Come on, gang. We're talking about ROCK 'N ROLL!!! ......You know, of "Sex, Drugs, and ROCK 'N ROLL?" This is NOT a digital Vs analog discussion; this is a "mindset." There are plenty of sonic reasons why I choose traditional recording methods when doing R&R. But this is about the vibe of a session. I just can't bring myself to sit behind a computer tweaking virtual shit when I can be in the real world actually interacting with the music. It's virtual reality Vs reality - It's not a difficult decision for me.

If you need to constantly repair shit and need to do it with lightning speed, it is my opinion that the most important part of making rock music is lost. Let's not forget that the magic happens on the other side of the glass. My job is to capture the magic in a way that is complimentary to the style. Without getting into the (should be) obvious sonic reasons, suffice it to say the vibe of my sessions is better with a desk and a tape machine.

Don, I didn't intend to insult. Nothing personal here - just my opinions. I totally dig where you are with getting the most bang for your buck to get the ideas down in a sonically acceptable manner. My quote that you posted should have specified that I was talking about rock music, as my initial post on this subject did.

Dave g http://www.groovestainproductions.com

You are so wrong, Alph. Analog sounds better. Always. For any kind of music. It is not a crutch. I have been waiting for 10 plus years for digital to catch up. I don't like the limitations of analog. But I'll deal with it for now, till there is really good digital, cause I don't want to compromise on the sound. Yes the future is digital. But I'm not going there till it hits my monkey bone. I love a good fight.....

Originally posted by David Goodermuth:
Come on, gang. We're talking about ROCK 'N ROLL!!! ......You know, of "Sex, Drugs, and ROCK 'N ROLL?" This is NOT a digital Vs analog discussion; this is a "mindset." There are plenty of sonic reasons why I choose traditional recording methods when doing R&R. But this is about the vibe of a session. I just can't bring myself to sit behind a computer tweaking virtual shit when I can be in the real world actually interacting with the music. It's virtual reality Vs reality - It's not a difficult decision for me.

since i left drugs behind in the 80's, i find that reality is whatever my hands are on at the moment. and really, man... i can get lost in sound when pushing a mouse, using the console or using the interface (the paris interface is pretty cool). i be interacting with recorded tracks.
cool.
If you need to constantly repair shit and need to do it with lightning speed, it is my opinion that the most important part of making rock music is lost. Let's not forget that the magic happens on the other side of the glass. My job is to capture the magic in a way that is complimentary to the style. Without getting into the (should be) obvious sonic reasons, suffice it to say the vibe of my sessions is better with a desk and a tape machine.

david... it's a given that when you're comfortable with your tools, that adds to the vibe. cool.

Don, I didn't intend to insult. Nothing personal here - just my opinions. I totally dig where you are with getting the most bang for your buck to get the ideas down in a sonically acceptable manner. My quote that you posted should have specified that I was talking about rock music, as my initial post on this subject did.

fyi: i've been recording various versions of rock since my first project in '76 at electric lady/nyc(other side of the glass). so i understand where you are coming from, david. but since i rarely have problems with either of my daws and rarely have problems with my analog gear, and i occasionally get some real rock and roll tracks down, and the sessions go smoothly and are unhindered by the tools, fast fixes are non-issues to me.
cool.

as to sonics, i dig the sounds i get on paris. if i had an old neve/827 rig here, i'd still transfer to it for editing and mixing at least half the time. (i never got caught in the adat/da88 trap... extra cool).

so... though i didn't take your post personally in a painful way, i found your definition of cool questionable. that's really the only thing i'm reacting to, in spite of all my above blah blah blaaaah.
cool?

as you kinda said... this ain't an argument, amigo... just an opinionated conversation.

don (was i ever really as cool as my mom said i was?) morrell :cool:

well last time i looked in the stores there wasnt a whole helluva lot of rock and roll going on [new clutch album out this tuesday... couldnt resist] lately. i hear a lot of dropped tuning soundreplaced psuedoroll but it sure doesnt rock with the ONE chord they play throughout the song.

i can get the same sound analog or digital, why? becuase im the nut. i HEAR the noise of analog, it ruins the recording for me in a lot of cases, same reason why i dont like records... that and having to get up half way through.

i know why my stuff sounds the way it does and it has nothing to do with the storage medium. it has to do with the band mostly, where i put the mics, and how i mix those mics together. i would bet that ANY recording you think is great has more to do with arrangement than anything else.

a sparse arrangement will give the listener a great sense of space while a dense arrangement will present a wall of sound.

and my god, i bet some of the recordings you think are great i think suck. and you know what, i listen to a lot of songs where the recording sucks but i still enjoy the song.

"If you want to compare, compare mediums by the same operator."

that i have done. ill say it once more, its the nut behind the wheel. and damn you called David Goodermuth [I'm with Dave McNair. Since when is it cool to sit in front of a computer to record Rock and Roll? It's just totally fucked-up.] a baby "Nobody uses analog because it's cool. That's a ridiculous notion, made up by a little baby that can't really hear any difference."

and btw, im not wrong. what i do is perfectly right. byte me. i've done 3 pure rock groups this year with 3 more on the way in. i guess this is when its cool to do rock and roll on a computer.

Originally posted by alphajerk:
well last time i looked in the stores there wasnt a whole helluva lot of rock and roll going on

They call it 'alternative country' now...my wife has noted on more than one occasion that the only place to find rock and roll on the radio is on the country stations, unfortunately it's sandwiched in between a whole bunch of schlock "Middle of the Road w/Pedal Steel" crap.

no fletcher, we got that crap down here too and it aint rock and roll. pick up the new clutch tuesday 'pure rock fury' [or any of them for that matter], thats rock and roll. actually i've got a chick coming in next week who does the alt. cuntry sort of [bassist from freakwater, drummer from the whole chicago scene... plays a 2 piece kit] thankfully her music is a little bit odd so it doesnt bore me to death. oh but wait until i get this one band in i saw last week live... man, some pure rock, felt like i was freebasing rock and roll. but i forgot, i'll be recording it on my computer so i wont be cool... the music doesnt matter, just that you record it on analog.

Originally posted by alphajerk:

and damn you called David Goodermuth [I'm with Dave McNair. Since when is it cool to sit in front of a computer to record Rock and Roll? It's just totally fucked-up.] a baby "Nobody uses analog because it's cool. That's a ridiculous notion, made up by a little baby that can't really hear any difference."

I was calling YOU (AlphaJERK) a baby, not my man, David. I wrote the word cool in that paragraph, yes, but I was responding to your feelings of elitism by analog users.

My appologies to all who were confused, and though I was attacking David G.

and btw, im not wrong. what i do is perfectly right. byte me. i've done 3 pure rock groups this year with 3 more on the way in. i guess this is when its cool to do rock and roll on a computer.

Whatev...

Mixerman

Originally posted by alphajerk:
no fletcher, we got that crap down here too and it aint rock and roll.

yo, firstjerk... why are you dissing a genre in a thread talking about gear, technique, etc?

you might consider starting your own topic: title it "i may kinda know how to record but i have no social skills".

by the way... i bet my hiwatt can eat your _________.

don (now they call what i do alt country) morrell

its tongue in cheek donjuan, i work with a couple alt country groups, i go out to shows. but it isnt ROCK. rock knocks you on your ass. actually i misread his post a little. i actually have a problem telling if that band 'the corrs' are country or not, my wife assures me they arent from this country. i keep seeing flashes of their video on tv and think they have the same songwriter as faith hill for that song.

im sorry, i got off topic gawd forbid. so go back to talking about your infallible analog setups. i'll just be over here with my pocket protector and highwaters.

eat my fender bassman? ta WANG.

ssssimmuh

daen

nah!

simmuh daen nah!

This is getting to be more of a flame war than a constructive discussion.

This topic could be serving a purpose, and I think we should start it over again. Taking it back to the original Q, everyone just state if you use digital editing, and which one.

I use mostly ProTools, but I'm open to whatever you put in front of me.

I also think Fletcher's Q about why people consider digital more convenient / superior to tape deserves its own thread, as it could get to be quite an involved topic.

Thank you for your consideration and help in making RO a better place.

Originally posted by alphajerk:
i still think you are wrong. it DEFINATELY sounds better than a mackie. you think the mackie sounds better because of its inherent distortion.

I know, a week old message, but I've been busy.

Alpha, you're obviously unaware of Mixerman's qualifications. While I'm not going to tell you who he is, let's just say the man's got the ears and indeed does know that of which he speaks.

And I have to admit, although I wouldn't wish to use a Mackie, mixing from computer via an analog console is much better sounding to me, although for purposes of reproducability on a non-automated analog console I instead tend to mix on my DAW. But the product is definitely different, and it's primarily due to the mixing bus of the computer. Once you've tried it honestly, you will definitely hear a difference and the quality of the analog mix will amaze you, even on out-of-box consoles. Of course, at that point I would also tend to mix to a 1/2" 2 track.

And I'll make this concession. I'd be totally happy with a two track computer mixdown if the system were a SADiE. Here's a DAW that actually has headroom (I know, "headroom" and DAW don't seem to go together) to spare believe it or not. The way they devised the busing is far in excess of what's available in your normal DAW, and even Pro Tools. Perhaps Sonic does as good of a job, but SADiE would indeed be my first pick as a DAW mixdown computer. That said, my preferences aren't necessarily my work methods!

Originally posted by David Goodermuth:
Come on, gang. We're talking about ROCK 'N ROLL!!! ......You know, of "Sex, Drugs, and ROCK 'N ROLL?" This is NOT a digital Vs analog discussion; this is a "mindset." There are plenty of sonic reasons why I choose traditional recording methods when doing R&R. But this is about the vibe of a session. I just can't bring myself to sit behind a computer tweaking virtual shit when I can be in the real world actually interacting with the music. It's virtual reality Vs reality - It's not a difficult decision for me.

Dave g http://www.groovestainproductions.com

There's no doubt that being active with the music being played is key to capturing a great performance, at least in my little gray matter. OK, so I'm dumb and still use my Soundtracs console to track with, but I'm involved. I had to do a session last weekend (not this past) on computer and although I salvaged a pretty good set of tunes, I would have far preferred the RTR. It's just time for repair and calibration for it. And the better mix would have been via the console too, but again I was stuck with working on the DAW simply because it's quicker. But I definitely would not say it's better.

"My appologies to all who were confused, and though I was attacking David G."

damn, you still got it wrong. though it might of been a typo, you might of thought you were right.

mackie... headroom? okay, this is getting more ridiculous. now before you all flame away some more, bear in mind i would most certainly mix on a neve/ssl/api, preferably a 9098 and use that stage as the SRC to be able to use all the nice analog outboard toys available, but my DAW would have automation going on inside it as well... there are just things you cant do in the analog world. but something like a mackie just doesnt have any sort of tightness on the bottom end [unless you compromise for it] while my DAW does, quite tight.

_____________________
barrett
evil sounds studios
alpha jerk recordings

"im just sick of this elitist attitude from people who use analog "

Then there are those digital elitists.
:eek:

Ford or Chevy? Democrat or Rebublican? I never thought an audio discussion would become like religion or politics but there you go. To each their own.

My $0.02
Note that these machines are in the same moderate price range. Having spent a lot of time with ADATs and now a 1" deck. I'll prefer the analog for now (for loud drums guitar "rock" stuff). The cymbals sound right. I've also taken a DA-38 recording, dubbed it to 2" 24 trk for mixing and preferred the results. I'm looking forward to seeing the Alesis HD24, that's the dedicated disk recorder I've been waiting to see for 5 yrs. When I hear it then I'll decide. My current ideal is 2" 16 track but my little private studio hasn't the budget.

On topic I mix to and edit on a DAW. I've used SAW Pro, Sound Forge, Soundscape and Cool Edit Pro. Like the SAW Pro and Soundscape the best.

Wow this subject stirs the soul doesn't it?

I started in the days of valve mikes, transistor consoles and noisy 4 tracks. I went through the increase in tape width to the 2" at 30ips, the big expansive and expensive consoles, and I thought in analog, cut tape around and was a demon on punchin punchout techniques.

Now I'm finally into the DAW. I now think in drawing a volume change rather than fiddling with a fader. I now think digitalplug-insand EQ, think digital editing, and love it.

24 bit made the difference for me. We've only had the high speed puters (ie above 600MHz) for about a year now and they will be old in another year. Even Rupert Neve reckons 24bit/192Khz will surpass analog and that's only a year or two away. We have the 96khz option now but most don't believe it's necessary and a major improvement over 41 or 48 but I'm sure when the puters get even faster 192 will be the norm.

To me the beauty is that when the software writers develop a better system for say *summing* it will be a download, not a new model which is the neat thing about digital.

You see - you can teach an old dog new tricks. :)

but something like a mackie just doesnt have any sort of tightness on the bottom end [unless you compromise for it] while my DAW does, quite tight.

_____________________
Don't think he was comparing a DAW to a Mackie, just comparing going direct out from each track of the DAW vs the stero bus of the DAW... you can use any board to make the comparison, to see how or if the DAW's stereo bus compromises the mix.

I just re-read this thread (slow Monday at work) trying to understand the reason for all the emotional outbursts. Here is what I discovered. Some folks are comparing old digital technology to new, this is a mistake. The filters have changed, the bit rates/freq's have changed, summing has changed, and sync accuracy has changed, etc. Ditch that early copy of PT, or that black face ADAT and step into the now.

I also read a lot of comments about "real" this and "real" that. Have we forgotten how tape works? "Real" my foot! Iron particles re-oriented with magnets to represent a wave form. If you look closely at tape under a microscope it looks remarkably like a 24/48 representation of wave form...Real indeed. ALL media is a representation of the original wave form, NOTHING about it is real.

Real is live.

Any argument about which artificial representation of a wave form is more "real" is ridiculous at best. Now, if you are saying that it sounds more real to you because of saturation, fine. Remember though, saturation is an introduced artifact, and I hope you aren't patting yourself on the back for an artifact. I have an old tape machine in my studio that I use occassionally for when I want the tape saturation effect. I then dump it to digital so I can edit and get rid of all the noise.

Tools...They are tools. When is the last time you heard a mechanic say "damn those new-fangled box wrenches, I won't use 'em." "Ya gotta use open-end wrenches, they're more real!"

C'mon. :roll:

Originally posted by Ang1970:
Taking it back to the original Q, everyone just state if you use digital editing, and which one.

after trying everything available at the time (including PT), a few years ago someone turned me on to samplitude 2496, a non-hardware based editor. that and an ad-8000 were all it took to open my eyes to digital. finally... digital that sounded good (to me).

now, my blades are rusty and my blocks are dusty.

don morrell

Originally posted by alphajerk:
its tongue in cheek donjuan,

exactly. i love you like a little brother, alpha.

Originally posted by Ang1970:

This is getting to be more of a flame war than a constructive discussion.

Thank you for your consideration and help in making RO a better place.

i use pro tools
not really by choice but i have done it for so long that i have learned all the keys strokes....things move pretty fast

when working with bands i use tape
i like the way it sounds
i like not starring at a computer
it just feels organic!!??

i will blast tracks into pro tools to edit if the band so desires
or it stays on tape

i have mixed through pro tools
never recording the tracks into it
using SMPTE to run the automation just like you would on an analog desk
that is pretty cool cause you can automate all the plugin parameters

in the end
if i am working with a band
the tracks are cut to tape and are mixed from tape

i hope that answers the question,
j.hall

Wow, an opportunity to bash Pro Tools has been going on all week and I just now found about about it?

Obligatory Pro Tools slam: I've done a lot of mixing in it and I'll never do it again (unless they pay me lots of money).

OK, that out of the way, I wish I had a great big one of my own. With a big stack of AD8000SE's, a chassis full of DSP, and every plug-in known to man. That would be grand.

Of course, every d/a on the Apogee would be plugged into a proper console, preferably an API or Neve. And there'd be a nice Studer and Ampex in the same room too. All would get used a lot, each for what I think they do best:

Analog for tracking basics, especially for rock bands, transferred into Pro Tools. Someone mentioned that people who like analog for tracking are using it as a crutch to cover their mistakes. Bullshit. I can get excellent drums sounds on digital, even cheap digital. I just prefer the analog version 95% of the time, and so do the people paying the bill.

Overdub on the PT rig because it's faster, and for many things, I think digital sounds best. It's clean and its quiet (just don't touch a screen fader). It's awesome for vocal work, saves a lot of time. Since I'd rather lick ashtrays than record vocals, anything that gets it over with faster gets a thumbs up from me!

And of course there's theplug-ins Some of them are great, allowing me to get tones not possible in the analog domain. Every now and then, I actually come up with a good one.

Mixing, well, I'm with Mixerman 1000% on that one. I think the PT mixer is intrinsically flawed, I'd rather use a Mackie - and I hate Mackie's. His a/b test with some drum tracks is a good one, try it some time. I've done it, other people I know have too, and the analog desk always wins.

Then again, for certain, usually sparse music, the PT mixer does fine. Better than fine, even. But most of the stuff I work on these days is pretty dense, and just falls to pieces in the software mixer. I don't know what the problem is but the bigger the production, the smaller it sounds.

The Ampex is there to print the mixes to. Still nothing sounds better to me than a good ATR102. It takes what I hear in the speakers and ever so slightly enhances it. Digital at it's best takes what I hear in the speakers and ever so slightly degrades it.

One more thing - I can't afford my own PT system but I do have a Nuendo system. The mixer doesn't sound any better than Pro Tools, but the analog i/o is a lot cheaper (and sounds better), so I can use it how I like to without going into massive debt buying Apogee's.

a short comment on the social content of this discussion.
what has occurred is that the advent of digital recording has opened the once mysterious and closely held world of recording to the average guy.
what happens from there is this tiring "my way is better" follwed by the equally impressive response "no, my way is better" which then generally spirals downward until someone's mother is blowing every guy on the list.
can we raise the bar a little when it comes to content?
no offense to anyone in particular. :mad:

"I just wanted to know, comparing apples and apples, how the sequencers with audio compared to eachother on sound alone."

if you are talking about taking out the mixing section, they should all be EXACTLY the same, its the converters that decide the sound. although the RADAR 24/48 are supposed to have some nice converters. sonics come into play in DAWs in the mixing/automation areas. paris claims to be the best, i didnt have a problem with the sound but the logic of the thing is weird, DP has got a real nice thing going on, PT is probably the most advanced but lacks sonics of Paris and DP, cubase is probably the worst sounding. [simply my comparisons from what i've heard with my ears]

im sure the wolves are circling now.... but then again, everyone has been complaining about PT's sound so far.

cheers to kevin for his post. well said. i guess crutch is totally the wrong word, reliant is more of what i meant. which when i think about it, i am reliant about going to digital. how someone who uses analog knows how what they put in is going to come back off, the same is true about how i see digital. after all, isnt that what its all about anyways? and i certainly have nothing against REALLY NICE analog boards [aside from the recall issue but i wonder, why isnt it digitally controlled yet like the 9098's dynamics section? now that is the best of both worlds] and gawd do i share your sentiments about the vocal tracks.

This is insane

I ran a studio that had SSL's Neve's, Tridents, M-49's, C-12's LA-2A's, studers, Ampex's the whole bit.

I enjoyed working on analog equipment, also digital tape too.
If you cant get as good a sound on a Sony 3348 as you can on a studer 827, then you SUCK...maybe you get a DIFFERENT sound on a Studer than the Sony, but hard pressed to say " better ".

I enjoyed working on consoles and tape machines...everything was " immediate" you could turn a real knob, push a real fader, patch in a real effect.

Nowadays I do a LOT of mixing and editing in my PC, using mostly cheap ass apps. You MAY be able to argue about the sound quality difference, and CERTAINLY the ergonomics are better in the real world, but there are MANY MANY MANY things I can do on a DAW ( or my ghetto configuration of one) that have NO real world equivalent...

Is everything perfect except that kick drum came in too early, oh big deal, cut and paste...2 seconds...do that on tape!
Wow all the choruses were good except the second word in the third chorus...no problem, just use the one from the first chorus!

Stupid to argue the point

analog is great, digital is great, real world is great, virtual world is great...

ALL have their plusses and minuses and I use them all

BTW, alpha, you should give the console summing trick a try, many times I mix all the drums together to two tracks on the console from my PC back to my PC, it sometimes just sounds better, no joke.

Flame war? No Angelo, I assure you, this hasn't come close to a flame war. I'm just warming up.

I think many are missing the point here. So I'll reiterate. This is not about digital vs. analog. This is about running an entire mix through a chip, as opposed to running an entire mix through the 2-bus of a board.

Some JERKS would like to argue that there is no audible difference between the two. I don't really give a rats ass what the JERK thinks. I deal with different DAW's all the time. I've tried mixing out of several DAW's. They sound like shit. When improvements occur, I try again. Notta. The more instruments in the mix, the smaller the mix becomes.

I'm not some web site designer, amateur recordist, who likes to dick around on weekends by recording (does that sound familiar AlpaJERK?). I do this for a living. Every day. I compare formats constantly. If you think that a DAW sounds fine out of the computer, GO for it, I couldn't care less. But JERKS shouldn't argue out their ass that a DAW's 2-bus is not sub-par. It IS sub-par, and you ARE arguing out your ass.

No don't confuse these words with my being upset. Quite the contrary. I laugh at you. You speak like a know-it-all, but you don't experiment. I experiment, and speak from experience.

Just so we are clear. I respect hobbyists, and encourage hobbyists. I get e-mails every day from hobbyists asking me questions, and I take the time to help them. What I don't respect, is someone that comes on a board where people are trying to gain information, and just spew absolute BS, ignorant statements that are based on fantasy, as opposed to controled experimentation, and careful listening.

What am I saying here? AphaJERK, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, you're lying when you say that you've compared the 2-bus of your computer to the 2-bus of a console, and you are a complete ignoramous when it comes to this subject.

There's nothing wrong with being an ignoramous either, God knows there are plenty of things that I'm ignorant about. But I don't pretend to be knowledgeable when I'm actually ignorant. That's really the trick in being respected in life.

How's that? Nah, the torch is still cold. Damn!

Mixerman

I don't think that was really necessary or constructive.

Let's talk film. As anyone who has worked in the film industry will know you must shoot a feature film on FILM. Sure there are really smart digital cameras around but a major feature film director would never consider shooting on anything but film.

Film has a graininess that has never ever been duplicated on digital systems. BUT film transfers to digital OK hence the huge amount of digital post being used in feature films today. Once done it all goes back to film again in the lab processing.

I think this is exactly the same as tape. Tape has a sound that cannot be duplicated by digital, yet tape sound transfers to digital and back again, like film.

The digital cameras cover the news, the sports and make the interesting docos etc just as the DAWs cover the ads, the jingles, the TV soundtracks, maybe the first release albums, etc. Plus the DAWs can be a useful tool for processing tape recorded sounds.

The film heads will always love film as will the tapeheads always love tape. :)

And so they should as they are distinctive in the way they record their respective signals.

BTW isn't the sampling rate of tape the bias frequency??

cheers
John

I have found alphajerks findings to be on the money! To hear the differences he has heard in the DAW's he lists tells me that his ears are in great shape (weather he is a pro or not is irrelevant) I too have made similar discoveries (took years & ears)...
Mixerman, lets face it the time has come to realize that DAW's have reached the same level as analog as far as "the sound" is concerned. Digital audio is improving as an amazing rate. The demands of pros and amatures are creating a big digital audio market resulting in both really good and really bad stuff, what else is new.
To be so black and white as to say analog = better vs digital = not as good is fast becoming a thing of the past. Why are you so uptight about that?
I tend to go with the Bob Katz school of theory and fact..
“The time for digital audio has arrived with the advent of 96/24 converters”. Of course there is A LOT more to it, when you consider mixers, mikes, sound processing, YEARS of experience etc. but I think everyone here knows that.

"There are two kinds of fools | One says-this is old and therefore good. The other says-this is new and therefore better." http://www.digido.com

MM, why do you feel the need to defend yourself against the guy? None of us who have a clue are doubting your method, and you can't stop the world just cuz one guy disagrees. There will always be one more guy, you'll never get anything done for all the arguing. If he does the experiment and still can't hear the difference, is that your problem? Is it any of our problem on this board? I already have my own set of problems to worry about, thank you.

And still, this is getting off topic. I would much rather a new thread be started to explore the topic of digital summing vs. analog busing. Start a new thread and slam digital busing all you want. In this thread we should just be looking at what everyone uses to digitally edit with. Anything else is adding confusion.

Hi Y'all,

Just a thought...

The mixer page on PT (or any other DAW) looks like 1 big mixer summed 2 a bus. However, following the design logic it's probably a bunch of small mixers IN SERIES, usually in groups of 8 channels. Bring up ch 9 in the mix & 2 mixers r summed 2gether by a third 1.

I remember that was the case in earlier versions of PT. If changed already, pls 4give me PROs and TOOLS alike.
If however, this IS the case, than the more tracks 1 mixes, the more mixers r created and summed.

If so, the digital / analog summing difference would b even more noticeable on larger number of tracks. So Mixerman's experiment should b tried with 17+ tks by skeptics.
I've tried it myself many times (only on SSL, I'm afraid) and I can only repeat Mixerman's conclusion.

I've worked with every DAW it's name I can spell, and use mainly DAWs 4 editing & manipulating but I still prefer analog 4 tracking and summing.

Oh, & I prefer the playstation 4 Tekken 3...

zooot

I agree that this discussion is turning into a waste of time. We all have our own opinions, some based on experienced fact, and others based on wishful thinking and ignorance. Here is what I propose. We should have a new category where only the cats who acknowledge the differences hang-out, and another new category where those who apparently have no ears hang. I am not arguing that digital is here to stay or that digital is the future, etc. It is indeed the future, but it's just not there yet. YES IT IS CLOSE. But even when it does deliver and surpass what us "elitists" consider to be superior sound, I will continue, for MANY reasons, to record my dates analog. That's just what I choose, and I really don't need to waste my time explaining why to "the new generation." It ALWAYS falls on deaf ears.

Dave g http://www.groovestainproductions.com

whatever you say [eMineM]. the sad thing about your closemindedness is that i have more than experimented, probably more than yourself.... see when you dont have big budgets, you have to be even more creative to make shit work and you certainly test things to see which is better. i have tried your little test, in fact ive done it many many times and now taking care of it inside the digital realm IS better than some POC mackie. im NOT talking about largeframe analog consoles [which i love the sound of some of them....]

never mind that how i make the majority of my money [and its quite a bit of money, more than 90% of the engineers out there] doing not just web design but animation, sound design, video [and digital has come a long way there too... the film world will lose the film soon] on top of doing recording as much as i design, not to mention a musician of all the stations in rock along with programming electronica. heaven forbid im not a single facted asshole. you kid yourself putting me down to make yourself feel better. wow, i would hate to be the artist who has to work with an egocentric asshole who has major self esteem issues to boot. you show your ass, maybe someone will put a foot right up it.

Geez, somebody remind me never to invite both of you to the same party. Lighten up, it's only the Internet (or if you prefer, it's only rock and roll). You have different views - big deal. It ain't worth breaking a sweat about. Mixerman will continue to do what he does, and so will Alpha.

Is the rest of this thread gonna be about who can call the other the worst names?

Originally posted by alphajerk:
whatever you say [mixerman].

There's no 'e' in my last name. Keep that in mind for next time.

Thanks,

Mixerman

Back to the original question, I use ProTools, 4.3.1 on a TDM Mix and 3 old farms system. I use it for pretty much all the recording and editing I do. While it's operationally very pleasant, it's been quite an experience to make it sound good, especially with rock and roll.

However, I have been pretty happy recently, and I think it has to do with the fact that I only use 48 bit plug ins and I'm using the 48 bit dithered to 24 bit mixer. I'm on TDM hardware, and the great majority of plug ins are single precision. These, along with Digi's older mixers, can do some very questionable things to a signal. Stack a few together on a channel and you've lost some goodness. It's a struggle to work your way out of that.

These days though, I have two compressors that work (Compresor Bank and Renaissance Compressor), a limiter that works (L2) and an EQ that works (Renaissance EQ). It's just like 1965 in the sense that there are very few processing options, but there is still a complete and sufficient set of toys available for making good sounding mixes. I'm finally having fun and realizing that most of the remaining limitations are related to me and not the machine.

I wanted to add one point about the phenomenon where "the more things you add to a mix the smaller it sounds". I have to state that this has _always_ been my experience over the past 20 years, using tape, doing live sound, using digital with consoles and using DAWs with integrated mixing. While it's true that digital mixers (and analog ones too) can screw up the summing and make large mixes sound worse, usually it's the arrangements and mix treatment of the parts that's the leading cause of "small mixes" or just plain "bad mixes". It's the old "10 pounds in a 5 pound sack" problem.

The trick is treating the tracks and getting the arrangement together so it all fits in the 5 pound sack. Maybe that means throwing out 5 lbs worth of tracks... or trimming them down so they aren't such space hogs... or welding a few tracks together so they become one instead of three. But, regardless of the format, I find that you have to look at the arrangement when things are sounding small and bad and fix them there. I've yet to find a magic bullet piece of hardware or mix format that eliminates _that_ problem.

Yes, a DAW (or a console) can get in the way, but a good arrangement can sneak by even some really crappy gear and still sound good.

Happy recording,

Monte McGuire

....

okay brad, we got off on the wrong foot earlier in the thread but i would be glad to send you something, email me where to send it, i got some promo stuff to get out next week anyways.

sure we talk big budget i dont hold these views but we were talking analog of mackies vs digital. factor in big budget analog consoles and ill take them but im still recording to a digital medium, simply for the fact that i know how what i put in is going to come back off, plain and simple. not that i dont know how something is going to come off analog [used it for the majority of time i have been recording] but i dont like what ELSE comes back off with it. that coupled with that i LIKE how digital sounds, freaky notion i know.

anyways eMineM, hope you arent taking it personally. after all its just preferences. red read reed, its all good in the end as long as you captured it right? maybe im suffering from PMDD right now.

Cool thread. But I have a question. What is a "single facted asshole?"

TB

....

My 2 cents....
I feel that DAW'S are a great tool. I just bought an iZ Radar so I can track on a 2" a dump it into the Radar for the overdubs I feel do not need to be analog. (midi keys/percussion/vocals...) It is my opinion that digital will never sound like analog. Ever. Two completely different beasts. Those of you who think it does were probably born after 1970. That's cool, though. Knock yourselves out. Buy yer Pro Tools...yer plug ins...yer software upgrades....blah blah blah. Keep buying music that is squashed to death, soulless and perfect...I don't give a rat's. But when I decide I wanna quit this God forsaken business, please feel free to line up and buy my "old, noisy analog" gear..... to warm up yer DAW's...at top dollar. 96/24 will NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER sound like analog. NEVER!!! Digital will ALWAYS sound goofy in the low midrange. You can "emulate" and "simulate" but you cannot "recreate" analog with digital. You can fake analog....but you can only make the sound of analog with......ANALOG!!! PERIOD. Get over it!
Next topic, pleases.....

YEP......
"There are two kinds of fools | One says-this is old and therefore good.
The other says-this is new and therefore better." :eek: