|'); } // End -->|
In Reply to: why don't recording companies make both an analog AND a digital recording? posted by rlindsa on July 6, 2005 at 06:50:43:
....don't know how anymore, I bet the recording studio courses use mostly digital these days, but that's not first hand experience i'll add. The engineers from the 50's 60's 70's and maybe some of the 80's all knew analogue, anyone from then on would have probably brought up on digital in the majority of cases. Then look at the amount of engineers who know how to prepare the music for vinyl, then the master and vinyl making process, i'd imagine if these skills aren't passed down soon, they'll be lost.
was at meeting with recording company (small) and question came up, and they stated it was to difficult, too much work to justify. i think too that not very many know how any more.
don't look at me! I make my records on tape still but they dont make tape. Good digital is overvalued and good analogue is undervalued but most people make records on pro-tool which has a strangle-hold on the market place. Tom lord alge, an untalented man, in my opinion, who mixesmany hit singles wont accept a remix on anything but a protools file.
Mixing in a Pro-Tools system is a no-no, if you care about sound quality. This is true for all digital systems. The best mixes are still done in the analog domain, whether the original tape is digital or not. When two sounds are combined in the analog domain, they modulate each other, but not in the digital world since the programming algorithms simplify the blending of different sounds. Sounds always modulate each other in real life, as well in an analogue mixer. The best way to describe digital recording is "unnatural-sounding" IMHO...
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: