Moderator: Captain Ned
Kougar wrote:It reminds me of some of the arguments I've heard in favor of vinyl recording. Old style vinyl recorded the entire room, including the ambience of the music interacting within that space. Digital recording tends to record the individual instruments via individual mic sources and process out or minimize everything else not local to each mic, losing that overall ambience. Or so the argument goes.
sluggo wrote:Many of these tracks were recorded with the instrument plugged directly into the panel, bypassing any amp/speaker/room interactions.
sluggo wrote:What JBI said about vinyl. Session musicians made a good living "way back" in the 70's, 80's and 90's just popping in at the studio for a half-day's work on their designated parts. Many of these tracks were recorded with the instrument plugged directly into the panel, bypassing any amp/speaker/room interactions. Nothing inherently "digital" or "vinyl" about the process. Recording a full band, live, in one room all at once can be good or bad, depending on the miking, the amps, the monitors, the room, and many other things. Sometimes the band members are miked specifically to avoid ambience effects.
First time I've seen a cloud-based service for mastering. Wonder what the hardware really is?
Captain Ned wrote:JBI, I think Sgt. Pepper was done with 4 tracks, possibly 8. Either way, there were many multiple mixdowns just to get to a 1 channel master (yes, Sgt. Pepper was designed by George Martin and the boys to be heard in mono).
derFunkenstein wrote:Here's a fun in-the-studio video of people doing this last week even, let alone the 70s 80s or 90s. It still happens, at least in Nashville.