| March 26th, 2005 12:45 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
Alot of folks here, and especially at Shadoobie are concerend about this "digital" thing and The Stones using it to record.
*Just because there is digital somewhere in the recording chain doesn't mean it will sound "cold", "tinny", or too "clean".
There are a BILLION ways to record and the way it's done, the out-board gear used, the Amps setting, guitar tuning, microphones used, rooms used, etc. etc. and many other tricks and techniques is what really makes the difference in the sound type for an album. A really Good Engineer and Producer with high end gear (All of which I am sure they have at Micks)can make a recording sound warm enough to the point where most folks (and for sure the average listener) would not be able to tell if it was an all analog or digital based chain being used to record the thing. Also the general opinion in most of the people listening, or a person with an untrained ear that did not know the difference may choose the entirely digitaly processed track over an all analog produced recording just because it still had alot of warmth but had better instrumental seperation. It really all depends on what, and how the engineers, producers, and to a point, how our band does their job.
....In one way or another every single CD ever produced went digital in the end. A CD is a digital format. Reguardless, it doesn't really mean anything. Look how nice and warm the remasters sound. They were all remastered digitally using the new SA-CD encoding/decoding process known as DSD (direct stream digital). The live, realness, and dynamics are really good. Plus it keeps it warm sounding. Oh-Oh, Does this mean this release will be an SACD Hybrid??? I surely hope. What a great sound it is.
Ian
[Edited by IanBillen]
[Edited by IanBillen] |
| March 26th, 2005 09:37 AM |
|
|
| gimmekeef |
Ian , I believe the SACD format is dying.Its great but most compatible players are being deeply discounted and few if any releases are inSACD.I've heard a new technology is replacing it thats supposedly even better etc...As far as the new album just give me 3-4 real good rockers I'll be happy regardlesss of format! |
| March 26th, 2005 10:45 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
One good rocker would be great! I fear this digital recording will make everything cold & sterile though. Trouble ahead, girls! |
| March 26th, 2005 11:31 AM |
|
|
| Cocaine Eyes |
I feel the same as the poster above does. I do not want my Stones to sound perfect, clear and pristine. I don't want a George Martin sound. |
| March 26th, 2005 11:35 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
Glencar,
Cocaine Eyes,
See my original post. Digital does NOT necessarily mean "cold, Clean, or Mechanical" sound. Discussing this matter concerning all the folks worrying over nothing was my reasoning for the post in the first place.
Ian
[Edited by IanBillen] |
| March 26th, 2005 11:44 AM |
|
|
| justinkurian |
There's a difference between transferring something digitally and recording it digitally.
Clapton's last album was recorded digitally and is the coldest thing I've ever heard. Compare that to 'From The Cradle.' Completely different. Be it, there were two different producers, but still. It has a lot to do with the way it was recorded...at least that's my opinion. |
| March 26th, 2005 01:15 PM |
|
|
| wgwalsh |
Clean, brilliant musical sound is orgasmic. Digital technology should be embraced. Analog technology should be respected.
Even though LET IT BLEED was recorded almost 40 years ago, the SACD format did yield yet another audio perspective. My personal favorite, LOVE IN VAIN, sounds like the boys are in my living room. |
| March 27th, 2005 12:14 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
quote:
wgwalsh wrote:
Clean, brilliant musical sound is orgasmic. Digital technology should be embraced. Analog technology should be respected.
Even though LET IT BLEED was recorded almost 40 years ago, the SACD format did yield yet another audio perspective. My personal favorite, LOVE IN VAIN, sounds like the boys are in my living room.
_______________________________________________________________________
Yes, you a right. I used to have my friends close their eyes and I would play Love in Vain at a decently high volume. Then I used to tell them "doesn't it seem as if they are right there next to you on live microphones".
They were quite impressed and whole heartedly agreed.
I always said Love in Vain on Let it Bleed is the best product SA-CD had delivered as far as the Stones catalog goes. So life like and live in your room it sounds.
Ian
[Edited by IanBillen] |
| March 27th, 2005 09:46 PM |
|
|
| CraigP |
No matter what the format, the sound-quality will be
state-of-the-art. Always has been some of the best. |
| March 28th, 2005 06:01 AM |
|
|
| mac_daddy |
quote:
justinkurian wrote:
There's a difference between transferring something digitally and recording it digitally.
yes. and the abkco remasters were transfers (for the most part)
quote:
justinkurian also wrote:
Clapton's last album was recorded digitally and is the coldest thing I've ever heard. Compare that to 'From The Cradle.' Completely different. Be it, there were two different producers, but still. It has a lot to do with the way it was recorded...at least that's my opinion.
alot of this has to do with the processing/mastering process (what is done after the live stuff is recorded, and the cd is burned)...
this is where all of the real problems come from. the majority of people listen to music on equipment that is unable to reproduce a full dynamic range, so much of todays music is compressed. this means smoothing out the highs and lows, not making an mp3. also, bass is reduced, as again, most people do not have systems that can accurately reproduce a full bottom end. so when the untouched, dynamic recording is played on a boombox, people bitch and say "there isnt enough bass" when in fact there is, the boom box just truncates the information because it is not able to reproduce it. so producers boost the bass frequencies that boomboxes can reproduce, and then the source sounds funny on a hi-rez playback system...
it is all in the production, not the format...
now dsd (sacd) is something a bit different. for the abkco releases, the master tapes were played back and captured
to digital using dsd - meaning a higher samplerate, and a different word length. to do any editing would be o take the music from dsd > pcm > dsd, but once it has been in pcm, it kind of defeats the purpose, as pcm is lower rez then dsd. that is why there are anomalies from the master tapes in alot of the abkco reissues (midnight rambler on yayas being a prime example)...
now if the band is recording to pcm, likely, then the producer, engineer can do anything, including screw up the sound, in the editing process. if the stones are recording to dsd, unlikely because there are only a handful of dsd recorders in the world, then they would NOT be editing, bexause you dont edit DSD; rather just would just be capturing live performances that they laid down. this would be f*cking fantastic, but i highly doubt they are doing it. i expect that if they are doing the homegrown bit, they are someplace where PCM tracks can be manipulated just like analog tracks used to be. nowadays that means a room large enough to hold all the band gear, and that has enough space to allow them to play, and somebody with a few g4s linked together running protools...
|
| March 30th, 2005 03:00 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
Mac_daddy wrote:
"so producers boost the bass frequencies that boomboxes can reproduce, and then the source sounds funny on a hi-rez playback system..."
A good producer will listen to the mix on a handfull of players.
1. The Studio monitors
2. A decent home stereo
3. A boombox or a car stereo
He/(or she) should try and find a mix that sounds good on all these components while still capturing the sound he and or the band wants. If it sounds good on all of the above then he or she has it. If it lacks terribly on one or the other then often volume levels must be adjusted to fit all three of these into the picture.
And not to disagree with you. You are right in your statements. I'd like to shed light on many folk's perception of what Pro-Tools is used for. It is not really used for effects in a multi-million dollar studio.
Protools is more an editing program for bands like The Stones than is used as an actual mixing program. An actual digital mixer should be used to EQ, and adjust volume levels perform the mix-down etc. etc. High end digital effects units can be used to add the desired audio effects.
As for me. I would never use protools as the mixing program if I had a 400,000 SSL board in front of me.
Good input Mac_daddy
Ian
|
| March 30th, 2005 03:19 AM |
|
|
| Zack |
Fascinating post, macdaddy.
If the songs are shite, however, the sound doesn't mean much. That's my worry. |
|
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]