The Song Fight Bulletin Board

Hostess: Well, I did mention the time wasted re-winding, and it was much worse on the reel to reel my buddy used. I can't imagine going back to recording on tape as the primary method of recording, for a number of reasons, but if someone (Eddie) has the space available to store that equipment, why not have a different tool in the shed? Maybe not a better one, but a different one. I do have cdr's, as I also mentioned, that are crapping out on me, and I have no idea if they salvageable, so that's no guaranteed method of storage either.

I'm not being pissy, and am glad that you broke up the warm (snicker) tone of the discussion. Anyway, it's all info for Eddie to digest and determine what's best for him.

I've stayed out of this until now because most people don't seem to take me seriously anyway, but now I feel like I need to chime in. I have as of yet to ever produce a recording that was done in 100% of the digital realm. I'm an old school guy guy, hell I guess I'm just an old guy, and I like the knobs and faders. My current setup consists of basically this stuff:
My mixer
My recorder

Throw out the fact that I'm recording to a digital medium which as noted, has big time advantages over analog in terms of speed of work, I'm still mixing in analog and to a digital medium by way of an outboard CD burner. But the signal chain in my setup as well as any other recorder is still using A/D and D/A converters. (That's Analog to Digital and Digital to Analog for anyone paying attention). In the end, 100% of the music you listen to at some point has been converted back to analog. If you doubt that you had better check your connections. RCA connector, headphone jack, et. al., those are all analog connections. To the best of my knowledge there are no real digital headphones or speakers out there because at some point the output has to be connected to something analog to make sound. If I'm wrong then please correct me but that device had better not say anything about A/D and D/A converters. And someone point me to a "digital microphone" please if you really want to be picky. It all starts and ends with analog for now.

Now back to the real point, Eddie if you're serious about your experiment then I think you should follow the same path. First record your stuff to the reel to reel (the fostex), and then bring it into your digital realm. (A/D) Do whatever it is you DAW guys do from there, and frankly this is where you guys lose me with all your latency issues and whatnot, (seriously if DAW is so superior shouldn't hearing what you're recording at the same time you record it NOT be an issue?) and then think about mixing it back into your 2 track Teac (D/A) before bringing that final mix into whatever converts it to an MP3 or WAV or whatever you guys do as an extra process. (Another A/D to D/A conversion) You could skip this if you want to but what I'm also considering is adding a final mix before my cd burner to a Pioneer 901 that needs servicing before I can try it. Whatever you do in the analog realm, make sure you "push" your analog recorder hard. DO NOT overload the signal from your board to the recorder, but don't be afraid of the red "clipping" light on the recorder's meters. Unlike digital, an analog recorder KNOWS what to do with a momentary overload of the signal (warmth), a digital recorder doesn't and processes it as a rather shitty sounding noise.

My current process for recording is through the board to my Fostex, and out of that to the Tascam CD burner and using Winamp to convert it to MP3 using outboard effects along the way both in and out of the final mix. I just have to say that reading the threads in this section never fails to make my head spin every time I think about going to a DAW. At the same time, I do recognize the fact that a lot of people here use a DAW setup and produce some amazing recordings. I just wish the changeover (for me anyhow) weren't as full of the apparent multitude of questions that would surely follow.

If it were me in your situation, I would start to think about my choice of mixer. In your case, you're going to need something that speaks to both of your recording methods and since you only seem to need to record in stereo going into the Fostex, you probably don't need more than 2 busses going into that. But then you will need your mixer to send it into your computer as X amount of separate tracks so as I said before, you can do whatever you digital guys do.

Here's another reason I decided to reply, I've got this old relic that I've been thinking about using for recording drums and bass mainly, which is where I believe most of that "mythical" warmth resides. (Maybe the rhythm and lead guitar as well, but I'm going to experiment like you) What I plan on doing with my setup is running those recordings into the Tascam 8 track unit and bumping them to my Fostex. At any rate I think we should both experiment and share / compare notes. I'll do some stuff in the next couple of days to give you (and everyone else who is interested) an idea of what I'm playing around with.


/ My 2 cents worth.

Dan O's "old relic" is the same model as I used to record all my songfight stuff up to "Shaving In the Dark" or thereabouts. My main reasons for going digital were (a) it was almost impossible to find blank 1/4" r/r tape in Phoenix anymore, (b) 8 tracks wasn't quite enough for what I wanted to do, and (c) it took so long to get anything repaired on one of these decks that I had to have two, and they took up a lot of space - not to mention all the space that the r/r masters took. And given that I use MIDI drums and horns and strings and stuff, and record all my guitars direct via a PodXT, I figure that any subtle coolness to be had from recording analog wasn't going to make THAT much difference in my sound.

Nonetheless, Eddie, I applaud your interest in trying this stuff out!

Charles (KA)

Good post, Dan-o. I'm interested in the experiments as well. I lived on my little Tascam Porta One 4-track for 9-10 years, as it was all I could afford, and frankly, all that I needed. But when I out-grew it, I jumped to digital via the Roland 880Ex, which is what the Weakest Suit uses, I notice. I still use a similar Roland now. Point being that for me, it's kind of like a bridge between tape and a computer. I'm kind of dumb, so the transition was difficult at first, but it's sort of a happy medium. Real time recording, transport controls, faders and all that, but the convenience of digital functions, all in a small space.

Being able to record on whatever, at home, is still the nuts. I'd do it on an answering machine if it's all I could get my hands on. So while this is better than that, and that's better than this, it comes down to what works best for you. Still interested in the discussion here, though, and I dig that set-up Dan-o. I'm interested to see what you settle on as well, Eddie.

Hi, thanks for everyones input on this. Just as an FYI I have a really expensive protools system that I won't stop using. My experiment(s) would always involve both systems. I'm just looking for a cool process to create a great sounding track.

I should be getting my 8-track back with in a week and I'll for sure post my results again.

It's also just cool to learn stuff. Kind of like in school where they made you do math by hand to learn how things work. Then they hand you a calculator.

Eddie

Dan-O from Five-O wrote:(seriously if DAW is so superior shouldn't hearing what you're recording at the same time you record it NOT be an issue?)

Seriously, if a PS3 is so superior to a cup and ball, shouldn't fitting it in your pocket NOT be an issue?

Seriously, if a motorbike is so superior to a pedalbike, shouldn't patching the tyres NOT be an issue?

Seriously, if a guitar is so superior to a tin whistle, shouldn't tuning it NOT be an issue?

Seriously, if fire is so superior to sitting in the cold dark dampness of your cave, shouldn't fuel NOT be an issue?

Seriously, if I don't know shit about a subject, shouldn't asking a stupid question as though it were a rhetorical one NOT be an issue?


(when I got to this point I decided I couldn't be arsed with the rest of your post)

obscurity wrote: Seriously, if a motorbike is so superior to a pedalbike, shouldn't patching the tyres NOT be an issue?

Motorbike....tires with a "Y"
You foreigners and your cute ways of saying things. It still makes me chuckle when i see someone of Caravan Ray's intellect saying learnt instead of learned, lol.

You can't be aresed with the rest of his post? Pure gold.

Ah. Now that's the incivility I was hoping for! Mission accomplished.

Also, instrumentals should be illegal.

obscurity wrote:

Dan-O from Five-O wrote:(seriously if DAW is so superior shouldn't hearing what you're recording at the same time you record it NOT be an issue?)

(A lot of references I didn't get until this one)

Seriously, if I don't know shit about a subject, shouldn't asking a stupid question as though it were a rhetorical one NOT be an issue?


(when I got to this point I decided I couldn't be arsed with the rest of your post)

I was kind of waiting for someone to beat me up about this as opposed to taking a more rational and tutorial approach like "Dan-O, don't be intimidated, latency is not as big of an issue as you might think, and here's why.......".

I mean it's only the "Help and How To" section, why would I expect someone to be helpful. Maybe you can help me with this, WTF does "arsed" mean?

obscurity wrote:arsed

Billy's Little Trip wrote:aresed

What I want to know is where the extra letter came from.

SPUD

Dan-O from Five-O wrote: I like the knobs and faders

... I'm still mixing in analog and to a digital medium by way of an outboard CD burner. But the signal chain in my setup as well as any other recorder is still using A/D and D/A converters.

That's interesting. I like knobs and faders, too. I just don't like tape. That's a pretty cool set up. Anyone else here do something like that?

But it's really a digital studio. Yes, sound is an analog phenomenon, because your ears and brain and speakers and instruments are analog devices. But "digital" only describes the storage medium: the format of the information on the disc/tape/wax cylinder. And the setup you describe above is all digital (until you get your 8-track going, that is).

Your Fostex has a latency problem. Every digital recorder does. Every digital medium requires a machine to translate the digital info into analog signal, and that translation takes time. Your Fostex probably corrects for that latency so you don't have to deal with it. It can because it's doing both the D/A of the playback and the A/D of the recording and the people who built it knew exactly how much time those translations take. Latency becomes a problem when different machines are doing the different tasks: a PC doing the D/A of the playback and an outboard A/D handling the recording.

For the record (ha ha), a headphone jack is not a D/A converter. The machine it plugs into is. The jack is just sending good old analog electricity downstream to the headphones. You can play a vinyl record with a toothpick and a paper cup. Try that with a CD sometime. Not a D/A converter.

Mixing a bunch of digitally-stored tracks on an analog mixer to a 2-track CD burner is a cool idea. Your EQ, compressor, delay, reverb, etc. can be analog devices patched into your mixer. And when you're recording a hot track, your mixer may be warning you that its output is going into the red, meaning some circuit in there somewhere may be introducing some distortion because of it, but that's not the "tape compression" and "warmth" that analogophiles revere. That magic comes from tape, which you're not using. (yet...)

Spud wrote:

obscurity wrote:arsed

Billy's Little Trip wrote:aresed

What I want to know is where the extra letter came from.

SPUD

That's the American spelling of arsed, just like tyre/tire. See, just when you thought that you knew everything.
note: this information is only relevant in Tripsylvania. Do not use the spelling of aresed on your next trivia competition unless it is being held in BLT's head.

Dan-O from Five-O wrote: (A lot of references I didn't get until this one)

They were all examples of something being clearly inferior to another thing in one particular aspect, but not necessarily inferior when taken as a whole. Hopefully the relevence is now more obvious.

Dan-O from Five-O wrote: I was kind of waiting for someone to beat me up about this as opposed to taking a more rational and tutorial approach like "Dan-O, don't be intimidated, latency is not as big of an issue as you might think, and here's why.......".

I mean it's only the "Help and How To" section, why would I expect someone to be helpful.

Well, if you're quite done being morally superior, perhaps you might want to consider that if you wanted answers it might have been best to actually ask a question. If you just take potshots at things based on limited knowledge of them, it's not immediately obvious to me that you're interested in learning more.

That said, Dan-O, don't be intimidated, latency is not as big of an issue as you might think, and here's why: You get latency when dealing with analogue as well, you just don't notice it, and you can make it unnoticable in a digital context too. Latency is basically the delay between a sound being generated and you hearing it. I can't remember what the speed of sound is off the top of my head, but it's very very fast, which is why it seems to be instantaneous. All you need to do is make the delay between the sound being generated and you hearing it be very very fast when using a DAW, and it will also seem instantaneous. Sadly, I don't think that digital gear is ever going to be as fast as analogue, but fortunately it doesn't have to be.

Different people tend to be more or less sensitive to latency, personally I notice it somewhere around 10ms. I've never heard of anyone notice it when it is shorter than 5ms, although perhaps there's some super-sensitive freak out there who can, who knows? Anyway, it's quite possible to get a latency of 2ms with the right kit (I acheived this with the kore controller's built in audio interface), and my current set up (yamaha 01x) gives me 5ms latency. Basically you just need good quality hardware with the right drivers (If you're a PC person, you want ASIO drivers that are specifically designed for your audio card, if you're a mac person I'm afraid you'll have to ask someone else), and a fast enough PC (as always, the faster the better). When configuring the drivers, the key thing to look at for lower latency is the buffer size. Smaller buffer = lower latency, but too small a buffer = pops and clicks in the signal (as the audio card wants to read data from the buffer that it doesn't hold). It's a trial-and-error thing to get right for your system, but shouldn't take more than 10 minutes or so of experimenting to find out what works for you. You can also help lower latency by having a higher sampling frequency, but that also puts extra load on your cpu when using VSTs so I tend to find it's not worth it.

Dan-O from Five-O wrote:Maybe you can help me with this, WTF does "arsed" mean?

In that context, 'arsed' means 'bothered'.

Mostess wrote: That's interesting. I like knobs and faders, too. I just don't like tape. That's a pretty cool set up. Anyone else here do something like that?

Not really, but if you're just after knobs and faders, you could always just get a control surface for your DAW (I also love knobs and faders, so I use the 01x as a control surface).

Billy's Little Trip wrote: Motorbike....tires with a "Y"
You foreigners and your cute ways of saying things.

You don't say motorbike? What do you say instead?

obscurity wrote:

Billy's Little Trip wrote: Motorbike....tires with a "Y"
You foreigners and your cute ways of saying things.

You don't say motorbike? What do you say instead?

He's a yank. He says 'MAH HOG!', as in "AHM GOIN' TAH MACDONALDS ON MAH HOG!"

Märk! As soon as I saw you'd posted to this thread I thought "I bet he's just posted to recommend ASIO4ALL to lower latency!". You're becoming unpredictable

I wouldn't suggest ASIO4ALL unless I knew for certain that Dan-O was using a Creative card

C'mon, though- 'MAH HOG!' is comedy gold.

If I knew he was using a Creative card, I'd recommend he just get another card

Yeah, MAH HOG was funny enough, I was just too stunned to laugh.

obscurity wrote:

Billy's Little Trip wrote: Motorbike....tires with a "Y"
You foreigners and your cute ways of saying things.

You don't say motorbike? What do you say instead?

We say motorcycle.
...but I'm going to start saying, MAH HOG.

I pick up my newly serviced Fostex tomorrow. I will be doing more testing on this issue later this week!

OK got the fostex back and man is it working out so much better then my teac! Very little noise.

http://www.ratchethaze.com/playingGOD_fostex.mp3

For those of you playing at home, do you like this version, or the original digital version better? Is there a difference? Any comments would be super cool!

Eddie