Remember Me?

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]
Page 3 of 4 Skip to Page:
< Older | Newer >
Topic: 16 Bit vs 24 Bit Audio
Post #21 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Posted On: Oct. 08 2010, 4:39 AM
dannyraymilligan

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 395
Joined: Sep. 2010

Member Rating: 1.85

Offline
lol Tom, going from lower to higher is useless too, ya know? Imagine taking some old 64 kbps audio file (anyone remember real audio format? :p ) and trying to resample it as FLAC... all you'll get is a lossless copy of the old crappy track :p

"No matter how long you polish a turd, it will never shine"

:laugh:

-Danny
Contact Information:  dannyraymilligan

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #22 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Oct. 08 2010, 4:41 AM

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: 2.78

Offline
So, back to the blueline plugins.  If you like what they sound like, then use them!  But it might be interesting to compare them side-by-side with some newer ones.  I dunno how the newer ones would work for you, given how far along things have come since the version of n-Track you are using, but you should absolutely be able to hear a difference.  Perhaps not one you like, but then again perhaps one you would.
Contact Information:  TomS

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #23 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Oct. 08 2010, 4:43 AM

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: 2.78

Offline
Quote: (dannyraymilligan @ Oct. 07 2010, 9:39 PM)

lol Tom, going from lower to higher is useless too, ya know? Imagine taking some old 64 kbps audio file (anyone remember real audio format? :p ) and trying to resample it as FLAC... all you'll get is a lossless copy of the old crappy track :p

"No matter how long you polish a turd, it will never shine"

:laugh:

-Danny

Different issue.  There is no loss of information going lower to higher, so no dither is needed.  But - if you go lower to higher and then do something with that new file, and then go back to lower (which is what is going on in the DAW) then you will necessarily lose information.  

Anyway, no one here records turds!  We are brilliant!
Contact Information:  TomS

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #24 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Oct. 08 2010, 4:45 AM
dannyraymilligan

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 395
Joined: Sep. 2010

Member Rating: 1.85

Offline
Quote: (bax3 @ Oct. 07 2010, 8:02 PM)

I think we worry about all this technical stuff because now we have the capacity to mess with it.  You can do some great stuff with digital recording and I love it -HOWEVER,
With analog, you went for the performance, that was the first measure of the recording and should still be!  Think about a recording session in about 1930: everyone is in one room and the recording is literally cut into the record as the performance is done.  You get it right or you do it again.  
I was a performer in the late 50's and 60's.  We went to studios and paid good money to record on mics that were not as "good" as today's, with 2 tracks if we were lucky - some of that stuff sounds great!  Not pristine like a digital, but the performance is there and if it wasn't there, then little or nothing we could do about it, except record it again.
All that said - I still love what I can do with NTrack to make a "professional" sounding recording.
Bax

I often think about that, Bax. What would "Let It Be" or "Hey Jude" have been if the Beatles had possessed the technology we have now?

Can you imagine Elvis Presley toting around a laptop back in 1959, and noodling around on a guitar in some motel room while he tried to figure out which plug-in sounded best on the guitar for "Hound Dog"?

Some of the greatest records in the world were cut in a matter of a month or two, altogether, and are still LOVED 30 years later, yet bands will go in the studio now and spend a YEAR making a record, and not one memorable song or anthem in the lot :( ....

Anyone remember Hotel California, Back In Black, or Dreamboat Annie?

-Danny
Contact Information:  dannyraymilligan

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #25 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Oct. 08 2010, 4:52 AM

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: 2.78

Offline
I dunno, it's not like the Beatles didn't have really fine equipment.  I will never own a Fairchild compressor.  Sadly.   Or a really good room.  Or have their talent.  

Personally, I think that if they had had all this great stuff, they would have made records that were even better.  If possible.   :)

Mix magazine has a review of a new version of the Fairchild 670 for only 19000 usa dollars.  here:

http://mixonline.com/gear/reviews/analoguetube_at101_limiter/
Contact Information:  TomS

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #26 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Oct. 08 2010, 6:19 AM
dannyraymilligan

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 395
Joined: Sep. 2010

Member Rating: 1.85

Offline
To be honest with you, Tom, I believe the Beatles talent lay in songwriting skills. Musically (as in instrumental proficiency)... well, I won't bash anyone's deities, but the Beatles weren't the Gods they thought they were. True, it's quite possible that the technology of the time limited the scope of what they could do, yet I believe that the idolatry of this group proceeds from the fact that they were really the first to do what they were doing at the time.

As an example, mind you, I point to my favorite group of all time, KISS. I love their early records, and am the first to admit that Ace Frehley is the reason I first picked up a guitar. However, when I look at it objectively, I realize that I can play circles around Ace as a musician, but I can recall back in the early 1980's when I would have beat the snot out of anyone who suggested that Eddie Van Halen was better than Ace Frehley.... pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!

I think my attitude when I was younger reflects a lot of what people think about groups such as the Beatles and Led Zeppelin. Because they influenced those of us who came later, somehow we've put them on a pedestal, yet, if you actually look at what they did, it wasn't earth-moving compared to what we can do now.

Tom, I've listened to a great deal of your own music, and let me tell you this, in all candor: I would buy a CD of yours much quicker than I would anything of the Beatles catalog.

Still, one wonders what the Beatles might have been, had they grown up with the influences that we grew up with, and had the techniques and technology available to them that we have, or others of our heroes... what would Rock Guitar be now if Jimi Hendrix had stumbled across tapping, instead of Edward Van Halen?

-Danny
Contact Information:  dannyraymilligan

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #27 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Oct. 08 2010, 4:55 PM

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: 2.78

Offline
Danny, I totally agree, I've been saying for years that this was not an overly talented group of musicians, not technically!  Paul by far the best.  But what musicality!  

KISS - when we put on the paint - and, yes, we did! - my buddy Jim was always GS and I was always AF. We gave concerts on top of the dog house in the back yard.  

Back in Black and those other two songs are, for better or worse, etched in my mind like an epitath on a gravestone...
Contact Information:  TomS

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #28 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Oct. 08 2010, 4:56 PM

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: 2.78

Offline
Also- that is a really nice comment about the music and stuff.
Contact Information:  TomS

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #29 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Oct. 08 2010, 5:03 PM

No avatar chosen




Group: Members
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: 1.47

Offline
An interesting discussion for sure - maybe not the origional reason for the post, but interesting.
The whole thing has got me thinking. Maybe we are really talking about two different reasons to record music: one reason might be to reproduce as faithfully as possible the art of the performance; another reason might be to record a performance with the recording itself an integral part of the art. The difference between, let's say, a well-done photograph of a beautiful scene that captures as well as enhances the beauty of what is actually there. The other an oil painting that comes not just from reality but what the artists can add with technique and imagination.
The Beatles have been mentioned a great deal here. As I look at their career, I think that one of the reasons they may have quit live performance was that they became enmeshed in the art of recording. They used every trick in the book and wrote some pages that others had not seen before. I don't believe that the technology of the time would've allowed them to reproduce some of their more innovative productions on a live stage. So not only was their music creative, inventive and of the time, what they did in the recording studio became an integral part of Beatles music.  
When I was a young feller on the road with an acoustic guitar a few folk songs and a few I made up, the only thing I carried into a club (coffeehouse) was my guitar and me. Most of the better places supplied a Shure D35 microphone (if we were lucky) and a home entertainment sound system. More than likely the stage lighting consisted of some colored yard lights that we can operate with a foot switch. My friends that still perform all own at least a van so that they can carry all the equipment that they require to sing a few songs. And that's if they're working as a single!
Bax
Contact Information:  bax3

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #30
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Oct. 08 2010, 6:14 PM

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 2923
Joined: Jan. 2009

Member Rating: 1.67

Offline
Fascinating.
Brian Eno isn't a musician - but, he plays a mean studio.
Contact Information:  TonyR

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
< Older | Newer >
36 replies since Oct. 07 2010, 6:36 AM
Page 3 of 4 Skip to Page:

© 2014 n-Track Software
Powered by iF 1.0.1 © 2006 ikonForums