n.c. wrote:i do believe there is quite a bit of bias in this discussion, and as i've stated earlier in the thread, i believe the bias is on the digital side.Wrong. It is tape recording, not digital, that requires bias.

Adam P wrote:Sorry, misread points 1 and 2. Mea culpa. You're less cranky than I am. I appreciate it.Adam P wrote:Re: point 3, ... Most any DAW will bounce your audio chunks to unique tracks with a common starting point with little more effort than a couple mouse clicks or a keyboard shortcut.Maybe most have that option. How many engineers do this and deliver it back to the band in a way that's as retrievable as a roll of tape? This is a critical point and not a best case vs worst case. It's what happens in the real world. As soon as the recording stops, the band can walk away with a reel of tape that has all of the benefits I'm pointing to. This isn't a best case scenario. It's what happens every time someone records onto tape. Coming up with a digital recording scenario that starts to give the same level of precaution means actually doing what you said for every song, then organizing and storing those files in a retrievable way, then transferring those files to a durable medium, then getting the band access to those files, then the band maintaining connection to those files. And then the future needs to yield the result you assure will happen - that they are immediately retrievable.This isn't nitpicking. All of those steps, though they may not seem like much, has to happen. If any of them don't - poof, it's not going to be there 20 or 10 or 5 years from now. Someone's gotten a new computer, can't remember the password, doesn't have the dongle, found that the cloud site storage went out of business, opened up the directory and found that the files are scrambled. I've had several of these things happen over the past couple of decades. Sadly, I still have the instantly playable c-60 of the first thing I ever did on my four-track: an immensely painful cover of Then Comes Dudley I did in my bedroom by myself in 1992.And here's the other thing - I'm happy to consider a bunch of less-than-ideal scenarios for analog tape because it's very durable. Reels get waterlogged? Recorded onto Ampex 456 circa 1995? No alignment tones present? Someone left an 18 speaker on top of the reel in a storage closet for 15 years? This 1 tape was somehow used to record some no one's ever heard of it 24-track format and you've only got an 8 track machine? The studio used to record it had fucked up azimuth and a machine that ran 1.5ips too slow? Splices done with deteriorated Scotch tape?In all of these instances, you can still retrieve audio from that storage medium. It will require problem solving, you may have to instantly transfer that reel to a better thing, it may sound not great. But you'll have some way to reconnect to that music.MRoyce wrote:the analog side doesn't quite grasp the digital aspects and crafts lop-sided arguments (Steve being a notable exception).There's nothing that's not quite grasped. If you've got a point to make, make it. = Justin

n.c. wrote:unless i missed something, isn't the point of these digital backup protocols that there is a high likelihood of failure?The point is that in the unlikely event of failure the data can be 100% recovered. It is important to realise one's own bias and understanding in these kinds of discussions. As Adam P points out above, a lot of analog v. digital debates are being done by where it's clear that the analog side doesn't quite grasp the digital aspects and crafts lop-sided arguments (Steve being a notable exception).

MRoyce wrote:n.c. wrote:unless i missed something, isn't the point of these digital backup protocols that there is a high likelihood of failure?The point is that in the unlikely event of failure the data can be 100% recovered. It is important to realise one's own bias and understanding in these kinds of discussions. As Adam P points out above, a lot of analog v. digital debates are being done by where it's clear that the analog side doesn't quite grasp the digital aspects and crafts lop-sided arguments (Steve being a notable exception).i do believe there is quite a bit of bias in this discussion, and as i've stated earlier in the thread, i believe the bias is on the digital side. in fact, it would have been (would be) a boring thread if the digi-camp hadn't behaved with such predictable bias. thread would have been all, "cool dude, enjoy your tape machines".

MRoyce wrote:n.c. wrote:unless i missed something, isn't the point of these digital backup protocols that there is a high likelihood of failure?The point is that in the unlikely event of failure the data can be 100% recovered. this unlikely event that seemingly everyone working in digital has experienced. as far as 100% recovery, this is in theory, not in practice.

just a few pages earlier i wrote wrote:we keep comparing best case vs. worse case scenarios. best vs. best, most people would record to tape at a studio the caliber of electrical. worst case scenario, a laptop will probably produce a more listenable recording than a cheap, broken 4track. but we (most of us) live in the in-between. thats where i'm saying, i don't think it's crazy to keep chugging ahead as a *mostly* analog studio.

bullshit flag taken, i guess. your point being that once a tape machine malfunctioned? it cost the band a take? noone said that analog was flawless. maybe steve did, but we've already established that he doesn't know anything.what i think analog tape machines represent (cue soft, swelling strings) is the end of an era when manufacturers cared more about quality than about beating everyone else to product launch. moving fast and breaking shit is cool, but once upon a time there was a fucking electronics repair storefront fucking somewhere and a company built a product with fucking test points so that it could be worked on. the compact disc is indestructible. they will last forever, and the cost will come down. this stupid fucking algorithm is an 1176. this program has zero latency. these samples sound just like a drummer. lies my it guy told me.if i had a 2000 dollar budget to try to get some recording situation going from scratch, i'd rather put together a tape based system. and it could be done. an 8 or 4 track reel to reel, small sound craft board, several cheap dynamic mics and a pair of inexpensive condensers. several reels of 1/4" or 1/2" depending.or a laptop, 4-8 input interface, same mic situation, lets pay someone for their software.idk, i'm just thinking out loud. of course, i didn't provide mix down medium for the analog setup. could be a cassette, or cd burner. OTOH, laptop memory is going to fill up quick, so some cloud storage at very little a month for the rest of your life. it's been a kind of a log day. kid was high maintenance. i like you guys.

n.c. wrote:idk, i'm just thinking out loud. of course, i didn't provide mix down medium for the analog setup. could be a cassette, or cd burner. OTOH, laptop memory is going to fill up quick, so some cloud storage at very little a month for the rest of your life. Tossing another "Bullshit Flag"...If you are seriously sinking cash into a cassette or cd burner mixdown situation instead of putting it into a dirt cheap Windows pc/cheap used interface/hard drive?You are tossing money into the fireplace.

n.c. wrote:i do believe there is quite a bit of bias in this discussion, and as i've stated earlier in the thread, i believe the bias is on the digital side. in fact, it would have been (would be) a boring thread if the digi-camp hadn't behaved with such predictable bias. thread would have been all, "cool dude, enjoy your tape machines".Time to throw a "Bullshit" flag here...A friend's band was recording on their tape machine once. At the end of a song, the tape machine malfunctioned and chewed up the end of the take. No possible way to salvage that version of the song that would never be played the exact same way a second time, and an understandably upset band didn't get back to work for a bit.If they had been recording on something like an HD24(records on computer hard drives), the odds that the same thing would have happened are damn near zero.That's not "Bias". It is a simple statement of fact.

Hi.Sorry to cross-post, but can any of you analog dudes play a 16mm mag reel (film soundtrack) from 1995 and create a WAV file from said reel?If so, let me know what it will cost me.THANKS!