Originally posted by ChristopherW:
Dear Rog,
I thought we were tryimg to mix records.
The platform is irrelevant, its what you do with it that counts.By the way I am a Pro Tools user. I am just a little sick and tired of reading a technical debate on what is supposed to be a "mixing" forum.
Regards,

Christopher,

While I agree that the gear is not so much the issue when mixing, sometimes it becomes one. PT as affected our lives as mixers because of the market share alone.

Sonic integrity is of some importance for us to do our job. If poor sound quality is a design of the Production, then that's fine. But, if the sound quality is degraded beyond the original intent of the Production, then this is a problem. There is such a thing as irreparable degradation.

As a recording machine, PT is adequate. Personally, when I get a project on PT, I transfer it digitally to RADAR, and the sound quality of the RADAR’s playback sounds very good. Otherwise I find that I struggle to make PT files sound vibrant and big in a mix. Gear makes life either easier or more difficult. I do not find it out of line to discuss gear that could make our lives easier while mixing.

No one is more of a Zen mixer than me (that I know of). But even I recognized that mixing doesn't happen without the gear to pass the signal through.

While these discussions can become bitch sessions, there is some good that can come out of them. People that are intimately familiar with PT, can shed some light on some practices that they have come up with to improve the overall quality.

For example, (and this is a recording example but it does ultimately affect the mix) I recommend setting recording levels to PT not based on level to tape (so to speak), but rather so that when the faders are at unity gain there is an inherent balance. In other words, if you record the drums, record them so that a good balance is achieved without changing the faders from unity in Pro Tools. This way you won't be degrading the sound later by setting a playback balance with the faders in PT. Perhaps others have tricks they have come up with to battle problems.

Again, I agree that this topic is of less importance to me for the purposes of this forum. But it's certainly not off topic.

Mixerman

Originally posted by RSMITH123:
Guys,
I am disappointed. When we produce, when we record, when we make music, it is for the consumer. I have heard great recordings on air that began and finished in the digital realm. Is analog better...not really. Is analog better sounding...yeah, a little warmer and fuzzier.

You are splitting hairs guys. Get over it and make some more good music. ;)

I would contend that high quality analog is beter than high quality digital. Often times people discuss the artifacts of analog, but they are no where near as displeasing to my ear as the artifacts of digial.

Therefore, to me, there is no comparison between those two formats. I feel that this thread is comparing PT to other recording formats in general. RADAR is digital, and I think it sounds excellent. Do I think it sounds better than a good 2" machine? No. But I still think it sounds excellent.

Just because some recognize that analog is a more pleasing sound than digital still, doesn't mean that we don't use digital. Every time I put a CD on I use digital, right? I think it's fair to discuss the shortcomings of the most popular recording system in the world.

Mixerman

By all means, buy anything that will get you working! Look at the options, listen as much as possible to everything you can afford before you buy it, and get what you get- like Mixerman said, a great song/musicians/ideas will transcend gear, in a large way.

However, I have been doing a lot of re-listening to stuff I have done in the past. Taking in to account my getting better at this stuff, I can honestly say that, raw sonics wise,

A) a $1500 Soundcraft 600 (with about $500 worth of module and master section mods from Audio Upgrades) and a $2800 (market price) 1" 16 track Otari MX70

pretty much beat the crap out of;

B) my Digital Performer rig by itself,

or

C) my Mackie D8B and DP as tape machine.

And I think DP actually sounds pretty good, comparatively. Moreover, I like the sound of my MCi 2" better than the Otari, yet when the 2" is passed through the Mackie, most of the difference between it and Digital Performer is gone, other than slight tonal variations. Fuckin' shame, and that's why I am shopping hard for consoles.

Originally posted by zip:
Uhhhhh...OK. So I guess those of us who can't afford 2" tape machines and 50 grand boards shouldn't do anything eh?

zip >>

Well Christopher, if the platform is irrelevant, why not get yourself a 4 track audio cassette portastudio and some radio shack mics? I'm only partly being facetious here ;)

It's an important debate, lots of people just getting into this line of work thing PT is the ultimate, threads like these can educate and let them know that Digi's product doesn't live up to the hype. Also, the discussion is about audio quality re. digital and analog - many people still seem to think that just because it involves computers it must be state of the art and way better than old analog technology when this couldn't be further from the truth.

Originally posted by Julian Standen:
Actually, Mixerman, this track is a mad "Undercover of the Night" style madhouse, it's not 'up on the net' in MP3, and I am too dumb to get it there too.it would be perfect for an experienced arranger mixer to do...
I have slightly painted myself in a corner with regards to all the parts in there...
So we are hoping to get someone else to do the mix..

JulesJules, if you want it up there and can't get it up, well if you'd get the song into an mp3 format somehow and mail it to me I could find a place to put it up to. Are you interested? - Drop me a note if you are!

I want to do a quick reply about Mixerman's Otari Radar statement. Honestly I've never sat down w/ the thing and I've never heard anyone say anything except they LOVE it.

Although,

the last U2 album w/ done w/ the Otari radar and I've got to tell you that album sounds really pretty awful sonically compared to everything else they've done. The drums sound pretty weak and strangely brittle... not big, DEFINITELY not punchy, and hardly warm.

That's just my 2cents.

I have had the privilege to record on Radar, PT, Soundscape, ADAT, DA88, MX2424, 1 inch 24 tr, 2 inch 16 and 24 tracks.

I prefer two inch.

As a composer, not an engineer, I found the following indicative of why peeps like these digital systems...
posted by Micheal:
For a lot of musician committing to tape is an imposing thing, It's kind of final, set in stone. The costs kind of prohibit any new artist from any kind of lengthy experimentation.

For a musician, digital is like music: fluid, spontaneous, impermanent. The very nature of music is reflected in the work environment of a DAW. You can improvise your recording the way you would improvise on an instrument. You can suddenly shift the direction of an arrangement, the same way that you can when you're improvising with your band of fellow musicians. Miles Davis and Jimi Hendrix would have loved DAWs, the way they used to slice and dice tape. With tape, you play something and it's THERE. Not nearly as much fun.

That having been said, it's no fun if it sounds like shit, either. Digi has to shit or get off the pot, and it looks as if their chance is coming soon. The word on the grapevine is no, the new 96K PT hardware will not be upgradeable from the current stuff, because Digi couldn't get 96K to work on the current hardware. DP, Nuendo, Logic etc are caught up to PT in the public perception, so this is the time for Digi to pull back out ahead of the pack. If they screw the pooch, fughettaboutit, Radar is out, and Tascam's SX-1 will be interesting to look at as well when that comes out. Multi-processor support for PT would be nice; don't care much for 96K personally.

I completely understand and appreciate Mixerman's stance on this issue. I also completely understand the feelings of the "fuck fancy gear, let's jam" crowd. Digital recording and DAWs are still new. I personally do not believe that digital will ever sound JUST like analog, but I think a time is coming - and it may be much sooner than we all think - when even the likes of Mixerman will sit down and record with an as-yet-to-be-released DAW and think, "Damn, they are getting it, digital is really there now." YMMV.

Eric Vincent
Curve Dominant Sound&Vision Now Featuring ProTools™!
curvdominant@earthlink.net

I love My Pro Tools and I think It sounds awsome.
If you don't like it don't buy it.
I use the RME converters and love them.
The downfall is a bunch of cheap DAW systems with mediocre engineers are stirring the "big $$ pro pot".
I think people get defensive cause this new, economical, excellent piece of gear comes out and the analog professional tries it and can't figure it out or feels that his or her system is being mocked because of complete autiomation or 100% instant recall. So what happens is that they (people who bitch about Pro Tools) have to hold their investment high and scream that all DAW is good for is editing.
It's the music and how well you know your "Tools" not your $.02, 2 second trial by fire opinion about Pro Tools that makes music what it is.
Almost of my favorite music was done on analog.
People remember the song to hit their emotions not the "God that Pro Tools rig makes me want to cry!"

I don't know, I'd shed a tear for my PT rig.

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://digitalsound…"]Digital Sound Lab[/]="http://digitalsound…"]Digital Sound Lab[/] :)

It is definitely Monday

Ok, here is my rant of the day. ProTools sounds like ass, no two ways about it. Very little depth to anything, no width to the soundstage, none. A total lack of air and what is very important to me, a lack of the subtle but important sense of liquidity that I love so much about analog. I can deal with the perfect freq response, I never liked the low end anomolies of analog all that much, and I don't mind the lack of hiss, either. But that flat, airless, stairstep dymanics and timing are the real buzz kill. The thing is, what I'm descibing is not at all "esoteric", it's just not something that matters to everybody. And it certainly won't be much of an issue to someone who has worked only or primarily in digital formats. But if you've spent a fair amount of time with a great sounding 2" and a high performance analog console, it's very hard to be impressed by ProTools. The other insideous thing is, a lot of these perceptions don't blossom in my brain until several hours into a ProTools project. Some objections will gradualy disapear only to become blatently obvious when comparing to original analog source tapes. Put that in your lightpipe and smoke it.

Originally posted by Digital Sound Lab:

I think people get defensive cause this new, economical, excellent piece of gear comes out and the analog professional tries it and can't figure it out or feels that his or her system is being mocked because of complete autiomation or 100% instant recall. So what happens is that they (people who bitch about Pro Tools) have to hold their investment high and scream that all DAW is good for is editing.

Digital,

Both Mc Snare, and myself, are independent engineers, that are hired purely for our skills as either recordists or mixers. I have a few large racks of gear that I carry around, but I have no money invested in Pro Tools, 2" machines, or consoles.

The studios that I and McSnare work in, have no problems purchasing a fully decked out Pro Tools rig if they so desire, and can charge out the ass for the rental of it.

I have at my disposal, any time that I want, a Pro Tools rig to learn how to use, I have access to people whose soul job in life is to operate a Pro Tools rig on a session. Also, the studios that I and McSnare work at, have full blown automation systems, and total recall made possible by extremely accurate notes by assistants that the studio supplies.

To top it all off, I (and McSnare too)have the luxury to use any recording system that I choose, any time I wish, for whatever reason I wish it. I would think that you would find our takes on this subject interesting, to say the least.

Mixerman

Mixerman -"To top it all off, I (and McSnare too)have the luxury to use any recording system that I choose, any time I wish, for whatever reason I wish it. I would think that you would find our takes on this subject interesting, to say the least."
-------------------------------------------------
I'm always up for discussions about audio and such.
I never said Pro Tools was perfect. But my Pro Tools takes pretty good care of me.
Some of us have to deal with a more strict budget. I do not have these kind of luxuries that some of you who have been around longer but I'm working my way up there.
You can get good air with good conversion. Some plugins are better than others for dynamics an EQ's. I feel that their is plenty of depth to work with (24 bit) and the panning places instrument exactly where I put them.
You are the moderator and it is your world here so if I don't do it your way than to hell with me? I'm not aloud to cut excellent tracks? Digital vs. Analog is more of a political debate that I would rather not be apart of.
I've built my studio literally from the ground up out of my own pocket and I'm not necessarily stuck in a certain path. Pro Tools works excellent for me and my clients. I feel that digital is sometimes hard to get a specific sound and I find that my engineering skills got to be in tip top shape. Most songs come together quickly and others take a little more time.
If you want Digidesign to change their product for your needs better than perhaps you people should post on their conference site or talk to Adrian Haselhuber the product manager.
I don't know what else to say.
I'm not here to argure just to learn more and give input where I can.

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://digitalsound…"]Digital Sound Lab[/]="http://digitalsound…"]Digital Sound Lab[/] :)

Mixerman wrote "Also, the studios that I and McSnare work at, have full blown automation systems, and total recall made possible by extremely accurate notes by assistants that the studio supplies."

While Mixerman's own sessions might attain 'perfect recall' as he claims, overall, the "total recall" issue with regards to analog consoles and accurate recall of mixes made on them, has a chequered reputation in pro audio circles. ie - it often 'doesn't come back the same'.Mixerman would have to be an ostritch with his head in the sand not to admit that! (That his mixes 'rarely or never' are requested to be recalled is admirable but totaly moot in this context)

Recall is one area where PT does shine brightly. Total recall is exactly that with PT. Some people dig that, I know I do!

Same old shit!

Whale meat? Again?

Jules

Originally posted by Mixerman:
I have access to people whose soul job in life is to operate a Pro Tools rig on a session.

um, please don't put it like that...sole job is on thing, but we aren't required to sell our souls to work in PT...yet :D

Originally posted by Jules:
Total recall is exactly that with PT.

Hey Jules...what version of PT with what version plugs you using so i can bring my mixes over to your system? ;)

I think the larger point (for me at least) is that many of us do not have unlimited access to everything available and therefor are "stuck" with what we ultimately choose to invest in. I appreciate the broader perspective from people such as mixerman and its important to know how people in the industry feel about equipment. where i get stuck is "pro tools sounds like ass" why and how? although at this time i prefer analog recordings, as an artist or at a session were going to record to whatever the studio has and after listening to many sessions recrded on several different formats i am not able to tell the differences between most hard disc recordings (pt vs nuendo ect) it would be helpfull if someone could describe what it is your hearing or listening for and whether or not the poor sound is indeed the math or incorrect level setting or what. having sold my tape equipment sometime ago i still havent been able to settle on a format to replace it. keep the debate rolling but it would be great to hear specifics.

I appreciate everyones comments. Furthermore, it is not my intention to dis people that have ProTools and enjoy working on it.
What I am trying to put across, is that contrary to popular belief, you don't always grow up to be president, our elected officials don't always serve the people, and ProTools does not sound as good as Digidesign would have you believe.
I, like Mixerman, are a few small voices against what I see as an industry trend toward inferior sonics. It's not just ProTools. But in this thread, I'm trying to point out how better it really needs to be.
I don't mean to offend or look down on people that have embraced this format. I'm just saying for me, it falls short. I say this hoping it will improve, cause it's not going away any time soon.
As far as the "it's all I can afford and it has taught me how to record like the big guys", that is BS. If that's how you choose to enter the recording scene, fine, but don't tell me it's the only way to get pro sound at an affordable cost. If you really care about sound, you can put together a tape deck/ console setup for less than what a really effective ProTools setup costs. If you are just putting your foot in the water, sure, an 001 setup is a good entry level system. I would rather get a Tascam 388 1/4 8 track/console for about the same money, or even a VS 1680. But thats me.
Finally, excuse me for being a little hardcore, but thats my stupid way of getting people to think about this shit.

Rader Ranch wrote:

"Hey Jules...what version of PT with what version plugs you using so i can bring my mixes over to your system?"

As well as a very bright fulltime assistant, who is more 'computer clever' than I, we have 24 hour access to PT "Mac-sperts" afilliated with Londons biggest & best studio equip hire Co who can sort out most problems we can't cope with here.

Smile face

Jules

Originally posted by Julian Standen:
Mixerman wrote "Also, the studios that I and McSnare work at, have full blown automation systems, and total recall made possible by extremely accurate notes by assistants that the studio supplies."

Jules

Julian,

Total recalls in the analog domain come up staggeringly well. I've walked into recall situations on an 80 input 8078, that the differences were tiny. Conversely, I've walked into recall situations that barely came up. You are dependent on a good assitant, with good notes. If you have a good assistant (which I do)then the recalls are great.

I think the larger issue is the difference in philosphies. I don't recall a mix to bring up a guitar part in the verse, or to fix some insignificant thing that really has no relevnace to the impact of the song as a whole. I recall a mix if it just plain missed the boat. So I don't really care if the mix is slightly different, because I'm going to spend at least an hour on it anyway, if not more.

Absolutely perfect recall isn't all it's cracked up to be. It's insipid, and generally causes a syndrome that I call 'going past the mix'. I know that you think that analog recalls are less than perfect, and that may be true, but I contend they can be better than you imagine. More importantly is the philosphy of working that goes hand in hand with working this way.

I realize how easy it is to marvel at how someone could live without things like absolute perfect and instant recall, quick editing, undo, and all the little goodies that a DAW offers. But what you have to realize is, it's no marvel at all. People develop a style of working that works within the boundaries of their medium.

Boundaries can be a drag, but they can also force someone to work ways that are actually more beneficial to the work itself. Undo is a very hady little tool, but it's not absolutely necessary, and fi one knows how, one can work just as fluidly without it.

For me, I would rather have to work within certain boundaries that I'm comfortable in anyway, then to greatly sacrifice sound quality. For someone that has never known those boundaries, I can understand how living with said boundaries would not warrant the great sacrifice in sound quality.

You may want to read that paragraph again, Because it is in that difference of opinion alone, that we will never meet in the middle.

Mixerman

Originally posted by Digital Sound Lab:

I'm always up for discussions about audio and such.
I never said Pro Tools was perfect. But my Pro Tools takes pretty good care of me.
Some of us have to deal with a more strict budget. I do not have these kind of luxuries that some of you who have been around longer but I'm working my way up there.

The reason that I pointed this luxury out, was to point out the hole in your orignal argument. The one where you basically stated that the only reason anyone seems to put down Pro Tools is that they feel their equipment is being mocked. Whatever that means.

If you want to talk sound, PT is lacking. I have no investments, I have no biasis, I have no reason to prefer one product over another, other than sound.

Now, If you want to have a discussion about all the great things that PT does to make it a worthwhile purchase for you, you wouldn't catch an argument from me. That's fine. There are plenty of reasons to buy PT. Sound just doesn't happen to be one of them.

Another thing. You're right, I am the moderator here. I've been the moderator here for about 16 days, and I've edited one post out of 700 that had a butchered version of my name in it. As far as I'm concerned this is a free society. If you want to criticize me, be my guest. If you think I'm wrong, and I'm being an idiot, go ahead and put me in my place.

Just because we disagree, it is not the hell with you. I have heard excellent tracks recorded in Pro Tools. Does this mean that I think it sounds good? No.

You built your studio from the ground up. So you decided on your purchase. I don't have to make money in your studio, so I can't second guess that decision. It might have been the best decision that you could have made. It might have been the same decision that I would have made. But that's completely different from determining whether PT actually sounds good.

To anyone that owns PT, if you think it sounds great, that's all that matters. I think it sounds like shit. So maybe you know something that I don't.

Mixerman

Originally posted by McSnare:
I would rather get a Tascam 388 1/4 8 track/console for about the same money, or even a VS 1680. But thats me.

Now, I agree with you on the Tascam and console thing- 7 or 8 years ago, I had a little 1/2" 8 track Tascam and a Fostex 16x4 mixer, and that stuff could sound surprisingly good.

But... have you heard the VS1680?

That thing has got to be the most godawful, crappy storage medium/mixer that has ever been inflicted on unsuspecting audio. I can truthfully say that I have never heard a recorder over $100 that sounds that depressingly flat, small, clouded. It's like it was designed specifically to make even great players and songs sound 2D and boring.

It's barely passable in the 'highest quality,' 2:1 compression ratio 'mastering' mode, but that lowers your track count to 8. In 3 years of selling them, I *never* met a customer who was willing to toss their audio even that meager bone.

Hope I haven't offended any VS owners... :)

Striving to make PT recordings & mixes sound good is a worthwhile persuit for a PT owner. I will continue with that. BTW I have found that my best sounding PT recordings have one thing in common, a brilliant drummer! I reckon that goes with analog too, I dont expect anyone to 'fight me' on that one much!
Of course, if I won the lottery or had a big cash break from music. I would probably buy back from the US one of the old Neves that UK studios were shortsighted enough to sell to the US (there are VERY FEW left here in the UK) and build a barn sized tracking room to go round it, with Studers 16 track & 24 track 2" machines. Bryan Adams facility in Canada always looked like an 'ideal" facility to me!
But, in the meantime, sometimes it pays to "love the one you're with" (Steven Stills). For the moment, I am with PT.
"And now, back to the records...."

Jules

Mixerman wrote
Absolutely perfect recall isn't all it's cracked up to be. It's insipid, and generally causes a syndrome that I call 'going past the mix'. I know that you think that analog recalls are less than perfect, and that may be true, but I contend they can be better than you imagine. More importantly is the philosphy of working that goes hand in hand with working this way.

Ok I have PT and this is one of the biggest problems with PT. TOO MANY OPTIONS. Clients come back time and time again, guitar second chorus up a little, then no back down and then up etc.

The other thing I hate with PT is being able to keep all the takes, 50 Vocals takes and then maybe I will go back the first. Sure I could delete them but the singer knows that computers save all.
Other thing I hate about PT is that bands expect you to fix everything. The hey its out of time, out of tune , the guitar sound sucks, my drums never have been reskined now can't you push a plugins button and fix it mentality is strong.

Things I like about PT.
Being able to edit out a bad hit in a good take etc, without going over board.
The plugins I have are better then I could afford for outboard.
No tape costs, no biasing etc.
Stability against other DAW's I have used.

Yes I know it colors the sound, it might smear it a bit. Although it will not make any difference if the song is shit to start with.

I use the 'total recall' thing in PT for working on a group of songs as opposed to one at a time. Very easy.

Also very easy to work on different projects.

I see some difficulty in doing this analog, but that's just how I work. (not in a dedicated studio all day, so take it as such)

Mixerman, I started in Pro Tools when It first came out and before that I had just a little tape and Blackface ADAT experience. Even when the studio started I was mixing on a Mackie 8 bus that I didn't like the sound. When Pro Tools 4.0 came out, I decided to go full pro tools because of it's sonic qualities were better and it offered more. I've been full PT ever since.
---------------------------
I am all about sound also.
Could you recommend a quality analog board within the 7-10 k range and maybe I'll try some test for myself. If I could integrate the two without too much hassle and and get even better sound quality this could happen.

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://digitalsound…"]Digital Sound Lab[/]="http://digitalsound…"]Digital Sound Lab[/] :)

Thesis: Pro tools studios are likly to have less of a variety and quality of gear and (no offense) less experienced engineers than the big million$ analog studios do. Therefore to compare pro tools to analog in the way it is being done here is not really apples to apples.

Mixerman - your story about the drums geting lost due to the protools level change - this is the type of comparision I value. But your opinion is, I assume, based on the totality of your experince with pro tools not just this one example. Can you be sure you are making a fair comparison if it is likely that you are really just comparing lower end studios with higher end studios?

And if you are sure this comparision is valid - do you feel this way about all DSP? When you work on high end digital gear do you get the same proplems or is just pro tools?

Originally posted by jcb:
Thesis: Pro tools studios are likly to have less of a variety and quality of gear and (no offense) less experienced engineers than the big million$ analog studios do. Therefore to compare pro tools to analog in the way it is being done here is not really apples to apples.

And if you are sure this comparision is valid - do you feel this way about all DSP? When you work on high end digital gear do you get the same proplems or is just pro tools?

I've compared Pro Tools to $15,000 console with a $5,000 2" machine. That combination costs less than the Pro Tools system I was comparing it too. I have compared it in the SAME studio, with the same monitoring system. This is a no-brainer. It's not like I have to carefully go back and forth, checking and re-checking to see if I hear a slight difference. There's a huge diference. It's even obvious to the assistant.

I'm really not familiar with other systems, so I can't answer your the last part of your question. I do know that people with similar tastes to me, say they are not all as bad as PT. But until I hear it, I can't tell you.

I can live with most high end digital gear. I think the RADAR sounds great. I can mix off the RADAR, and it's the closest thing to mixing off 2" I've come across in the digital domain. And no, I don't currently have a deal with IZ.

Mixerman

posted by Mixerman:
To anyone that owns PT, if you think it sounds great, that's all that matters. I think it sounds like shit. So maybe you know something that I don't.

Dude,

It's not the frequency response, it's the vibe.

Think of PT like a stompbox. You don't need it all the time, but it's there, and you can stomp on that f*cker when you need to. You just need to know when to stomp on it at just the right moment.

I just installed PTLE/Digi001 on my rig last night, and surfed the tutorial. I'm seeing the creative potential.

Will it sound like Black Sabbath's "War Pigs," or Miles Davis' "Bitch's Brew"? No. I would personally use a 2" Studer for that sort of thing. But, it is a creative tool, and creativity is what rock and roll has always been about.

The future is not coming towards you; rather, it is moving away, and sometimes you must run to keep up with it.

E :)

Yeah, but if all you have around is ProStools and the next War Pigs or Biches Brew comes you way, thats what you are gonna use. And preserve forever a great proformance in an inferior recording medium.
The future is about recording great music on the best sounding medium.

And BTW, I'd love to see Miles Davis face when the unfortunate engineer had to tell him that the comp just froze, or hang on I need to allocate some more disk space.

And BTW, I'd love to see Miles Davis face when the unfortunate engineer had to tell him that the comp just froze, or hang on I need to allocate some more disk space.

No different from telling him, "Hang on, I have to clean, degauss and re-align these heads," in my view. As if there are never tech-related delays in analog studios, please. All of this digital-bashing is revealing an under-lying frustration. Are you guys the factory workers at the onset of the information age, railing against progress in the face of your coming obsolesence?

Pro Tools is just that: tools. New tools. If you can't get them to sound good, you need more kung fu.

Uh, who the hell does maintenance durring the session? If you don't have that shit together, you shouldn't be charging money to record people, IMO.
Bear

Oh, Bear, the sh*t I've seen...don't get me started. Remember: I'm an artist, not an engineer. I've seen sessions begin with 1&1/2 hours of the engineer re-calibrating the meters on the 2inch deck. Routings mysteriously going haywire. Adat's mysteriously not recording a drummer and bassist. Once, an engineer accidentally recorded one of my final mixes over the previous mix we had done, which we had to do over 3 times to come close to re-capturing the original (it was all-analog; we didn't have automated mixing in those days). And the tape issues: drop-outs in a roll of brand new 2inch tape rendered days of work useless in one instance. I could go on. Bad maintenence? Milking the clock? Plain old knuckleheadedness? I don't give a f*ck. I am in total control of the process now. YMMV.

E :)

Eric, it seems you pick the wrong studio's. Dropouts with a new roll of 2"tape? must have been a badly worn head.
Wrong engineers also, must be morons. Glad you're in total control now, next time find yourself a decent studio, there are many of them, digital and analog, indeed YMMV.
If you ever come to Holland, I record a song with you for free, on two inch,(without dropouts) and with a sound that will make you very, very happy.

It doesnt matter as to what technology you use, I have had data go corrupt or a session just not open, and well....how about hard drives that die?

Point is anything and everything can and will happen at one point in time.

I definately feel that when theres an analog recording on my 2 inch, its there and there isnt much that can go wrong once im sure its on tape.

Eric, it seems you pick the wrong studio's. Dropouts with a new roll of 2"tape? must have been a badly worn head.
Wrong engineers also, must be morons.

Han,

I won't mention any names in response to that, because we are talking about people who I might see walking up the street tomorrow, who have platinum records on their walls. They are good peeps, and they do know what they are doing. My point was that: shit happens. DAW, analog, everything in between. It's the measure of kung fu that differentiates. Nome sayn?

E :)

have patience people--in ten (eh maybe 6) years you'll have your pristine DSD (1 bit 2.8224mhz) DAW -- hehe.
but until then--- i think that there are many different issues in the protools debate. Firstly, the good lord giveth + he taketh away. Meaning, whatever the sonic weaknesses of PT, its undeniable that its opened up new ways of working and experimenting. But, on the other hand, all these plugins have led to a preponderance of *ear candy* over arrangement. Also, the editing abilitys of PT means that the need for highly skilled (one take) session musicians has decreased, making me wonder if we'll ever hear records again like Michael Jacksons "Thriller" or "Off the wall", where each musical part (bass, keys whatever) was provided by a master player-- leading to a certain musical depth which has been replaced be the above mentioned ear candy.--- shit i'm late ---will finish later

Fortunately the sales per title of the ear candy are in the toilet even though a few are selling unprecedented numbers. Still it doesn't add up to any real profits for artists or labels.

Why is it mostly ear candy?

1. most new pop stars are coming out of television and musical ability has taken a back seat to glamour.

2. songwriter/producers are expected to produce finished songs and tracks on spec and then are paid a flat rate plus royalties. Every penny paid to a musician or background singer comes directly out of the producer/songwriter's pocket

3. amazing numbers of people are interpreting the results this financial situation as being a "style" when in fact it's merely cheap.

I think the folks who complain that CDs are overpriced are mostly right but the only fix anybody will be able to earn a living from will be making lots better recordings. I can't wait!

Does that mean that folks that cant do 'fixer up work' on DAWS will soon be marginalised to the sidelines of the recording industry?
Analog - Col Custers last stand?
There are a lot of Indians running around (each with 64 arrows!) Grant(!)ed there aren't enough chiefs among them.

:)

Woo! Woo!

Chief Engineer

I'LL BE A CHIEF! I CAN COOK!!!

:D

Wooo Wooo!

Stands With A Beer aka Smoking Beerclaw

Hey, I don't care whther your using Pro Tools or a wire recorder, shit's going to fuck-up. I've had just as much downtime (if not more) from Pro Tools than any analog gear. That's a wash as far as I'm concerened.

This is not a dig vs. analog thread. It is a thread discussing a problem with one particular brand of gear that happens to be digital.

Like I've said countless times, there are many good reasons to buy this brand. It can be a smart business decision to buy this brand. But in its stock form, it's sub-par. That's all, nothing more, nothing less.

We all make ease-of-use over quality-of-sound compromises on a daily basis. The difference in our philosophies as engineers does not tend to lie in the refusal of those compromises, but rather in where to draw the line.

Mixerman

posted by Mixerman:
there are many good reasons to buy this brand. It can be a smart business decision to buy this brand. But in its stock form, it's sub-par.

Sub-par? 24 bit waveform editing at 48 thousandths of a second, sub-par? Unlimited mix automation, sub-par? In what "stock form" exactly, is it "sub-par?" I would be curious to know.

We all make ease-of-use over quality-of-sound compromises on a daily basis. The difference in our philosophies as engineers does not tend to lie in the refusal of those compromises, but rather in where to draw the line.

That line is easily blurred, when you consider the quality of work/cost of production equation:

1. If the "golden ears" were dictators, a lot of quality music produced on low budgets would never be heard.

2. If the "art critics" were dictators, a lot of garbage produced at high budgets would never be heard.

Which would you prefer?

For folks who actually need to produce their music, there is a "third way," and it is called Whatever It Takes. Whether it will sound great or not will depend entirely upon the kung fu of the person holding the steering wheel, irregardless of what they happen to be driving. YMMV.

Eric Vincent
Curve Dominant Sound&Vision
Philadelphia USA
curvdominant@earthlink.net