Skip to main content

early 90's digital editing

does anyone know what kind of digital editing techniques were available in the early 90's the time of nirvana, pearl jam, AIC, soundgarden, RATM, tool, korn, green day, STP, etc., did they do most of their editing back then on tape? would the digital interface they used have been the Alesis HD24 or something similar? i believe this was a time before pro tools was really around correct? anyone who knows, answers appreciated


dementedchord Thu, 05/10/2007 - 15:11
well the assembled track idea hadn't come to fruition yet... some of the more advanced techniques involved the use of expanded sample time in reverbs to fly small parts around... or copying tracks to a second deck .... syncing the machines... and useing that console automation you had been asking about ealier to assemble takes...

Pro Audio Guest Thu, 05/10/2007 - 19:47
you think it was the fact that they tracked to those DAT's often? not even sure if they used computers at least for the really early work so to speak.

also, nirvana used the 8028 i believe. it was in sound city. i'm assuming GML is analog automation but controlled via computer. do a lot of the big boys use GML automation? also was the first neve automation created roughly around 73-78, so that would the first big one with built in automation have been te 8078? or the 24/34's?

TVPostSound Thu, 05/10/2007 - 20:27
Nobody "tracked" to DATs, they sometimes mixed down to DAT.
Most studios mixed down from multitrack (24, 16, etc) to 2 track, then archived to DAT.

Speaking of tracking, Sound City Studio A is a "tracking" room, there was no automation in that room. At least in 1988 when I used that room.

Wait, hang on a moment, I live 10 minutes from Sound City, Ill drive down a look!!!

OK, why am I playing to this nonsense, I can see right through your setups.

Pro Audio Guest Thu, 05/10/2007 - 20:30
i know but there is now. they got the 8078 in '99 i believe

in studio B

oh dude come on excuse my word choice you asshole, i meant mix

you focused so much on my word choice that you didn't focus on the question. the question was whether or not DAT in fact warmed up these recordings as opposed to just going to pro tools

hueseph Thu, 05/10/2007 - 22:40
andshesbuyingastairway wrote: some purists i think say that DAT is actually a little warmer, etc.

Interesting. Please explain how one medium adds warmth to ones and zeros more than another.

In regards to whether or not VCA faders move or not, I wonder if the movement of the faders adds any human quality to the mix as well. I'm sure that in some alternate universe the movement of the faders,or lack thereof, will make or brake your automated mix.

Sorry ASBAS, just razzin' ya.

Pro Audio Guest Fri, 05/11/2007 - 11:40
i wasn't implying jackshit you assclown. i asked a question, that you apparently had a problem answering. oh well.

i haven't looked into DAT much yet. all kinds of different things can warm up your recordings. let's get someone to comment on this matter with an informed opinion that doesn't have a banana peel as a face.

also i don't believe this is possible, but is it possible to use VCA with numerous discrete preamps (not in a console and without faders just attenuators?) basically, is it possible to use automation without a console. extremely doubtful. just wondering,

Pro Audio Guest Fri, 05/11/2007 - 20:17
hueseph here's the thing. i find myself questioning what makes certain analog artifacts sound warmer. a lot of times i want to reduce it to 'sound physics' so to speak. like boswell was saying in the other topic, not as steep noise filters in some of the PCM sample rates, having a lower bandwidth to the point where the higher frequencies are distorted, etc. can provide interesting results to contribute to emulation. 'analog' esque results if you will.

but a lot of times i battle with the simple fact that it could very well be the medium. the magnetic tape, the vinyl, the bulky ass tube, etc.

but you know what, it never hurts to question these things and strive to search deeper into them, which is why i ask what you guys see as relentless questions.

since this is 'early 90's recording,' and i do hear a difference between early 90's work vs. the newer stuff today (even the stuff that has a couple tape reels in the mix mind you) and i'm at least questioning the mere possibility as to whether or not it could in part be inflicted by DAT. i'm not so sure if nirvana bounced down to a two track tape reel and simply 'archived' on DAT. i guess that depends on whether or not andy wallace wanted to rewind the tapes multiple times and degrade the signal slightly each time he did it. or whether or not they had 24 track DAT's back then. i dont know dude i'm still questioning things, and i don't see why you don't understand that. but please don't waste time with unproductivity unless you have some valid analysis of why you think DAT makes no audible difference.

p.s. sorry about being an asshole 'this week' especially in the other forum which i've now abandoned due to lack of studious responses. it just frustrates me when no one even attempts to answer questions and dig deeper into concepts. i'd figure you'd want to flaunt the knowledge if you had it. don't hassle me demented, i don't have the answers. call me socrates.

hueseph Fri, 05/11/2007 - 23:49
Actually, I think I did make a valid response as to why DAT makes no difference whatsoever to the "warmth" of a recording. 1's and 0's. End of debate.

As to using your ears, you could have all the head knowledge in the world about gear and samplerates and PCM vs DSD but if you're tone deaf, it's not going to help you in any way to make a decent recording.

Now I for one don't know the slightest about the technicalities of gear. I'm not even sure that I could even call myself a competent hobbyist but then again, I don't claim to be any more than that. I come here to read and learn....and sometimes to get a laugh.