Years ago I had a Fostex 4track recording onto tape,, but nowadays I use a PC to record. Whilst it easy to edit on PC. I cant help but think that the old analogue tape gave the better results over the mp3 (VBR320kbits) finished mix. Maybe I got rose tinted hearing when it come to old stuff. Whats the con-census of recording out there in the nation?
You need to be a member of Cigar Box Nation to add comments!
I use a Korg D1600mkII. I used to own an Akai 4 track that sounded really nice but with all the other gear needed to get a good sound it got really expensive. Buying tape was another issue. I ordered some from ebay once and the stuff was so brittle you couldn't use it.
I agree with Myke....crap in...crap out. The proper use of mics and placement is so important.
Digital or analog? I think that's a question that was raised more in the time when things were changing and the die hards couldn't let go of their tape reels
When I record I like to take my time,experiment with things(always take notes for when something works good) and remember that worst case I can always hit undo and start over!
Recently i did a mix which a friend played loud through his PA rig and its sounded awful. it had that what i call digitized sound which i did hear through my home set up. I think its down the the ipod on a dj rig sounds good through the earphone but really crap in the dance hall. I am tempted to try using a FLAC codec to record with and see what the results are like. I know ultimately there are always pros and con for the new and old methods. has anyone tried a CD recording (backing track) through a PA like when gigging or something?
i use a Roland VS 2480 HD. it's 24bit,96kh resolution. an all-in-one.
full dynamics and eq on each channel. onboard efx and much more.
i like it perfect for the way i record. everything i need is there and
available. with the onboard effects i dont have to mess with plug-ins.
zero latentcy monitoring,lots of analog and digital in and out options,
and incredibly portable.
but the question of is it better or worse than analog is kinda a tough one.
the recorder is just part of the equation. mic's are your link to your recorder,
digital or analog. decent mic's,and good mic techniques play a huge part in
your recorded sound. then there's mic pre's and more,and we could go on and
on.
one thing i've learned is,regardless of what you record on,if what you record
sounds like crap,then your recording will sound like crap. crap in=crap out.
and i firmly believe that most folks(myself included) couldn't tell the difference
between a digital recording and an analog recording if asked to do so.
I have tried to keep up with all the tech through the years but I must admit that there are so many variables that I can not paint it back and white. First of all, you are calling it by the results of the finished mix. The winner is what it is, but your question ponders the quality of the process to get there. There is something to be said for a all in one box. It usually provides just the things needed to produce a likable result. I think that the expansion of tech for digital music has open a lot of ground that needs to be covered so that the results are equally likable.
Are you sure that your fostex is truly analog? I think there was a era of small track recorders that recorded digitally onto tape. I could see these little boxes giving remarkable results with little for the user to have to worry about. If your box is truly analog, it just can not produce the quality of frequencies compared to anything digital because you just can not run enough tape over the tape head fast enough to get a recording even close to digital. Or... are you recording something that high frequencies are not used. It still would affect its ability to record presence or depth to the listeners ear.
IT was a lot easier to set up a live recording with little equipment and capture the live band feel. When we do the same thing with digital, it seems that we have to take great care to separate mics in the mix because the equipment is so accurate at giving us everything when we maybe do not want it. It takes much more care and work to get a clean recording with all the ability of digital, but if it is done, the recording isn't even in the same ball park and far above the analog recording.
Keep in mind, this opinion assumes that we are talking about low cost equipment back in the day compared to low cost computer recordings of today's recording.
Replies
I agree with Myke....crap in...crap out. The proper use of mics and placement is so important.
Digital or analog? I think that's a question that was raised more in the time when things were changing and the die hards couldn't let go of their tape reels
When I record I like to take my time,experiment with things(always take notes for when something works good) and remember that worst case I can always hit undo and start over!
full dynamics and eq on each channel. onboard efx and much more.
i like it perfect for the way i record. everything i need is there and
available. with the onboard effects i dont have to mess with plug-ins.
zero latentcy monitoring,lots of analog and digital in and out options,
and incredibly portable.
but the question of is it better or worse than analog is kinda a tough one.
the recorder is just part of the equation. mic's are your link to your recorder,
digital or analog. decent mic's,and good mic techniques play a huge part in
your recorded sound. then there's mic pre's and more,and we could go on and
on.
one thing i've learned is,regardless of what you record on,if what you record
sounds like crap,then your recording will sound like crap. crap in=crap out.
and i firmly believe that most folks(myself included) couldn't tell the difference
between a digital recording and an analog recording if asked to do so.
Myke
Are you sure that your fostex is truly analog? I think there was a era of small track recorders that recorded digitally onto tape. I could see these little boxes giving remarkable results with little for the user to have to worry about. If your box is truly analog, it just can not produce the quality of frequencies compared to anything digital because you just can not run enough tape over the tape head fast enough to get a recording even close to digital. Or... are you recording something that high frequencies are not used. It still would affect its ability to record presence or depth to the listeners ear.
IT was a lot easier to set up a live recording with little equipment and capture the live band feel. When we do the same thing with digital, it seems that we have to take great care to separate mics in the mix because the equipment is so accurate at giving us everything when we maybe do not want it. It takes much more care and work to get a clean recording with all the ability of digital, but if it is done, the recording isn't even in the same ball park and far above the analog recording.
Keep in mind, this opinion assumes that we are talking about low cost equipment back in the day compared to low cost computer recordings of today's recording.
Some people swear by tape; I recently saw Jack White in It Might Get Loud using a reel to reel.