Interestingly, Sticky Fingers was remastered and rereleased on vinyl in , physical zipper included. Audio engineers almost certainly used digital processing during this recent remastering.
Typically, the analog magnetic tapes containing the master recordings are captured digitally into a computer, manipulated for sonic effect, and eventually exported into a format which can drive a record-cutting lathe.
So even though a vinyl record is an analog format, this particular reissue, like many modern vinyl records, is a representation of a signal that, at one stage of processing, existed in purely digital form. But—oh no! Let me assure you that they do not. Collectors may find it distressing that the recording on their vinyl record may once have existed as a digital file. But audio engineers consider this a normal state of affairs.
Audio production involves many transformation and processing steps—some routine, but most prompted by aesthetic qualities we hear while working with the music. Here we see two material formats—the vinyl rerelease which is nominally analog and the CD release, nominally digital, but both are actually the result of hybrid processes.
The vinyl is the result of digital processing along the way, and the CD is a digital capture measurement and remastering more digital processing of the original analog master tapes from Virtually all recorded audio from the past 30 years has undergone both digital and analog processing steps, regardless of final medium. Chackal identifies three words often associated with analog audio: warmth, richness, and depth.
Many digital systems have material form as well. For example, two of the most popular recording formats of all time are both based on magnetic tape. The first, two-inch analog tape, was and still is a hugely popular format for multitrack recording of up to 24 distinct instruments or voices.
But notice that this has nothing to do with whether or not they are digital formats. But not all physical instruments sound warm. Many musicians characterize instruments as existing on a spectrum from cold-sounding clarinet, silver flute, piano, handbells to warm-sounding saxophone, oboe, electric guitar.
The primary feature which places instruments along this scale is the presence or absence of certain harmonics, or overtones, in the audio spectrum. Audio engineers typically understand warmth as the presence, in certain proportions, of these harmonics. Warm-sounding instruments emit these harmonics naturally, and analog recording, processing, and playback can enhance them or even add them to a colder-sounding instrument.
Because Chackal focuses on physical acoustic instruments, he also winds up excluding the electric and electronic instruments present on many undeniably warm-sounding recordings. An electric bass, for example, creates a negligible amount of acoustic sound.
Its output is only an electrical signal, which is often recorded directly without ever being audible in a room.
These electronic instruments have no moving parts whatsoever—they too create only electrical signals which are captured directly onto the recording medium without ever passing through air. If Chackal is right, neither family of instrument can exhibit warmth. I want to emphasize again that distortion is not necessarily a bad thing! I like the sound of analog distortion and the warmth it adds, as do many listeners and other audio professionals, and I take active steps to add it to recordings that I produce.
In the 70s, distortion was an unavoidable side effect of using magnetic tape, vacuum tube equipment, and mastering to vinyl—but it added musical qualities to recordings that are still aesthetically valued today. In my digital recording studio, my recording system exhibits extremely low distortion, but I often take additional processing steps to add it for musical effect.
You, as the listener, may elect to listen to the album I produced on vinyl on a vacuum-tube-based home stereo. While this technology is considered obsolete in most other contexts, many audiophiles favor this type of equipment because it adds additional distortion to the playback experience.
As an aside: Like garlic, there is such a thing as too much harmonic distortion. In fact, the most popular digital format for more than 30 years, the audio CD, is uncompressed, and it remains the highest fidelity medium ever to achieve widespread consumer acceptance. Lossless audio compression is the equivalent of making a ZIP file: the data is compressed but is restored to its exact original when uncompressed. Because of this property, there is no difference between lossless compression and uncompressed digital audio—any more than ZIP-ing your term paper will make it shorter.
It is certainly true that you lose audio fidelity when using digital lossy compression. But it is important to realize that not all digital audio is compressed, and not all compression introduces a loss of fidelity.
In short, distortion and compression are not the same thing. Compression is a property of some digital recordings but not all, including the CD format. Lossy digital compression introduces undesirable, non-harmonic distortion, while lossless compression introduces none; and distortion can come from things other than compression. In many instances, distortion directly promotes warmth rather than inhibits it. Because of record grooves, the sound of vinyl is more open, allowing a greater quantity of features to be heard.
The space afforded by the grooves allows one to locate and individuate particular instruments and sounds and observe how they contribute to the music as a whole. Here, he claims both that the recording contained on the vinyl medium allows for greater differentiation between instruments and sounds, and that the presence of record grooves is the reason this is so.
Through a series of additional processes, this master disc was eventually converted into a metal stamper capable of pressing vinyl records. So the creation of a record and its signature grooves is actually one of the very last steps in the production of an album. But, as with richness, if depth refers to an ability to better hear some aspect of an original audio source, then depth can only be lost —not created—as music is transferred from a magnetic master tape to a vinyl record.
That is, the depth must have been present in the original master recording if it is to be heard on the vinyl record as well. Furthermore, if depth cannot be captured in a digital recording, then Chackal will not actually hear much depth on his remastered vinyl recording of Sticky Fingers.
So is analog better than digital? Does a record sound better than an MP3 or a CD? The answer is not an easy one. The story is much simpler, however, if we embrace the idea I suggested at the beginning of this piece, namely that the playback of audio recording is the product of a long series transformations. We can accept that a musical performance was transformed through many processing steps to create a master recording.
In general, the analog transformation steps add distortion, which many people find pleasant, and the digital transformation steps add very little distortion, unless intentionally designed to do so. Finally, as a listener, your choice of playback system adds additional distortions even your bass boost knob is a form of distortion!
In both the CD and the vinyl rerelease of Sticky Fingers , engineers made aesthetic choices to alter the sound using a combination of digital and analog techniques.
None of the many rereleases sound identical to each other, and collectors argue about which sounds the best. As an engineer, I try my best to produce a recording which makes aesthetic sense for its genre.
Modern metal albums have a lot less warmth than Neil Young records. And in the final playback step, your choice of equipment puts the finishing touches on the audio you hear. You might wonder which system matches my intent as a producer or musician.
My intent was to make a recording which could be enjoyed in many listening environments, so pick the one that works for you. If you want to hear the closest sound to what I heard, listen on CD, using a high-quality solid-state not tube amplifier and an accurate pair of headphones or speakers.
But if you want to enjoy the experience, use any system that you like. My collection contains many classic records, some modern vinyl releases which were recorded or mastered digitally before being pressed in analog form, and even some albums that I produced for various artists.
He plays drums and sings and I do the guitars and bass. It took a good hour for him to get a decent drum track playing all of the way through the song. He finally got a satisfactory take, much to his relief. I told him that it was good that we had an acceptible track, but let's try one more take for the heck of it. When the pressure was off, he played a flawless and much better drum take.
Rhythm parts, usually on first or second take - but, I'm not including the first basic 'scratch' track. That's the one that counts, because it establishes the whole song's rhythm. If there is no drum part to the song, I will still record to a simple beat drum pattern I like this better than using a metronome to keep things steady. Often, though, I will record an extra take, and then maybe another take or two with the rhythm part played differently capo-ed or with barre chords.
Lead parts, on the other hand, I usually do takes, and comp together the best parts of each. Usually, after I've finished tracking, I've found the 1st or 2nd take is the best overall.
Vocals - I'll do as many as needed first session, do harmonies the same way until my throat wears out or time runs out. Often going back to record new vocal parts after days or weeks later because I'm still not happy with everything after tweeking. Find all posts by MikeBmusic. Originally Posted by musicianvw. Originally Posted by Bucc Right in the middle a really good take, my dog always barks.
Originally Posted by KevWind. In this beautiful age of digital technology, I'll often hit record and THEN warm up, finishing by actually playing the song I'm going for a few times I might end up with an hour of audio to go through Mind you, I'm recording pretty much only solo guitar, so there's less variables I either play a good take or not Find all posts by mr.
Just because you've argued someone into silence doesn't mean you have convinced them. I'm a solo fingerstylist so only play guitar, no vocals. To me, I do a lot of prep and months of practicing before I even set foot in a studio.
Once in a studio, if it's an easy song, I usually do 3 takes of a song and keep the best take out of 3. If it's a difficult song, it usually takes me 10 takes and I keep the best out of 10, or comp parts together. All times are GMT The time now is AM. User Name. How will this session move your career forward? There's nothing worse than turning up for a studio session with a half-written song.
Writing in the studio is an expensive way of achieving very little, so finish everything before you arrive. Hiring in a replacement amp is very expensive - you could avoid the problem by having your gear serviced, or at least checked over, before you arrive. In fact, you should have three backups of your work: one with you on DVD, should your computer fail; one at home, in case you're mugged on the way to the studio; and one stored on the internet, in case of disaster.
This might seem a little paranoid, but how much longer will it take to recreate the work than it will to back-up? Do not assume that the studio will have the plugins that you use at home.
Bounce to audio all tracks that depend on software instruments or effects. This will guarantee compatibility between your working setup and the setup at your destination. You need fuel when you're working hard.
0コメント