More "set-up snapshots?"

When I owned my studio on Magnolia in N. Hollywood a group approached me wanting an all analog production. I told them I could track in analog but would probably still want to edit and mix in a DAW and then we could do the analog 2-track mixdowns with some analog compressors. I had a MCI/Sony 24 and a 28X28 Trident board which could have handled the job, but told them that all we wanted to do was capture the analog sound and transferring it to mix would not be noticeable. I guess that pissed them off because they did the gig somewhere else but I would liked to have tried this technique while I was really tuned-into my room and stuff.

cmaffia said:
I'd never go back. I did for a short while after my Akai DPS24 and right before getting the DM3200. I found it depressing, limiting and I would never work that way again in my home. My recordings today blow away my old home studio. You forget how difficult it was to use that old equipment. Like everything else, time heals old wounds.
Click to expand...
 
Well, it's interesting to say the least. But is it new? Methinx not. (g)Nashville of the 90s and early 2000s (think Garth Brooks, Faith Hill, et al) released gobs of successful records tracked on 24/32 track analog and finished in Ptools. I'm sure this approach persists; no reason not to acquire on tape and mix digitally if that's what you like, right?

CaptDan
 
No, it's not new, but at least unusual these days. Also, they recorded not only to tape and then transfer to digital, but recorded to tape AND digital at the same time, and then transferred those tape tracks to the same Protools session. Ofcourse, the whole project cost more than a million dollars - but also won Grammies for Album of the Year, Best Dance/Electronica Album and Best Engineered Album..
 
Well my point was just to capture the analog tape sound and then during the transfer process you wouldn't loose that sound. In other words I believe recording to digital is a true representation, it just isn't capable of adding that warm compressed sound during it's capture. I don't know what Faith Brooks did but I was going to go to 1/2 track using tube compressors, etc during mixdown also.
From very good sources, I understand that click of country folks all used the same engineer, producer, studio, musicians! etc, etc, it was like a production line. I didn't hear anything about analog.
 
Definitely a production line; a majority of the productions sounding essentially the same - the same players (you'll see Brent Mason's name repeatedly, for example).
And a lot of engineers and producers - comfortably acquainted with analog - increasingly post producing digitally. Hey - it's a great way to go if one chooses to.

Thing is, I had opportunity to participate in several blind listening tests - comparing material acquired on tape to that tracked digitally - simultaneously to each medium. Both examples run through the same SSL board and dubbed to MP3/320. To be honest, it took me about 10 listens to discern the differences - there were SO few obvious ones. But in the end I successfully identified the analog version; the bass drum had a smidgeon more ring than the digital example.

What I gathered from that (and similar) tests was - if all things are equal (front end, mixer, signal chain and path, room, engineer, sources, etc), the differences are rather subtle. Audible, but not night and day.

YMMV.

CaptDan
 
captdan said:
Both examples run through the same SSL board and dubbed to MP3/320.
Click to expand...
Strange - why would one do a listening test after first downgrading the source material to MP3? I mean, even at 320 kbps it's discernably inferior to 44.1/16 PCM, not to mention 96/24?
 
True. But that was the most efficient medium to distribute digitally to enough participants on the various forums.

Personally, I think that even 192kbs is a very good representation of an original hi-rez file. 'Representation,' in this case being a defacto acceptable downgrade where the 'important' sonic components are conveyed, minus the subtleties and some of the spatial characteristics of the original. Certainly works during a production where that bit rate is not only sufficient to reveal flaws and effective parts, but likely the most widely used when the product is completed and released.

YMMV.

CaptDan
 
captdan said:
What I gathered from that (and similar) tests was - if all things are equal (front end, mixer, signal chain and path, room, engineer, sources, etc), the differences are rather subtle. Audible, but not night and day.

YMMV.

CaptDan
Click to expand...

This opinion too is up for debate, LOL You'd have to understand my studio but everything was kind of daisy chained and I accidentally hit the 2" machine monitor once and everyone in the room jumped up and said WHAT'S THAT?
 
Believe me, I have a LOT of debatable opinions. :)

Looking back on that moment in your studio, was there ANY chance the 2" playback volume was different than the program feed? You know that old Louder Is Better Axiom? Then again, I can believe your folks were wowed too. I wasn't there and maybe I'd react the same way.

Who.
Knows?

:)
CaptDan
 
I too fondly and with destain remember the tape days and all that went with them. There is a digital compromise these days in getting the tape sound and artifacts by using a tape simulation plug or mix console software. Flavor and opinions differ and are debatable on how accurate they are , but it is an option that exists. I'm a big fan of UAD Studer, Ampex, Roland 201 and Echoplex tape plugs and they do indeed have the mojo from those machines. While users debate how close they are to the real thing, I find them close enough to the real thing but more importantly, I find them as very useable, desirable and effective tools in their own right even if they are not 100% accurate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cmaffia and captdan
captdan said:
Believe me, I have a LOT of debatable opinions. :)

Looking back on that moment in your studio, was there ANY chance the 2" playback volume was different than the program feed? You know that old Louder Is Better Axiom? Then again, I can believe your folks were wowed too. I wasn't there and maybe I'd react the same way.

Who.
Knows?

:)
CaptDan
Click to expand...
I hear ya, No, they were all calibrated to work in unison, meaning I could use the meters on the board/MCI/or an MX-2424 But funny, it did sounder louder, rounder, warmer... etc But we all know you could slam a JH-24!
 
  • Like
Reactions: captdan
Double post? Name your price, N. Hollywood, ca
 
How old is the unit? How heavily it has been used? Are you the original owner? Meter bridge? FireWire? Any issues functionally or cosmetically? I'm in Northern CA so pick up is probably not an option. Any idea what shipping might be to Auburn, CA (95603)? Sorry...lots of questions.
 
Last edited:
It's in pristine cond, been in a box for nearly 5 yrs, very little use, yes I'm the orig owner. no Mete bridge or Fire Wire.
 
Well lets see, gotta have a least 2 for the cowbell! BTW I'm down to $1200 for the DM-3200 and I do have the original box.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New posts

New threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 95 (members: 0, guests: 95)
© 2004-2024 TASCAM Forums. Forum software by XenForo. This site is not affiliated with TEAC or TASCAM.
Top Bottom
Back