This analogue v digital video is interesting - and not what you might expect!

[dave2010]

See


https://youtu.be/Zq4BOSaKiYo?si=FXW41uJk8VCO7Rp2

The point seems to be that work flow has a significant effect on performance, so it doesn't necessarily matter whether the recordings are digital or analogue.

A "perfect" recording [either digital or analogue] of a crap performance will sound crap whatever.

Conversely an imperfect recording [again either digital or analogue] of a great performance may sound superb!

Something to think about!?!

[Macca]

Good video and presenter, I enjoyed that.

Doesn't mention Sony U-matic, I suspect those tapes will still be good. Last studio I was in (about 20 years ago, maybe more) that's what they were still using.

I have a Tascam digital portastudio which was quite astonishing tech when they came out but I've never used it so never really thought about what I would back up onto.

[Barry]

Frank Zappa was a big fan of digital recording and editing. He would often 'splice in' a recording of a solo of his because to his ears it sounded better, regardless of whether it fitted in with the "feel" of the rest of the performance.

[Macca]

Frank Zappa was a big fan of digital recording and editing. He would often 'splice in' a recording of a solo of his because to his ears it sounded better, regardless of whether it fitted in with the "feel" of the rest of the performance.

By the time digital recording and editing came about he was already in the position to do what he wanted for as long as he wanted so plenty of time to experiment. Like putting the bass from one recording with the guitar from another. How can that work? But it does. Man was a genius in true sense of the word.

When I was at university late 1980s they had a (then) state of the art studio that was truly amazing.

Looks like they now have two - this one wasn't there in my time:

https://i.ibb.co/C2RpPNT/courtyard-studio-facilities-960x640.jpg (https://ibb.co/cL4KYM7)