|
Post by lewiscohen on Feb 10, 2009 23:03:36 GMT
Sounds great, man! Then again, I have come to expect that from you. Is that the Triolian? Thanks Zak Actually, that's a Delphi, tuned down to open F. It takes on a totally different character tuned down in a way that surprised me. It becomes more reverby but also sounds more like a classic steel National rather than the doesn't-quite-know-what-it-wants-to-be standard Delphi sound.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2009 8:41:48 GMT
Maybe because the cone isn't being squashed down too hard?
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Feb 11, 2009 11:34:19 GMT
But I don't see the fuss about digital (hard disk) and analogue (tape) recording.
Hi Barry, you have hit a raw nerve with me on this one! This is not actually aimed at you, but does touch on a subject that is very dear to my heart and is not something I can let go!!!! So please do not be offended as my words are not aimed at you personally. This forum prides itself on being a serious place to discuss a subject that we are all very passionate about. That subject is music and I have been recording and playing music professionally for thirty years.
The difference between digital & analogue recording is actually quite dramatic, but without doing an A / B test for you it is hard to demonstrate.
I think we are coming from totally different ends of the scale here. As I said I have been making records and recording sessions at the BBC and at other major studios for most of thirty years. During those years I have spent time in the company of some of the leading producers, technicians and artists in the business. I am as serious about record production as I am about the music itself and I have built a reputation for doing great production on my records which sell all over the world. You on the other hand are a very enthusiastic amateur musician that has produces CDs on a tight budget to sell at folk club gigs. This is wonderful and is not in any way a criticism, quite the opposite. More power to you! As you know I ALWAYS encourage people to be creative and make music and would never put anybody down for doing what they love to do. However, you have to understand that you are talking to someone who is on a totally different level when it comes to playing and recording music. This is my life’s work and is a subject that I have dedicated the last thirty years to. Whilst digital recording is something we all use and enjoy, there is no way it compares to the quality of an analogue recording. That is why so many major artists are now turning back to analogue to make their albums.
In my opinion the whole digital recording thing is another step towards our society taking the convenient and cost effective route to get results, rather than the real route. You are of a similar age to me so you should understand what I am saying. We were brought up listening to analogue recordings played on analogue equipment which was manufactured by skilled workers wearing brown overalls and had pens and notepads in their pockets.
You have a beautiful Fylde Goodfellow guitar. It has a mahogany neck and a spruce top and was built by skilled craftspeople in a small workshop in England. You also have a hand-built Beltona guitar and a hand-built Busker guitar. Your tools include a handmade Diamond slide and handmade Newtone guitar strings. Both your slide and your strings were handmade by VERY skilled craftsmen working in a real ‘old school’ way in tiny workshops. Following your comments about digital versus analogue, perhaps you should use a cheap mass-produced computer generated guitar, a mass-produced Pyrex or chrome slide and cheap mass-produced strings? I am positive that you would notice the difference.
My comments are not just related to recording and producing music. But in everything I can think of the convenient ‘digital’ method is taking over. That doesn’t mean to say it is better, but it is cheaper, more convenient and easier. Compare a real black & white photographic print taken from a real camera with a digital print from a digital camera, there is no comparison. Or compare16mm film to digital film. It is like asking Raymond Blanc or Gordon Ramsey to cook a meal with a microwave, or Claude Monet to paint a picture with PhotoShop on a MAC – once again there is NO COMPARISON. The real thing is THE REAL THING and although modern tools do make life very convenient and we all like to use them, there is no way that they are as good.
Having said all that - I too love the convenience of modern technology and digital recording equipment when it is used in the right circumstances. I am currently researching the world of portable digital recorders so I can make a live album of the Louisiana Red tour in the spring. I would love to record it on a Revox A77 with a pair of ribbon microphones, but there is no way I am going to carry that lot around the UK to record the shows! Everything has its place and the miniaturization of electronic equipment is an amazing thing, BUT…..there is no way it is as good as, or better than the real thing.
This is written with great respect to a very valuable member of our community who is obviously passionate & dedicated to the art of making music.
Shine On, Michael.
|
|
|
Post by lewiscohen on Feb 11, 2009 12:00:43 GMT
Having said all that - I too love the convenience of modern technology and digital recording equipment when it is used in the right circumstances. I am currently researching the world of portable digital recorders so I can make a live album of the Louisiana Red tour in the spring. I would love to record it on a Revox A77 with a pair of ribbon microphones, but there is no way I am going to carry that lot around the UK to record the shows! If you are planning to do that digitally, then you might find the Korg D888 an option worth considering, Michael. It's a fairly compact mixer/hard disk recorder but what sets it apart is that each of the 8 inputs has it's own output, which means you can effectively put it inline between the mic's and the house PA and, regardless of what the sound guy does, you record raw unaffected audio for mixdown later. Slightly more hassle than hitting "REC" on a portable handheld recorder but much more flexible results.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Feb 11, 2009 12:08:54 GMT
Thanks Lewis - I will look into that. Excellent!
Shine On Michael
|
|
|
Post by blueshome on Feb 11, 2009 22:14:28 GMT
As the part owner of a professional analogue recording studio built around 60's valve gear, I must agree with everything MM has to say on this issue - you can A/B analogue and digital, the result is that analogue is most pleasing to the human ear. This is an accident of the physics of the tape recorder, but is real, and is recognised by all in the audio world. Why else would all these companies be marketing their digital gear as emulating the sound of analogue?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2009 23:54:34 GMT
Michael No ofence taken. Actually 2 Fyldes and 2 Buskers. I have recorded in studios too, and am only a semi-pro because I have never been in the right place at the right time not to be! In a studio the acoustics are dead, are they not? This lets the sound engineers get the sound they want. When I record me or others who want me to record them it is done in my flat, with art deco high ceilings, and I work out the best acoustics I can get. The sound is live and I record on a Boss BR-1180. This does a really good job of capturing the acoustics that I have in the recording room, not a studio. I have limited, but usually sufficient, ability to augment the sound using the Boss. So I think that that recording in a studio on high Q tape is a very different procedure to recording in, usually, my lounge. I can't afford a Revox but I wonder if, just as I am sure that tape in a studio gives life to the dead acoustics there, that tape in a live acoustic environment might be a bit noisy? I don't know, and the whole business of what makes a good sound interests me in an academic/practical way. Which is my problem not anybody elses. The very best recording I have done so far, I think, is on my budget Sony Cancorder on the Heathrow Airport 3rd Runway Blues. I'll say it! It is a very good song, played on a very good Deco and using a massive DB glass slide that gets the best of the guitar, the Dm tuning and my playing. Much of that was improvisation, me feeding off what the guitar and slide were allowing me to do. But this was on a camcorder, with an unknown mic and recorded straight onto the Hard Disk in the camera. Even the compressing effect of You Tube doesn't kill the magnificence of the sound from that guitar. And the only non digital part of that recording were the acoustics of the room. As I began, no offence taken in any way Best wishes Barry
|
|
|
Post by jackstrat on Feb 12, 2009 9:20:31 GMT
"In my opinion the whole digital recording thing is another step towards our society taking the convenient and cost effective route to get results, rather than the real route."....beautifully put MM...well said. I think there's an actual physical connection that's maintained in analogue recordings that's never going to be the case with digital...for example in order for tape to work, a whole load of magnetic particles must physically line up on the tape to capture the sound, and each time you copy a tape to a tape, this same physical phenomenon must occur. Another example...you take a vinyl record and without turning on the record player, put the needle on the record and spin the turntable with your finger...you're still going to hear the recording in its unamplified state as the needle bumps and grinds its way through the grooves. Try doing this with and MP3...a format which to me is more concept than concrete...have you ever actually held an MP3 in your hand? My point is, that production of sound is a physical task...movement of air etc. and the capturing of this sound is at it's most real/true when also captured in a 'physical' method, rather than passing through an interface that converts it to a series of codes and numbers. Now I also agree that the digital world does offer many advantageous features in terms of price, editability, all-in-one mixing, mastering, FX etc. and I openly admit that any significant recordings that I have ever done have been through digital formats...purely based on convenience and availability...but I can't help thinking that if I had the choice of formats regardless of price etc. that I'd opt for analogue everytime.... MM...in terms of portable digital recorders, I'm not sure how small you want to go but the ZOOM H4 is superb piece of kit for the money...battery/mains power, built-in mics (XLR connections for external options), phantom power, FX, MP3/.WAV formats, stereo or four track recording options and a whole bunch of other stuff. Ideal for ideas in the front room or full-on live band recordings...er, what was I saying about analogue gear again?!! ;D Niall
|
|
|
Post by blueshome on Feb 12, 2009 9:41:37 GMT
Barry, A studio live room is not acoustically dead, it has its own character, echo etc and is an important part of the final sound, it may be treated to eliminate unpleasant effects but this room is where the sound that is recorded is produced. If the live room is poor, the sound of the recording will be poor whether the recording is digital or analogue. (Yes I know that close miking can reduce the effect of the room, it also screws up the sound as well.). Your flat may well work as an excellent live room.
What needs to be acoustically neutral however, is the control/mixing environment so that the final mix can be balanced and sound at its best and this is an area which gives the most problems to amateur recordists. Not so important though if it's just you and your guitar.
What we must not overlook in this rather esoteric discussion is that most important thing in all this is not the recordings, or the medium, or where there are made, It's THE MUSIC that we all enjoy making and sharing with others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2009 9:54:57 GMT
Phil
All I know is when I recorded the studio was dead, and I was told that it was intended to be so the engineer/producer could get what he wanted out of the recording.
Different was of doing the same thing I suppose.
And yes, I have hit on a raw nerve, without intending to.
Yes, the music is what counts...anyone want to hear a Valentine Day song?
|
|
|
Post by thebluesbear( al) on Feb 12, 2009 12:21:48 GMT
Hi
This thread of posts has been most interesting , in many ways MIchaels argument about real sounds goes along way
i.e we are all coneheads at heart and in practice .....i cannot think of anymore real sound than that !!!!!
this thread has got me thinking as im currently recording my next cd
al
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Feb 12, 2009 12:54:33 GMT
We are getting into a long and very interesting discussion. Barry, I am pleased you are not offended because I do value you as a member of our community.
Back to recording:
Phil is absolutely right about room sounds and better recordings. The modern way of recording in dead rooms was popularized by one of the cleverist, most important, and possibly one of the most destructive people in the history of recording. Les Paul was one of the pioneers (possibly the inventor) of both multitrack recording and deadened live rooms. He did this to achieve certain results that literally changed almost every studio and musician's approach to making records. Firstly, by pioneering multitracking he made it possible for musicians to make a recording and not have to be in the same room at the same time. This is something that revolutionized the industry and gave us the records that we all listen to today. For creating certain types of music this is amazing, but in many situations it destroyed the music. The other area of discussion is the deadened live room, which basically does what it says on the tin...it deadens the sound and kills any room sound. The idea of a deadened room is that you add the room sound with reverb and other trickery at the mixing stage. My personal preference is to record in a great sounding room and not have to add stuff afterwards. Everything you add takes away the purity of the recording. In other words; get a great sound onto the tape and nothing much needs doing afterwards.
A few years ago I became involved a recording project with Chris Rea that sadly due to management getting in the way, never materialized. The idea was to record an album with original 1920s equipment. In the research I did I spoke to some recording engineers who made records back in the 30s. One guy commented to me that in the early days they only used one microphone to record any number of musicians, and that when two microphone recording came into fashion, many of the one mic guys said it was a disgrace and that it was the beginning of the end of the pure art of recording! Fascinating stuff. I have listened to early one mic mono recordings on state of the art equipment from the period and the effect is extraordinary, it has the most amazing clarity, space and depth of field. So much so that it made modern stereo recordings sound like clever fakes!!!!! This is obviously quite an extreme point of view, but none the less very interesting.
Unless an artist wants to make a recording that cannot be played live, such as...for an example Tubular Bells or Sgt Peppar's, nothing can beat a very well rehearsed live performance direct to tape. That is one of the reasons we all love listening to those old blues and jazz records - they were such great players and so well rehearsed. Robert Johnson, Louis Armstrong, Jimmie Rodgers, Sol Hoopii...etc. Even early Beatles and some late Beatles, Let It Be Naked, for example, 50s Chess recordings, Rolling Stones Decca recordings....Buddy Holly....I could go on, but I am sure you get my drift. There are many great newer recordings of that quality too, that is part of why the White Stripes records are so popular. Liam Watson at Toe Rag Studio is a master at doing this.
I could go on all day about this stuff!!!
Shine On Michael.
|
|
|
Post by andys on Feb 12, 2009 13:35:25 GMT
I would like to put another angle onto this from the point of view of someone who used to do home recording, but since the advent of digital recorders has gone off the idea (though I have an open mind and could be converted back again)
My early home recordings were with an Akai 4000DS, where you could overdub one track at a time or use it as a live stereo recorder. Dead simple, but as Michael saiys above, you have to have a good sound to work with. Then the Portastudios came out, and because of their high price at the time, I actually shared one with another band for demos and stuff. Only slightly more difficult to use, but again, get a good sound, press record and off you go. Further along came 8 track portastudios, which I seem to remember recorded onto VHS tapes at first, again, pretty much switches and inputs, getting a good sound on tape was what you focussed on, with amp sounds, drum tones, mic placement etc. What these also did, was got you into a good frame of mind about recording for when you went into the studio. You knew whether your amp sounded best with the mike a foot away or close miked, you knew how to get that snare sound, from your experience with making demos. You also focussed on getting a good performance down on tape, and with many portastudios that meant live performance.
So after a break from home recording with family, travel etc, I had some spare cash to buy myself a modern digital portastudio more for fun than anything else. I thought that with digital it would be even easier, so I plumped for one of these 8 track digital recorders.
Well it was so complicated, it had samples, modelling, rhythms, mastering, but all menu driven. Getting a quick take was impossible. Getting a good sound even worse, as that had been taken away from you by the modelling stuff. getting a good performance was nigh on unachieveble, as you were concetrating so much on how to get the thing to work! I ended up selling it, having become completely frustrated by the fact that not only did it have the capability of taking most of the sound creation away from you, but it was so complicated that by the time you had worked out/remembered how to record, you had forgotten the idea/run out of time to do it in the first place
Digital technology has actually made it more and dare I say it, overcomplicated, as well as being more minaturised. I'm glad theres a reaction against it, its great if you know how to use the stuff or are prepared to spend hours reading the instruction manual to use it.
I seem to remember we were recording stuff within half an hour of getting our first portastudio. We had a demo done within a day, and of a four piece band as well. The digital one I got a few years ago, I think I was still working out how to overdub a bass part over a week later!
If there was a simple stand alone digital recorder, that was easy to use, and you could overdub and get ideas down onto easily, maybe I'd be converted.
Or maybe I should just get myself another cassette portastudio, and go back to having fun recording.
You have to ask, if digital music is the future, why are records being released on vinyl again? And why have turntable made a big comeback. Why are they still selling cassette portastudios? And the cassettes to go in them.
Finally picture this as a scenario. Mick Jagger stops Keith Richards in the street and says "Is that Muddy Waters you're listening to on your MP3?" Hmmm, not likely!
Just my opinion, or course.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2009 14:08:21 GMT
Hhmmm this looks like it will run and run. I have no experience of these things myself, so these are just some random thoughts that have occurred while following the debate. Michael: it's interesting what you say about recording all the instruments into one mic. I seem to remember reading that this is exactly what Bob Dylan has been doing on his last few albums, inspired by the old recording of the Carter family and the like. However, because he likes to edit together parts of different takes to make the final piece, or sometimes just change the order of verses from the same take, he uses digital editing software for that. A classic mix of the old and the new I suppose. On the question of home recording, again I have no experience, though I have been considering my options. I sympathise with Andy, what I want is simplicity, not a whole recording studio compressed into a confusing little box. Seems to me that the way forward might be a usb mic direct into the computer. There would be the problem of background noise, but that wouldn't really bother me as my aim is really just to improve my playing by listening back to it. At first anyway. I'm thinking of waiting til Shure release their usb adaptor for the SM 57/8, which you'll be able to get bundled together with either one of the microphones. That way I can make decent recording straight off, and if I ever get more serious about it I'll already have a good quality mic Here's the link: www.shure.com/ProAudio/Products/WiredMicrophones/us_pro_SM57-X2u_contentthat's the page for the SM57, there's also a page about the adaptor itself somewhere on the site but I seem to have lost it
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Feb 12, 2009 14:39:26 GMT
Bruce Springsteen recorded 'Nebraska' on a Tascam/Teac Potastudio 144 cassette porta-studio with a metal cassette and two Shure SM57 mics. It is my favourite Bruce album to date.
Inspired by Nebraska I bought a Tascam/Teac Porta 144 and recorded thousands of hours of music on it. It was the tool I used to learn the art of recording. It got me good enough to go to the next stage - a real studio, which interrestingly isn't that much different! The demos' I recorded on the Teac got me my first first recording deal. I still have those recordings and although there is rather a lot of tape hiss, they sound great. The 144 was not a cheap machine by today's standards - I remember paying 500 quid for it.
After that I got into a Revox B77 - that was an awsome machine and I should never have parted with it. The first time I heard a B77 was in I guess....1979 and it took me a while before I realized that I should own one. A friend of mine who was a tape operator at the Beatles Apple studio in Saville Row turned me on to Revox machines - he was right too!
Shine On Michael
|
|