I believe what makes you cringe is not a hypothetic "digital sound"; I'd rather think it's the result of the so-called "loudness war", which, indeed has criticizable subjective and objective hatable issues.80hinhiding said:
-
- Thread starter 80hinhiding
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
DerEber
Well-known member
Before you spend any high amount of money on AD it would be cool If you could share any sound samples.
The Zed 16 is the converter in the A&H desk?
Also make sure that high latency doesn't spoil your timing.
This will make very different impact on depending whats your music is like.
I wouldn't think about latency for most songwriter stuff.
But it could totally spoil timing recording a scratchtrack to a tricky beat.
The Zed 16 is the converter in the A&H desk?
Also make sure that high latency doesn't spoil your timing.
This will make very different impact on depending whats your music is like.
I wouldn't think about latency for most songwriter stuff.
But it could totally spoil timing recording a scratchtrack to a tricky beat.
scott2000
Well-known member
DerEber said:
Can you expand on this a bit? Sounds interesting if I'm understanding what you are getting at..
And to 80......
To remind I'd also share that there are the million little things that Ruari pointed out in regards to successfully dealing with digital and mixing. All the processes have certain costs I would say and, these all need to be taken into account in order to obtain and preserve as much of the sound you hear after all of the processing is finished. Digital isn't a free lunch but this is definitely outweighed by it's convenience imo. I also feel At the end of the day, a good ME can lift a lot of this weight from your shoulders by breathing some things back into material and then some so, if you can focus on that fact a bit, it can make it easier to let yourself go into the song creation while paying attention to reasonable constraints to avoid unnecessary processing that possibly may not be handled in the best way. To have a good ME to help is an invaluable thing and I highly recommend seeking out one who you can trust to share your work with if you haven't already. More of them are dealing with stems too which really can help the process. Of course there are costs that have to be weighed but, a good ME is never a bad investment imo....
I really hope you can get past this without straying too far away from your creative potential. But, playing with sounds is fun so, it's all good really!
Good Luck!
scott2000
Well-known member
Awesome!
I know it bugs me when I swear I can hear a difference in a bounce even though I should be putting my trust in the null.....
Godspeed to you 8)
I know it bugs me when I swear I can hear a difference in a bounce even though I should be putting my trust in the null.....
Godspeed to you 8)
john12ax7
Well-known member
One thing to figure out is if your issue with digital is the sound or if it's the workflow, or both. I know a lot would disagree with me, but imo something simple like a cassette 4 track is a superior songwriting tool vs a DAW. It forces you into the mindset of really focusing on the song itself.
On the digital workflow side consider a dedicated hard disk recorder, Radar, Alesis HD24, Fostex D-824, etc.
On the sound side try out the RND 542 tape modules, much better than tape plugins.
There is definitely a negative psychological aspect to a modern DAW setup. Decision fatigue is a very real thing, exacerbated with too many options.
In the end maybe you still just prefer tape. But is that really that bad? Just record and mix analog, most of the great records were made that way.
On the digital workflow side consider a dedicated hard disk recorder, Radar, Alesis HD24, Fostex D-824, etc.
On the sound side try out the RND 542 tape modules, much better than tape plugins.
There is definitely a negative psychological aspect to a modern DAW setup. Decision fatigue is a very real thing, exacerbated with too many options.
In the end maybe you still just prefer tape. But is that really that bad? Just record and mix analog, most of the great records were made that way.
Agreed, although this could go too far. I know some people who have permanently an Olympus recorder, so they can record any musical idea that's floating around. In the end, they have so much crap on tape that it's discouraging!john12ax7 said:
I think having to make a little effort is a filter that helps sorting out bad inspiration.
I use my cell phone for that purpose; when I wake up in the night with the most beautiful melody in my head, I need to really think, is it worth getting up, finding the damn cell, dialing the password, finding the app...
scott2000
Well-known member
Even Flow???? 
Thoughts arrive like butterflies
Oh, he don't know, so he chases them away
Thoughts arrive like butterflies
Oh, he don't know, so he chases them away
A little bit late, but better than never
Im a recording and mixing engineer. As time goes by i get more and more stuff to mix that people created at home, or finished overdubs at home after recording elsewhere. Needless to say that most use very basic setups that creates a challenge when mixed- chinese mics, soundcard preamps, you name it. add to that poor mic placement, and so.. harshness doesant always comes from 'digital sound'. But there are some ways to diminished that.
I would suggest what others did- build yourself a tranfer chain that you are happy with. There are a lot of good analog gear these days that doesnt break the bank to buy. I would suggest a good quality preamp that goes to eq that goes to comp. That way you can control and warm things before capture.
Hardware Tape sim is also to be considered. Then for conversion theres multiple options- from colory like Burl to a more natural like Symphony. I believe that with these tools you wont get an undesired harshness in your tracks. And any minor details can be treated in the digital domain afterwards.
As to that, earlier on this page i saw that someone wrote about frequency notch sweep as a method.
I do the same but the oposite- i use protools eq solo function, which is dimnishing other frequecies ranges beside the one that is soloed, and not notching for positive values during that process. That way you can adjust the finest details for the program materials as well as fx returns and sidechains through your tracking period without any unwanted frequecy/energy through that process.
I use plugins deessers, tape sim and summing sim alot to tame the highs the way i like them. Alot of time i put them first and starts playing through them, balance, and starts the mix process when every element is aligned and 'sounds right'. Its getting better every year and for a few years i feel that the gap is closing and its hard if not impossible to identify an ITB to a full analog mix. Its much more depends on the ears that makes the calls then to anything else.
Have a great weekend,
Avraham
Im a recording and mixing engineer. As time goes by i get more and more stuff to mix that people created at home, or finished overdubs at home after recording elsewhere. Needless to say that most use very basic setups that creates a challenge when mixed- chinese mics, soundcard preamps, you name it. add to that poor mic placement, and so.. harshness doesant always comes from 'digital sound'. But there are some ways to diminished that.
I would suggest what others did- build yourself a tranfer chain that you are happy with. There are a lot of good analog gear these days that doesnt break the bank to buy. I would suggest a good quality preamp that goes to eq that goes to comp. That way you can control and warm things before capture.
Hardware Tape sim is also to be considered. Then for conversion theres multiple options- from colory like Burl to a more natural like Symphony. I believe that with these tools you wont get an undesired harshness in your tracks. And any minor details can be treated in the digital domain afterwards.
As to that, earlier on this page i saw that someone wrote about frequency notch sweep as a method.
I do the same but the oposite- i use protools eq solo function, which is dimnishing other frequecies ranges beside the one that is soloed, and not notching for positive values during that process. That way you can adjust the finest details for the program materials as well as fx returns and sidechains through your tracking period without any unwanted frequecy/energy through that process.
I use plugins deessers, tape sim and summing sim alot to tame the highs the way i like them. Alot of time i put them first and starts playing through them, balance, and starts the mix process when every element is aligned and 'sounds right'. Its getting better every year and for a few years i feel that the gap is closing and its hard if not impossible to identify an ITB to a full analog mix. Its much more depends on the ears that makes the calls then to anything else.
Have a great weekend,
Avraham
Similar threads
