New 8 track

loveissuicide

Augustus_McCrae said:
a $2 Million dollar studio? Not anymore.

explain...

johnniespring

ig studios have been slowly dying over the last x number of years.

MoreCowbell

A studio in a box, Do it yourself, etc.

Most people, and I say most not all, so don't all you a-holes get your panties in a bunch over this when I say...

a majority of musicians/bands don't have the money for a super dooper recording as much as they just want to record what music they play live so they can share the love of music to anyone that will listen. Why do you think Lo-Fi is such a hit now? How crazy is it that bands and record labels actually use thier million dollar studio to record a band on high dollar equipment just to sound like what John doe consumer is doing in his basement for a couple hundred bucks? When a band figures out they can somewhat get a good quality recording themselves and cost a fraction of what it would cost in a studio, not to mention the fact that they can take as much time as needed to record something without having the clock ticking away=death of the big studios

A band that recorded thier album for almost free on thier own using Protools free on a windows 98 cpu, and the soundcard that came with the pc:

http://www.myspace.com/idiotpilot

Aug

that was not recorded on protools free.

MoreCowbell

I've got a Mix magazine article detailing it.

vivadeluxxe

More Cowbell said: I think the white stripes album "elephant" was recorded on a 8 track reel to reel and mixed and mastered the old school ways. And they make it a point to point that out inside the cover.

Always wondered what the point of that was, when it has to be converted into a digital format so it can be released on CD at the end anyway.

And then most people will hear for the first time compressed as an mp3, all that analog warmth is long gone by then.

MoreCowbell

not really, I mean they went as far as to have it mastered to tape, so the only conversion was to cd, and digital is true to what is recorded, basically what you put in is exactly what you'll get out. NO bais to worry about or tape compression. But its definately not as OLD SKOOL as the white stripes thinks it is. 😎

bob

look up how pcm digital audio works, particular the phrases "sample rate", "bit rate" and "quantization error"

provided you're a little more intelligent than you appear, you'll quickly realise that digital is not "true to what is recorded" and "what you put in is exactly what you'll get out" is only relevant if youre refering to the fact that once digital the quality doesnt degrade like it will with tape.

tape compression doesnt happen until after you pass a certain threshold, most people dont recorded past that threshold because generally it doesnt sound as good.

MoreCowbell

bob said: look up how pcm digital audio works, particular the phrases "sample rate", "bit rate" and "quantization error"
provided you're a little more intelligent than you appear, you'll quickly realise that digital is not "true to what is recorded" and "what you put in is exactly what you'll get out" is only relevant if youre refering to the fact that once digital the quality doesnt degrade like it will with tape.
tape compression doesnt happen until after you pass a certain threshold, most people dont recorded past that threshold because generally it doesnt sound as good.

Look a-hole, I know this alright, but if you take a recording that has been done on tape that has been pushed past the threshold so you get that warm tape sound so to say, and transfer that reel to reel recording into a digital recording device and capture it digital, it will sound exactly like it does on tape, as long as you do it correctly! You don't understand what I'm saying, because your too busy trying to look like a know it all intern. I know from experience, someday when you finally land a audio engineering job, and get past your internship knowitallness, maybe you will start understanding how things work. Just for your information, there is no set standard to how someone should go about recording anything, there is not a standard in the recording field ever. This is the last time I will respond to your arrogant responses as if you know it all, you are still young, the secret to getting a good job in a studio is to listen and STFU. 😈

Aug

I'm not going to mention any names, but someone with the initials More Cowbell is getting a little hot under the collar... 😆

bob

steve albini said: I have heard many stories where the quality of one famous song or another is credited to "tape compression." I have heard these stories for many years. I still hear them. Curious what everyone is talking about when they say "tape compression," I have made experiments for myself, where I record music at hotter and hotter levels, to see what this magic is. I used a 1kHz tone to find the point where the tape was actually compressing a 0VU signal by 0.5dB, then 1dB, then 2dB, then 3dB.
Turns out it sounds like ####, if you actually run the tape hot enough to get the effect. We're only talking about a dB, I suppose, but it sounds like ####. Peaks are often 12 to 14dB hotter than average signals, and it sounds like #### well before the 0VU signal is compressing because these transients become rounded and clipped. I've found that an absolute minimum (for me) of headroom before this happens is 12dB. Anything less, and the music sounds dulled and flat. I would encourage you to try your own experiments.
I now believe people use the term (and have always used the term) indescriminately, to describe a good sounding recording.

if digital captures sound exactly like what you put in, why have dvd audio and SACD recently been developed? perhaps its for a more accurate representation of the sound.

(assuming reasonably quality, say CD or above) digital recording colours the sound less than analog, but thats not to say its a pure representation. digital cannot deal with infinite variables when it comes to capturing the signal. the data has to be quantizied to the nearest binary value, this in itself means that the signal is not a true representation. add into this the fact you have (at cd quality) nyquist filters (cutting off the highest harmonics on harmonically rich sound sources such as strings). there are plenty of reasons why digital audio is not as true a representation of the input signal as you imply. im not gonna feel bad if you decide not to reply to this, but im sure ill enjoy it if you do.

on the subject of tape compression (from another forum)

thats good enough evidence for me

and you have an annoying avatar

Mike

steve albini said: I have heard many stories where the quality of one famous song or another is credited to "tape compression." I have heard these stories for many years. I still hear them. Curious what everyone is talking about when they say "tape compression," I have made experiments for myself, where I record music at hotter and hotter levels, to see what this magic is. I used a 1kHz tone to find the point where the tape was actually compressing a 0VU signal by 0.5dB, then 1dB, then 2dB, then 3dB.
Turns out it sounds like ####, if you actually run the tape hot enough to get the effect. We're only talking about a dB, I suppose, but it sounds like ####. Peaks are often 12 to 14dB hotter than average signals, and it sounds like #### well before the 0VU signal is compressing because these transients become rounded and clipped. I've found that an absolute minimum (for me) of headroom before this happens is 12dB. Anything less, and the music sounds dulled and flat. I would encourage you to try your own experiments.
I now believe people use the term (and have always used the term) indescriminately, to describe a good sounding recording.

hey bobbo, can you pm me what recording forums you hang out on? (including that one?). I'm doing a lot more mixing and stuff these days and have questions and such.

Doog

More Cowbell said:
A band that recorded thier album for almost free on thier own using Protools free on a windows 98 cpu, and the soundcard that came with the pc:
http://www.myspace.com/idiotpilot

The songs on their player? The recording and mix is poo, I can do better than that with my crappy 8 track..

Btw, this isn't me having a go at you like everyone in the thread, just making a comment, brah.

MoreCowbell

More Cowbell said:
A band that recorded thier album for almost free on thier own using Protools free on a windows 98 cpu, and the soundcard that came with the pc:
http://www.myspace.com/idiotpilot

I'm not sure, I'll dig up the article and see what album, I was just pointing out the fact that they did a album themselves and that it sold alot of copies for something of that nature, thats all. Cake did "pressure chief" in a home they bought, no acoustic treatments, etc. and did it themselves using a G3 mac and a digi 001. But they called in a good engineer to mix it for them, but atleast it was mixed in the acousticaly untreated house they recorded in.

btw, doog, your allowed to smack me like a bitch anytime. 😁

theshadowofseattle

Ya'll nillawiggas needs ta shut the #### up.

MoreCowbell

Mike said:
hey bobbo, can you pm me what recording forums you hang out on? (including that one?). I'm doing a lot more mixing and stuff these days and have questions and such.

Here is the link to a site where he gets all his audio engineering knowledge, it should be useful, he's always reciting lines from the owners manual. 😆

« Previous Page