As far as digital formats go, I can tell a difference between a iTunes AAC file and a average MP3. It sounds "clearer" to me, provided it's played back over a dedicated audio system or over a computer with a proper set of speakers and a add-on sound card, not this AC97 or "HD" Audio codec garbage with no bass or treble controls.
CD, Album, LP, ... or what?
- Thread starter TallPaul
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, maybe if I spun some vinyl I would hear the difference. Digital is convenient, but it ain't real.
I understand tape is analog? I always thought it was like a CD with a bunch of binary coding, but apparently it is a continuous variation in magnetism, so reel to reel would be geat and that is what everything is mastered on, right?
I understand tape is analog? I always thought it was like a CD with a bunch of binary coding, but apparently it is a continuous variation in magnetism, so reel to reel would be geat and that is what everything is mastered on, right?
But what I really want it the brain implant of a silicon chip with all my favorite music so I can listen in full stereo with good bass, any time I wish, with no wires, no devices, no earbuds, etc. Then boring meetings could rock! Also you could think up the volume as high as you wish without damaging your eardrums. They can do it, no? Soon? Maybe not in my lifetime, but it is coming.
Originally Posted By: TallPaul
so reel to reel would be geat and that is what everything is mastered on, right?
Not any more... A lot of mastering used to be 1/2" (or 1/4") stereo tape, but these days it's almost all digital.
Ironically, every (professional) mastering engineer I've ever known still uses analog processing: equalizers, compressors, etc., so two conversions still need to take place: the conversion from the original mix, delivered to the mastering engineer in one of a few digital formats, to analog where the EQ and compression is done, then again from analog back to digital. Converters have come a *long* way in the last 5 or so years, so I guess making the conversions doesn't bother someone using a $10,000 EQ to tweak 1/2dB at 15KHz!
Originally Posted By: TallPaul
I understand tape is analog?
It depends - There are digital tape machines out there (The "ADAT", made by Alesis, almost singlehandedly revolutionized home and professional recording in the early 90's... It recorded 8 digital audio tracks at 16 bit/ 44.1KHz audio on a S-VHS tape for under $5k. It sounded like utter garbage. Mitsubishi made what was the standard 32 track machine used in the 80's and a lot of the 90's.), but most have been supplanted by hard disk recording.
As far as I know, BASF stopped making analog tape (2") a few years back, and Studer stopped making their 24 track machines, too.
so reel to reel would be geat and that is what everything is mastered on, right?
Not any more... A lot of mastering used to be 1/2" (or 1/4") stereo tape, but these days it's almost all digital.
Ironically, every (professional) mastering engineer I've ever known still uses analog processing: equalizers, compressors, etc., so two conversions still need to take place: the conversion from the original mix, delivered to the mastering engineer in one of a few digital formats, to analog where the EQ and compression is done, then again from analog back to digital. Converters have come a *long* way in the last 5 or so years, so I guess making the conversions doesn't bother someone using a $10,000 EQ to tweak 1/2dB at 15KHz!
Originally Posted By: TallPaul
I understand tape is analog?
It depends - There are digital tape machines out there (The "ADAT", made by Alesis, almost singlehandedly revolutionized home and professional recording in the early 90's... It recorded 8 digital audio tracks at 16 bit/ 44.1KHz audio on a S-VHS tape for under $5k. It sounded like utter garbage. Mitsubishi made what was the standard 32 track machine used in the 80's and a lot of the 90's.), but most have been supplanted by hard disk recording.
As far as I know, BASF stopped making analog tape (2") a few years back, and Studer stopped making their 24 track machines, too.
Here is an article on one of my all time favorite albums. It describes two types of recording equipment used (one for the mixed live recording using a 2-track Ampex 354 recorder, and another newer device for the two "studio" tracks using a half-inch 4-track Scully 280 recorder. I am curious to hear those of you who are knowledgable on this stuff comment's about this article and the equipment used.
Originally Posted By: TallPaul
Here is an article on one of my all time favorite albums. It describes two types of recording equipment used (one for the mixed live recording using a 2-track Ampex 354 recorder, and another newer device for the two "studio" tracks using a half-inch 4-track Scully 280 recorder. I am curious to hear those of you who are knowledgable on this stuff comment's about this article and the equipment used.
Man, an Ampex 350 or 351 is a very sought-after device. Since most of them are approaching 40 years old, having some considerable technical acuity is necessary. There are a lot of smaller studios that will mix down to a machine like this to achieve some tube/ tape "warmth". I almost bought one around 2003, but I was inundated with stories at the time from folks who owned them about how hard it was to get parts and tape. My path toward making audio recordings actually sound like music then took me to ribbon microphones.
I do not know much about Scully machines, other than they had a reputation as "working man's" recorders. I do know that the 1/2" 4-track format went the way of the do-do bird many years ago. I am petty sure that most commercial studios were 1" 8-track at least by the early 70's. I think 1/2" 4-track remained popular in the burgeoning home recording industry throughout the 70's.
Either way, I'd take both of those machines in a hurry if I knew I could get parts and tape for them! Most of my mics in the studio are at least 40 years old, as are my processing, but I do a lot of remote recording and cannot be lugging around a tape machine the size of a beer fridge too much!
Here is an article on one of my all time favorite albums. It describes two types of recording equipment used (one for the mixed live recording using a 2-track Ampex 354 recorder, and another newer device for the two "studio" tracks using a half-inch 4-track Scully 280 recorder. I am curious to hear those of you who are knowledgable on this stuff comment's about this article and the equipment used.
Man, an Ampex 350 or 351 is a very sought-after device. Since most of them are approaching 40 years old, having some considerable technical acuity is necessary. There are a lot of smaller studios that will mix down to a machine like this to achieve some tube/ tape "warmth". I almost bought one around 2003, but I was inundated with stories at the time from folks who owned them about how hard it was to get parts and tape. My path toward making audio recordings actually sound like music then took me to ribbon microphones.
I do not know much about Scully machines, other than they had a reputation as "working man's" recorders. I do know that the 1/2" 4-track format went the way of the do-do bird many years ago. I am petty sure that most commercial studios were 1" 8-track at least by the early 70's. I think 1/2" 4-track remained popular in the burgeoning home recording industry throughout the 70's.
Either way, I'd take both of those machines in a hurry if I knew I could get parts and tape for them! Most of my mics in the studio are at least 40 years old, as are my processing, but I do a lot of remote recording and cannot be lugging around a tape machine the size of a beer fridge too much!
Originally Posted By: TallPaul
But what I really want it the brain implant of a silicon chip
Hang in there!
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9141180/Intel_Chips_in_brains_will_control_computers_by_2020
But what I really want it the brain implant of a silicon chip
Hang in there!
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9141180/Intel_Chips_in_brains_will_control_computers_by_2020
I love cd a digital formats. IMO the problem is whatg was mentioned above. Studio guys these days try to squeeze every bit of gain they can get. It ends up a limited, compressed mush. If done properly a digital recording can have the dynamic range of older recordings, but the older guys that actually do that are slowly being replaced with guys that go by the new way of cut, paste, rinse, repeat, COMPRESS within an inch of it's sonic life.
I've been running live sound for about 14 years now and do board recordings quite frequently. I make sure to not compress at all. I may end up with alower base gain volume but the recording has the dynamic range to keep the recording sounding more.... alive, I guess for lack of a better term.
I've been running live sound for about 14 years now and do board recordings quite frequently. I make sure to not compress at all. I may end up with alower base gain volume but the recording has the dynamic range to keep the recording sounding more.... alive, I guess for lack of a better term.
- Status