Technical Progress in Recording?

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 15 May 2005 2:00 pm

Evidently, Steinar, that's already happened. The recording companies just think it's those 12 year-old kids downloading that's killing their market. From what I hear from the vast majority of my friends, though, it's the adults...they've just about stopped buying CD's. And at the same time, I'm now getting requests for service on record players and turntables. (I did that stuff for many years.) The overwhelming complaint? "I've tried those CD's, but I'd rather listen to records!"

Which brings me back to one of my old quandrys. Why can't they make analog CD's?[This message was edited by Donny Hinson on 15 May 2005 at 03:04 PM.]

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 15 May 2005 2:32 pm

They have a much better audio format avialable and more and more it is installed in the market place now.
DVD,

But not a lot of audio people are using it,
because it is still dwarfed by the installed base of 44.1 16 cd players. but that is changing.

96khz 24 bit is practical today, but the cost of burning DVD's isn't down quite far enough yet.

The compression thing is more radio production driven than being because of the CD formate.
I have listened to many supoer jazz albums and the cymbals sound reasonable, and the room feel is there.
Not as cool as 96k though.

Where we REALLY are loosing is the mp3 conversions.
I dread that it will be come the defacto standard for music delivery. It also means more compression BEFORE mp3 comverions
because people tend to listen on smaller systems on computers... so it's compressed to fit.

But at the same time, this may open the door for quality to move up to DVDs in the reasonable future.

Gene Jones · Post by **Gene Jones** » 15 May 2005 3:44 pm

*

[This message was edited by Gene Jones on 16 May 2005 at 04:45 AM.]

Orville Johnson · Post by **Orville Johnson** » 15 May 2005 7:21 pm

what records are you guys listening to that suffer from these symptoms? i have lots of CDs made over the past few years that have killer musicians playing beautiful stuff and that sound really good. of course, i don't have any tim mcgraw, brittany spears, 50 cents, or american idol winners in my collection but why would you listen to crap like that anyway?

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 16 May 2005 12:15 am

On Saturday, Les Paul, less than a month shy of his 90th birthday, was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame, in Akron, Ohio, as the creator of the solid-body electric guitar,

But they forgot that he also invented overdubing multi track recording.

This also has had a major affect on a whole industry.
And certainly has had an effect on much of the world's listening habits...
not small accomplishment me thinks.

And germain to this discussion.
DD[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 16 May 2005 at 01:17 AM.]

Dave Horch · Post by **Dave Horch** » 16 May 2005 1:34 am

...50 cents...

OJ - of course you know that this "band"'s name is pronounced "fiddy sent". The kids these days...!

On master Les Paul - I love those stories he would tell about the early days when he would hide the recorder behind a curtain and people would wonder how the heck he did some of his multitrack tricks live. Clllllasic![This message was edited by Dave Horch on 16 May 2005 at 02:35 AM.]

Tony Prior · Post by **Tony Prior** » 16 May 2005 2:19 am

I think this is turning into an arguement here..where neither side really wins..personal preferences is not a candidate for an arguement...

When I first went to see the Rolling Stones early 60's, it was a packed house..maybe 6000 . I couldn't even hear them and we were in like the 4th row

Today, they have 6000 in the first row..

The loudest amp back in the early era was a Fender Twin..at about 85 watts. Trust me on this, if those bands back then could have played louder they would have.

Live sound systems were a thing of the future back then...they all would have died for a mega watt multi enclosure system with a separate monitor mix..Those old Bogen PA's were not gonna survive the 60's...

As far as recording goes , thank you John Macey..every recorder and effect add on is a tool..use it right ..or don't use it right...

Just because you have 32 tracks does not mean you can't record a quality mix with only 4 tracks...you still need a quality player and a good take.....

I feel the best engineers have a background or experience with past days gear but are savy enough to bring it forward and merge it with the awesome gear that is available today...

The center channel mix is not for us..it's for the TV video watching world and MP3 Music download world...thats where the money is....

My Corvettes ( when I had them ) could cruise at 150..but I still drove them in downtown traffic...

MP3's..thank god they are here...CD burners, DVD burners, PCs..the whole deal...digital mpg....Music Video's...AND...16 / 32 track Digital recording workstations in a 14 " x 14" plastic case with multiple effects, mastering, auto faders, CD burning with Red Book specs..all for under 2 grand...

If you are listening to something that you feel is not all that good technically..thats an aritfact of the guy with the ears..not the the gear....we have been listening to digital masters for well over a decade now..and they ain't all bad....

I suspect we gained way more than we lost....

t

[This message was edited by Tony Prior on 16 May 2005 at 05:13 AM.]

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 16 May 2005 2:30 am

I suspect we gained way more than we lost....

Oh yeah we have,
I just wish there were more that understand the importance of natural acoustics in the mixes.

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 16 May 2005 6:42 am

I agree, we have gained a lot, especially at the lower-than-serious-pro-level studio. Further, there's nothing stopping someone from using old analog equipment without this level of freedom. I have recorded analog several times in the last 10 years. Unless it's a really great studio, I prefer good digital equipment. I totally agree, it's the way the equipment is used that counts.

I'm thinking about this kind of stuff, since I'm going into a local Pro-Tools studio in two hours to record with my band. Just some pre-production/demo stuff, but you never know what will happen - and as Pasteur said, "Chance favors the prepared mind." I hope we can be disciplined enough to just focus on getting a good sound and performance, and not overuse the tools available, which I have often found to be a trap in the past. We will be recording ensemble. I generally like this studio, the guy who runs it has good ears, is easy to work with, has decent sounding rooms with enough isolation to fix a bad clam or two, and agrees with the 'live-in-the-studio' philosophy.

Dave Grafe · Post by **Dave Grafe** » 16 May 2005 11:16 am

Yeah, well, in the olden days the process revolved around capturing a quality performance of a GOOD SONG! Now days it's just about getting a REALLY COOL SOUND.

I still find that recording band tracks live in a room playing together captures something that simply can't be found when everything is dubbed.[This message was edited by Dave Grafe on 16 May 2005 at 05:34 PM.]

Dustin Rigsby · Post by **Dustin Rigsby** » 16 May 2005 5:14 pm

The Beatles and George Martin made some of the BEST recordings ever. It was all about quality. In the fast food age we live in,very few people would have the patience or the skill to make a great record like Sgt. Pepper, much less do it on a FOUR TRACK !

Play it, Don't paste it !

------------------
D.S. Rigsby
Wilcox SD10 3&5
http://www.touchinglittlelives.org

Vern Wall · Post by **Vern Wall** » 16 May 2005 5:14 pm

I still remember the first time I heard a record in stereo. It was in 1961. Transistors had been around for a while, but people hadn't really figured out how to use them. Stereo had only just been invented and they were fiddling with things like mannequin heads to hold the mics in the proper relationship and give a natural separation between channels.

The stereo effect was impressive, but there was an obvious problem with editing. If you cut the tape you made a mess of the stereo. At the same time, most (ok, many) people were buying portable stereos (turntable, two speakers), and engineers were worried about producing some sort of stereo effect with the speakers only a foot apart. That led to what they called "pingpong stereo" which was an exaggerated effect to make cheap record players sound decent, even if the music was terrible on any other equipment. Chet Atkins records were especially annoying on headphones -- you got Chet in one ear and everybody else in the other. It made your ears itch.

I think stereo has been pretty much forgotten as a matter of faithful reproduction. Engineers have gone for good sound within their capabilities. If you want true stereo you just have to go to a live concert.

Michael Barone · Post by **Michael Barone** » 16 May 2005 5:42 pm

I wish to clarify my previous post. I failed to mention that I was referring to the digital reproduction (remaster) of vinyl recordings, and that I believe the high end is not replicated at 44KHz. 96KHz sampling may solve that, as suggested by some members.

I agree then that there are some pretty good CDs being produced now with acceptable high end, depending upon genre.

------------------
Mike Barone
Sho-Bud Pro-1, Nashville 112, Goodrich Pedal, BJS 15/16 Bar

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 16 May 2005 11:26 pm

Sgt Pepper was made bouncing between 4 track machines,
not just one machine.

Many of the early tracks were hand spliced between multiple cuts to get the best parts,
and then bounced down.

I am SURE Gerorge Martin would have loved a Protools at the time,
but he done good anyway.

It also featured lots of great acoustics.[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 17 May 2005 at 12:27 AM.][This message was edited by David L. Donald on 17 May 2005 at 05:04 AM.]

Ray Minich · Post by **Ray Minich** » 17 May 2005 7:19 am

I've always enjoyed the tune "Winchester Cathedral" for it's simplicity and easily followed lead guitar. "Today's" music gets to be so complex as to sometimes overdrive the brain. There's just too much going on...

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 17 May 2005 3:21 pm

If you want true stereo you just have to go to a live concert.

Really? I thought that the main mix was mono at most concerts. Really loud mono, but mono just the same.

George Kimery · Post by **George Kimery** » 17 May 2005 7:57 pm

In some things, absolutely perfect is not a good thing. For instance, if you see any of the old hand painted pin stripes (which by the way is pretty much a lost art) and then look at the absolutely perfect pinstriping done with vinyl tape today, the old imperfect just looks so much better. Look at a great painting, say of Mona Lisa. To make it perfect, you would take a photo of her. Which looks better? In recording music, if the space between the notes is absolutely perfect, such as can be accomplished with a drum machine and/or electronic device, and you compare it to the imperfect sound of a live band, the live band will sound better to the ears every time. To quote Jimmy Day when hearing a player playin a gazillion notes, "I wish I could play like that.... (then pausing) but I wouldn't" Humans need to keep the art in recording more and not let science ever replace it. Using Jimmy's thinking, engineers and producers should say "I wish I could record absolutely perfect.....but I wouldn't."

Dustin Rigsby · Post by **Dustin Rigsby** » 18 May 2005 5:35 am

David Donald,
You are right about all of that. I have a friend who works with pro tools all of the time. He tells of the nightmares of computers crashing and losing everything he has "pieced" together. I just like the old vinyl records. I got a bunch of 'em. I know trends change,but,I'll take Steely Dan's mix any day of the week over what is out now. Those were some sweet mixes,almost sonicly perfect. JMHO

------------------
D.S. Rigsby
Wilcox SD10 3&5
http://www.touchinglittlelives.org

John Macy · Post by **John Macy** » 18 May 2005 8:59 am

You know, I grew up on analogue--my first entry into the studio world was in 1971 as an intern. State of the art for the time, an Ampex MM1000 16 track into an Electrodyne console. Worked in analogue for 30 or so years after that, heck, I still own an MM1100 16 track and an Otari 24 track.

Spent too much time with ADATs in the '90s, but clients demanded it. Also lots of brain damage keeping the 2" analogue synced up to the ADATs for more tracks. To preserve my fond memories of them, I gutted a blackface ADAT and turned it into a cactus garden--finally a good use for one of them...

I've been working "in the box" now for a few years, and I have to say I love it and would never go back. It took a while to find the platform that gave me the sonic results I was looking for, and once I found it, I am completely happy. I track a lot into ProTools, but was never happy with the way it sounded internally. Bussed out to a console, it was fine, but I wanted to work with the recall capabilites of mixing "in the box". I ended up using Paris, a now defunct product developed by Ensoniq, and used by fellow steelers Mike Smith and Tommy Detamore (I think maybe Bill Terry also). My mastering guy in Nashville swears Paris is the closest thing to analogue you can get. The imaging and depth are astounding.

Anyway, like I said earlier, it's just a tool. I do plenty of cut and paste, but only if it helps the project. I tune a lot of vocals, but always manually, not in the auto mode, and it works great. I have a great collection of mics and preamps, which really help in the digital domain. The visual thing alone is enough to make me never go back. Done correctly, you can achieve "vintage" quality with modern gear

.

By the way, Dustin, most of those great Steely Dan records were cut and mixed on the 3M digital systems.... As for computers crashing, well it happens on rare occasions, and if you are in a good habit of saving, one rarely loses much info. I think your friend's system is not setup correctly.

Leslie Ehrlich · Post by **Leslie Ehrlich** » 18 May 2005 12:11 pm

I like the era we now live in - good quality recording is so much more affordable. I sure don't miss the corporate rock/disco era where artists recorded in multimillion dollar studios with 32 track two inch reel to reel decks, $3000 condenser mics, umpteen dozen channel mixing consoles, and paid thousands upon thousands of dollars to record an album.

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 18 May 2005 12:29 pm

John M. I hear you. Ah, dem's was da days!

I started out on a SCULLY 1" 8 track ( still have it somewhere in upstate NY.)
and Flickinger console...!
then a MUCH better Soundworkshop. And finally a small Trident.

Sub mixed to a Sony PCM- F1 and back to the Scully.
Was good enough to fool Todd Rundgren up at Bearsville,
3 times into thinking it was 24 track 2" work.
That was on Liv Tyler's mothers band.

I then did have a MM1000, tweaked for super hot tape no NR. and a wierd strobe on tape reel automation system.

I do like analogue, but also wouldn't go back either.
I do a lot of live tracking if I can, and use a lot of stereo micing,
because I have many more tracks to work with.

I did get un the studio in NYC with Don Fagen and yes it is digital,
and serious automated routing in both analogue and digital domains.
They were early adopters of digital because of the clarity.

Again, it is not the car, but the nut behind the wheel.

Bill Terry · Post by **Bill Terry** » 18 May 2005 1:55 pm

I ended up using Paris, a now defunct product developed by Ensoniq, and used by fellow steelers Mike Smith and Tommy Detamore (I think maybe Bill Terry also). My mastering guy in Nashville swears Paris is the closest thing to analogue you can get.

Yep, I've hung around a good bit at Tommy's place and it sold me on the Ensoniq Paris system. I messed with and owned various Tascam pro and semi-pro analog multitrack recorders over the years, and I'd never go back to analog either. The Paris system seems to offer the benefits of digital recording but somehow retains the warmth and character of analog. Listen to anything from Cherry Ridge and you'll hear a Paris system in capable hands (ears?)... In fact, regarding the comment that John made about vintage quality with modern gear, take a listen to Bobby Flores' "Just for the Record" which was done in large part at Cherry Ridge on Paris. That recording has the vintage vibe in spades.

I guess several have already said this, but IMO you just gotta have the right guy twisting the knobs (virtual and/or real).

John Macy · Post by **John Macy** » 18 May 2005 8:22 pm

You're right, Bill--Tommy is doing a killer job down there

. (By the way, welcome to Paris...

)

Oh yeah, the look I see on my ProTools clients when they hear their audio files played back in Paris is pretty amazing--they can hardly believe how much bigger, broader and deeper it is (and this includes HD)

[This message was edited by John Macy on 18 May 2005 at 09:23 PM.][This message was edited by John Macy on 18 May 2005 at 09:25 PM.]