Old recording techniques...
I think there is definatly something very profound about the analogue sound of real to real as opposed to ADAT. When you record digitally every millisecond of time is accounted for and everything inbetween doesn't exsist. When you use tape, there exsists another dimension of time. Inbetween each kick drum is some kind of space that often sounds like hiss or noise. Interesting observation - but not exactly the case. Every millisecond of time is accounted for with tape too - I guess you just mean that the nature of the medium and dirty heads produce different sound on each playback. I do think this charm depends on how you produce though, and is possible in a digital environment. I love tape - but in a non-ideal digital recording environment, even the purr and clicks of the recording hard disk can supply some interesting noise to a mic. Anything is possible - in fact I think most of the clicky and noisy music out today is produced on Macs with MSP (note: am I the only one wondering where everyone was the first time around with Basic Channel? A lot of Wire-types act like this type of techno is new...) I also think there is a certain beauty to incredibly precise, deliberately clean music. This doesn't necessarily mean digitally recorded music. Tape edits often sound tighter than hard disk edits. I recently had the honor of talking to Anthony Shakir and found out one of my favorite moments in older Detroit techno was done on purpose: the tiny bit of silence right after the distorted bass on Day of Reckoning on his Metroplex EP. Mistakes are cool - but achieving the same quality of suprise and strangeness on purpose is even cooler, imo. environ * 73 mandeville drive * wayne, NJ 07470-6566 * USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.webspan.net/~environ
Re: [313] Old recording techniques...
I think there is definatly something very profound about the analogue sound of real to real as opposed to ADAT. When you record digitally every millisecond of time is accounted for and everything inbetween doesn't exsist. When you use tape, there exsists another dimension of time. Inbetween each kick drum is some kind of space that often sounds like hiss or noise. Interesting observation - but not exactly the case. Every millisecond of time is accounted for with tape too - I guess you just mean that the nature of the medium and dirty heads produce different sound on each playback. Actually, I think he was trying to say that digital recording takes a snap shot of sound at a given point in time. Usually these snap shots, or samples, are taken at rates around 44-48 thousand times per second. This information is played back in much the same way as film to produce the illusion of a continuous flow of information. What happens between those snapshots, however miniscule, is lost. Digital recording, by its nature, loses some data in the process. Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Re: [313] Old recording techniques...
One comment, one question: This list certainly has a lot of traffic lately. Does anyone on this list think that, for music created exclusively on computers, or even with external equipment (to the tune of synths, drum-machines), that pressing the tracks on vinyl preserves sound quality that cannot be achieved on compact disc? (dvd audio is another debate) To perhaps clairify: if music is CREATED in a digital environment, is there any reproduction quality to be gained by mastering it to an analog one? This dilemma wouldn't exist in traditional live music as the original sounds are produced in a natural (read: analog) environment. Thanks, and apologies for cluttering things even further... From: mee-thod [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ryan, i think it was, mentioned the atmosphere of of recordings of jazz and blues. I had this notion that part of the reason I liked the sounds of analog tape and vinyl was coz they recorded EVERYTHING. The atmosphere included the inaudible range of frequencies that we still respond to. Certainly the old CDs would cut those frequencies out (space or something). Is this still the case with digital recordings? emma mee-thod -it's in the way that you groove it- Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Re: [313] Old recording techniques...
I had this notion that part of the reason I liked the sounds of analog tape and vinyl was coz they recorded EVERYTHING. The atmosphere included the inaudible range of frequencies that we still respond to. Certainly the old CDs would cut those frequencies out (space or something). Is this still the case with digital recordings? emma mee-thod -it's in the way that you groove it- That's more of how minidisc records. It chops out all but 10% of the sound leaving what's supposedly audible to the human ear as a means of compression (the numbers may be off, but you get the idea). AFAIK, DAT and hard disk recording does not artificially alter the recorded sound spectrum in this way, it changes the *rate* of recording as Hughblaze pointed out. It's like film, rather than tape (frames vs. continuous). In my experience as a minidisk owner, this works fine for material that has already been mastered (like a DJ mix), but not so well for live recordings. I can perceive something lost with an unmastered recording onto minidisk from how it sounds coming out of the devices that I don't notice when recording on my hard drive. It's all a matter of how close you pay attention anyway. After listening to a minidisc for 3 minutes I can't really tell the difference. You get acclamaited. Tristan == PHONOPSIA[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Lounge/5102/index.htm FrogboyMCI on AOL Instant Messenger New Album, Québécois, online now. __ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com
Re: [313] Old recording techniques...
how did the producers in the early days do their recordings??? with a 4 track or straight to 1/4 inch? What kind of effects did they use?.. i'd love to be able to attempt to recreate some of that feel. peace, mike [aentrikate]
Re: [313] Old recording techniques...
mee-thod wrote: Ryan, i think it was, mentioned the atmosphere of of recordings of jazz and blues. I had this notion that part of the reason I liked the sounds of analog tape and vinyl was coz they recorded EVERYTHING. The atmosphere included the inaudible range of frequencies that we still respond to. Certainly the old CDs would cut those frequencies out (space or something). Is this still the case with digital recordings? 44.1kHz digital recording (CD's) is still in the 20Hz-20kHz range parameters like it was when it was introduced. 12 vinyl cuts the bass approx. from 50Hz, so CD beats it in the low end. Not sure what limitations vinyl has with the higher frequencies... However excessive high levels are not vinyl friendly (needle skips). Maybe vinyl is more pleasent to the ear because it HAS NO total silence: always some hiss in the backgroung, and our ears are used to it because it's natural. There's no absolute silence in nature like it exists in digital world. Proffit Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Re: [313] Old recording techniques...
jim proffit wrote: 44.1kHz digital recording (CD's) is still in the 20Hz-20kHz range parameters like it was when it was introduced. 12 vinyl cuts the bass approx. from 50Hz, so CD beats it in the low end. Not sure what limitations vinyl has with the higher frequencies... However excessive high levels are not vinyl friendly (needle skips). I find this (bass cut @ 50 hz) hard to believe. Is this the cutoff point? What is the slope like afterwards? (-3db?) I have a few friends who work with subharmonics in car audio, as well as a few who work at labels, and the general consensus is that when recording vinyl to a digital medium, there is some low (read: sub ) level signal loss due to the recording media (or the device) that has to be reproduced using subharmonic spectrum analysis. Just wondering if there is an answer todd Maybe vinyl is more pleasent to the ear because it HAS NO total silence: always some hiss in the backgroung, and our ears are used to it because it's natural. There's no absolute silence in nature like it exists in digital world. Proffit Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [313] Old recording techniques...
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, .. - wrote: Does anyone on this list think that, for music created exclusively on computers, or even with external equipment (to the tune of synths, drum-machines), that pressing the tracks on vinyl preserves sound quality that cannot be achieved on compact disc? (dvd audio is another debate) To perhaps clairify: if music is CREATED in a digital environment, is there any reproduction quality to be gained by mastering it to an analog one? This dilemma wouldn't exist in traditional live music as the original sounds are produced in a natural (read: analog) environment. Good point. Whenever I hear techno heads get into an analog/digital holy war, I think of a couple of things. First, the music that we make is usually going to be played off of worn 12s over big grungy warehouse systems. Sound fidelity is great, but it's not completely relevant. Also, 99.9% of producers master to DAT or ADAT. There have been several times that I've heard people ramble about the sonic advantages of vinyl, only to find out that they're just sending DATs over to the mastering plant. I think there are two sonic reasons that people stick with wax, aside from the utilitarian reason that it's better to DJ with. Vinyl is way less dynamic than digital. In order to have something sound decent, you usually compress it pretty severely. Super-compressed music sounds great on a big sound system and moves big quantities of air. That's the story of Swedish techno eh? Also, vinyl mastering remains a more hand-on and personal process than digital mastering. The mastering engineers that everyone flocks to - Ron at NSC, Simon at the Exchange, Stuart at Metropolis, Dubplates and Mastering - have a personal sonic aesthetic which they add to your tune. That additional stage can add a lot. J
Re: [313] Old recording techniques...
another 2cents on the subject- i disagree with the notion that analog recording captures everything, and this is what makes it sound warm. Magnetic tape stores the sound on tiny magnetic particles whose polarity can be changed by the record head- the precision of which is probably pretty comparable to digital. 44.1 or n(?) amount of particles per millimeter of tape- both are pretty accurate but not exact- the main difference is in-between the bits of recorded sound. On digital- this is nothing/silence- on analog tape this is noise and all sorts of randomness that seem to make the sounds thicker or fuller. ps-no more OT posts i swear- but cant really help it w/ all these OT threads floating around.. -p On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, .. - wrote: Does anyone on this list think that, for music created exclusively on computers, or even with external equipment (to the tune of synths, drum-machines), that pressing the tracks on vinyl preserves sound quality that cannot be achieved on compact disc? (dvd audio is another debate) To perhaps clairify: if music is CREATED in a digital environment, is there any reproduction quality to be gained by mastering it to an analog one? This dilemma wouldn't exist in traditional live music as the original sounds are produced in a natural (read: analog) environment. Good point. Whenever I hear techno heads get into an analog/digital holy war, I think of a couple of things. First, the music that we make is usually going to be played off of worn 12s over big grungy warehouse systems. Sound fidelity is great, but it's not completely relevant. Also, 99.9% of producers master to DAT or ADAT. There have been several times that I've heard people ramble about the sonic advantages of vinyl, only to find out that they're just sending DATs over to the mastering plant. I think there are two sonic reasons that people stick with wax, aside from the utilitarian reason that it's better to DJ with. Vinyl is way less dynamic than digital. In order to have something sound decent, you usually compress it pretty severely. Super-compressed music sounds great on a big sound system and moves big quantities of air. That's the story of Swedish techno eh? Also, vinyl mastering remains a more hand-on and personal process than digital mastering. The mastering engineers that everyone flocks to - Ron at NSC, Simon at the Exchange, Stuart at Metropolis, Dubplates and Mastering - have a personal sonic aesthetic which they add to your tune. That additional stage can add a lot. J - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [313] Old recording techniques...
I agree, but what I was really trying to get at is the possibility that there exsists another dimesion of time space, possibly a parrallel universe in the physical recording of sound or even video. Instead of tranfering thought onto a binary platform of zeros and ones, you are actually creating matter by your own will with the help of you thought amplification equiptment. I realize I may me stretching reality a little but take this for example. Listen to a Puff Daddy record and listen to a Mile Davis record. Which person do you feel closer too after hearing. I mean which person do you think actually entered you brain, spiritually or pyscologically when you were listening to that recording. I know these two examples are on opposite sides of the world but the point is that I belive an the soul has a better chance of surviving in a analogue median as opposed to a digital median. I don't in any way look down on the use of digital recording and sound synthesizing instruments. The MPC-2000 is my most powerful weapon, but does not all the time express my true emotions. Sevn
RE: [313] Old recording techniques...
I'd rather listen to lo-fi tracks with tape hiss, tracks that have emotion and trying, than to listen to these clinical super produced 909-kick tracks. Talking about which... I know these two are not Detroit artists, but are there any Detroit artists doing such a great and interesting job as Pole and Muslimgauze when it comes to playing with cracks, errors, add tape hiss etc ? Gwendal
Re: [313] Old recording techniques...
From: c myster [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: [313] Old recording techniques... Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:37:29 -0500 What impresses me is the attention to Detail. Derrick would would actually Splice peices of tape and insert it backwards to give it that backspin sound. If you've worked with Linear analog tape or even fixing old eaten cassette tapes, you can respect the amount of tedious time that went into it. mystro While we're on this thread, I would recommend The History Of House book that came out a couple years ago. I think it's a UK release through The Mix magazine, so you could probably get it from them. The interviews in there are priceless, and the Detroit ones are from the heyday (88-89). From what you learn about the technology Atkins, May, Saunderson (even Larry Heard, Li'l Louis, man! down to Kraftwerk)had to work with to come up with such timeless music, you have to wonder why there's so much garbage - along with some good stuff - now that we have *way* better tools to work with! My 2 centavos. JVelez Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
RE: [313] Old recording techniques...
Check out the roster on DeepChord records..it's Detroit, it clicks, and it knows how to go deep. www.deepchord.com Fred From: Gwendal Cobert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Subject: RE: [313] Old recording techniques... Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:37:36 +0200 I'd rather listen to lo-fi tracks with tape hiss, tracks that have emotion and trying, than to listen to these clinical super produced 909-kick tracks. Talking about which... I know these two are not Detroit artists, but are there any Detroit artists doing such a great and interesting job as Pole and Muslimgauze when it comes to playing with cracks, errors, add tape hiss etc ? Gwendal - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Re: [313] Old recording techniques...
I think there is definatly something very profound about the analogue sound of real to real as opposed to ADAT. When you record digitally every millisecond of time is accounted for and everything inbetween doesn't exsist. When you use tape, there exsists another dimension of time. Inbetween each kick drum is some kind of space that often sounds like hiss or noise. I think this space is a result of the environment in which you are recording, and perhaps even the physic vibrations in the room. One technique that can be used in recording is to add an additional track, that is a recording of a desired ambient atmosphere. One idea is to record yourself while you sleeping one night with a mic and speed it up and dub it in over a track with very low gain. Anybody else have any ideas? Sevn
Re: [313] Old recording techniques...
I used to work with four track reel-to-reel recording shit off of a Sequential Circuits Pro-One. Condensing tracks using two four tracks, splicing, cutting...making mistakes and finding that they sound better than your original intention. Love that old stuff. Fred From: c myster [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: [313] Old recording techniques... Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:37:29 -0500 What impresses me is the attention to Detail. Derrick would would actually Splice peices of tape and insert it backwards to give it that backspin sound. If you've worked with Linear analog tape or even fixing old eaten cassette tapes, you can respect the amount of tedious time that went into it. mystro YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Re: [313] Old recording techniques...
I think you really put your finger on something, Steve. There *is* something between the sounds in analog that is missing in newer digital recordings. Even listening to old 1930s jazz or gospel type recordings, there seems to be something else there. The sound is sometimes terrible, but other times it comes in tandem with perfection, and a whole different atmosphere seems to be transported through the music. Ryan On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Sevn wrote: I think there is definatly something very profound about the analogue sound of real to real as opposed to ADAT. When you record digitally every millisecond of time is accounted for and everything inbetween doesn't exsist. When you use tape, there exsists another dimension of time. Inbetween each kick drum is some kind of space that often sounds like hiss or noise. I think this space is a result of the environment in which you are recording, and perhaps even the physic vibrations in the room. One technique that can be used in recording is to add an additional track, that is a recording of a desired ambient atmosphere. One idea is to record yourself while you sleeping one night with a mic and speed it up and dub it in over a track with very low gain. Anybody else have any ideas? Sevn - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Old recording techniques...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...but I admit that many of them are poorly produced, the writing isn't all that great, and they do not really work in a modern context. I love them because they sound so old, so primitive, and because in many ways they laid the groundwork for so much of what came after... Andy replied: sorry, man. but this rubbish. early m500/metroplex is surely not poorly produced at all. juan`s early works still kick ass in 2000 and will still be working in ANY modern context beyond the year 00, while any modern type 4/4 bangtech all sound alike music is almost forgotten once the dj enters the next one in the mix... and Askew commented: I'd have to agree with Andy here. Some early techno records might have raw production, mixing and muddy pressings, but these records are also full of the kind of raw expression (soul) that's so hard to find in 'modern' techno. Sure... in some of his production work the edits and mixing are a little loose, but he was doing it all live. And if I was making music that good I'd be getting a little carried away too! :) There's a difference producing music with a portastudio or with a reel-to-reel tapemachine, than it is with a digital system. It's so easy to put a shit loop going thru a digital Yamaha mixer to hard disk-recorder, then make perfect edits and tricks workin' hours and hours in front of your screen. Of course you can make better sounding music like that!!! I'd rather listen to lo-fi tracks with tape hiss, tracks that have emotion and trying, than to listen to these clinical super produced 909-kick tracks. They can be good now and then, but THEY'RE BASICALLY TOOLS, these mono-tracks and such... (Not dissin' Mills) And what's modern context? If you can't make old tracks work with the new ones, you gotta ask yourself are you a good DJ? Should you be doin' this at all? It is unfortunate to say, but the truth is that none of these new tracks/tools are gonna last as they're own. Maybe as a genre they will be recognized from 20 years from now, but who is Marco Carola in 2020? I'm not saying that Model 500 songs will be necessarely recognized either, but I think they have a better chance, BECAUSE THEY ARE SONG BASED. OK, maybe loosely so, but they do have changes in they're structure that put them in the song category... Thus making them more accessible to the (western) ear. I know it is liberating to think that now the barriers between real musicians and amateurs are vanished, that mass-acceptance is now possible, but it's also showing us that real musical skill are still something to be trained for. Even that may not be enough. If someone thinks that the person writing this is showing off his perfect pitch or something, you couldn't be more wrong. I can't read notes, can't play any instruments or think perfect melodies. But if I ever make music, I'll try not to get away as easy as possible, puttin' a loop to play and going drinking my coffee as the DAT rolls Proffit Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
