smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Billy G. Spradlin" <bgspradlin@cablelynx.com> |
| Subject | Re: Pro Tools (for dumb fools) |
| Date | Wed, 15 Oct 2003 22:57:32 -0500 |
[Part 1 text/plain us-ascii (2.4 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
At 08:00 PM 10/15/03 -0400, you wrote:
I agree somewhat - I think thats why 50's and 60's rock recordings sound more
exicitng to my ears because they were recording everything at one take, on
primative recording equipment with mic leakage between instruments at full
blast. But even when United/Western and Abbey Road updated to 24 track
equipment they kept most of thier unique sound quality.
Why cant a home studio have its own unique sound like Gold Star, or even
Drive-In or Reflection in the 1980's did? The people who built those studios
were trying to create thier own recognizable sound. Why does everything
have to
sound like another hit recording?
Again my apolgies to everyone who uses these programs to make thier
recordings.
The indie Power Pop revolution of the 1990's wouldnt have happened without low
priced digital recording equipment and home computers. But try to discover and
create your own original sound like Les, Phil, Brian, George, Curt, Joe, Roy
Thomas did instead of trying to mix and EQ everything to sound like the stuff
on the radio.
Billy
>This doesn't have as much to do with the advent of digital recording as
>it does the introduction of outboard effects boxes, the tendency
>towards heavy isolation between mics, and tons of overdubbing and
>re-tracking of parts brought on by 24-track tape. Back then, those
>studios' recordings could be picked out of a lineup because they all
>used custom built gear (often built in house) and were extremely
>limited in outboard effects processing. So, they would pipe thing into
>their own custom echo chambers (usually big tiled rooms under the
>studios) and use the natural ambience in their huge tracking rooms.
>Plus, usually they were limited to a handful of mic inputs and had
>limited ability to overdub. You got it right in the recording or you
>didn't get it. There was a lot of bleed in the mics, which added to the
>ambience. You also had a very strict concept of recording setup from
>studio to studio. The engineers usually had one accepted way they were
>allowed to place the musicians and mics... no experimentation allowed.
>Thanks to engineers like Geoff Emerick, who constantly pushed the
>envelop away from those white lab-coat days, recording became much more
>experimental and the continuous search for new sounds began.
>
>Ryan
>
Billy G. Spradlin
http://listen.to/jangleradio
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.