To cover this topic in a comprehensive way, we’ll look at it from two perspectives. I'm sad that the authors never followed through with their intention to release a $19.95 mass-market paperback edition, which they told me 3-4 years ago was in the works.Mastering music for film and video is different than mastering music regularly. Note that I have read Recording the Beatles backwards, forwards, and sideways, so I'm very familiar with the book. But I think these were necessary evils that were inevitable and can still be used in a beneficial way, if people aren't idiots about it. There are pros and cons to this approach, and one can make a good argument that the constant pressure to make music more perfect led to automated mixing consoles, digital audio workstations, Pro Tools, autotune, and other scourges of humanity. Much of the use of multitrack boils down to allowing the user to avoid commitment to a mix and instead put it off to another day. You still wind up with the equivalent of about 7 or 8 tracks of material crammed on a 4-track machine, mixed down to mono (or primitive stereo). The only difference is that you have to commit to that mix at that very moment, rather than putting it off later. The reduction mixes are pretty much the same principle: playing two machines at the same time and bouncing a submix down to an open track. If you were in LA, NY or Nashville and saw other or different things please chime in.Ĭlick to expand.Well, it was done enough on a few songs. My involvement with this stuff has been strictly on the hobby level and those with pro major label/major recording market experience may have additions or corrections. They were reasonable machines but not built like an Ampex, Studer or Scully. The prime prosumer vendors were Tascam (the Teac pro side) and Otari although there were others. The earlier machines are all mechanical drivewise and far more hobbyist friendly. Some ATR machines are "Tampex" machines sold by Ampex but using Tascam mechanicals and some are the capstanless, servo drive type driven by a huge realtime TTL controller implemented in a card cage across several boards. I think the 440, 351 and AG350 were good for quarter or half depending on setup but for one inch you want to the MM1000, a far more expensive transport, or the ATR series. My AG440 has quarter and half inch headstacks, both two track, and both in need of a good lapping. The half inch 8 track was definitely prosumer, I think it would have been Tascam. I think four track came in after that as prosumer quarter inch although there might have been pro four track as well, it would have been half inch. Les Paul had the first eight track recorder known and it was one inch. Three track was a front end format mixed down typically to mono AFAIK. There were three track machines (I saw an old Presto that was that way at a yard sale some time ago) and they were either quarter or half inch. Radio production was all quarter inch, for ads, jingles, etc, either full or half track, or on a cart directly. Half inch half track was the pro standard replacing quarter inch mono as far as I have seen, although that isn't to say indie or budget releases were not quarter inch half track.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |