ProTools vs. Analog

[Jules]

Yarrrs!

Re mackie comment, get yourself one (or two) 'golden channels' for overdubs. Some outboard classic, like I listed above they make the mic's sound a million dollars, and realy do make a diiference. Plug ins go across everything at no extra cost, well when overdubbing, so can a super quality mic/pre/eq/comp unit!!! you can get by with just one!
Highly recomended fot that Pro Sound.

Jules
Old dog learning digital tricks

[editor]

Hey all,

I mix the old with the new for excellent results. As stated above, if you don't use PT as the master when locked (lynx) to 2 inch, your missing the beauty and power of the system. PT in the right hands is a powerful tool, and a dangerous one in the wrong hands.

e

[NY909]

"PT in the right hands is a powerful tool, and a dangerous one in the wrong hands"


That's why I always keep my system in a locked room.

[Kip]

Hey guys, hope I'm not too late to throw in my two cents!

I've got an Neve V3 console, a Studer 2" machine, with a simultaneous record to DA88's. I much prefer the 2" machine because of the THD. A lot of post places use Pro Tools for Dialogue, SFX, and Foley, and get away with doing a smash job, only because they end up as blended elements, most likely mixed to 2". But one fella said it right-it's the engineer! Don't blame pro tools for over-compressing, or over-processing.
Whew, that's better.

[Robert U]

It would be nice if digi could gather a list of "digital bag of tricks" on their homepage!

------------------
Robert

[D Pinder]

take this little test, if you please:

From 1 (most important) to 14 (least), assign a number next to each of the following aspects of a recorded sound in order of importance to the overall product. Don't repeat a number.

___the microphone
___the mic placement
___the room
___the acoustic treatments (gobos, blankets, etc)
___the engineer
___the cabling, including patchbay
___the quality of the source instrument
___the tuning of the source instrument
___the quality of the musician
___the microphone amplifier
___the gain-staging
___the music
___the quality of the monitors
___the recorder and media (analogue or digital)

Now ask yourself, if you couldn't choose the type of recorder, how much would it matter if all other things were high in quality?

I think digitally recorded albums done on PT or even MDMs are often bad because the quality of most of the above is compromised, not that it's recorded on a particular recorder. All good engineers will tell you (to similar effect) that they'd rather have a stunning musician with great gear recording on a Fostex X-15 II than record some kid who can't tune/sing on a Ampex or Studer. Think about all the records you bought as a kid. Lots were fantastic but not all of them sounded great, in fact, lots of them sounded dreadful. These were 2"-recorded albums, friends. Only since digital has become "cheap" have many nostalgists (and younger, trade-mag readers in some cases too inexperienced to know) started remembering/imagining tape sound as being infallable. The recorder is not the only factor. It's in the hands...



[This message has been edited by D Pinder (edited February 29, 2000).]

[Mark Wheaton]

I came to ProTools, unlike some of you, from the lo-fi world of 1/2 inch 8 tracks and Portastudios. Therefore, for me, digital recording has radically improved what I can do for the money.
I agree with the reply by Pinder, that the other factors (mic placement,type of mic etc etc) have much more to do with a great sound than whether it is Protools or Analog, let alone 16 bit versus 24 bit or 44.1 vs. 96K. I know that there can be many advantages to analog, 24 bit etc, but if all the other factors are not there, it is insignifigant to the listener. A good ear and confidence that you are getting the best path from source to media is the single most important factor in any recording.

[Doug Shugarts]

D Pinder-

I like your list, but really, the music should be at the TOP, not number 12. Labels, producers, and countless others go broke regularly because they spend far more time worrying about their facilities and specs than finding good music.

Neumann mics, Grace pres, Avalon eq, etc. don't mean a D*** thing if the music isn't there. Analog or digital, it doesn't even matter.

Contrary to popluar belief, not even a great engineer can breathe life into a tune that was still-born.

[uno1234]

Okay okay
so we all agree that there are lots of factors that make music sound good.

But let's say you take the best tape deck and the best console in the world, with hardware effects and processing... and compare it to your full blown protools rig

using the same engineer, the same mics, preamps, etc... even the same performance. Everything is simulataneously tracked to both the tape deck and protools, and mixed through their respective mediums. Ignore the fact that you can edit and tweak to no end in PT.

It's an impossible test, so of course I am asking hypothetically, but which yields sonically better results?

That was what I was originally trying to throw out to the DUC. It's funny how these threads develop...

[This message has been edited by uno1234 (edited February 29, 2000).]

[Jonny Atack]

The question is not whether digital or analog is better. They sound different, as uno1234 pointed out. Accumulated over 24 tracks, that difference is neither subtle nor minor. Anyone who doesn't think so just hasn't experienced both.

You can relavitize all you want about the multitracking format, but at the end of the day, you want to improve your work in every way possible. And that includes using analog when it can serve the music.

Analog is not dead, only different, and it makes sense to me to take advantage of the strengths of each format.