Moderator: Ghost Hip
CBA wrote:Yeah, a lot of people have said "Analog is too much of a headache... it's costly, error-prone, 'hard to do', etc."... but that's why I'm interested. I have a genuine interest in it, and have the time and money. What else am I doing with my life?
C
rfurtkamp wrote:The only transparent thing I own is a set of drinking glasses.
rustywire wrote:CBA wrote:Yeah, a lot of people have said "Analog is too much of a headache... it's costly, error-prone, 'hard to do', etc."... but that's why I'm interested. I have a genuine interest in it, and have the time and money. What else am I doing with my life?
C
Headache: You're working with very real, finite resources and their limitations...so one has to 'make it count'
Costly: Supply/demand applies when dealing with commodities...and now obsolescence is a factor, which makes matters worse.
Error prone: What some users consider "errors" others will find ways to exploit to great effect.
Hard to do: Helps discourage and filter lazy riffraff, hacks and poseurs.
This can be attributed to the nature of the beast/cost of doing business....as well as excuses to justify going with "good enough" solutions.
However, these "cons" all contributed to the recording industry flourishing for decades; with people who were serious about their craft.
On the upswing of the bell curve was innovation striving for excellence. On the downside a push for convenience while maximizing returns.
There was a time when "Tape machine guy" was a legit job for a specialist. If you could keep a tape machine running and sounding great, you had steady work.
But *progress* isn't linear and will branch away at some point...leaving lost art behind and techniques forgotten.
Digital recording has its useful applications, but sounding like tape is not one of them AFAIC. If you want the sound of tape, use tape.
Longing to do one thing and settling for another is a sure path to festering misery.
To put it simply; whichever you choose to use, do what sounds good and have fun doing it.
As for the naysayers...
rfurtkamp wrote:The only transparent thing I own is a set of drinking glasses.
CBA wrote:I just bought a 388 from a dude in Detroit.
sonidero wrote:CBA wrote:I just bought a 388 from a dude in Detroit.
Now you can be SF Psych... You're not helping my 202 gas Sticks, wish I was there...
space6oy wrote:nice MFC-42 too. underrated filter IMO.
i was given an SP-202 in VSE's secret santa!
Dr. Sherman Sticks M.D. wrote:soo also, the rubber on my roller is starting to get really gooey. first i thought it was just sticky from some shit that got on it while it was in storage, but after further investigation, it seems like the rubber is just like decomposing into slime.
anybody got any tips for this sort of thing?
space6oy wrote:Dr. Sherman Sticks M.D. wrote:soo also, the rubber on my roller is starting to get really gooey. first i thought it was just sticky from some shit that got on it while it was in storage, but after further investigation, it seems like the rubber is just like decomposing into slime.
anybody got any tips for this sort of thing?
TWSS?
sun baked snow cave wrote:So I am finally looking into driving into the world of REEL.
I am looking basically for something to bounce my recorded audio to, so it will have some extra vintage ooomph and vibe.
My deal is I really don't know much about reel to reel's. There is always quite a few on my local craigslist so I have some choice at least.
I guess my first question would be is it a good idea to purchase a reel to reel just to bounce a final mix to for some extra vintagey vibeyness? If so how many tracks would I need, considering all of the mixing and mastering will be done? What do I need to pay attention to detail to when purchasing a reel to reel?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests