Originally posted by Curve Dominant:

I am speaking strictly sonically. Stock would mean with 888 converters and a USD clock. Either way the internal math of fader moves is flawed to say the least.

And 48 thousandths of a second editing doesn't impress me, as I've never really had a problem with the old scrub and cut technique.

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

Golden Ears Shmolden Ears. Art Critics, Schmart Critics. It always comes down to the music. You'll never hear me refute that. We are currently not talking about the song, but the medium in which to record the song. Please do not confuse the two.

Just because the song is king, we should throw out the concept of recording and mixing compelling sounds? I think not. That's our job.

There's nothing wrong with 'whatever-it-takes'. But Pro Tools is not cheaper than other alternatives. So, whatever-it-takes, does not automatically bring the image of a computer to my mind. Also, are you saying that if PT wasn't invented that albums that were recorded on it would never have been made? Don't you think that if we were all still using 2", those albums would have been made on 2"?

I don't understand why people get so bent out of shape on this subject. Did you really choose PT because it's the best sounding gear? C'mon. Really. Did you go out and say to yourself, "I'm going out to purchase the best sounding recording unit money can buy." No, you did'nt. So why get bent out of shape when this particular shortcoming is pointed out?

One might have bought PT because one THOUGHT it was the most economically feasible product. But I contend that is not true.

Why do you think Digi makes the 001? So you get used to the system, and buy the full blown PT's. Once you work with a DAW, if you have not gotten the chops of working in other domains, it becomes very hard to understand how another works in those other domains. A DAW is only one way of working.

The way people talk about the editing and other features, you'd wonder how a record was ever made before its inception.

Mixerman

"Also, are you saying that if PT wasn't invented that albums that were recorded on it would never have been made? Don't you think that if we were all still using 2", those albums would have been made on 2"?"

actually, if he's not saying it *I* am.
down here in the lower end of the recording market I think 95 % of the albums made in most of these studios would NOT have been made if it werent for ADATS or Pro Tools.

come down here to the ghetto. Its a FACT.

The primary reason I purchased a ProTools system was purely that I can find out a WEALTH of information on it VERY easily on forums like this and on thier web site.

At the time (and I'm not sure now), no other system had such a popularity among beginning engineers to pro engineers and everywhere in between.

Not only can I solve system problems, but I can get tips & techniques from anyone from the guy down the street to George Massenburg.

I concede that 'out of the box' sound quality was compromised for technology & future potential.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
Any ProTools user should welcome with open arms ANYONE pointing out ANY weaknesses in the system or hardware.

All this talk makes me listen closer, ask more questions, and try harder.

posted by Mixerman:
And 48 thousandths of a second editing doesn't impress me, as I've never really had a problem with the old scrub and cut technique.
SCRUB AND CUT! LMAO!!! OK, Barney Rubble, let me ask you this: you're mixing a track, and something about the vocal track bothers you until you realize that, although otherwise a great vocal performance, the singer put some slightly out of tune tails at the end of several key phrases. Are you going to "scrub and cut" them out? PLEASE! In PT, you can isolate the offending redundant artifacts, at sample level if necessary, and eliminate them. And that's just one out of a million examples. Have you ever looked at a sound wave at sample level? It's breath-taking, the sheer beauty of pure mathematics.

I mean, yeah, I had no problem with the US Mail before E-mail, and I had no problem with my guitar before I discovered the wah pedal and the fuzzbox. PT is just the latest step forward.
are you saying that if PT wasn't invented that albums that were recorded on it would never have been made? Don't you think that if we were all still using 2", those albums would have been made on 2"?
Fuhgettabout 2 inch. 2 inch is history. Talk about getting bent out of shape! You're stuck on a dated technology. Digi doesn't sound worse, just different. When you understand that, and simultaneously appreciate the creative possibilities, you'll get it.
Why do you think Digi makes the 001?
There is a demand for them.
The way people talk about the editing and other features, you'd wonder how a record was ever made before its inception.
In the future, you'll do just that. But, remember, it's not just "fix-up" editing, it's CREATIVE editing, that makes PT so elegant, as it puts that power into the hands of the individual. Digi democratizes music; now the work will go more to who's got the best music, rather than who's blowing the right person. YMMV.

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

SCRUB AND CUT! LMAO!!! OK, Barney Rubble, let me ask you this: you're mixing a track, and something about the vocal track bothers you until you realize that, although otherwise a great vocal performance, the singer put some slightly out of tune tails at the end of several key phrases. Are you going to "scrub and cut" them out? PLEASE!

And I'll wonder why no one ever heard this problem before? Like when they were recording the vocal. Don't substitute the cavalier way if working that is so common in Pro Tools for how one would work in other mediums. It's precisely the reason you only see the relevancy of your way of working.

When I asked how other records were made before, it's quite simple. With care. Songs did not go to the mix stage with unacceptable tuning issues. People listened, and if something was wrong, it was performed or played again.

In PT, you can isolate the offending redundant artifacts, at sample level if necessary, and eliminate them. And that's just one out of a million examples. Have you ever looked at a sound wave at sample level? It's breath taking, the sheer beauty of pure mathematics.

I mean, yeah, I had no problem with the US Mail before E-mail, and I had no problem with my guitar before I discovered the wah pedal and the fuzzbox. PT is just the latest step forward.

E-mail has redced my phone time more than my snail mail time.

The concept of PT is the latest step forward. The quality of sound is a work in progress.

Curve, this debate does not upset me in the least. It's obviously getting you a little hot. Perhaps you should chill out and put things in perspective before you respond. You're not still hot about LA beating Phili, are you?

Mixerman

posted by Mixerman:
And I love the smell of 2" in the morning. What's your point?

I wouldn't brag about that!

:)

For those of you who say that these old analog heads are stuck in the past, yada yada yada... means they are not in touch with the present, then why are the still recording, mixing and producing HIT RECORDS! IMHO the only ones I think that have a right to have an honest opinion are the ones that have actually worked with both formats a lot in day to day professional environments. Otherwise anyone else that wants to argue the point IS miss informed. From what I have read here that is most of you.

Any anyone that goes to a studio that has all the problem that Curve has had, either don't want to spend the money to record in a well maintained studio our loves misery.

I own a studio, just recently upgraded to 2" from adats (which BTW I don't even think there is an argument on which sounds better) but I have never worked with a PT mix and good converters (I have 001) So I have no right to have an opinion, but I do believe that these old analog heads have the experience to have a much informed real life opinion. Anyway what happened to respect of those who came before us and the knowledge they have learned. This is a lot of what's wrong with the world today, IMHO! :mad:

"And you should be listening, because we will take over the world one day, and then you'll REALLY be screwed! LMAO :)

My wife and I recently went for a PT listening session. The man playes a PT demo (from Digidesign). After a minute the lady says: sounds as dead as a stone. Female logic??? :)

Recently I recorded an album with an Italian metalband (yes, on 2" Eric) They had recorded a number of songs in Italy in a PT studio.
The engineer records a verse and a chorus and stops recording and says: I have enough.

The gitarist (confused) says: but the second chorus is very different and a little faster!

You know Eric, there is not much wrong with PT, but something's wrong with your music/skill when you desperately need it :D

Now make some music!!

Originally posted by Curve Dominant:

SCRUB AND CUT! LMAO!!! OK, Barney Rubble, let me ask you this: you're mixing a track, and something about the vocal track bothers you until you realize that, although otherwise a great vocal performance, the singer put some slightly out of tune tails at the end of several key phrases. Are you going to "scrub and cut" them out? PLEASE! In PT, you can isolate the offending redundant artifacts, at sample level if necessary, and eliminate them. And that's just one out of a million examples. Have you ever looked at a sound wave at sample level? It's breath-taking, the sheer beauty of pure mathematics.

Yeah, Pro Tools saves the day again. Big woop.

What about getting a good performance on tape or perhaps you've never driven an automated console.

I'm talking about the sheer beauty of pure talent, if you want to talk mathematics why not become a automotive engineer?

Hey David

Nice studio!! like your 'studio tips' very much!

Peace.

WHOAH! GUYS! TIME OUT!

Y'all are taking me WAY too seriously here.

First off, David, I LUV some of the recordings Mixerman has done; that is most definitely NOT what I was talking about, and I don't think any disrespect could have been percieved by anybody other than somebody trying to stir up some sh*t.

What cracks me up, though, is these engineers who say, "You just don't have the talent to work with us if you need ProTools." Now I'm not gonna go bragging about how I've won the ASCAP Composer Award for the last three years in a row (oops! I just did), among my other accomplishments. And I'm going to ignore Han's incoherent antectdotal evidence that PT is worthless. But, studio engineers as arbitors of talent? Technical precision, maybe, but not artistic talent. That's a producer's job. Mixerman is at that level, so I like to debate his views KNOWING that he knows the difference between technical virtuosity on a musical instrument, and artistic vision. Could I one day hire Mixerman to record and mix to 2" a project I'm composing or producing if I want THAT sound? ABSOLUTELY! That's not the point, and the fact that that has been consistently missed here shows the narrowness of vision on certain participants in this debate. Some of you look at PT as this evil villian that discourages talent. What I see is that very talent APPLIED to the possibilities that ProTools offers ie: mixing and editing. HELLO? ARE YOU GETTING IT YET?

Look at it this way: it used to be that a guitar was a guitar, it was what it was, with it's six strings tuned a certain way and strummed politely, with great care given to setting the amplifier so that the sound would be as clean as possible. Then peeps like Jimi Hendrix came along and redefined the limits of what kind of instrument the guitar is, and in doing so changed the public perception of how a guitar could be played. At first, some of the tech guys said, "Oh my God, Hendrix's guitar is so distorted, it's out of tune, it's feeding back all the time, what the f*ck??!!!" In the studio as well, Hendrix took an approach of using the studio as an instrument to be f*cked with and bent into interesting and unexpected shapes, quite successfully I might add.

Did Hendrix lack talent? It totally depended on who you asked at the time. If you were a snob who asked him to play a Scarlotti concerto, and he did so unsuccessfully, you would say, "Yes, he lacks talent, and that's why he needs all of that studio trickery and bending his strings and whatnot: to cover the fact that he's not a very good guitar player."

Do you all see how totally subjective this can be, this question of talent? Talent? In what area? Yeah, I've got this new toy that I won in a contest, but I look at it like Jimi looked at the guitar. I see ways that it could be used that maybe haven't been realized or thought of yet. Yeah, I know, the amp's distorted, it's feeding back, blah blah blah. But if what I create with it funks peeps up in ways that an analog recording couldn't, I guarantee you they will not be standing around their boomboxes on the corner of 11th and Market, rubbing their chins and saying, "Gee, ya know, the stereo imaging just isn't that good." It just does not work that way in the real world.

I am really trying to patiently and professionally express myself here, and please understand that my exchanges with y'all are meant to be a lot more good-humored than they may come off as in print. I see your side; I'm just waiting for someone to be open-minded enough to see mine.

My AES passes just arrived today, so anyone who's going who wants to discuss this more in person, I'll be happy to oblige; I'll be cribbin' in the Upper West Side Thursday night through Monday.

In the meantime, check out my website to see if I have talent. :D

PEACE
Eric Vincent
Curve Dominant Sound&Vision *Now Featuring ProTools™!
http://www.mp3.com/TransluxTheater

Yo Eric

I didn't say PT is worthless, shame on you! :)

Talking about Jimi Hendrix, do you think PT would have been a great help for him???

I just visited your website and listened to the 'Jus 'd orange song, I will listen the other songs tomorrow. I'll let you know about your talent :D

Originally posted by Curve Dominant:

In the meantime, check out my website to see if I have talent. :D

Whoa there big guy.

The talent I was referring to was that of the artist, not the guy who's recording it. Last time I checked most DAW's and Tape Machines didn't seem to care what was recorded to them, good or bad.

The biggest loss is the fact that the big selling feature of a DAW in a lot of peoples eyes is that it's easier to piece together a "performance" as opposed to capturing the performance. A sad day IMO.

Viva Ricky Martin!

Han posted:
Talking about Jimi Hendrix, do you think PT would have been a great help for him???

I think Jimi would have used any innovative tool in a creative way, and I'm sure he would have done so with ProTools. That's just the kind of guy he was. He wouldn't need PT, and neither do I - "Jus D'orange..." was recorded on a Tascam 4-track cassette recorder. I don't even need that. I can write a song walking down the street, and have. But just because I don't NEED ProTools, doesn't mean I'm not going to take it and do some unbelievably hallucinagenic things with it as a sonic backdrop for my lyrics, or for one of my soundtrack scores.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Curve Dominant:

Whoa there big guy.
The talent I was referring to was that of the artist, not the guy who's recording it.
--------------------
Mark Plancke

Mark,

I should clear up any misundersttanding here, for you and anyone else who isn't clear on this: I am not an engineer, I am a composer (ASCAP). I do not, and will not, operate a commercial recording studio. All of the music on that site is original material, self-produced. I will not be competing for business with any of you folks with my new PT rig, so relax; it and everything else here is for production of original soundtracks exclusively.

Gotta get back to work, see ya...

E :)

On Topic Snippage from another forum:

Ed Cherney
"I know how Stone Age I am......BUT, I have just mixed my first two songs entirely in Pro Tools........2 mixes in one day......I have seen the future and it has Carpel Tunnel Syndrome........but now I really know how those pesky kids get their music to sound like it does. It certainly is no problem getting aggressive, and if you never worked on a large format console, you don't really know what you are missing. It sure is nice to leave a mix, though, work on something else, and then revisit the music for minor (or major) tweaks. All in all, I am an asshole for not jumping on the DAW parade 10 years ago....but I was just too busy making music the old fashioned way...with hammer and chisel. I have been to the mountain top, and it is in a converted garage behind the house......."

(Dead Link Removed)

Jules

Jules,

Let me point out a few things to you here.

First, Ed is paid handsomely to moderate a forum. He was asked to do it because he is a respected engineer in the business with a very strong discography. His role is not to be controversial, not to criticize, but rather to make sure that the advertisers that basically pay his side salary, continue to advertise with the magazine that administers the forum.

Second, I am not paid to hold this forum. I am anonymous. I have no deals with any manufacturers, and so far, I generate on a daily basis the same amount of traffic as Ed (and I'm just getting started here). I am not beholden to advertisers, and can speak my mind freely without fear of loss of revenue.

I see Ed on occasion and he's a stand-up guy, but I'm sure I don't believe this load of crap coming from a guy that spends his life working on 8068's, 8078's, and 8048's at studios like Cello, Extasy, and The Village, and getting highly paid for it on a daily basis. Do you REALLY think he's sorry for not jumping on a bandwagon that he didn't need?

One last point. You'll notice that nowhere does Ed say that he thinks PT sounds good. He says "...but now I really know how those pesky kids get their music to sound like it does..." That says nothing to how he feels it sounds.

Mixerman

Mixerman posted:
One last point. You'll notice that nowhere does Ed say that he thinks PT sounds good. He says "...but now I really know how those pesky kids get their music to sound like it does..." That says nothing to how he feels it sounds.

That says EVERYTHING to how he feels it sounds!

It sounds like today.

YMMV.

E :)

damn

this analog verses digital shit needs to stop heh, just use what you want and forget about what others think. for christ sakes make music, sound or whatever it is you do and simply be happy.

reminds me of an assistant I had once, he walks in and the first thing he says is "those suck" referring to some HD1's. I looked at him and asked why they "sucked" his response was "because so and so said they do" non the less he didint last very long.

point is develop your own opinion and live with it but understand that its not anyones job to try and convince another that something is better or worst, its just different.

Posted by scenaria:

posted September 04, 2001 09:33 PM                    

------------------------------------------------------------------------
damn
this analog verses digital shit needs to stop heh, just use what you want and forget about what others think. for christ sakes make music, sound or whatever it is you do and simply be happy.
reminds me of an assistant I had once, he walks in and the first thing he says is "those suck" referring to some HD1's. I looked at him and asked why they "sucked" his response was "because so and so said they do" non the less he didint last very long.
point is develop your own opinion and live with it but understand that its not anyones job to try and convince another that something is better or worst, its just different.

Exactly.

E :)

Just remember this.....

All you digital die hards....well if you need a place to park your *old* analog gear.....I can make some space :) you know those old *ugly* looking compressors in your rack next to the protools.....send those down too

hehe

Im an analog whore!

The SPX-90 sounded like 'today' in 1985 and now it sounds dated. I prefer to make something that has a reasonable chance at longevity.

I can esaily remove all depth from a mix by limiting it 7db. So I don't need even need PT to do that for me.

Mixerman

Originally posted by Julian Standen:
"In fact, some of the best sounding 2" machines are less than $5000"

Jules

The thing with 3M machines is that you need to use the right tech. There are a handful of guys that can really make them sing. Mine sounds amazing after a rebuild and upgrade.

Originally posted by scenaria:
Just remember this.....

Im an analog whore!

LOL! Send some to my place too, I have plenty of room for it :)

What a great debate/argument/slanging match/informed, intelligent discussion!

I work with both every day so I'll throw in this little observation; when I work with digital I spend 10% of my time recording and 90% tweaking plug in settings, editing out mistakes, automating mixes, etc. With analog I spend 90% of my time playing with microphones, instruments, drinking beer and being creative and 10% playing with FX, etc.

I know all about the possibilities of a DAW and use one for work but I choose not to use one at home for the time being as I think that the possibilities of a SM57 and a guitar straight to tape haven't been fully exhausted just yet. Oh, and it just sounds better!

Hey Han, Thanks for the compliment!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D

Rog talked about how hard it is to make to 1's & 0's sound good. I was begining to think that it was ME but now with analog I see or hear what I was missing. Good Mic's/pre's/etc... and It sounds like magic. My clients most of which have recorded with me before thought they got really good recording in the past, but now they are traching on the MCI and they LOVE it. :cool:

Originally posted by Mixerman:
The SPX-90 sounded like 'today' in 1985 and now it sounds dated. I prefer to make something that has a reasonable chance at longevity.

Mixerman

Sorry to jump in so late, but what the hell does THAT mean ? If you use the 'modern' gear of today for something that has 'longevity', won't it sound dated by the time someone decides it has longevity ? Records sound the way they do at a particular place in history because of the gear. That's it. Those classic ZZTop records like 'Tush' that got remixed in the '80's with that shitty gated reverb on the snare is a perfect example of a period piece trying to replace the sound of another period piece. All you guys are talking about are TOOLS. Since ANYTHING you run an audio signal through effects the sound, choose your tools to get the sound you like and have some fun making music !!

I'm one of those guys with a foot in both worlds on a regular basis -- analog 2" and Pro Tools. On one hand Pro Tools is can be liberating and powerful, or you could just be polishing turds all day with it. I've seen it work both ways. Come to think of it, that goes for recording in general! Analog definitely has some 'intangible' quality that digital just can't touch, even with the great clocking and A/D options. There really is nothing that sounds like 2" except 2". And please don't even start talking about 'plug in simulators'.

The bottom line is that both Curve and MM have made some interesting points. Curve, with PT, has a powerful music making system at his fingertips. But I caution one thing that you very clearly stated -- that you are not an engineer. you may not think you need one, but a good (ie someone you can relate to and share your vision with) tracking engineer and/or mixer will always help your end product, because you will get someone with experience and a more objective viewpoint.

For guys like MM and myself (and I'm more in his boat by chosen field of pursuit), it's becoming a brave new world because it's a free-for-all !! We are gonna be one of the last in a chain of recording and mixing engineers who really know how good acoustic spaces can be influential on acoustic instruments. And how to deal with challenging acoustic spaces. We are also the ones who are able to integrate the analog world with the digital world, by adapting our techniques to the new mediums. We also are students of sound and how records are put together. I think this is one of MM's points. There is artistry in making a record come together -- it's not just a technical exercise. Don't forget that. The Cherney quote was unfortunate because he sounds like he's a bit defeated, for lack of a better term.

I did a record with some friends of mine called 'Jack Shit' a few months ago. Had some free time at a big studio for a day. Tracked analog, dumped to PT, mixed in PT. Even cut one thing here in the back bedroom. Cost almost nothing to do, had a blast doing it, and it came out pretty damn good ! And it SOUNDS fun. how many records can you say that about ?...

Bottom line is that we should use our palette of tools to achieve the best result given the circumstances. What are we making? Music

Cheers,
John

PS -- definitely my longest post ever -- not even alcohol induced...

Hey John,
Dave McNair here. Great post, although I have a feeling I know the point MM was trying to make about sounding dated.
If I may interpret or add my own take on it. Some of us feel that the current sonics of PT's is somewhat inferior. The fact that it has become industry standard is also a little scary to me. The whole DAW concept has a huge amount to offer and I'll bet PT's in a generation or 2, will sound awesome. But I think it's part of our job to raise hell about inferior sounding products, or they won't get any better. I think MM feels like I do, that jumping on the bandwagon and doing a project in PT's if the production doesn't demand it, is putting that subtle but recognizable sound of PT's on it that puts a "digital" time stamp on it. And btw, I feel the same way about all other dig formats.
Will I use whatever format or tool to get the music recorded? Of course. But if I have control over it, I'd rather use the highest resolution, most musically pleasing format available, cause as you pointed out, recording music is not just some kind of cut and dried technical exercise. I think there is a lot of artistry to it, and when I'm painting, I want the best paints I can get.
Yo, that Joan Osborn record is the bomb. You got some great sounds on it, even if I thought Bob's mixes were a wee bit bright for my tastes.

PS: If I had to guess, it sounded like you guys recorded her analog and Bob dumped it into his PT's or 3348?

Originally posted by McSnare:
even if I thought Bob's mixes were a wee bit bright for my tastes.

Is it just me - or so some people seriously start to lose alot of high end perception as then get into their 40s and 50s?

Everyone I know in that age group mixes and records way brighter that I'd like - they say I record darker and could be brighter.

It is scientific that waves that are fewer cycles per second are easier to hear than faster - hence shit above 1K starts fade away for some.

I definatly hear the high end, and bright mixes bother me more than a harsh digital sound. Yet who knows what my ears will behave like in 20-30 years.

anyone think about this at all, or have any further fancy scientific reason?

Yes, it is fact. As you age, the tiny blood vessels in your ears start to harden a bit. This not only changes the vibrating mass of you eardrum/anvil/stirup, but changes the resonant charactaristics too. And that makes your ear more sensitive to sound in the 3-5K range, as well as less sensetive to stuff above 10 or 12K. Does this pose a problem to experienced mix engineers? I don't think so. Your ears are a closed reference. The same ear/brain system that you use for mixing, also listens to other peoples mixes and hopefully the sound of live instruments. I just know that I can't listen really loud, for any length of time, like I used to when I was younger. My mixes, if anything, might be getting darker. YMMV

John Paterno posted:
The bottom line is that both Curve and MM have made some interesting points. Curve, with PT, has a powerful music making system at his fingertips. But I caution one thing that you very clearly stated -- that you are not an engineer. you may not think you need one, but a good (ie someone you can relate to and share your vision with) tracking engineer and/or mixer will always help your end product, because you will get someone with experience and a more objective viewpoint.

John,

Absolutely. I couldn't agree more.

"Painting" music, "sculpting" music and sound - that's what I'm all about. Once that is done, once I'm done painting and sculpting in PT, the next step would be to hire someone, yourself or MM for example, to mix those tracks out from PT to 24 track 2" tape, and mix to 1/2inch tape to master from. Let yous do your thing. Believe me: I have absolutely nothing to lose by letting a project go into the next person's hands, so that I can get to work on the next thing. I'm a composer first. Engineering and mixing? I would rather the likes of yourself or MM take care of that.

That's my story, and I'm stickin' with it!

E :)

Originally posted by John Paterno:

PS -- definitely my longest post ever -- not even alcohol induced...

John,

I think Dave McNair summed up exactly what I meant by that. Personally, I don't like time stamps. I try to keep up to date without following every sonic trend there is. There's a fine line between those two things.

Hey, I'm glad I got your record post. Keep on coming by.

Mixerman

Hi guys, ever read these? (Eric, you too!)

Sample - 1.6MB

[url=(dead link removed)[/url]

:D :D :D

Originally posted by McSnare:
PS: If I had to guess, it sounded like you guys recorded her analog and Bob dumped it into his PT's or 3348?

Hey Dave!

Nice to hear from you. How long have you been in NY? Has it been that long since we've bumped into each other ?

Thanks for your compliments on the JO record -- it was a lot of fun to do. Yep, analog. 15ips, SR, BASF 911. Sound Factory Studio A. One machine, execpt for the strings, which were done on a slave. Bob mixes from 3348 only at this point. I think it's 3348HR, with, of course, his Apogee converters for I/O.

Getting to mix the records you've recorded is a whole other topic ! Although I think Bob did a great job, I never feel like I've finished a record until I've been able to take it to mastering. At least I have my 'monitor section' roughs...

Thanks to everyone who replied !!

-John

John,
I'll be in LA during the month of Oct working on a record. You me and Mixerman should definately hook up for some beers and swap a few stories.
My email is dmcnair1@nyc.rr.com
Cheers!
Dave

Originally posted by John Paterno:

-John

John,

I think you should expound on this. Start a new thread with this particular subject. People might be interested to hear the politics of what goes on in our shithole arena.

I know I'll be posting some comments.

Mixerman

*grin*
Some comments now everyone is all argued out ---
(lessens the risk of 'tart' come-back)

I've recorded in the analog domain for over 3 decades - yes I know, I'm fucking ancient!
Now I record entirely digital, by choice. Not because its cheaper, not because i can "do more" on a DAW, but for one reason only; I can now make it SOUND BETTER than I ever managed before.

I don't think anyone should forget that digital sound is a relatively new thing and its developing constandly. Who was talking about the importance of a good clock to the quality of digital sound a couple of years back?
Yes, there are a lot of faulty systems, but things are getting better all the time. I'm lucky, because I work together with some manufacturers in the development of new technology, which I often get to spec and use.
With the right combo of system - clock - converters the result is quite breathtaking, which is the thing I enjoy most, as it seems things have gone full-circle. What I mean with that is, if you work with a recording system of the highest possible quality, things go back to the basics, like acoustic environment, microphone placement etc.

sjoko,

This isn't a digital vs. analog debate. There are some digital systems that even I think sound pretty good. PT is not one of them in its stock form. The converters and the clock make the sound. The large preponderance of people use the stock gear.

Hey, another engineer that is a friend of mine (Recorderman) told me today that he's getting really good results mixing stuf out of Pro Tools. Then I asked him if it was easy. He laughed.

Why did he laugh? Because he understands that gear are tools in a mix that makes life either easier or more difficult. It's a fucking struggle for him to get it to sound good out of Pro Tools. He didn't used to struggle.

The concept of having to work hard causes beter results is a bunch of crap. If you don't have to work at all, your results will almost always be better. The longer you spend mixing something, the more likely you are to miss the boat.

Nice try, but you can't get in under the radar. I've been waiting for Digitalman to make his appearance, but I think he's permanently retired from internet correspondence. Too bad, he was a worthy opponent.

Mixerman

What do you expect at that time in the morning? Sense and reason? A response based on reading some pages first? Hey! After 2 am I just ramble!

I agree with the thesis that PT sounds like shit if you use the generic digi I/O crap - happy?
Oh yeah - also agree with the polishing turd theory.

Nice try, but you can't get in under the radar. I've been waiting for Digitalman to make his appearance, but I think he's permanently retired from internet correspondence. Too bad, he was a worthy opponent.
Mixerman

Nahh, I was just a little busy the last few weeks.

Wait...who were you referring to???

Well, I'll chime in anyway. I cannot vouch for the sound of the hardware, because I don't use it. I've only use the PT software. When I rave about how much I luv ProTools, I'm raving from the software side.

I don't forsee using Digi hardware in the near future, either. I simply do not need it, for one thing, on top of its "not always stellar" reviews. Further down the line, however, when Mac releases the G5, and Digi simultaneously releases their next generation of 96K gear, it may be a different scenario. Especially if they've worked out the clock/converters/internal math issues by then.

In the mean time, clearly, if you buy a Digi board, you must do the following:
1. Have the balls to tell your dealer to replace the 888's with an ADAT bridge, and
2. Make sure he gives you a nice discount on the master clock that he will have to sell you at the same time.

Otherwise, ProTools + analog is the way to go.

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