In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 22/10/2017 13:59, Iain wrote:
sunnuntai 22. lokakuuta 2017 12.35.51 UTC+3 Dave Plowman (News)
kirjoitti:


You could hear similar on a decent high end domestic R to R like a
Revox, by switching between input and off tape output.

Don't compare a Revox with a professionally set-up studio recorder,
Studer A80 or Ampex A440 with Dolby SR.

The Revox is not even in the same league.


True, but one of the few domestic recorders that had separate record and
replay heads so you could monitor a recording off tape. I think Akai
made one as well for a while.

I'd not dream of comparing any reel to reel recorder without Dolby SR to
one with it. I'll leave that to others.

However, a Revox in top condition and alignment will come very close to
any similar pro machine ever made.

--
*The most wasted day of all is one in which we have not laughed.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Iain
wrote:

It is interesting to note that many pop musicians favour studios where
they can record on 2" analogue multitrack (Studer A80/24 with Dolby SR
is a particular favourite) and edit and mix in digital.

Aren't there also various 'plug ins', etc, for digital work systems which
people buy to make the results sound like they've been recorded on ye olde
analogue reel-to-reel? Given this, is this all about an 'effect' rather
than being faithful to the sounds hitting the mics?

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 21/10/2017 22:03, Iain wrote:
Many mastering facilities have a stereo Studer A80 for clients who ask for an analogue pass as a part of the premastering stage. Why do you think that might be?

Because some clients ask for it, and they might go somewhere else if it
isn't available.

That doesn't tell us if the studios think it is good, bad, or makes no
difference.

Andy

sunnuntai 22. lokakuuta 2017 17.36.46 UTC+3 Dave Plowman (News) kirjoitti:
In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 22/10/2017 13:59, Iain wrote:
sunnuntai 22. lokakuuta 2017 12.35.51 UTC+3 Dave Plowman (News)
kirjoitti:


You could hear similar on a decent high end domestic R to R like a
Revox, by switching between input and off tape output.

Don't compare a Revox with a professionally set-up studio recorder,
Studer A80 or Ampex A440 with Dolby SR.

The Revox is not even in the same league.


True, but one of the few domestic recorders that had separate record and
replay heads so you could monitor a recording off tape. I think Akai
made one as well for a while.

I'd not dream of comparing any reel to reel recorder without Dolby SR to
one with it. I'll leave that to others.

However, a Revox in top condition and alignment will come very close to
any similar pro machine ever made.

Not even close.

How long do you think a Revox would last working 24/7. How many times a day would you need to re align it, with sixty musicians sitting waiting in the studio.

Have you ever tried to edit between the same recording made on two identical Revox machines??


That's why Willi Studer kept the professional (Studer) and domestic machines (Revox) apart.

Iain

sunnuntai 22. lokakuuta 2017 11.41.48 UTC+3 RJH kirjoitti:

Well, given the observation by Dave P that only digital recording was
'close' to the line-through sound monitored in the control room.
Analogue was 'never close'.

I am surprised that's the case, but anyhoo, I've never been in a
control room, let alone worked in one.


A digital set up in not quite so interesting for the visitor as a large analogue recording system.

Analogue desks are usually physically quite large. Three people can work side by side. Each channel strip has its own fader and sections for equalisation, pan, routing, aux sends, reverb send etc etc, and then in addition there are track strips (usually 24) with track faders and monitor routing etc etc. So a 32 channel 24 track console is quite a monster with 60 faders/channel strips (including two stereo pairs :-) and a meter for each channel or track.

And with two Studer, Ampex or Scully multitrack recorders, plus perhaps an eight track on 1" and two or three large stereo recorders, and racks of Dolby that go with them, the analogue control room is quite an exciting place.

It is quite common for people to ask, "How many knobs and switches are there? Do you use them all? :-)

Digital consoles can be much more compact, and fit in to a flight case which one person can carry without difficulty. There are countless variants, but the in-line format means that you don't necessarily need track faders, as you can quickly reasign between record and mix, and things like EQ, aux sends, effects etc can be reached by pressing the "Select" for the channel in question and then a button labelled EQ. The equaliser for the channel selected comes up on the screen, and you can adjust the settings using a cursor an a digital encoder wheel. Easy and fun:-)

Many analogue consoles had automation, and programmable "flying faders" so that you could build a mix and hone it to perfection pass by pass.

Digital consoles go a lot further. Each engineer can enter and save his/her favourite topologies, set up a title, and then clone the set-up for as many subsquent titles as you need with pans, reverb, foldback mix etc, without having to set them up individually. You can set up and save whole "Scenes", which might be totally different from each other, and switch between them instantly.

Great fun:-)

Iain

sunnuntai 22. lokakuuta 2017 18.55.12 UTC+3 Jim Lesurf kirjoitti:


Aren't there also various 'plug ins', etc, for digital work systems which
people buy to make the results sound like they've been recorded on ye olde
analogue reel-to-reel? Given this, is this all about an 'effect' rather
than being faithful to the sounds hitting the mics?

There are indeed. Some of them are pretty good:-)
Much of what we call popular music has little to do with faithfulness to the sound hitting the mics.



Iain

In article ,
Vir Campestris wrote:
On 21/10/2017 22:03, Iain wrote:
Many mastering facilities have a stereo Studer A80 for clients who ask
for an analogue pass as a part of the premastering stage. Why do you
think that might be?

Because some clients ask for it, and they might go somewhere else if it
isn't available.

Wonder if it's that Mr Churches hires out such a machine is the reason he
seems to think an A80 the ultimate R to R? The much later A827 was
superior, especially as regards tape handling. And more stable electronics
too.

That doesn't tell us if the studios think it is good, bad, or makes no
difference.

Quite. Merely another outboard. They might want to use a Melotron too, for
that authentic sound.

--
*If horrific means to make horrible, does terrific mean to make terrible?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

maanantai 23. lokakuuta 2017 2.39.31 UTC+3 Dave Plowman (News) kirjoitti:

Wonder if it's that Mr Churches hires out such a machine is the reason he
seems to think an A80 the ultimate R to R? The much later A827 was
superior, especially as regards tape handling. And more stable electronics
too.

The A80, especially the wide body version with integral Dolby, is still the machine of choice for people who know about multitracks. It sold in far greater numbers that either the A800 or A827, and the fact that so many of them are still in daily use speaks for the build quality.

Best regards
Iain

In article , Iain
wrote:
sunnuntai 22. lokakuuta 2017 18.55.12 UTC+3 Jim Lesurf kirjoitti:


Aren't there also various 'plug ins', etc, for digital work systems
which people buy to make the results sound like they've been recorded
on ye olde analogue reel-to-reel? Given this, is this all about an
'effect' rather than being faithful to the sounds hitting the mics?

There are indeed. Some of them are pretty good:-) Much of what we call
popular music has little to do with faithfulness to the sound hitting
the mics.

That's what I've thought. :-)

It also throws a stark light on some of the dafter claims made by the
proponents of MQA.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

maanantai 23. lokakuuta 2017 12.15.01 UTC+3 Jim Lesurf kirjoitti:
In article , Iain
wrote:
sunnuntai 22. lokakuuta 2017 18.55.12 UTC+3 Jim Lesurf kirjoitti:


Aren't there also various 'plug ins', etc, for digital work systems
which people buy to make the results sound like they've been recorded
on ye olde analogue reel-to-reel? Given this, is this all about an
'effect' rather than being faithful to the sounds hitting the mics?

There are indeed. Some of them are pretty good:-) Much of what we call
popular music has little to do with faithfulness to the sound hitting
the mics.

That's what I've thought. :-)

One of the British producers/engineers I admired the most, Gus Dudgeon, used to say that the microphone is just a link in the chain of devices used to store audio. After this, the work really begins!

Back in the sixties, a British company, ADR introduced a pieced of equipment known as the Vocal Stressor, a compex, which despite its name was also very effective on guitars etc. It had a self contained three-band equaliser, and compressor, gate, and expander which could be linked together in the order of your choice.

The modern equivalent "The Vocal Channel" built by Art Audio is also a very versatile but inexpensive audio tool and seen everywhere.


You are correct in that the finished product has very little to do with the sound that hit the mics originally. Much of the music making process is an illusion - starting with the creation stereo sound stage (which does not actually exist:-) and then the adding of an acoustic (often different for vocals and each instrument or group of instruments) that is not remotely related to the location in which the music is recorded.

It would be fun to publish a pop recording mixed from just the raw mic sound - no EQ, no compressors, no gates, no expanders, no reverb, no delays, no digi effects. It would certainly raise a few eyebrows:-)

Best regards
Iain