Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT.
| My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT. [message #66582] |
Tue, 11 April 2006 21:42  |
gene lennon
Messages: 565
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I sold my PT rig when I switched to Paris. I did it at the time primarily
for the sound of the Paris mix bus. This was before HD.
When HD was released, the distinction was far less obvious. HD still sounds
different from Paris but not awful anymore, just different. Paris still has
more of an analog/tape sound plus the added benefit of sounding more aggressive
when you push the gain stages.
So now the big question! Do I prefer the sound of Paris over other DAWS because
its actually makes better sounding recordings, or is it because it is closer
to the sound I associate with my favorite albums from the last 30 years?
I think the truth is closer to the second, and I think this is largely a
learned behavior, empirical rather than based on any truth.
In a recent session at another producer's studio (who will remain unnamed),
I listened to some pop-rock mixes done on a Paris rig. The sound was big
and clear and sounded very tape-like. Overall it sounded quite good and not
at all wimpy. The artist however hated the sound. He played us a number of
recent albums known to have been recorded in PT or similar sounding DAWS
as examples of what he wanted. This is the sound he knows and more important
it is the sound he likes! Yikes!! Compressed to a dynamic range of about
10db and very little sense of depth, space or stereo width.
Music may be universal but we all know it comes with cultural bias. How many
American teens would choose to listen to a steady diet of microtonal music?
Might as well serve up a big plate of Haggis... And it not just teens. Labels
work the exact same way. If someone has a hit record that sounds crappy,
all the labels want the same crappy sound.
Suddenly I am feeling very old. Fashions change taste changes but I thought
good sound was forever. Perhaps not so. As a producer who still has at least
one toe in the current market, I need to have some awareness of the realities
of the market and the "new sound" is the new sound.
My personal taste has not changed. For most projects that I foresee myself
working on, I will continue to use Paris, but just as I have made decisions
in the past to use SSL consoles rather than Neves to achieve a more trendy
"Pop" mix, I am now experimenting with ways to capture the "elusive PT sound".
(Insert appropriate emoticon).
Luckily it was reasonably easy to achieve. I recently purchased the Waves
SSL bundle and running that in Logic can get me very close to the sound of
better sounding PT mixes. So I can still use Paris whenever I like and I
can experiment with a mix of the two styles.
What does all this mean? Nothing other then I understand why some people
may prefer the way other systems sound and I think that my own preferences
are biased by many years of listening to records made the old way. I don't
see giving up Paris any time soon but I also don't think it's worth fighting
over if someone else has different opinions on what sounds good.
And don’t forget…the cyclical nature of fashion almost guarantees that one
day we will once again be "in".
Gene
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT. [message #66583 is a reply to message #66582] |
Tue, 11 April 2006 21:39  |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Gene,
There's a whole generation of folks out there now who have likely never
heard, or at least apid attention to a vinyl recording and who have been
listening to *the industry standard* since *the industry standard* became
entrenched about 10 years ago. I agree that it's a matter of
comfort/familiarity with digital sounding recordings, just like vinyl and
tape seems familiar to us. Radio is so compressed and sounds so awful these
days that playing digitized old vinyl recordings really makes them sound a
lot worse than the newer digital recordings so there's not even close to a
level playing field. It seems to all about convenience and loudness these
days, though I don't think that the new PT HD sounds bad either. There are 5
studios here, .mine, one that uses DP and 3 that use PTHD. All of us can
produce a professional sounding product. I'm going to be working more at 96k
in the future which will keep me *in the box* and native. It will be really
interesting to learn to mix more conservatively. I've never done it.
Regards,
Deej
"gene lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:443c852c$1@linux...
>
>
> I sold my PT rig when I switched to Paris. I did it at the time primarily
> for the sound of the Paris mix bus. This was before HD.
>
> When HD was released, the distinction was far less obvious. HD still
sounds
> different from Paris but not awful anymore, just different. Paris still
has
> more of an analog/tape sound plus the added benefit of sounding more
aggressive
> when you push the gain stages.
>
> So now the big question! Do I prefer the sound of Paris over other DAWS
because
> its actually makes better sounding recordings, or is it because it is
closer
> to the sound I associate with my favorite albums from the last 30 years?
>
>
> I think the truth is closer to the second, and I think this is largely a
> learned behavior, empirical rather than based on any truth.
>
> In a recent session at another producer's studio (who will remain
unnamed),
> I listened to some pop-rock mixes done on a Paris rig. The sound was big
> and clear and sounded very tape-like. Overall it sounded quite good and
not
> at all wimpy. The artist however hated the sound. He played us a number of
> recent albums known to have been recorded in PT or similar sounding DAWS
> as examples of what he wanted. This is the sound he knows and more
important
> it is the sound he likes! Yikes!! Compressed to a dynamic range of about
> 10db and very little sense of depth, space or stereo width.
>
> Music may be universal but we all know it comes with cultural bias. How
many
> American teens would choose to listen to a steady diet of microtonal
music?
> Might as well serve up a big plate of Haggis... And it not just teens.
Labels
> work the exact same way. If someone has a hit record that sounds crappy,
> all the labels want the same crappy sound.
>
> Suddenly I am feeling very old. Fashions change taste changes but I
thought
> good sound was forever. Perhaps not so. As a producer who still has at
least
> one toe in the current market, I need to have some awareness of the
realities
> of the market and the "new sound" is the new sound.
>
> My personal taste has not changed. For most projects that I foresee myself
> working on, I will continue to use Paris, but just as I have made
decisions
> in the past to use SSL consoles rather than Neves to achieve a more trendy
> "Pop" mix, I am now experimenting with ways to capture the "elusive PT
sound".
> (Insert appropriate emoticon).
>
> Luckily it was reasonably easy to achieve. I recently purchased the Waves
> SSL bundle and running that in Logic can get me very close to the sound of
> better sounding PT mixes. So I can still use Paris whenever I like and I
> can experiment with a mix of the two styles.
>
> What does all this mean? Nothing other then I understand why some people
> may prefer the way other systems sound and I think that my own preferences
> are biased by many years of listening to records made the old way. I don't
> see giving up Paris any time soon but I also don't think it's worth
fighting
> over if someone else has different opinions on what sounds good.
>
> And don't forget.the cyclical nature of fashion almost guarantees that one
> day we will once again be "in".
>
> Gene
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT. [message #66598 is a reply to message #66582] |
Wed, 12 April 2006 01:32 |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"gene lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>Do I prefer the sound of Paris over other DAWS because
>its actually makes better sounding recordings, or is it because it is closer
>to the sound I associate with my favorite albums from the last 30 years?
This post reminded me that I haven't listened to the Beatles Let It Be Naked
in a while. ;o) And I do love ths sound of that album. Soft and warm and
analog, but with elements of clarity that only come from digital processing...
....but I don't understand what you're getting at? ;o) Hehe...
....suffice to say, it's now playing...
"All through the night, I me mine, I me mine, I me mine..."
I think you're right though. In a way.
On one hand I would say I think Paris has a sound, whereas most good digital
systems these days are cold and pure. Hence one could argue Paris is coloured
where other DAWs are not.
On the other hand, part of me still thinks that air, where the "summing bus"
mathematics is done in nature, may not necessarily be as pure in it's additions
as is a digital DAW. For example, I would think that air, when heavily compressed,
would offer more resistance the more it was compressed. It's not just doing
to keep giving. It will resist more with greater compression. So the louder
the sound, and the more you add sound together, the more you would get a
mild compression effect on the peaks. In analog systems, and possibly Paris,
you get this effect. It's only slight, but it's there. In digital systems
you don't.
I've never seen or heard anything about how sound works in the air and how
clean the maths is. People seem to assume it to be pure clean maths, but
I find that unlikely. Air is a dirty mixed up substance full of different
gases and particles, and sounds by nature are waves crossing in different
directions, intersecting, and doing all kinds of things.
Hence, which system is coloured? The digital or the analog? Paris or Protools
or, indeed, air? I suggested this in a post a while back I'm pretty sure.
But I think there's certainly variation in what various people prefer sound
wise. Digital is currently "in". Overcompressed is certainly in. Mind you
I think this is the way of the future. People are increasingly wanting everything
in little compact packages that are easier to digest. Getting somebody to
make you a pizza with chilli that's actually hot is becoming increasingly
difficult. I'd like to think that one day Paris, and the more analog sound
will be back in, but I suspect not. I beleive it will always have a following
though.
It certainly has more funk and soul in my books. :o)
Cheers,
Kim.
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT. [message #66600 is a reply to message #66582] |
Wed, 12 April 2006 06:04 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
***Might as well serve up a big plate of Haggis***
Would that be Merle Haggis?
:)
"gene lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>
>I sold my PT rig when I switched to Paris. I did it at the time primarily
>for the sound of the Paris mix bus. This was before HD.
>
>When HD was released, the distinction was far less obvious. HD still sounds
>different from Paris but not awful anymore, just different. Paris still
has
>more of an analog/tape sound plus the added benefit of sounding more aggressive
>when you push the gain stages.
>
>So now the big question! Do I prefer the sound of Paris over other DAWS
because
>its actually makes better sounding recordings, or is it because it is closer
>to the sound I associate with my favorite albums from the last 30 years?
>
>
>I think the truth is closer to the second, and I think this is largely a
>learned behavior, empirical rather than based on any truth.
>
>In a recent session at another producer's studio (who will remain unnamed),
>I listened to some pop-rock mixes done on a Paris rig. The sound was big
>and clear and sounded very tape-like. Overall it sounded quite good and
not
>at all wimpy. The artist however hated the sound. He played us a number
of
>recent albums known to have been recorded in PT or similar sounding DAWS
>as examples of what he wanted. This is the sound he knows and more important
>it is the sound he likes! Yikes!! Compressed to a dynamic range of about
>10db and very little sense of depth, space or stereo width.
>
>Music may be universal but we all know it comes with cultural bias. How
many
>American teens would choose to listen to a steady diet of microtonal music?
>Might as well serve up a big plate of Haggis... And it not just teens. Labels
>work the exact same way. If someone has a hit record that sounds crappy,
>all the labels want the same crappy sound.
>
>Suddenly I am feeling very old. Fashions change taste changes but I thought
>good sound was forever. Perhaps not so. As a producer who still has at least
>one toe in the current market, I need to have some awareness of the realities
>of the market and the "new sound" is the new sound.
>
>My personal taste has not changed. For most projects that I foresee myself
>working on, I will continue to use Paris, but just as I have made decisions
>in the past to use SSL consoles rather than Neves to achieve a more trendy
>"Pop" mix, I am now experimenting with ways to capture the "elusive PT sound".
>(Insert appropriate emoticon).
>
>Luckily it was reasonably easy to achieve. I recently purchased the Waves
>SSL bundle and running that in Logic can get me very close to the sound
of
>better sounding PT mixes. So I can still use Paris whenever I like and I
>can experiment with a mix of the two styles.
>
> What does all this mean? Nothing other then I understand why some people
>may prefer the way other systems sound and I think that my own preferences
>are biased by many years of listening to records made the old way. I don't
>see giving up Paris any time soon but I also don't think it's worth fighting
>over if someone else has different opinions on what sounds good.
>
>And don’t forget…the cyclical nature of fashion almost guarantees that one
>day we will once again be "in".
>
>Gene
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT. [message #66601 is a reply to message #66598] |
Wed, 12 April 2006 06:06 |
geo
Messages: 12
Registered: November 2005
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Yeah and everything ends up as mp3 for Ipods. So who cares?
I was surprised who cares. Just got done doing a cd project for the "young
and hip". They say when they play music done here, their peers remark it
sounds different....and really good. So this generation raised on cd, like
this "warm" sound Paris delivers.
And if I want that tight slappy digital sound of new PT, I simply boost a
broad "Q" centered around 4500, dump a little 2-300 on the Massive across
the two bus, and viola. Then on the mixdown machine...hard limit to whatever
suits..
Still will probably be forced into Steiney world for cool midi plugs and
such....vertical learning. Technology beckons and I've been 8 years in Paris
and haven't given a rip. But maybe now new tech is ready to equal Paris
performance. Thoughts?.
Geo
"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:443cbb39$1@linux...
>
> "gene lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
> >Do I prefer the sound of Paris over other DAWS because
> >its actually makes better sounding recordings, or is it because it is
closer
> >to the sound I associate with my favorite albums from the last 30 years?
>
> This post reminded me that I haven't listened to the Beatles Let It Be
Naked
> in a while. ;o) And I do love ths sound of that album. Soft and warm and
> analog, but with elements of clarity that only come from digital
processing...
>
> ...but I don't understand what you're getting at? ;o) Hehe...
>
> ...suffice to say, it's now playing...
>
> "All through the night, I me mine, I me mine, I me mine..."
>
> I think you're right though. In a way.
>
> On one hand I would say I think Paris has a sound, whereas most good
digital
> systems these days are cold and pure. Hence one could argue Paris is
coloured
> where other DAWs are not.
>
> On the other hand, part of me still thinks that air, where the "summing
bus"
> mathematics is done in nature, may not necessarily be as pure in it's
additions
> as is a digital DAW. For example, I would think that air, when heavily
compressed,
> would offer more resistance the more it was compressed. It's not just
doing
> to keep giving. It will resist more with greater compression. So the
louder
> the sound, and the more you add sound together, the more you would get a
> mild compression effect on the peaks. In analog systems, and possibly
Paris,
> you get this effect. It's only slight, but it's there. In digital systems
> you don't.
>
> I've never seen or heard anything about how sound works in the air and how
> clean the maths is. People seem to assume it to be pure clean maths, but
> I find that unlikely. Air is a dirty mixed up substance full of different
> gases and particles, and sounds by nature are waves crossing in different
> directions, intersecting, and doing all kinds of things.
>
> Hence, which system is coloured? The digital or the analog? Paris or
Protools
> or, indeed, air? I suggested this in a post a while back I'm pretty sure.
>
> But I think there's certainly variation in what various people prefer
sound
> wise. Digital is currently "in". Overcompressed is certainly in. Mind you
> I think this is the way of the future. People are increasingly wanting
everything
> in little compact packages that are easier to digest. Getting somebody to
> make you a pizza with chilli that's actually hot is becoming increasingly
> difficult. I'd like to think that one day Paris, and the more analog sound
> will be back in, but I suspect not. I beleive it will always have a
following
> though.
>
> It certainly has more funk and soul in my books. :o)
>
> Cheers,
> Kim.
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT. [message #66608 is a reply to message #66582] |
Wed, 12 April 2006 07:06 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"gene lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>When HD was released, the distinction was far less obvious. HD still sounds
>different from Paris but not awful anymore, just different. Paris still
has
>more of an analog/tape sound plus the added benefit of sounding more aggressive
>when you push the gain stages.
I put a PT rig in for a graduate school composition program and,
for classical at least, I think HD still sounds gritchy on the top
end. Paris can have more of an analog tape sound, but if you
don't push it, it sounds pristine enough for orchestras, and frankly
killed my Sonic Solutions rig on the same material. So, I still see
no reason whatsoever to care about PT's, so I don't.
>So now the big question! Do I prefer the sound of Paris over other DAWS
because
>its actually makes better sounding recordings, or is it because it is closer
>to the sound I associate with my favorite albums from the last 30 years?
Both. Depends on how you use it.
>I think the truth is closer to the second, and I think this is largely a
>learned behavior, empirical rather than based on any truth.
Well, the only thing in audio is what gets the music across, and what
the client will pay for, so it's hard to speak of truth in this context.
Just because someone likes something or will pay for it, doesn't
mean it sounds good, yet it is hard to open our minds to new
approaches sometimes innit?
Seems to me that both sides have a point.
>In a recent session at another producer's studio (who will remain unnamed),
>I listened to some pop-rock mixes done on a Paris rig. The sound was big
>and clear and sounded very tape-like. Overall it sounded quite good and
not
>at all wimpy. The artist however hated the sound. He played us a number
of
>recent albums known to have been recorded in PT or similar sounding DAWS
>as examples of what he wanted. This is the sound he knows and more important
>it is the sound he likes! Yikes!! Compressed to a dynamic range of about
>10db and very little sense of depth, space or stereo width.
If the client has no ears, there is nothing you can do but give them
their sound or walk away. In my case, a band of pretty young
people love the Paris sound, and I mix pretty clean compared to
some of you.
>Music may be universal but we all know it comes with cultural bias. How
many
>American teens would choose to listen to a steady diet of microtonal music?
Why would anyone listen to microtonal music?? yipes!
Just kidding. It sounds awfully out of tune at first donnit?
I for one am tired of the "dumb teenager" cynicism of the music
biz. Teenagers are not that dumb. The industry and radio are
dumb and even evil for not exposing them to more great music.
>Might as well serve up a big plate of Haggis...
Here you go:
http://www.badhaggis.com
heh heh good band actually.
>And it not just teens. Labels
>work the exact same way. If someone has a hit record that sounds crappy,
>all the labels want the same crappy sound.
Someone said to me years ago about the industry: "if the wrong guy
stopped short on Hollywood, 50,000 noses are gonna go right up
a lot of behinds"
So bugger 'em. I say go your own way. Have a sound all your own
and make them play catch-up.
>Suddenly I am feeling very old. Fashions change taste changes but I thought
>good sound was forever. Perhaps not so. As a producer who still has at least
>one toe in the current market, I need to have some awareness of the realities
>of the market and the "new sound" is the new sound.
WE make the damn market. Following trends leaves you always
behind.
>My personal taste has not changed. For most projects that I foresee myself
>working on, I will continue to use Paris, but just as I have made decisions
>in the past to use SSL consoles rather than Neves to achieve a more trendy
>"Pop" mix, I am now experimenting with ways to capture the "elusive PT sound".
>(Insert appropriate emoticon).
And there's nothing wrong with it. Yet you will still have clients
where great sound will rock their world.
>And don’t forget…the cyclical nature of fashion almost guarantees that one
>day we will once again be "in".
Bingo.
Best wishes,
DC
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT. [message #66669 is a reply to message #66582] |
Thu, 13 April 2006 22:04 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Gene,
Thank you very much for "speaking: the truth about this whole DAW "nastalgic"
sound thing.
Let me just state that I've held my tongue for the last 5 years as I watched
the DAW proaudio market "Hyjack" forward thinking , new fedelity, newer sounding
DAW technology.
The DAW market has been held "ransom" to the "old' guard Engineers who ears
are trained to hear "un-natural" de-emphasis", muddied up recordings.
I remember my very first recording session as a guitar player. The year 1982
as I remember recording my tracks to 2 ich Otari MTR, MCI mixer..Fine.. The
sound was nice, clear just the way I recorded it. But, remember thinking
"This does sound like a record" Hummmm... After all the other instruments
were push up in the mix ,along with the vocals, stillnot a record sound..
In other works, where is the mudied drums? the thudy bass? the muddied vocals
that I heard since I was 4 years old??? where was this sound??
Well, we hen attended the mix session, I soon found out that, the magic was
about to occur!! Out comes the Putec(s),the 1176s,LA2(s) GAtes, DBX160..2
hours later they had that record sound..Hummm...I started thinkng again,
"Man, the sound of 30ips Ampex 456 tape was big, vivid, wide, open, witha
ting og high end fidelity..hummmm This was not the record sound..
So here we are in 1997-98-99.PAris. The pro Engineers on this site priased
it for it's "easy ability" to get that record sound!! wow!!! AND, we lawed
every oter digital recorder mixer for being to ....Digital...Not warm enough,
not dull , or muddy enough..
This Pro Engineer-Producer crowd wined,screemed, bitched, moaned on every
forum that the current state of DAW's (namely Protools) mix was bad as well
as most plugins...Even more, they could not mix ITB(In the Box) unless they
has software emulations of their beloved (OLD) compressors EQ, Verbs.(UAD,MCDSP,
Bomb factory)....
So, like magic, companies pour massive resouces to reclaim the glorys days
with the birth of the "Vinatage Plug ins). Their purpose was( is) to make
your mixes"duller"=warmer, more professional(sit right, al in all..Make the
mixes sound like 1975!!!
Now in 2006 the "what I call" modern sound of DAWS, being lead by Pro Tools
HD and Nuedno, Sonar there's a shift occuring in the "Holy-Grail " RECORD-SOUND...
With Garage bands, rap artist, Rock bands, Soul singers of today having NO
prior knowledge,nor the Formal training to 'get he 1975" sound, we have the
High-Fedelity DAW sound in all it'sglory!! ..Yipee!!
Still, the old guard continues to hold it's thumb on the DAW market and keep
driving manufactures to making more and more vintage plugins. But, every
now and then a product like Ozone's Izatope comes along (and others) that
challeng the old "muddy up the mix crowd).
Today kids are brought onthe Pro_Tools(Mix & HD) sound. They expect to hear
that sound. they have no idea on how to get a 1975 sound..
So, I've said all the above to say: Let's move on!!Yes , the Brian Tankersly(I
adore), Nuendo endorsers,vinatge engineers) will continue to push to have
all of their 1960,79, & 80 hardware as a plugin and continue to fight DAW
companies to to fix summing buses or event new a new summing buss market
segment to ensure they et the 1975 sound with todays DAW.
For me,they can have the 1975 sound. I'm moving onward with the cureent state
of very high fifdelity thats afforded me in PT HD And Nuendo..yes, Paris
is still in my rig, but I will no longer
fight mixes to get the 1975 sound..If the mixes are nice and Brightosund
with bottom..So beit..I love the way PT HD sounds with the 192 converters.
Very nice full-spectrum sound ,with a nice top end. I love Nuendo's nice
wide -spacious,clear open , heavey bottom sound with my EMu converters. Let's
evolve past 1975..Pleaseeeeeeeee!!!!
"gene lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>
>I sold my PT rig when I switched to Paris. I did it at the time primarily
>for the sound of the Paris mix bus. This was before HD.
>
>When HD was released, the distinction was far less obvious. HD still sounds
>different from Paris but not awful anymore, just different. Paris still
has
>more of an analog/tape sound plus the added benefit of sounding more aggressive
>when you push the gain stages.
>
>So now the big question! Do I prefer the sound of Paris over other DAWS
because
>its actually makes better sounding recordings, or is it because it is closer
>to the sound I associate with my favorite albums from the last 30 years?
>
>
>I think the truth is closer to the second, and I think this is largely a
>learned behavior, empirical rather than based on any truth.
>
>In a recent session at another producer's studio (who will remain unnamed),
>I listened to some pop-rock mixes done on a Paris rig. The sound was big
>and clear and sounded very tape-like. Overall it sounded quite good and
not
>at all wimpy. The artist however hated the sound. He played us a number
of
>recent albums known to have been recorded in PT or similar sounding DAWS
>as examples of what he wanted. This is the sound he knows and more important
>it is the sound he likes! Yikes!! Compressed to a dynamic range of about
>10db and very little sense of depth, space or stereo width.
>
>Music may be universal but we all know it comes with cultural bias. How
many
>American teens would choose to listen to a steady diet of microtonal music?
>Might as well serve up a big plate of Haggis... And it not just teens. Labels
>work the exact same way. If someone has a hit record that sounds crappy,
>all the labels want the same crappy sound.
>
>Suddenly I am feeling very old. Fashions change taste changes but I thought
>good sound was forever. Perhaps not so. As a producer who still has at least
>one toe in the current market, I need to have some awareness of the realities
>of the market and the "new sound" is the new sound.
>
>My personal taste has not changed. For most projects that I foresee myself
>working on, I will continue to use Paris, but just as I have made decisions
>in the past to use SSL consoles rather than Neves to achieve a more trendy
>"Pop" mix, I am now experimenting with ways to capture the "elusive PT sound".
>(Insert appropriate emoticon).
>
>Luckily it was reasonably easy to achieve. I recently purchased the Waves
>SSL bundle and running that in Logic can get me very close to the sound
of
>better sounding PT mixes. So I can still use Paris whenever I like and I
>can experiment with a mix of the two styles.
>
> What does all this mean? Nothing other then I understand why some people
>may prefer the way other systems sound and I think that my own preferences
>are biased by many years of listening to records made the old way. I don't
>see giving up Paris any time soon but I also don't think it's worth fighting
>over if someone else has different opinions on what sounds good.
>
>And don’t forget…the cyclical nature of fashion almost guarantees that one
>day we will once again be "in".
>
>Gene
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT. [message #66670 is a reply to message #66669] |
Thu, 13 April 2006 22:53 |
gene lennon
Messages: 565
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
LaMont,
I agree with much of what you said but not completely.
I think you could apply the same logic to all aspects of the recordings arts.
A TLM170 sounds much cleaner and “Truer” than a U47, just as a GML 8900 sounds
much cleaner than a 1176, but that does not mean that I would prefer the
TLM170 or the GML 8900 in most cases.
I accept that my taste in audio is largely influenced by the years of “old
school” records I have been listening to, but just because I recognize where
some of my preferences come from does not mean I have changes my mind. I
still don’t believe that the new sound is better.
I do however feel I will need to stay somewhat in tune with the current sound
for any major market projects that I do in the future.
A separate issue is what mastering engineers under the influence of A&R men
are doing to records before they are released. Trend or not I think that
is criminal.
So I recognize my own prejudices, I think I clearly see the new trends, but
I don’t prefer the new sound. I have no doubt that for many listeners now
and most in the future I will be from “The school of the outdated sound.”
gene
"LaMont" <jjdpro@aameritech.net> wrote:
>
>Gene,
>Thank you very much for "speaking: the truth about this whole DAW "nastalgic"
>sound thing.
>
>Let me just state that I've held my tongue for the last 5 years as I watched
>the DAW proaudio market "Hyjack" forward thinking , new fedelity, newer
sounding
>DAW technology.
>
>The DAW market has been held "ransom" to the "old' guard Engineers who ears
>are trained to hear "un-natural" de-emphasis", muddied up recordings.
>
>I remember my very first recording session as a guitar player. The year
1982
>as I remember recording my tracks to 2 ich Otari MTR, MCI mixer..Fine..
The
>sound was nice, clear just the way I recorded it. But, remember thinking
>"This does sound like a record" Hummmm... After all the other instruments
>were push up in the mix ,along with the vocals, stillnot a record sound..
>
>In other works, where is the mudied drums? the thudy bass? the muddied vocals
>that I heard since I was 4 years old??? where was this sound??
>
>Well, we hen attended the mix session, I soon found out that, the magic
was
>about to occur!! Out comes the Putec(s),the 1176s,LA2(s) GAtes, DBX160..2
>hours later they had that record sound..Hummm...I started thinkng again,
>"Man, the sound of 30ips Ampex 456 tape was big, vivid, wide, open, witha
>ting og high end fidelity..hummmm This was not the record sound..
>
>So here we are in 1997-98-99.PAris. The pro Engineers on this site priased
>it for it's "easy ability" to get that record sound!! wow!!! AND, we lawed
>every oter digital recorder mixer for being to ....Digital...Not warm enough,
>not dull , or muddy enough..
>This Pro Engineer-Producer crowd wined,screemed, bitched, moaned on every
>forum that the current state of DAW's (namely Protools) mix was bad as well
>as most plugins...Even more, they could not mix ITB(In the Box) unless they
>has software emulations of their beloved (OLD) compressors EQ, Verbs.(UAD,MCDSP,
>Bomb factory)....
>
>So, like magic, companies pour massive resouces to reclaim the glorys days
>with the birth of the "Vinatage Plug ins). Their purpose was( is) to make
>your mixes"duller"=warmer, more professional(sit right, al in all..Make
the
>mixes sound like 1975!!!
>
>Now in 2006 the "what I call" modern sound of DAWS, being lead by Pro Tools
>HD and Nuedno, Sonar there's a shift occuring in the "Holy-Grail " RECORD-SOUND...
>With Garage bands, rap artist, Rock bands, Soul singers of today having
NO
>prior knowledge,nor the Formal training to 'get he 1975" sound, we have
the
>High-Fedelity DAW sound in all it'sglory!! ..Yipee!!
>
>Still, the old guard continues to hold it's thumb on the DAW market and
keep
>driving manufactures to making more and more vintage plugins. But, every
>now and then a product like Ozone's Izatope comes along (and others) that
>challeng the old "muddy up the mix crowd).
>
>Today kids are brought onthe Pro_Tools(Mix & HD) sound. They expect to hear
>that sound. they have no idea on how to get a 1975 sound..
>
>So, I've said all the above to say: Let's move on!!Yes , the Brian Tankersly(I
>adore), Nuendo endorsers,vinatge engineers) will continue to push to have
>all of their 1960,79, & 80 hardware as a plugin and continue to fight DAW
>companies to to fix summing buses or event new a new summing buss market
>segment to ensure they et the 1975 sound with todays DAW.
>
>For me,they can have the 1975 sound. I'm moving onward with the cureent
state
>of very high fifdelity thats afforded me in PT HD And Nuendo..yes, Paris
>is still in my rig, but I will no longer
>fight mixes to get the 1975 sound..If the mixes are nice and Brightosund
>with bottom..So beit..I love the way PT HD sounds with the 192 converters.
>Very nice full-spectrum sound ,with a nice top end. I love Nuendo's nice
>wide -spacious,clear open , heavey bottom sound with my EMu converters.
Let's
>evolve past 1975..Pleaseeeeeeeee!!!!
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT. [message #66671 is a reply to message #66669] |
Thu, 13 April 2006 23:08 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 4/13/06 11:04 PM, in article 443f2d4d$1@linux, "LaMont"
<jjdpro@aameritech.net> wrote:
Ditto gentlemen, and well said. I'm much closer to the high fidelity,
clarity is king crowd than saturate the tape crowd and always have been, but
that's how I grew up (even with 60's and 70's bands I listened to), and my
personal taste. And I agree with Gene, I also believe much of what we like
is based on what we learn and associate with the best music listening times
in our lives. A revelation on sound came for me when a friend introduced me
to "high end" recordings from Sheffield Labs - James Newton Howard for one.
Great music, and stunning recordings. So much effort went into getting a
pristine sound, but now we've come full circle and want to rough up the
pristine sound we have to get back what we worked so hard to eliminate.
I used to transfer all my records as soon as I bought them to metal
cassettes on really nice Harmon Kardon deck - immediately from wrapper to
turntable, needle down as I hit record - not a finger print on the edge, not
a dust speck to drift onto the platter. Cassette wasn't better, but it was
cleaner for a longer time (and car-compatible :-) We had destatic brushes
and doodads to clean up the used records when possible, but it was never
clean enough. Then came CDs - I saved so many hours by getting a CD player!
;-)
I've thought for a long time that much of what we hear in music and judge
standards by is evolved preference. In truth, is there any absolute, and
better yet, should there be? To some degree of course there always have
been - bass in the middle to keep records from skipping, unless it's EQ'd
out; and now we have 0 dBFS. The squashed war may be short lived if it even
still rests in artists and engineers' hands.
Regards,
Dedric
> For me,they can have the 1975 sound. I'm moving onward with the cureent state
> of very high fifdelity thats afforded me in PT HD And Nuendo..yes, Paris
> is still in my rig, but I will no longer
> fight mixes to get the 1975 sound..If the mixes are nice and Brightosund
> with bottom..So beit..I love the way PT HD sounds with the 192 converters.
> Very nice full-spectrum sound ,with a nice top end. I love Nuendo's nice
> wide -spacious,clear open , heavey bottom sound with my EMu converters. Let's
> evolve past 1975..Pleaseeeeeeeee!!!!
>
>
>
>
> "gene lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I sold my PT rig when I switched to Paris. I did it at the time primarily
>> for the sound of the Paris mix bus. This was before HD.
>>
>> When HD was released, the distinction was far less obvious. HD still sounds
>> different from Paris but not awful anymore, just different. Paris still
> has
>> more of an analog/tape sound plus the added benefit of sounding more
>> aggressive
>> when you push the gain stages.
>>
>> So now the big question! Do I prefer the sound of Paris over other DAWS
> because
>> its actually makes better sounding recordings, or is it because it is closer
>> to the sound I associate with my favorite albums from the last 30 years?
>>
>>
>> I think the truth is closer to the second, and I think this is largely a
>> learned behavior, empirical rather than based on any truth.
>>
>> In a recent session at another producer's studio (who will remain unnamed),
>> I listened to some pop-rock mixes done on a Paris rig. The sound was big
>> and clear and sounded very tape-like. Overall it sounded quite good and
> not
>> at all wimpy. The artist however hated the sound. He played us a number
> of
>> recent albums known to have been recorded in PT or similar sounding DAWS
>> as examples of what he wanted. This is the sound he knows and more important
>> it is the sound he likes! Yikes!! Compressed to a dynamic range of about
>> 10db and very little sense of depth, space or stereo width.
>>
>> Music may be universal but we all know it comes with cultural bias. How
> many
>> American teens would choose to listen to a steady diet of microtonal music?
>> Might as well serve up a big plate of Haggis... And it not just teens. Labels
>> work the exact same way. If someone has a hit record that sounds crappy,
>> all the labels want the same crappy sound.
>>
>> Suddenly I am feeling very old. Fashions change taste changes but I thought
>> good sound was forever. Perhaps not so. As a producer who still has at least
>> one toe in the current market, I need to have some awareness of the realities
>> of the market and the "new sound" is the new sound.
>>
>> My personal taste has not changed. For most projects that I foresee myself
>> working on, I will continue to use Paris, but just as I have made decisions
>> in the past to use SSL consoles rather than Neves to achieve a more trendy
>> "Pop" mix, I am now experimenting with ways to capture the "elusive PT
>> sound".
>> (Insert appropriate emoticon).
>>
>> Luckily it was reasonably easy to achieve. I recently purchased the Waves
>> SSL bundle and running that in Logic can get me very close to the sound
> of
>> better sounding PT mixes. So I can still use Paris whenever I like and I
>> can experiment with a mix of the two styles.
>>
>> What does all this mean? Nothing other then I understand why some people
>> may prefer the way other systems sound and I think that my own preferences
>> are biased by many years of listening to records made the old way. I don't
>> see giving up Paris any time soon but I also don't think it's worth fighting
>> over if someone else has different opinions on what sounds good.
>>
>> And donÂ’t forgetÂ…the cyclical nature of fashion almost guarantees that one
>> day we will once again be "in".
>>
>> Gene
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT. [message #66672 is a reply to message #66669] |
Thu, 13 April 2006 23:41 |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I think there's a degree of truth in the idea that people get set in the
way something should sound and don't like change.
I don't think I support the idea though that Protools' sound is superior,
and the future, and that Paris supporters are just set in their ways.
Even if I was to accept that Protools is cleaner, clean isn't always better,
that's been well proven. If cleanest was always the best, we'd all plug guitars
straight in to the desk, or the cleanest pre we had. We wouldn't want to
muddy up the sound by running through an amp, and then into a mic. I mean
that's just going to dirty the sound. That's an extreme and obvious example
of somewhere where a dirty sound is fairly universally considered superior.
Of course there are many guitars on records that are plugged straight in.
Sometimes it's what you want. Different strokes...
I remember something Dave Stewart of the Eurythmics said back in the 80's.
He said "There are no bad sounds, just bad uses for sounds". He had all kinds
of instruments, some keyboards as cheap as $10 which made cheezy tinny crackly
sounds, but sometimes that's what you want.
People like different sounds, and different production styles. They always
will. Are there Paris owners who only like Paris because it sounds "vintage"?
Probably. Is that wrong? No. How can it be wrong to like something because
it reminds you of something you enjoy?
As per my other post, I'm not convinced that the air's natural summing bus
performs exact addition like that in Protools anyhow. Matter of fact I'm
almost certain it would not. Does that make Protools wrong? No, it makes
it a sound. It's a sound, to add to the many other options available for
making sound. It happens to be the sound that people are used to at the moment,
and hence it's very popular.
I imagine Protools is not much closer at emulating what happens in the air
than analog gear, or Paris. Most things in nature have logarithmic curves.
Like how the faster you drive the more air resistance you get. Like how the
closer you get to the speed of light the more power it takes to go faster.
I'd say with some confidence that air pressure works the same. The higher
the pressure you want, the harder you'd have to push, and for double the
pressure, you'd need to press slightly more than twice as hard. Sound being
waves of pressure, this would give them a logarithmic curve. Adding together
two sounds of equal volume and you wont get double the volume, you'll get
99.9% more volume, because to create double the pressure takes more than
double the energy. Protools doesn't work like that. But it is a sound, and
many people like it, so good luck to them. I think saying that Protools,
or any sound, is "right" is dangerous.
I don't think vintage plugs etc are holding anybody back. They're just options.
They allow you to acheive a sound within the digital domain.
I think the availability of different options is a great thing. What is most
dangerous is anybody who claims that any system, old, new, or whatever, is
superior in every way to any other system. Every system, and every sound,
is superior to others in some ways, and inferior in others.
The art form is in choosing the right sounds for the right moments. If the
sound that you're after requires or benefits from a particular system, then
use that system.
Personally I'm still not a fan of the Protools sound. I'm not nearly as against
it as I used to be though. But I'd rather the sound of Paris, even if some
consider it muddy.
Cheers,
Kim.
"LaMont" <jjdpro@aameritech.net> wrote:
>
>Gene,
>Thank you very much for "speaking: the truth about this whole DAW "nastalgic"
>sound thing.
>
>Let me just state that I've held my tongue for the last 5 years as I watched
>the DAW proaudio market "Hyjack" forward thinking , new fedelity, newer
sounding
>DAW technology.
>
>The DAW market has been held "ransom" to the "old' guard Engineers who ears
>are trained to hear "un-natural" de-emphasis", muddied up recordings.
>
>I remember my very first recording session as a guitar player. The year
1982
>as I remember recording my tracks to 2 ich Otari MTR, MCI mixer..Fine..
The
>sound was nice, clear just the way I recorded it. But, remember thinking
>"This does sound like a record" Hummmm... After all the other instruments
>were push up in the mix ,along with the vocals, stillnot a record sound..
>
>In other works, where is the mudied drums? the thudy bass? the muddied vocals
>that I heard since I was 4 years old??? where was this sound??
>
>Well, we hen attended the mix session, I soon found out that, the magic
was
>about to occur!! Out comes the Putec(s),the 1176s,LA2(s) GAtes, DBX160..2
>hours later they had that record sound..Hummm...I started thinkng again,
>"Man, the sound of 30ips Ampex 456 tape was big, vivid, wide, open, witha
>ting og high end fidelity..hummmm This was not the record sound..
>
>So here we are in 1997-98-99.PAris. The pro Engineers on this site priased
>it for it's "easy ability" to get that record sound!! wow!!! AND, we lawed
>every oter digital recorder mixer for being to ....Digital...Not warm enough,
>not dull , or muddy enough..
>This Pro Engineer-Producer crowd wined,screemed, bitched, moaned on every
>forum that the current state of DAW's (namely Protools) mix was bad as well
>as most plugins...Even more, they could not mix ITB(In the Box) unless they
>has software emulations of their beloved (OLD) compressors EQ, Verbs.(UAD,MCDSP,
>Bomb factory)....
>
>So, like magic, companies pour massive resouces to reclaim the glorys days
>with the birth of the "Vinatage Plug ins). Their purpose was( is) to make
>your mixes"duller"=warmer, more professional(sit right, al in all..Make
the
>mixes sound like 1975!!!
>
>Now in 2006 the "what I call" modern sound of DAWS, being lead by Pro Tools
>HD and Nuedno, Sonar there's a shift occuring in the "Holy-Grail " RECORD-SOUND...
>With Garage bands, rap artist, Rock bands, Soul singers of today having
NO
>prior knowledge,nor the Formal training to 'get he 1975" sound, we have
the
>High-Fedelity DAW sound in all it'sglory!! ..Yipee!!
>
>Still, the old guard continues to hold it's thumb on the DAW market and
keep
>driving manufactures to making more and more vintage plugins. But, every
>now and then a product like Ozone's Izatope comes along (and others) that
>challeng the old "muddy up the mix crowd).
>
>Today kids are brought onthe Pro_Tools(Mix & HD) sound. They expect to hear
>that sound. they have no idea on how to get a 1975 sound..
>
>So, I've said all the above to say: Let's move on!!Yes , the Brian Tankersly(I
>adore), Nuendo endorsers,vinatge engineers) will continue to push to have
>all of their 1960,79, & 80 hardware as a plugin and continue to fight DAW
>companies to to fix summing buses or event new a new summing buss market
>segment to ensure they et the 1975 sound with todays DAW.
>
>For me,they can have the 1975 sound. I'm moving onward with the cureent
state
>of very high fifdelity thats afforded me in PT HD And Nuendo..yes, Paris
>is still in my rig, but I will no longer
>fight mixes to get the 1975 sound..If the mixes are nice and Brightosund
>with bottom..So beit..I love the way PT HD sounds with the 192 converters.
>Very nice full-spectrum sound ,with a nice top end. I love Nuendo's nice
>wide -spacious,clear open , heavey bottom sound with my EMu converters.
Let's
>evolve past 1975..Pleaseeeeeeeee!!!!
>
>
>
>
>"gene lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>I sold my PT rig when I switched to Paris. I did it at the time primarily
>>for the sound of the Paris mix bus. This was before HD.
>>
>>When HD was released, the distinction was far less obvious. HD still sounds
>>different from Paris but not awful anymore, just different. Paris still
>has
>>more of an analog/tape sound plus the added benefit of sounding more aggressive
>>when you push the gain stages.
>>
>>So now the big question! Do I prefer the sound of Paris over other DAWS
>because
>>its actually makes better sounding recordings, or is it because it is closer
>>to the sound I associate with my favorite albums from the last 30 years?
>>
>>
>>I think the truth is closer to the second, and I think this is largely
a
>>learned behavior, empirical rather than based on any truth.
>>
>>In a recent session at another producer's studio (who will remain unnamed),
>>I listened to some pop-rock mixes done on a Paris rig. The sound was big
>>and clear and sounded very tape-like. Overall it sounded quite good and
>not
>>at all wimpy. The artist however hated the sound. He played us a number
>of
>>recent albums known to have been recorded in PT or similar sounding DAWS
>>as examples of what he wanted. This is the sound he knows and more important
>>it is the sound he likes! Yikes!! Compressed to a dynamic range of about
>>10db and very little sense of depth, space or stereo width.
>>
>>Music may be universal but we all know it comes with cultural bias. How
>many
>>American teens would choose to listen to a steady diet of microtonal music?
>>Might as well serve up a big plate of Haggis... And it not just teens.
Labels
>>work the exact same way. If someone has a hit record that sounds crappy,
>>all the labels want the same crappy sound.
>>
>>Suddenly I am feeling very old. Fashions change taste changes but I thought
>>good sound was forever. Perhaps not so. As a producer who still has at
least
>>one toe in the current market, I need to have some awareness of the realities
>>of the market and the "new sound" is the new sound.
>>
>>My personal taste has not changed. For most projects that I foresee myself
>>working on, I will continue to use Paris, but just as I have made decisions
>>in the past to use SSL consoles rather than Neves to achieve a more trendy
>>"Pop" mix, I am now experimenting with ways to capture the "elusive PT
sound".
>>(Insert appropriate emoticon).
>>
>>Luckily it was reasonably easy to achieve. I recently purchased the Waves
>>SSL bundle and running that in Logic can get me very close to the sound
>of
>>better sounding PT mixes. So I can still use Paris whenever I like and
I
>>can experiment with a mix of the two styles.
>>
>> What does all this mean? Nothing other then I understand why some people
>>may prefer the way other systems sound and I think that my own preferences
>>are biased by many years of listening to records made the old way. I don't
>>see giving up Paris any time soon but I also don't think it's worth fighting
>>over if someone else has different opinions on what sounds good.
>>
>>And don’t forget…the cyclical nature of fashion almost guarantees that
one
>>day we will once again be "in".
>>
>>Gene
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT. [message #66673 is a reply to message #66669] |
Thu, 13 April 2006 23:51 |
Martin Harrington
Messages: 560
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Good post, LaMont
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com
"LaMont" <jjdpro@aameritech.net> wrote in message news:443f2d4d$1@linux...
>
> Gene,
> Thank you very much for "speaking: the truth about this whole DAW
> "nastalgic"
> sound thing.
>
> Let me just state that I've held my tongue for the last 5 years as I
> watched
> the DAW proaudio market "Hyjack" forward thinking , new fedelity, newer
> sounding
> DAW technology.
>
> The DAW market has been held "ransom" to the "old' guard Engineers who
> ears
> are trained to hear "un-natural" de-emphasis", muddied up recordings.
>
> I remember my very first recording session as a guitar player. The year
> 1982
> as I remember recording my tracks to 2 ich Otari MTR, MCI mixer..Fine..
> The
> sound was nice, clear just the way I recorded it. But, remember thinking
> "This does sound like a record" Hummmm... After all the other instruments
> were push up in the mix ,along with the vocals, stillnot a record sound..
>
> In other works, where is the mudied drums? the thudy bass? the muddied
> vocals
> that I heard since I was 4 years old??? where was this sound??
>
> Well, we hen attended the mix session, I soon found out that, the magic
> was
> about to occur!! Out comes the Putec(s),the 1176s,LA2(s) GAtes, DBX160..2
> hours later they had that record sound..Hummm...I started thinkng again,
> "Man, the sound of 30ips Ampex 456 tape was big, vivid, wide, open, witha
> ting og high end fidelity..hummmm This was not the record sound..
>
> So here we are in 1997-98-99.PAris. The pro Engineers on this site priased
> it for it's "easy ability" to get that record sound!! wow!!! AND, we
> lawed
> every oter digital recorder mixer for being to ....Digital...Not warm
> enough,
> not dull , or muddy enough..
> This Pro Engineer-Producer crowd wined,screemed, bitched, moaned on every
> forum that the current state of DAW's (namely Protools) mix was bad as
> well
> as most plugins...Even more, they could not mix ITB(In the Box) unless
> they
> has software emulations of their beloved (OLD) compressors EQ,
> Verbs.(UAD,MCDSP,
> Bomb factory)....
>
> So, like magic, companies pour massive resouces to reclaim the glorys days
> with the birth of the "Vinatage Plug ins). Their purpose was( is) to make
> your mixes"duller"=warmer, more professional(sit right, al in all..Make
> the
> mixes sound like 1975!!!
>
> Now in 2006 the "what I call" modern sound of DAWS, being lead by Pro
> Tools
> HD and Nuedno, Sonar there's a shift occuring in the "Holy-Grail "
> RECORD-SOUND...
> With Garage bands, rap artist, Rock bands, Soul singers of today having NO
> prior knowledge,nor the Formal training to 'get he 1975" sound, we have
> the
> High-Fedelity DAW sound in all it'sglory!! ..Yipee!!
>
> Still, the old guard continues to hold it's thumb on the DAW market and
> keep
> driving manufactures to making more and more vintage plugins. But, every
> now and then a product like Ozone's Izatope comes along (and others) that
> challeng the old "muddy up the mix crowd).
>
> Today kids are brought onthe Pro_Tools(Mix & HD) sound. They expect to
> hear
> that sound. they have no idea on how to get a 1975 sound..
>
> So, I've said all the above to say: Let's move on!!Yes , the Brian
> Tankersly(I
> adore), Nuendo endorsers,vinatge engineers) will continue to push to have
> all of their 1960,79, & 80 hardware as a plugin and continue to fight DAW
> companies to to fix summing buses or event new a new summing buss market
> segment to ensure they et the 1975 sound with todays DAW.
>
> For me,they can have the 1975 sound. I'm moving onward with the cureent
> state
> of very high fifdelity thats afforded me in PT HD And Nuendo..yes, Paris
> is still in my rig, but I will no longer
> fight mixes to get the 1975 sound..If the mixes are nice and Brightosund
> with bottom..So beit..I love the way PT HD sounds with the 192 converters.
> Very nice full-spectrum sound ,with a nice top end. I love Nuendo's nice
> wide -spacious,clear open , heavey bottom sound with my EMu converters.
> Let's
> evolve past 1975..Pleaseeeeeeeee!!!!
>
>
>
>
> "gene lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>I sold my PT rig when I switched to Paris. I did it at the time primarily
>>for the sound of the Paris mix bus. This was before HD.
>>
>>When HD was released, the distinction was far less obvious. HD still
>>sounds
>>different from Paris but not awful anymore, just different. Paris still
> has
>>more of an analog/tape sound plus the added benefit of sounding more
>>aggressive
>>when you push the gain stages.
>>
>>So now the big question! Do I prefer the sound of Paris over other DAWS
> because
>>its actually makes better sounding recordings, or is it because it is
>>closer
>>to the sound I associate with my favorite albums from the last 30 years?
>>
>>
>>I think the truth is closer to the second, and I think this is largely a
>>learned behavior, empirical rather than based on any truth.
>>
>>In a recent session at another producer's studio (who will remain
>>unnamed),
>>I listened to some pop-rock mixes done on a Paris rig. The sound was big
>>and clear and sounded very tape-like. Overall it sounded quite good and
> not
>>at all wimpy. The artist however hated the sound. He played us a number
> of
>>recent albums known to have been recorded in PT or similar sounding DAWS
>>as examples of what he wanted. This is the sound he knows and more
>>important
>>it is the sound he likes! Yikes!! Compressed to a dynamic range of about
>>10db and very little sense of depth, space or stereo width.
>>
>>Music may be universal but we all know it comes with cultural bias. How
> many
>>American teens would choose to listen to a steady diet of microtonal
>>music?
>>Might as well serve up a big plate of Haggis... And it not just teens.
>>Labels
>>work the exact same way. If someone has a hit record that sounds crappy,
>>all the labels want the same crappy sound.
>>
>>Suddenly I am feeling very old. Fashions change taste changes but I
>>thought
>>good sound was forever. Perhaps not so. As a producer who still has at
>>least
>>one toe in the current market, I need to have some awareness of the
>>realities
>>of the market and the "new sound" is the new sound.
>>
>>My personal taste has not changed. For most projects that I foresee myself
>>working on, I will continue to use Paris, but just as I have made
>>decisions
>>in the past to use SSL consoles rather than Neves to achieve a more trendy
>>"Pop" mix, I am now experimenting with ways to capture the "elusive PT
>>sound".
>>(Insert appropriate emoticon).
>>
>>Luckily it was reasonably easy to achieve. I recently purchased the Waves
>>SSL bundle and running that in Logic can get me very close to the sound
> of
>>better sounding PT mixes. So I can still use Paris whenever I like and I
>>can experiment with a mix of the two styles.
>>
>> What does all this mean? Nothing other then I understand why some people
>>may prefer the way other systems sound and I think that my own preferences
>>are biased by many years of listening to records made the old way. I don't
>>see giving up Paris any time soon but I also don't think it's worth
>>fighting
>>over if someone else has different opinions on what sounds good.
>>
>>And don’t forget…the cyclical nature of fashion almost guarantees that one
>>day we will once again be "in".
>>
>>Gene
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT. [message #66674 is a reply to message #66672] |
Thu, 13 April 2006 23:54 |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I should add for clarity...
....obviously the sound measurement system of db is already logarithmic,
but the underlying math in DAW's as I understand it is not. Obviously when
you add a 20db sound to another identical 20db sound you don't get a 40db
sound (you get 26db yes?) because the level measurement is logarithmic.
What I'm saying is that I'm pretty sure if you performed this experiment
in the air, you would find that you got 25.999db, and that if you performed
the same experiment, for arguments sake, at 120db, you'd get an even bigger
drop, say 125.98db, or less.
DB is just our volume measurement system. The underlying maths in a DAW are
straight linear maths, and I don't think they should be...
....assuming that you're trying to emulate the summing that takes place in
air.
Cheers,
Kim.
"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>I think there's a degree of truth in the idea that people get set in the
>way something should sound and don't like change.
>
>I don't think I support the idea though that Protools' sound is superior,
>and the future, and that Paris supporters are just set in their ways.
>
>Even if I was to accept that Protools is cleaner, clean isn't always better,
>that's been well proven. If cleanest was always the best, we'd all plug
guitars
>straight in to the desk, or the cleanest pre we had. We wouldn't want to
>muddy up the sound by running through an amp, and then into a mic. I mean
>that's just going to dirty the sound. That's an extreme and obvious example
>of somewhere where a dirty sound is fairly universally considered superior.
>Of course there are many guitars on records that are plugged straight in.
>Sometimes it's what you want. Different strokes...
>
>I remember something Dave Stewart of the Eurythmics said back in the 80's.
>He said "There are no bad sounds, just bad uses for sounds". He had all
kinds
>of instruments, some keyboards as cheap as $10 which made cheezy tinny crackly
>sounds, but sometimes that's what you want.
>
>People like different sounds, and different production styles. They always
>will. Are there Paris owners who only like Paris because it sounds "vintage"?
>Probably. Is that wrong? No. How can it be wrong to like something because
>it reminds you of something you enjoy?
>
>As per my other post, I'm not convinced that the air's natural summing bus
>performs exact addition like that in Protools anyhow. Matter of fact I'm
>almost certain it would not. Does that make Protools wrong? No, it makes
>it a sound. It's a sound, to add to the many other options available for
>making sound. It happens to be the sound that people are used to at the
moment,
>and hence it's very popular.
>
>I imagine Protools is not much closer at emulating what happens in the air
>than analog gear, or Paris. Most things in nature have logarithmic curves.
>Like how the faster you drive the more air resistance you get. Like how
the
>closer you get to the speed of light the more power it takes to go faster.
>I'd say with some confidence that air pressure works the same. The higher
>the pressure you want, the harder you'd have to push, and for double the
>pressure, you'd need to press slightly more than twice as hard. Sound being
>waves of pressure, this would give them a logarithmic curve. Adding together
>two sounds of equal volume and you wont get double the volume, you'll get
>99.9% more volume, because to create double the pressure takes more than
>double the energy. Protools doesn't work like that. But it is a sound, and
>many people like it, so good luck to them. I think saying that Protools,
>or any sound, is "right" is dangerous.
>
>I don't think vintage plugs etc are holding anybody back. They're just options.
>They allow you to acheive a sound within the digital domain.
>
>I think the availability of different options is a great thing. What is
most
>dangerous is anybody who claims that any system, old, new, or whatever,
is
>superior in every way to any other system. Every system, and every sound,
>is superior to others in some ways, and inferior in others.
>
>The art form is in choosing the right sounds for the right moments. If the
>sound that you're after requires or benefits from a particular system, then
>use that system.
>
>Personally I'm still not a fan of the Protools sound. I'm not nearly as
against
>it as I used to be though. But I'd rather the sound of Paris, even if some
>consider it muddy.
>
>Cheers,
>Kim.
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@aameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>Gene,
>>Thank you very much for "speaking: the truth about this whole DAW "nastalgic"
>>sound thing.
>>
>>Let me just state that I've held my tongue for the last 5 years as I watched
>>the DAW proaudio market "Hyjack" forward thinking , new fedelity, newer
>sounding
>>DAW technology.
>>
>>The DAW market has been held "ransom" to the "old' guard Engineers who
ears
>>are trained to hear "un-natural" de-emphasis", muddied up recordings.
>>
>>I remember my very first recording session as a guitar player. The year
>1982
>>as I remember recording my tracks to 2 ich Otari MTR, MCI mixer..Fine..
>The
>>sound was nice, clear just the way I recorded it. But, remember thinking
>>"This does sound like a record" Hummmm... After all the other instruments
>>were push up in the mix ,along with the vocals, stillnot a record sound..
>>
>>In other works, where is the mudied drums? the thudy bass? the muddied
vocals
>>that I heard since I was 4 years old??? where was this sound??
>>
>>Well, we hen attended the mix session, I soon found out that, the magic
>was
>>about to occur!! Out comes the Putec(s),the 1176s,LA2(s) GAtes, DBX160..2
>>hours later they had that record sound..Hummm...I started thinkng again,
>>"Man, the sound of 30ips Ampex 456 tape was big, vivid, wide, open, witha
>>ting og high end fidelity..hummmm This was not the record sound..
>>
>>So here we are in 1997-98-99.PAris. The pro Engineers on this site priased
>>it for it's "easy ability" to get that record sound!! wow!!! AND, we lawed
>>every oter digital recorder mixer for being to ....Digital...Not warm enough,
>>not dull , or muddy enough..
>>This Pro Engineer-Producer crowd wined,screemed, bitched, moaned on every
>>forum that the current state of DAW's (namely Protools) mix was bad as
well
>>as most plugins...Even more, they could not mix ITB(In the Box) unless
they
>>has software emulations of their beloved (OLD) compressors EQ, Verbs.(UAD,MCDSP,
>>Bomb factory)....
>>
>>So, like magic, companies pour massive resouces to reclaim the glorys days
>>with the birth of the "Vinatage Plug ins). Their purpose was( is) to make
>>your mixes"duller"=warmer, more professional(sit right, al in all..Make
>the
>>mixes sound like 1975!!!
>>
>>Now in 2006 the "what I call" modern sound of DAWS, being lead by Pro Tools
>>HD and Nuedno, Sonar there's a shift occuring in the "Holy-Grail " RECORD-SOUND...
>>With Garage bands, rap artist, Rock bands, Soul singers of today having
>NO
>>prior knowledge,nor the Formal training to 'get he 1975" sound, we have
>the
>>High-Fedelity DAW sound in all it'sglory!! ..Yipee!!
>>
>>Still, the old guard continues to hold it's thumb on the DAW market and
>keep
>>driving manufactures to making more and more vintage plugins. But, every
>>now and then a product like Ozone's Izatope comes along (and others) that
>>challeng the old "muddy up the mix crowd).
>>
>>Today kids are brought onthe Pro_Tools(Mix & HD) sound. They expect to
hear
>>that sound. they have no idea on how to get a 1975 sound..
>>
>>So, I've said all the above to say: Let's move on!!Yes , the Brian Tankersly(I
>>adore), Nuendo endorsers,vinatge engineers) will continue to push to have
>>all of their 1960,79, & 80 hardware as a plugin and continue to fight DAW
>>companies to to fix summing buses or event new a new summing buss market
>>segment to ensure they et the 1975 sound with todays DAW.
>>
>>For me,they can have the 1975 sound. I'm moving onward with the cureent
>state
>>of very high fifdelity thats afforded me in PT HD And Nuendo..yes, Paris
>>is still in my rig, but I will no longer
>>fight mixes to get the 1975 sound..If the mixes are nice and Brightosund
>>with bottom..So beit..I love the way PT HD sounds with the 192 converters.
>>Very nice full-spectrum sound ,with a nice top end. I love Nuendo's nice
>>wide -spacious,clear open , heavey bottom sound with my EMu converters.
>Let's
>>evolve past 1975..Pleaseeeeeeeee!!!!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"gene lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>I sold my PT rig when I switched to Paris. I did it at the time primarily
>>>for the sound of the Paris mix bus. This was before HD.
>>>
>>>When HD was released, the distinction was far less obvious. HD still sounds
>>>different from Paris but not awful anymore, just different. Paris still
>>has
>>>more of an analog/tape sound plus the added benefit of sounding more aggressive
>>>when you push the gain stages.
>>>
>>>So now the big question! Do I prefer the sound of Paris over other DAWS
>>because
>>>its actually makes better sounding recordings, or is it because it is
closer
>>>to the sound I associate with my favorite albums from the last 30 years?
>>>
>>>
>>>I think the truth is closer to the second, and I think this is largely
>a
>>>learned behavior, empirical rather than based on any truth.
>>>
>>>In a recent session at another producer's studio (who will remain unnamed),
>>>I listened to some pop-rock mixes done on a Paris rig. The sound was big
>>>and clear and sounded very tape-like. Overall it sounded quite good and
>>not
>>>at all wimpy. The artist however hated the sound. He played us a number
>>of
>>>recent albums known to have been recorded in PT or similar sounding DAWS
>>>as examples of what he wanted. This is the sound he knows and more important
>>>it is the sound he likes! Yikes!! Compressed to a dynamic range of about
>>>10db and very little sense of depth, space or stereo width.
>>>
>>>Music may be universal but we all know it comes with cultural bias. How
>>many
>>>American teens would choose to listen to a steady diet of microtonal music?
>>>Might as well serve up a big plate of Haggis... And it not just teens.
>Labels
>>>work the exact same way. If someone has a hit record that sounds crappy,
>>>all the labels want the same crappy sound.
>>>
>>>Suddenly I am feeling very old. Fashions change taste changes but I thought
>>>good sound was forever. Perhaps not so. As a producer who still has at
>least
>>>one toe in the current market, I need to have some awareness of the realities
>>>of the market and the "new sound" is the new sound.
>>>
>>>My personal taste has not changed. For most projects that I foresee myself
>>>working on, I will continue to use Paris, but just as I have made decisions
>>>in the past to use SSL consoles rather than Neves to achieve a more trendy
>>>"Pop" mix, I am now experimenting with ways to capture the "elusive PT
>sound".
>>>(Insert appropriate emoticon).
>>>
>>>Luckily it was reasonably easy to achieve. I recently purchased the Waves
>>>SSL bundle and running that in Logic can get me very close to the sound
>>of
>>>better sounding PT mixes. So I can still use Paris whenever I like and
>I
>>>can experiment with a mix of the two styles.
>>>
>>> What does all this mean? Nothing other then I understand why some people
>>>may prefer the way other systems sound and I think that my own preferences
>>>are biased by many years of listening to records made the old way. I don't
>>>see giving up Paris any time soon but I also don't think it's worth fighting
>>>over if someone else has different opinions on what sounds good.
>>>
>>>And don’t forget…the cyclical nature of fashion almost guarantees that
>one
>>>day we will once again be "in".
>>>
>>>Gene
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT. [message #66675 is a reply to message #66672] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 00:10 |
dc[4]
Messages: 62
Registered: September 2005
|
Member |
|
|
One myth I would like to dispel is that Paris sounds muddy, vintage,
analog or less detailed than PT's.
It's all in how hard you hit it.
Had a conversation with SSC years ago about using Paris for
classical and he really ground on me hard to try it and compare it to
Sonic Solutions. Sonic has always been the gold standard for
classical, and honestly I thought he was full of it, but I tried it, using
the same source material. He was right, it was actually better than
Sonic on a 70-piece orchestra. Some of you have heard that CD.
Did it sound "vintage" or muddy to you? Of course not, you just
have to treat Paris like any other DAW, and don't push it too hard
and it works great for classical. An orchestra recorded with the
just 2 of the best mics in the world (DPA / B&K) the best pre
(no tubes please!) and a great convertor is the ultimate test for
clarity. One little loss of anything and the whole things turns to
crap. It must be eq'ed and mastered to perfection, but if it is, it
sounds like you are in the room with the orchestra.
Paris works extremely well on an orchestra and I can tell you that
unless you push the levels the sound is as real, detailed, open and
clear as I have ever heard.
Personally, I think Paris murders PT's on orchestras. The clarity
and lack of distortion, even on the upper harmonics of high violin
notes, is really better and the soundstage and imaging is terrific.
Try not hitting Paris so hard in the mixer, push the submix masters
all the way up, and listen to the audio get nice and pristine.
DC
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT. [message #66677 is a reply to message #66675] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 00:22 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Of course not, you just
have to treat Paris like any other DAW, and don't push it too hard
and it works great for classical.
That's the beauty of it. It works either way. There is an issue with the D/A
converters and jitter when using the Paris clock, but with an external clock
I've never thought it sounded anything other than what I wanted it to sound.
Mixing conservatively yields a very pristing/accurate sounding
result.....however, this is blasphemy and I have to immediately jack the
submix faders into the stratosphere so I can hear all that crappy distortion
that I like.
;O)
"DC" <dc@spamthemoon.com> wrote in message news:443f4acc$1@linux...
>
> One myth I would like to dispel is that Paris sounds muddy, vintage,
> analog or less detailed than PT's.
>
> It's all in how hard you hit it.
>
> Had a conversation with SSC years ago about using Paris for
> classical and he really ground on me hard to try it and compare it to
> Sonic Solutions. Sonic has always been the gold standard for
> classical, and honestly I thought he was full of it, but I tried it, using
> the same source material. He was right, it was actually better than
> Sonic on a 70-piece orchestra. Some of you have heard that CD.
> Did it sound "vintage" or muddy to you? Of course not, you just
> have to treat Paris like any other DAW, and don't push it too hard
> and it works great for classical. An orchestra recorded with the
> just 2 of the best mics in the world (DPA / B&K) the best pre
> (no tubes please!) and a great convertor is the ultimate test for
> clarity. One little loss of anything and the whole things turns to
> crap. It must be eq'ed and mastered to perfection, but if it is, it
> sounds like you are in the room with the orchestra.
>
> Paris works extremely well on an orchestra and I can tell you that
> unless you push the levels the sound is as real, detailed, open and
> clear as I have ever heard.
> Personally, I think Paris murders PT's on orchestras. The clarity
> and lack of distortion, even on the upper harmonics of high violin
> notes, is really better and the soundstage and imaging is terrific.
>
> Try not hitting Paris so hard in the mixer, push the submix masters
> all the way up, and listen to the audio get nice and pristine.
>
> DC
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT. [message #66680 is a reply to message #66670] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 06:38 |
cujo
Messages: 285
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
But you have "a sound" and by being a master of it, when an artist is looking
for that type of thing they will call you, I think that it would be sad if
everyone did things the same way, (it seems to some people there is a right
and wrong)
The differnt flavors are like an painters pallet. I want this recor to ound
vintage ond funky, or I want this one to be crystal clear.
That said, I am starting to think what Lamont says is true, I mean the low
end was rolled off in the old days to prevent the needle from jumping right?
Also, much of the mix compression was for the same thing? now everyone has
subwoofers on thier sub woofers! and digital handles a wide dynamic range,
now, like you saiud, to get the mastering engineers to chill.
"gene lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>LaMont,
>I agree with much of what you said but not completely.
>I think you could apply the same logic to all aspects of the recordings
arts.
>A TLM170 sounds much cleaner and “Truer” than a U47, just as a GML 8900
sounds
>much cleaner than a 1176, but that does not mean that I would prefer the
>TLM170 or the GML 8900 in most cases.
>
>I accept that my taste in audio is largely influenced by the years of “old
>school” records I have been listening to, but just because I recognize where
>some of my preferences come from does not mean I have changes my mind. I
>still don’t believe that the new sound is better.
>I do however feel I will need to stay somewhat in tune with the current
sound
>for any major market projects that I do in the future.
>
>A separate issue is what mastering engineers under the influence of A&R
men
>are doing to records before they are released. Trend or not I think that
>is criminal.
>
>So I recognize my own prejudices, I think I clearly see the new trends,
but
>I don’t prefer the new sound. I have no doubt that for many listeners now
>and most in the future I will be from “The school of the outdated sound.”
>
>gene
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@aameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>Gene,
>>Thank you very much for "speaking: the truth about this whole DAW "nastalgic"
>>sound thing.
>>
>>Let me just state that I've held my tongue for the last 5 years as I watched
>>the DAW proaudio market "Hyjack" forward thinking , new fedelity, newer
>sounding
>>DAW technology.
>>
>>The DAW market has been held "ransom" to the "old' guard Engineers who
ears
>>are trained to hear "un-natural" de-emphasis", muddied up recordings.
>>
>>I remember my very first recording session as a guitar player. The year
>1982
>>as I remember recording my tracks to 2 ich Otari MTR, MCI mixer..Fine..
>The
>>sound was nice, clear just the way I recorded it. But, remember thinking
>>"This does sound like a record" Hummmm... After all the other instruments
>>were push up in the mix ,along with the vocals, stillnot a record sound..
>>
>>In other works, where is the mudied drums? the thudy bass? the muddied
vocals
>>that I heard since I was 4 years old??? where was this sound??
>>
>>Well, we hen attended the mix session, I soon found out that, the magic
>was
>>about to occur!! Out comes the Putec(s),the 1176s,LA2(s) GAtes, DBX160..2
>>hours later they had that record sound..Hummm...I started thinkng again,
>>"Man, the sound of 30ips Ampex 456 tape was big, vivid, wide, open, witha
>>ting og high end fidelity..hummmm This was not the record sound..
>>
>>So here we are in 1997-98-99.PAris. The pro Engineers on this site priased
>>it for it's "easy ability" to get that record sound!! wow!!! AND, we lawed
>>every oter digital recorder mixer for being to ....Digital...Not warm enough,
>>not dull , or muddy enough..
>>This Pro Engineer-Producer crowd wined,screemed, bitched, moaned on every
>>forum that the current state of DAW's (namely Protools) mix was bad as
well
>>as most plugins...Even more, they could not mix ITB(In the Box) unless
they
>>has software emulations of their beloved (OLD) compressors EQ, Verbs.(UAD,MCDSP,
>>Bomb factory)....
>>
>>So, like magic, companies pour massive resouces to reclaim the glorys days
>>with the birth of the "Vinatage Plug ins). Their purpose was( is) to make
>>your mixes"duller"=warmer, more professional(sit right, al in all..Make
>the
>>mixes sound like 1975!!!
>>
>>Now in 2006 the "what I call" modern sound of DAWS, being lead by Pro Tools
>>HD and Nuedno, Sonar there's a shift occuring in the "Holy-Grail " RECORD-SOUND...
>>With Garage bands, rap artist, Rock bands, Soul singers of today having
>NO
>>prior knowledge,nor the Formal training to 'get he 1975" sound, we have
>the
>>High-Fedelity DAW sound in all it'sglory!! ..Yipee!!
>>
>>Still, the old guard continues to hold it's thumb on the DAW market and
>keep
>>driving manufactures to making more and more vintage plugins. But, every
>>now and then a product like Ozone's Izatope comes along (and others) that
>>challeng the old "muddy up the mix crowd).
>>
>>Today kids are brought onthe Pro_Tools(Mix & HD) sound. They expect to
hear
>>that sound. they have no idea on how to get a 1975 sound..
>>
>>So, I've said all the above to say: Let's move on!!Yes , the Brian Tankersly(I
>>adore), Nuendo endorsers,vinatge engineers) will continue to push to have
>>all of their 1960,79, & 80 hardware as a plugin and continue to fight DAW
>>companies to to fix summing buses or event new a new summing buss market
>>segment to ensure they et the 1975 sound with todays DAW.
>>
>>For me,they can have the 1975 sound. I'm moving onward with the cureent
>state
>>of very high fifdelity thats afforded me in PT HD And Nuendo..yes, Paris
>>is still in my rig, but I will no longer
>>fight mixes to get the 1975 sound..If the mixes are nice and Brightosund
>>with bottom..So beit..I love the way PT HD sounds with the 192 converters.
>>Very nice full-spectrum sound ,with a nice top end. I love Nuendo's nice
>>wide -spacious,clear open , heavey bottom sound with my EMu converters.
>Let's
>>evolve past 1975..Pleaseeeeeeeee!!!!
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT. [message #66681 is a reply to message #66670] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 06:45 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I don't think, or at least I hope, there won't be a continued trend for FM,
compressed radio and 64k mp3s to dictate sound. When I think of "outdated"
I think of limited bandwidth, sometimes noisy, and often mushy sound - not a
recording style, or even mixing style necessarily, although it does change
based on pop culture and available technology more than science.
A while back I read a bit on the history of recording. The overwhelming
impression and approach I've taken, and got from reading the history of it,
is that the goal of recording has always been to recreate what we hear as
accurately as possible. Yet, I think somewhere along the way when engineers
quickly realized that technology was a long way from being able to do that,
someone decided to make it a creative venture rather than an accuracy
venture. Obviously there are creative requirements that eliminate accuracy
(I once tried a binaural head test-analysis mic system on vocals - sucked,
but it was incredibly accurate, which goes to show that not all we hear is
as we would prefer to hear it).
Hence now we have, for example, kicks that sound nothing like the real think
- where you had a "koomphhh" or "doomphhh" to start with, the "standard" is
to make it sound more like a "thmp" or "dhmp" (pardon my "technical"
terminology). Gating, compression, EQ, even if not necessary to fix
recording problems, have become a means to not just make the mix fit
together, but alter the sound to what has become the radio standard. Much
of it sounds great for what it is, but it isn't about accurate recording
anymore, and that makes it hyper-dependant on popular trends rather than
audiology.
Regards,
Dedric
On 4/13/06 11:53 PM, in article 443f38eb$1@linux, "gene lennon"
<glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>
> So I recognize my own prejudices, I think I clearly see the new trends, but
> I donÂ’t prefer the new sound. I have no doubt that for many listeners now
> and most in the future I will be from “The school of the outdated sound.”
>
> gene
>
> "LaMont" <jjdpro@aameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>> Gene,
>> Thank you very much for "speaking: the truth about this whole DAW "nastalgic"
>> sound thing.
>>
>> Let me just state that I've held my tongue for the last 5 years as I watched
>> the DAW proaudio market "Hyjack" forward thinking , new fedelity, newer
> sounding
>> DAW technology.
>>
>> The DAW market has been held "ransom" to the "old' guard Engineers who ears
>> are trained to hear "un-natural" de-emphasis", muddied up recordings.
>>
>> I remember my very first recording session as a guitar player. The year
> 1982
>> as I remember recording my tracks to 2 ich Otari MTR, MCI mixer..Fine..
> The
>> sound was nice, clear just the way I recorded it. But, remember thinking
>> "This does sound like a record" Hummmm... After all the other instruments
>> were push up in the mix ,along with the vocals, stillnot a record sound..
>>
>> In other works, where is the mudied drums? the thudy bass? the muddied vocals
>> that I heard since I was 4 years old??? where was this sound??
>>
>> Well, we hen attended the mix session, I soon found out that, the magic
> was
>> about to occur!! Out comes the Putec(s),the 1176s,LA2(s) GAtes, DBX160..2
>> hours later they had that record sound..Hummm...I started thinkng again,
>> "Man, the sound of 30ips Ampex 456 tape was big, vivid, wide, open, witha
>> ting og high end fidelity..hummmm This was not the record sound..
>>
>> So here we are in 1997-98-99.PAris. The pro Engineers on this site priased
>> it for it's "easy ability" to get that record sound!! wow!!! AND, we lawed
>> every oter digital recorder mixer for being to ....Digital...Not warm enough,
>> not dull , or muddy enough..
>> This Pro Engineer-Producer crowd wined,screemed, bitched, moaned on every
>> forum that the current state of DAW's (namely Protools) mix was bad as well
>> as most plugins...Even more, they could not mix ITB(In the Box) unless they
>> has software emulations of their beloved (OLD) compressors EQ,
>> Verbs.(UAD,MCDSP,
>> Bomb factory)....
>>
>> So, like magic, companies pour massive resouces to reclaim the glorys days
>> with the birth of the "Vinatage Plug ins). Their purpose was( is) to make
>> your mixes"duller"=warmer, more professional(sit right, al in all..Make
> the
>> mixes sound like 1975!!!
>>
>> Now in 2006 the "what I call" modern sound of DAWS, being lead by Pro Tools
>> HD and Nuedno, Sonar there's a shift occuring in the "Holy-Grail "
>> RECORD-SOUND...
>> With Garage bands, rap artist, Rock bands, Soul singers of today having
> NO
>> prior knowledge,nor the Formal training to 'get he 1975" sound, we have
> the
>> High-Fedelity DAW sound in all it'sglory!! ..Yipee!!
>>
>> Still, the old guard continues to hold it's thumb on the DAW market and
> keep
>> driving manufactures to making more and more vintage plugins. But, every
>> now and then a product like Ozone's Izatope comes along (and others) that
>> challeng the old "muddy up the mix crowd).
>>
>> Today kids are brought onthe Pro_Tools(Mix & HD) sound. They expect to hear
>> that sound. they have no idea on how to get a 1975 sound..
>>
>> So, I've said all the above to say: Let's move on!!Yes , the Brian
>> Tankersly(I
>> adore), Nuendo endorsers,vinatge engineers) will continue to push to have
>> all of their 1960,79, & 80 hardware as a plugin and continue to fight DAW
>> companies to to fix summing buses or event new a new summing buss market
>> segment to ensure they et the 1975 sound with todays DAW.
>>
>> For me,they can have the 1975 sound. I'm moving onward with the cureent
> state
>> of very high fifdelity thats afforded me in PT HD And Nuendo..yes, Paris
>> is still in my rig, but I will no longer
>> fight mixes to get the 1975 sound..If the mixes are nice and Brightosund
>> with bottom..So beit..I love the way PT HD sounds with the 192 converters.
>> Very nice full-spectrum sound ,with a nice top end. I love Nuendo's nice
>> wide -spacious,clear open , heavey bottom sound with my EMu converters.
> Let's
>> evolve past 1975..Pleaseeeeeeeee!!!!
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT. [message #66690 is a reply to message #66681] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 09:54 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dedric, once again, with a tear in my left eye-smile :) You have state what
I was going to say in response to my original post.
Thanks buddy...
"The overwhelming impression and approach I've taken, and got from reading
the history of it, is that the goal of recording has always been to recreate
what we hear as accurately as possible. Yet, I think somewhere along the
way when engineers
quickly realized that technology was a long way from being able to do that,
someone decided to make it a creative venture rather than an accuracy venture."
Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>I don't think, or at least I hope, there won't be a continued trend for
FM,
>compressed radio and 64k mp3s to dictate sound. When I think of "outdated"
>I think of limited bandwidth, sometimes noisy, and often mushy sound - not
a
>recording style, or even mixing style necessarily, although it does change
>based on pop culture and available technology more than science.
>
>A while back I read a bit on the history of recording. The overwhelming
>impression and approach I've taken, and got from reading the history of
it,
>is that the goal of recording has always been to recreate what we hear as
>accurately as possible. Yet, I think somewhere along the way when engineers
>quickly realized that technology was a long way from being able to do that,
>someone decided to make it a creative venture rather than an accuracy
>venture. Obviously there are creative requirements that eliminate accuracy
>(I once tried a binaural head test-analysis mic system on vocals - sucked,
>but it was incredibly accurate, which goes to show that not all we hear
is
>as we would prefer to hear it).
>
>Hence now we have, for example, kicks that sound nothing like the real think
>- where you had a "koomphhh" or "doomphhh" to start with, the "standard"
is
>to make it sound more like a "thmp" or "dhmp" (pardon my "technical"
>terminology). Gating, compression, EQ, even if not necessary to fix
>recording problems, have become a means to not just make the mix fit
>together, but alter the sound to what has become the radio standard. Much
>of it sounds great for what it is, but it isn't about accurate recording
>anymore, and that makes it hyper-dependant on popular trends rather than
>audiology.
>
>Regards,
>Dedric
>
>On 4/13/06 11:53 PM, in article 443f38eb$1@linux, "gene lennon"
><glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> So I recognize my own prejudices, I think I clearly see the new trends,
but
>> I don’t prefer the new sound. I have no doubt that for many listeners
now
>> and most in the future I will be from “The school of the outdated sound.”
>>
>> gene
>>
>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@aameritech.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Gene,
>>> Thank you very much for "speaking: the truth about this whole DAW "nastalgic"
>>> sound thing.
>>>
>>> Let me just state that I've held my tongue for the last 5 years as I
watched
>>> the DAW proaudio market "Hyjack" forward thinking , new fedelity, newer
>> sounding
>>> DAW technology.
>>>
>>> The DAW market has been held "ransom" to the "old' guard Engineers who
ears
>>> are trained to hear "un-natural" de-emphasis", muddied up recordings.
>>>
>>> I remember my very first recording session as a guitar player. The year
>> 1982
>>> as I remember recording my tracks to 2 ich Otari MTR, MCI mixer..Fine..
>> The
>>> sound was nice, clear just the way I recorded it. But, remember thinking
>>> "This does sound like a record" Hummmm... After all the other instruments
>>> were push up in the mix ,along with the vocals, stillnot a record sound..
>>>
>>> In other works, where is the mudied drums? the thudy bass? the muddied
vocals
>>> that I heard since I was 4 years old??? where was this sound??
>>>
>>> Well, we hen attended the mix session, I soon found out that, the magic
>> was
>>> about to occur!! Out comes the Putec(s),the 1176s,LA2(s) GAtes, DBX160..2
>>> hours later they had that record sound..Hummm...I started thinkng again,
>>> "Man, the sound of 30ips Ampex 456 tape was big, vivid, wide, open, witha
>>> ting og high end fidelity..hummmm This was not the record sound..
>>>
>>> So here we are in 1997-98-99.PAris. The pro Engineers on this site priased
>>> it for it's "easy ability" to get that record sound!! wow!!! AND, we
lawed
>>> every oter digital recorder mixer for being to ....Digital...Not warm
enough,
>>> not dull , or muddy enough..
>>> This Pro Engineer-Producer crowd wined,screemed, bitched, moaned on every
>>> forum that the current state of DAW's (namely Protools) mix was bad as
well
>>> as most plugins...Even more, they could not mix ITB(In the Box) unless
they
>>> has software emulations of their beloved (OLD) compressors EQ,
>>> Verbs.(UAD,MCDSP,
>>> Bomb factory)....
>>>
>>> So, like magic, companies pour massive resouces to reclaim the glorys
days
>>> with the birth of the "Vinatage Plug ins). Their purpose was( is) to
make
>>> your mixes"duller"=warmer, more professional(sit right, al in all..Make
>> the
>>> mixes sound like 1975!!!
>>>
>>> Now in 2006 the "what I call" modern sound of DAWS, being lead by Pro
Tools
>>> HD and Nuedno, Sonar there's a shift occuring in the "Holy-Grail "
>>> RECORD-SOUND...
>>> With Garage bands, rap artist, Rock bands, Soul singers of today having
>> NO
>>> prior knowledge,nor the Formal training to 'get he 1975" sound, we have
>> the
>>> High-Fedelity DAW sound in all it'sglory!! ..Yipee!!
>>>
>>> Still, the old guard continues to hold it's thumb on the DAW market and
>> keep
>>> driving manufactures to making more and more vintage plugins. But, every
>>> now and then a product like Ozone's Izatope comes along (and others)
that
>>> challeng the old "muddy up the mix crowd).
>>>
>>> Today kids are brought onthe Pro_Tools(Mix & HD) sound. They expect to
hear
>>> that sound. they have no idea on how to get a 1975 sound..
>>>
>>> So, I've said all the above to say: Let's move on!!Yes , the Brian
>>> Tankersly(I
>>> adore), Nuendo endorsers,vinatge engineers) will continue to push to
have
>>> all of their 1960,79, & 80 hardware as a plugin and continue to fight
DAW
>>> companies to to fix summing buses or event new a new summing buss market
>>> segment to ensure they et the 1975 sound with todays DAW.
>>>
>>> For me,they can have the 1975 sound. I'm moving onward with the cureent
>> state
>>> of very high fifdelity thats afforded me in PT HD And Nuendo..yes, Paris
>>> is still in my rig, but I will no longer
>>> fight mixes to get the 1975 sound..If the mixes are nice and Brightosund
>>> with bottom..So beit..I love the way PT HD sounds with the 192 converters.
>>> Very nice full-spectrum sound ,with a nice top end. I love Nuendo's nice
>>> wide -spacious,clear open , heavey bottom sound with my EMu converters.
>> Let's
>>> evolve past 1975..Pleaseeeeeeeee!!!!
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT. [message #66692 is a reply to message #66690] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 09:58 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I think it's great that we don't have to deal with some of the issues that
made recording such a chore and required such a number of tools to deal
with, but I'm not nearly as convinced as you guys that *accurate is better*.
Listen to the Dixie Chicks first CD that was recorded to tape and then
subsequent ones that were recorded to digital. The latter fefforts sound
great, but they don't sound as pleasing to my ear as the first one. The
remix of Hotel California is another example of digital awfulness. It's very
accurate and sounds like pure crap, IMO.....and it was originally recorded
to tape and then PT'ed. Sorry, but it doee sound terrible compared to the
original to my ears. With all of the new nice shiny tools we have available
today, it's possible to hear *more* as far as dugital ugliness is concerned
as well. Analog gear and tape provides glue. Lots of stuff falls apart
without glue.
Deej
"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:443fd3ca$1@linux...
>
> Dedric, once again, with a tear in my left eye-smile :) You have state
what
> I was going to say in response to my original post.
> Thanks buddy...
>
> "The overwhelming impression and approach I've taken, and got from reading
> the history of it, is that the goal of recording has always been to
recreate
> what we hear as accurately as possible. Yet, I think somewhere along the
> way when engineers
> quickly realized that technology was a long way from being able to do
that,
> someone decided to make it a creative venture rather than an accuracy
venture."
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
> >I don't think, or at least I hope, there won't be a continued trend for
> FM,
> >compressed radio and 64k mp3s to dictate sound. When I think of
"outdated"
> >I think of limited bandwidth, sometimes noisy, and often mushy sound -
not
> a
> >recording style, or even mixing style necessarily, although it does
change
> >based on pop culture and available technology more than science.
> >
> >A while back I read a bit on the history of recording. The overwhelming
> >impression and approach I've taken, and got from reading the history of
> it,
> >is that the goal of recording has always been to recreate what we hear as
> >accurately as possible. Yet, I think somewhere along the way when
engineers
> >quickly realized that technology was a long way from being able to do
that,
> >someone decided to make it a creative venture rather than an accuracy
> >venture. Obviously there are creative requirements that eliminate
accuracy
> >(I once tried a binaural head test-analysis mic system on vocals -
sucked,
> >but it was incredibly accurate, which goes to show that not all we hear
> is
> >as we would prefer to hear it).
> >
> >Hence now we have, for example, kicks that sound nothing like the real
think
> >- where you had a "koomphhh" or "doomphhh" to start with, the "standard"
> is
> >to make it sound more like a "thmp" or "dhmp" (pardon my "technical"
> >terminology). Gating, compression, EQ, even if not necessary to fix
> >recording problems, have become a means to not just make the mix fit
> >together, but alter the sound to what has become the radio standard.
Much
> >of it sounds great for what it is, but it isn't about accurate recording
> >anymore, and that makes it hyper-dependant on popular trends rather than
> >audiology.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Dedric
> >
> >On 4/13/06 11:53 PM, in article 443f38eb$1@linux, "gene lennon"
> ><glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> So I recognize my own prejudices, I think I clearly see the new trends,
> but
> >> I don't prefer the new sound. I have no doubt that for many listeners
> now
> >> and most in the future I will be from "The school of the outdated
sound."
> >>
> >> gene
> >>
> >> "LaMont" <jjdpro@aameritech.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Gene,
> >>> Thank you very much for "speaking: the truth about this whole DAW
"nastalgic"
> >>> sound thing.
> >>>
> >>> Let me just state that I've held my tongue for the last 5 years as I
> watched
> >>> the DAW proaudio market "Hyjack" forward thinking , new fedelity,
newer
> >> sounding
> >>> DAW technology.
> >>>
> >>> The DAW market has been held "ransom" to the "old' guard Engineers who
> ears
> >>> are trained to hear "un-natural" de-emphasis", muddied up recordings.
> >>>
> >>> I remember my very first recording session as a guitar player. The
year
> >> 1982
> >>> as I remember recording my tracks to 2 ich Otari MTR, MCI
mixer..Fine..
> >> The
> >>> sound was nice, clear just the way I recorded it. But, remember
thinking
> >>> "This does sound like a record" Hummmm... After all the other
instruments
> >>> were push up in the mix ,along with the vocals, stillnot a record
sound..
> >>>
> >>> In other works, where is the mudied drums? the thudy bass? the muddied
> vocals
> >>> that I heard since I was 4 years old??? where was this sound??
> >>>
> >>> Well, we hen attended the mix session, I soon found out that, the
magic
> >> was
> >>> about to occur!! Out comes the Putec(s),the 1176s,LA2(s) GAtes,
DBX160..2
> >>> hours later they had that record sound..Hummm...I started thinkng
again,
> >>> "Man, the sound of 30ips Ampex 456 tape was big, vivid, wide, open,
witha
> >>> ting og high end fidelity..hummmm This was not the record sound..
> >>>
> >>> So here we are in 1997-98-99.PAris. The pro Engineers on this site
priased
> >>> it for it's "easy ability" to get that record sound!! wow!!! AND, we
> lawed
> >>> every oter digital recorder mixer for being to ....Digital...Not warm
> enough,
> >>> not dull , or muddy enough..
> >>> This Pro Engineer-Producer crowd wined,screemed, bitched, moaned on
every
> >>> forum that the current state of DAW's (namely Protools) mix was bad as
> well
> >>> as most plugins...Even more, they could not mix ITB(In the Box) unless
> they
> >>> has software emulations of their beloved (OLD) compressors EQ,
> >>> Verbs.(UAD,MCDSP,
> >>> Bomb factory)....
> >>>
> >>> So, like magic, companies pour massive resouces to reclaim the glorys
> days
> >>> with the birth of the "Vinatage Plug ins). Their purpose was( is) to
> make
> >>> your mixes"duller"=warmer, more professional(sit right, al in
all..Make
> >> the
> >>> mixes sound like 1975!!!
> >>>
> >>> Now in 2006 the "what I call" modern sound of DAWS, being lead by Pro
> Tools
> >>> HD and Nuedno, Sonar there's a shift occuring in the "Holy-Grail "
> >>> RECORD-SOUND...
> >>> With Garage bands, rap artist, Rock bands, Soul singers of today
having
> >> NO
> >>> prior knowledge,nor the Formal training to 'get he 1975" sound, we
have
> >> the
> >>> High-Fedelity DAW sound in all it'sglory!! ..Yipee!!
> >>>
> >>> Still, the old guard continues to hold it's thumb on the DAW market
and
> >> keep
> >>> driving manufactures to making more and more vintage plugins. But,
every
> >>> now and then a product like Ozone's Izatope comes along (and others)
> that
> >>> challeng the old "muddy up the mix crowd).
> >>>
> >>> Today kids are brought onthe Pro_Tools(Mix & HD) sound. They expect to
> hear
> >>> that sound. they have no idea on how to get a 1975 sound..
> >>>
> >>> So, I've said all the above to say: Let's move on!!Yes , the Brian
> >>> Tankersly(I
> >>> adore), Nuendo endorsers,vinatge engineers) will continue to push to
> have
> >>> all of their 1960,79, & 80 hardware as a plugin and continue to fight
> DAW
> >>> companies to to fix summing buses or event new a new summing buss
market
> >>> segment to ensure they et the 1975 sound with todays DAW.
> >>>
> >>> For me,they can have the 1975 sound. I'm moving onward with the
cureent
> >> state
> >>> of very high fifdelity thats afforded me in PT HD And Nuendo..yes,
Paris
> >>> is still in my rig, but I will no longer
> >>> fight mixes to get the 1975 sound..If the mixes are nice and
Brightosund
> >>> with bottom..So beit..I love the way PT HD sounds with the 192
converters.
> >>> Very nice full-spectrum sound ,with a nice top end. I love Nuendo's
nice
> >>> wide -spacious,clear open , heavey bottom sound with my EMu
converters.
> >> Let's
> >>> evolve past 1975..Pleaseeeeeeeee!!!!
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT. [message #66693 is a reply to message #66673] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 10:29 |
JD
Messages: 15
Registered: July 2005
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Everybody's got an opinion. Here we go with the PT is better than Paris stuff
again. I guess this gives us something to talk about, but folks, we're all
being goaded and bated here.
This is what is wrong with the record industry. There is not enough diversity
in sound and music styling these days. The whole cookie cutter approach to
everything really sucks. That's why the record industry was in so much trouble,
five Britney Spears, Spice Girls doesn't cut it for vary long. Just because
a new sound comes along, the old sound shouldn't become null and void. There
should be room for everything. In other words, don't follow the followers,
and maybe you'll get noticed. If everybody used PT the things would be more
boring than they already are!
The demographic for the record companies is, 13 to 25, so the day you turn
26 your null and void??? No music geared to a 26, 36, or 46 year old???
How stupid! Do you really think that a 16 year old would think, yuck, this
music sucks, this wasn't recorded on a PT system! This music is unacceptable!
No, they listen to the song!!!!! The song is what sells them. variety
is good when it comes to sound and production. Both sounds should be acceptable!
But then again this post really wasn't about sound, now was it!
LaMont, if you like PT better cool. Keep chasing your tail dude, your sure
to end up in the same place!
"Martin Harrington" <lendan@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>Good post, LaMont
>
>--
>Martin Harrington
>www.lendanear-sound.com
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@aameritech.net> wrote in message news:443f2d4d$1@linux...
>>
>> Gene,
>> Thank you very much for "speaking: the truth about this whole DAW
>> "nastalgic"
>> sound thing.
>>
>> Let me just state that I've held my tongue for the last 5 years as I
>> watched
>> the DAW proaudio market "Hyjack" forward thinking , new fedelity, newer
>> sounding
>> DAW technology.
>>
>> The DAW market has been held "ransom" to the "old' guard Engineers who
>> ears
>> are trained to hear "un-natural" de-emphasis", muddied up recordings.
>>
>> I remember my very first recording session as a guitar player. The year
>> 1982
>> as I remember recording my tracks to 2 ich Otari MTR, MCI mixer..Fine..
>> The
>> sound was nice, clear just the way I recorded it. But, remember thinking
>> "This does sound like a record" Hummmm... After all the other instruments
>> were push up in the mix ,along with the vocals, stillnot a record sound..
>>
>> In other works, where is the mudied drums? the thudy bass? the muddied
>> vocals
>> that I heard since I was 4 years old??? where was this sound??
>>
>> Well, we hen attended the mix session, I soon found out that, the magic
>> was
>> about to occur!! Out comes the Putec(s),the 1176s,LA2(s) GAtes, DBX160..2
>> hours later they had that record sound..Hummm...I started thinkng again,
>> "Man, the sound of 30ips Ampex 456 tape was big, vivid, wide, open, witha
>> ting og high end fidelity..hummmm This was not the record sound..
>>
>> So here we are in 1997-98-99.PAris. The pro Engineers on this site priased
>> it for it's "easy ability" to get that record sound!! wow!!! AND, we
>> lawed
>> every oter digital recorder mixer for being to ....Digital...Not warm
>> enough,
>> not dull , or muddy enough..
>> This Pro Engineer-Producer crowd wined,screemed, bitched, moaned on every
>> forum that the current state of DAW's (namely Protools) mix was bad as
>> well
>> as most plugins...Even more, they could not mix ITB(In the Box) unless
>> they
>> has software emulations of their beloved (OLD) compressors EQ,
>> Verbs.(UAD,MCDSP,
>> Bomb factory)....
>>
>> So, like magic, companies pour massive resouces to reclaim the glorys
days
>> with the birth of the "Vinatage Plug ins). Their purpose was( is) to make
>> your mixes"duller"=warmer, more professional(sit right, al in all..Make
>> the
>> mixes sound like 1975!!!
>>
>> Now in 2006 the "what I call" modern sound of DAWS, being lead by Pro
>> Tools
>> HD and Nuedno, Sonar there's a shift occuring in the "Holy-Grail "
>> RECORD-SOUND...
>> With Garage bands, rap artist, Rock bands, Soul singers of today having
NO
>> prior knowledge,nor the Formal training to 'get he 1975" sound, we have
>> the
>> High-Fedelity DAW sound in all it'sglory!! ..Yipee!!
>>
>> Still, the old guard continues to hold it's thumb on the DAW market and
>> keep
>> driving manufactures to making more and more vintage plugins. But, every
>> now and then a product like Ozone's Izatope comes along (and others) that
>> challeng the old "muddy up the mix crowd).
>>
>> Today kids are brought onthe Pro_Tools(Mix & HD) sound. They expect to
>> hear
>> that sound. they have no idea on how to get a 1975 sound..
>>
>> So, I've said all the above to say: Let's move on!!Yes , the Brian
>> Tankersly(I
>> adore), Nuendo endorsers,vinatge engineers) will continue to push to have
>> all of their 1960,79, & 80 hardware as a plugin and continue to fight
DAW
>> companies to to fix summing buses or event new a new summing buss market
>> segment to ensure they et the 1975 sound with todays DAW.
>>
>> For me,they can have the 1975 sound. I'm moving onward with the cureent
>> state
>> of very high fifdelity thats afforded me in PT HD And Nuendo..yes, Paris
>> is still in my rig, but I will no longer
>> fight mixes to get the 1975 sound..If the mixes are nice and Brightosund
>> with bottom..So beit..I love the way PT HD sounds with the 192 converters.
>> Very nice full-spectrum sound ,with a nice top end. I love Nuendo's nice
>> wide -spacious,clear open , heavey bottom sound with my EMu converters.
>> Let's
>> evolve past 1975..Pleaseeeeeeeee!!!!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "gene lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>I sold my PT rig when I switched to Paris. I did it at the time primarily
>>>for the sound of the Paris mix bus. This was before HD.
>>>
>>>When HD was released, the distinction was far less obvious. HD still
>>>sounds
>>>different from Paris but not awful anymore, just different. Paris still
>> has
>>>more of an analog/tape sound plus the added benefit of sounding more
>>>aggressive
>>>when you push the gain stages.
>>>
>>>So now the big question! Do I prefer the sound of Paris over other DAWS
>> because
>>>its actually makes better sounding recordings, or is it because it is
>>>closer
>>>to the sound I associate with my favorite albums from the last 30 years?
>>>
>>>
>>>I think the truth is closer to the second, and I think this is largely
a
>>>learned behavior, empirical rather than based on any truth.
>>>
>>>In a recent session at another producer's studio (who will remain
>>>unnamed),
>>>I listened to some pop-rock mixes done on a Paris rig. The sound was big
>>>and clear and sounded very tape-like. Overall it sounded quite good and
>> not
>>>at all wimpy. The artist however hated the sound. He played us a number
>> of
>>>recent albums known to have been recorded in PT or similar sounding DAWS
>>>as examples of what he wanted. This is the sound he knows and more
>>>important
>>>it is the sound he likes! Yikes!! Compressed to a dynamic range of about
>>>10db and very little sense of depth, space or stereo width.
>>>
>>>Music may be universal but we all know it comes with cultural bias. How
>> many
>>>American teens would choose to listen to a steady diet of microtonal
>>>music?
>>>Might as well serve up a big plate of Haggis... And it not just teens.
>>>Labels
>>>work the exact same way. If someone has a hit record that sounds crappy,
>>>all the labels want the same crappy sound.
>>>
>>>Suddenly I am feeling very old. Fashions change taste changes but I
>>>thought
>>>good sound was forever. Perhaps not so. As a producer who still has at
>>>least
>>>one toe in the current market, I need to have some awareness of the
>>>realities
>>>of the market and the "new sound" is the new sound.
>>>
>>>My personal taste has not changed. For most projects that I foresee myself
>>>working on, I will continue to use Paris, but just as I have made
>>>decisions
>>>in the past to use SSL consoles rather than Neves to achieve a more trendy
>>>"Pop" mix, I am now experimenting with ways to capture the "elusive PT
>>>sound".
>>>(Insert appropriate emoticon).
>>>
>>>Luckily it was reasonably easy to achieve. I recently purchased the Waves
>>>SSL bundle and running that in Logic can get me very close to the sound
>> of
>>>better sounding PT mixes. So I can still use Paris whenever I like and
I
>>>can experiment with a mix of the two styles.
>>>
>>> What does all this mean? Nothing other then I understand why some people
>>>may prefer the way other systems sound and I think that my own preferences
>>>are biased by many years of listening to records made the old way. I don't
>>>see giving up Paris any time soon but I also don't think it's worth
>>>fighting
>>>over if someone else has different opinions on what sounds good.
>>>
>>>And don’t forget…the cyclical nature of fashion almost guarantees that
one
>>>day we will once again be "in".
>>>
>>>Gene
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT. [message #66695 is a reply to message #66692] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 10:35 |
JD
Messages: 15
Registered: July 2005
|
Junior Member |
|
|
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>I think it's great that we don't have to deal with some of the issues that
>made recording such a chore and required such a number of tools to deal
>with, but I'm not nearly as convinced as you guys that *accurate is better*.
>Listen to the Dixie Chicks first CD that was recorded to tape and then
>subsequent ones that were recorded to digital. The latter fefforts sound
>great, but they don't sound as pleasing to my ear as the first one. The
>remix of Hotel California is another example of digital awfulness. It's
very
>accurate and sounds like pure crap, IMO.....and it was originally recorded
>to tape and then PT'ed. Sorry, but it doee sound terrible compared to the
>original to my ears. With all of the new nice shiny tools we have available
>today, it's possible to hear *more* as far as dugital ugliness is concerned
>as well. Analog gear and tape provides glue. Lots of stuff falls apart
>without glue.
>
>Deej
Deej, your right as usual!
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:443fd3ca$1@linux...
>>
>> Dedric, once again, with a tear in my left eye-smile :) You have state
>what
>> I was going to say in response to my original post.
>> Thanks buddy...
>>
>> "The overwhelming impression and approach I've taken, and got from reading
>> the history of it, is that the goal of recording has always been to
>recreate
>> what we hear as accurately as possible. Yet, I think somewhere along
the
>> way when engineers
>> quickly realized that technology was a long way from being able to do
>that,
>> someone decided to make it a creative venture rather than an accuracy
>venture."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>> >I don't think, or at least I hope, there won't be a continued trend for
>> FM,
>> >compressed radio and 64k mp3s to dictate sound. When I think of
>"outdated"
>> >I think of limited bandwidth, sometimes noisy, and often mushy sound
-
>not
>> a
>> >recording style, or even mixing style necessarily, although it does
>change
>> >based on pop culture and available technology more than science.
>> >
>> >A while back I read a bit on the history of recording. The overwhelming
>> >impression and approach I've taken, and got from reading the history
of
>> it,
>> >is that the goal of recording has always been to recreate what we hear
as
>> >accurately as possible. Yet, I think somewhere along the way when
>engineers
>> >quickly realized that technology was a long way from being able to do
>that,
>> >someone decided to make it a creative venture rather than an accuracy
>> >venture. Obviously there are creative requirements that eliminate
>accuracy
>> >(I once tried a binaural head test-analysis mic system on vocals -
>sucked,
>> >but it was incredibly accurate, which goes to show that not all we hear
>> is
>> >as we would prefer to hear it).
>> >
>> >Hence now we have, for example, kicks that sound nothing like the real
>think
>> >- where you had a "koomphhh" or "doomphhh" to start with, the "standard"
>> is
>> >to make it sound more like a "thmp" or "dhmp" (pardon my "technical"
>> >terminology). Gating, compression, EQ, even if not necessary to fix
>> >recording problems, have become a means to not just make the mix fit
>> >together, but alter the sound to what has become the radio standard.
>Much
>> >of it sounds great for what it is, but it isn't about accurate recording
>> >anymore, and that makes it hyper-dependant on popular trends rather than
>> >audiology.
>> >
>> >Regards,
>> >Dedric
>> >
>> >On 4/13/06 11:53 PM, in article 443f38eb$1@linux, "gene lennon"
>> ><glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> So I recognize my own prejudices, I think I clearly see the new trends,
>> but
>> >> I don't prefer the new sound. I have no doubt that for many listeners
>> now
>> >> and most in the future I will be from "The school of the outdated
>sound."
>> >>
>> >> gene
>> >>
>> >> "LaMont" <jjdpro@aameritech.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Gene,
>> >>> Thank you very much for "speaking: the truth about this whole DAW
>"nastalgic"
>> >>> sound thing.
>> >>>
>> >>> Let me just state that I've held my tongue for the last 5 years as
I
>> watched
>> >>> the DAW proaudio market "Hyjack" forward thinking , new fedelity,
>newer
>> >> sounding
>> >>> DAW technology.
>> >>>
>> >>> The DAW market has been held "ransom" to the "old' guard Engineers
who
>> ears
>> >>> are trained to hear "un-natural" de-emphasis", muddied up recordings.
>> >>>
>> >>> I remember my very first recording session as a guitar player. The
>year
>> >> 1982
>> >>> as I remember recording my tracks to 2 ich Otari MTR, MCI
>mixer..Fine..
>> >> The
>> >>> sound was nice, clear just the way I recorded it. But, remember
>thinking
>> >>> "This does sound like a record" Hummmm... After all the other
>instruments
>> >>> were push up in the mix ,along with the vocals, stillnot a record
>sound..
>> >>>
>> >>> In other works, where is the mudied drums? the thudy bass? the muddied
>> vocals
>> >>> that I heard since I was 4 years old??? where was this sound??
>> >>>
>> >>> Well, we hen attended the mix session, I soon found out that, the
>magic
>> >> was
>> >>> about to occur!! Out comes the Putec(s),the 1176s,LA2(s) GAtes,
>DBX160..2
>> >>> hours later they had that record sound..Hummm...I started thinkng
>again,
>> >>> "Man, the sound of 30ips Ampex 456 tape was big, vivid, wide, open,
>witha
>> >>> ting og high end fidelity..hummmm This was not the record sound..
>> >>>
>> >>> So here we are in 1997-98-99.PAris. The pro Engineers on this site
>priased
>> >>> it for it's "easy ability" to get that record sound!! wow!!! AND,
we
>> lawed
>> >>> every oter digital recorder mixer for being to ....Digital...Not warm
>> enough,
>> >>> not dull , or muddy enough..
>> >>> This Pro Engineer-Producer crowd wined,screemed, bitched, moaned on
>every
>> >>> forum that the current state of DAW's (namely Protools) mix was bad
as
>> well
>> >>> as most plugins...Even more, they could not mix ITB(In the Box) unless
>> they
>> >>> has software emulations of their beloved (OLD) compressors EQ,
>> >>> Verbs.(UAD,MCDSP,
>> >>> Bomb factory)....
>> >>>
>> >>> So, like magic, companies pour massive resouces to reclaim the glorys
>> days
>> >>> with the birth of the "Vinatage Plug ins). Their purpose was( is)
to
>> make
>> >>> your mixes"duller"=warmer, more professional(sit right, al in
>all..Make
>> >> the
>> >>> mixes sound like 1975!!!
>> >>>
>> >>> Now in 2006 the "what I call" modern sound of DAWS, being lead by
Pro
>> Tools
>> >>> HD and Nuedno, Sonar there's a shift occuring in the "Holy-Grail "
>> >>> RECORD-SOUND...
>> >>> With Garage bands, rap artist, Rock bands, Soul singers of today
>having
>> >> NO
>> >>> prior knowledge,nor the Formal training to 'get he 1975" sound, we
>have
>> >> the
>> >>> High-Fedelity DAW sound in all it'sglory!! ..Yipee!!
>> >>>
>> >>> Still, the old guard continues to hold it's thumb on the DAW market
>and
>> >> keep
>> >>> driving manufactures to making more and more vintage plugins. But,
>every
>> >>> now and then a product like Ozone's Izatope comes along (and others)
>> that
>> >>> challeng the old "muddy up the mix crowd).
>> >>>
>> >>> Today kids are brought onthe Pro_Tools(Mix & HD) sound. They expect
to
>> hear
>> >>> that sound. they have no idea on how to get a 1975 sound..
>> >>>
>> >>> So, I've said all the above to say: Let's move on!!Yes , the Brian
>> >>> Tankersly(I
>> >>> adore), Nuendo endorsers,vinatge engineers) will continue to push
to
>> have
>> >>> all of their 1960,79, & 80 hardware as a plugin and continue to fight
>> DAW
>> >>> companies to to fix summing buses or event new a new summing buss
>market
>> >>> segment to ensure they et the 1975 sound with todays DAW.
>> >>>
>> >>> For me,they can have the 1975 sound. I'm moving onward with the
>cureent
>> >> state
>> >>> of very high fifdelity thats afforded me in PT HD And Nuendo..yes,
>Paris
>> >>> is still in my rig, but I will no longer
>> >>> fight mixes to get the 1975 sound..If the mixes are nice and
>Brightosund
>> >>> with bottom..So beit..I love the way PT HD sounds with the 192
>converters.
>> >>> Very nice full-spectrum sound ,with a nice top end. I love Nuendo's
>nice
>> >>> wide -spacious,clear open , heavey bottom sound with my EMu
>converters.
>> >> Let's
>> >>> evolve past 1975..Pleaseeeeeeeee!!!!
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT. [message #66696 is a reply to message #66693] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 10:55 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I think you've misinterpreted that anyone is saying that one approach is
better than another.
On the contrary, this is just an observation in how we choose our
preferences, and the fact that
currently available technology significantly exceeds what was available 40,
30, 20 and even 10 years ago.
Recording is about capturing audio - period. It's production, mixing, and
the concept of creating listener appeal
in the music side of recording that has used it creatively. There isn't
anything wrong with that, but recording has always
been at the mercy of, and influenced by the available technology. It isn't
a platform war, and never was -
just a constant attempt to improve each element of the chain within the
budgets we have available.
I once tested recording a vocal with a binaural head, test measuring system.
It sucked for artistic and listening pleasure,
but was incredibly reaslistic. Maybe that just goes to show that what
entertains us artistically doesn't necessarily benefit
from reality. There's nothing wrong with running a mix down to a 4-track
cassette deck if that's what floats your
boat creatively.
Regards,
Dedric
"JD" <no@nospam.com> wrote in message news:443fdbe4$1@linux...
>
> Everybody's got an opinion. Here we go with the PT is better than Paris
> stuff
> again. I guess this gives us something to talk about, but folks, we're
> all
> being goaded and bated here.
>
> This is what is wrong with the record industry. There is not enough
> diversity
> in sound and music styling these days. The whole cookie cutter approach to
> everything really sucks. That's why the record industry was in so much
> trouble,
> five Britney Spears, Spice Girls doesn't cut it for vary long. Just
> because
> a new sound comes along, the old sound shouldn't become null and void.
> There
> should be room for everything. In other words, don't follow the
> followers,
> and maybe you'll get noticed. If everybody used PT the things would be
> more
> boring than they already are!
>
> The demographic for the record companies is, 13 to 25, so the day you turn
> 26 your null and void??? No music geared to a 26, 36, or 46 year old???
> How stupid! Do you really think that a 16 year old would think, yuck,
> this
> music sucks, this wasn't recorded on a PT system! This music is
> unacceptable!
> No, they listen to the song!!!!! The song is what sells them. variety
> is good when it comes to sound and production. Both sounds should be
> acceptable!
> But then again this post really wasn't about sound, now was it!
>
> LaMont, if you like PT better cool. Keep chasing your tail dude, your
> sure
> to end up in the same place!
>
>
> "Martin Harrington" <lendan@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>Good post, LaMont
>>
>>--
>>Martin Harrington
>>www.lendanear-sound.com
>>
>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@aameritech.net> wrote in message news:443f2d4d$1@linux...
>>>
>>> Gene,
>>> Thank you very much for "speaking: the truth about this whole DAW
>>> "nastalgic"
>>> sound thing.
>>>
>>> Let me just state that I've held my tongue for the last 5 years as I
>>> watched
>>> the DAW proaudio market "Hyjack" forward thinking , new fedelity, newer
>
>>> sounding
>>> DAW technology.
>>>
>>> The DAW market has been held "ransom" to the "old' guard Engineers who
>
>>> ears
>>> are trained to hear "un-natural" de-emphasis", muddied up recordings.
>>>
>>> I remember my very first recording session as a guitar player. The year
>
>>> 1982
>>> as I remember recording my tracks to 2 ich Otari MTR, MCI mixer..Fine..
>
>>> The
>>> sound was nice, clear just the way I recorded it. But, remember
>>> thinking
>>> "This does sound like a record" Hummmm... After all the other
>>> instruments
>>> were push up in the mix ,along with the vocals, stillnot a record
>>> sound..
>>>
>>> In other works, where is the mudied drums? the thudy bass? the muddied
>
>>> vocals
>>> that I heard since I was 4 years old??? where was this sound??
>>>
>>> Well, we hen attended the mix session, I soon found out that, the magic
>
>>> was
>>> about to occur!! Out comes the Putec(s),the 1176s,LA2(s) GAtes,
>>> DBX160..2
>>> hours later they had that record sound..Hummm...I started thinkng again,
>>> "Man, the sound of 30ips Ampex 456 tape was big, vivid, wide, open,
>>> witha
>>> ting og high end fidelity..hummmm This was not the record sound..
>>>
>>> So here we are in 1997-98-99.PAris. The pro Engineers on this site
>>> priased
>>> it for it's "easy ability" to get that record sound!! wow!!! AND, we
>
>>> lawed
>>> every oter digital recorder mixer for being to ....Digital...Not warm
>
>>> enough,
>>> not dull , or muddy enough..
>>> This Pro Engineer-Producer crowd wined,screemed, bitched, moaned on
>>> every
>>> forum that the current state of DAW's (namely Protools) mix was bad as
>
>>> well
>>> as most plugins...Even more, they could not mix ITB(In the Box) unless
>
>>> they
>>> has software emulations of their beloved (OLD) compressors EQ,
>>> Verbs.(UAD,MCDSP,
>>> Bomb factory)....
>>>
>>> So, like magic, companies pour massive resouces to reclaim the glorys
> days
>>> with the birth of the "Vinatage Plug ins). Their purpose was( is) to
>>> make
>>> your mixes"duller"=warmer, more professional(sit right, al in all..Make
>
>>> the
>>> mixes sound like 1975!!!
>>>
>>> Now in 2006 the "what I call" modern sound of DAWS, being lead by Pro
>
>>> Tools
>>> HD and Nuedno, Sonar there's a shift occuring in the "Holy-Grail "
>>> RECORD-SOUND...
>>> With Garage bands, rap artist, Rock bands, Soul singers of today having
> NO
>>> prior knowledge,nor the Formal training to 'get he 1975" sound, we have
>
>>> the
>>> High-Fedelity DAW sound in all it'sglory!! ..Yipee!!
>>>
>>> Still, the old guard continues to hold it's thumb on the DAW market and
>
>>> keep
>>> driving manufactures to making more and more vintage plugins. But,
>>> every
>>> now and then a product like Ozone's Izatope comes along (and others)
>>> that
>>> challeng the old "muddy up the mix crowd).
>>>
>>> Today kids are brought onthe Pro_Tools(Mix & HD) sound. They expect to
>
>>> hear
>>> that sound. they have no idea on how to get a 1975 sound..
>>>
>>> So, I've said all the above to say: Let's move on!!Yes , the Brian
>>> Tankersly(I
>>> adore), Nuendo endorsers,vinatge engineers) will continue to push to
>>> have
>>> all of their 1960,79, & 80 hardware as a plugin and continue to fight
> DAW
>>> companies to to fix summing buses or event new a new summing buss market
>>> segment to ensure they et the 1975 sound with todays DAW.
>>>
>>> For me,they can have the 1975 sound. I'm moving onward with the cureent
>
>>> state
>>> of very high fifdelity thats afforded me in PT HD And Nuendo..yes, Paris
>>> is still in my rig, but I will no longer
>>> fight mixes to get the 1975 sound..If the mixes are nice and Brightosund
>>> with bottom..So beit..I love the way PT HD sounds with the 192
>>> converters.
>>> Very nice full-spectrum sound ,with a nice top end. I love Nuendo's nice
>>> wide -spacious,clear open , heavey bottom sound with my EMu converters.
>
>>> Let's
>>> evolve past 1975..Pleaseeeeeeeee!!!!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "gene lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I sold my PT rig when I switched to Paris. I did it at the time
>>>>primarily
>>>>for the sound of the Paris mix bus. This was before HD.
>>>>
>>>>When HD was released, the distinction was far less obvious. HD still
>>>>sounds
>>>>different from Paris but not awful anymore, just different. Paris still
>>> has
>>>>more of an analog/tape sound plus the added benefit of sounding more
>>>>aggressive
>>>>when you push the gain stages.
>>>>
>>>>So now the big question! Do I prefer the sound of Paris over other DAWS
>>> because
>>>>its actually makes better sounding recordings, or is it because it is
>
>>>>closer
>>>>to the sound I associate with my favorite albums from the last 30 years?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I think the truth is closer to the second, and I think this is largely
> a
>>>>learned behavior, empirical rather than based on any truth.
>>>>
>>>>In a recent session at another producer's studio (who will remain
>>>>unnamed),
>>>>I listened to some pop-rock mixes done on a Paris rig. The sound was big
>>>>and clear and sounded very tape-like. Overall it sounded quite good and
>>> not
>>>>at all wimpy. The artist however hated the sound. He played us a number
>>> of
>>>>recent albums known to have been recorded in PT or similar sounding DAWS
>>>>as examples of what he wanted. This is the sound he knows and more
>>>>important
>>>>it is the sound he likes! Yikes!! Compressed to a dynamic range of about
>>>>10db and very little sense of depth, space or stereo width.
>>>>
>>>>Music may be universal but we all know it comes with cultural bias. How
>>> many
>>>>American teens would choose to listen to a steady diet of microtonal
>>>>music?
>>>>Might as well serve up a big plate of Haggis... And it not just teens.
>
>>>>Labels
>>>>work the exact same way. If someone has a hit record that sounds crappy,
>>>>all the labels want the same crappy sound.
>>>>
>>>>Suddenly I am feeling very old. Fashions change taste changes but I
>>>>thought
>>>>good sound was forever. Perhaps not so. As a producer who still has at
>
>>>>least
>>>>one toe in the current market, I need to have some awareness of the
>>>>realities
>>>>of the market and the "new sound" is the new sound.
>>>>
>>>>My personal taste has not changed. For most projects that I foresee
>>>>myself
>>>>working on, I will continue to use Paris, but just as I have made
>>>>decisions
>>>>in the past to use SSL consoles rather than Neves to achieve a more
>>>>trendy
>>>>"Pop" mix, I am now experimenting with ways to capture the "elusive PT
>
>>>>sound".
>>>>(Insert appropriate emoticon).
>>>>
>>>>Luckily it was reasonably easy to achieve. I recently purchased the
>>>>Waves
>>>>SSL bundle and running that in Logic can get me very close to the sound
>>> of
>>>>better sounding PT mixes. So I can still use Paris whenever I like and
> I
>>>>can experiment with a mix of the two styles.
>>>>
>>>> What does all this mean? Nothing other then I understand why some
>>>> people
>>>>may prefer the way other systems sound and I think that my own
>>>>preferences
>>>>are biased by many years of listening to records made the old way. I
>>>>don't
>>>>see giving up Paris any time soon but I also don't think it's worth
>>>>fighting
>>>>over if someone else has different opinions on what sounds good.
>>>>
>>>>And don't forget.the cyclical nature of fashion almost guarantees that
> one
>>>>day we will once again be "in".
>>>>
>>>>Gene
>>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT. [message #66697 is a reply to message #66696] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 11:15 |
EK Sound
Messages: 939
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
What kills me is the industry types that won't record with you if you
don't have PT... "Hmmm... your studio can't be all that good if you
don't have ProTools..." What you are using is of little consiquence IMHO.
David.
Dedric Terry wrote:
> I think you've misinterpreted that anyone is saying that one approach is
> better than another.
> On the contrary, this is just an observation in how we choose our
> preferences, and the fact that
> currently available technology significantly exceeds what was available 40,
> 30, 20 and even 10 years ago.
> Recording is about capturing audio - period. It's production, mixing, and
> the concept of creating listener appeal
> in the music side of recording that has used it creatively. There isn't
> anything wrong with that, but recording has always
> been at the mercy of, and influenced by the available technology. It isn't
> a platform war, and never was -
> just a constant attempt to improve each element of the chain within the
> budgets we have available.
>
> I once tested recording a vocal with a binaural head, test measuring system.
> It sucked for artistic and listening pleasure,
> but was incredibly reaslistic. Maybe that just goes to show that what
> entertains us artistically doesn't necessarily benefit
> from reality. There's nothing wrong with running a mix down to a 4-track
> cassette deck if that's what floats your
> boat creatively.
>
> Regards,
> Dedric
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT. [message #66698 is a reply to message #66696] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 11:43 |
JD
Messages: 15
Registered: July 2005
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Sorry, I don't see this post a simply an observation, discussion or even just
a opinion. LaMont is saying that the old analog,tape saturated, edgy, overdriven
sound is no longer valid. That we should all get over it and move on. That
the Paris signature sound is no longer in, that the new PT, Nuendo sound
is where it's at. Once again, he is saying PT/Nuendo sounds better than
Paris. I feel this is a bate job.
Sure audio equipment has evolved. Newer doesn't always mean better. A combination
of all tools is the smartest rout. I don't think a whole sound should be
eliminated just because something is currently trendy. He clearly states
he thinks that, that sound is done and we should all move on the new PT sound.
He can say what ever he wants, I'm just calling it like I see it.
Here is LaMont's chance to clarify!
"Dedric Terry" <dedric@echomg.com> wrote:
>I think you've misinterpreted that anyone is saying that one approach is
>better than another.
>On the contrary, this is just an observation in how we choose our
>preferences, and the fact that
>currently available technology significantly exceeds what was available
40,
>30, 20 and even 10 years ago.
>Recording is about capturing audio - period. It's production, mixing, and
>the concept of creating listener appeal
>in the music side of recording that has used it creatively. There isn't
>anything wrong with that, but recording has always
>been at the mercy of, and influenced by the available technology. It isn't
>a platform war, and never was -
>just a constant attempt to improve each element of the chain within the
>budgets we have available.
>
>I once tested recording a vocal with a binaural head, test measuring system.
>It sucked for artistic and listening pleasure,
>but was incredibly reaslistic. Maybe that just goes to show that what
>entertains us artistically doesn't necessarily benefit
>from reality. There's nothing wrong with running a mix down to a 4-track
>cassette deck if that's what floats your
>boat creatively.
>
>Regards,
>Dedric
>
>
>"JD" <no@nospam.com> wrote in message news:443fdbe4$1@linux...
>>
>> Everybody's got an opinion. Here we go with the PT is better than Paris
>> stuff
>> again. I guess this gives us something to talk about, but folks, we're
>> all
>> being goaded and bated here.
>>
>> This is what is wrong with the record industry. There is not enough
>> diversity
>> in sound and music styling these days. The whole cookie cutter approach
to
>> everything really sucks. That's why the record industry was in so much
>> trouble,
>> five Britney Spears, Spice Girls doesn't cut it for vary long. Just
>> because
>> a new sound comes along, the old sound shouldn't become null and void.
>> There
>> should be room for everything. In other words, don't follow the
>> followers,
>> and maybe you'll get noticed. If everybody used PT the things would be
>> more
>> boring than they already are!
>>
>> The demographic for the record companies is, 13 to 25, so the day you
turn
>> 26 your null and void??? No music geared to a 26, 36, or 46 year old???
>> How stupid! Do you really think that a 16 year old would think, yuck,
>> this
>> music sucks, this wasn't recorded on a PT system! This music is
>> unacceptable!
>> No, they listen to the song!!!!! The song is what sells them. variety
>> is good when it comes to sound and production. Both sounds should be
>> acceptable!
>> But then again this post really wasn't about sound, now was it!
>>
>> LaMont, if you like PT better cool. Keep chasing your tail dude, your
>> sure
>> to end up in the same place!
>>
>>
>> "Martin Harrington" <lendan@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>>Good post, LaMont
>>>
>>>--
>>>Martin Harrington
>>>www.lendanear-sound.com
>>>
>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@aameritech.net> wrote in message news:443f2d4d$1@linux...
>>>>
>>>> Gene,
>>>> Thank you very much for "speaking: the truth about this whole DAW
>>>> "nastalgic"
>>>> sound thing.
>>>>
>>>> Let me just state that I've held my tongue for the last 5 years as I
>>>> watched
>>>> the DAW proaudio market "Hyjack" forward thinking , new fedelity, newer
>>
>>>> sounding
>>>> DAW technology.
>>>>
>>>> The DAW market has been held "ransom" to the "old' guard Engineers who
>>
>>>> ears
>>>> are trained to hear "un-natural" de-emphasis", muddied up recordings.
>>>>
>>>> I remember my very first recording session as a guitar player. The year
>>
>>>> 1982
>>>> as I remember recording my tracks to 2 ich Otari MTR, MCI mixer..Fine..
>>
>>>> The
>>>> sound was nice, clear just the way I recorded it. But, remember
>>>> thinking
>>>> "This does sound like a record" Hummmm... After all the other
>>>> instruments
>>>> were push up in the mix ,along with the vocals, stillnot a record
>>>> sound..
>>>>
>>>> In other works, where is the mudied drums? the thudy bass? the muddied
>>
>>>> vocals
>>>> that I heard since I was 4 years old??? where was this sound??
>>>>
>>>> Well, we hen attended the mix session, I soon found out that, the magic
>>
>>>> was
>>>> about to occur!! Out comes the Putec(s),the 1176s,LA2(s) GAtes,
>>>> DBX160..2
>>>> hours later they had that record sound..Hummm...I started thinkng again,
>>>> "Man, the sound of 30ips Ampex 456 tape was big, vivid, wide, open,
>>>> witha
>>>> ting og high end fidelity..hummmm This was not the record sound..
>>>>
>>>> So here we are in 1997-98-99.PAris. The pro Engineers on this site
>>>> priased
>>>> it for it's "easy ability" to get that record sound!! wow!!! AND, we
>>
>>>> lawed
>>>> every oter digital recorder mixer for being to ....Digital...Not warm
>>
>>>> enough,
>>>> not dull , or muddy enough..
>>>> This Pro Engineer-Producer crowd wined,screemed, bitched, moaned on
>>>> every
>>>> forum that the current state of DAW's (namely Protools) mix was bad
as
>>
>>>> well
>>>> as most plugins...Even more, they could not mix ITB(In the Box) unless
>>
>>>> they
>>>> has software emulations of their beloved (OLD) compressors EQ,
>>>> Verbs.(UAD,MCDSP,
>>>> Bomb factory)....
>>>>
>>>> So, like magic, companies pour massive resouces to reclaim the glorys
>> days
>>>> with the birth of the "Vinatage Plug ins). Their purpose was( is) to
>>>> make
>>>> your mixes"duller"=warmer, more professional(sit right, al in all..Make
>>
>>>> the
>>>> mixes sound like 1975!!!
>>>>
>>>> Now in 2006 the "what I call" modern sound of DAWS, being lead by Pro
>>
>>>> Tools
>>>> HD and Nuedno, Sonar there's a shift occuring in the "Holy-Grail "
>>>> RECORD-SOUND...
>>>> With Garage bands, rap artist, Rock bands, Soul singers of today having
>> NO
>>>> prior knowledge,nor the Formal training to 'get he 1975" sound, we have
>>
>>>> the
>>>> High-Fedelity DAW sound in all it'sglory!! ..Yipee!!
>>>>
>>>> Still, the old guard continues to hold it's thumb on the DAW market
and
>>
>>>> keep
>>>> driving manufactures to making more and more vintage plugins. But,
>>>> every
>>>> now and then a product like Ozone's Izatope comes along (and others)
>>>> that
>>>> challeng the old "muddy up the mix crowd).
>>>>
>>>> Today kids are brought onthe Pro_Tools(Mix & HD) sound. They expect
to
>>
>>>> hear
>>>> that sound. they have no idea on how to get a 1975 sound..
>>>>
>>>> So, I've said all the above to say: Let's move on!!Yes , the Brian
>>>> Tankersly(I
>>>> adore), Nuendo endorsers,vinatge engineers) will continue to push to
>>>> have
>>>> all of their 1960,79, & 80 hardware as a plugin and continue to fight
>> DAW
>>>> companies to to fix summing buses or event new a new summing buss market
>>>> segment to ensure they et the 1975 sound with todays DAW.
>>>>
>>>> For me,they can have the 1975 sound. I'm moving onward with the cureent
>>
>>>> state
>>>> of very high fifdelity thats afforded me in PT HD And Nuendo..yes, Paris
>>>> is still in my rig, but I will no longer
>>>> fight mixes to get the 1975 sound..If the mixes are nice and Brightosund
>>>> with bottom..So beit..I love the way PT HD sounds with the 192
>>>> converters.
>>>> Very nice full-spectrum sound ,with a nice top end. I love Nuendo's
nice
>>>> wide -spacious,clear open , heavey bottom sound with my EMu converters.
>>
>>>> Let's
>>>> evolve past 1975..Pleaseeeeeeeee!!!!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "gene lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I sold my PT rig when I switched to Paris. I did it at the time
>>>>>primarily
>>>>>for the sound of the Paris mix bus. This was before HD.
>>>>>
>>>>>When HD was released, the distinction was far less obvious. HD still
>>>>>sounds
>>>>>different from Paris but not awful anymore, just different. Paris still
>>>> has
>>>>>more of an analog/tape sound plus the added benefit of sounding more
>>>>>aggressive
>>>>>when you push the gain stages.
>>>>>
>>>>>So now the big question! Do I prefer the sound of Paris over other DAWS
>>>> because
>>>>>its actually makes better sounding recordings, or is it because it is
>>
>>>>>closer
>>>>>to the sound I associate with my favorite albums from the last 30 years?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I think the truth is closer to the second, and I think this is largely
>> a
>>>>>learned behavior, empirical rather than based on any truth.
>>>>>
>>>>>In a recent session at another producer's studio (who will remain
>>>>>unnamed),
>>>>>I listened to some pop-rock mixes done on a Paris rig. The sound was
big
>>>>>and clear and sounded very tape-like. Overall it sounded quite good
and
>>>> not
>>>>>at all wimpy. The artist however hated the sound. He played us a number
>>>> of
>>>>>recent albums known to have been recorded in PT or similar sounding
DAWS
>>>>>as examples of what he wanted. This is the sound he knows and more
>>>>>important
>>>>>it is the sound he likes! Yikes!! Compressed to a dynamic range of about
>>>>>10db and very little sense of depth, space or stereo width.
>>>>>
>>>>>Music may be universal but we all know it comes with cultural bias.
How
>>>> many
>>>>>American teens would choose to listen to a steady diet of microtonal
>>>>>music?
>>>>>Might as well serve up a big plate of Haggis... And it not just teens.
>>
>>>>>Labels
>>>>>work the exact same way. If someone has a hit record that sounds crappy,
>>>>>all the labels want the same crappy sound.
>>>>>
>>>>>Suddenly I am feeling very old. Fashions change taste changes but I
>>>>>thought
>>>>>good sound was forever. Perhaps not so. As a producer who still has
at
>>
>>>>>least
>>>>>one toe in the current market, I need to have some awareness of the
>>>>>realities
>>>>>of the market and the "new sound" is the new sound.
>>>>>
>>>>>My personal taste has not changed. For most projects that I foresee
>>>>>myself
>>>>>working on, I will continue to use Paris, but just as I have made
>>>>>decisions
>>>>>in the past to use SSL consoles rather than Neves to achieve a more
>>>>>trendy
>>>>>"Pop" mix, I am now experimenting with ways to capture the "elusive
PT
>>
>>>>>sound".
>>>>>(Insert appropriate emoticon).
>>>>>
>>>>>Luckily it was reasonably easy to achieve. I recently purchased the
>>>>>Waves
>>>>>SSL bundle and running that in Logic can get me very close to the sound
>>>> of
>>>>>better sounding PT mixes. So I can still use Paris whenever I like and
>> I
>>>>>can experiment with a mix of the two styles.
>>>>>
>>>>> What does all this mean? Nothing other then I understand why some
>>>>> people
>>>>>may prefer the way other systems sound and I think that my own
>>>>>preferences
>>>>>are biased by many years of listening to records made the old way. I
>>>>>don't
>>>>>see giving up Paris any time soon but I also don't think it's worth
>>>>>fighting
>>>>>over if someone else has different opinions on what sounds good.
>>>>>
>>>>>And don't forget.the cyclical nature of fashion almost guarantees that
>> one
>>>>>day we will once again be "in".
>>>>>
>>>>>Gene
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT.-Reality check [message #66702 is a reply to message #66677] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 12:15 |
Music Lab Sweden
Messages: 12
Registered: January 2006
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Hi All,
I am a former Paris user who still use Paris now and then, especially when
I remix old songs recorded in Paris. I gave up in favour of Soundscape which
I truly love.
Anyway, I agree with most of the comments about Paris and it´s sound but
when it comes to classical music, Paris simply has much left so desire. It
nowhere as clean and accurate as the newer modern systems, be it PT, Soundscape,
Nuendo, Samplitude etc.
I have a fairly large Paris setup and as much magic as it has it is quite
unreliable compared to the other systems.
For example: Paris can sometimes (randomly) add strange DC offset to the
files. It can depending on heat cause clicks. Aux leakage. Just to mention
a few anomalies. IOW to me it simply isn´t crystal clear and accurate. Also,
what is by some percieved as warmth, sounds to me like a bit clouded midrange.
I have recorded a fair amout of classical choirs in both Paris, Soundscape
and Nuendo. In this genre there is simply no competition at all. My Soundscape
converters (Apogee) simply kills Paris in clarity and detail. OTOH with pop/rock,
especially acoustic pop/rock (live drums), Paris can sound a bit more exciting
than the others.
Last but not least, sound aside Paris is a dinosaur. The routing options
leave A LOT to desire. The I/O flexibility is back to the stone age compared
to newer systems. The non-sample accurate editing is a PITA. Lack of professional
I/O options. Very rudimentary handling of native plugins, especially in stereo.
No bussing possibilites. No VST/DX on master bus. No delay compensation.
etc. ect...
IMHO most people who are sticking to Paris are doing it for financial reasons.
Given the very low price the SH systems are going for, the price vs. sound
preformance ratio is amazing, compared to other DSP-based system. In a true
professional enviroment with clients hanging over your shoulder, the compromises
are just to big, all IMO of course.
Just my 2 cents.
Babu
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>Of course not, you just
>have to treat Paris like any other DAW, and don't push it too hard
>and it works great for classical.
>
>That's the beauty of it. It works either way. There is an issue with the
D/A
>converters and jitter when using the Paris clock, but with an external clock
>I've never thought it sounded anything other than what I wanted it to sound.
>result.....however, this is blasphemy and I have to immediately jack the
>submix faders into the stratosphere so I can hear all that crappy distortion
>that I like.
>
>;O)
>
>
>
>"DC" <dc@spamthemoon.com> wrote in message news:443f4acc$1@linux...
>>
>> One myth I would like to dispel is that Paris sounds muddy, vintage,
>> analog or less detailed than PT's.
>>
>> It's all in how hard you hit it.
>>
>> Had a conversation with SSC years ago about using Paris for
>> classical and he really ground on me hard to try it and compare it to
>> Sonic Solutions. Sonic has always been the gold standard for
>> classical, and honestly I thought he was full of it, but I tried it, using
>> the same source material. He was right, it was actually better than
>> Sonic on a 70-piece orchestra. Some of you have heard that CD.
>> Did it sound "vintage" or muddy to you? Of course not, you just
>> have to treat Paris like any other DAW, and don't push it too hard
>> and it works great for classical. An orchestra recorded with the
>> just 2 of the best mics in the world (DPA / B&K) the best pre
>> (no tubes please!) and a great convertor is the ultimate test for
>> clarity. One little loss of anything and the whole things turns to
>> crap. It must be eq'ed and mastered to perfection, but if it is, it
>> sounds like you are in the room with the orchestra.
>>
>> Paris works extremely well on an orchestra and I can tell you that
>> unless you push the levels the sound is as real, detailed, open and
>> clear as I have ever heard.
>> Personally, I think Paris murders PT's on orchestras. The clarity
>> and lack of distortion, even on the upper harmonics of high violin
>> notes, is really better and the soundstage and imaging is terrific.
>>
>> Try not hitting Paris so hard in the mixer, push the submix masters
>> all the way up, and listen to the audio get nice and pristine.
>>
>> DC
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT.-Reality check [message #66704 is a reply to message #66702] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 12:52 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I trtack with Paris with folks looki9ng over my shoulder all the time. It's
a matter of knowing what to do and how to do it. My system is very stable.
As far as financial concerns go, yes, I stick with Paris because of
financial concerns. If I had the money, there is not doubt at all that I'd
be tracking to a pair of synced 2" 16 track machines and an API legacy
console.
Different strokes ;o)
Deej
"Babu" <musiclab@lund.bonet.se> wrote in message news:443ff4c0$1@linux...
>
> Hi All,
>
> I am a former Paris user who still use Paris now and then, especially when
> I remix old songs recorded in Paris. I gave up in favour of Soundscape
which
> I truly love.
>
> Anyway, I agree with most of the comments about Paris and it´s sound but
> when it comes to classical music, Paris simply has much left so desire. It
> nowhere as clean and accurate as the newer modern systems, be it PT,
Soundscape,
> Nuendo, Samplitude etc.
>
> I have a fairly large Paris setup and as much magic as it has it is quite
> unreliable compared to the other systems.
> For example: Paris can sometimes (randomly) add strange DC offset to the
> files. It can depending on heat cause clicks. Aux leakage. Just to mention
> a few anomalies. IOW to me it simply isn´t crystal clear and accurate.
Also,
> what is by some percieved as warmth, sounds to me like a bit clouded
midrange.
> I have recorded a fair amout of classical choirs in both Paris, Soundscape
> and Nuendo. In this genre there is simply no competition at all. My
Soundscape
> converters (Apogee) simply kills Paris in clarity and detail. OTOH with
pop/rock,
> especially acoustic pop/rock (live drums), Paris can sound a bit more
exciting
> than the others.
>
> Last but not least, sound aside Paris is a dinosaur. The routing options
> leave A LOT to desire. The I/O flexibility is back to the stone age
compared
> to newer systems. The non-sample accurate editing is a PITA. Lack of
professional
> I/O options. Very rudimentary handling of native plugins, especially in
stereo.
> No bussing possibilites. No VST/DX on master bus. No delay compensation.
> etc. ect...
>
> IMHO most people who are sticking to Paris are doing it for financial
reasons.
> Given the very low price the SH systems are going for, the price vs. sound
> preformance ratio is amazing, compared to other DSP-based system. In a
true
> professional enviroment with clients hanging over your shoulder, the
compromises
> are just to big, all IMO of course.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> Babu
>
> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
> >Of course not, you just
> >have to treat Paris like any other DAW, and don't push it too hard
> >and it works great for classical.
> >
> >That's the beauty of it. It works either way. There is an issue with the
> D/A
> >converters and jitter when using the Paris clock, but with an external
clock
> >I've never thought it sounded anything other than what I wanted it to
sound.
> >result.....however, this is blasphemy and I have to immediately jack the
> >submix faders into the stratosphere so I can hear all that crappy
distortion
> >that I like.
> >
> >;O)
> >
> >
> >
> >"DC" <dc@spamthemoon.com> wrote in message news:443f4acc$1@linux...
> >>
> >> One myth I would like to dispel is that Paris sounds muddy, vintage,
> >> analog or less detailed than PT's.
> >>
> >> It's all in how hard you hit it.
> >>
> >> Had a conversation with SSC years ago about using Paris for
> >> classical and he really ground on me hard to try it and compare it to
> >> Sonic Solutions. Sonic has always been the gold standard for
> >> classical, and honestly I thought he was full of it, but I tried it,
using
> >> the same source material. He was right, it was actually better than
> >> Sonic on a 70-piece orchestra. Some of you have heard that CD.
> >> Did it sound "vintage" or muddy to you? Of course not, you just
> >> have to treat Paris like any other DAW, and don't push it too hard
> >> and it works great for classical. An orchestra recorded with the
> >> just 2 of the best mics in the world (DPA / B&K) the best pre
> >> (no tubes please!) and a great convertor is the ultimate test for
> >> clarity. One little loss of anything and the whole things turns to
> >> crap. It must be eq'ed and mastered to perfection, but if it is, it
> >> sounds like you are in the room with the orchestra.
> >>
> >> Paris works extremely well on an orchestra and I can tell you that
> >> unless you push the levels the sound is as real, detailed, open and
> >> clear as I have ever heard.
> >> Personally, I think Paris murders PT's on orchestras. The clarity
> >> and lack of distortion, even on the upper harmonics of high violin
> >> notes, is really better and the soundstage and imaging is terrific.
> >>
> >> Try not hitting Paris so hard in the mixer, push the submix masters
> >> all the way up, and listen to the audio get nice and pristine.
> >>
> >> DC
> >
> >
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT. [message #66705 is a reply to message #66693] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 13:17 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hello,
LaMont, if you like PT better cool. Keep chasing your tail dude, your sure
to end up in the same place!
I am an PT HD3 owner and a 5 card Paris owner since 1997. I don't know if
that last statement was insult or not??
If so, then you are as ignorant as you sound on this thread..
LaMont
"JD" <no@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>Everybody's got an opinion. Here we go with the PT is better than Paris
stuff
>again. I guess this gives us something to talk about, but folks, we're
all
>being goaded and bated here.
>
>This is what is wrong with the record industry. There is not enough diversity
>in sound and music styling these days. The whole cookie cutter approach
to
>everything really sucks. That's why the record industry was in so much
trouble,
>five Britney Spears, Spice Girls doesn't cut it for vary long. Just because
>a new sound comes along, the old sound shouldn't become null and void.
There
>should be room for everything. In other words, don't follow the followers,
>and maybe you'll get noticed. If everybody used PT the things would be
more
>boring than they already are!
>
>The demographic for the record companies is, 13 to 25, so the day you turn
>26 your null and void??? No music geared to a 26, 36, or 46 year old???
> How stupid! Do you really think that a 16 year old would think, yuck,
this
>music sucks, this wasn't recorded on a PT system! This music is unacceptable!
> No, they listen to the song!!!!! The song is what sells them. variety
>is good when it comes to sound and production. Both sounds should be acceptable!
> But then again this post really wasn't about sound, now was it!
>
>LaMont, if you like PT better cool. Keep chasing your tail dude, your sure
>to end up in the same place!
>
>
>"Martin Harrington" <lendan@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>Good post, LaMont
>>
>>--
>>Martin Harrington
>>www.lendanear-sound.com
>>
>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@aameritech.net> wrote in message news:443f2d4d$1@linux...
>>>
>>> Gene,
>>> Thank you very much for "speaking: the truth about this whole DAW
>>> "nastalgic"
>>> sound thing.
>>>
>>> Let me just state that I've held my tongue for the last 5 years as I
>>> watched
>>> the DAW proaudio market "Hyjack" forward thinking , new fedelity, newer
>
>>> sounding
>>> DAW technology.
>>>
>>> The DAW market has been held "ransom" to the "old' guard Engineers who
>
>>> ears
>>> are trained to hear "un-natural" de-emphasis", muddied up recordings.
>>>
>>> I remember my very first recording session as a guitar player. The year
>
>>> 1982
>>> as I remember recording my tracks to 2 ich Otari MTR, MCI mixer..Fine..
>
>>> The
>>> sound was nice, clear just the way I recorded it. But, remember thinking
>>> "This does sound like a record" Hummmm... After all the other instruments
>>> were push up in the mix ,along with the vocals, stillnot a record sound..
>>>
>>> In other works, where is the mudied drums? the thudy bass? the muddied
>
>>> vocals
>>> that I heard since I was 4 years old??? where was this sound??
>>>
>>> Well, we hen attended the mix session, I soon found out that, the magic
>
>>> was
>>> about to occur!! Out comes the Putec(s),the 1176s,LA2(s) GAtes, DBX160..2
>>> hours later they had that record sound..Hummm...I started thinkng again,
>>> "Man, the sound of 30ips Ampex 456 tape was big, vivid, wide, open, witha
>>> ting og high end fidelity..hummmm This was not the record sound..
>>>
>>> So here we are in 1997-98-99.PAris. The pro Engineers on this site priased
>>> it for it's "easy ability" to get that record sound!! wow!!! AND, we
>
>>> lawed
>>> every oter digital recorder mixer for being to ....Digital...Not warm
>
>>> enough,
>>> not dull , or muddy enough..
>>> This Pro Engineer-Producer crowd wined,screemed, bitched, moaned on every
>>> forum that the current state of DAW's (namely Protools) mix was bad as
>
>>> well
>>> as most plugins...Even more, they could not mix ITB(In the Box) unless
>
>>> they
>>> has software emulations of their beloved (OLD) compressors EQ,
>>> Verbs.(UAD,MCDSP,
>>> Bomb factory)....
>>>
>>> So, like magic, companies pour massive resouces to reclaim the glorys
>days
>>> with the birth of the "Vinatage Plug ins). Their purpose was( is) to
make
>>> your mixes"duller"=warmer, more professional(sit right, al in all..Make
>
>>> the
>>> mixes sound like 1975!!!
>>>
>>> Now in 2006 the "what I call" modern sound of DAWS, being lead by Pro
>
>>> Tools
>>> HD and Nuedno, Sonar there's a shift occuring in the "Holy-Grail "
>>> RECORD-SOUND...
>>> With Garage bands, rap artist, Rock bands, Soul singers of today having
>NO
>>> prior knowledge,nor the Formal training to 'get he 1975" sound, we have
>
>>> the
>>> High-Fedelity DAW sound in all it'sglory!! ..Yipee!!
>>>
>>> Still, the old guard continues to hold it's thumb on the DAW market and
>
>>> keep
>>> driving manufactures to making more and more vintage plugins. But, every
>>> now and then a product like Ozone's Izatope comes along (and others)
that
>>> challeng the old "muddy up the mix crowd).
>>>
>>> Today kids are brought onthe Pro_Tools(Mix & HD) sound. They expect to
>
>>> hear
>>> that sound. they have no idea on how to get a 1975 sound..
>>>
>>> So, I've said all the above to say: Let's move on!!Yes , the Brian
>>> Tankersly(I
>>> adore), Nuendo endorsers,vinatge engineers) will continue to push to
have
>>> all of their 1960,79, & 80 hardware as a plugin and continue to fight
>DAW
>>> companies to to fix summing buses or event new a new summing buss market
>>> segment to ensure they et the 1975 sound with todays DAW.
>>>
>>> For me,they can have the 1975 sound. I'm moving onward with the cureent
>
>>> state
>>> of very high fifdelity thats afforded me in PT HD And Nuendo..yes, Paris
>>> is still in my rig, but I will no longer
>>> fight mixes to get the 1975 sound..If the mixes are nice and Brightosund
>>> with bottom..So beit..I love the way PT HD sounds with the 192 converters.
>>> Very nice full-spectrum sound ,with a nice top end. I love Nuendo's nice
>>> wide -spacious,clear open , heavey bottom sound with my EMu converters.
>
>>> Let's
>>> evolve past 1975..Pleaseeeeeeeee!!!!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "gene lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I sold my PT rig when I switched to Paris. I did it at the time primarily
>>>>for the sound of the Paris mix bus. This was before HD.
>>>>
>>>>When HD was released, the distinction was far less obvious. HD still
>>>>sounds
>>>>different from Paris but not awful anymore, just different. Paris still
>>> has
>>>>more of an analog/tape sound plus the added benefit of sounding more
>>>>aggressive
>>>>when you push the gain stages.
>>>>
>>>>So now the big question! Do I prefer the sound of Paris over other DAWS
>>> because
>>>>its actually makes better sounding recordings, or is it because it is
>
>>>>closer
>>>>to the sound I associate with my favorite albums from the last 30 years?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I think the truth is closer to the second, and I think this is largely
>a
>>>>learned behavior, empirical rather than based on any truth.
>>>>
>>>>In a recent session at another producer's studio (who will remain
>>>>unnamed),
>>>>I listened to some pop-rock mixes done on a Paris rig. The sound was
big
>>>>and clear and sounded very tape-like. Overall it sounded quite good and
>>> not
>>>>at all wimpy. The artist however hated the sound. He played us a number
>>> of
>>>>recent albums known to have been recorded in PT or similar sounding DAWS
>>>>as examples of what he wanted. This is the sound he knows and more
>>>>important
>>>>it is the sound he likes! Yikes!! Compressed to a dynamic range of about
>>>>10db and very little sense of depth, space or stereo width.
>>>>
>>>>Music may be universal but we all know it comes with cultural bias. How
>>> many
>>>>American teens would choose to listen to a steady diet of microtonal
>>>>music?
>>>>Might as well serve up a big plate of Haggis... And it not just teens.
>
>>>>Labels
>>>>work the exact same way. If someone has a hit record that sounds crappy,
>>>>all the labels want the same crappy sound.
>>>>
>>>>Suddenly I am feeling very old. Fashions change taste changes but I
>>>>thought
>>>>good sound was forever. Perhaps not so. As a producer who still has at
>
>>>>least
>>>>one toe in the current market, I need to have some awareness of the
>>>>realities
>>>>of the market and the "new sound" is the new sound.
>>>>
>>>>My personal taste has not changed. For most projects that I foresee myself
>>>>working on, I will continue to use Paris, but just as I have made
>>>>decisions
>>>>in the past to use SSL consoles rather than Neves to achieve a more trendy
>>>>"Pop" mix, I am now experimenting with ways to capture the "elusive PT
>
>>>>sound".
>>>>(Insert appropriate emoticon).
>>>>
>>>>Luckily it was reasonably easy to achieve. I recently purchased the Waves
>>>>SSL bundle and running that in Logic can get me very close to the sound
>>> of
>>>>better sounding PT mixes. So I can still use Paris whenever I like and
>I
>>>>can experiment with a mix of the two styles.
>>>>
>>>> What does all this mean? Nothing other then I understand why some people
>>>>may prefer the way other systems sound and I think that my own preferences
>>>>are biased by many years of listening to records made the old way. I
don't
>>>>see giving up Paris any time soon but I also don't think it's worth
>>>>fighting
>>>>over if someone else has different opinions on what sounds good.
>>>>
>>>>And don’t forget…the cyclical nature of fashion almost guarantees that
>one
>>>>day we will once again be "in".
>>>>
>>>>Gene
>>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT.-Reality check [message #66706 is a reply to message #66704] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 13:19 |
JD
Messages: 15
Registered: July 2005
|
Junior Member |
|
|
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>I trtack with Paris with folks looki9ng over my shoulder all the time. It's
>a matter of knowing what to do and how to do it. My system is very stable.
>
>As far as financial concerns go, yes, I stick with Paris because of
>financial concerns. If I had the money, there is not doubt at all that I'd
>be tracking to a pair of synced 2" 16 track machines and an API legacy
>console.
>
>Different strokes ;o)
>
>Deej
Deej, you are so 1975 in your thinking! LOL
>"Babu" <musiclab@lund.bonet.se> wrote in message news:443ff4c0$1@linux...
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I am a former Paris user who still use Paris now and then, especially
when
>> I remix old songs recorded in Paris. I gave up in favour of Soundscape
>which
>> I truly love.
>>
>> Anyway, I agree with most of the comments about Paris and it´s sound but
>> when it comes to classical music, Paris simply has much left so desire.
It
>> nowhere as clean and accurate as the newer modern systems, be it PT,
>Soundscape,
>> Nuendo, Samplitude etc.
>>
>> I have a fairly large Paris setup and as much magic as it has it is quite
>> unreliable compared to the other systems.
>> For example: Paris can sometimes (randomly) add strange DC offset to the
>> files. It can depending on heat cause clicks. Aux leakage. Just to mention
>> a few anomalies. IOW to me it simply isn´t crystal clear and accurate.
>Also,
>> what is by some percieved as warmth, sounds to me like a bit clouded
>midrange.
>> I have recorded a fair amout of classical choirs in both Paris, Soundscape
>> and Nuendo. In this genre there is simply no competition at all. My
>Soundscape
>> converters (Apogee) simply kills Paris in clarity and detail. OTOH with
>pop/rock,
>> especially acoustic pop/rock (live drums), Paris can sound a bit more
>exciting
>> than the others.
>>
>> Last but not least, sound aside Paris is a dinosaur. The routing options
>> leave A LOT to desire. The I/O flexibility is back to the stone age
>compared
>> to newer systems. The non-sample accurate editing is a PITA. Lack of
>professional
>> I/O options. Very rudimentary handling of native plugins, especially in
>stereo.
>> No bussing possibilites. No VST/DX on master bus. No delay compensation.
>> etc. ect...
>>
>> IMHO most people who are sticking to Paris are doing it for financial
>reasons.
>> Given the very low price the SH systems are going for, the price vs. sound
>> preformance ratio is amazing, compared to other DSP-based system. In a
>true
>> professional enviroment with clients hanging over your shoulder, the
>compromises
>> are just to big, all IMO of course.
>>
>> Just my 2 cents.
>>
>> Babu
>>
>> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>> >Of course not, you just
>> >have to treat Paris like any other DAW, and don't push it too hard
>> >and it works great for classical.
>> >
>> >That's the beauty of it. It works either way. There is an issue with
the
>> D/A
>> >converters and jitter when using the Paris clock, but with an external
>clock
>> >I've never thought it sounded anything other than what I wanted it to
>sound.
>> >result.....however, this is blasphemy and I have to immediately jack
the
>> >submix faders into the stratosphere so I can hear all that crappy
>distortion
>> >that I like.
>> >
>> >;O)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >"DC" <dc@spamthemoon.com> wrote in message news:443f4acc$1@linux...
>> >>
>> >> One myth I would like to dispel is that Paris sounds muddy, vintage,
>> >> analog or less detailed than PT's.
>> >>
>> >> It's all in how hard you hit it.
>> >>
>> >> Had a conversation with SSC years ago about using Paris for
>> >> classical and he really ground on me hard to try it and compare it
to
>> >> Sonic Solutions. Sonic has always been the gold standard for
>> >> classical, and honestly I thought he was full of it, but I tried it,
>using
>> >> the same source material. He was right, it was actually better than
>> >> Sonic on a 70-piece orchestra. Some of you have heard that CD.
>> >> Did it sound "vintage" or muddy to you? Of course not, you just
>> >> have to treat Paris like any other DAW, and don't push it too hard
>> >> and it works great for classical. An orchestra recorded with the
>> >> just 2 of the best mics in the world (DPA / B&K) the best pre
>> >> (no tubes please!) and a great convertor is the ultimate test for
>> >> clarity. One little loss of anything and the whole things turns to
>> >> crap. It must be eq'ed and mastered to perfection, but if it is, it
>> >> sounds like you are in the room with the orchestra.
>> >>
>> >> Paris works extremely well on an orchestra and I can tell you that
>> >> unless you push the levels the sound is as real, detailed, open and
>> >> clear as I have ever heard.
>> >> Personally, I think Paris murders PT's on orchestras. The clarity
>> >> and lack of distortion, even on the upper harmonics of high violin
>> >> notes, is really better and the soundstage and imaging is terrific.
>> >>
>> >> Try not hitting Paris so hard in the mixer, push the submix masters
>> >> all the way up, and listen to the audio get nice and pristine.
>> >>
>> >> DC
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT. [message #66707 is a reply to message #66698] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 13:27 |
Lamont[2]
Messages: 1
Registered: April 2006
|
Junior Member |
|
|
JD,
please read what Dedric stated. Second, this not a bate,nor a DAW war..For
the record, Samplitude sounds the best(imho)...
That being said, you completely missed the point. The 1975 sound is valid,
but lets not stay there..!! Do you understand!! Now!!
You idiot!!! I would say alot more, but I don't know and won;t waist any
of Kim's precious web space responding to your idiotic take on this thread..
"JD" <no@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>Sorry, I don't see this post a simply an observation, discussion or even
just
>a opinion. LaMont is saying that the old analog,tape saturated, edgy, overdriven
>sound is no longer valid. That we should all get over it and move on. That
>the Paris signature sound is no longer in, that the new PT, Nuendo sound
>is where it's at. Once again, he is saying PT/Nuendo sounds better than
>Paris. I feel this is a bate job.
>
>Sure audio equipment has evolved. Newer doesn't always mean better. A
combination
>of all tools is the smartest rout. I don't think a whole sound should be
>eliminated just because something is currently trendy. He clearly states
>he thinks that, that sound is done and we should all move on the new PT
sound.
>
>
>He can say what ever he wants, I'm just calling it like I see it.
>
>Here is LaMont's chance to clarify!
>
>"Dedric Terry" <dedric@echomg.com> wrote:
>>I think you've misinterpreted that anyone is saying that one approach is
>
>>better than another.
>>On the contrary, this is just an observation in how we choose our
>>preferences, and the fact that
>>currently available technology significantly exceeds what was available
>40,
>>30, 20 and even 10 years ago.
>>Recording is about capturing audio - period. It's production, mixing, and
>
>>the concept of creating listener appeal
>>in the music side of recording that has used it creatively. There isn't
>
>>anything wrong with that, but recording has always
>>been at the mercy of, and influenced by the available technology. It isn't
>
>>a platform war, and never was -
>>just a constant attempt to improve each element of the chain within the
>
>>budgets we have available.
>>
>>I once tested recording a vocal with a binaural head, test measuring system.
>
>>It sucked for artistic and listening pleasure,
>>but was incredibly reaslistic. Maybe that just goes to show that what
>>entertains us artistically doesn't necessarily benefit
>>from reality. There's nothing wrong with running a mix down to a 4-track
>
>>cassette deck if that's what floats your
>>boat creatively.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Dedric
>>
>>
>>"JD" <no@nospam.com> wrote in message news:443fdbe4$1@linux...
>>>
>>> Everybody's got an opinion. Here we go with the PT is better than Paris
>
>>> stuff
>>> again. I guess this gives us something to talk about, but folks, we're
>
>>> all
>>> being goaded and bated here.
>>>
>>> This is what is wrong with the record industry. There is not enough
>>> diversity
>>> in sound and music styling these days. The whole cookie cutter approach
>to
>>> everything really sucks. That's why the record industry was in so much
>
>>> trouble,
>>> five Britney Spears, Spice Girls doesn't cut it for vary long. Just
>
>>> because
>>> a new sound comes along, the old sound shouldn't become null and void.
>
>>> There
>>> should be room for everything. In other words, don't follow the
>>> followers,
>>> and maybe you'll get noticed. If everybody used PT the things would
be
>
>>> more
>>> boring than they already are!
>>>
>>> The demographic for the record companies is, 13 to 25, so the day you
>turn
>>> 26 your null and void??? No music geared to a 26, 36, or 46 year old???
>>> How stupid! Do you really think that a 16 year old would think, yuck,
>
>>> this
>>> music sucks, this wasn't recorded on a PT system! This music is
>>> unacceptable!
>>> No, they listen to the song!!!!! The song is what sells them. variety
>>> is good when it comes to sound and production. Both sounds should be
>
>>> acceptable!
>>> But then again this post really wasn't about sound, now was it!
>>>
>>> LaMont, if you like PT better cool. Keep chasing your tail dude, your
>
>>> sure
>>> to end up in the same place!
>>>
>>>
>>> "Martin Harrington" <lendan@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>>>Good post, LaMont
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Martin Harrington
>>>>www.lendanear-sound.com
>>>>
>>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@aameritech.net> wrote in message news:443f2d4d$1@linux...
>>>>>
>>>>> Gene,
>>>>> Thank you very much for "speaking: the truth about this whole DAW
>>>>> "nastalgic"
>>>>> sound thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me just state that I've held my tongue for the last 5 years as
I
>>>>> watched
>>>>> the DAW proaudio market "Hyjack" forward thinking , new fedelity, newer
>>>
>>>>> sounding
>>>>> DAW technology.
>>>>>
>>>>> The DAW market has been held "ransom" to the "old' guard Engineers
who
>>>
>>>>> ears
>>>>> are trained to hear "un-natural" de-emphasis", muddied up recordings.
>>>>>
>>>>> I remember my very first recording session as a guitar player. The
year
>>>
>>>>> 1982
>>>>> as I remember recording my tracks to 2 ich Otari MTR, MCI mixer..Fine..
>>>
>>>>> The
>>>>> sound was nice, clear just the way I recorded it. But, remember
>>>>> thinking
>>>>> "This does sound like a record" Hummmm... After all the other
>>>>> instruments
>>>>> were push up in the mix ,along with the vocals, stillnot a record
>>>>> sound..
>>>>>
>>>>> In other works, where is the mudied drums? the thudy bass? the muddied
>>>
>>>>> vocals
>>>>> that I heard since I was 4 years old??? where was this sound??
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, we hen attended the mix session, I soon found out that, the magic
>>>
>>>>> was
>>>>> about to occur!! Out comes the Putec(s),the 1176s,LA2(s) GAtes,
>>>>> DBX160..2
>>>>> hours later they had that record sound..Hummm...I started thinkng again,
>>>>> "Man, the sound of 30ips Ampex 456 tape was big, vivid, wide, open,
>
>>>>> witha
>>>>> ting og high end fidelity..hummmm This was not the record sound..
>>>>>
>>>>> So here we are in 1997-98-99.PAris. The pro Engineers on this site
>>>>> priased
>>>>> it for it's "easy ability" to get that record sound!! wow!!! AND,
we
>>>
>>>>> lawed
>>>>> every oter digital recorder mixer for being to ....Digital...Not warm
>>>
>>>>> enough,
>>>>> not dull , or muddy enough..
>>>>> This Pro Engineer-Producer crowd wined,screemed, bitched, moaned on
>
>>>>> every
>>>>> forum that the current state of DAW's (namely Protools) mix was bad
>as
>>>
>>>>> well
>>>>> as most plugins...Even more, they could not mix ITB(In the Box) unless
>>>
>>>>> they
>>>>> has software emulations of their beloved (OLD) compressors EQ,
>>>>> Verbs.(UAD,MCDSP,
>>>>> Bomb factory)....
>>>>>
>>>>> So, like magic, companies pour massive resouces to reclaim the glorys
>>> days
>>>>> with the birth of the "Vinatage Plug ins). Their purpose was( is) to
>
>>>>> make
>>>>> your mixes"duller"=warmer, more professional(sit right, al in all..Make
>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>> mixes sound like 1975!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Now in 2006 the "what I call" modern sound of DAWS, being lead by Pro
>>>
>>>>> Tools
>>>>> HD and Nuedno, Sonar there's a shift occuring in the "Holy-Grail "
>>>>> RECORD-SOUND...
>>>>> With Garage bands, rap artist, Rock bands, Soul singers of today having
>>> NO
>>>>> prior knowledge,nor the Formal training to 'get he 1975" sound, we
have
>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>> High-Fedelity DAW sound in all it'sglory!! ..Yipee!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Still, the old guard continues to hold it's thumb on the DAW market
>and
>>>
>>>>> keep
>>>>> driving manufactures to making more and more vintage plugins. But,
>
>>>>> every
>>>>> now and then a product like Ozone's Izatope comes along (and others)
>
>>>>> that
>>>>> challeng the old "muddy up the mix crowd).
>>>>>
>>>>> Today kids are brought onthe Pro_Tools(Mix & HD) sound. They expect
>to
>>>
>>>>> hear
>>>>> that sound. they have no idea on how to get a 1975 sound..
>>>>>
>>>>> So, I've said all the above to say: Let's move on!!Yes , the Brian
>>>>> Tankersly(I
>>>>> adore), Nuendo endorsers,vinatge engineers) will continue to push to
>
>>>>> have
>>>>> all of their 1960,79, & 80 hardware as a plugin and continue to fight
>>> DAW
>>>>> companies to to fix summing buses or event new a new summing buss market
>>>>> segment to ensure they et the 1975 sound with todays DAW.
>>>>>
>>>>> For me,they can have the 1975 sound. I'm moving onward with the cureent
>>>
>>>>> state
>>>>> of very high fifdelity thats afforded me in PT HD And Nuendo..yes,
Paris
>>>>> is still in my rig, but I will no longer
>>>>> fight mixes to get the 1975 sound..If the mixes are nice and Brightosund
>>>>> with bottom..So beit..I love the way PT HD sounds with the 192
>>>>> converters.
>>>>> Very nice full-spectrum sound ,with a nice top end. I love Nuendo's
>nice
>>>>> wide -spacious,clear open , heavey bottom sound with my EMu converters.
>>>
>>>>> Let's
>>>>> evolve past 1975..Pleaseeeeeeeee!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "gene lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I sold my PT rig when I switched to Paris. I did it at the time
>>>>>>primarily
>>>>>>for the sound of the Paris mix bus. This was before HD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>When HD was released, the distinction was far less obvious. HD still
>>>>>>sounds
>>>>>>different from Paris but not awful anymore, just different. Paris still
>>>>> has
>>>>>>more of an analog/tape sound plus the added benefit of sounding more
>>>>>>aggressive
>>>>>>when you push the gain stages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So now the big question! Do I prefer the sound of Paris over other
DAWS
>>>>> because
>>>>>>its actually makes better sounding recordings, or is it because it
is
>>>
>>>>>>closer
>>>>>>to the sound I associate with my favorite albums from the last 30 years?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I think the truth is closer to the second, and I think this is largely
>>> a
>>>>>>learned behavior, empirical rather than based on any truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In a recent session at another producer's studio (who will remain
>>>>>>unnamed),
>>>>>>I listened to some pop-rock mixes done on a Paris rig. The sound was
>big
>>>>>>and clear and sounded very tape-like. Overall it sounded quite good
>and
>>>>> not
>>>>>>at all wimpy. The artist however hated the sound. He played us a number
>>>>> of
>>>>>>recent albums known to have been recorded in PT or similar sounding
>DAWS
>>>>>>as examples of what he wanted. This is the sound he knows and more
>>>>>>important
>>>>>>it is the sound he likes! Yikes!! Compressed to a dynamic range of
about
>>>>>>10db and very little sense of depth, space or stereo width.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Music may be universal but we all know it comes with cultural bias.
>How
>>>>> many
>>>>>>American teens would choose to listen to a steady diet of microtonal
>>>>>>music?
>>>>>>Might as well serve up a big plate of Haggis... And it not just teens.
>>>
>>>>>>Labels
>>>>>>work the exact same way. If someone has a hit record that sounds crappy,
>>>>>>all the labels want the same crappy sound.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Suddenly I am feeling very old. Fashions change taste changes but I
>>>>>>thought
>>>>>>good sound was forever. Perhaps not so. As a producer who still has
>at
>>>
>>>>>>least
>>>>>>one toe in the current market, I need to have some awareness of the
>>>>>>realities
>>>>>>of the market and the "new sound" is the new sound.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My personal taste has not changed. For most projects that I foresee
>
>>>>>>myself
>>>>>>working on, I will continue to use Paris, but just as I have made
>>>>>>decisions
>>>>>>in the past to use SSL consoles rather than Neves to achieve a more
>
>>>>>>trendy
>>>>>>"Pop" mix, I am now experimenting with ways to capture the "elusive
>PT
>>>
>>>>>>sound".
>>>>>>(Insert appropriate emoticon).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Luckily it was reasonably easy to achieve. I recently purchased the
>
>>>>>>Waves
>>>>>>SSL bundle and running that in Logic can get me very close to the sound
>>>>> of
>>>>>>better sounding PT mixes. So I can still use Paris whenever I like
and
>>> I
>>>>>>can experiment with a mix of the two styles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What does all this mean? Nothing other then I understand why some
>>>>>> people
>>>>>>may prefer the way other systems sound and I think that my own
>>>>>>preferences
>>>>>>are biased by many years of listening to records made the old way.
I
>
>>>>>>don't
>>>>>>see giving up Paris any time soon but I also don't think it's worth
>>>>>>fighting
>>>>>>over if someone else has different opinions on what sounds good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And don't forget.the cyclical nature of fashion almost guarantees that
>>> one
>>>>>>day we will once again be "in".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Gene
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT. [message #66708 is a reply to message #66697] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 13:29 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
It was the same in the 80's & 90s..You had to have an SSL to be considered
full service pro studio
EK Sound <askme@nospam.com> wrote:
>What kills me is the industry types that won't record with you if you
>don't have PT... "Hmmm... your studio can't be all that good if you
>don't have ProTools..." What you are using is of little consiquence IMHO.
>
>David.
>
>Dedric Terry wrote:
>> I think you've misinterpreted that anyone is saying that one approach
is
>> better than another.
>> On the contrary, this is just an observation in how we choose our
>> preferences, and the fact that
>> currently available technology significantly exceeds what was available
40,
>> 30, 20 and even 10 years ago.
>> Recording is about capturing audio - period. It's production, mixing,
and
>> the concept of creating listener appeal
>> in the music side of recording that has used it creatively. There isn't
>> anything wrong with that, but recording has always
>> been at the mercy of, and influenced by the available technology. It
isn't
>> a platform war, and never was -
>> just a constant attempt to improve each element of the chain within the
>> budgets we have available.
>>
>> I once tested recording a vocal with a binaural head, test measuring system.
>> It sucked for artistic and listening pleasure,
>> but was incredibly reaslistic. Maybe that just goes to show that what
>> entertains us artistically doesn't necessarily benefit
>> from reality. There's nothing wrong with running a mix down to a 4-track
>> cassette deck if that's what floats your
>> boat creatively.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dedric
>>
>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT. [message #66709 is a reply to message #66707] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 13:54 |
JD
Messages: 15
Registered: July 2005
|
Junior Member |
|
|
LaMont wrote
>>That being said, you completely missed the point. The 1975 sound is valid,
but lets not stay there..!!<<
Thanks for your clarification. Like I said, use all tools. That tape saturated,
over driven vintage sound fits a specific style of music well. I wasn't
out to insult you, my point was, if you pigeonhole yourself with the PT sound
only, your stuck in one place with your sound. These days, that is just
about everybody's sound. The cookie cutter sound.
"Lamont" <jjdpr@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>JD,
>please read what Dedric stated. Second, this not a bate,nor a DAW war..For
>the record, Samplitude sounds the best(imho)...
>
>That being said, you completely missed the point. The 1975 sound is valid,
>but lets not stay there..!! Do you understand!! Now!!
>You idiot!!! I would say alot more, but I don't know and won;t waist any
>of Kim's precious web space responding to your idiotic take on this thread..
>
>
>"JD" <no@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>Sorry, I don't see this post a simply an observation, discussion or even
>just
>>a opinion. LaMont is saying that the old analog,tape saturated, edgy,
overdriven
>>sound is no longer valid. That we should all get over it and move on.
That
>>the Paris signature sound is no longer in, that the new PT, Nuendo sound
>>is where it's at. Once again, he is saying PT/Nuendo sounds better than
>>Paris. I feel this is a bate job.
>>
>>Sure audio equipment has evolved. Newer doesn't always mean better. A
>combination
>>of all tools is the smartest rout. I don't think a whole sound should
be
>>eliminated just because something is currently trendy. He clearly states
>>he thinks that, that sound is done and we should all move on the new PT
>sound.
>>
>>
>>He can say what ever he wants, I'm just calling it like I see it.
>>
>>Here is LaMont's chance to clarify!
>>
>>"Dedric Terry" <dedric@echomg.com> wrote:
>>>I think you've misinterpreted that anyone is saying that one approach
is
>>
>>>better than another.
>>>On the contrary, this is just an observation in how we choose our
>>>preferences, and the fact that
>>>currently available technology significantly exceeds what was available
>>40,
>>>30, 20 and even 10 years ago.
>>>Recording is about capturing audio - period. It's production, mixing,
and
>>
>>>the concept of creating listener appeal
>>>in the music side of recording that has used it creatively. There isn't
>>
>>>anything wrong with that, but recording has always
>>>been at the mercy of, and influenced by the available technology. It
isn't
>>
>>>a platform war, and never was -
>>>just a constant attempt to improve each element of the chain within the
>>
>>>budgets we have available.
>>>
>>>I once tested recording a vocal with a binaural head, test measuring system.
>>
>>>It sucked for artistic and listening pleasure,
>>>but was incredibly reaslistic. Maybe that just goes to show that what
>
>>>entertains us artistically doesn't necessarily benefit
>>>from reality. There's nothing wrong with running a mix down to a 4-track
>>
>>>cassette deck if that's what floats your
>>>boat creatively.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Dedric
>>>
>>>
>>>"JD" <no@nospam.com> wrote in message news:443fdbe4$1@linux...
>>>>
>>>> Everybody's got an opinion. Here we go with the PT is better than Paris
>>
>>>> stuff
>>>> again. I guess this gives us something to talk about, but folks, we're
>>
>>>> all
>>>> being goaded and bated here.
>>>>
>>>> This is what is wrong with the record industry. There is not enough
>
>>>> diversity
>>>> in sound and music styling these days. The whole cookie cutter approach
>>to
>>>> everything really sucks. That's why the record industry was in so much
>>
>>>> trouble,
>>>> five Britney Spears, Spice Girls doesn't cut it for vary long. Just
>>
>>>> because
>>>> a new sound comes along, the old sound shouldn't become null and void.
>>
>>>> There
>>>> should be room for everything. In other words, don't follow the
>>>> followers,
>>>> and maybe you'll get noticed. If everybody used PT the things would
>be
>>
>>>> more
>>>> boring than they already are!
>>>>
>>>> The demographic for the record companies is, 13 to 25, so the day you
>>turn
>>>> 26 your null and void??? No music geared to a 26, 36, or 46 year old???
>>>> How stupid! Do you really think that a 16 year old would think, yuck,
>>
>>>> this
>>>> music sucks, this wasn't recorded on a PT system! This music is
>>>> unacceptable!
>>>> No, they listen to the song!!!!! The song is what sells them. variety
>>>> is good when it comes to sound and production. Both sounds should be
>>
>>>> acceptable!
>>>> But then again this post really wasn't about sound, now was it!
>>>>
>>>> LaMont, if you like PT better cool. Keep chasing your tail dude, your
>>
>>>> sure
>>>> to end up in the same place!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Martin Harrington" <lendan@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>>>>Good post, LaMont
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Martin Harrington
>>>>>www.lendanear-sound.com
>>>>>
>>>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@aameritech.net> wrote in message news:443f2d4d$1@linux...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gene,
>>>>>> Thank you very much for "speaking: the truth about this whole DAW
>>>>>> "nastalgic"
>>>>>> sound thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let me just state that I've held my tongue for the last 5 years as
>I
>>>>>> watched
>>>>>> the DAW proaudio market "Hyjack" forward thinking , new fedelity,
newer
>>>>
>>>>>> sounding
>>>>>> DAW technology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The DAW market has been held "ransom" to the "old' guard Engineers
>who
>>>>
>>>>>> ears
>>>>>> are trained to hear "un-natural" de-emphasis", muddied up recordings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I remember my very first recording session as a guitar player. The
>year
>>>>
>>>>>> 1982
>>>>>> as I remember recording my tracks to 2 ich Otari MTR, MCI mixer..Fine..
>>>>
>>>>>> The
>>>>>> sound was nice, clear just the way I recorded it. But, remember
>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>> "This does sound like a record" Hummmm... After all the other
>>>>>> instruments
>>>>>> were push up in the mix ,along with the vocals, stillnot a record
>>>>>> sound..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other works, where is the mudied drums? the thudy bass? the muddied
>>>>
>>>>>> vocals
>>>>>> that I heard since I was 4 years old??? where was this sound??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, we hen attended the mix session, I soon found out that, the
magic
>>>>
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> about to occur!! Out comes the Putec(s),the 1176s,LA2(s) GAtes,
>>>>>> DBX160..2
>>>>>> hours later they had that record sound..Hummm...I started thinkng
again,
>>>>>> "Man, the sound of 30ips Ampex 456 tape was big, vivid, wide, open,
>>
>>>>>> witha
>>>>>> ting og high end fidelity..hummmm This was not the record sound..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So here we are in 1997-98-99.PAris. The pro Engineers on this site
>
>>>>>> priased
>>>>>> it for it's "easy ability" to get that record sound!! wow!!! AND,
>we
>>>>
>>>>>> lawed
>>>>>> every oter digital recorder mixer for being to ....Digital...Not warm
>>>>
>>>>>> enough,
>>>>>> not dull , or muddy enough..
>>>>>> This Pro Engineer-Producer crowd wined,screemed, bitched, moaned on
>>
>>>>>> every
>>>>>> forum that the current state of DAW's (namely Protools) mix was bad
>>as
>>>>
>>>>>> well
>>>>>> as most plugins...Even more, they could not mix ITB(In the Box) unless
>>>>
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> has software emulations of their beloved (OLD) compressors EQ,
>>>>>> Verbs.(UAD,MCDSP,
>>>>>> Bomb factory)....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, like magic, companies pour massive resouces to reclaim the glorys
>>>> days
>>>>>> with the birth of the "Vinatage Plug ins). Their purpose was( is)
to
>>
>>>>>> make
>>>>>> your mixes"duller"=warmer, more professional(sit right, al in all..Make
>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> mixes sound like 1975!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now in 2006 the "what I call" modern sound of DAWS, being lead by
Pro
>>>>
>>>>>> Tools
>>>>>> HD and Nuedno, Sonar there's a shift occuring in the "Holy-Grail "
>>>>>> RECORD-SOUND...
>>>>>> With Garage bands, rap artist, Rock bands, Soul singers of today having
>>>> NO
>>>>>> prior knowledge,nor the Formal training to 'get he 1975" sound, we
>have
>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> High-Fedelity DAW sound in all it'sglory!! ..Yipee!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still, the old guard continues to hold it's thumb on the DAW market
>>and
>>>>
>>>>>> keep
>>>>>> driving manufactures to making more and more vintage plugins. But,
>>
>>>>>> every
>>>>>> now and then a product like Ozone's Izatope comes along (and others)
>>
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> challeng the old "muddy up the mix crowd).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Today kids are brought onthe Pro_Tools(Mix & HD) sound. They expect
>>to
>>>>
>>>>>> hear
>>>>>> that sound. they have no idea on how to get a 1975 sound..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, I've said all the above to say: Let's move on!!Yes , the Brian
>>>>>> Tankersly(I
>>>>>> adore), Nuendo endorsers,vinatge engineers) will continue to push
to
>>
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> all of their 1960,79, & 80 hardware as a plugin and continue to fight
>>>> DAW
>>>>>> companies to to fix summing buses or event new a new summing buss
market
>>>>>> segment to ensure they et the 1975 sound with todays DAW.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For me,they can have the 1975 sound. I'm moving onward with the cureent
>>>>
>>>>>> state
>>>>>> of very high fifdelity thats afforded me in PT HD And Nuendo..yes,
>Paris
>>>>>> is still in my rig, but I will no longer
>>>>>> fight mixes to get the 1975 sound..If the mixes are nice and Brightosund
>>>>>> with bottom..So beit..I love the way PT HD sounds with the 192
>>>>>> converters.
>>>>>> Very nice full-spectrum sound ,with a nice top end. I love Nuendo's
>>nice
>>>>>> wide -spacious,clear open , heavey bottom sound with my EMu converters.
>>>>
>>>>>> Let's
>>>>>> evolve past 1975..Pleaseeeeeeeee!!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "gene lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I sold my PT rig when I switched to Paris. I did it at the time
>>>>>>>primarily
>>>>>>>for the sound of the Paris mix bus. This was before HD.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>When HD was released, the distinction was far less obvious. HD still
>>>>>>>sounds
>>>>>>>different from Paris but not awful anymore, just different. Paris
still
>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>more of an analog/tape sound plus the added benefit of sounding more
>>>>>>>aggressive
>>>>>>>when you push the gain stages.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So now the big question! Do I prefer the sound of Paris over other
>DAWS
>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>its actually makes better sounding recordings, or is it because it
>is
>>>>
>>>>>>>closer
>>>>>>>to the sound I associate with my favorite albums from the last 30
years?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I think the truth is closer to the second, and I think this is largely
>>>> a
>>>>>>>learned behavior, empirical rather than based on any truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In a recent session at another producer's studio (who will remain
>>>>>>>unnamed),
>>>>>>>I listened to some pop-rock mixes done on a Paris rig. The sound was
>>big
>>>>>>>and clear and sounded very tape-like. Overall it sounded quite good
>>and
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>at all wimpy. The artist however hated the sound. He played us a number
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>recent albums known to have been recorded in PT or similar sounding
>>DAWS
>>>>>>>as examples of what he wanted. This is the sound he knows and more
>>>>>>>important
>>>>>>>it is the sound he likes! Yikes!! Compressed to a dynamic range of
>about
>>>>>>>10db and very little sense of depth, space or stereo width.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Music may be universal but we all know it comes with cultural bias.
>>How
>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>American teens would choose to listen to a steady diet of microtonal
>>>>>>>music?
>>>>>>>Might as well serve up a big plate of Haggis... And it not just teens.
>>>>
>>>>>>>Labels
>>>>>>>work the exact same way. If someone has a hit record that sounds crappy,
>>>>>>>all the labels want the same crappy sound.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Suddenly I am feeling very old. Fashions change taste changes but
I
>>>>>>>thought
>>>>>>>good sound was forever. Perhaps not so. As a producer who still has
>>at
>>>>
>>>>>>>least
>>>>>>>one toe in the current market, I need to have some awareness of the
>>>>>>>realities
>>>>>>>of the market and the "new sound" is the new sound.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>My personal taste has not changed. For most projects that I foresee
>>
>>>>>>>myself
>>>>>>>working on, I will continue to use Paris, but just as I have made
>>>>>>>decisions
>>>>>>>in the past to use SSL consoles rather than Neves to achieve a more
>>
>>>>>>>trendy
>>>>>>>"Pop" mix, I am now experimenting with ways to capture the "elusive
>>PT
>>>>
>>>>>>>sound".
>>>>>>>(Insert appropriate emoticon).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Luckily it was reasonably easy to achieve. I recently purchased the
>>
>>>>>>>Waves
>>>>>>>SSL bundle and running that in Logic can get me very close to the
sound
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>better sounding PT mixes. So I can still use Paris whenever I like
>and
>>>> I
>>>>>>>can experiment with a mix of the two styles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What does all this mean? Nothing other then I understand why some
>
>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>may prefer the way other systems sound and I think that my own
>>>>>>>preferences
>>>>>>>are biased by many years of listening to records made the old way.
>I
>>
>>>>>>>don't
>>>>>>>see giving up Paris any time soon but I also don't think it's worth
>>>>>>>fighting
>>>>>>>over if someone else has different opinions on what sounds good.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And don't forget.the cyclical nature of fashion almost guarantees
that
>>>> one
>>>>>>>day we will once again be "in".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Gene
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT.-Reality check [message #66710 is a reply to message #66704] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 14:32 |
Music Lab Sweden
Messages: 12
Registered: January 2006
|
Junior Member |
|
|
DJ, I was not referring to stability as much as compatibility. In a crowded
pro market you either need PT compatibility, or full OMF support (working
OMF), both which are lacking in Paris, which makes it a time consuming and
cumbersome process, especially when you are working with large track counts.
And yes, you are absolutely right;-) I still remember the days when I tracked
to a G24S through a Soundtracs board. I miss the fun and the feeling of being
a "real" recording engineer, ping-ponging and carefully plan your every move.
It´s just not as much fun as it used to be...
A full analog "state of the art" joint would be a dream.
Babu
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>I trtack with Paris with folks looki9ng over my shoulder all the time. It's
>a matter of knowing what to do and how to do it. My system is very stable.
>
>As far as financial concerns go, yes, I stick with Paris because of
>financial concerns. If I had the money, there is not doubt at all that I'd
>be tracking to a pair of synced 2" 16 track machines and an API legacy
>console.
>
>Different strokes ;o)
>
>Deej
>"Babu" <musiclab@lund.bonet.se> wrote in message news:443ff4c0$1@linux...
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I am a former Paris user who still use Paris now and then, especially
when
>> I remix old songs recorded in Paris. I gave up in favour of Soundscape
>which
>> I truly love.
>>
>> Anyway, I agree with most of the comments about Paris and it´s sound but
>> when it comes to classical music, Paris simply has much left so desire.
It
>> nowhere as clean and accurate as the newer modern systems, be it PT,
>Soundscape,
>> Nuendo, Samplitude etc.
>>
>> I have a fairly large Paris setup and as much magic as it has it is quite
>> unreliable compared to the other systems.
>> For example: Paris can sometimes (randomly) add strange DC offset to the
>> files. It can depending on heat cause clicks. Aux leakage. Just to mention
>> a few anomalies. IOW to me it simply isn´t crystal clear and accurate.
>Also,
>> what is by some percieved as warmth, sounds to me like a bit clouded
>midrange.
>> I have recorded a fair amout of classical choirs in both Paris, Soundscape
>> and Nuendo. In this genre there is simply no competition at all. My
>Soundscape
>> converters (Apogee) simply kills Paris in clarity and detail. OTOH with
>pop/rock,
>> especially acoustic pop/rock (live drums), Paris can sound a bit more
>exciting
>> than the others.
>>
>> Last but not least, sound aside Paris is a dinosaur. The routing options
>> leave A LOT to desire. The I/O flexibility is back to the stone age
>compared
>> to newer systems. The non-sample accurate editing is a PITA. Lack of
>professional
>> I/O options. Very rudimentary handling of native plugins, especially in
>stereo.
>> No bussing possibilites. No VST/DX on master bus. No delay compensation.
>> etc. ect...
>>
>> IMHO most people who are sticking to Paris are doing it for financial
>reasons.
>> Given the very low price the SH systems are going for, the price vs. sound
>> preformance ratio is amazing, compared to other DSP-based system. In a
>true
>> professional enviroment with clients hanging over your shoulder, the
>compromises
>> are just to big, all IMO of course.
>>
>> Just my 2 cents.
>>
>> Babu
>>
>> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>> >Of course not, you just
>> >have to treat Paris like any other DAW, and don't push it too hard
>> >and it works great for classical.
>> >
>> >That's the beauty of it. It works either way. There is an issue with
the
>> D/A
>> >converters and jitter when using the Paris clock, but with an external
>clock
>> >I've never thought it sounded anything other than what I wanted it to
>sound.
>> >result.....however, this is blasphemy and I have to immediately jack
the
>> >submix faders into the stratosphere so I can hear all that crappy
>distortion
>> >that I like.
>> >
>> >;O)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >"DC" <dc@spamthemoon.com> wrote in message news:443f4acc$1@linux...
>> >>
>> >> One myth I would like to dispel is that Paris sounds muddy, vintage,
>> >> analog or less detailed than PT's.
>> >>
>> >> It's all in how hard you hit it.
>> >>
>> >> Had a conversation with SSC years ago about using Paris for
>> >> classical and he really ground on me hard to try it and compare it
to
>> >> Sonic Solutions. Sonic has always been the gold standard for
>> >> classical, and honestly I thought he was full of it, but I tried it,
>using
>> >> the same source material. He was right, it was actually better than
>> >> Sonic on a 70-piece orchestra. Some of you have heard that CD.
>> >> Did it sound "vintage" or muddy to you? Of course not, you just
>> >> have to treat Paris like any other DAW, and don't push it too hard
>> >> and it works great for classical. An orchestra recorded with the
>> >> just 2 of the best mics in the world (DPA / B&K) the best pre
>> >> (no tubes please!) and a great convertor is the ultimate test for
>> >> clarity. One little loss of anything and the whole things turns to
>> >> crap. It must be eq'ed and mastered to perfection, but if it is, it
>> >> sounds like you are in the room with the orchestra.
>> >>
>> >> Paris works extremely well on an orchestra and I can tell you that
>> >> unless you push the levels the sound is as real, detailed, open and
>> >> clear as I have ever heard.
>> >> Personally, I think Paris murders PT's on orchestras. The clarity
>> >> and lack of distortion, even on the upper harmonics of high violin
>> >> notes, is really better and the soundstage and imaging is terrific.
>> >>
>> >> Try not hitting Paris so hard in the mixer, push the submix masters
>> >> all the way up, and listen to the audio get nice and pristine.
>> >>
>> >> DC
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT. [message #66713 is a reply to message #66696] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 16:54 |
Martin Harrington
Messages: 560
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Everyone is making good points in this discussion, but remember, unless we
are producing film soundtracks, (or similar), our sounds, be it music, voice
or fx, are mostly going to be heard on an MP3 device of some sort, (player
or radio), at least until the new generation of HiDef players are released,
and then we are going to have the format wars starting all over again.
No matter what equipment we use, the end result, in real terms, is MP3, (or
MP4).
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com
"Dedric Terry" <dedric@echomg.com> wrote in message news:443fe185@linux...
>I think you've misinterpreted that anyone is saying that one approach is
>better than another.
> On the contrary, this is just an observation in how we choose our
> preferences, and the fact that
> currently available technology significantly exceeds what was available
> 40, 30, 20 and even 10 years ago.
> Recording is about capturing audio - period. It's production, mixing, and
> the concept of creating listener appeal
> in the music side of recording that has used it creatively. There isn't
> anything wrong with that, but recording has always
> been at the mercy of, and influenced by the available technology. It
> isn't a platform war, and never was -
> just a constant attempt to improve each element of the chain within the
> budgets we have available.
>
> I once tested recording a vocal with a binaural head, test measuring
> system. It sucked for artistic and listening pleasure,
> but was incredibly reaslistic. Maybe that just goes to show that what
> entertains us artistically doesn't necessarily benefit
> from reality. There's nothing wrong with running a mix down to a 4-track
> cassette deck if that's what floats your
> boat creatively.
>
> Regards,
> Dedric
>
>
> "JD" <no@nospam.com> wrote in message news:443fdbe4$1@linux...
>>
>> Everybody's got an opinion. Here we go with the PT is better than Paris
>> stuff
>> again. I guess this gives us something to talk about, but folks, we're
>> all
>> being goaded and bated here.
>>
>> This is what is wrong with the record industry. There is not enough
>> diversity
>> in sound and music styling these days. The whole cookie cutter approach
>> to
>> everything really sucks. That's why the record industry was in so much
>> trouble,
>> five Britney Spears, Spice Girls doesn't cut it for vary long. Just
>> because
>> a new sound comes along, the old sound shouldn't become null and void.
>> There
>> should be room for everything. In other words, don't follow the
>> followers,
>> and maybe you'll get noticed. If everybody used PT the things would be
>> more
>> boring than they already are!
>>
>> The demographic for the record companies is, 13 to 25, so the day you
>> turn
>> 26 your null and void??? No music geared to a 26, 36, or 46 year old???
>> How stupid! Do you really think that a 16 year old would think, yuck,
>> this
>> music sucks, this wasn't recorded on a PT system! This music is
>> unacceptable!
>> No, they listen to the song!!!!! The song is what sells them. variety
>> is good when it comes to sound and production. Both sounds should be
>> acceptable!
>> But then again this post really wasn't about sound, now was it!
>>
>> LaMont, if you like PT better cool. Keep chasing your tail dude, your
>> sure
>> to end up in the same place!
>>
>>
>> "Martin Harrington" <lendan@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>>Good post, LaMont
>>>
>>>--
>>>Martin Harrington
>>>www.lendanear-sound.com
>>>
>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@aameritech.net> wrote in message
>>>news:443f2d4d$1@linux...
>>>>
>>>> Gene,
>>>> Thank you very much for "speaking: the truth about this whole DAW
>>>> "nastalgic"
>>>> sound thing.
>>>>
>>>> Let me just state that I've held my tongue for the last 5 years as I
>>>> watched
>>>> the DAW proaudio market "Hyjack" forward thinking , new fedelity, newer
>>
>>>> sounding
>>>> DAW technology.
>>>>
>>>> The DAW market has been held "ransom" to the "old' guard Engineers who
>>
>>>> ears
>>>> are trained to hear "un-natural" de-emphasis", muddied up recordings.
>>>>
>>>> I remember my very first recording session as a guitar player. The year
>>
>>>> 1982
>>>> as I remember recording my tracks to 2 ich Otari MTR, MCI mixer..Fine..
>>
>>>> The
>>>> sound was nice, clear just the way I recorded it. But, remember
>>>> thinking
>>>> "This does sound like a record" Hummmm... After all the other
>>>> instruments
>>>> were push up in the mix ,along with the vocals, stillnot a record
>>>> sound..
>>>>
>>>> In other works, where is the mudied drums? the thudy bass? the muddied
>>
>>>> vocals
>>>> that I heard since I was 4 years old??? where was this sound??
>>>>
>>>> Well, we hen attended the mix session, I soon found out that, the magic
>>
>>>> was
>>>> about to occur!! Out comes the Putec(s),the 1176s,LA2(s) GAtes,
>>>> DBX160..2
>>>> hours later they had that record sound..Hummm...I started thinkng
>>>> again,
>>>> "Man, the sound of 30ips Ampex 456 tape was big, vivid, wide, open,
>>>> witha
>>>> ting og high end fidelity..hummmm This was not the record sound..
>>>>
>>>> So here we are in 1997-98-99.PAris. The pro Engineers on this site
>>>> priased
>>>> it for it's "easy ability" to get that record sound!! wow!!! AND, we
>>
>>>> lawed
>>>> every oter digital recorder mixer for being to ....Digital...Not warm
>>
>>>> enough,
>>>> not dull , or muddy enough..
>>>> This Pro Engineer-Producer crowd wined,screemed, bitched, moaned on
>>>> every
>>>> forum that the current state of DAW's (namely Protools) mix was bad as
>>
>>>> well
>>>> as most plugins...Even more, they could not mix ITB(In the Box) unless
>>
>>>> they
>>>> has software emulations of their beloved (OLD) compressors EQ,
>>>> Verbs.(UAD,MCDSP,
>>>> Bomb factory)....
>>>>
>>>> So, like magic, companies pour massive resouces to reclaim the glorys
>> days
>>>> with the birth of the "Vinatage Plug ins). Their purpose was( is) to
>>>> make
>>>> your mixes"duller"=warmer, more professional(sit right, al in all..Make
>>
>>>> the
>>>> mixes sound like 1975!!!
>>>>
>>>> Now in 2006 the "what I call" modern sound of DAWS, being lead by Pro
>>
>>>> Tools
>>>> HD and Nuedno, Sonar there's a shift occuring in the "Holy-Grail "
>>>> RECORD-SOUND...
>>>> With Garage bands, rap artist, Rock bands, Soul singers of today having
>> NO
>>>> prior knowledge,nor the Formal training to 'get he 1975" sound, we have
>>
>>>> the
>>>> High-Fedelity DAW sound in all it'sglory!! ..Yipee!!
>>>>
>>>> Still, the old guard continues to hold it's thumb on the DAW market and
>>
>>>> keep
>>>> driving manufactures to making more and more vintage plugins. But,
>>>> every
>>>> now and then a product like Ozone's Izatope comes along (and others)
>>>> that
>>>> challeng the old "muddy up the mix crowd).
>>>>
>>>> Today kids are brought onthe Pro_Tools(Mix & HD) sound. They expect to
>>
>>>> hear
>>>> that sound. they have no idea on how to get a 1975 sound..
>>>>
>>>> So, I've said all the above to say: Let's move on!!Yes , the Brian
>>>> Tankersly(I
>>>> adore), Nuendo endorsers,vinatge engineers) will continue to push to
>>>> have
>>>> all of their 1960,79, & 80 hardware as a plugin and continue to fight
>> DAW
>>>> companies to to fix summing buses or event new a new summing buss
>>>> market
>>>> segment to ensure they et the 1975 sound with todays DAW.
>>>>
>>>> For me,they can have the 1975 sound. I'm moving onward with the cureent
>>
>>>> state
>>>> of very high fifdelity thats afforded me in PT HD And Nuendo..yes,
>>>> Paris
>>>> is still in my rig, but I will no longer
>>>> fight mixes to get the 1975 sound..If the mixes are nice and
>>>> Brightosund
>>>> with bottom..So beit..I love the way PT HD sounds with the 192
>>>> converters.
>>>> Very nice full-spectrum sound ,with a nice top end. I love Nuendo's
>>>> nice
>>>> wide -spacious,clear open , heavey bottom sound with my EMu converters.
>>
>>>> Let's
>>>> evolve past 1975..Pleaseeeeeeeee!!!!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "gene lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I sold my PT rig when I switched to Paris. I did it at the time
>>>>>primarily
>>>>>for the sound of the Paris mix bus. This was before HD.
>>>>>
>>>>>When HD was released, the distinction was far less obvious. HD still
>>>>>sounds
>>>>>different from Paris but not awful anymore, just different. Paris still
>>>> has
>>>>>more of an analog/tape sound plus the added benefit of sounding more
>>>>>aggressive
>>>>>when you push the gain stages.
>>>>>
>>>>>So now the big question! Do I prefer the sound of Paris over other DAWS
>>>> because
>>>>>its actually makes better sounding recordings, or is it because it is
>>
>>>>>closer
>>>>>to the sound I associate with my favorite albums from the last 30
>>>>>years?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I think the truth is closer to the second, and I think this is largely
>> a
>>>>>learned behavior, empirical rather than based on any truth.
>>>>>
>>>>>In a recent session at another producer's studio (who will remain
>>>>>unnamed),
>>>>>I listened to some pop-rock mixes done on a Paris rig. The sound was
>>>>>big
>>>>>and clear and sounded very tape-like. Overall it sounded quite good and
>>>> not
>>>>>at all wimpy. The artist however hated the sound. He played us a number
>>>> of
>>>>>recent albums known to have been recorded in PT or similar sounding
>>>>>DAWS
>>>>>as examples of what he wanted. This is the sound he knows and more
>>>>>important
>>>>>it is the sound he likes! Yikes!! Compressed to a dynamic range of
>>>>>about
>>>>>10db and very little sense of depth, space or stereo width.
>>>>>
>>>>>Music may be universal but we all know it comes with cultural bias. How
>>>> many
>>>>>American teens would choose to listen to a steady diet of microtonal
>>>>>music?
>>>>>Might as well serve up a big plate of Haggis... And it not just teens.
>>
>>>>>Labels
>>>>>work the exact same way. If someone has a hit record that sounds
>>>>>crappy,
>>>>>all the labels want the same crappy sound.
>>>>>
>>>>>Suddenly I am feeling very old. Fashions change taste changes but I
>>>>>thought
>>>>>good sound was forever. Perhaps not so. As a producer who still has at
>>
>>>>>least
>>>>>one toe in the current market, I need to have some awareness of the
>>>>>realities
>>>>>of the market and the "new sound" is the new sound.
>>>>>
>>>>>My personal taste has not changed. For most projects that I foresee
>>>>>myself
>>>>>working on, I will continue to use Paris, but just as I have made
>>>>>decisions
>>>>>in the past to use SSL consoles rather than Neves to achieve a more
>>>>>trendy
>>>>>"Pop" mix, I am now experimenting with ways to capture the "elusive PT
>>
>>>>>sound".
>>>>>(Insert appropriate emoticon).
>>>>>
>>>>>Luckily it was reasonably easy to achieve. I recently purchased the
>>>>>Waves
>>>>>SSL bundle and running that in Logic can get me very close to the sound
>>>> of
>>>>>better sounding PT mixes. So I can still use Paris whenever I like and
>> I
>>>>>can experiment with a mix of the two styles.
>>>>>
>>>>> What does all this mean? Nothing other then I understand why some
>>>>> people
>>>>>may prefer the way other systems sound and I think that my own
>>>>>preferences
>>>>>are biased by many years of listening to records made the old way. I
>>>>>don't
>>>>>see giving up Paris any time soon but I also don't think it's worth
>>>>>fighting
>>>>>over if someone else has different opinions on what sounds good.
>>>>>
>>>>>And don't forget.the cyclical nature of fashion almost guarantees that
>> one
>>>>>day we will once again be "in".
>>>>>
>>>>>Gene
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT. [message #66715 is a reply to message #66692] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 17:29 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey DJ,
Point taken.. However, I think it's more perception than real quality. For
example: Just yesterday I was listening to one my all-time favorite albums/CD..Steely
Dan's Aja!! While Deacon Blues is playing, I start thinking,
-Is his album great because--
-Great Sound quality/enginnering
-Great songs
-Great performances.
-All the above
We, if I'm honest with myself, I'd have to say that All could apply, BUT,
when I lsiten to the drums, they sound like cardboard boxes...Chuck Rainey's
Bass is not a true representation of a Fender Percision, it has been dumb-down
to thuds.. Horn-Fine, Rhodes-fines, Guitars-Fine..But, is that way a band
sound "naturally".. Or is it the cookie cutter approach to mixing..Getting
the tight mix sound..??
Maybe Bruece Sweiden approach of analog to capture, then off to digital
land is the sonic way.. Lord knows his productions with "ZThe Gloved" one
are truly "works of sonic art" , productions, egneering second to none..
But, to say soemthing is pleasing to the ears is a learned behavior of the
"RecordSound".. The old guard engineers for some reason were "scare of the
digital sound until they were able to make it sound close to 1975. Audio
tools are just that tools that are like color paltets for and artist. But,
it seems that n matter the strides in technolgy, the old guard wants to keep
the overall sound 1975 reguadles of what recording medium you are using(
2inch,Adat,D-88,MDR, DAWS)..That's disturbing to me..
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>I think it's great that we don't have to deal with some of the issues that
>made recording such a chore and required such a number of tools to deal
>with, but I'm not nearly as convinced as you guys that *accurate is better*.
>Listen to the Dixie Chicks first CD that was recorded to tape and then
>subsequent ones that were recorded to digital. The latter fefforts sound
>great, but they don't sound as pleasing to my ear as the first one. The
>remix of Hotel California is another example of digital awfulness. It's
very
>accurate and sounds like pure crap, IMO.....and it was originally recorded
>to tape and then PT'ed. Sorry, but it doee sound terrible compared to the
>original to my ears. With all of the new nice shiny tools we have available
>today, it's possible to hear *more* as far as dugital ugliness is concerned
>as well. Analog gear and tape provides glue. Lots of stuff falls apart
>without glue.
>
>Deej
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:443fd3ca$1@linux...
>>
>> Dedric, once again, with a tear in my left eye-smile :) You have state
>what
>> I was going to say in response to my original post.
>> Thanks buddy...
>>
>> "The overwhelming impression and approach I've taken, and got from reading
>> the history of it, is that the goal of recording has always been to
>recreate
>> what we hear as accurately as possible. Yet, I think somewhere along
the
>> way when engineers
>> quickly realized that technology was a long way from being able to do
>that,
>> someone decided to make it a creative venture rather than an accuracy
>venture."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>> >I don't think, or at least I hope, there won't be a continued trend for
>> FM,
>> >compressed radio and 64k mp3s to dictate sound. When I think of
>"outdated"
>> >I think of limited bandwidth, sometimes noisy, and often mushy sound
-
>not
>> a
>> >recording style, or even mixing style necessarily, although it does
>change
>> >based on pop culture and available technology more than science.
>> >
>> >A while back I read a bit on the history of recording. The overwhelming
>> >impression and approach I've taken, and got from reading the history
of
>> it,
>> >is that the goal of recording has always been to recreate what we hear
as
>> >accurately as possible. Yet, I think somewhere along the way when
>engineers
>> >quickly realized that technology was a long way from being able to do
>that,
>> >someone decided to make it a creative venture rather than an accuracy
>> >venture. Obviously there are creative requirements that eliminate
>accuracy
>> >(I once tried a binaural head test-analysis mic system on vocals -
>sucked,
>> >but it was incredibly accurate, which goes to show that not all we hear
>> is
>> >as we would prefer to hear it).
>> >
>> >Hence now we have, for example, kicks that sound nothing like the real
>think
>> >- where you had a "koomphhh" or "doomphhh" to start with, the "standard"
>> is
>> >to make it sound more like a "thmp" or "dhmp" (pardon my "technical"
>> >terminology). Gating, compression, EQ, even if not necessary to fix
>> >recording problems, have become a means to not just make the mix fit
>> >together, but alter the sound to what has become the radio standard.
>Much
>> >of it sounds great for what it is, but it isn't about accurate recording
>> >anymore, and that makes it hyper-dependant on popular trends rather than
>> >audiology.
>> >
>> >Regards,
>> >Dedric
>> >
>> >On 4/13/06 11:53 PM, in article 443f38eb$1@linux, "gene lennon"
>> ><glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> So I recognize my own prejudices, I think I clearly see the new trends,
>> but
>> >> I don't prefer the new sound. I have no doubt that for many listeners
>> now
>> >> and most in the future I will be from "The school of the outdated
>sound."
>> >>
>> >> gene
>> >>
>> >> "LaMont" <jjdpro@aameritech.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Gene,
>> >>> Thank you very much for "speaking: the truth about this whole DAW
>"nastalgic"
>> >>> sound thing.
>> >>>
>> >>> Let me just state that I've held my tongue for the last 5 years as
I
>> watched
>> >>> the DAW proaudio market "Hyjack" forward thinking , new fedelity,
>newer
>> >> sounding
>> >>> DAW technology.
>> >>>
>> >>> The DAW market has been held "ransom" to the "old' guard Engineers
who
>> ears
>> >>> are trained to hear "un-natural" de-emphasis", muddied up recordings.
>> >>>
>> >>> I remember my very first recording session as a guitar player. The
>year
>> >> 1982
>> >>> as I remember recording my tracks to 2 ich Otari MTR, MCI
>mixer..Fine..
>> >> The
>> >>> sound was nice, clear just the way I recorded it. But, remember
>thinking
>> >>> "This does sound like a record" Hummmm... After all the other
>instruments
>> >>> were push up in the mix ,along with the vocals, stillnot a record
>sound..
>> >>>
>> >>> In other works, where is the mudied drums? the thudy bass? the muddied
>> vocals
>> >>> that I heard since I was 4 years old??? where was this sound??
>> >>>
>> >>> Well, we hen attended the mix session, I soon found out that, the
>magic
>> >> was
>> >>> about to occur!! Out comes the Putec(s),the 1176s,LA2(s) GAtes,
>DBX160..2
>> >>> hours later they had that record sound..Hummm...I started thinkng
>again,
>> >>> "Man, the sound of 30ips Ampex 456 tape was big, vivid, wide, open,
>witha
>> >>> ting og high end fidelity..hummmm This was not the record sound..
>> >>>
>> >>> So here we are in 1997-98-99.PAris. The pro Engineers on this site
>priased
>> >>> it for it's "easy ability" to get that record sound!! wow!!! AND,
we
>> lawed
>> >>> every oter digital recorder mixer for being to ....Digital...Not warm
>> enough,
>> >>> not dull , or muddy enough..
>> >>> This Pro Engineer-Producer crowd wined,screemed, bitched, moaned on
>every
>> >>> forum that the current state of DAW's (namely Protools) mix was bad
as
>> well
>> >>> as most plugins...Even more, they could not mix ITB(In the Box) unless
>> they
>> >>> has software emulations of their beloved (OLD) compressors EQ,
>> >>> Verbs.(UAD,MCDSP,
>> >>> Bomb factory)....
>> >>>
>> >>> So, like magic, companies pour massive resouces to reclaim the glorys
>> days
>> >>> with the birth of the "Vinatage Plug ins). Their purpose was( is)
to
>> make
>> >>> your mixes"duller"=warmer, more professional(sit right, al in
>all..Make
>> >> the
>> >>> mixes sound like 1975!!!
>> >>>
>> >>> Now in 2006 the "what I call" modern sound of DAWS, being lead by
Pro
>> Tools
>> >>> HD and Nuedno, Sonar there's a shift occuring in the "Holy-Grail "
>> >>> RECORD-SOUND...
>> >>> With Garage bands, rap artist, Rock bands, Soul singers of today
>having
>> >> NO
>> >>> prior knowledge,nor the Formal training to 'get he 1975" sound, we
>have
>> >> the
>> >>> High-Fedelity DAW sound in all it'sglory!! ..Yipee!!
>> >>>
>> >>> Still, the old guard continues to hold it's thumb on the DAW market
>and
>> >> keep
>> >>> driving manufactures to making more and more vintage plugins. But,
>every
>> >>> now and then a product like Ozone's Izatope comes along (and others)
>> that
>> >>> challeng the old "muddy up the mix crowd).
>> >>>
>> >>> Today kids are brought onthe Pro_Tools(Mix & HD) sound. They expect
to
>> hear
>> >>> that sound. they have no idea on how to get a 1975 sound..
>> >>>
>> >>> So, I've said all the above to say: Let's move on!!Yes , the Brian
>> >>> Tankersly(I
>> >>> adore), Nuendo endorsers,vinatge engineers) will continue to push
to
>> have
>> >>> all of their 1960,79, & 80 hardware as a plugin and continue to fight
>> DAW
>> >>> companies to to fix summing buses or event new a new summing buss
>market
>> >>> segment to ensure they et the 1975 sound with todays DAW.
>> >>>
>> >>> For me,they can have the 1975 sound. I'm moving onward with the
>cureent
>> >> state
>> >>> of very high fifdelity thats afforded me in PT HD And Nuendo..yes,
>Paris
>> >>> is still in my rig, but I will no longer
>> >>> fight mixes to get the 1975 sound..If the mixes are nice and
>Brightosund
>> >>> with bottom..So beit..I love the way PT HD sounds with the 192
>converters.
>> >>> Very nice full-spectrum sound ,with a nice top end. I love Nuendo's
>nice
>> >>> wide -spacious,clear open , heavey bottom sound with my EMu
>converters.
>> >> Let's
>> >>> evolve past 1975..Pleaseeeeeeeee!!!!
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT.-Reality check [message #66716 is a reply to message #66706] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 17:35 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dj, we've benn with Paris for along time. In that time, if your were to do
search on all the DAW updates, and ancellary gear, I know you've spent way
more than a 2 inch 16 track machine and API console..Both can be had at arther
good prices. :)
Your Cubabse SX to Paris saga alone cost $$$$ :) AND, you are still going
:)
I got Pris, becuase it was/is a compte system, like PT..I hate this peice-milling
aproach to DAWsss:) Yuck...:)
Take care
"JD" <no@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>>I trtack with Paris with folks looki9ng over my shoulder all the time.
It's
>>a matter of knowing what to do and how to do it. My system is very stable.
>>
>>As far as financial concerns go, yes, I stick with Paris because of
>>financial concerns. If I had the money, there is not doubt at all that
I'd
>>be tracking to a pair of synced 2" 16 track machines and an API legacy
>>console.
>>
>>Different strokes ;o)
>>
>>Deej
>
>Deej, you are so 1975 in your thinking! LOL
>
>>"Babu" <musiclab@lund.bonet.se> wrote in message news:443ff4c0$1@linux...
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> I am a former Paris user who still use Paris now and then, especially
>when
>>> I remix old songs recorded in Paris. I gave up in favour of Soundscape
>>which
>>> I truly love.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I agree with most of the comments about Paris and it´s sound
but
>>> when it comes to classical music, Paris simply has much left so desire.
>It
>>> nowhere as clean and accurate as the newer modern systems, be it PT,
>>Soundscape,
>>> Nuendo, Samplitude etc.
>>>
>>> I have a fairly large Paris setup and as much magic as it has it is quite
>>> unreliable compared to the other systems.
>>> For example: Paris can sometimes (randomly) add strange DC offset to
the
>>> files. It can depending on heat cause clicks. Aux leakage. Just to mention
>>> a few anomalies. IOW to me it simply isn´t crystal clear and accurate.
>>Also,
>>> what is by some percieved as warmth, sounds to me like a bit clouded
>>midrange.
>>> I have recorded a fair amout of classical choirs in both Paris, Soundscape
>>> and Nuendo. In this genre there is simply no competition at all. My
>>Soundscape
>>> converters (Apogee) simply kills Paris in clarity and detail. OTOH with
>>pop/rock,
>>> especially acoustic pop/rock (live drums), Paris can sound a bit more
>>exciting
>>> than the others.
>>>
>>> Last but not least, sound aside Paris is a dinosaur. The routing options
>>> leave A LOT to desire. The I/O flexibility is back to the stone age
>>compared
>>> to newer systems. The non-sample accurate editing is a PITA. Lack of
>>professional
>>> I/O options. Very rudimentary handling of native plugins, especially
in
>>stereo.
>>> No bussing possibilites. No VST/DX on master bus. No delay compensation.
>>> etc. ect...
>>>
>>> IMHO most people who are sticking to Paris are doing it for financial
>>reasons.
>>> Given the very low price the SH systems are going for, the price vs.
sound
>>> preformance ratio is amazing, compared to other DSP-based system. In
a
>>true
>>> professional enviroment with clients hanging over your shoulder, the
>>compromises
>>> are just to big, all IMO of course.
>>>
>>> Just my 2 cents.
>>>
>>> Babu
>>>
>>> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>>> >Of course not, you just
>>> >have to treat Paris like any other DAW, and don't push it too hard
>>> >and it works great for classical.
>>> >
>>> >That's the beauty of it. It works either way. There is an issue with
>the
>>> D/A
>>> >converters and jitter when using the Paris clock, but with an external
>>clock
>>> >I've never thought it sounded anything other than what I wanted it to
>>sound.
>>> >result.....however, this is blasphemy and I have to immediately jack
>the
>>> >submix faders into the stratosphere so I can hear all that crappy
>>distortion
>>> >that I like.
>>> >
>>> >;O)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >"DC" <dc@spamthemoon.com> wrote in message news:443f4acc$1@linux...
>>> >>
>>> >> One myth I would like to dispel is that Paris sounds muddy, vintage,
>>> >> analog or less detailed than PT's.
>>> >>
>>> >> It's all in how hard you hit it.
>>> >>
>>> >> Had a conversation with SSC years ago about using Paris for
>>> >> classical and he really ground on me hard to try it and compare it
>to
>>> >> Sonic Solutions. Sonic has always been the gold standard for
>>> >> classical, and honestly I thought he was full of it, but I tried it,
>>using
>>> >> the same source material. He was right, it was actually better than
>>> >> Sonic on a 70-piece orchestra. Some of you have heard that CD.
>>> >> Did it sound "vintage" or muddy to you? Of course not, you just
>>> >> have to treat Paris like any other DAW, and don't push it too hard
>>> >> and it works great for classical. An orchestra recorded with the
>>> >> just 2 of the best mics in the world (DPA / B&K) the best pre
>>> >> (no tubes please!) and a great convertor is the ultimate test for
>>> >> clarity. One little loss of anything and the whole things turns to
>>> >> crap. It must be eq'ed and mastered to perfection, but if it is,
it
>>> >> sounds like you are in the room with the orchestra.
>>> >>
>>> >> Paris works extremely well on an orchestra and I can tell you that
>>> >> unless you push the levels the sound is as real, detailed, open and
>>> >> clear as I have ever heard.
>>> >> Personally, I think Paris murders PT's on orchestras. The clarity
>>> >> and lack of distortion, even on the upper harmonics of high violin
>>> >> notes, is really better and the soundstage and imaging is terrific.
>>> >>
>>> >> Try not hitting Paris so hard in the mixer, push the submix masters
>>> >> all the way up, and listen to the audio get nice and pristine.
>>> >>
>>> >> DC
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT. [message #66719 is a reply to message #66696] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 17:56 |
Aaron Allen
Messages: 1988
Registered: May 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The fact that this (PT/Paris debate, ad naseum) is actually even still a
discussion after Paris being "dead" for this long says a whhhooole lot about
Paris, dunnit?
What a waste, thanks Creative, for your lack of vision :(
AA
"Dedric Terry" <dedric@echomg.com> wrote in message news:443fe185@linux...
>I think you've misinterpreted that anyone is saying that one approach is
>better than another.
> On the contrary, this is just an observation in how we choose our
> preferences, and the fact that
> currently available technology significantly exceeds what was available
> 40, 30, 20 and even 10 years ago.
> Recording is about capturing audio - period. It's production, mixing, and
> the concept of creating listener appeal
> in the music side of recording that has used it creatively. There isn't
> anything wrong with that, but recording has always
> been at the mercy of, and influenced by the available technology. It
> isn't a platform war, and never was -
> just a constant attempt to improve each element of the chain within the
> budgets we have available.
>
> I once tested recording a vocal with a binaural head, test measuring
> system. It sucked for artistic and listening pleasure,
> but was incredibly reaslistic. Maybe that just goes to show that what
> entertains us artistically doesn't necessarily benefit
> from reality. There's nothing wrong with running a mix down to a 4-track
> cassette deck if that's what floats your
> boat creatively.
>
> Regards,
> Dedric
>
>
> "JD" <no@nospam.com> wrote in message news:443fdbe4$1@linux...
>>
>> Everybody's got an opinion. Here we go with the PT is better than Paris
>> stuff
>> again. I guess this gives us something to talk about, but folks, we're
>> all
>> being goaded and bated here.
>>
>> This is what is wrong with the record industry. There is not enough
>> diversity
>> in sound and music styling these days. The whole cookie cutter approach
>> to
>> everything really sucks. That's why the record industry was in so much
>> trouble,
>> five Britney Spears, Spice Girls doesn't cut it for vary long. Just
>> because
>> a new sound comes along, the old sound shouldn't become null and void.
>> There
>> should be room for everything. In other words, don't follow the
>> followers,
>> and maybe you'll get noticed. If everybody used PT the things would be
>> more
>> boring than they already are!
>>
>> The demographic for the record companies is, 13 to 25, so the day you
>> turn
>> 26 your null and void??? No music geared to a 26, 36, or 46 year old???
>> How stupid! Do you really think that a 16 year old would think, yuck,
>> this
>> music sucks, this wasn't recorded on a PT system! This music is
>> unacceptable!
>> No, they listen to the song!!!!! The song is what sells them. variety
>> is good when it comes to sound and production. Both sounds should be
>> acceptable!
>> But then again this post really wasn't about sound, now was it!
>>
>> LaMont, if you like PT better cool. Keep chasing your tail dude, your
>> sure
>> to end up in the same place!
>>
>>
>> "Martin Harrington" <lendan@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>>Good post, LaMont
>>>
>>>--
>>>Martin Harrington
>>>www.lendanear-sound.com
>>>
>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@aameritech.net> wrote in message
>>>news:443f2d4d$1@linux...
>>>>
>>>> Gene,
>>>> Thank you very much for "speaking: the truth about this whole DAW
>>>> "nastalgic"
>>>> sound thing.
>>>>
>>>> Let me just state that I've held my tongue for the last 5 years as I
>>>> watched
>>>> the DAW proaudio market "Hyjack" forward thinking , new fedelity, newer
>>
>>>> sounding
>>>> DAW technology.
>>>>
>>>> The DAW market has been held "ransom" to the "old' guard Engineers who
>>
>>>> ears
>>>> are trained to hear "un-natural" de-emphasis", muddied up recordings.
>>>>
>>>> I remember my very first recording session as a guitar player. The year
>>
>>>> 1982
>>>> as I remember recording my tracks to 2 ich Otari MTR, MCI mixer..Fine..
>>
>>>> The
>>>> sound was nice, clear just the way I recorded it. But, remember
>>>> thinking
>>>> "This does sound like a record" Hummmm... After all the other
>>>> instruments
>>>> were push up in the mix ,along with the vocals, stillnot a record
>>>> sound..
>>>>
>>>> In other works, where is the mudied drums? the thudy bass? the muddied
>>
>>>> vocals
>>>> that I heard since I was 4 years old??? where was this sound??
>>>>
>>>> Well, we hen attended the mix session, I soon found out that, the magic
>>
>>>> was
>>>> about to occur!! Out comes the Putec(s),the 1176s,LA2(s) GAtes,
>>>> DBX160..2
>>>> hours later they had that record sound..Hummm...I started thinkng
>>>> again,
>>>> "Man, the sound of 30ips Ampex 456 tape was big, vivid, wide, open,
>>>> witha
>>>> ting og high end fidelity..hummmm This was not the record sound..
>>>>
>>>> So here we are in 1997-98-99.PAris. The pro Engineers on this site
>>>> priased
>>>> it for it's "easy ability" to get that record sound!! wow!!! AND, we
>>
>>>> lawed
>>>> every oter digital recorder mixer for being to ....Digital...Not warm
>>
>>>> enough,
>>>> not dull , or muddy enough..
>>>> This Pro Engineer-Producer crowd wined,screemed, bitched, moaned on
>>>> every
>>>> forum that the current state of DAW's (namely Protools) mix was bad as
>>
>>>> well
>>>> as most plugins...Even more, they could not mix ITB(In the Box) unless
>>
>>>> they
>>>> has software emulations of their beloved (OLD) compressors EQ,
>>>> Verbs.(UAD,MCDSP,
>>>> Bomb factory)....
>>>>
>>>> So, like magic, companies pour massive resouces to reclaim the glorys
>> days
>>>> with the birth of the "Vinatage Plug ins). Their purpose was( is) to
>>>> make
>>>> your mixes"duller"=warmer, more professional(sit right, al in all..Make
>>
>>>> the
>>>> mixes sound like 1975!!!
>>>>
>>>> Now in 2006 the "what I call" modern sound of DAWS, being lead by Pro
>>
>>>> Tools
>>>> HD and Nuedno, Sonar there's a shift occuring in the "Holy-Grail "
>>>> RECORD-SOUND...
>>>> With Garage bands, rap artist, Rock bands, Soul singers of today having
>> NO
>>>> prior knowledge,nor the Formal training to 'get he 1975" sound, we have
>>
>>>> the
>>>> High-Fedelity DAW sound in all it'sglory!! ..Yipee!!
>>>>
>>>> Still, the old guard continues to hold it's thumb on the DAW market and
>>
>>>> keep
>>>> driving manufactures to making more and more vintage plugins. But,
>>>> every
>>>> now and then a product like Ozone's Izatope comes along (and others)
>>>> that
>>>> challeng the old "muddy up the mix crowd).
>>>>
>>>> Today kids are brought onthe Pro_Tools(Mix & HD) sound. They expect to
>>
>>>> hear
>>>> that sound. they have no idea on how to get a 1975 sound..
>>>>
>>>> So, I've said all the above to say: Let's move on!!Yes , the Brian
>>>> Tankersly(I
>>>> adore), Nuendo endorsers,vinatge engineers) will continue to push to
>>>> have
>>>> all of their 1960,79, & 80 hardware as a plugin and continue to fight
>> DAW
>>>> companies to to fix summing buses or event new a new summing buss
>>>> market
>>>> segment to ensure they et the 1975 sound with todays DAW.
>>>>
>>>> For me,they can have the 1975 sound. I'm moving onward with the cureent
>>
>>>> state
>>>> of very high fifdelity thats afforded me in PT HD And Nuendo..yes,
>>>> Paris
>>>> is still in my rig, but I will no longer
>>>> fight mixes to get the 1975 sound..If the mixes are nice and
>>>> Brightosund
>>>> with bottom..So beit..I love the way PT HD sounds with the 192
>>>> converters.
>>>> Very nice full-spectrum sound ,with a nice top end. I love Nuendo's
>>>> nice
>>>> wide -spacious,clear open , heavey bottom sound with my EMu converters.
>>
>>>> Let's
>>>> evolve past 1975..Pleaseeeeeeeee!!!!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "gene lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I sold my PT rig when I switched to Paris. I did it at the time
>>>>>primarily
>>>>>for the sound of the Paris mix bus. This was before HD.
>>>>>
>>>>>When HD was released, the distinction was far less obvious. HD still
>>>>>sounds
>>>>>different from Paris but not awful anymore, just different. Paris still
>>>> has
>>>>>more of an analog/tape sound plus the added benefit of sounding more
>>>>>aggressive
>>>>>when you push the gain stages.
>>>>>
>>>>>So now the big question! Do I prefer the sound of Paris over other DAWS
>>>> because
>>>>>its actually makes better sounding recordings, or is it because it is
>>
>>>>>closer
>>>>>to the sound I associate with my favorite albums from the last 30
>>>>>years?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I think the truth is closer to the second, and I think this is largely
>> a
>>>>>learned behavior, empirical rather than based on any truth.
>>>>>
>>>>>In a recent session at another producer's studio (who will remain
>>>>>unnamed),
>>>>>I listened to some pop-rock mixes done on a Paris rig. The sound was
>>>>>big
>>>>>and clear and sounded very tape-like. Overall it sounded quite good and
>>>> not
>>>>>at all wimpy. The artist however hated the sound. He played us a number
>>>> of
>>>>>recent albums known to have been recorded in PT or similar sounding
>>>>>DAWS
>>>>>as examples of what he wanted. This is the sound he knows and more
>>>>>important
>>>>>it is the sound he likes! Yikes!! Compressed to a dynamic range of
>>>>>about
>>>>>10db and very little sense of depth, space or stereo width.
>>>>>
>>>>>Music may be universal but we all know it comes with cultural bias. How
>>>> many
>>>>>American teens would choose to listen to a steady diet of microtonal
>>>>>music?
>>>>>Might as well serve up a big plate of Haggis... And it not just teens.
>>
>>>>>Labels
>>>>>work the exact same way. If someone has a hit record that sounds
>>>>>crappy,
>>>>>all the labels want the same crappy sound.
>>>>>
>>>>>Suddenly I am feeling very old. Fashions change taste changes but I
>>>>>thought
>>>>>good sound was forever. Perhaps not so. As a producer who still has at
>>
>>>>>least
>>>>>one toe in the current market, I need to have some awareness of the
>>>>>realities
>>>>>of the market and the "new sound" is the new sound.
>>>>>
>>>>>My personal taste has not changed. For most projects that I foresee
>>>>>myself
>>>>>working on, I will continue to use Paris, but just as I have made
>>>>>decisions
>>>>>in the past to use SSL consoles rather than Neves to achieve a more
>>>>>trendy
>>>>>"Pop" mix, I am now experimenting with ways to capture the "elusive PT
>>
>>>>>sound".
>>>>>(Insert appropriate emoticon).
>>>>>
>>>>>Luckily it was reasonably easy to achieve. I recently purchased the
>>>>>Waves
>>>>>SSL bundle and running that in Logic can get me very close to the sound
>>>> of
>>>>>better sounding PT mixes. So I can still use Paris whenever I like and
>> I
>>>>>can experiment with a mix of the two styles.
>>>>>
>>>>> What does all this mean? Nothing other then I understand why some
>>>>> people
>>>>>may prefer the way other systems sound and I think that my own
>>>>>preferences
>>>>>are biased by many years of listening to records made the old way. I
>>>>>don't
>>>>>see giving up Paris any time soon but I also don't think it's worth
>>>>>fighting
>>>>>over if someone else has different opinions on what sounds good.
>>>>>
>>>>>And don't forget.the cyclical nature of fashion almost guarantees that
>> one
>>>>>day we will once again be "in".
>>>>>
>>>>>Gene
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you?
http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT. [message #66721 is a reply to message #66719] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 18:19 |
Edna Sloan
Messages: 304
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Amen! A pithy observation.
E
"Aaron Allen" <nospam@not_here.dude> wrote in message news:44404413@linux...
> The fact that this (PT/Paris debate, ad naseum) is actually even still a
> discussion after Paris being "dead" for this long says a whhhooole lot
about
> Paris, dunnit?
> What a waste, thanks Creative, for your lack of vision :(
>
> AA
>
>
> "Dedric Terry" <dedric@echomg.com> wrote in message news:443fe185@linux...
> >I think you've misinterpreted that anyone is saying that one approach is
> >better than another.
> > On the contrary, this is just an observation in how we choose our
> > preferences, and the fact that
> > currently available technology significantly exceeds what was available
> > 40, 30, 20 and even 10 years ago.
> > Recording is about capturing audio - period. It's production, mixing,
and
> > the concept of creating listener appeal
> > in the music side of recording that has used it creatively. There isn't
> > anything wrong with that, but recording has always
> > been at the mercy of, and influenced by the available technology. It
> > isn't a platform war, and never was -
> > just a constant attempt to improve each element of the chain within the
> > budgets we have available.
> >
> > I once tested recording a vocal with a binaural head, test measuring
> > system. It sucked for artistic and listening pleasure,
> > but was incredibly reaslistic. Maybe that just goes to show that what
> > entertains us artistically doesn't necessarily benefit
> > from reality. There's nothing wrong with running a mix down to a
4-track
> > cassette deck if that's what floats your
> > boat creatively.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dedric
> >
> >
> > "JD" <no@nospam.com> wrote in message news:443fdbe4$1@linux...
> >>
> >> Everybody's got an opinion. Here we go with the PT is better than
Paris
> >> stuff
> >> again. I guess this gives us something to talk about, but folks, we're
> >> all
> >> being goaded and bated here.
> >>
> >> This is what is wrong with the record industry. There is not enough
> >> diversity
> >> in sound and music styling these days. The whole cookie cutter approach
> >> to
> >> everything really sucks. That's why the record industry was in so much
> >> trouble,
> >> five Britney Spears, Spice Girls doesn't cut it for vary long. Just
> >> because
> >> a new sound comes along, the old sound shouldn't become null and void.
> >> There
> >> should be room for everything. In other words, don't follow the
> >> followers,
> >> and maybe you'll get noticed. If everybody used PT the things would be
> >> more
> >> boring than they already are!
> >>
> >> The demographic for the record companies is, 13 to 25, so the day you
> >> turn
> >> 26 your null and void??? No music geared to a 26, 36, or 46 year
old???
> >> How stupid! Do you really think that a 16 year old would think, yuck,
> >> this
> >> music sucks, this wasn't recorded on a PT system! This music is
> >> unacceptable!
> >> No, they listen to the song!!!!! The song is what sells them. variety
> >> is good when it comes to sound and production. Both sounds should be
> >> acceptable!
> >> But then again this post really wasn't about sound, now was it!
> >>
> >> LaMont, if you like PT better cool. Keep chasing your tail dude, your
> >> sure
> >> to end up in the same place!
> >>
> >>
> >> "Martin Harrington" <lendan@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >>>Good post, LaMont
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>Martin Harrington
> >>>www.lendanear-sound.com
> >>>
> >>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@aameritech.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:443f2d4d$1@linux...
> >>>>
> >>>> Gene,
> >>>> Thank you very much for "speaking: the truth about this whole DAW
> >>>> "nastalgic"
> >>>> sound thing.
> >>>>
> >>>> Let me just state that I've held my tongue for the last 5 years as I
> >>>> watched
> >>>> the DAW proaudio market "Hyjack" forward thinking , new fedelity,
newer
> >>
> >>>> sounding
> >>>> DAW technology.
> >>>>
> >>>> The DAW market has been held "ransom" to the "old' guard Engineers
who
> >>
> >>>> ears
> >>>> are trained to hear "un-natural" de-emphasis", muddied up recordings.
> >>>>
> >>>> I remember my very first recording session as a guitar player. The
year
> >>
> >>>> 1982
> >>>> as I remember recording my tracks to 2 ich Otari MTR, MCI
mixer..Fine..
> >>
> >>>> The
> >>>> sound was nice, clear just the way I recorded it. But, remember
> >>>> thinking
> >>>> "This does sound like a record" Hummmm... After all the other
> >>>> instruments
> >>>> were push up in the mix ,along with the vocals, stillnot a record
> >>>> sound..
> >>>>
> >>>> In other works, where is the mudied drums? the thudy bass? the
muddied
> >>
> >>>> vocals
> >>>> that I heard since I was 4 years old??? where was this sound??
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, we hen attended the mix session, I soon found out that, the
magic
> >>
> >>>> was
> >>>> about to occur!! Out comes the Putec(s),the 1176s,LA2(s) GAtes,
> >>>> DBX160..2
> >>>> hours later they had that record sound..Hummm...I started thinkng
> >>>> again,
> >>>> "Man, the sound of 30ips Ampex 456 tape was big, vivid, wide, open,
> >>>> witha
> >>>> ting og high end fidelity..hummmm This was not the record sound..
> >>>>
> >>>> So here we are in 1997-98-99.PAris. The pro Engineers on this site
> >>>> priased
> >>>> it for it's "easy ability" to get that record sound!! wow!!! AND, we
> >>
> >>>> lawed
> >>>> every oter digital recorder mixer for being to ....Digital...Not warm
> >>
> >>>> enough,
> >>>> not dull , or muddy enough..
> >>>> This Pro Engineer-Producer crowd wined,screemed, bitched, moaned on
> >>>> every
> >>>> forum that the current state of DAW's (namely Protools) mix was bad
as
> >>
> >>>> well
> >>>> as most plugins...Even more, they could not mix ITB(In the Box)
unless
> >>
> >>>> they
> >>>> has software emulations of their beloved (OLD) compressors EQ,
> >>>> Verbs.(UAD,MCDSP,
> >>>> Bomb factory)....
> >>>>
> >>>> So, like magic, companies pour massive resouces to reclaim the glorys
> >> days
> >>>> with the birth of the "Vinatage Plug ins). Their purpose was( is) to
> >>>> make
> >>>> your mixes"duller"=warmer, more professional(sit right, al in
all..Make
> >>
> >>>> the
> >>>> mixes sound like 1975!!!
> >>>>
> >>>> Now in 2006 the "what I call" modern sound of DAWS, being lead by Pro
> >>
> >>>> Tools
> >>>> HD and Nuedno, Sonar there's a shift occuring in the "Holy-Grail "
> >>>> RECORD-SOUND...
> >>>> With Garage bands, rap artist, Rock bands, Soul singers of today
having
> >> NO
> >>>> prior knowledge,nor the Formal training to 'get he 1975" sound, we
have
> >>
> >>>> the
> >>>> High-Fedelity DAW sound in all it'sglory!! ..Yipee!!
> >>>>
> >>>> Still, the old guard continues to hold it's thumb on the DAW market
and
> >>
> >>>> keep
> >>>> driving manufactures to making more and more vintage plugins. But,
> >>>> every
> >>>> now and then a product like Ozone's Izatope comes along (and others)
> >>>> that
> >>>> challeng the old "muddy up the mix crowd).
> >>>>
> >>>> Today kids are brought onthe Pro_Tools(Mix & HD) sound. They expect
to
> >>
> >>>> hear
> >>>> that sound. they have no idea on how to get a 1975 sound..
> >>>>
> >>>> So, I've said all the above to say: Let's move on!!Yes , the Brian
> >>>> Tankersly(I
> >>>> adore), Nuendo endorsers,vinatge engineers) will continue to push to
> >>>> have
> >>>> all of their 1960,79, & 80 hardware as a plugin and continue to fight
> >> DAW
> >>>> companies to to fix summing buses or event new a new summing buss
> >>>> market
> >>>> segment to ensure they et the 1975 sound with todays DAW.
> >>>>
> >>>> For me,they can have the 1975 sound. I'm moving onward with the
cureent
> >>
> >>>> state
> >>>> of very high fifdelity thats afforded me in PT HD And Nuendo..yes,
> >>>> Paris
> >>>> is still in my rig, but I will no longer
> >>>> fight mixes to get the 1975 sound..If the mixes are nice and
> >>>> Brightosund
> >>>> with bottom..So beit..I love the way PT HD sounds with the 192
> >>>> converters.
> >>>> Very nice full-spectrum sound ,with a nice top end. I love Nuendo's
> >>>> nice
> >>>> wide -spacious,clear open , heavey bottom sound with my EMu
converters.
> >>
> >>>> Let's
> >>>> evolve past 1975..Pleaseeeeeeeee!!!!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "gene lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I sold my PT rig when I switched to Paris. I did it at the time
> >>>>>primarily
> >>>>>for the sound of the Paris mix bus. This was before HD.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>When HD was released, the distinction was far less obvious. HD still
> >>>>>sounds
> >>>>>different from Paris but not awful anymore, just different. Paris
still
> >>>> has
> >>>>>more of an analog/tape sound plus the added benefit of sounding more
> >>>>>aggressive
> >>>>>when you push the gain stages.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>So now the big question! Do I prefer the sound of Paris over other
DAWS
> >>>> because
> >>>>>its actually makes better sounding recordings, or is it because it is
> >>
> >>>>>closer
> >>>>>to the sound I associate with my favorite albums from the last 30
> >>>>>years?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I think the truth is closer to the second, and I think this is
largely
> >> a
> >>>>>learned behavior, empirical rather than based on any truth.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>In a recent session at another producer's studio (who will remain
> >>>>>unnamed),
> >>>>>I listened to some pop-rock mixes done on a Paris rig. The sound was
> >>>>>big
> >>>>>and clear and sounded very tape-like. Overall it sounded quite good
and
> >>>> not
> >>>>>at all wimpy. The artist however hated the sound. He played us a
number
> >>>> of
> >>>>>recent albums known to have been recorded in PT or similar sounding
> >>>>>DAWS
> >>>>>as examples of what he wanted. This is the sound he knows and more
> >>>>>important
> >>>>>it is the sound he likes! Yikes!! Compressed to a dynamic range of
> >>>>>about
> >>>>>10db and very little sense of depth, space or stereo width.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Music may be universal but we all know it comes with cultural bias.
How
> >>>> many
> >>>>>American teens would choose to listen to a steady diet of microtonal
> >>>>>music?
> >>>>>Might as well serve up a big plate of Haggis... And it not just
teens.
> >>
> >>>>>Labels
> >>>>>work the exact same way. If someone has a hit record that sounds
> >>>>>crappy,
> >>>>>all the labels want the same crappy sound.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Suddenly I am feeling very old. Fashions change taste changes but I
> >>>>>thought
> >>>>>good sound was forever. Perhaps not so. As a producer who still has
at
> >>
> >>>>>least
> >>>>>one toe in the current market, I need to have some awareness of the
> >>>>>realities
> >>>>>of the market and the "new sound" is the new sound.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>My personal taste has not changed. For most projects that I foresee
> >>>>>myself
> >>>>>working on, I will continue to use Paris, but just as I have made
> >>>>>decisions
> >>>>>in the past to use SSL consoles rather than Neves to achieve a more
> >>>>>trendy
> >>>>>"Pop" mix, I am now experimenting with ways to capture the "elusive
PT
> >>
> >>>>>sound".
> >>>>>(Insert appropriate emoticon).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Luckily it was reasonably easy to achieve. I recently purchased the
> >>>>>Waves
> >>>>>SSL bundle and running that in Logic can get me very close to the
sound
> >>>> of
> >>>>>better sounding PT mixes. So I can still use Paris whenever I like
and
> >> I
> >>>>>can experiment with a mix of the two styles.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What does all this mean? Nothing other then I understand why some
> >>>>> people
> >>>>>may prefer the way other systems sound and I think that my own
> >>>>>preferences
> >>>>>are biased by many years of listening to records made the old way. I
> >>>>>don't
> >>>>>see giving up Paris any time soon but I also don't think it's worth
> >>>>>fighting
> >>>>>over if someone else has different opinions on what sounds good.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>And don't forget.the cyclical nature of fashion almost guarantees
that
> >> one
> >>>>>day we will once again be "in".
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Gene
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you?
> http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT. [message #66723 is a reply to message #66690] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 18:48 |
Michele Hobbs
Messages: 17
Registered: September 2005
|
Junior Member |
|
|
To take things off-topic a bit, this is what has always cracked me up
about the "audiophile" entertainment system crowd. Many of them
describe stereo and surround sound entertainment systems as sounding
"like you're at a concert". What many of them don't realize is that
barring orchestral recording, we're compressing, gating and
noise-reducing the crap out of everything, so what they're hearing will
never be totally "like a concert".
LaMont wrote:
> Dedric, once again, with a tear in my left eye-smile :) You have state what
> I was going to say in response to my original post.
> Thanks buddy...
>
> "The overwhelming impression and approach I've taken, and got from reading
> the history of it, is that the goal of recording has always been to recreate
> what we hear as accurately as possible. Yet, I think somewhere along the
> way when engineers
> quickly realized that technology was a long way from being able to do that,
> someone decided to make it a creative venture rather than an accuracy venture."
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT. [message #66724 is a reply to message #66723] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 18:58 |
dc[4]
Messages: 62
Registered: September 2005
|
Member |
|
|
Exactly
Being a good recording engineer means having the skills to produce
the perception of naturalness and reality from recordings that are
anything but. Mics do not hear like ears.
BTW, even in classical, there is a lot of funny biz going on
sometimes. I've only added reverb a couple of times, but we edit
edit edit. One of the Dorian recordings has a reported 3000
edits. yeah that's reality..
DC
Michele Hobbs <michelehobbs@comcast.net> wrote:
>To take things off-topic a bit, this is what has always cracked me up
>about the "audiophile" entertainment system crowd. Many of them
>describe stereo and surround sound entertainment systems as sounding
>"like you're at a concert". What many of them don't realize is that
>barring orchestral recording, we're compressing, gating and
>noise-reducing the crap out of everything, so what they're hearing will
>never be totally "like a concert".
>
>LaMont wrote:
>> Dedric, once again, with a tear in my left eye-smile :) You have state
what
>> I was going to say in response to my original post.
>> Thanks buddy...
>>
>> "The overwhelming impression and approach I've taken, and got from reading
>> the history of it, is that the goal of recording has always been to recreate
>> what we hear as accurately as possible. Yet, I think somewhere along
the
>> way when engineers
>> quickly realized that technology was a long way from being able to do
that,
>> someone decided to make it a creative venture rather than an accuracy
venture."
>>
>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: My evolving position on the Paris sound vs. PT. [message #66726 is a reply to message #66715] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 19:33 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I'm a big fan of *the Dan* and I hear what you're saying. However, I have
also given Donald Fagen's subsequent efforts a good listen and the tracks on
Kamikiriad sound very prittle to my ears. Of course, these may have been
recorded to ADAT or early Pro Tools. Roger nIchols is a big fan of digital
and, IMO, a great engineer. Even though the drums on Aja aren't
*contempoorary sounding*, I still think they work within the context of the
whole mix and that's the point. I'm really not opposed to your point of view
or philosophy in this matter. For me, personally, I haven't found a DAW that
I think is the magic bullet.
Ideally, for me, the trick would be to track directly to 2", while
outputting the playback head to some high-end converter straight to RADAR
Nyquist, then mixing analog using Nyquist/Lavry/Weiss.etc or equal
converters for patching quality analog gear through the board.
All I need now is money. As for the cost of my system, it's really not that
much compared to new PT system and as for Soundscape, I've got a good friend
in Austin who uses it, but with an analog board. I almost made the switch to
Souindscape, but to get a comprable system to my Paris rig would have cost
me waaayyyyyyy more than the combined cost of my Paris rig, Cubase rig,
outboard converters word clock modules, UAD-1 cards, digital patchbays and
miles of analog and digital cabling......wayyyyy more.
I know my rig is a kludge, but I planned it that way. If I was working in
the same environment you do, I'd be all over Pro Tools. It wouldn't make
any sense not to be..and it think it's very cool that it now sounds very
good. I respect your thinking and opinions here.
;o)
"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:44403e75$1@linux...
>
> Hey DJ,
>
> Point taken.. However, I think it's more perception than real quality. For
> example: Just yesterday I was listening to one my all-time favorite
albums/CD..Steely
> Dan's Aja!! While Deacon Blues is playing, I start thinking,
> -Is his album great because--
>
> -Great Sound quality/enginnering
> -Great songs
> -Great performances.
> -All the above
>
> We, if I'm honest with myself, I'd have to say that All could apply, BUT,
> when I lsiten to the drums, they sound like cardboard boxes...Chuck
Rainey's
> Bass is not a true representation of a Fender Percision, it has been
dumb-down
> to thuds.. Horn-Fine, Rhodes-fines, Guitars-Fine..But, is that way a band
> sound "naturally".. Or is it the cookie cutter approach to mixing..Getting
> the tight mix sound..??
>
> Maybe Bruece Sweiden approach of analog to capture, then off to digital
> land is the sonic way.. Lord knows his productions with "ZThe Gloved" one
> are truly "works of sonic art" , productions, egneering second to none..
>
> But, to say soemthing is pleasing to the ears is a learned behavior of the
> "RecordSound".. The old guard engineers for some reason were "scare of
the
> digital sound until they were able to make it sound close to 1975. Audio
> tools are just that tools that are like color paltets for and artist. But,
> it seems that n matter the strides in technolgy, the old guard wants to
keep
> the overall sound 1975 reguadles of what recording medium you are using(
> 2inch,Adat,D-88,MDR, DAWS)..That's disturbing to me..
>
> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
> >I think it's great that we don't have to deal with some of the issues
that
> >made recording such a chore and required such a number of tools to deal
> >with, but I'm not nearly as convinced as you guys that *accurate is
better*.
> >Listen to the Dixie Chicks first CD that was recorded to tape and then
> >subsequent ones that were recorded to digital. The latter fefforts sound
> >great, but they don't sound as pleasing to my ear as the first one. The
> >remix of Hotel California is another example of digital awfulness. It's
> very
> >accurate and sounds like pure crap, IMO.....and it was originally
recorded
> >to tape and then PT'ed. Sorry, but it doee sound terrible compared to the
> >original to my ears. With all of the new nice shiny tools we have
available
> >today, it's possible to hear *more* as far as dugital ugliness is
concerned
> >as well. Analog gear and tape provides glue. Lots of stuff falls apart
> >without glue.
> >
> >Deej
> >"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:443fd3ca$1@linux...
> >>
> >> Dedric, once again, with a tear in my left eye-smile :) You have state
> >what
> >> I was going to say in response to my original post.
> >> Thanks buddy...
> >>
> >> "The overwhelming impression and approach I've taken, and got from
reading
> >> the history of it, is that the goal of recording has always been to
> >recreate
> >> what we hear as accurately as possible. Yet, I think somewhere along
> the
> >> way when engineers
> >> quickly realized that technology was a long way from being able to do
> >that,
> >> someone decided to make it a creative venture rather than an accuracy
> >venture."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
> >> >I don't think, or at least I hope, there won't be a continued trend
for
> >> FM,
> >> >compressed radio and 64k mp3s to dictate sound. When I think of
> >"outdated"
> >> >I think of limited bandwidth, sometimes noisy, and often mushy sound
> -
> >not
> >> a
> >> >recording style, or even mixing style necessarily, although it does
> >change
> >> >based on pop culture and available technology more than science.
> >> >
> >> >A while back I read a bit on the history of recording. The
overwhelming
> >> >impression and approach I've taken, and got from reading the history
> of
> >> it,
> >> >is that the goal of recording has always been to recreate what we hear
> as
> >> >accurately as possible. Yet, I think somewhere along the way when
> >engineers
> >> >quickly realized that technology was a long way from being able to do
> >that,
> >> >someone decided to make it a creative venture rather than an accuracy
> >> >venture. Obviously there are creative requirements that eliminate
> >accuracy
> >> >(I once tried a binaural head test-analysis mic system on vocals -
> >sucked,
> >> >but it was incredibly accurate, which goes to show that not all we
hear
> >> is
> >> >as we would prefer to hear it).
> >> >
> >> >Hence now we have, for example, kicks that sound nothing like the real
> >think
> >> >- where you had a "koomphhh" or "doomphhh" to start with, the
"standard"
> >> is
> >> >to make it sound more like a "thmp" or "dhmp" (pardon my "technical"
> >> >terminology). Gating, compression, EQ, even if not necessary to fix
> >> >recording problems, have become a means to not just make the mix fit
> >> >together, but alter the sound to what has become the radio standard.
> >Much
> >> >of it sounds great for what it is, but it isn't about accurate
recording
> >> >anymore, and that makes it hyper-dependant on popular trends rather
than
> >> >audiology.
> >> >
> >> >Regards,
> >> >Dedric
> >> >
> >> >On 4/13/06 11:53 PM, in article 443f38eb$1@linux, "gene lennon"
> >> ><glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> So I recognize my own prejudices, I think I clearly see the new
trends,
> >> but
> >> >> I don't prefer the new sound. I have no doubt that for many
listeners
> >> now
> >> >> and most in the future I will be from "The school of the outdated
> >sound."
> >> >>
> >> >> gene
> >> >>
> >> >> "LaMont" <jjdpro@aameritech.net> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Gene,
> >> >>> Thank you very much for "speaking: the truth about this whole DAW
> >"nastalgic"
> >> >>> sound thing.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Let me just state that I've held my tongue for the last 5 years as
> I
> >> watched
> >> >>> the DAW proaudio market "Hyjack" forward thinking , new fedelity,
> >newer
> >> >> sounding
> >> >>> DAW technology.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The DAW market has been held "ransom" to the "old' guard Engineers
> who
> >> ears
> >> >>> are trained to hear "un-natural" de-emphasis", muddied up
recordings.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I remember my very first recording session as a guitar player. The
> >year
> >> >> 1982
> >> >>> as I remember recording my tracks to 2 ich Otari MTR, MCI
> >mixer..Fine..
> >> >> The
> >> >>> sound was nice, clear just the way I recorded it. But, remember
> >thinking
> >> >>> "This does sound like a record" Hummmm... After all the other
> >instruments
> >> >>> were push up in the mix ,along with the vocals, stillnot a record
> >sound..
> >> >>>
> >> >>> In other works, where is the mudied drums? the thudy bass? the
muddied
> >> vocals
> >> >>> that I heard since I was 4 years old??? where was this sound??
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Well, we hen attended the mix session, I soon found out that, the
> >magic
> >> >> was
> >> >>> about to occur!! Out comes the Putec(s),the 1176s,LA2(s) GAtes,
> >DBX160..2
> >> >>> hours later they had that record sound..Hummm...I started thinkng
> >again,
> >> >>> "Man, the sound of 30ips Ampex 456 tape was big, vivid, wide, open,
> >witha
> >> >>> ting og high end fidelity..hummmm This was not the record sound..
> >> >>>
> >> >>> So here we are in 1997-98-99.PAris. The pro Engineers on this site
> >priased
> >> >>> it for it's "easy ability" to get that record sound!! wow!!! AND,
> we
> >> lawed
> >> >>> every oter digital recorder mixer for being to ....Digital...Not
warm
> >> enough,
> >> >>> not dull , or muddy enough..
> >> >>> This Pro Engineer-Producer crowd wined,screemed, bitched, moaned on
> >every
> >> >>> forum that the current state of DAW's (namely Protools) mix was bad
> as
> >> well
> >> >>> as most plugins...Even more, they could not mix ITB(In the Box)
unless
> >> they
> >> >>> has software emulations of their beloved (OLD) compressors EQ,
> >> >>> Verbs.(UAD,MCDSP,
> >> >>> Bomb factory)....
> >> >>>
> >> >>> So, like magic, companies pour massive resouces to reclaim the
glorys
> >> days
> >> >>> with the birth of the "Vinatage Plug ins). Their purpose was( is)
> to
> >> make
> >> >>> your mixes"duller"=warmer, more professional(sit right, al in
> >all..Make
> >> >> the
> >> >>> mixes sound like 1975!!!
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Now in 2006 the "what I call" modern sound of DAWS, being lead by
> Pro
> >> Tools
> >> >>> HD and Nuedno, Sonar there's a shift occuring in the "Holy-Grail "
> >> >>> RECORD-SOUND...
> >> >>> With Garage bands, rap artist, Rock bands, Soul singers of today
> >having
> >> >> NO
> >> >>> prior knowledge,nor the Formal training to 'get he 1975" sound, we
> >have
> >> >> the
> >> >>> High-Fedelity DAW sound in all it'sglory!! ..Yipee!!
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Still, the old guard continues to hold it's thumb on the DAW market
> >and
> >> >> keep
> >> >>> driving manufactures to making more and more vintage plugins. But,
> >every
> >> >>> now and then a product like Ozone's Izatope comes along (and
others)
> >> that
> >> >>> challeng the old "muddy up the mix crowd).
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Today kids are brought onthe Pro_Tools(Mix & HD) sound. They expect
> to
> >> hear
> >> >>> that sound. they have no idea on how to get a 1975 sound..
> >> >>>
> >> >>> So, I've said all the above to say: Let's move on!!Yes , the Brian
> >> >>> Tankersly(I
> >> >>> adore), Nuendo endorsers,vinatge engineers) will continue to push
> to
> >> have
> >> >>> all of their 1960,79, & 80 hardware as a plugin and continue to
fight
> >> DAW
> >> >>> companies to to fix summing buses or event new a new summing buss
> >market
> >> >>> segment to ensure they et the 1975 sound with todays DAW.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> For me,they can have the 1975 sound. I'm moving onward with the
> >cureent
> >> >> state
> >> >>> of very high fifdelity thats afforded me in PT HD And Nuendo..yes,
> >Paris
> >> >>> is still in my rig, but I will no longer
> >> >>> fight mixes to get the 1975 sound..If the mixes are nice and
> >Brightosund
> >> >>> with bottom..So beit..I love the way PT HD sounds with the 192
> >converters.
> >> >>> Very nice full-spectrum sound ,with a nice top end. I love Nuendo's
> >nice
> >> >>> wide -spacious,clear open , heavey bottom sound with my EMu
> >converters.
> >> >> Let's
> >> >>> evolve past 1975..Pleaseeeeeeeee!!!!
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Dec 20 19:58:36 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01771 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
