A forum devoted to record-cutting deviants, renegades, professionals & experimenters.
concretecowboy71 wrote:Personally I do not know many artists with the monetary resources to do an all analog project.
A crappy tape job with sound like crap on a record. The medium does not dictate the quality of the final product, the program material does.
Greg Reierson wrote:I'll do whatever they hire me to do. What they think sounds cool could be great, could be terrible, could be over my head and I don't realize how cool it really is - or the exact opposite. Who's to say. There have been a few head scratchers but that goes for a good chunk of the musical content we all work with anyway. Not really our call either way.
But as you just admitted - there IS a difference simply because it IS analog (even though two digital machines don't do THAT much better).jesusfwrl wrote:I regularly use two identical...with identical ...and identical... and identically calibrated.
Their performance is so closely matched, that it is almost impossible to hear any difference.
And the 2-track or mono mixdowns when that's all they had.jesusfwrl wrote:As for the Jimi Hendrix project, are you referring to multitrack tape?
A few guys did it, but everybody else mixed to quarter-inch, edited takes together if necessary and then cut their lacquers from that.jesusfwrl wrote:Was it ever common practise to cut the masters directly from the multitrack tape, through the output of the mixing console?
Once again - some guys did that, just like some guys did one-step processing vs three-step - but the guys that had the self confidence to do that on a day in and day out basis were rare indeed.jesusfwrl wrote:What if you would need to ride the faders? Would you have a mix engineer ride the faders while you cut the lacquer?
Where do you think all the DtD and later DMM guys cut their teeth at?jesusfwrl wrote:If you are going to be doing that, you might as well go direct-to-disk, it is almost as difficult and doubles as a selling point.
That goes back to the days of taking a whole multitrack session reel - setting up for the mixdown of that reel only and laying the mix of the whole reel down on single-pass quarter-inch tape - from which guys would edit e.g. the long-false-start of one take with a pickup of another take or punch in and out or etc. to make a complete take - that you'll never find on the multi because of the assembly process.jesusfwrl wrote:You can of course also do the mix down to stereo master tape in the analog domain individually for each piece that comes from a different session, after aligning the tape machine accordingly.
Which is exactly what these guys would do again all on their own dimes until they kept getting whined at by the label or mixing studio that they were using up all the time and other acts wanted to get in and get out.jesusfwrl wrote:Then, when you have the stereo mixdown for each song on tape, you can work on sequencing the album by cutting and splicing the pieces together.
Yep.jesusfwrl wrote:Whether you transfer the multitrack tapes to stereo tape or to digital, you'd still need to try to align the multitrack tape machine to each session.
Nope. But how many guys do you know are gonna wanna spend that much extra time and money to do THAT? It's been years since NORMAL guys in the NORMAL studios pitched a bitch about somebody sending them an e.g. digital transfer done by just any Louie Shmoo in the tape library who barely knows how to lace up nevermind do his own calibration.jesusfwrl wrote:The DAW won't fix that.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest