Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
on 11/3/00 2:57 pm, Jeff Spirer at jeffs@hyperreal.org wrote:
> I've seen this analogy used before and it just doesn't work. At the
> production end - where the music is recorded - it's almost all
> digital.
I don't want to argue, but my experience is different. Your first point is
true-ish. In fact many studios dump their digital tracks off onto 2" tape in
some point of the process for the tape-type saturation.
> High quality 1" tape is just about impossible to find - a friend
> of mine has to hand-select lots and hoards them for use in his studio.
1" is not a standard format, so I'm not surprised. The standard format for
24 tracks up is 2", and this tape is widely available. I can think of four
places within five miles of me who have all the different flavours in stock
continuously. I've often bought it with no prior notice.
> And
> even he uses all digital after the initial recording (the equivalent of
> shooting on film and then using digital darkroom) for his
> recordings. Other than a few die-hards like my friend and the extreme low
> quality end, everything is digitial start to finish, usually using
> Didigesign Pro Tools.
I don't think this is at all true. Your friend is not at all exceptional. In
London analog recording is thriving in exactly the way you describe.
>
> Also, I don't know anyone in the music business using anything other than
> DAT in the field.
That certainly is true in my experience. And no bloody wonder. Anyone who
has ever tried to shoot a fly-on-the-wall film with the aaton chewing
through kodak every 11 minutes and a stereo Nagra running out every twenty
minutes knows why.
- --
John Brownlow
http://www.pinkheadedbug.com