analog (albini) vs digital (some guy) video.
 

its pretty interesting, i found it in IT class today and i thought it would entertain you

http://wearenotjournalists.com/?p=94

and to finish here are some badass steve albini facts:

http://albinifacts.blogspot.com/

i'm definetly a analogue fan.

saw this on PBS. cool to see my man albini getting some face time.

there's no way the record will die in the near future; serious music fans and analog loyalists will continue to buy vinyl so the serious bands will still produce it.

i can't see mp3s replacing the cd either, possibly FLAC but right now people don't have the size of hard drive to accommodate it.

I never knew there was an actual debate about this, I just always assumed that whether or not somebody preferred to use analog or digital was based on how easy it was to use, but that everybody agreed analog sounded better.

the announcer chick is annoying me like fuck

Always a good shitstorm this (do I remember rightly that there was a massive one with khchris taking on everyone about this on the old board, or was that the downloading argument? Or both).

"If you make the wrong cut, you can ruin your master..."

It's a good point - digital production can be so faffy. I was editing some things the other day with a mate and we were both in favour of analogue because you can endlessly make the same three decision with digital. With analogue it's just one cut and that's it. No-one short of an utter fascist could produce an album so well put together as Tago Mago now.

I think it's a bit of a miscegenation to suggest it's the same as the vinyl/ CD/ Mp3 debate - personally I'd say that you record as appropriate to the music. Most rock sounds better analogue (hence Albini's defence of it - he produces mostly rock). I would tend to prefer vinyl for most sorts of music, because I'm not fussy about it, but if it's classical you just can't get the clarity from vinyl, I'm afraid. Also, it seems pretty pointless being an electronica [I hate myself] outfit and mastering/ producing/ recording to analogue. Press it to vinyl, sure, but production-wise it's pointless.

Bah. Convoluted point, well done me.

well yeah, i can't see cd's being replaced, ever. they're an absolute essential to almost everyones lives... but after all, thats what they thought about vinyl as well.... i think there's quite a long time before cd's are replaced.

i think later on, most musicians will have to go digital simply because of budget, have you seen how much Steve Albini's studio time costs? and that excludes the engineer, the tapes and all that jazz...

i can't really see how people can prefer digitalized music, it is more practical but then again there's nothing to hold or look at, like at a cd cover or case or a vinyl spinning....

whatever.

Steve Albini's studio is really cheap. You're gonna sell a load of records just by sticking a "Engineered By Steve Albini" sticker on the front anyway, no matter how crap your music is.

Rates:

Studios:

Studio A $600 per day Studio B $400 per day

Engineering:

Steve Albini $650 per day Greg Norman $250 per day Staff $100 per day Staff Assistant $100 per day

Lodging:

Client Offices $150 per day

Tape and Media:

2" tape $275 per reel 1/2" tape $60 per reel CDR $10 each DAT $10 each Cassette $3 each

if you rehearsed hard enough you could get an album down in a day or two.

Well, yeah, its not that expensive, i was just looking at the prices earlier on but i think... no.... no.. acutally, whatever..... if i had a band needed that money, it would be duable.

hmm.

didn't watch the video, but it's hard to believe there's a debate. Analog is obviously better...

I like the idea of analog because it IS imperfect. To be able to just chop something like ken andrews said defies any kind of artistry - and to aim for that kind of perfection is to lose all heart or point to do it in the first place completly.

PS that video was shit too

While his rates are reasonable, I'll take issue with 'you're gonna sell a load of records just by the Albini sticker'. There's a friend of mine who had shares in a label that had a single produced by Albini. Last I heard (bearing in mind this was recorded somewhere in the late 90s and released a similar time) this particular record had still sold less than 10 copies. I don't have one, sadly.

Didn't watch the video. I've done recording on both and like the warm analog sound, but I mostly use digital.

Here's how I see it: analog equipment is a barrier to entry for a lot of bands and musicians because it can be costly, takes up space, and can have a very high learning curve. Digital (more-so computer-based recording) allows almost anyone with a computer and instrument to record decent tracks fairly easily, and I guess that can be a double-edged sword, but I think it's pretty fuckin' cool.

CD>Vinyl>Mp3

Yeah, yeah, vinyl is warm etc but CD's can be ripped much easier. I'm not a fan of listening to lossy music (mp3), but through headphones you can barely hear any difference. If you're playing mp3's through speakers, then that bothers me.

...most of it actually comes down to skill/ability level of the person doing the engineering and how proficient the musicians are, not the recording medium.

I've heard great recordings made in both the analogue and digital domains (and most commercial studios will pick and choose equipment from both "disciplines" anyway...) but to quote the cliche - good records are made by good bands.

Making an effort to understanding the nuts and bolts of the recording process will ultimately get you much further than leaving it to luck and relying on the undo button.

Also, learn or befriend someone who understands Mastering - it's worth it's weight in gold and you won't understand the point of it until you've heard the difference it can make to the finished recording.

albini charges a sliding scale. if you are with a large record label h will chareg you more than if you are just a young band who needs a week of studio time.

my thoughts exactly!