Our Religion
Active member
Well, I'm poking my head in on this thread kinda late, but.......
I record through Delta 1010's into Nuendo.
I record through Delta 1010's into Nuendo.
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
orson whitfield
Well-known member
I record at home with Logic 5.5.1 on a custom built (d.i.y. I might add) p.c. with several different sound cards.
Maybe some of you used Rocket Network before it was sold to Avid
? That was the best jammin'- over - the - net program. I used to collaborate with people all over the world. It was the coolest. Hey, lets get something going here. This is the perfect group of people to do this. I can sing if you need some voices.
Maybe some of you used Rocket Network before it was sold to Avid
? That was the best jammin'- over - the - net program. I used to collaborate with people all over the world. It was the coolest. Hey, lets get something going here. This is the perfect group of people to do this. I can sing if you need some voices.
chrissugar
Well-known member
orson whitfield wrote:
"I record at home with Logic 5.5.1 on a custom built (d.i.y. I might add) p.c. with several different sound cards."
Since 1990 all my computers were home made and built with the best components and optimised. My audio-midi computers almost never crashed in the last 5 years because are built with quality components, software optimised and nothing more instaled than what is necessary.
chrissugar
"I record at home with Logic 5.5.1 on a custom built (d.i.y. I might add) p.c. with several different sound cards."
Since 1990 all my computers were home made and built with the best components and optimised. My audio-midi computers almost never crashed in the last 5 years because are built with quality components, software optimised and nothing more instaled than what is necessary.
chrissugar
SideTopic/
wow Chrissugar... this looks like i have to give this some serious thoughts too as my kids are starting out with Logic 5.5.1 too and we're having a very hard time dealing with latency etc due to the onboard advance 97 soundstuff.
This is wading in deep water for me since i NEVER used my studiopc's for anything but interfacing my Soundscape DAW's. Sequencers and other stuff goes directly to my Soundscape hardware and with latency to an impossible to notice minimum there, i'm happy
Wouldn't mind in getting more stuff connected tru the pc's mobo/audiocard though, more in and out's is never a bad thing to have around.
wow Chrissugar... this looks like i have to give this some serious thoughts too as my kids are starting out with Logic 5.5.1 too and we're having a very hard time dealing with latency etc due to the onboard advance 97 soundstuff.
This is wading in deep water for me since i NEVER used my studiopc's for anything but interfacing my Soundscape DAW's. Sequencers and other stuff goes directly to my Soundscape hardware and with latency to an impossible to notice minimum there, i'm happy
Wouldn't mind in getting more stuff connected tru the pc's mobo/audiocard though, more in and out's is never a bad thing to have around.
chrissugar
Well-known member
When I say that my music computers do not crash I'm absolutely serious and I use WIN ME and WIN XP. I allways laugh when people say that the WIN ME is the worst operating system because I managed to tweak it to the level that is fast and reliable. Although I do not consider myself a computer man, here, in many studios they think I'm a computer doctor and they ask me to do the same thing to their computers.
Also it is important to keep things simple and install only the important things, nothing more. I'm not a computer geek that upgrades the computer hadware/software all the time, because it is a waste of time. I treat my computers like closed systems, like the RADAR for example. Build it , tweak it, install all the necessary things and then I make a hard drive image and save it to CD. I usualy do three backups. Never lost data in the last 10 years. From that point any time you want your computer to be like it was in the first day, you copy that image to the hard drive.
chrissugar
Also it is important to keep things simple and install only the important things, nothing more. I'm not a computer geek that upgrades the computer hadware/software all the time, because it is a waste of time. I treat my computers like closed systems, like the RADAR for example. Build it , tweak it, install all the necessary things and then I make a hard drive image and save it to CD. I usualy do three backups. Never lost data in the last 10 years. From that point any time you want your computer to be like it was in the first day, you copy that image to the hard drive.
chrissugar
john blackwell
New member
JH16 2" 16 track, or1" 8 track, or 1/2" 4 track Ampex ATR800...... To 1/2" 2 track Soundcraft Magnetics Series 20 2 track....All at 30 ips..... I think it is the only way to go... :green: But that is just what I think... I must say I love the sound.....
punk
Well-known member
I track, at home, to an old PTIII system. Digital so vintage you can 'hear' the convenience.
byron
byron
StephenGiles
Well-known member
In my mind - 1/4" 4 track Teac, but in reality Fostex digital.
Stephen
Stephen
hitchhiker
Well-known member
Are any of the 16 track 1" tape machines good enough to consider?
Or are the 16 ch apogee converters a better way to go?
Lance
Or are the 16 ch apogee converters a better way to go?
Lance
Lance,
this depends on what you need.
Tape sounds killer considering you have topclass machine and well maintained etc...
still edits take ages on tape compared to DAW's, that more or less throw out what you feed it.
Cheers,
tony
this depends on what you need.
Tape sounds killer considering you have topclass machine and well maintained etc...
still edits take ages on tape compared to DAW's, that more or less throw out what you feed it.
Cheers,
tony
Consul
Well-known member
I recently came across an interesting anecdote which is probably apocryphal, but still illustrates a point.
The story is, that some fellow was talking to Steve Hackett, of Genesis fame, and was complaining about how much he missed analog tape because "these new digital systems sound like pure crap!"
Steve then replied, "well, digital reproduces exactly what you feed into it, so what you were recording must've sounded like crap."
:green: :green: :green:
I know I've longed for a good analog deck, but I think I'll stick to digital for now. It's just cheaper and easier, and can still sound great.
The story is, that some fellow was talking to Steve Hackett, of Genesis fame, and was complaining about how much he missed analog tape because "these new digital systems sound like pure crap!"
Steve then replied, "well, digital reproduces exactly what you feed into it, so what you were recording must've sounded like crap."
:green: :green: :green:
I know I've longed for a good analog deck, but I think I'll stick to digital for now. It's just cheaper and easier, and can still sound great.
NewYorkDave
Well-known member
Funny thing is, if you talk to old pros who've been in the recording business for many years, you won't find many who are nostalgic for tape. I guess the bad memories of the hassles involved outweigh the good memories of the more pleasing sound quality. From my limited experience, it seems the folks most interested in tape these days are young people yearning for a "retro" experience.
As for me... well, I don't edit my recordings. If there's a ****-up, then I do another take. I record straight-through and don't do comps. For me, it's a matter of principle. I like tape best, but I use digital now entirely for reasons of space and cost, certainly not for convenience. My "dream studio" would be equipped with a 1" 8-track and a custom-made all-tube console :thumb:
As for me... well, I don't edit my recordings. If there's a ****-up, then I do another take. I record straight-through and don't do comps. For me, it's a matter of principle. I like tape best, but I use digital now entirely for reasons of space and cost, certainly not for convenience. My "dream studio" would be equipped with a 1" 8-track and a custom-made all-tube console :thumb:
The more and more I read this debate or quandry or whatever you want to call it, the more Im thinking people are really not seeing the core of the issue at all. If you are a good engineer, you'll be able to make a good sounding record on a tape machine or a computer. The process you need to go through to get there is vastly different for both mediums, but you can make a good recording on either if you know what you are doing. I dont see this as a debate of one medium sounding better than the other, and as digital technology progresses, it becomes less and less and less of a debate every day. I think the stage that we are at now, is in places where digital systems get a bad wrap for "sound" its not the digital technology but the cheap consumer crappy front end that many budget systems are stuck with, and THAT is what sounds bad and if you hooked up a tape machine to the output of an M box or something cheap like that, it would sound bad too.
The real issue, more and more in my experience, is the process. I think its REALLY important for a singer, for example, to have that little break while the machine rewinds between takes. It doesnt seem like much, but its HUGE over the course of a 10 hour vocal session. I cant even begin to think of how many good ideas Ive had waiting for a machine to rewind. That built in time is worth its weight in gold. There are many many many things like this between both platforms. The resolution at which you are able to tweak is another point of contention I have... It goes on.
I dont see the decision so much any more to do with what sounds better as if you know what you are doing, you'll be able to figure out how to get your sound on either platform. Its more about what you are trying to achieve and which platform is more appropriate from a creative perspective. I have trouble understanding why you'd want to do say, an electronic music project on a tape machine the same way I have trouble understanding why you'd want to do a straight forward rock record on a computer. Everything has its place from the perspective of the work flow, but I think the technology is at the point where the sound of it really isnt so much of an issue anymore. Sadly, people with digital systems have been lead to believe that you can get "professional" results for cheap. Most of the commercial studios I have been to that rely on computer platforms are still using a computer in conjunction with a very expensive console, so I dont know how realistic that expectation is. I mean, if you are mixing on a neve 8068 it doesnt matter much of the **** is played back from a studer or a macintosh, you know?
Anyhow, forget what the things sound like because you need significant investment to get a really good sound out of either platform right now, plugins are just a big distraction at this stage in the technology IMO. Figure out what benefits you creatively the best and then start building a system on that platform. Tape is cool, but I'd rather record kraftwerk on a mac.
dave
The real issue, more and more in my experience, is the process. I think its REALLY important for a singer, for example, to have that little break while the machine rewinds between takes. It doesnt seem like much, but its HUGE over the course of a 10 hour vocal session. I cant even begin to think of how many good ideas Ive had waiting for a machine to rewind. That built in time is worth its weight in gold. There are many many many things like this between both platforms. The resolution at which you are able to tweak is another point of contention I have... It goes on.
I dont see the decision so much any more to do with what sounds better as if you know what you are doing, you'll be able to figure out how to get your sound on either platform. Its more about what you are trying to achieve and which platform is more appropriate from a creative perspective. I have trouble understanding why you'd want to do say, an electronic music project on a tape machine the same way I have trouble understanding why you'd want to do a straight forward rock record on a computer. Everything has its place from the perspective of the work flow, but I think the technology is at the point where the sound of it really isnt so much of an issue anymore. Sadly, people with digital systems have been lead to believe that you can get "professional" results for cheap. Most of the commercial studios I have been to that rely on computer platforms are still using a computer in conjunction with a very expensive console, so I dont know how realistic that expectation is. I mean, if you are mixing on a neve 8068 it doesnt matter much of the **** is played back from a studer or a macintosh, you know?
Anyhow, forget what the things sound like because you need significant investment to get a really good sound out of either platform right now, plugins are just a big distraction at this stage in the technology IMO. Figure out what benefits you creatively the best and then start building a system on that platform. Tape is cool, but I'd rather record kraftwerk on a mac.
dave
NewYorkDave
Well-known member
I forgot all about the "rewind break."
That does it... tape wins! :wink:
That does it... tape wins! :wink:
hitchhiker
Well-known member
NewYorkDave, I'm lucky enough to be recording to your ideal 1" 8 track
ideal and I really do love it . For additional tracks and editing (seems to come up sooner or later in the fine tuning arrangements) I transfer into computer.
Sometimes I start to think I'd like to be adding the last important things
to a tape machine and then do the final mixing from there.
That being said ,doing the basic tracks is alot less going back and forth and so the machine and tape are not worked over as much as it happens to go with over dubs .So I guess for me it's probably best to stay in the computer and go for 16 ch of DA.
I really am enjoying everyones comments on this. I must say that if
a one inch 16 trk was to fall in my lap I'd still choose to make a big effort to make it practical .
cheers,
Lance
ideal and I really do love it . For additional tracks and editing (seems to come up sooner or later in the fine tuning arrangements) I transfer into computer.
Sometimes I start to think I'd like to be adding the last important things
to a tape machine and then do the final mixing from there.
That being said ,doing the basic tracks is alot less going back and forth and so the machine and tape are not worked over as much as it happens to go with over dubs .So I guess for me it's probably best to stay in the computer and go for 16 ch of DA.
I really am enjoying everyones comments on this. I must say that if
a one inch 16 trk was to fall in my lap I'd still choose to make a big effort to make it practical .
cheers,
Lance
OldHouseScott
Well-known member
MCI JH-24 running GP9 or Maxima 900 when we can get the client to ante up for the modest upcharge (maintenance you know) and tape cost. Alesis HD24XR otherwise. Transfer to/from Digi001/PTLE for edits as needed.
I use a TASCAM MX2424.
I can`t understand 18 mics on drums. I did a live recording of my 12 piece band the other week & only used 21 of the tracks (only 5 drum mics) & I was pleased with the results. Maybe it that I`m jealous because I haven`t got enought tracks & mics to put 18 drum mics up !!
I can`t understand 18 mics on drums. I did a live recording of my 12 piece band the other week & only used 21 of the tracks (only 5 drum mics) & I was pleased with the results. Maybe it that I`m jealous because I haven`t got enought tracks & mics to put 18 drum mics up !!
Svart
Well-known member
i guess my HDD post didn't explain good enough :green: , too busy being a smartass! I also use an MX-2424.
