I wonder if the people involved in creating this video knew that Ken Andrews worked with Steve Albini once.

bluegreengold wrote:If the discernible difference in analog and digital recordings is due to method and aesthetic approach as Steve mentioned above, then it's evident that if one applied an analogous (hehe) approach to a digital recording, and refrained from digital editing muckery then the differences would be minimal.

I agree with this statement.

Another key point is that the preamps/converters on a digital interface have to be up to snuff if they're going to yield sonic results similar to the equipement in most high-end analog studios.

For example, I have a MOTU 896--really like it, use it a lot. But the preamps in it are no match for the shit they have at Electrical. I can and have made records using it, but I'm not kidding myself into thinking it's top-shelf sound. It's not. The audio preamps in the thing were not their top priority.

Also, this has been done to death on this board, but when I put music on the 'puter, I'm not kidding myself that I've created anything remotely like an archival master. If that thing gets corrupted, I'm fucked. I want it on tape once I get to archiving stage.

For true analog vs. digital comparison shouldn't they be using "digital-ready" speakers?

tmidgett wrote:

bluegreengold wrote:If the discernible difference in analog and digital recordings is due to method and aesthetic approach as Steve mentioned above, then it's evident that if one applied an analogous (hehe) approach to a digital recording, and refrained from digital editing muckery then the differences would be minimal.

I agree with this statement.

I'm just old enough that I when I started learning about recording, I was doing it on tape. Most of my work now is digital, but I never changed my working methods. A couple of years ago I engineered a record for a band with whom I've worked for a long time. On this occasion they decided to try using a producer instead of producing themselves, just to see what would happen. He was involved with a lot of pop records and had assisted with some big name mix engineers and that type of thing. We started off recording the same way we always do, but after we had a couple of tracks done he asked that everybody take a break while he listened through the stuff. When we came back, the drum tracks were a stripey black grid, and when we listened to what he'd done I suddenly realised: THAT's what that sound is on all those records on the radio.

The band spent a couple of grand on those sessions and in the end they hated the results so much that they scrapped the lot and we rerecorded all the songs in a couple of days.

And yes, even if I'm tracking in Pro Tools, I always mix down to tape.

What was that record w/ the dual Rob Lowe image on the front? I've Never run across it...

Mr. Desalvo wrote:..

Al? I thought you were dead.

could this argument be any more tired?

greg wrote: I am also assuming they did the AB-ing with a DAW.

I also thought this. I like how the AB test was also conducted by Digidesign. Sort of like having Ford Motor design a test for two new cars, one of them being a Ranger truck.

steve wrote:I declined to participate in the test, because I knew it would be a retarded fuckfest of stupid.

I wish they said in the show, "Albini declined to participate, calling it a retarded fuckfest of stupid."

I haven't watched it yet, but I feel safe in assuming this wasn't said.