Marsupialized wrote:man if you guys are buying new tools, get a sawzall they are fucking ace
and a shop-vac, get a shop-vac

seconded.

Though I've never recorded at EA, though I would probably never get to record at EA, though I would never get to work at or volunteer my time at EA, though I know nobody at EA even remotely personally, though in terms of business this makes sense, though this is absolutely none of my business whatsoever as I have no vested interest in EA, this news kind of bums me out.
I will go on record as saying that if I ever get the finances to record at EA, that motherfucking session is going on tape.

Charlie D wrote:that motherfucking session is going on tape.

otherwise your money is wasted.

you use digital...time and money wasted.

steve wrote:

uniquebassplayer wrote:It's so weird the timing of this also. We're preparing to write for our next record which we plan to record early next year. So, earlier this week I was scouting the interweb for good studios that we could afford. One of my first choices was Electrical but then I thought about the tape factor, and quite honestly when it comes down to the cost of an extra day in the studio as compared to the cost of tape, well I have to opt for the extra studio time.

This has been discussed previously, but this is a pretty crazy way to think.

The tape for an album session is probably less than the cost of a lot of things you will willingly blow your money on, and not using tape for "financial" reasons really means you have no interest in recording to tape. Of course it's less expensive to record without tape, provided you aren't going to buy a hard drive or anything else to store the session on, but it's less expensive yet to stay out of the studio altogether.

Not wanting to record on tape is your business and that's fine and everything, but blaming it on the cost is crazy.

I will have to respectfully disagree with you.

that damned fly wrote:

Charlie D wrote:that motherfucking session is going on tape.

otherwise your money is wasted.

you use digital...time and money wasted.

No offense guy, but you're a fucking idiot. Recording digitally = time and money wasted? That's one of easily a hundred really stupid things you've said here in 2007 alone.

Okay, I take it back. Offense.

Seriously, you talk and talk and talk about how you know everything about everything, and what do you have to show for it? Where's your recordings? Where's your awesome-sounding band that only records analog? What's the last band you recorded for that matter?

And tell us, doctor smart-guy, what are the odds of any band in general going back years later to remix their album, the only situation in which the proper archive of your original tracks (as opposed to the stereo master) is required? And how many times have you needed to do that, personally?

I'll answer for you... "I have no idea" and "Never".

Sorry to get off-topic on this thread, but geez. It's really all just displaced anger at Steve, for switching over to a Pro-Tools-only configuration over at Electrical. What was he thinking?!?!

don't worry, scott, your opinion means all of fuck all to me.

and where in any of that did you read any anger from me to steve.

my arguments against digital:
1. it doesn't sound as good.

the end.

argue against it, find the loophole.

if you're not worried about sound, you wouldn't be playing the guitar that you do, through the amp you bought, through the cabinet you chose, but you do so sound is a concern. digital is laziness. demos: fine. album: not.

i only know my opinions. which of course, are not fact, but i'm not shy about voicing them. disagree if you want. again, your opinion means all of fuck all to me.

p.s.-fuck you, scott.
p.p.s-chrome robes blow.

scott wrote:It's really all just displaced anger at Steve, for switching over to a Pro-Tools-only configuration over at Electrical. What was he thinking?!?!

I don't think anybody is really angry at Steve.
I can't speak for anybody else, but in case anyone mistook my post, I was saying simply that I was kind of bummed (as I was always allured to EA's "analog only" ethos), but I also inferred that tape vs. digital is an option and that I would opt for tape. Aside from the great sounds that come out of EA's rooms, there are also EA's Studers. I think that, for some of us, the analog only environment was alluring in that it contributed a fair deal to that sound. I think all of us understand that EA having a PT rig doesn't mean that the analog is going away, it's just one more option: A fuller toolbox makes for a better toolbox, right?
I can't speak for Fly, but I would assume his response to my post was more in regards to not liking digital, not at all about EA, Steve, Greg, or any of the staff.

Charlie D wrote: can't speak for Fly, but I would assume his response to my post was more in regards to not liking digital, not at all about EA, Steve, Greg, or any of the staff.

that damned fly wrote:digital is fine for some things. clocks for example

(thank you book of kevin.)

Actually, I was saying that *I* have displaced anger at Steve.

It was a, how you say, joke?

Their having ProTools at Electrical doesn't really mean anything even remotely negative, or sad, or even relevant to anything at all other than the fact that they can now more readily cater to the needs of some of their clients without borrowing a computer from somebody. Big deal?

I'm not angry at Steve, or Electrical, and anybody who is, well they's kind of an r-tard. It's like, what, Steve is gonna wake up tomorrow and think that digital recording is the way to go?

I was making a joke, acting like I'm so sad or so mad. It's called comedy of the absurd. I'm a master of it, though I'm apparently never actually funny to anybody but myself. Zut alors!

Good. I'm glad this thread has morphed into another analog vs. digital debate. I'm sure that's what greg was hoping for, and positive that's what he was expecting. Good show!