fully digital. great movie... i have seen it a billion times... i have a 2 year old. but the level of animation is just becoming absurd.

seems to me that the film industry embraces technology more so than the music industry.


alphajerk
FATcompilation
"if god is truly just, i tremble for the fate of my country" -thomas jefferson
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,318
G
TPS cook & bottle washer
20k Club
Offline
TPS cook & bottle washer
20k Club
G
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,318
Quote:
Originally posted by alphajerk:
no, we are behind the film industry. they have been using sgi workstations for YEARS. ever see shrek? fully digital. great movie... i have seen it a billion times... i have a 2 year old. but the level of animation is just becoming absurd.

seems to me that the film industry embraces technology more so than the music industry.
Actually, I think that's a matter of economics. It's cheaper to pay someone to do a voice-over than to actually act. \:D

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 477
R
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
R
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 477
Here's a way to look at the issue of Digital Consoles that I think can shed some space on the debate.

The thing we know about analog is that it bends, sometimes too far, sometimes just right. The thing we know about digital is that it is mostly accurate because it doesn't bend.

Why do some people come down on one side and some on the other? Much of this lies in the way they work, the artists they work with, and the music they make.

Nika, as I understand it, works with classical music. If you try to process this type of music after the recording, you will only fuck it up. EQ'ing or compressing completely moves notes and robs the song of energy. He looks for a great way to record it and hopes to not fuck it up.

George works with incredible talent. Great singers, great players, great instruments, doing serious songs. He is often recording what he is mixing. He has a predilection for purity- it is for this that we buy his equipment when we buy it (good lord I love that compressor.) A system that doesn't bend is much more likely to make George happy than, say

Fletcher. He would like it to pump and bend and rock. I myself work with very "songy" artists at this point. I need a mixture. I want it to go down with a great accuracy, but I want to shape it later. For that, I record digital, but mix analog. I just can't bend the sound to my will with digital with the ease that I can do it with Analog.

Spread this out to the larger studio community, where mixing is such a dominant chunk of the business, we can see why the desks haven't been successful. If a mixer needs some serious tools to shape the mix, digital doesn't offer them.

And that would seem to be the heart of the matter with the Digital desks. They can do great throughput, but not much else. Untill the next generation of designers come who can bring art to their knowledge of digital systems and engineers can get the sound molding (read: creative control) that they have in analog, then Digital Mixing will still be behind.

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
10k Club
Offline
10k Club
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
Hmm... interesting idea Rob, but I'm not at all sure I agree. For one thing, it seems that you can screw with the sound a lot MORE with digital and, of course, people do. Not so much with classical, of course. But we all know how much today's pop, rock and country Top 40 has been screwed with and Pro Tooled to death (and yes, I realize it's not the tools that are responsible for this but the people who use them, so don't anybody whack me with that cliche please).

HOWEVER... the thing I have to take exception to most is the idea that digital mixing gives a more "accurate" representation of the sound. In fact, my problem with it is precisely that it DOESN'T sound accurate. Most digital mixes sound to me like the recording was done in a shoe box. The earlier post which mentioned analog's capability of capturing "separation", "space", "depth" - I just have not heard that much with any kind of digital mixing, especially once you start piling a lot of tracks on. Yes, you can get an analog mix with a bunch of overprocessed tracks to sound like shit too. But it is certainly possible NOT to screw it up. If somebody can point me to the sonic equivalent of a "Graceland" or a "Dark Side of the Moon" or even a Rolling Stones' "Some Girls" that was all done in a DAW or a digital mixer, I'm all ears. But I haven't heard it yet.

The immediate sense that I still get when I solo up a track in a digital mixer is that the instrument is smashed flat up against the grille of the speaker. No depth or sense of where the physical space is. And when you combine a bunch of tracks that sound like that, you get a whole group of musicians smashed flat against the speaker. \:\) This is hardly "accurate" since in reality, performances happen in a physical space, and I believe this has a profound effect on the resulting musicality and the way we hear and perceive music. Some people might argue that they would rather control the "space" themselves via reverb or other effects, but reverb and room simulation is not really what I'm talking about, and anyway I have not heard many people compensate for it well with reverb, either.

Good analog desks, for whatever reason, retain space, air and depth in a way that I simply haven't heard yet from digital. This doesn't mean I'm bashing digital. It just means that all recording and mixing devices do leave artifacts and we have to figure out ways to compensate for those artifacts, and you're kidding yourself to think that you don't have to do that with digital recordings. The whole "perfect accuracy" thing is just bunk, and we need to let manufacturers know that we aren't fooled and they need to keep trying. Analog certainly has its artifacts that go away when you record or mix digitally, but the reverse is true as well.

I have no doubt that designers and users WILL keep trying, and that someday we will achieve astonishing fidelity with digital recording. It just hasn't quite happened yet, and I prefer not to believe a lot of BS about the "accuracy" of digital vs. analog. We've just exchanged one type of artifact for another, and most people are still too busy rejoicing that the artifacts of analog have gone away (not to mention all the joys of digital editing, plugins, total recall, etc.), to notice the artifacts of digital. I notice them, and they are not at all subtle to me.

--Lee

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
10k Club
Offline
10k Club
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
Quote:
Originally posted by d-dmusic:
I disagree. A least partially.
Reason ?
Soundcraft Ghost. A killer desk. Not that much dough.
Record 24bit/48k or whatever and mix through a Ghost.
A few years back I did a project with ADAT's and the Ghost and it was a beautiful thing. Big-Wide-And a beautiful top end.
Totally agree! I too have heard stuff mixed on a Ghost, even having been recorded on the dreaded ADAT, that sounds absolutely wonderful. Anybody who thinks you can't get a great sounding analog desk for cheap, should check this one out. Boy would I love to have a RADAR and a Ghost for my project studio - that would keep my ears happy for awhile I think. \:\)

--Lee

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 157
R
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
R
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 157
Seventh & Waterboy,

I tend to agree with your sentiments. We can lose sight of what we want to accomplish if we focus our attention on only a single aspect of production at the expense of others. It works both ways, though. We record to share an experience with more people than could possibly participate in a single venue. But we also record for posterity so that people can participate in the future. As a consequence it is also important for us to do as good a job as we can to keep from sounding dated--that can (but not necessarily always does) detract from the experience.

To beat the film analogy into the ground, Lucas just won't release Star Wars 1-III on DVD, because he feels that it won't stand up to todays production expectations. Or so I understand.

Balance is the key.

-Dennis

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,649
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,649
I've heard some not so hot things about the Ghost, I think over at http://www.recording.org at Jules' forum. Bad build quality stuff. Some guy went through the whole thing trying to upgrade it, bigger power supply, much better grounding (they could have done this easily at the design level ), etc.
He ultimately concluded it did not really represent a step up from a Mackie 8 bus, just a lateral move.
Caveat emptor!

"The immediate sense that I still get when I solo up a track in a digital mixer is that the instrument is smashed flat up against the grille of the speaker. No depth or sense of where the physical space is. And when you combine a bunch of tracks that sound like that, you get a whole group of musicians smashed flat against the speaker. This is hardly "accurate" since in reality, performances happen in a physical space, and I believe this has a profound effect on the resulting musicality and the way we hear and perceive music. Some people might argue that they would rather control the "space" themselves via reverb or other effects, but reverb and room simulation is not really what I'm talking about, and anyway I have not heard many people compensate for it well with reverb, either."

This is very interesting to me, Lee, and it is very different from my own daily experience.
I mic things at a distance in a nice live room, working at 96k because that's what sounds good with my current RME converters.
With my respectable but needs improvement Pendulum solid state pres, I get that "up against the glass" (I think of it as an aquarium) sound your talking about. Through the Manley dual mono pres, lush 3-D space is the rule, (to excess sometimes, care is in order) and no tentacle prints on the glass.
One of the driest signals I work with is a B-band acoustic pickup, and it is flat against the glass through digital recorder and analog monitoring chain alike. No tape recorder handy.
It needs Manley'd in the worst way, and is placed in space very nicely when it is, also for live shows the same issue.
I haven't been tempted to add reverb to anything so far.

I find analog has a quality of automatically making things recorded on it "sound like a record". Everything falls into place, some automatic compression, tape hiss adhesion, and it really doesn't sound like live instruments, lacking the extreme dynamics, it "sounds like a record", that ever in demand quality.
I'm enjoying having it sound a bit more lifelike in the unpredictability of the dynamics- they can be very poorly behaved, just like life. Lately I'm getting some kicks out of having totally uncompressed electric guitar which is sometimes too loud, sometimes not loud enough. Like real electric guitars, before discipline is applied.
I find that this is very effective for pulling the listeners attention around in different directions.
Keep 'em on their toes.
Maybe analog is too easy to listen to, and everyone's gotten lazy- like watching a tennis match on TV instead of craning your neck around some.
Ted


A WOP BOP A LU BOP, A LOP BAM BOOM!

"There is nothing I regret so much as my good behavior. What demon possessed me that I behaved so well?" -Henry David Thoreau
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 41
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 41
just saw this on the way to the end of the thread:
"sonic quest to impress each other instead of our audience."

WHY WOULD YOU TRY TO IMPRESS ANYONE BUT YOURSELF?

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,100
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,100
To make money. Is it a hobby or your career?


Want mix/tracking feedback? Checkout "The Fade"-
http://www.grand-designs.cc/mmforum/index.php

The soon-to-be home of the "12 Bar-Blues Project"
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
10k Club
Offline
10k Club
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
Quote:
Originally posted by Ted Nightshade:
I've heard some not so hot things about the Ghost, I think over at http://www.recording.org at Jules' forum. Bad build quality stuff. Some guy went through the whole thing trying to upgrade it, bigger power supply, much better grounding (they could have done this easily at the design level ), etc.
He ultimately concluded it did not really represent a step up from a Mackie 8 bus, just a lateral move.
Caveat emptor!
Hmm. I have not heard this from any of the several Ghost owners I know, who've had them for several years. And sonically, it is certainly a BIG step up from a Mackie!

Quote:

This is very interesting to me, Lee, and it is very different from my own daily experience.
I mic things at a distance in a nice live room, working at 96k because that's what sounds good with my current RME converters.
With my respectable but needs improvement Pendulum solid state pres, I get that "up against the glass" (I think of it as an aquarium) sound your talking about. Through the Manley dual mono pres, lush 3-D space is the rule, (to excess sometimes, care is in order) and no tentacle prints on the glass.
Yes, I agree - when you're talking RECORDING, it is certainly possible to get great sounds digitally given good pres and converters. And distance-miked stuff does alleviate the problem somewhat (which is probably why classical recordists are happy). But remember we're talking strictly MIXING here. Of course a well recorded track is going to mix better anyway no matter what you use to mix it. But I still say that a bunch of well recorded tracks mixed together in a DAW or digital mixer are not going to have the depth and space of combining the tracks in a good analog desk. The main exceptions that I've heard have not involved combining very many tracks, e.g. a live stereo classical recording or an acoustic folk type thing.

--Lee

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,649
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,649
Are you a lover or a whore?

None of these labels fit very well.
Ted


A WOP BOP A LU BOP, A LOP BAM BOOM!

"There is nothing I regret so much as my good behavior. What demon possessed me that I behaved so well?" -Henry David Thoreau
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 896
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 896
Quote:
Originally posted by alphajerk:
[QB]no, we are behind the film industry. they have been using sgi workstations for YEARS. ever see shrek? fully digital. great movie... i have seen it a billion times... i have a 2 year old. but the level of animation is just becoming absurd.
Well, yes, there's a lot of computer animation out there. However, to split the hair, the question now is whether that animation is printed to actual film, or if it is output to digital video data files.

As to the question of why anyone would want to impress anyone other than themselves:

I think it involves several elements, one of them being the wish to be seen as worthwhile by one's peers. (This may also help generate and boost one's confidence in onesself.) Another is being able to get a sort of evaluation on a piece of work (does anybody besides myself think that it's any good?) Another element is a feeling of achievement.

Maybe we should return to what this thread was actually about...? \:D

-Danny


Grace, Peace, V, and Hz,

Danny
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 285
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 285
Yeah, AJ, of course you're right about Shrek and the Pixar flicks before that.

I should have been more specific and said that live-action features shot on digital tape instead of analog film is right around the corner.

I prefaced my rant wrong as well (try saying that 10 times fast),

What I meant to say is that the coalescing of power around a few technicians is at a much more advanced state in the music industry as the film industry. Yeah, the cg department is all on SGI's but they haven't yet ascended to the prominence that the "Pro Tools guy" has in our industry. Its this coalescing of power around a single individual that chafs against the collaborative nature of music and is maybe part of my beef with digital.

For example: I was making records using computers when my film buddies were still editing on flatbeds with a dozen assistants just to keep track of all the elements. When I would tell them about editing music on a hard disc "just like a word processor!" they used to cross their eyes and look at me like I was from Zontar. But in the space of 10 years all those guys and gals are gone along with all their collective passion, education, and humanity replaced by a handful of workstations running Pro Tools and Waveframes.

When the music industry was more collaborative in nature the energy of all that talent did make its way into the recordings I believe. Just sit in a concert hall as the orchestra takes its place and begins to tune up and you'll see what I mean.

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,649
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,649
That was Ravi Shankar's favorite part- the tune up.
I do love to hang out and listen to the musicians warming up when they're doing Bartok or Debussy- it's perfect for this kind of random juxtaposition of parts.
One musician at a time enters, and noodles, and it gets bigger and bigger and louder and fuller until-

Well, usually it's a bit of an anticlimax, but Beethoven was truly inspired with the beginning of his 9th Symphony, where the orchestra apparently starts tuning again, until-

BA DUM! Ba dum, ba dum, ba dum...
That's Floydian in it's amazing shift of context for the listener. That late Beethoven. What a guy.

"Yes, I agree - when you're talking RECORDING, it is certainly possible to get great sounds digitally given good pres and converters. And distance-miked stuff does alleviate the problem somewhat (which is probably why classical recordists are happy). But remember we're talking strictly MIXING here. Of course a well recorded track is going to mix better anyway no matter what you use to mix it. But I still say that a bunch of well recorded tracks mixed together in a DAW or digital mixer are not going to have the depth and space of combining the tracks in a good analog desk. The main exceptions that I've heard have not involved combining very many tracks, e.g. a live stereo classical recording or an acoustic folk type thing."

Well, that's the story with the tracks I'm loving over here mixed digitally. No EQ, no plugs, no nothing, just summing and panning, which is mostly hardpanned L+R pairs, pull up the faders and it sounds good, fine tune the faders and it sounds great, mega depth and dimension, and only 10 tracks.

Which is apparently pretty uncommon.
It's not classical, it's not acoustic folk, but like Fletcher sez, there's got to be a bin for it somewhere.

It's hard to believe that any one piece of gear would be right for mixing whatever tracks you throw at it.
Maybe we should have a side discussion, what sounds best to whom most often when just pulling up the faders reveals an almost finished mix?
Ted


A WOP BOP A LU BOP, A LOP BAM BOOM!

"There is nothing I regret so much as my good behavior. What demon possessed me that I behaved so well?" -Henry David Thoreau
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 285
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 285
Lee wrote:
"I have no doubt that designers and users WILL keep trying, and that someday we will achieve astonishing fidelity with digital recording."

Yeah, but will there be anyone worth recording? The ever "improving" technology is going hand in hand with a general decrease in musical literacy. My mom teaches singing and she's getting pupils these days who have no concept of natural dynamics -- they've heard too many over-compressed cd's!

And sorry to beat a dead alien, but the John Williams score for ET which had some beautifully rendered harp passages in the original is now ff throughout the entire flippin' movie along with every squack, belch, footfall, and fart.

retreading wrote:

"But we also record for posterity so that people can participate in the future. As a consequence it is also important for us to do as good a job as we can to keep from sounding dated."

Another reason if we're working digitally to have as wide a word length and high a sample rate as our hard drives and budgets will allow.

Ted wrote:

"I do love to hang out and listen to the musicians warming up when they're doing Bartok or Debussy- it's perfect for this kind of random juxtaposition of parts.
One musician at a time enters, and noodles, and it gets bigger and bigger and louder and fuller until-"

Yeah, that's the ticket. Maybe a field trip is in order next AES. Some single malt in paper bags and Fletcher within kissing distance -- that would reinvigorate the soul.

Ted also wrote:

"Maybe we should have a side discussion, what sounds best to whom most often when just pulling up the faders reveals an almost finished mix?"

At that point for me if the music is good and the tracks are well recorded its a draw.

Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 2,729
P
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
P
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 2,729
Very well put by Rob Darling



Jules
Producer Julian Standen
London, UK,
Come hang here! http://www.gearslutz.com
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 35
S
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 35
Every time I see these dig vs analog discussions, I see people saying that good analog is too costly. It isnt!
I recently picked up a like-new cond 2" MCI/Sony 16trk for under $5k & run it through a Ghost console. Magic!
I also use Nuendo & occasionally dump the 2" stuff over & mix through the Ghost using Apogee DA16's. With top converters rented for the transfers, again it sounds great through the Ghost. Not up to the 2" directly to the console, but good enough to use it for OD's & slight editing & to mix down to an analog console with.

So - want great sounding analog? It will cost you well under $10k for a 2" deck & 32 ch console of really good quality. Yeah, it's $150 for a reel of tape, but that's the price of admission. Get one & use it with your $5000 DAW setup & you've got it all.

Hell, I made great sounding records for clients with a Fostex E16 & dolby C 10 years ago that sound about 10x more open & dynamic than the new U2 album. Oh - and no way does a good 2" 16 at 30ips sound muddy & crappy. Must have been using the wrong deck & console for anyone to have made that conclusion. And yes, it does sound more like a record coming off tape, than straight to the hard drive. At least for me it always has.

Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,078
mmm Offline
Platinum Member
Offline
Platinum Member
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,078
I have long thought about having a tape machine to record basic tracks to and then dumping into the DAW. But to be honest I don't always want that kind of sound. Thus having a tape machine for when you want nice tape compression, a huge hump in the low mids and a drastic high end rolloff is mearly a luxury. (That was a bit of humor - put down your mouse) I don't invest in luxury items. So it really is too expensive when I don't really need it.

Number of times someone has come in or called and asked for tape instead of digital in the last 3 years - 0.

Finding a tape machine in good shape at that price range is a rare find. But I still wouldn't use one. Too many variables and too costly. Not to mention finding replacement parts for a machine that is 10-15 years old. Fagedaboutit!

I really hear you about the Ghost console and that just may be my next big purchase here at the studio.

So I will be dumping my digital board for analog. But not my hard drive for a tape machine. No way. Besides my mommy won't let me play with razor blades.

pat
mmm


"well I wouldn't exactly say I've been missing it Bob!" - Peter Gibbons
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 160
B
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
B
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 160
Consensus so far:

Where are we at?
Thread Title: I first titled this thread "Analog mixes vrs Digital Mixes" but it was pointed out that the title was flawed since the Mix is the result of alot more variables than just the quality of the equipment used. So I changed the title as suggested to focus on the actual gear itself.

Intent: To see if everyone agreed with "Jon Atack"'s statement that "at the mid and upper end of the music mixing spectrum nearly all of the mixes are running through analog consoles. It may not be scientific or logical, but it is what most folks doing music mixing seem to prefer". That statement surprized me because I had the impression that alot were doing mixes on digital consoles but I don't honestly know if it is true. When we first started shipping RADAR 24 we expected at least 25% of the sales to be digital I/O only on the premise that they would be used by people with digital mixers that wanted to save money by not having replication of the converters. However, 98% of all the RADAR's we have shipped have been with analog I/O. I don't know if that's because they are mostly using analog mixers or because they are mostly using digital mixers hooked up to the RADAR converters.

General Consensus(My early take):
1) Seems to be that most agree that there are now some very inexpensive analog mixers that are sonically better than most digital mixers.
2) Eventually digital mixers resolution will come up to the level of anlog.(does this imply that analog mixers will eventually largely become obsolete in music recording applications?).
3) Some (perhaps many) have found creative ways to get around the problems of digital mixers and get high quality results.

It would be really interesting to hear some responses relating to "Jon Atack"'s statement though.


Barry, iZ President
http://www.izcorp.com
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,938
N
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
N
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally posted by bhenderson:
General Consensus(My early take):
1) Seems to be that most agree that there are now some very inexpensive analog mixers that are sonically better than most digital mixers.
2) Eventually digital mixers resolution will come up to the level of anlog.(does this imply that analog mixers will eventually largely become obsolete in music recording applications?).
3) Some (perhaps many) have found creative ways to get around the problems of digital mixers and get high quality results.
It seems to me you're deriving from this thread what you'd like to have the results be and then concluding that those results are "consensus." You state that the "intent" of this thread is to determine if upper level engineers are mixing primarily analog, but then draw results about inexpensive analog mixers and sound quality. It seems that what you're trying to draw as a conclusion is really unrelated to what you state is the purpose.

Your first statement seems inherently flawed to me. The fact that there are inexpensive analog mixers that sound better than most digital mixers - in which capacity? Distortion components? Noise floor? Crosstalk? What are you identifying as the key feature to "sounds better"? Further, I don't recall really seeing anything to substantiate this fact in this thread. How are you drawing this conclusion? Again, it seems that you're drawing the conclusions you'd like to draw. I find this thread to be entirely unscientific and hardly worth drawing conclusions from.

Your second statement again leaves me lost. In which ways are digital mixers going to "catch up" to analog? In noise floor? Are they going to get noisier or something? What do you mean by the "resolution" of them? The statement is dependant upon your first statement - that digital mixers are inherently inferior - a point that I don't think has been adequately substantiated yet.

As for your third statement - "Get around the problems". What do you mean by that? It's not a matter of "getting around the problems". It's a matter of knowing the tools and how they work and using them in that way. We could say that your prized converters have a "problem" because you can't record into them, peaking at -100dBFS without getting a lot of noise. We don't say that, though. Instead we learn how we're supposed to use the tools and we use them the way that gets the best results. There's no "problem" with my digital mixer. I just have to know how it works in order to get the best results - no different than analog. "Gain staging" is important (but different) in each. The fact that you have to pay attention to gain staging doesn't make the product "broken".

I find it unfortunate that you are close-mindedly and unscientifically trying to draw conclusive results from this thread. The thread with the discussion on dither leads me to the conclusion that you have some pretty steadfast beliefs on digital audio that are in many ways founded on incorrect premises. I think that once you understand digital audio more comprehensively your tone about digital mixing will change and you will likely draw different conclusions in your "consensus" about this thread.

Nika.

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 41
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 41
career

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 160
B
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
B
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 160
Quote:
Originally posted by Nika:
...I think that once you understand digital audio more comprehensively your tone about digital mixing will change and you will likely draw different conclusions in your "consensus" about this thread...
Nika,

a) I make a digital audio device which is being hailed as having the best sound quality of any digital device in the world. This is coming from the industry - not from me. If that means that I don't understand digital audio then so be it. Have we designed this device by accident? Perhaps, it would not be the first time I've done something good by accident. But this is not about me. This is about delivering the best sound quality to our customers. Thats all that matters.

b) I think you may be missing the whole point of this thread. I have no particular interest in promoting analog mixers. We don't make mixers analog or digital and have no plans to make them. My only interest is to see customers get the best quality sound in their work. I have asked the forum members if they agree with Jon Atack's statement that analog mixer's are sonically better than digital ones. This is not my statement. If I am biased it would be a bias towards high sound quality not towards analog mixers. I think the goal here is to one day make a digital mixer that sounds as good as the analog signals they are processing. We all want this.


Barry, iZ President
http://www.izcorp.com
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,649
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,649
I do think the proof is in the pudding.
Nika makes what I bet are very classy classical recordings, and does what is called for to get the results he wants.
Barry designed what is from virtually all accounts a reliable and great sounding no frills recording machine.
Nika is inevitably a bit out of his depth when discussing designing recording machines, as is Barry when discussing mixing recordings, as both are outside of their fields of mastery.

I say it's a good thing that both are having a dialogue, as further knowledge of recording design will help Nika continue to make great recordings, and further knowledge of recording and mixing practice will help Barry keep making great recorders.

I did notice that Barry qualified his highly debatable "early take" with the word "seems", which is not to strident or fanatical of a way to state his "take" on it.
I submit that using such modest language is becoming to scientists and dilettantes alike.

That all said,
Nika is right in that every approach has it's problems which must be addressed, hopefully creatively, or at least openmindedly, to get the best results.
I have lived to see almost all the "obsolete" items I hold dear (Supros, Leslies, Ampegs, various vaccuum tubes) go back into production in a big way. Some are shabby fakes of the original, some are workable, some are big improvements. I recently bought 3 vintage reconditioned and modded-the-way-I-like Leslies for what one unusably noisy solid state new one costs these days.
Which is to say, some years down the road, there will be a healthy demand for analog mixers, and I certainly hope that what's available is an improvement over what we have available now, not a cheap knockoff.
Analog or digital can be done well, or not.
Analog or digital can be used well, or not.
Ted


A WOP BOP A LU BOP, A LOP BAM BOOM!

"There is nothing I regret so much as my good behavior. What demon possessed me that I behaved so well?" -Henry David Thoreau
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 7,508
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 7,508
Quote:
Originally posted by carcrash club:
For me a big part of it isnt just the sound its the attitude and feeling of mixing analog. I got tired of messing around with my digi001, with all the plug ins and other crap. I wanted something I could put my hands on, turn REAL knobs (and sound better then computer eq's and comps) and be able to feel the music. I'm not saying you cant do this in a computer, but i cant. I like the idea of looking at my racks when I mix and knowing my audio is going thru tons of real gear, instead of some digital plug in that messes with the sound in ways i dont understand. I like being able to drive certain channels more then others and getting different textures from how I use the line trims and faders. I love tracking bands now and having a big mixing console in front of me with a rack full of cool equipment, so i can feel like im actually recording instead of doing taxes or something else computers are for. For me this keeps my mind on the vibe and how the music feels. But once again this is for me, not speaking for how the rest of you work. Sorry for rambling but am about to go to bed and didnt feel like spacing any of this out.
Isn't that really what it's all about, how the experience makes you feel? I'm right with you carcrash...this is the reason I didn't go digital...it didn't feel musical using digital mixers, of course I'm a musician first so knobs and buttons are very intuitive for me.

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,867
10k Club
Offline
10k Club
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,867
I find, universally, that analog mixers are far superior to digital when passing analog audio signals. However, digital boards are superior when passing digital signals. These results are incontrovertable.

I've passed digital signals through analog gear. It ain't pretty! ;\)


It's easiest to find me on Facebook. Neil Bergman

Soundclick
fntstcsnd
Page 2 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Moderated by  gm 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5