novabrkr said:

Yes, in fact, 2" tape is still often used 4 recording, before mixing and mastering in ProTools.

In the World of Prince, I believe that 'Rainbow Children' was recorded on 2" tape, before mastering within ProTools.

If I remember correctly, Femi Jiya engineered the recording, and Joe Lepinsky did some editing and then mastered it in ProTools.

.
[Edited 7/1/09 11:56am]

Protools is a DAW environment. You don't generally use a multitracking environment for mastering, although nothing prevents one from using them for such purposes either. It's just usually not terribly efficient, and people don't like staring at cluttered multitrack views if the objective is just to edit a single track. I don't know to what extent does ProTools even support higher bitrates these days.

Since the industry standards for mastering in the digital medium - that being 99% of records these days - would be the likes of WAVES products, they can be run in most audio editor programs. You certainly don't need a ProTools environment to run a plug-in.

I wish people would be indeed using tape more for recording, but it's hardly commonplace anymore.
[Edited 7/1/09 12:38pm]

novabrkr said:

Dude... I love U and all, but I know what ProTools is! It's a major part of my job.

Mostly these days, projects R in fact recorded directly 2 ProTools as U say, but many people still prefer 2 track on 2" tape first, then transfer 2 ProTools, tracked out, 4 editing, mixing, and mastering.

It is much more costly 2 do this, but the folks with the budgets and/or facilities 2 do so, may prefer it. I do!

Otherwise, if tracking in ProTools from the get-go, it then becomes a matter of how the signal path is treated, i.e. using hardware high-end mic pre-amps, tube pre-amps, optical compressors, etc, and how things R EQed.

If nothing but plug-ins R used, I can hear the difference. I passed Digidesign's analog vs. digital listening test with flying colors.

MOST importantly, a lot depends on the engineer in most cases.

One engineer can make ProTools sound warm and lush, and another may always end up sounding like Hans Buff... no color, dry, and brittle.

Oh, verry ouch, Baby.

novabrkr said:

Oh, and I forgot 2 say that I agree with everything U said in that post.

Audio nerd talk

Thankx for responding.

novabrkr said:

YEAH!



Maybe we can unite and take over all of the "Bria is Here"/"Prince's Hip Trouble"/"Prince Needs 2 Marry Me"/"Show Me Raunchy Prince Pics" threads, with actual music/audio discussions...

Maybe the "music" can take over the "more" in this forum...

NAH. We're bastards, and will remain as such.

Oh, and I always wanted 2 ask U if your name here has anything 2 do with Novation.

Does it?

Did U push a SuperNova or Nova 2 hard?

"Novabreaker" was one of the first instrumental songs I did as a teenager (been to these sites since the mid-90s). Didn't mean anything, as far as I can remember..

I didn't really like the Novation line of synthesizers, even when they were hot back in the day. I used to work in a small studio years ago, we had one there then (hmmm, was it the supernova, can't remember - it was the period when everyone felt the need to get as many VAs as possible). I'm totally out of loop what people are even using as mastering standards these days. They're always updating to newer versions - although in my opinion what was good in 1999 is still good now.

... or in 1979, rather.

novabrkr said:

Cool. Yeah, the VA (virtual analog) synth craze was heavy.

The SuperNovaII and the Nova were great, as long as U tweaked and programmed your own sounds... like most synths, the presets weren't anything 2 write home about. All of the KORG VA stuff was/is like that 2... gotta program your own sounds.

NORD was one of the only ones that sounded PHAT straight away, outta the box.

But HEY... I started doing this stuff back in the day, when U HAD 2 program your own beats, synths, and sequences... and I'm still all hardware, doing it that way.

I just found a clever way 2 sync my LinnDrum 2 my sequencer without a MIDI mod.


.
[Edited 7/1/09 14:22pm]

Giovanni777 said:

You two just made go turn on my ASR-10 and dust off my Roland 1680..audio nerds in the house..lol

SavonOsco said:

NICE! I still have an ASR-10, but I'm not using it much... a couple of characters R missing from the display, so I just run my older samples through my EPS-16 Plus.

yeah and EPS-16 plus is more than sufficent...i might dust that off too..If i make a hot track I'll name it after u and nova...lol

SavonOsco said:

Maybe like... Novag Seven?

jethrouk said:

Well, much of the "computerized" sound of the Linns comes from tuning the voices. The unique thing about the Linns at the time was the sampled sounds were taken from real drum sessions. If you leave the voices "untuned", the Linns sound like real drums and don't have that "electronic" sound at all. There was a flexidisc procduced as a promotional demo for the Linns back in the day, and it really sounds like some guy sitting at a drum kit playing actual drums. You'd never know it was a drum machine.

I bought my first LinnDrumm off of Craigslist a few weeks ago. I had to send it to Forat to be serviced, but I should get it back next week. I'll be like a kid a Christmas when it comes in.

PicassoFace said:

Yup! I think it was Jeff Porcaro (Toto) who laid down the drums.

Peter Gabriel and Prince turned it into another instrument altogether!
[Edited 7/7/09 13:06pm]

If any of you want to hear what the Linn's sound like sans user-innovation, here's the audio from the promotional flexidisc from the early '80s.

http://www.james-tech.com...umDemo.mp3" target="_blank">
http://www.james-tech.com...umDemo.mp3

Like I said in a previous post, the Linns sound much like real drums until you start retuning the drum voices using the tuning knobs on the machine. I think Giovanni777 will agree, this audio file will give you a good idea of how early Linn users turned the machine into something very unique.