Music Player Network
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 160
B
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
B
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 160
Are these statements true? Jon, how can you back up this information. If what you are saying is the case is this not significant? I'd like to hear your backup but I also want to know everyone elses opinion....

Quote:
Originally posted by "Jon Atack"
Gold Member Member # 512, posted 04-07-2002 08:12 PM

When it comes to the choice of mixing systems, my experience is that it mainly comes down to (a) cost, (b) convenience and (c) perceived musicality/sound quality, and the choice will often by determined by which of the three is the highest priority.

While ProTools may be cheaper and more convenient, it would be fair to say that it has not overwhelmed the mixing world in the musicality/sound category. Most mixers I know, including myself, who have used both paths extensively, do prefer the sound of mixing with analog desks and outboard as opposed to within ProTools TDM with plugins. Not all of them (GM is one example, I believe), but certainly the vast majority of them.

I know a number of pros who, for reasons (a) and (b) above, have attempted for years and years to get their all-digital mixes up to the level they were able to achieve with analog mixers, who fully understand the issues specific to digital mixing, and yet who have reverted partly or wholly back to analog mixing.

One unscientific but telling indicator is the number of Oxfords and Axiom MTs installed in the US during the past year or three, which I believe is a negative number (more removals than installations) versus the high number of high-end analog desks installed during the same period of time.

ProTools may be everywhere, but 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.

Jon
Also, waterboy said:

Quote:
Originally posted by "waterboy"
Senior Member # 7779, posted 04-07-2002 09:34 PM

...This still doesn't change what my ears are telling me about digital recordings -- I have yet to hear ANY digital recording that satisfies in the same way a great analog recording does . Don't get me wrong, I've heard great analog recordings played back on cd that sounded wonderful (some of the Mobile Fidelity Gain II discs come to mind). So, at least at the two track level utilizing esoteric converters the digital artifacts are small enough to not be a problem or else masked by more prominent analog artifacts. But I'm definitiely not in the camp that claims that digital does "nothing" to the sound. There are cumulative artifacts of the digital multi-tracking process that have yet to be addressed. I have a broad frame of reference for that statement that includes a fair bit of time spent in concert halls listening to the real deal. Sorry for editorializing, but debating the issue purely on the mathematics will not change this fact.
I'm really interested to hear the outcome of this...


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
Please state your qualifications for answering when you answer - what equipment you've used for the sake of comparison.

Nika.

Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,950
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,950
who the fuck cares?

does the song grab you... thats all that matters. the rest is a bunch of marketing bullshit to feed an overinflated industry.

you want to compare apples to apples? it still doesnt matter. i have heard mixes done on an O2R and ADATs that fucking kicked ass.... a LOT fucking better than the previous album that was done on 2"/neve with a world famous producer and engineer.

so what if bits get rounded, analog components arent exactly truely linear either [or exactly identical for that matter]


alphajerk
FATcompilation
"if god is truly just, i tremble for the fate of my country" -thomas jefferson
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,950
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,950
P.S.

"""One unscientific but telling indicator is the number of Oxfords and Axiom MTs installed in the US during the past year or three, which I believe is a negative number (more removals than installations) versus the high number of high-end analog desks installed during the same period of time. """

that is IMPOSSIBLE. one cannot remove what was never installed.


alphajerk
FATcompilation
"if god is truly just, i tremble for the fate of my country" -thomas jefferson
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 160
B
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
B
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 160
Quote:
Originally posted by alphajerk:
P.S.

"""One unscientific but telling indicator is the number of Oxfords and Axiom MTs installed in the US during the past year or three, which I believe is a negative number (more removals than installations) versus the high number of high-end analog desks installed during the same period of time. """

that is IMPOSSIBLE. one cannot remove what was never installed.
Alpha,

None installed in the U.S. during the past three years?


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 like the idea of not building to a price point-
make it right and see what it costs.
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: Aug 2001
Posts: 232
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 232
In general Analog sounds hissy, muddy and distorted to me.

BUT, a great mix sounds great regardless of whether it was done on an analog or a digital mixer. Other than opinionated bunch of no-lifes on these boards (me included) most young, up and coming engineers seem focused on learning to do it in digital.
I will never waste my time with an analog mixer again and good ridence to all my outboard gear that sucked up space, made nioise, cost me lots to maintain and never sounded the same twice. Now its just great mics into great pre's straight into hard disk for me. Focus on an accurate monitoring environment and mix away.

Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,950
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,950
Quote:
Originally posted by bhenderson:
Quote:
Originally posted by alphajerk:
P.S.

"""One unscientific but telling indicator is the number of Oxfords and Axiom MTs installed in the US during the past year or three, which I believe is a negative number (more removals than installations) versus the high number of high-end analog desks installed during the same period of time. """

that is IMPOSSIBLE. one cannot remove what was never installed.
Alpha,

None installed in the U.S. during the past three years?
no, the statement you posted that jon made... it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a negative number of units in reality.


alphajerk
FATcompilation
"if god is truly just, i tremble for the fate of my country" -thomas jefferson
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 166
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 166
Quote:
Originally posted by steveD:
In general Analog sounds hissy, muddy and distorted to me.
I will never waste my time with an analog mixer again and good ridence to all my outboard gear that sucked up space, made nioise, cost me lots to maintain and never sounded the same twice. Now its just great mics into great pre's straight into hard disk for me. Focus on an accurate monitoring environment and mix away.
Did you work at a Peavey or Carvin factory??? Maybe you tried to mix a few records on a Tascam mixer. \:\)

You must not have worked with decent equipment to make you say that. What was it??
drew

Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 746
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 746
Compare two great albums produced by Mutt Lange. Great talent, great songs and the best equiptment money could buy. Whitesnake's 87'(whitesnake) and Shania Twains (Come on Over) In my opinion one sounds as huge as the universe the other sounds like they're playing through a 5 dollar Radioshack piezo tweeter.

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 285
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 285
Nika wrote:

"Please state your qualifications for answering when you answer..."

OK, FWIW,

I came from a large musical family where live music was always in abundance

Studied piano from the age of 6

At 17 opened a studio with some friends in the garage and recorded a lot of the bands of the SoCal punk and mod movements on a Tascam 8 track

In college I learned on a Neve (8068 I think -- I don't have a good memory for details -- beautiful little board though) and a Stephens multitrack and apprenticed in a local studio with an Otari /Neve combo.

Later as a freelance engineer and producer I worked at most of the "major" studios of the day: Lion's Share, The Enterprise, etc. mostly on Studer/Neve combos -- very few hours logged with SSL and even then only as a producer. Had the good fortune of working on a project at GM's studio while he was producing Toto. We used to sneak into the control room after hours and listen to dats of the work in progress (and yes I do remember thinking "this sounds like shit" -- sorry George but I blame that on Mitsubishi not on you).

Did a stint composing for film where I got to hear the glorious sound of fullcoat mag recorders

Disillusioned with some of the entrenched social problems plaguing LA I hit the road in my mid-twenties and for the next decade listened to and played more music than I recorded. I suppose if I had been brave or callous enough to stay I would have more of a "name" in the industry, but that's by the by.

Of late Pro Tools is my main rig along with tentative forays into dsd production.

I am not lost in a myopic haze of nostalgia for analog recording -- I'm fully commited to digital I just believe it has a long way to go before it is truly hi-fidelity. i also think as professionals it is our duty to be opinionated (as distinct from confrontational) -- this is how things change and the industry improves. And Thank God for this and other forums that give us an outlet to do so. In today's decentralized world its the power of conversing around the electronic water bubbler that will keep the wheels of progress turning. Just my .02 worth of fizzy water.

BTW, I suppose its a little narrow-minded to just critiicize the technology when its the multitrack process in general that has been antithetical to authentic musical expression.

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,100
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,100
No. \:\)


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
Geez waterboy, I feel like I could have written half your post!

Quote:
Disillusioned with some of the entrenched social problems plaguing LA I hit the road in my mid-twenties and for the next decade listened to and played more music than I recorded. I suppose if I had been brave or callous enough to stay I would have more of a "name" in the industry, but that's by the by.
YEAH!! That's my story exactly.

Quote:

I am not lost in a myopic haze of nostalgia for analog recording -- I'm fully commited to digital I just believe it has a long way to go before it is truly hi-fidelity. i also think as professionals it is our duty to be opinionated (as distinct from confrontational) -- this is how things change and the industry improves.
Yes, thank you. I'm all for progress and I own a digital recorder/mixer, but I do not kid myself that it sounds as good as a good analog desk. CURRENTLY, analog is a mature format and the benchmark by which to measure sonic quality and musicality. Digital is not. Like you, I have NO doubt that will change, but things won't get better unless we recognize the shortcomings of our tools and let the designers know we recognize them. Too many people get locked into a pride thing where they have to defend whatever it is they personally invested in. That really isn't necessary; if you are getting good things done with the gear you own, it doesn't have to be perfect. But let's not pretend that it IS perfect, just because we invested in it.

--Lee

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 157
R
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
R
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 157
Quote:

i also think as professionals it is our duty to be opinionated (as distinct from confrontational) -- this is how things change and the industry improves. And Thank God for this and other forums that give us an outlet to do so. In today's decentralized world its the power of conversing around the electronic water bubbler that will keep the wheels of progress turning. Just my .02 worth of fizzy water.

BTW, I suppose its a little narrow-minded to just critiicize the technology when its the multitrack process in general that has been antithetical to authentic musical expression.
Well said.

-Dennis

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 477
R
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
R
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 477
To back up John Attack-

More axioms/oxfords have been removed from music rooms after installation than have stayed in the US. Hit Factory's Oxford went down in a fire recently and even with a big insurance check, they won't be replacing it. Some of these desks didn't even last two months. Semantics aside, it is a pretty sad performance picture. They seem to be great for film and broadcast, where the conveniences make them valuable, but music mixers just don't like them, which is well documented by their lack of success in the marketplace. Even with a brand new computer that was hell in comparison to its predecessor, the SSL 9000 managed to become a huge success in just two years, so the issue isn't just having to change mixing styles or learn new things. Owners of digital desks gave away lots of free time to get them to stick. The problem was that their clients just didn't get the sounds they wanted out of them.

I'm the last person to say they will never catch up- I don't know the last time I used tape, so I'm no hater of digital. But I do believe it will be a solid 20 years before digital mixers stand toe to toe with analog.

Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 94
T
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 94
Hi all,

I think when some of us decide perfect is not what we're going for we'll get back to writing, arranging, producing, and mixing better music. There is no BSing digital. Analog can be pushed/altered/blended all sorts of ways. I like that ability to push, alter and blend when necessary. The old tricks don't work in digital. It's a lot harder for something to just happen and then be able to keep it. I had a great track going on digital the other night until it blew through the meters. I had to do it over. With tape it would have been just fine, if not quite excellent, because it compresses favorably/linearly with the performer's energy and feel. I hate having to hold back. I guess I will always like that "bigger than life sound" analog distortion gives me. Of course I like a lot of butter, garlic and real charcoal when I cook too. Go figure. IMO

Thanks,
Ted.

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 285
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 285
Lee wrote:

"YEAH!! That's my story exactly."

Cool! Glad to know I'm in good company. It was strangely liberating to convey that (kind of like changing to boxer shorts after years of wearing jockeys).

Ted wrote:

"I think when some of us decide perfect is not what we're going for we'll get back to writing, arranging, producing, and mixing better music."

Yeah, I agree. But for myself, it's not really lack of reality I'm complaining about. It's lack of "magic". Benny Goodman's recording of "Moon Glow" made in the fucking 30's in MONO with enough badkground noise to tune a room with is pure MAGIC! Britney Spears' Auto-tuned catterwauling in pristine 24 bit glory has about as much magic as a bag of hammers. Mind you, nestling into the verdant valley of her perineum would be a different story altogether.

Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 94
T
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 94
I agree. That's what I was trying to convey.

Thanks,
Ted.

Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,950
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,950
exactly ted.

the whole thread title is FLAWED.

maybe if it said 'are analog mixers soncially better than digital mixers'


alphajerk
FATcompilation
"if god is truly just, i tremble for the fate of my country" -thomas jefferson
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 160
B
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
B
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 160
Quote:
Originally posted by alphajerk:
exactly ted.

the whole thread title is FLAWED.

maybe if it said 'are analog mixers soncially better than digital mixers'
I agree. Done!


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
Wow, talk about a baited and biased question! The nature of the question and the quotes referenced already implies which answer you're looking for.

Nika.

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
Right on, Nika. "Forum Consensus" - then referencing quotes that indicate his own opinion, looking for support for that opinion.

Here's my unfounded opinion. What's my claim to fame? Nothing. I'm a self-taught mixing and mastering engineer. I learned from a mountain of literature and countless hours of learning by recognizing mistakes in both my self-production and other people's self-production, along with figuring out how to correct those mistakes.

Until the digital domain exceeds 192Khz sampling rate, it won't cut it. The resolution has to effectively exceed audibility before it will match analog. Once we get up into the 1Mhz plus range, we'll be there. Sure, it's going to take computers that make our current systems look like TRS-80's - multi-processor behemoths with 4Ghz matched processors along with UW SCSI RAID arrays spinning at 15,000rpm to handle the bandwidth, but it will happen.

When it does, we'll have incredibly sophisticated MIDI controller desks and HD interfaces that will take the "digital mixer" issue out of the loop.

Then, and only then, will this whole "digital vs. analog" become a moot argument.

Until then, the majority of not-quite-prime-time producers are going to continue to swear by analog gear, and the prime-time producers are going to embrace technology and interweave it with their existing gear and pioneer new tricks to complement their old ones, and will be way ahead of everyone else when the digital gear becomes the standard.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 402
G
gmd Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
G
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 402
At this point in time I would have to agree with the consensus opinion here that the analog boards sound better, and that high quality analog recording in general is more pleasing to the ear than digital. In a recent issue of Tape Op magazine Rupert Neve put it well when he said that digital just doesn't have the "separation" of analog. Another way of putting it might be a "lack of dimension" or "space"? It's subtle, and those of us who work in studios and/or other recording environments would hear this much better than the average person. All that said, there is no denying that digital recording is now the standard. In fact, I think you would be hard-pressed to find a multi-track analog recorder for sale anymore, save for the cassette 4-tracks! Digital keeps getting better, too. Compared to ten years ago, the digital gear of today sounds much, much better. With as many brilliant engineering minds as we have on this planet, I'm sure it won't be long before the debate between digital and analog will be a thing of the past... \:D

Joined: May 2001
Posts: 107
X
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
X
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 107
I think if you put a $3000 digital mixer up against a $3000 analogue mixer, the digital mixer would easily win in the sound department.

Moreover, some people have argued that a PT mix can be better than a Neve mix. There is even that cd circulating that tries to show this.
How much can you get a PT system for? $10,000. A Neve? Much more.

Although this brings this thread into a different direction, i think when you factor price into the equation, digital wins almost every time.

Who disagrees? \:\)

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
Jon is somewhat 'the grit in the digital oyster'.

Just remember what happens to that grit in oysters once in a while!



Meanwhile I use a hybrid of digital AND analog mixing by using a Pro Control and 16 Apogee SE analog outputs from Pro Tools running into one of these. http://www.dangerousmusic.com/2bus.htm
I insert some of my analog ouboard before it and enjoy tweaking that very much after 3 years of plug in only manipulation on mixdown. ANYONE with 16 DAW analog outputs could make use of it. I recomend it!

\:D


Jules
Producer Julian Standen
London, UK,
Come hang here! http://www.gearslutz.com
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 XHipHop:
I think if you put a $3000 digital mixer up against a $3000 analogue mixer, the digital mixer would easily win in the sound department.

Moreover, some people have argued that a PT mix can be better than a Neve mix. There is even that cd circulating that tries to show this.
How much can you get a PT system for? $10,000. A Neve? Much more.

Although this brings this thread into a different direction, i think when you factor price into the equation, digital wins almost every time.

Who disagrees? \:\)
That's true, actually. What I can accomplish with ProTools on my PC with a set of 3 8-input rackmounts (Echo Layla, MOTU 828, Aardvark Q10) and an IDE RAID - total pricetag @ $5,000 - add a couple thousand for Waves Gold and a couple other crucial plugins, along with a MIDI control surface - there's nothing analog in that price range that could touch what I could produce with this rig.

Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,184
gm Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,184
Quote:
Originally posted by bhenderson:
[...]
One unscientific but telling indicator is the number of Oxfords and Axiom MTs installed in the US during the past year or three, which I believe is a negative number (more removals than installations) versus the high number of high-end analog desks installed during the same period of time. [...]
Uh, I don't know that the facts support this statement, at least as it refers to Oxford OXF-R3's. None, to the best of my knowledge, have been "taken out". There was one that was...uh...compromised when the Hit Factory room burnt last year. Notwithstanding the fact that I bought one, I think it's a work of art, and I can support that position technically and artistically in fine detail.

Many of the Axioms, on the other hand, have been disposed of. But then, that is the right choice for a truly bad piece of engineering.

George


George Massenburg

http://www.massenburg.com
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,078
mmm Offline
Platinum Member
Offline
Platinum Member
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,078
The more I update my studio the more I want a better analog front end. But after that it stays in the computer and gets bounced. There is no way at the level I work at that I can afford an analog reverb or console that sounds better and is quieter than my plug ins and mixing in my DAW. . Your talking about Neve, Trident Series 80, high end Lexicon and the like and that just isn't possible. I don't think there is an engineer here that would disagree that tracking through Neve and API pres to a DAW and then mixing back on a high dollar analogue board straight to 1" 2-track wouldn't be the way to go. It is probably a generally prefered consensus. But that is A room major studio stuff. Reality is most of us don't work in those situations. Yes, I can read that some of you do, but how many of you control the purchasing decisions? And at the end of the day you don't really own that gear do you? So it is easy to say "hey this is the best way to go" but a whole other deal when you have to come up with the hard cash to do it. So digital saves the day. And by we the small studio owners and private individuals investing in it we improve the product through increased R&D and a competitive marketplace. Like Mr M said... someday because of this phenom, digital will outdo analog. That day is not today though. Although I don't really feel that 2" 24 track is better than digital anymore. But as has been stated a million times before "its in the way that you use it..." And that goes for both sides of the coin.

pat
mmm


"well I wouldn't exactly say I've been missing it Bob!" - Peter Gibbons
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 556
E
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
E
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 556
Quote:
Originally posted by Griffinator:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by XHipHop:
I think if you put a $3000 digital mixer up against a $3000 analogue mixer, the digital mixer would easily win in the sound department.

How much can you get a PT system for? $10,000. A Neve? Much more.

Although this brings this thread into a different direction, i think when you factor price into the equation, digital wins almost every time.

Who disagrees? \:\)
[/QUOTE
I don't know what I did wrong but when I posted my reply it came up without what I had replied. So here 'goes again.

Shorter version :
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.

Next year, I hope to purchase a mondo Ghost console and I'll mix everything through that instead of my current digi-thin-narrow-not so great but I'll live with it mixes.


eightyeightkeys
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 267
A
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
A
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 267
Hi Guys,

I'm with Alpha on this one......"who the F*** cares!!!!"

I have always been aware that musicians/producers/ engineers make up an absolutely feeble percentage of the record buying public yet we all seem to be on this sonic quest to impress each other instead of our audience.
I hear guys waffle on in the music stores and studios about 96k this and 32 bit that and digital this blah blah blah in an all consuming quest for sonic perfection.
While I think sonic perfection would be great, I also think it has a negative effect , namely that it is becoming more important than the music it is designed to capture.
The analog versus digital thing is just an extension of this.
I think when you are talking about the upper end of the recording market it really isn't an issue anyway. Top end analog gear sounds amazing--top end digital gear sounds amazing, choose your poison sympathetically to what the project requires.

SteveD-Hissy,muddy ?? So every record released before 1990 say is hissy and muddy

Best Regards
Alan (professional muso and part time ranter)

Oh by the way Nika My qualification for answering is I own and run a successful demo studio and my songwriting partner and I have just signed an extension to our deal with a Warner-chappell subsidiary in Sweden. I am by trade a hammond/piano player in that order and during my period as a session player I have worked with great artists and great producers-analog and digital and funny thing none of them ever mentioned which they prefer. I am currently producing a band from Columbia and there budget allows for pretty much anywhere. They wanted somewhere with nice scenery ;\) Analog scenery I think they said.

Page 1 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