|
Hey guys. You've probably seen me floating around some of the threads here, so I figured I'd do a blog. But I don't want it to be a "real" blog, where people read about me bitching about my life. So instead, I'll provide recording insight, because that's my field. Recording.
I'll kick off with an intro, and a bit of info on analog/digital.
Introduction to Recording
So you've got ambition in music, I assume (That would be why you're reading this, right?). You want to record your music, or someone else's, maybe. But there are so many options in front of you, your head is about to explode. Am I right? I figured. When I first began fooling around recording, it was a whirlwind of high price tags, confusion and utter frustration. However, once you figure things out, it is a fun and (for me) relaxing experience. Recording is my passion in life, I love it. I'll spend 4 hours working on one *track* and enjoy every minute of it.
A or D?
Analog recordings and digital recordings are both still used, although digital is slowly taking over ( ). Still, each has its own advantages and disadvantages that make them very different and cause certain people to lean one way or another.
Analog recordings are old-school. Tape and vinyl are usually analog recordings. The benefit of analog is nothing is changed in the recording. What you hear is what you get. No processing, no numbers, just the original performance captured and placed down on the tape, not colored by any third party. Analog has a few drawbacks though. There's a hiss left on the master tape and it grows on each further reproduction of the master tape. Also, it's linear. You have to go straight through the thing, no "skipping" track 3 to get to the hit single on track 4. There are some other drawbacks, including medium degradation, but those aren't as big, per say, as the linearity and the hiss.
Digital is becoming extremely popular. Digital can actually occur on any medium. Tape, CD and MP3s are all capable of digital recording. Digital is considered better than analog for many reasons. There isn't any hiss or medium degradation like in analog (well that happens with tapes irregardless, but very rarely is digital actually mastered, mixed and released on tape anymore). Also, converting or copying is very easy and there is no quality loss. Finally, digital recording allows random access locating, so you CAN skip that lame 3rd track for the hit single on track 4 with that. However, the drawback of digital is it isn't the natural recording - everything was converted into 0s and 1s. It was changed.
I'll probably end up focusing on digital, as I don't work with analog very much, if at all. I'm just not privy to it, so I'll stick with the digital recording tips. Until next time, I'm outta here!
 
|
hi dude. i didn't read your stuff right now, im very lazy. sorry
but hi
|
|
|
tl/dr as travis said, but hi
|
This argument may have been viable 10 years or so ago, but nowadays there are high definition audio like SACDs. Digital is the winner.
|
United States12607 Posts
On February 24 2009 18:32 vx70GTOJudgexv wrote:
Digital is becoming extremely popular.
Isn't analog music pretty much already dead? My impression is that pretty much everything's been digital (since the CD).
I own a record player and love it for its "mellower" sound, but high quality (lossless) rips sound just as good.
As a music lover I do have a certain nostalgia for the days when it was a bit more "tangible" - records and tapes force people to carefully consider what music they'll listen to, and appreciate whole albums rather than just buying every single and playing it on repeat. However, we have to recognize that so many bands would never exist if it weren't for the internet and digital music giving them access to huge fanbases.
These days, when I want to share an album with my friends I can just drop it in my computer's shared folder. It's never been easier to spread the joy of music.
|
|
|
On February 25 2009 03:08 Ingenol wrote:
MP3's hurt my ears.
convert to wma!
|
7815 Posts
Well analog you can still record to a cd but it's just a lot harder to edit anything at all. But yea I would just focus more on digital either way.
|
United States17042 Posts
On February 25 2009 03:19 Duke wrote:convert to wma!
wma approximately is only about double the additional apparent quality (they do smarter compression than mp3). If you can actually hear the difference, go lossless. And you might think about getting better gear if you can actually hear the difference - For example, 56kbps mp3 would work for anyone in most cars (cars just arn't quiet enough).
|
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
On February 24 2009 18:32 vx70GTOJudgexv wrote:
The benefit of analog is nothing is changed in the recording. What you hear is what you get.
Analog is called analog because the shape of the recording that you get is similar, i.e. "analogous" to your original waveform. By no means it is an exact copy.
|
On February 25 2009 03:08 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2009 18:32 vx70GTOJudgexv wrote:
Digital is becoming extremely popular. Isn't analog music pretty much already dead? My impression is that pretty much everything's been digital (since the CD). I own a record player and love it for its "mellower" sound, but high quality (lossless) rips sound just as good. As a music lover I do have a certain nostalgia for the days when it was a bit more "tangible" - records and tapes force people to carefully consider what music they'll listen to, and appreciate whole albums rather than just buying every single and playing it on repeat. However, we have to recognize that so many bands would never exist if it weren't for the internet and digital music giving them access to huge fanbases. These days, when I want to share an album with my friends I can just drop it in my computer's shared folder. It's never been easier to spread the joy of music.
There are still some die-hards who love analog. Like I said, it's pretty much dead, but not quite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
