|
Avid Pro Audio CommunityHow to Join & Post • Community Terms of Use • Help Us Help YouKnowledge Base Search • Community Search • Learn & Support |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Re: ProTools vs. Analog
Pro Tools is a tool like any other. A craftsman makes beautiful thimgs because of his skill and because he knows which tool to use. Analog is superior for certain things and Pro Tools functionality is great for certain things. Remember, making a great recording is not just about sound but capturing a special moment. If you feel the need to manipulate things so much that every track needs to be recorded in Pro Tools, maybe you need to spend a little more time with your musicians discussing what they will play BEFORE you record.
Anyway, this is how I work. (I do a lot of pop, rock and R&B). Basic tracks (drums, bass, percussion, elec gtrs, ect) go analog. Vocals, BV's, Horns, Ac gtrs go Pro Tools. I usually dump a quick stereo mix into Pro Tools for overdubs. Sessions go faster, you get more done and everyone is happy. You can fix things like timing and pitch problems quickly and its great for keeping the creativity flowing. Mixing is done through an analog console to 1/2" and DAT using all my favorite outboard gear (I won't even get into that). Don't get me wrong, I've done plenty of projects "all Pro Tools" and gotten great results, but I would have killed for a decent 2" and SSL or Neve. Enough said, back to work now |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Re: ProTools vs. Analog
Hi!
Im with Jules! I'm doing exactly the process that jules described before and I love it. I'm using an Amek 9098 mic pre, then an Urei LN1176 limiter then an apogee converter and I'm recording and it sounds wonderfull. I have both options (Analogue and digital) but I prefere digital, I'm happy with the sound of the apogee converters. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Re: ProTools vs. Analog
Unles you are slaving the tape to PT via a sync box like a lynx (and not the other way round, PT slaving to tape via USD or MTPAV) then you aren't getting the best out of PT.
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Re: ProTools vs. Analog
Hey Jules,
This reminds me of a question you asked me in a thread about 3 months back. Turns out I bought a Microlynx as a master controller/sync clock running both PT and MCI JH114 2" as slaves. Works like a charm. I record the big tracks analog to 2" (similar to Bretto's post) and overdub other tracks to PT in sync. If editing is needed on the analog tracks, dump it to PT via Apogee and away you go. Like you said, the old combined with the new is best.
__________________
www.capitolstudiosparis.com |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Re: ProTools vs. Analog
Bretto-- that's cool, but I know how I work and like it. The "other musicians" are often me, and I use PT as an arranging tool for fleshing out a song.
I've gotten great results with my Avalons, an Apogee Rosetta, and PT. For a while I've felt that PT was the greatest recording solution, that it could do anything it was intended to do well, but I'm now wondering how other people work, and which combination of equipment provides the right solution. As much as Digi wants everyone to go from start to finish with their gear (and Focusrite's), I'm wondering if people who have the $$$ and the choice are really doing that. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Re: ProTools vs. Analog
Cranesong Hedd, my mantra, I will get one soon, the beez kneeez for bottom end /gtrs into PT and accross the mix buss.
Jules |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Re: ProTools vs. Analog
Hey Jules,
"Mackie and "do it later with plugs" aint gonna make you happy." Could you be a little more specific about the Mackie ? I just wondered, cos' any good advice is welcome Thanks in advance ! |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Re: ProTools vs. Analog
Hey Jules,
"Mackie and "do it later with plugs" aint gonna make you happy." Could you be a little more specific about the Mackie ? I just wondered, cos' any good advice is welcome Thanks in advance ! |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Re: ProTools vs. Analog
I thought all you guys used analogue outboard (tape compression, Urei...) for getting that harsh digital sound warm again ?
|
#20
|
||||
|
||||
Re: ProTools vs. Analog
I'm not sure if this has been said yet or not in this string because I didn't read every post but this is an important thing to consider in this debate. Though the concepts of digital and analog audio have many parallels (i.e. recording a hot signal with out clipping) they are also two very different beasts. No argument there, I'm sure. The point is this, since all of mankind has been using analog audio since recording's inception, they/we have developed a "bag of tricks" for the analog world that many of us take for granted. This "bag of tricks", that has been growing for how long now, may or may not apply or translate to the digital realm. The digital world has it's own bag of tricks and considering the length of time digital audio has been around, it's bag of tricks has a lot of room for growth. For example, it's a common practice, when recording drums, to hit analog tape with an extremely hot signal to the point of tape saturation to get a naturally compressed (and/or "warm", sorry I had to throw that in) sound. This particular technique may or may not necessarily translate to a digital audio workstation very well. I'm not sure that we have yet found the "Les Paul" of the digital audio world, at the same time I'm not making any apologies for digital audio, Pro Tools in particular. In my opinion, (and who am I?) a digital audio project (Pro Tools especially) can sound as good as anything, period. Another thing to consider is what someone is used to listening to. No doubt, if you rip an analog 2" machine out of your studio today and tomorrow replace it with a Pro Tools system, you will notice the difference for better or worse. It will take some time to adjust to that change and more importantly longer time to develop your own digital bag of tricks. Also, and this is very debatable but consider that many analog components that have become classics over the years have done so because of their own particular "flavor" that they bring to audio (be it good or bad). I think that (quality) digital audio has a better chance of faithfully reproducing what was recorded without adding that flavor. This could be a good thing or a bad thing. Therefore, what goes in front of the digital system in the form of mic's, mic pre's, mic placement and engineering in general not to mention who's tweaking all the faders/knobs once the audio does make it to the disk possibly has more impact than on an "analog" system. I don't know, just my two cents... Jon Connolly Digidesign Product Specialist |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
how to patch the 8ch FoH analog input to protools. | Audioartist | VENUE Live Sound Systems | 2 | 04-20-2010 10:42 AM |
can you transfer my 1" analog tapes into Protools? | crushed | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) | 0 | 06-06-2008 08:30 AM |
Addvice on analog 8track vs Protools 002 | Moxon | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) | 0 | 08-15-2005 10:12 PM |
Analog to Protools Transfer Problem | ruben62 | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) | 3 | 06-16-2005 11:08 PM |
Protools VS SSL , Neves, Tape analog | LH | Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac) | 13 | 10-27-2001 07:29 PM |