The Song Fight Bulletin Board

Southwest_Statistic wrote:If you where to walk up to any young person (20 or Younger) and ask them if "Linkin Park" is more talented then "Metallica", most of of them would say "Absolutely".

...which is why the only question you should ever bother asking a young person (20 or Younger) is: "Oi you - spotty, where's my hamburger and chips - I'm in a hurry..."

Southwest_Statistic wrote:The fact that modern studios can synchronize individual guitar strings and drum hits to within a few milliseconds is one of the primary reasons that most of the modern youth music market don't pay attention to the classics. Modern recordings just sound better. If you where to walk up to any young person (20 or Younger) and ask them if "Linkin Park" is more talented then "Metallica", most of of them would say "Absolutely". This even includes myself before I started researching studio stuff.

Whether a certain subset of the population thinks that a certain band is better than another band has nothing to do with how impressive modern studios are. Many factors are at play, marketing probably being much higher on the list than studio technology. If I was to ask a bunch of old people (30 or older) if Elvis Costello is more talented than Linkin Park, most of them would laugh, ask me where the hidden camera was, and then finally say "Absolutely" when I convinced them I really wanted to know. This in no way proves that Elvis Costello's recordings are better than Linkin Park's.

Southwest_Statistic wrote:The fact is that anybody who is convinced that Analog Tape is the recording medium of choice are obviously not taking advantage of modern digital mastering techniques or digital effects.

Or choosing not too. I think for every old school stalwart who decries the digital age 'cause he's secretly scared to death, there's a Jeff Tweedy who's not afraid to try anything and settles on analog tape 'cause it suits his style.

Southwest_Statistic wrote:For that matter though, I've always kind of felt like the "Warmth" and "Authenticity" people talk about when it comes to Analog recordings is just another word for "Imperfection".

Have you ever used a tape machine as a compressor? True "warm" tape saturation is something I still haven't heard accurately done in digital. That goes to Generic's point, too (even if he was just kidding): the warmth is a product of all the steps in the recording process. Saying you lose warmth because of the final medium is a bit like saying there's no point playing a Les Paul through a solid-state amp. Yeah, the final step can thin the sound, but it still sounds better than an Ibanez.

I love digital and tape! To me it is like looking at a picture someone has drawn. If I was there at the time Monet painted his lillies, I would have used my digital camera to capture the beautiful scene he painted. I could then use a PC based program and draw this scene in 3d. To me, both of them capture the same moment and possibly the same artistic vision. But they are not apples and oranges. I hate to see tape become extinct mainly because some artist still like to use that medium. I guess if there are enough people that still want them, someone will step up and take their dollars.

I've used both tape and digital and I'm a digital guy purely because of the convenience factor (*high-fiving whoever said something about no rewinding*). (I do not, however, harm any PC's in the process of recording -- I loves me faders and knobs.) However, this thought...

Southwest_Statistic wrote:...modern studios can synchronize individual guitar strings and drum hits to within a few milliseconds...

...gives me the heebie-jeebies just like pitch correction. I may not fully appreciate the "warmth" of tape but I absolutely appreciate the life breathed into almost any type of music by playing around the beat, bending into notes, etc.

Machines playing music makes me sad.

Paul Simon wrote:Some people say music that's their ace in the hole
Just your ordinary rhythm and blues, your basic rock and roll
You can sit on the top of the beat
You can lean on the side of the beat
You can hang from the bottom of the beat
But you got to admit that the music is sweet

I used to work in a 48 track tape driven studio back in the early to mid 90's
We had 2x2inch 24tk tape machines in two studios(1upstrs 1 down)
but they were syncable so making a possible 48trk

we also had 2 (then brand new) 8track soundscape units Digital recorders
This was the beginings of the digital dominace.

We used to record mostly on the tape using the digital just for vocal and backing vox arrangments or mastering, due to the ease of cutting and pasting and final levels on cds worth of songs etc.

I never really got into the digital side I used to like the sound of the studio as it was but my boss ran with the digital and became a convert then a tue expert.
Between the two different systems the sound we achived was awesome
and today although now everything is cleaner crisper neater and more loud- and within reach of even the tightest budget.......

the cds i buy today (or download hehehe) dont sound as good as it could it all seems too clean yadada

A miked kik drum recorded down to tape always sounds better than some misc sample fired at regular intervals

Ive just made the switch myself to all digital (I know wat Ive said)
and im finding it more challenging than I ever thought it would be to get depth in my mixes and just to get things to sound how i want em to seems a chore, and I aint quite got there yet. But perseverance will prevail

The reason ive switched is purely a cost thing I mean ive still got my Fostex and i wont be selling it for a long time but Ive always used cubase to work MIDImiracles for me an now with modernity and the constant rise of the technology its easier and cheaper for me to go digital at home and it takes up so much less space

Any way my point is I just recon that both mediums should be available cos theres things that both offer the process that the other doesnt
And surely choice is good for everyone

Wow

I didnt think i cared that much

long post

Southwest_Statistic wrote:
The fact that modern studios can synchronize individual guitar strings and drum hits to within a few milliseconds ...

I'm sure you were ignorant once too. What does this mean?

Generic wrote:

Southwest_Statistic wrote: The fact that modern studios can synchronize individual guitar strings and drum hits to within a few milliseconds ...

I'm sure you were ignorant once too. What does this mean?

Here's one possibility: http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/OEG20030124S0035

Generic wrote:

Southwest_Statistic wrote:
The fact that modern studios can synchronize individual guitar strings and drum hits to within a few milliseconds ...

I'm sure you were ignorant once too. What does this mean?

It takes a lot of time and effort, and it's not easy to do, but I can manually move audio data around to make the instruments perfectly on tempo. For example, let's say that my last strum in one of my Guitar riffs sounds a little late to my ears. Well, I have 2 options. The first option is just cut some of the audio data out of the recording right before I strum down, or copy one of the other strums which was on-tempo better into it's place. Also, if I'm using any kind of software to line up the instruments, naturally the first hit of the song is always going to be 100% down to the millisecond the start time.

Southwest_Statistic wrote:

Generic wrote:

Southwest_Statistic wrote:
The fact that modern studios can synchronize individual guitar strings and drum hits to within a few milliseconds ...

I'm sure you were ignorant once too. What does this mean?

It takes a lot of time and effort, and it's not easy to do, but I can manually move audio data around to make the instruments perfectly on tempo. For example, let's say that my last strum in one of my Guitar riffs sounds a little late to my ears. Well, I have 2 options. The first option is just cut some of the audio data out of the recording right before I strum down, or copy one of the other strums which was on-tempo better into it's place. Also, if I'm using any kind of software to line up the instruments, naturally the first hit of the song is always going to be 100% down to the millisecond the start time.

Option Three: Rerecord track.

Southwest_Statistic wrote:Also, if I'm using any kind of software to line up the instruments, naturally the first hit of the song is always going to be 100% down to the millisecond the start time.

Not sure what you mean here. Many songs anticipate the downbeat. Even by a few beats, and halves...

deshead wrote:

Generic wrote:

Southwest_Statistic wrote: The fact that modern studios can synchronize individual guitar strings and drum hits to within a few milliseconds ...

I'm sure you were ignorant once too. What does this mean?

Here's one possibility: http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/OEG20030124S0035

It sounds like they are thinking in complicated terms. Why don't they follow suite with the j-station and Line6 products? Why all the internal chip talk and over networks stuff. Develop a plug-in and maybe an external emulater and be done with it. Unless there is something I just don't get from the article. Digital pickups? Are we talking little jumpers to make them sound like different guitars? (I know, I know...they'd have a toggle)

Me$$iah wrote:Ive just made the switch myself to all digital (I know wat Ive said) and im finding it more challenging than I ever thought it would be to get depth in my mixes and just to get things to sound how i want em to seems a chore, and I aint quite got there yet. But perseverance will prevail

Well, you spent a whole lot of time working with tape and analog equipment to get the sound you were used to. Now you gotta spend a whole lot of time working in the digital domain to get the sound you're looking for. You should not be trying to get the sound of analog tape, you should be trying to get the same ideal sound you were looking for when you used tape.

It's the same with digital photography. 100+ years of mastering film-based photographic techniques (much of which was spent on how to get around its limitations) and now we have to figure out how to down-grade digital imagery to make things look like we used film. Both these technologies are still catching up, this is not analog vs digital. They are two different things with two different aesthetics.

Hoblit wrote:

deshead wrote:Here's one possibility: http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/OEG20030124S0035

It sounds like they are thinking in complicated terms. Why don't they follow suite with the j-station and Line6 products?

I think they're going for something altogether different. As it applies to guitar, this technology has two significant features: 1) each string is picked up separately, and 2) along with an audio signal, each string also generates control information, like a midi message.

The first opens up all sorts of musical options. Imagine running the sound from each string through a separate effect. Or half the strings through one amp, and half through another.

The second feature means you get meta information along with the audio signal, so you can do things with the sound programatically, the way we can now with midi instruments. A contrived example "If this note is 'A', played on the 'E' string, route the sound to delay channel 1. But if it's 'B', send it through chorus 2"

Or, as it relates back to Generic's question: "if this note is within 10 milliseconds of a down-beat, change its time to match the beat perfectly."

I dunno why you or I would want this, but I'll bet Jonny Greenwood craps himself every time he thinks about it.

I want to play Counter-Strike using only a Les Paul.

roymond wrote:now we have to figure out how to down-grade digital imagery to make things look like we used film.

Film resolution is far higher than digital. 35mm has the Equivalent of 5000 lines whereas Hi Definition is only 1200.
I have been known to be very wrong

Kamakura wrote:

roymond wrote:now we have to figure out how to down-grade digital imagery to make things look like we used film.

Film resolution is far higher than digital. 35mm has the Equivalent of 5000 lines whereas Hi Definition is only 1200.
I have been known to be very wrong

These are not rules to end all rules, but in general:

Resolution - modest digital (5 megapixels) beats print film. Slides are very very nice, but pro digital gear beats them still.

Dynamic range - in challenging lighting it is best handled by film, although digital processing in the high end is gaining quickly.

Color - digital wins hands down.

Noise/Grain - digital wins hands down until those challenging conditions make their impact.

But as I said, this doesn't make digital or film "better". It's the application and the end product that determines that. These are just objective metrics that generally create heated discussion and get people's knickers in a knot.

roymond wrote:But as I said, this doesn't make digital or film "better". It's the application and the end product that determines that.

I think that most people prefer the look of film over digital. If digital has a greater range in so many areas, why can it not better mimic the look of film?

15-16 puzzle wrote:

roymond wrote:But as I said, this doesn't make digital or film "better". It's the application and the end product that determines that.

I think that most people prefer the look of film over digital. If digital has a greater range in so many areas, why can it not better mimic the look of film?

I bet most people think consumer cameras are the things to compare. Most people haven't even touched a digital SLR, never mind a pro digital back camera system. For medium to high-end commercial work, digital is far better. Again, if you're shooting alpine skiing in 0 degree weather or dirt bike races in the rain, you'd better have a film camera with you, next to your digital axe.

Leaf wrote:

Southwest_Statistic wrote:

Generic wrote: I'm sure you were ignorant once too. What does this mean?

It takes a lot of time and effort, and it's not easy to do, but I can manually move audio data around to make the instruments perfectly on tempo. For example, let's say that my last strum in one of my Guitar riffs sounds a little late to my ears. Well, I have 2 options. The first option is just cut some of the audio data out of the recording right before I strum down, or copy one of the other strums which was on-tempo better into it's place. Also, if I'm using any kind of software to line up the instruments, naturally the first hit of the song is always going to be 100% down to the millisecond the start time.

Option Three: Rerecord track.

I made a kind of "demo" I guess you could say of the before-and-after when I edit a guitar line. Check it out. It does a better job of explaining what I do while editing then what I can write. <a href="http://69.244.191.218:82/media/music/so ... essing.mp3" target="_blank">Just Right-Click THIS link then click "Save Target As..." to Download</a>.

Southwest_Statistic wrote:I made a kind of "demo" I guess you could say of the before-and-after when I edit a guitar line. Check it out. It does a better job of explaining what I do while editing then what I can write. <a href="http://69.244.191.218:82/media/music/so ... essing.mp3" target="_blank">Just Right-Click THIS link then click "Save Target As..." to Download</a>.

Man, you explained that really well. (You also scared most of us off next week's Songfight. )

A screen shot might help too, for the "digitally lengthen or compress" bit. Do you chop the waveform up and nudge each clip, or use something like Sonar's groove clip editor to map the beats?

(Also: Roymond should be all over this for his Songfight Process podcast.)