Protools..Part 2 (simple question)

with industry Pro, Nick Batzdorf

Moderators: admin, mdc, TAXIstaff

nickbatzdorf
Impressive
Impressive
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 10:25 am
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Protools..Part 2 (simple question)

Post by nickbatzdorf » Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:22 am

By the way, I also haven't shot a roll of film since getting a digital camera three years ago. I have a very nice analog camera with two excellent lenses, but it's just not worth it.

53mph
Impressive
Impressive
Posts: 419
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 10:57 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Protools..Part 2 (simple question)

Post by 53mph » Tue Dec 20, 2005 1:20 am

That's cool Nick.I know alot of Pro artist photographers who wouldn't touch digital.I know alot of Pro commercial photographers who had to make the transition to digital just to stay in the business. (my girlfriend works for a photography magazine.For the consumer digital is a hassle free format.For me it's the difference between having a painting on the wall and having a print. Both look nice, both show the same image, same colours etc....but painting has that little bit more for me. Digital can do things that ordinary camera film can't...and vise versa.It's kind of the same with digital v analogue studios I guess.I agree with the dynamic range issue with vinyl. I think music changed alot as a result of the change to CD. I guess I just have a bit of a fetish for vinyl. The same way I have a fetish for old microphones.I wasn't really defending Vinyl as much as raising the issue of CD not being the perfect format many people think it is. It has it's weakness' too. I do think the industry could still develop something else. Any format will still have a certain size to it. I think if manufacturers started selling music on MMC cards it wouldn't be a success. People want something they can put in their hands. Something that has a pretty label on it and the name of the artist. Something that comes in a sleeve like box. An object.It's for this reason I don't think the public will ever really start buying MP3's over the internet en mass as an alternative to CD's etc.. It will just be another format alongside but I doubt it will replace it.......then again I was one of those people who championed Mini-discs

mani
Impressive
Impressive
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 1:42 pm
Gender: Male
Location: NY
Contact:

Re: Protools..Part 2 (simple question)

Post by mani » Tue Dec 20, 2005 7:13 am

CD is to Tape/Vinyl what Seurat is to Picasso. Inherently inferior because of the modus operandi regardless of any other factors. The pointillist nature of digital sample rates can never reflect the world the way continuous tape over heads can.CD is handy though.

nickbatzdorf
Impressive
Impressive
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 10:25 am
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Protools..Part 2 (simple question)

Post by nickbatzdorf » Tue Dec 20, 2005 7:14 am

I agree that there's a difference between the look of digital and film photos, but I don't agree that it's the difference between a print and a painting! You can't always tell the difference even.As to people wanting a product, yes, I think putting CDs in those small boxes was a big mistake. I don't know how old you are, but I picture the cover of every album I had growing up; it was a big part of the experience. That made the album much more than a cassette copy of it. It's a lost art, but I also can't help thinking it has something to do with the decline of the album as a work. Instead we get a model with just one song and a nice ass - you remember the ass and not the song, in other words.On the other hand, iTunes seems to be doing pretty well, so what do I know.

matto
Serious Musician
Serious Musician
Posts: 3320
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 5:02 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: Protools..Part 2 (simple question)

Post by matto » Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:12 am

Quote:CD is to Tape/Vinyl what Seurat is to Picasso. Inherently inferior because of the modus operandi regardless of any other factors. The pointillist nature of digital sample rates can never reflect the world the way continuous tape over heads can.I'd have to disagree with this claim. I'd have to say modern digital technology can represent an acoustic event with a higher level of accuracy than analog tape can. Let's remember that analog tape doesn't have absolute fidelity either...not by a long shot. Even if the machine is in superb condition and ideally calibrated (and let's not even START going down that path ) and you're using the highest quality tape stock (not the kind that turns to GLUE in a few years ), you still have the head gap effect and the fact that the choice of tape speed influences the recording's frequency response. Not to mention tape hiss (and/or the artifacts generated by noise reduction) and tape compression. These "flaws" are inherent in analog's modus operandi.Granted, when you convert that HD digital source recording to the 16bit/44.1 consumer CD format, you lose something, but the process from analog master tape to vinyl record is far form lossless as well.Aditionally, the "other factors" (chief among them tape hiss and record surface noise) can't just be dismissed as irrelevant...the very reason it is possible to hear the low level artifacts of 16bit digital is that those low level signals are actually audible and not masked by hiss and crackle.I really think it's important to compare apples to apples: average store bought CD's to average store bought vinyl. Cause that's all the average consumer, whose "ignorance" sparked this OT excursion, has to go by.Fact is, all the classical records in my collection, released by such respected labels as TelDec, DG Archive, Philips Classics etc sufferend from non-linear dynamics from the get go, and sounded far worse after just a few plays than the equivalent CDs sound after 100+ plays, even though I treated the records far more gingerly than I treat the CDs.I rather don't care if "mil spec" vinyl from the 60's is theoretically superior to CD, because none of the recordings I like were ever or will ever be released on it.Apples to apples.And btw 53mph I don't dispute the dubious lifespan of CD's you burn yourself...anything truly important should be archived on more than one medium, and backups should be checked from time to time.What I'm saying is that my store bought audio CDs have held up well, and as I understand it the glass masters used to produce them age rather gracefully.matto

53mph
Impressive
Impressive
Posts: 419
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 10:57 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Protools..Part 2 (simple question)

Post by 53mph » Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:40 pm

Nick, I used to be a real vinyl fetischist. Like you I can remember the cover of every (or most) of my records. In England vinyl is still a big trend (not just with DJ's) and I remember when I released my first single in 2001 it was on vinyl only and still sold out. Matto, you are of course correct, glass masters last a very long time. In the market place vinyl is also inferior to CD because of all the things you said.....but you still can't beat the feel of buying a gatefold album, getting it out of it's sleeve and the sound of the needle as it hits the vinyl is like bliss to my ears. I don't know why but for me the odd crackle and pop are part and parcel to the enjoyment. Similarly, when I go to see a classical concert the odd cough, shuffling of feet, people adjusting their position in a chair; are all part of the atmosphere. Nick, the difference between digital photography and non-digital is not in the taking of the photo but the process that happens afterwards.Film must be processed using chemicals. You must have a knowledge of light exposure time, colour saturation etc... You can maipulate the exposure in a very physical way that is not possible with digital photography. The pro photogapher becomes like a painter and chemist in this way.Digital photo processing only ever emulates the techniques of normal processing but is less hands on.Likewise, you can do things with digital that you can't do with normal film. They are different mediums and each have their advantages.It's the same with cinema film stock. I was watching a gig by John Lennon in the 60's the other day, filmed when he'd just released his first solo works and was accompanied on stage by Eric Clapton (back when he was still cool) and Yoko Ono who spent most of the gig in a sack It was all shot on super 8 film stock. There are things you can do with super 8 that you can never do with digital film stock especially with over exposing light and filming into the sun. You can push these mediums more than you can with digital...similar to how you can overload analogue in a way you never can with digital sound recording.At the end of the day it comes down to taste.I love the look of the first Star Wars film.I think they ruined it when they added all those digital effects. Someone else may think they improved it. There is no right, there is no wrong.

nomiyah
Serious Musician
Serious Musician
Posts: 1470
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:29 pm
Gender: Female
Location: Home Is Where The Studio Is
Contact:

Re: Protools..Part 2 (simple question)

Post by nomiyah » Wed Dec 21, 2005 6:28 pm

There are lots of DJs who only play records, no CDs. The number is dwindling, but there are plenty of clubs that won't play my music because it isn't on vinyl.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CTWF and 1 guest