Digital VS. Analog Mixing
 

Thoughts from a top producer and mixer:

http://www.avidblogs.com/modern-musi...and-pro-tools/

Re: Digital VS. Analog Mixing
 

If you are so inclined - pick up the new Tom Petty record "Hypnotic Eye" that was his first #1 record on the rock charts. It's a great sounding record and was done entirely digital: recorded on a Venue (48k 24 Bit and then overdubs and mixes all in the box on Pro Tools HD). No analogue summing.

You can even get it as a Blu Ray for full 24 Bit mixes and Surround Mixes. Which sounds amazing...

http://www.avidblogs.com/pro-mixing-...h-ryan-ulyate/

If anyone left in music/rock could afford to use an expensive analog desk - it would be these guys, but they choose all the benefits of tracking, overdubbing, editing, mixing and mastering with Pro Tools.

Re: Digital VS. Analog Mixing
 

This of course is only my opinion, but Tom's new record just sounds cold and sterile to me... 2D.

Listen to it in iTunes back to back against any of his hits, "Breakdown" for example... Breakdown just gives you a big sonic hug... very 3D.. It has tons of depth..

"U Get Me High" is flat, has mid / high-mid frequencies jumping out etc, etc...

I just want to turn it off.. Not pleasing to listen to at all, sorry..

I'm a huge Petty fan too, so I'm not a hater.

I hope he sells tons of digital albums, although I won't be buying one.

Maybe he'll release it on vinyl.. :D

Re: Digital VS. Analog Mixing
 

The source would still be the same when released on vinyl..

Re: Digital VS. Analog Mixing
 

Obviously...

For the record, I was joking with that comment, hence the laughing face.

But, just like printing to tape has some benefit adding harmonics etc, going to vinyl would definitely change the EQ curve, possibly making it a little easier to listen to. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

Re: Digital VS. Analog Mixing
 

I'm gonna go ahead and agree with you. Heard the whole record. Like a lot of the songs, but sonically it's small and 'plain' sounding...

Re: Digital VS. Analog Mixing
 

Considering it's basically recorded band rehearsals, I think it sounds pretty good. Agreed that it's sort plain sounding.

Re: Digital VS. Analog Mixing
 

Also lets remember something about vinyl. The more bass you want your album to have the wider the grooves have to be. The wider the grooves, less songs can be put on the vinyl. That's why that if you have a vinyl of just one song and compare it with a vinyl that has multiple song, the single song vinyl will sound better because it can have wider grooves for bass reproduction. You don't have that problem with tape or digital. Although for tape you needed to record on a much slower pace 15 ips to get deeper bass, but then other tonal instruments that sounded better on 30 ips were impacted by the 15 ips speed.

Re: Digital VS. Analog Mixing
 

Hi Gearhead -

Obviously there is a large subjective element to this discussion so I would start by saying that I fully respect your comments.

If you are a huge Petty fan, I would suggest you pick up the high resolution BluRay and check out the 24 Bit mixes. To my ear, it sounds pretty full, warm and is really a great representation of a modern rock record. This year I'm making an effort to buy more high resolution mixes and get away from lower res MP3's, etc..

They do offer vinyl as well on Amazon for $ 11.22 USD

Thanks,
Tom

Re: Digital VS. Analog Mixing
 

Thanks for the post... it takes courage to put stuff out there for critique.
Highlighting Avid gear, but still...

The tunes are plenty loud and clean!

IMHO, I think that 2D sound may be a result of too many elements in the song being compressed to the point where they seem like two inches from your face.

For me it's always about the song. Red River caught me right off the bat as the catchiest.
Reminds me of REM, but I would have omitted those riffs between the phases during the verses.

Regardless, the gear sounds great!


https://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/tom-zona/id282432285