Forums - Mixing & FX
Subject: Why is digital less warm than....
Viewing all 157 messages - View by pages of 10: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 16
Original Message 1/157 28-Feb-02 @ 09:02 PM - Why is digital less warm than....
We all hear things like, digital isn't as warm as analog, and while I'm not here to argue that specifically, did you ever think about why that is? Outside of some of the basic physical properties, you'd think the two mediums wouldn't be that divergent.... and in some sense, maybe they're not. Now I'm gonna try a little heresy...
Maybe the reason mixes from analog sounds warmer, more musical, whatever, is: our techniques for recording, mixing, etc., are mostly built and modeled on analog experience. We've learned techniques for, say mic placement, that were establised in the analog realm... maybe we should be evaluating new ways of doing things....?
I mean think about one of the most basic differences between the two mediums, the level meter... Many of us that came from the analog world were sorely surprised to find out we couldn't push the LEDs "past the red" on a digital board... Now once I learned how to use digital LEDs, mt life, and my mixes, sounded better...
I'm not really trying to lay out new "rules" of digital recording/mixing, but just bouncing the idea off you all. If you have any experience with what I'm on about here, by all means share it. If you got a "warm sound" from all digital equipment, what was your methodology? Why do you think it worked that way? If you captured a digital take of a vocalist that just simply shimmers, did you do it the "traditional" (i.e., basically as it's always been done on analog equipment) way, or did you find a technique that is exclusive to digital?
Anyhoos, just some thoughts....
Peace All
Message 2/157 28-Feb-02 @ 09:12 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 3/157 28-Feb-02 @ 09:13 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
So, if digital based engineers want to achieve an effect, like warmth or whatever, that is somewhat characteristic of analog, what methods might they use, or use differently, to achieve that result.
Pax
Message 4/157 28-Feb-02 @ 09:18 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Also, the description you're giving is textbook... and partially that's what I'm after...i.e., basically realizing the differences betwixt the two mediums in the first place, but more so, how do we appreciate those differences with our ears? Why do we "like it" when the sound is "saturated, compressed, etc.?"
Peace
Message 5/157 01-Mar-02 @ 12:51 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
I always thought that the true reason for the diff between digial and analog is that analog is...really...the TRUE SOUND...be it a synth, tape, etc. In most cases..like an analog synth..it is electricity being routed, whereas digital is a computer 'pretending' to do that same stuff
personally, I dont sweat it. I just track through a compressor that I like the way it sounds, and leave it at that
Message 6/157 01-Mar-02 @ 05:33 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
I have never really had the warmth I hear on older records or from using analog modeling synths. But I prefer a cleaner more in tune sound. Crisper highs and tighter lows. Analog tape tends to blur the low end a little into one sound which is great at times and also softens the highs. I was listening to an old tape, and I decided to download some of these old tracks off the internet, and they sounded so different. They were cleaner and crisper and not as loud. I realized the tape cassette and analog DJ mixer had created warmth in these tracks that wasn't there on the CD version. So I ran them through magneto and an RCL and they sounded more like the tape I had become used to listening to for ten years. I love the sound of my mixes I made back in 94 on , a then 5 year old realistic mixer with the VU meters. They were so warm and you never heard the change in the kick, they just blended together better than the new cleaner mixers and digital methods of recording, DAT, Cdr. etc.
Message 7/157 01-Mar-02 @ 03:32 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
he he influx, you cranky old sod, how is analog tape more "true" than a file on your HD? we just like that way that one medium behaves more than another, maybe just because all the Miles and Zepplin stuff we sweat records were recorded in the analog domain. but word, I don't sweat it either. I just 'why ask why' and play with my pulse. plus there are other important things, like what notes are played, and in which order. I think Plaid said that and I like that observation. I don't like Plaid's music though. cuz of the note order I think.
Message 8/157 01-Mar-02 @ 04:09 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
for me i just want it to come out like i put it together and vice versa right?
Message 9/157 01-Mar-02 @ 07:16 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
ppl track into pro tools and then stick it on tape, then back to tools. of course, it's a luxury/pointless exercise they can afford. normal people don't give a shit about how things sound, they listen to their radio in the kitchen, from the bathroom.
Message 10/157 01-Mar-02 @ 10:20 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
But anyhoos, knowa get me point... it isn't about a formula or whatever, we like it "because." Now aside from discussing what the physics are that make us "like it" is is truly just familiarity that makes most folks dig analog sounding bits more?
An' why ask why? Cos, I'm curious as to what you other yahoos think about this. I just did a little workshop for producers/engineers/artists, and that was a question I got asked several times (in various different ways) during the talk.... My patent answer was it dunna matter as long as the end result is good, but I dunna think that sunk in very well.... I don't want (nor do I think it would serve much purpose) to give these folk a lot of technical mumbo jumbo as to "why." I'd rather just give a butt-simple explaination that they can both grasp and appreciate....
Anyhoos, just rather curious if any of the rest of you lot had thought much about it as I'd like to give these folk that are doing the workshop a little "real-world" response from the boyz in the trenches....
Peace All
Message 11/157 02-Mar-02 @ 12:20 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
anyone else is just full of shit and going according to what theyve been told
Message 12/157 02-Mar-02 @ 12:41 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
i remember reading the following bit somewhere:
the distortion caused by tubes or analogue tape apparently tends to exagerate harmonic overtones (2nd, 4th, etc), which (supposedly) sounds subjectively warm to human ears. if i remember corectly, transistor technology can amplify uneven (enharmonic) overtones which sound harsh to our ears, if not designed correctly.
its not clear to me why transistors should sound brash if most of analogue gear is constructed around this technology. of course, it has a lot to do with design and parts used.
as for digital, i guess that the old "digital sounds cold" rumour comes from early days of digital when bitrates and sampling frequencies were low, resulting in aliasing and linear distortion. (or was it the non linear distortion in the converters?). another possibility is that people were so used to hearing the distortion caused by analogue equipment, so when clear and precise digital technology was introduced, it naturaly sounded "less warm" which was easy to mistake for "cold and brash".
anyhow, you make your digital sound as warm as anything by using tape saturation plugins and whatnot, so i wouldnt sweat it too much.
any other opinions on this?
cheers, M.
Message 13/157 02-Mar-02 @ 12:45 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
good nite.
Message 14/157 02-Mar-02 @ 12:47 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Analog has been the standard for audio for as long as we've been tracking. What is happening now is that the standard is being challenged. Analog and digital don't operate exactly the same way, nor does one acheive the same exact results using the two approaches (or a hybrid thereof). While the very high-end is still considered to be analog, digital systems are approaching the fidelity of the best analog systems. The perceived differences betwixt the two mediums are growing more minimal, even as the world around us grows more digital. Maybe the technology is just getting "that good" and maybe we're just getting used to it (i.e., the standard is changing...). In the end, it's still not the system that matters, but the end result....
That seem a logical train of thought?
Peace
Message 15/157 02-Mar-02 @ 12:49 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
now thats either bullshit or i must have some good fucking ears.
ok, now i´m gone. o.u.t.
Message 16/157 02-Mar-02 @ 12:51 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Peace
Message 17/157 02-Mar-02 @ 12:54 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
i think the only reason why the realy high end is still analog is because it costs a lot and is henca considered to be more exclusive. i mean, a tape machine for 50k USD and a mixer for 200k vs pro tools and apogee converters? digital would still be cheaper, and at a kick ass quality. my 2p. (and then some
Message 18/157 02-Mar-02 @ 01:07 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
or..if the whole mix goes to disk vs tape, you will without question be able to tell?
well then more power to ya
Message 19/157 02-Mar-02 @ 02:36 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 20/157 02-Mar-02 @ 12:09 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
i am only saying this because i actually did track to "good hard disk system through top notch AD converters", and then send the signal "through a nice desk to tape" to see what a difference would be. and guess what, there was a difference. fuck, i´m listening to it right now and it does sound pretty warm to my ears. then again, if i didnt have a chance to experiment maybe i wouldnt? i just know it sounds sweet.
anyway, as i was saying before, i dont sweat "true analog" sound too much because it IS attainable thru other tools. anyone tried PSP Vintage Warmer? it works wonders for me on a daily basis!
Cheers, M.
Message 21/157 02-Mar-02 @ 12:14 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 22/157 02-Mar-02 @ 12:53 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 23/157 02-Mar-02 @ 01:26 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Also, when I was recording to tape (before cd burning days), I woundn't pay as close attention to some of the very low and some of the very high frequencies, because I knew they would be lost in the delivery. Honestly, with digital recording, I know that what I am hearing through my monitors will be recorded, and delivered, by my digital delivery device (in this case, cd). When I was recording to tape (directly from my mixer), I really had to change my eq's and such for the medium.
I guess I agree with your stipulation. I DEFINITELY engineer my music differently, depending on what I am recording to.
Message 24/157 02-Mar-02 @ 04:32 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
The 'rules' say, one must allow enuff headroom on your pre-amps, setting optimum gain, checking your levels so the gains are optimised....
but the 'excitement factor' can sometimes be in a driven sound, cos there's a certain mayhem that takes place when multiple objects are pushed into clipping together... Like your bassline driven to hell or big booming kicks etc - other sounds such as your 'boom-kiks thru reverb' for breakdowns & starts etc needs to be well set so as not to swamp the track or the verb...
NOT a top-end commercial euro-trance sound... but for garage, drum & bass, techno etc... i like it ruffcut with some 'hum' - i guess you could compare it to a rock band playing clean or cranked-up and 'humming'.
Message 26/157 02-Mar-02 @ 10:57 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
I personally like the "non-warm" mixes better, whether they're on analog or digital, at least as relates to sound quality. Across the board I liked the "warmer" mixes better from a "feel" standpoint.... there is a difference when you record an out board source at 96khz (even if you later take that down to 44.1, it still sounds - to me - like it's more open than an identical recording originally done at 44.1), small brown spiders can actually crawl inside of S/PDIF sockets, and chocolate and resin look a lot alike in dim light.... just some observations...
Kilo's also got a really good point about the "mayhem mixes." Somethin' I noticed from recording my live sets. I often make a DAT or MD of me live shows, just so I can hear what really went down (I get too absorbed to really tell in the midst of doing it...). What I and several of me cronies noted was my live sets, while sometimes a bit erratic on overall levels, were way, waaaay more "energetic" than if I recorded the same thing in the studio. Now, machines (theoretically) dunna get excited, and it wasn't so much that the lines themselves were more energetic, but the "recording" was more energetic. Now, I'm still going onto a digital medium (in the case of DAT or MD), but the board I use live is a little Mackie CFX12, and I tend to push it as I do a set, so I'm occasionally redlining. When I record in the studio, I'm generally mixing inside the PC or on the 01v, and in either case, I'm watchful about clipping and whatnot...
And Influx, that track we were talking about that I did exclusively through the RS7000, I actually recorded the mix that got sent to the presses, live, one fell swoop, with just a bit of post mix compression to even out things. The label folks totally loved that mix, an' originally I sent them a very clean "studio mix" of the same thing - the hands down "winner" betwixt the two mixes was the "live" one.... Now, on that live take, I actually recorded on the 01v, but as with my live sets, I started off a bit lower on levels and gradually increased them through the track, and yep I did redline it here and there... Now whether it's from the A/D conversion or whatnot, the actual recording that got into the computer never actually clipped, it bumped 0db a lot, but never actually went over (and jest so ye know, I used an Aardvark 24/96 to take the digital signal from the 01v into the PC)....
Now, all that said, there were a lot of bits I recorded using (doing a/b analog vs digital) and I really couldn't tell ANY dicernible difference. Also, just to add to the specifics, allow me to relate the following tale:
In December and January I did a lot of work with Jan Johnston (of "Flesh" fame). Now she was just returning from LA where she'd been working with BT, and when she arrived in Boston she was really excited about the Avalon 737 for recording her vocals. Now I didna have one of these lovely preamps lying around me cage, so we borrowed one from another local producer. We even gave BT's engineer a call to get the settings he used on the Avalon, so we could get close to the sound she got while working out there. We did two songs while she was here that round, got some nice vocals and had some fun working the tracks out...
Now about a month later she got the opportunity to come back to Boston, and we decided to put down vox for two more trax. This time we were without the Avalon as my friend was away for a couple of weeks... so, I just recorded her the best way I knew how, straight into the computer using the Aardvark's powered preamp that's built into the box, no FX, and using the Aardvark's built-in soft compressor as a limiter to keep it from clipping.
Here comes the groovy part. When we were finished with all four mixes (the two with the Avalon and the two without), everyone, including Jan, liked the way her vox sounded better on the non-Avalon tracked songs. Now, dunna get me wrong, I really dig what the Avalon can do, but in all honesty, I'm probably more comfortable going straight into the PC totally dry and clean and then applying compression, EQ, and whatnot after the fact. So, it may have just been my unfamiliartiy with the Avalon that made those mixes sound less musical (or as Jan put it, less velvety) than the mixes we did where I didn't use the Avalon. In any case, the vox on the Avalon mixes sounded more "harsh" and "tinny" than mixes that we did without it. So, to sum it up, a lot of this question has to do with methodology and familiarty with one's tools as much as any real differences betwixt mediums...
Alright, I've ranted enuff for now... but thanks to everyone for the comments so far, it's really filling in the picture for me and it's giving me something a bit more rounded to say the next time I'm doing the workshop...
Peace All
Message 27/157 03-Mar-02 @ 12:19 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 28/157 03-Mar-02 @ 01:36 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Prodigy oft comes in around -8db RMS, and there's a lot of commercial dance stuff that's around -10. BUT, you are seeing it roll a little back the other way. Tiesto and some others are doing a lot of finished trax in the -13 to -12 range now, and there's always been a lot of the "old school" folk that have kept the dynamics in their bits by not making it too loud.
I mean loud is cool, but when it's as compressed as it often is these days, there's not as much "climax" to a track as there could be. Nevertheless, methinks the "industry standard" is still probably "louder is better." I think that's why I enjoy listening to a lot of "amateur" recordings in obscure genres like dark ambient and other experimental bits. These folk generally don't "know" how to engineer... they just do what sounds good with what they have available. There's generally some SERIOUS dynamics in their work (sometimes that unfortunately extends to speaker killing frequencies, but you learn to start quiet with this stuff...). I could also say the same about a lot of classical music, although I've heard from "those who supposedly know such things" that even classical music is suffering from the loudness wars (obviously we're talking about recorded classical bits here...). In any case, I still find a lot more dynamic in most classical music.
Still, dance music is a different beast, so maybe I shouldn't expect so much dynamics... I wonder though, cos I've got a lot of old dance trax from the early 90's around here, and in my opinion they got a lot bigger sound at much lower overall levels than does say the current crop of "big trance" which one might think, theoretically, to have huge dynamics.... And this extends to a lot of stuff outside of any single "big-sound" genre. "House of God" for instance... Very yummy sound, and even though very "straight-forward" and somewhat monotone, it still had a lot of very cool dynamics. The stuff we're hearing now (and have pity on those of us in the Northeast), at least around here, is that crack, crack, NY hard house sound... Very loud, very persistent, and, at least for me, quickly boors the shit out of you....
Obviously, a lot depends on the style you're talking about, and even within styles there will be variation. An' there's all sorts of possible questions that can arise because of basic differences betwixt styles without even considering the sub-styles.... 'Sides, genres are tedious... maybe they're necessary, maybe they ain't, I dunno. I guess they can provide a framework for doing tracks... help elimniate some possibilities, mayhap... but outside of that, they seem a tool for marketers (an' that's hardly an original thought... jest about anyone who's been around the industry much has observed this...)... Anyhoos, gettin' side-tracked...
Yeah, shit is louder and "flatter" these days... I guess that was all I meant to say..... hmmmm.... damn fine smoke...
Peace All
Message 29/157 04-Mar-02 @ 03:44 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 30/157 04-Mar-02 @ 09:39 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
a little theory for mindspawn:
I was thinking the other day about Kind of Blue-- IMHO one of the just *perfect* albums of all time--and about how much louder the soloists are than the head of the tunes (and the timeless Bill Evans intro is barely audible)...I think that some of the "analog warmth" we all pontificate about may have a bit to do with more natural fluctuations in volume during the course of a piece of music. It seems to give your ear a break in that a lot newer stuff doesen't. I think Portishead's second album also some pretty dramatic dynamics too, though obviously it's way modern-sounding in some respects. I'm a beat nut and all, but...
you should just rehash that "even-order harmonics" bit for your workshop, though. make 'em feel like they're getting they're money's worth. next week, they'll be at the shop asking if the novation's can generate even-order harmonic distortion, and explaining it to their wives when the oldies come on. and no, not to thier husbands; it's *so* us.
Message 31/157 05-Mar-02 @ 12:09 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
knowa, have you heard the gill evans arrangement for big band of so what? the whole band plays miles' solo. mmmmm.
Message 32/157 05-Mar-02 @ 05:20 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 33/157 05-Mar-02 @ 05:22 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 34/157 05-Mar-02 @ 09:56 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
I used to 'master' from my 01V through a Finalizer Express and direct to CDR, all digital all the way. Bought an SPL Vitalizer Mk2T (with tubes) on reputation alone and inserted between the 01V and Finalizer (adding two stages of conversion to the stereo mix, not the best move in theory), and it does make a very welcome difference on the right material. The subtle but noticeable tube sound is there, sparkle, clarity (all the usual superlatives apply) and it's (mostly) all under your control. It's like an adaptive equaliser, adjust one part of the spectrum and the neighbouring frequencies are adjusted in accordance with the Fletcher-Munson curves for optimum sweetness. Best of all, it lets you know if you are feeding it a duff mix, as it hardly has any effect at all on poorly mixed material. Good mixes sound better, bad mixes sound a bit less bad. SPL gear isn't that well known in the US (bad distribution, marketing etc.) but its well worth checking out. Link above^^^
Message 35/157 05-Mar-02 @ 10:34 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
now seriously: at one studio i used to put finished mixes thru a mindprint tube compressor with variable tube saturation. it has a separate dial for tube drive, so i could choose if i want to compress or not, but still ad some warmth. the unit was equiped with digital i/o so i could go from protools thru the comp and then to dat with just one unavoidable conversion stage. at another place i used to put a finished mix thru channles on a neve, which sounds just sweet. and also, for a short while i had access to a protools rig with Focusrite Red series eq and compressor. that was just the dog´s bollox...
but maaan...there are cheaper ways than those. that PSP vintage warmwer is great, some other emulator plugins also. even the tube saturation on antares mic modeler is great (though not for whole mixes of course). dont sweat the technology too mch, if you´re having music released its bound to go to a profesional mastering studio at some point, and they can take care of that for you.
and anyway, why the hell should raw and underground dance tracks have to sound like audiophile recordings? good music is good music even at lo-fi streaming rates, let alone on a vinyl or a cd. i dont think that many consumers are going to know a difference if you dont use hi quality shit.
just my 2eurocents.
Message 36/157 05-Mar-02 @ 03:32 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
And he always mixed drunk, not bad.
Message 37/157 05-Mar-02 @ 03:45 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 38/157 05-Mar-02 @ 10:57 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Brett - as relates to my signal path, depends on what I'm trying to do. It sometimes never leaves the PC, sometimes it goes through the 01v, sometimes through the TC box... occasionally it goes through a Mackie analog board... It depends whether I'm mixing down from analog sources (going straight into the PC or to DAT), or if I'm mixing down tracks that have already been recorded into the PC, they get mixed inside... In the case of tracking down, say a synth, it'll generally go straight into the PC. I don't tend to bring things out to a board when I'm recording or tracking unless I'm adding in "live" instruments, that is just listening, sorting, organizing a track, prior to recording it to HD. I'm an old guitar player so I occasionally like to dirty the sound with old decrepit stomp boxes, or maybe I need something a bit deeper like using a multi FX box or what have you, got a couple of shiny new bits around here (like my studio partner's Avalon 737 - yeah after all the hubub about using it/not using it with a recent project, he still went out and bought one... o' course, a lot of why he bought it was cos he got it cheap - real cheap... so...) but we almost never bother with them unless we're trying to tweak something on a particular sound or track... Again, it can really vary depending on what I'm after.... I try to go through the least number of conversions/signal chains as possible. I've been able to get very nice warmth just doing little EQ tweaks and whatnot, all in the PC. For synths and stuff, I find you can "warm" the sound just as easily by using synthesis or EQ, as opposed to running through a DI, tube setup, or other preamp type critter.... and the end result is both warm AND clean (or at least "cleaner").
As for a mastering signal path, it either stays in the PC, or it goes from the PC to the Finalizer (AES/EBU) and back into the PC, or for those folks that still bring me DATs, from the DAT straight into the PC, or from DAT through the TC box then to the PC, depending on what I think the track is going to need....
And, I never master my own stuff anymore, least not my dance bits or anything critical... To me, if you create the track, you really ought to let someone else master it, as you really can't be as objective as you should. I'm not saying don't try to master your own tracks (and sometimes, due to budget considerations, one has no choice but to master it on their own). Even on stuff I send out to master, I'll still do a pass myself to see how stuff is going to sound, but from my own experience I generally go with other folk to do the mastering on my trax. I do master other folks bits, that's a good chunk of my income actually... I just don't do it on me own stuff cos I'm too close to my own work to be properly objective about what needs to be done at the mastering stage.
Just me two pesos... yer mileage may vary....
Peace All
Message 39/157 06-Mar-02 @ 05:38 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
I feel the same way about the conversion thing. If it's in my pc why go out again. I see the finalizer coming up comming up a lot. I played with one at GC on some material and didn't get anywhere with it. the presets were not cutting it. I guess I would need some time to get the hang of it. So what do you think about the use of TCpowerecore in Wavelab or the likes for mastering. It has the finalizer plug-in on it now. That way no aes/ebu cables to worry about, and it has all those synths, vocoder and antares goodies on it. I still think I need to get a better input signal from my outboard and I was thinking of getting an avalon 747 or a Empirical labs disstressor with that tape transistor on it. In all honesty, I have been budgeting out a Protools rig with a control 24 as well. I wonder if those focusrite pre-s on the control 24 are as good as the standalon units they make? So in the end what I want is Wavlab with the tc-powercore for mastering and the PT setup for tracking and mixing. With the new Nativeinstruments thing, i can use all those softsynths I am used to in PT.
Message 40/157 06-Mar-02 @ 06:19 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Control 24 preamps are from the focusrite platinum range, which are still sound sweet mind you, but are surpassed by the red (not to mention blue) stuff they build. though i doubt you´d need more than that for anyway. maybe one good avalon or something in adition to that, for vocals and instruments.
anyway, what are you doing with all that gear Brett? you opening a commercial studio or something? you are talking about more hi-quality standard than i met in some pro studios which still produce quality commercial albums.
my 2 convertible denars :P
Message 41/157 06-Mar-02 @ 08:22 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Alright, I'm out.
Message 42/157 06-Mar-02 @ 09:31 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 43/157 06-Mar-02 @ 10:52 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
so
control24&cable = 7000
PT mixplus = 3500
888 i/o = 1400
distressor = 2500
mac + 15krpmHD's= 3800
used ilok with various plugs, virus etc
= 0600
TC-powercore = 1200
total cost =20000
this is all subject to change and may even be cheaper in a year. If I have more I may get an apogee track two as well.
I hope to have everything by next summer so I will have some time to get up to speed. I have been using Protoolsfree. It's great way to learn the app for free.
and that is just my two American Express Traveler's Check cents.
Message 45/157 07-Mar-02 @ 01:41 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
as one producer told me "why mix when you have the plugins"! )
Message 46/157 07-Mar-02 @ 04:09 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 47/157 07-Mar-02 @ 10:17 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Anyway this PSP thing. Is it an enhacer?
Message 48/157 08-Mar-02 @ 02:23 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Ape
Message 49/157 08-Mar-02 @ 07:23 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 50/157 08-Mar-02 @ 08:45 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 51/157 11-Mar-02 @ 01:03 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
It's a lot like the analog vs digital synth debate, most times such arguments are started by folk claiming digital is just as good, and it's pretty much impossible to tell in a good mix anyway... Well, digital IS just as good, if you add in the flexibility of saving patches, MIDI control, etc., etc. But if you simply compare an analog SH101 with ANY of Rolands sampled SH101 ROM sounds found on their MC or XP line, you can instantly tell a difference in the sound. My own like for analogs doesn't really come from a sound preference though, in a mix I really can't tell much difference either. What I like about the analogs is their built in frequecy spectrum (or, as Pongoid pointed out, maybe it's the lack of frequency...). I spend a lot less time fattening up the sound, whether I do it with synthesis or EQ, when I use analog based gear over digital... in effect, I'm a lazy MF that prefers to have the sound be right from the get go... less work for me...=)
Now why is it that I think analog is easier? Well, I'm certain there's a good scientific reason, but mostly it has to do with the popularity of analog type sound. If I wasn't going after that sound, I wouldn't bother trying to make it sound like analog... Hence, if yer after analog, use analog. it's just easier... what a fugging concept, eh?
What I do find funny is when some folk get their first piece of analog gear, and then they sell it after a month cos "it was too hard to get the right sound with it..." No shit... can't just dial up Trance Lead 004 or whatnot, eh?
That's also somethin' that gets me about folks starin' out that are ready to drop a couple of grand on their first bits of gear. Most of 'em generally get one decent multi synth/workstation and maybe an FX unit or two.... Why? I mean there's nothing wrong with these boxes, they do what they're made to do.... But for the same amount of money you could get a DX box, an SH101 (or even two), a Juno of some sort, and say a decent drumbox like a Jomox or sumpin. Hell you could probably even afford a real 909 if you shopped about.... add in a couple compressors and cheap multi FX bits, and for around the same price you got a pretty well fleshed all "all-analog" kit.... Then you got that "analog sound" by default... It still dunna mean you can make a track that will get folks to shake their booty, but if yer after analog sound, why not get it from analog gear? Seems like that concept gets missed by a lot of people.... Should be obvious you'd think... hmmmm gettin' old and out of touch I guess...
Peace All
Message 52/157 11-Mar-02 @ 04:54 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
I love didital and I am not going back.
Message 53/157 11-Mar-02 @ 11:15 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
As for an analog guru telling the difference, I dunno. You might be surprised. Different vein of things, but I've heard engineers talk about what preamp, amp, mic, compressor, etc., someone used, just from listening to the finished mix, so I suspect someone with enough knowledge of analog synths could also tell if something wasn't analog, especially in a non-mixed a/b setup...
Just some thoughts....
Peace
Message 54/157 11-Mar-02 @ 11:48 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Hell, ya know, times are changing (they always are), so just because analog dominated in the past doth not mean it will always be so. There will, methinks, always be a place for analog gear, in the same way there'll always be a place for a real piano, guitar, etc....
I'd just like to have a "vocalist in a box." If I could just replace those critters with a good multi-box, I'd be much happier...=)
Peace
Message 55/157 12-Mar-02 @ 12:04 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 56/157 12-Mar-02 @ 12:29 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
"heard engineers talk about what preamp, amp, mic, compressor, etc., someone used, just from listening to the finished mix"
BULLSHIT. I find that impossible to believe. I am pretty much convinced that anyone who tries that is just plain full of shit
maybe in 1958, but NOW? no fucking way.
Message 57/157 12-Mar-02 @ 12:55 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Had it a week and was like "this aint a 303". And my bass station sounded nothing like a 303 and I didn't know how to sequence it to emulate one. So I started realizing i should have just bought a sampler, i could have sampled rebirth like I ended up doing much later on which yeilds some pretty authentic lines when you sequence right using velocity for accent and slides. I have digressed here but I am totally in agreement, that if you want a sound go and buy that not an imitation, and if you are entering in new , a good workstation can't be beat. Even if i had bought a trinity with the sampler I would have gotten further in my production. This is why i recomend Reason to newbies as it gives them all kinds of sounds in one central workstation to develop there skills and then later they can add to the complexity when they add Cubase through Rewrie and midi gear. I think everyone will be amazed to hear the two new tracks i have done in Reason. I do have all my other gear back on line now as well, so i may play with the juno, mks 80, or even my syntechno, but the meat and potatoes will be reason and Halion. Just Orange Vocoder too, so my digitech might get jealouse. see you guys tomorow. I am taking hte night off. i have been doing to much music and my sleep is all out of whack.
Message 58/157 12-Mar-02 @ 01:24 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
1)get off the meth
2)hit RETURN every once in a while?
believe it or not but I read what you type (notice I havent said SHIT about your horrible spelling in a while) but...ever heard of a run-on sentence, or PARAGRAPH even?
sheesh
Message 59/157 12-Mar-02 @ 02:21 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Brett - uh, I think I agree with what you're saying, at least in concept... course I may have missed the point... In any case, I would say an analog or two and a sampler or two, would certainly sort a lot of folk who want an analog sound. It's what I do for me live stuff that I want to be "analogish." Sure beats the hell out of trying to transport the DSS and what not...
Peace
Message 60/157 12-Mar-02 @ 02:33 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 61/157 12-Mar-02 @ 03:36 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
mindspawn..I STILL say bullshit until I see it
you are telling me that these guys listened to FINAL mixes and could name all the gear used? or just the mastering?
even if it were just the mastering processors..Id STILL have to see it to believe it. I mean...someone TESTED them?
I find that so hard to believe
ahhh, but Brett could probably do it
Message 62/157 12-Mar-02 @ 06:11 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
So , if the preset is done right you shouldn't be able to tell the riff is coming from a sampler and not the original tone generator. So many of the old timers are using new gear to do the old sounds. Nord electro, and even Reaktor on a laptop. I read this article where this one guy was using the pro-52 over his prophet 5 because it was so authentic, but offer more flexability. I see "q" using a virus and a jp-8000 live instead of trying to lug a jupiter around. The new analog modeling adds that randomness to the sinal that makes analog funkier than a pcm based sound. I think vinatage analog is going to slowly become a novelty and colector item.
Most of those 80's analog sysnths became discontinued because the parts were becoming hard to get and really expensive, like the emu sp-1200 filter chips etc. and the digital route looked cheaper and more eficient for companies in the 80's, and with CD being the new wave. The digital mind set was in. DX-synths, and the wavestation(originally the sequential cirtuits prophetv I think). Wave table and pcm was what pop musicains wanted. And then when we got there everyone started looking back and thinking these synths suck. we have no knobs, no warmth in our bass.
I like the diversity of the synth market today. You really can get a synth for any flavor on a decent budget thanks to anaolg modeling technolgy and hihger bit digital pcm playback and filters. the software is the true music chnaging device, recycle, and the ability to edit and process stuff with such detail and speed. Can yu imagin trying to edit a song and loops on tape with a razor?
Message 63/157 12-Mar-02 @ 09:39 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
And Brett, I have edited songs on tape with a razor... actually I did this as recently as September of 2000...
Peace
Message 64/157 12-Mar-02 @ 09:54 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Digital is an illusion.
It's gets worse when I watch and see this personally more often...it completely takes the realness and warmness away. It does! except that movies animation um.. "final phantasy".
I suppose i was trying to create a visual idea on digital here..as in relitive terms against music..especially dance stuff. Maybe there is an exception.
But for me...i notice to many computer music makers missing the point on how music should be created.. after listening to loads of records..i can pick out the overall digtal quality of a track...its more of what it represents to me than what is used...something like this...Just a continuing process. awh what the hell is become what it is,.. .
Remeber analog is continous..digital is not..HUmans run on rhthms biologically in nature etc..digital does not yet.. hehe peace
eric
4:51a.m. bedtime!
Message 65/157 12-Mar-02 @ 10:18 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
But hey in ten years we'll have 32/384 and so on until we sample billions of times per second and playback music in our head with a chip so the monitors don't color the sound. pure music digitally deliverd from the artist to your brain.
Message 66/157 12-Mar-02 @ 12:00 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
REALLY. virus, eh?
Message 67/157 12-Mar-02 @ 04:11 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 68/157 12-Mar-02 @ 06:29 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
what are you on about?
wurlitzer is a rhodes type of electric piano, imo with a much nicer sound.
a leslie is a revovling speaker. i think even i would be able to tell the difference between a piano and a revolving speaker. on a good day.
Message 69/157 12-Mar-02 @ 09:04 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
you sure your eyes arent bad? That is quite interesting because"
"Subj: Re: hey
Date: 3/12/02 12:54:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: uberzone@*******(uberzone)
To: Nflux1@aol.com
did you ever take a VIRUS on any shows with you?
Dave
no, but I caught many a virus at shows....."
musta been some other guy named Q
Message 70/157 12-Mar-02 @ 09:27 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Peas
Message 71/157 12-Mar-02 @ 09:38 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Mindspawn. bro! nothing of the sort. I just...its just so fucking pedantic. not on your part, theirs...and I still just cant believe it...I mean..with all the processes that stuff goes through
are we talking rock? electronic? what.
I might be able to see it with a rock recording which relies less on FX etc..but on a solid dance recording..I dunno
I wasnt questioning your honesty or ability or anything like that. I promise. Please dont hex me, k?
Message 72/157 12-Mar-02 @ 10:30 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
The stuff these guys did was either Rock, Country, or some hybrid of the two.... I think the gent at Fort Apache said he'd worked on some electronic stuff, but again this was 1992-3 or so... and none of this stuff was digital as far as I know... Anyhoos, like I said, no worries. Speaking for myself, I might be able to spot a synth or reverb unit here and there, but not much else... I spend most of my "elitist" time trying to identify frequencies, so.... =)
Peace
Message 73/157 12-Mar-02 @ 11:05 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 74/157 13-Mar-02 @ 12:42 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
didnt work out that way.
Message 75/157 13-Mar-02 @ 12:59 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Does anyone remember those FRANKENSTIEN or whatever name enhancers that were sold back in the late 80's? - it was a rack with valves in to enhance stereo tracks.
Also that T-Racks is sposed to be pretty good for that with it's valave sim thing... anyone use that?..
Message 76/157 13-Mar-02 @ 01:01 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 77/157 13-Mar-02 @ 01:11 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Q is a close personal friend of mine, and I work for him as well (which is why I get so worked up about topics regarding him because I see it from the inside)
Message 78/157 13-Mar-02 @ 03:08 AM Edit: 13-Mar-02 | 06:36 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 79/157 13-Mar-02 @ 05:04 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=dorsey+tape+group:rec.audio.pro+identify&hl=en&selm=8hjr2l%24a0p%241%40nntp9.atl.mindspring.net&rnum=7
Message 80/157 13-Mar-02 @ 06:09 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Peace
Message 81/157 13-Mar-02 @ 10:35 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
I think T-Racks sounds Flabby and no vinatage plug-in I have used cuts it. I would love to get an avalon737 or even a direct box. Here is the inherant disadvantage to softsynths. You have to go out, to go analog tube route, then back to digital. An extra step! And not an eay one if you are trying to mixdown and not bounce all the synths to audio.
I was thinkning, (I know I shouldn't do that) about this: If i had a Dakota with 16 channels of adat, or even the Dakato and Monatana for 32 or what ever . I could write songs in Reason then go to a studio and run all the tracks through a big analog console and into Protools for mix down. You could bounce them all in one or two passes. Or, even just mixed with the console down to 2" or a masterlink etc. So there is professional portability to softsynths. Do we need to do it all in one machine? Can the sound be improved by mixing through a nice console instead of a software mixer? Is this necesasry for or cost effective for dance music? So how do we get that punch like Q does "..uberzone... drop the tone.." with what we have?
This is really how this thread started and we really haven't answered Mindspawns question yet.
Message 82/157 26-Mar-02 @ 12:53 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
so there. not that i dis you or anything Brett, just wanted to give you some advice on practicalities of recording and engineering music.
And now, a little tale of DIGITAL precision VS ANALOG warmth:
a friend of mine started working as assistant angineer in a small studio based around a digital HD recording setup. what happened was that the owner brought in an old Soundcraft mixer one day, hoping to get some of that undefinable 'analog warmth' on their recordings. now, this friend came to me saying how he feels that the quality of production has actually slightly declined since they started tracking and mixing thru the console, and that he feels that tracks have become more muddy and less defined. since i have used a similar mixer in the past i can vouch its not a bad mixer, and it doesnt relly fuck up your sound.
From what i gather, it seems to me that those guys were simply used to hearing their digital recordings which were clean and precise, and have hence regarded the additional analog stage as actually degrading the sound, in contrast to analog purists who feel that digital gear does that.
i dont know if i´m on a wrong track here, but people used to be like "get that digital thing out of my signal path, its degrading my sound", and now we get "get that analog thing out of my signal path, its degrading my sound". i find this quite amusing really! or maybe i´m just talking out me arse here?
Cheers, M.
Message 83/157 26-Mar-02 @ 12:53 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Peace
Message 84/157 27-Mar-02 @ 06:26 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Ape
Message 85/157 27-Mar-02 @ 06:47 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
sure, on solo-ed individual sounds, maybe
Message 86/157 28-Mar-02 @ 02:35 AM Edit: 28-Mar-02 | 03:42 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Sure, everything has it's place, but I like the analogy with rock music sometimes... what is it about rock that I like?.. it's the energy... the power, when a full-on band lets rip and it's all humming... if in those circumstances one was to remove the drummer you'd hear all the kit drums resonating in sympathy with the guitar & bass cab frequencies, the snare wires buzzin' away like crazy etc.... that power for me does also arrive in dance music, especialy in a more lo-fi underground setting without 'the best' amps & cabs & where the speakers are really being driven hard... you get that 'hum'
to use an analogy, Templeman never got that sound with subsequent albums that he acheived with VH1
what was that?.... There was something in the 'live' setup they used to record... everything driven to hell with Eddie moving within the studio space to achieve harmonic feedbacks and overtones etc... and in dance it's the same... Initialy one is impressed with an all digital mix when it comes jumping from the speakers from dead silence with alot of dynamic range, but after a while it can be tiring because it lacks those empathic frequencies somehow... and i'm NOT talking about 'analog V digital' synths here.... the combination of frequencies results in the creation of sympathetic harmonic's in upper & lower registers which whilst not 'audible' in the strictest sense, (certainly not when masked by the overall mix), do contribute to the overall sound.
My personal thoughts on the whole subject is that in the end, it's that combination of the whole, the sum of the parts which is important, whereas with digital there is an over-emphasis sometimes on concentration on the individual components.
I dont care wether i can hear a part i wrote in the mix if the whole is 'humming' - in fact often this is the case, some parts dissapear completely in terms of 'being audible' as distinctly discerable parts... and you get an added phenomenon too - when you drive a mix really hard you start to hear 'ghost' parts... distinct pattern/melodies which appear in the mix created by the combination of the empathic working overtones... these ghost parts are distinct patterns/melodies which you have not actualy written, and bare No relation to any of the patterns you DID create - THAT is awesome!... new lines suggest themselves to you and the more you listen to a looped section, the more these 'ghost patterns' start to cry out until you can actual learn them and sequence them in!
- then you're REALLY rocking because those patterns will NEVER be something you'd actualy think of, they are created by the track!! - and when you hear them, they are so harmonious with the whole but in totaly unexpected ways! - very odd phenomenon that is.
if the whole is working all in sypathy as a total empathy, to me this sounds ideal... and i find this happens more organicaly with analog boards... This is especialy true with mixing, and the bane of the commercial studio engineers life is those blasted bands who all vy with each other at mixtime to 'hear' their own parts... At that point, the band ceases to be 'a band' and turns into a monster of vying ego's, each listeing soley to their own part played and wishing it to be discernable & distinctly audible, often and usualy to the detriment of the entire mix.. I've seen countless excellent tracks ruined this way at mixdown time.
I think in that situation they are trying to perceive the parts as it is when they are actualy playing them... at that time one does hear ones own part sometimes in seperation, but this I think is a psycho-acoutic phenomenon - i think as one plays, one knows what one is playing, and a person THINKS they can hear it clearer and more distinctly than it actualy is appearing to the casual listener, this I think is because they are psychologicaly fooled into thinking their part is more distinct & seperate because they are also 'hearing it' in their conciousness of recollection, & recognition of what they are playing.
Anyways, hands on with analog boards does have alot to be said for it, if nothing else, the ability to sum signals on a molecular level rather than as a collection of stepped digital signals mebbe... I think the resulting empathy of the collectivising whole is enhanced somehow that way.
On the other hand while imo you CANNOT beat a 1" 8 track with no NR for bass sounds for example, digital can be wonderful added into an analog mix, for vocals especialy, & other tracked instruments, and the ability to copy & paste constructions & remixes and alternative arrangements is great if you ever had to edit with a blade & block !! - add that to into an analog board and you're in heaven!.
However, that ability to always change things creates new problems, because it encourages people NEVER to make any descisions!!!- everything is left open ended which in itself can be rubbish... you NEED to make descisions about the sounds and the structure, because a sound will effect the other sounds added to it and within which it is set SO MUCH... change it and the whole thing is different... so that's worth thinking about VERY much... if a mix is humming, change your kickdrum sound and the whole mix can go to fuck because that empathic relationship WAS there, between the kik and the synthline, even tho you might not think it was because they don't even live in the same frequency range!
heh heh - Honestly, if i had my own recording school I think i'd give the students a simul-sync 1/2-track and a 2 channel mixer or 2 rows/modules of 4 band decent eq and that's ALL they'd use for the first year.... making 4, 8, 16 & 24 track mixes in mono by layering bounces from left to right track... Then they could move on to the next stage, and if they didnt like it they could fuck off and go to SAE heh heh
You could sorta fit that perfectly into that old Sufi story about the kid wanting to learn alchemy... how to make gold from base metal
The kid goes to learn recording & production with some 'ye olde arcane' engineer... every day he's pestering & asking about when is he going to get to use the protools and the top end analog & digital gear in the huge main studio, but the old boy just refuses & keeps him recording production multitracked bounced-layered mixes in mono with a two-track, a 2 channel eq and no fx at all....
One day after alot of time has passed the old boy goes to the kid and says;
"ok... I think today you can finaly go and work in the big studio with the neve automation & pro-tools & all the rest of the top-end fancy kit"
and the kid, without even looking up from his mix says..... "er... not now, I'm busy"
ha ha ha
aight!!
___________________________________
I had an idea for a script once. It's basically Jaws except when the guys in the boat are going after Jaws, they look around and there's an even bigger Jaws. The guys have to team up with Jaws to get Bigger Jaws.... I call it... Big Jaws!!!
Message 87/157 28-Mar-02 @ 02:48 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
they should LEGALY be forced to call these shows something else entirely under the trades description act - My brother took his kid to see Brittany... she flipped and fell over during a number... and yes.. the vocal carried on regardless
___________________________________
I had an idea for a script once. It's basically Jaws except when the guys in the boat are going after Jaws, they look around and there's an even bigger Jaws. The guys have to team up with Jaws to get Bigger Jaws.... I call it... Big Jaws!!!
Message 88/157 28-Mar-02 @ 02:52 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
___________________________________
I had an idea for a script once. It's basically Jaws except when the guys in the boat are going after Jaws, they look around and there's an even bigger Jaws. The guys have to team up with Jaws to get Bigger Jaws.... I call it... Big Jaws!!!
Message 89/157 28-Mar-02 @ 03:35 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Me and some of me dark ambient cronies have talked about the "ghosts" a lot. A lot of dark ambient is in the real low end, and there was some discussion as to whether or not frequencies below 20hz (since that's the usual low end threshold for most CD players) needed to be included at all. Well, all you have to do is try cutting those frequencies out and you can instantly hear the difference in the sound. There's a couple of reasons why we thought this might be:
First, CD players, as well as most playback devices have a stated frequency response range (usually 20hz to 20khz). That's the range that the equipment will play back "accurately" (in a perfect world...), it doesn't mean those other frequencies won't be heard at all, but you might not hear them "correctly."
Second, even if you can't hear the frequencies in question, they still modify the other sounds in a track, they still add harmonics, etc., etc. You cannot EQ ANY frequency in a track without affecting all the others to some degree or other, hence removing said frequencies HAVE to affect what's left.
Anyhoos, methinks the "ghosts" are some of the coolest parts of sound. With the dark ambient stuff, it's not uncommon at all to "hear" something that wasn't put in to a track. The "talking" synths phenomena is one of my favorites... that is, you have a track that is solely synth based, and yet you hear what sounds like words or phrases in there... very cool stuff.... same applies to any style of music really....
Peace
Message 90/157 28-Mar-02 @ 03:39 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Peace
Message 91/157 28-Mar-02 @ 03:46 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
___________________________________
I had an idea for a script once. It's basically Jaws except when the guys in the boat are going after Jaws, they look around and there's an even bigger Jaws. The guys have to team up with Jaws to get Bigger Jaws.... I call it... Big Jaws!!!
Message 92/157 28-Mar-02 @ 03:47 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
___________________________________
I had an idea for a script once. It's basically Jaws except when the guys in the boat are going after Jaws, they look around and there's an even bigger Jaws. The guys have to team up with Jaws to get Bigger Jaws.... I call it... Big Jaws!!!
Message 93/157 28-Mar-02 @ 03:52 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
___________________________________
I had an idea for a script once. It's basically Jaws except when the guys in the boat are going after Jaws, they look around and there's an even bigger Jaws. The guys have to team up with Jaws to get Bigger Jaws.... I call it... Big Jaws!!!
Message 94/157 28-Mar-02 @ 04:17 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
K..you can ramble more than ANYONE IVE EVER read!!!!
ok...ghosts as mindspawn calls them...or ANY such "energy anomalies"...
planned? rarely. right?
so..again...to sit here and analyze the heck out of that stuff...pedantic
but...it makes me think though, because I am surrounded by these cats (well, 2) who are just SO damn caught up in all that "good sound" shit...and....I cant help but fall victim...
sometimes I wonder if I should dump it all, get me a 1604 and just leave it at that. virus, sampler, 1604...
dunno. torn
Message 95/157 28-Mar-02 @ 09:26 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
As to why ask why? Why not? It's like magick my good friend, it seems all obscure and shit, but there's certain "reglarities" in how folk do their hoodoo... and that's kinda what this is like. And just like magick, you go and get too technical about it and the magick is lost and you have science (which is just another belief system itself...).... ummmm... so I think I just agreed with you about there being little point in talking. That's true of philosophy too, and maybe that's kind of what this has come to on some levels, a philosophy of engineering and its techniques... mental masturbation, yes, but just like "regular" masturbation, it ain't the end all be all, but it still feels damned good...
Peace
Message 96/157 28-Mar-02 @ 10:58 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Ape
Oh yeah, one other thing...who cares how good the sound quality and recording are if the music is absolute shit? We're talking about buffing turds to a high gloss.
Message 97/157 28-Mar-02 @ 09:04 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 99/157 30-Mar-02 @ 01:24 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
no way???????????
I can see why people like the dig tho, it impresses at first... I remember the first time I heard an 01...It sounded very controlled and dynamic - i think a 50/50 system is best.. for me at least...
___________________________________
I had an idea for a script once. It's basically Jaws except when the guys in the boat are going after Jaws, they look around and there's an even bigger Jaws. The guys have to team up with Jaws to get Bigger Jaws.... I call it... Big Jaws!!!
Message 100/157 30-Mar-02 @ 04:35 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 101/157 30-Mar-02 @ 06:42 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
I am missing the ghosts referance, Are you saying they are a good or bad anomaly? I crank my eq's all differant ways on the master buss to expose things like that. I found a low end flutter that was being caused by a hp filter on a loop and fixed it.
and a 50/50 analog digital system? is that what you meant K?
Science is theoretical and thus can be called a philosophy, but it requires facts to prove theories to be a hard science. And though mixing teqniques are scientific and thus a form of engineering, they are more of a soft science that is swayed more by qualitative then quantitative measures. So fact for one engineer is just food for thought to another.
Message 102/157 30-Mar-02 @ 07:50 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Its when you have the sum of the parts- sometimes a complex pad sound will do it- with all of the harmonies/overtones, other sounds and patterns reveal them selves. K, you said it the best man.
I think it is a beautiful thing. Alot of my sounds and patterns come from this. you "learn them and sequence them in". Once you bring in the new part, it sounds like it was ment to be there.
God I love music.
Message 103/157 30-Mar-02 @ 08:25 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 105/157 31-Mar-02 @ 12:12 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Peace
Message 106/157 31-Mar-02 @ 04:03 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Ape
Message 107/157 01-Apr-02 @ 07:48 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 108/157 03-Apr-02 @ 06:27 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Peace
Message 109/157 03-Apr-02 @ 12:19 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
But yeah, ghosts, wierd shit happening with the compressor (they're good for that sometimes when you tweak them just right or 'wrong' enough), extreme low freq's warbling out highs, and vive versa, wierd harmonics and stuff. There's a time and place for all of it. It's always a case of learning the rules to learn how to properly break them, innit?
Ape
Message 110/157 03-Apr-02 @ 12:29 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Took a listen to some of yer other bits you had posted, too. Nice work sir, sehr nice work indeed. Your sound is more "you" so to speak than the stuff I heard from you a year or so back. I like the direction you're taking your art. Tasty stuffs....
Peace
Message 111/157 03-Apr-02 @ 09:51 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 112/157 04-Apr-02 @ 12:08 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Peace
Message 113/157 04-Apr-02 @ 12:06 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Ape
Message 114/157 04-Apr-02 @ 03:47 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
http://www.larkinam.com/MenComNet/Business/Retail/Larknet/Percussion
Peace
Message 115/157 05-Apr-02 @ 11:18 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Ape
Message 116/157 06-Apr-02 @ 04:36 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
What I _do_ remember decades before that, though, was back when I was listening to music in my parents' house, as a teenager, and had put on a recording (it was LP in those times) of Scriabin's "Poem de L'Extase" (sp) and then Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue" while my parents were hanging around with an old family friend (my godfather, actually). I remember the family friend commenting on how much better "Kind of Blue" was recorded than the Scriabin, and him posing me the question as to why. At the time we chatted about it, it boiled down to a couple of things, that also became an issue in the recording of classical symphonic music at the time:
a) "Kind of Blue" is recorded comparatively simply, with not that many mics. The orchestral recording was being done with the standard of the time (early '70s), lots of mics for the different sections. Later on, recording technique changed and fewer, better mics were used, it was felt you got a clearer, less "busy" mix that way, despite some loss of the detail that the 100-mics approach was trying to buy (all of this in the area of trying to capture orchestras more "realistically").
b) and more important, and lining up with what Pongoid's been hinting at a couple of times in the thread: it ain't the meat, it's the motion, to borrow an old blues line that Bonnie Raitt borrowed once upon a time. What makes "Kind of Blue" such a crack recording is the _experience of the engineers working with the musicians_. They all knew they had a special thing, they were all listening to each other, and working together with a kind of intimacy and understanding that's not often found.
I would say it's not a question of analog vs. digital, really, but the attitude towards both music-making and music-recording reflected in the approach of different generations.
The "analogue" generation treated the art of music, of recording, and the interaction of all the elements with incredible respect and attention to detail. They also brought a range of experience, not just in music, but in culture, a breadth of knowledge of human experience, and history, a passion for a few small, important things, to the process.
The "digital" generation lives in a sea awash with 60 million versions of the same thing, all being simultaneously hyped as new and improved every other week. There's a general levelling towards sub-mediocrity that's induced as a result, since what's being hyped grows out of people with about as much knowledge about the world as the average high school sophomore left off with (and I'm talking _knowledge_ not _information_ -- _knowledge_ means _passion_ for finding something out, say, why a musician in Kenya is doing what they're doing, going there, spending time with them, learning about their lives, not just watching an MTV video with a guy playing "that really cool instrument in the background").
I'm not saying everyone back in the '50s, '60s, '70s were geniuses (though a few were), nor that everyone these days are idiots.
I just think that because there's so "much" around now, and access is so easy and instantaneous, that we're easily distracted, have a difficult time paying deeeeep attention to one thing for a sustained period of time, think we have to do 90 things well at the same time, etc. etc. Generalized ADD, basically. The results are inevitable.
So, when it comes to "analogue" vs. "digital," my main opinion for you there, Mindspawn, is that there's no special equipment or technique you can hand out in a flyer at the workshop to get from "digital" to "analogue" except the one that simply states, "Pay Attention to Details." The commercial pressures to "work quickly," the cost of studio time, the cost of education, etc. all leads to trying to do too much, too fast. You can get that "analogue magic" with any equipment, even digital, if you only give it "analogue attention." And, it's only worth giving the music "analogue attention" if the music itself has been composed and performed with the same kind of attention.
Find a group that's worked closely and lovingly for years with their mixing and studio engineers, who have a real, sustained relationship around what they're doing, who feel they're on a mission with what they're doing, who feel they've got something truly valuable to contribute with what they're doing, who take the necessary time and attention to accomplish what they're doing in a decisive fashion, and you'll get "that sound."
Just my opinion.
rt
Message 117/157 06-Apr-02 @ 08:44 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
"all being simultaneously hyped as new and improved every other week. sub-mediocrity average high school sophomore watching an MTV video."
yes
Message 119/157 06-Apr-02 @ 10:54 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Sitar, I owe any truth justice and clarity to what I just said all to you, man... I don't know how... I'm just sure of it....
rt
Message 120/157 07-Apr-02 @ 05:21 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Kinda like dealing with folk thinking I'm a DJ when I play live... lots of times folks will come up and say, "wow, you're a great DJ..." seems no matter how I tried to explain it, they just didn't get it... I finally gave up and just say "Thanks" these days...
Anyhoos, good words...
Peace
Message 121/157 07-Apr-02 @ 01:25 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
___________________________________
I had an idea for a script once. It's basically Jaws except when the guys in the boat are going after Jaws, they look around and there's an even bigger Jaws. The guys have to team up with Jaws to get Bigger Jaws.... I call it... Big Jaws!!!
Message 122/157 07-Apr-02 @ 02:05 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 123/157 07-Apr-02 @ 02:34 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Ape
Message 124/157 07-Apr-02 @ 04:30 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
rt
Message 125/157 08-Apr-02 @ 09:40 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
you know that they didn't rehearse for Kind of Blue, right? Miles didn't want them thinking about what they were gonna play beforehand. how different this combo of mastery and spontaneity is from "mess around and edit midi" (which is what I do to some extent).
and I second: please more about "higher efficiency in speaker movement" unless pissing/taking. it's not like fewer "bits" are coming out the speakers... pulaski has an Emax and it sounds damn speaker-efficient.
Message 126/157 09-Apr-02 @ 09:20 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
You have a center line. You have twelve equidistant points above, and twelve equidistant points below. At any given time, your speaker is told to move to one of these 25 points.
Now imagine the same line with sixteen points a side. Now your speaker has to be that much more accurate in it's movement, requiring more electrical energy thus converted to kinetic energy to move and stop it accurately on any one of those 33 points.
Simple physics. The more accurately you want something to move, the more energy must be exerted in one form or another to maintain this accuracy, be it electrical,calculative, or otherwise.
Ape
Message 127/157 09-Apr-02 @ 01:38 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
___________________________________
I had an idea for a script once. It's basically Jaws except when the guys in the boat are going after Jaws, they look around and there's an even bigger Jaws. The guys have to team up with Jaws to get Bigger Jaws.... I call it... Big Jaws!!!
Message 128/157 09-Apr-02 @ 09:00 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 129/157 09-Apr-02 @ 09:02 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 130/157 09-Apr-02 @ 10:01 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Don't follow the cone placement accuracy/efficiency/loudness argument - no physics that I know of, at least. Probably more to do with the fact that distortion = greater perceived loudness. 12 bit signals are suffer from quantisation distortion far more than 16 bit signals (compare 4096 levels with 65536) and so sound louder.
Message 131/157 09-Apr-02 @ 10:18 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
"look at the bass. its so stable"
Message 132/157 10-Apr-02 @ 12:30 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
___________________________________
I had an idea for a script once. It's basically Jaws except when the guys in the boat are going after Jaws, they look around and there's an even bigger Jaws. The guys have to team up with Jaws to get Bigger Jaws.... I call it... Big Jaws!!!
Message 133/157 10-Apr-02 @ 12:56 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 134/157 10-Apr-02 @ 01:14 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 135/157 10-Apr-02 @ 01:53 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
i reckon.
Message 136/157 10-Apr-02 @ 03:15 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
rt
Message 137/157 10-Apr-02 @ 03:21 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Thanks for your comments!
rt
Message 138/157 10-Apr-02 @ 06:14 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
ok so what do analog sound generators--with no 'bits' to speak of--feed to speakers?
or A/D converters as rt mentioned.
this is related to why samples of synths sound different than the synths themselves playing the same parts?
16-bit samples of SP-1200 hits don't sound as cool as the SP itself because they spit too many bits at the speakers?
so this lo-fi magic is happening *right* at the moment that electrical energy is converted into acoustic energy?
how 'bout on a Mac ;)
Message 139/157 10-Apr-02 @ 07:10 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Analogue synths present a smooth, continuous signal to a speaker - but so does a DAC on a digital synth, only the DAC signal is less smooth because of the way it was constructed.
Let me use an analogy - imagine a smooth, well defined surface that represents an analogue signal from an analogue synth. Now instead of the smooth surface, replace it with a closely-packed array of spikes that describe the same surface (think Pinhead in Hellraiser). This array of spikes represents the digitally encoded signal. Now lay a sheet of rubber over the spikes (analogous to the action of a DAC) - you get a smooth surface once again, but its not perfectly smooth since between the spikes there's no information about the original surface. The rubber sheet fills in the gaps, just as a DAC does. The more spikes you have, the closer to the original surface you will get. Same with digital audio, but replace 'spikes' with 'bits'.
This analogy could explain why lower bit depth gives greater perceived volume - imagine having two representations of the original surface in front of you, one with loads of very densely packed spikes under the sheet, giving a smooth contour, and the other with much fewer spikes, resulting in a more choppy, irregular surface. Which one would you look at first? Which grabs your attention? Which is visually 'louder'?
Message 140/157 17-Apr-02 @ 05:29 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
What bit depth DOES give you is extra headroom and dynamic range, which allows things to sound less "compressed" (a non-issue at 24-bits for most purposes). When you get crappy quality out of a DAC, it is usually caused by poor clocking in the stairstep generator (which adds nasty harmonics that can get through the filter) or a poor quality filter design for the Nyquist smoothing filter.
Message 141/157 19-Apr-02 @ 10:15 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
the whole subject is odd tho because in the dig' audio areana it is filled with people extolling the virtues of bigger-rates equaling a 'better' sound.... then as a contradiction we have older lo-res samplers.... they sound 'better' to my ears, so i guess in the end all is subjective?...
I cant see the point in our game of having 100db of dynamic range when we crush it all down and use only about 5-10db of range at all if that (except for ambient styles mebbe & ballad pop productions, but even then the use of dynamic range is very low in most commercial music)
___________________________________
I had an idea for a script once. It's basically Jaws except when the guys in the boat are going after Jaws, they look around and there's an even bigger Jaws. The guys have to team up with Jaws to get Bigger Jaws.... I call it... Big Jaws!!!
Message 142/157 20-Apr-02 @ 07:17 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 143/157 20-Apr-02 @ 09:21 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
if this is the case then using only 10db would result in the noise floor resting at -90db.
I dont know if this is accurate.
Message 144/157 20-Apr-02 @ 11:36 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 145/157 21-Apr-02 @ 11:56 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 146/157 23-Apr-02 @ 02:31 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 147/157 24-Apr-02 @ 11:07 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 148/157 25-Apr-02 @ 02:48 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
hey K , those emu emaxes really sound as good as the s900/950? I have seen them so cheap, I may get a couple just to run some slice up loops from.
Message 149/157 25-Apr-02 @ 10:03 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
- "so why hasn't some brilliant programmer figured out how to do 12bit on a pc?" well, if you record with yer peaks between -24-18dBfs you will use only 12bits on a 16bit soundcard hence 12 bit recording. but its got fuck all to do with the sound quality of those old samplers. EMAX´s sound comes from its real analog filers, not from 12bit algorithms.
- "those emu emaxes really sound as good as the s900/950?" again, EMAX´s sound comes from its analog filters. S900/950 sound pretty poor compared to modern samplers. i dont think there´s a reason why you´d wanna use them, except if you´re on a low budget of course.
- "old fm is great sound. It's warm, and it's digital" man, if there´s any characteristic to FM is clear digital precision. why do you think it works best for clangy bell-like sounds? if you´re perceiving sounds as warm, try the same sound on a suitable analog and tell me which one is "warmer".
Just go and buy that DM24 for its good connectivity to Pro Tools, willya :P
Message 150/157 25-Apr-02 @ 02:28 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
as for the analog filters being the sound, off again.They add to the warmth, but run a 16bit sampler through a analog filter and you still don't have that sound 12bit sound. A eIII sounds awsome, but it can't do the gritty break beat drum samples of the emu sp-12 beacause it's 16bit. It's to clean. It's the lower sample rate used, and the compression etc that softens the higher frequencies and attenuates the lows which is why drums sound so good at 12 bit. Just ask every damn producer who has been around since the 80's. Norman Cook, William Orbit, all the hip hop artist. They still pay over a grand for sp-1200's. It's for a reason! The sound...
Message 151/157 25-Apr-02 @ 04:41 PM Edit: 25-Apr-02 | 04:42 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
man, you can resample internaly on your PC and get a 12bit/32khz sample on your pc, but it has fuck all to do with sounding better or punchier. i´m telling you, its other things about those old EMU units which made them desirable. anyway, go make a thread in smapler forum about S900, i´d be curious as to what people have to say.
as for FM, first of all i dont think DX100 sounds really lo-fi, IMO, and second you can get e-pianos which sound grainy as fuck from a K2500, which is neither an FM synth nor lo-fi.
and anyway, why did you liken lo-fi to warm? because of loss of top end or something?
"K-back me up on this". Brett, you wuss! )
Cheers, M.
Message 152/157 25-Apr-02 @ 06:13 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
in a bar, and it's my birthday
drinking salty margaritas
with Fernando.
Message 154/157 26-Apr-02 @ 02:47 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 156/157 27-Apr-02 @ 12:10 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
___________________________________
I had an idea for a script once. It's basically Jaws except when the guys in the boat are going after Jaws, they look around and there's an even bigger Jaws. The guys have to team up with Jaws to get Bigger Jaws.... I call it... Big Jaws!!!
Message 157/157 27-Apr-02 @ 01:10 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Viewing all 157 messages - View by pages of 10: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 16
There are 157 total messages for this topic
Reply to Thread
You need to register/login to use the forum.
Click here to Signup or Login !
[you'll be brought right back to this point after signing up]
Back to Forum