joelb wrote:The woman in the band saying "Yeah, digital's great cause you can move the bridge around and see where it fits, and it's not like you have to get it all right on the first take."

You wouldn't want to have to actually practice and perfect your art on your own before you record it, now would you?

Nah. Why bother? image is really the only thing that matters.
Saleable image + Protools =s $$$$$$$$$$ (or 'break-out band 2007)

joelb wrote:The woman in the band saying "Yeah, digital's great cause you can move the bridge around and see where it fits, and it's not like you have to get it all right on the first take."

You wouldn't want to have to actually practice and perfect your art on your own before you record it, now would you?

i thought that was funny too. obviously being able to play ones songs isn't a priority in most studios.

i wonder why steve didn't participate in the listening test. or did he, and get them all right, thereby blowing the curve?

and people say they can tell the difference between 192kbps and 320kbps. bullshit.

I smiled when imagining a screwdriver going through Ken Andrews' head immediately after that ahead of the curve remark. asshole.



...and...

enframed wrote:and people say they can tell the difference between 192kbps and 320kbps. bullshit.

really???

to me, the top end is still kind of goofy with most encoding algorithms at 192.

joelb wrote:The woman in the band saying "Yeah, digital's great cause you can move the bridge around and see where it fits, and it's not like you have to get it all right on the first take."

You wouldn't want to have to actually practice and perfect your art on your own before you record it, now would you?

The irony here is that it takes exponentially more time and agony to clean up, C&P and quantize a sloppy take and make it sound reasonably passable than it does to actually spend an extra week rehearsing. It's been a few years since I've been in front of a ProTools desk but this can't possibly have changed since then.

Super-duper retarded.

At first, I was like, "this is not very rigorously put together, but what do I expect etc." By the end, I was like, "that is a complete waste of time."

To say that was a ridiculous test is understating it by a lot.

also, sitting in front of an ICON instead of a real desk automatically makes you a huge fucking dick.


screwdriver, ken. screwdriver.

joelb wrote:The woman in the band saying "Yeah, digital's great cause you can move the bridge around and see where it fits, and it's not like you have to get it all right on the first take."

You wouldn't want to have to actually practice and perfect your art on your own before you record it, now would you?

Los Angeles - City of Mediocracy.

enframed wrote:and people say they can tell the difference between 192kbps and 320kbps. bullshit.

I think I can tell the difference between these two, but once you start comparing 320 to PCM I start to lose the plot. Trouble is, I never listen to mp3s on my home audio system. Other factors cause differences before the quality of the playback format becomes an issue. My guess is that I could not tell the difference between state-of-the-art digital and analog recording playback assuming no one was doing any tricky dick during the session.

By focusing on any differences that may or may not be there between sound quality in digital and analog recording and playback, this piece missed an opportunity to actually talk about the shitty sound produced by so many bands that aren't actually prepared to record.

areopagite wrote: There's character in both, but not really any character in a digital studio.

I have to disagree because we record 99% digital these days and if there was no "character" we would not be working 6-7 days a week at least 12 hours a day. There certainly are much cheaper ways to record. We are in business and we have to cater to what our clientele wants and needs. The majority of our clients are classical, jazz and acoustic musicians and they prefer the sound of digital recording.

I make no judgements as most of these people have very well-trained ears and have made many recordings on tape as many of them have been playing for 30+ years.

People come here because the "character" of proper rooms, microphones, preamps and engineering skills. Simply having a tape machine does not guarantee "character" or a great recording. And dismissing a studio due to the methodology of the recording medium is spurious reasoning.

I don't really have a problem with Ken's take on things. He's wrong about stuff, but so what. The thing about how he behaved to the opening band, that's gross, but as concerns his computer recording and what-have-you, I really couldn't care less.

I declined to participate in the test, because I knew it would be a retarded fuckfest of stupid. I had participated in a much more rigorous test before, and it was still a pain in the ass and established nothing. The one on TV was straight retarded.

The audible differences between digital and analog records are more differences in method than in sound quality, because the digital methods imply an overlay of aesthetic interference (you could say conformity) which absolutely is audible.

That is, if bands make separate albums, alternately on protools, using standard protools methods and on tape machines, using standard analog methods, the ones made on protools could be identified by anyone familiar with the bands and the techniques to a high degree of reliability.

I'd make a substantial wager to that effect.