Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Per SÃ¸vik" data-source="post: 117743" data-attributes="member: 1285">Re: X32 DiscussionTraditionally, when recording direct to wax, there was a way of doing things. That way changed slightly when one started to record to tape, and then again when one had multitrack to play with. During the tape era, it was important to avoid saturation with unwanted or unneeded signal, and it was important to extract as much as possible from the s/n-ratio available. Thus, low cut and as perfect EQ as possible on each track was the way to go, even boosting higher frequencies a bit to have something to cut to avoid tape hiss. When multi-tracking had evolved to the point where there was one physical track available for each track to be recorded, and dbx and Dolby Pro had more or less eliminated audible hiss, there was more freedom to do post recording adjustments, and methodology moved in that direction, but low cut and preamp eq was still the norm, and that didn&#039;t really change much with the introduction of digital tape. However, for the last twentyfive years there has been a migration towards the &quot;Raw&quot; recording methodology, where less and less eq have been applied to the analog signal before the AD. This is simply because the recording process has by and large kept up with the ADs and the desks, so there has been no loss in the recording/playback part and thus no reason whatsoever other than preference to process before recording (unless you were stuck with a 16 bit ADAT or an old Otari on a 24 bit desk).Since most production today is following the principle of non-destructive editing, why would one want to embrace &quot;destructive&quot; recording when in most cases EQ settings and processing can be separately stored anyway?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Per SÃ¸vik, post: 117743, member: 1285"] Re: X32 Discussion Traditionally, when recording direct to wax, there was a way of doing things. That way changed slightly when one started to record to tape, and then again when one had multitrack to play with. During the tape era, it was important to avoid saturation with unwanted or unneeded signal, and it was important to extract as much as possible from the s/n-ratio available. Thus, low cut and as perfect EQ as possible on each track was the way to go, even boosting higher frequencies a bit to have something to cut to avoid tape hiss. When multi-tracking had evolved to the point where there was one physical track available for each track to be recorded, and dbx and Dolby Pro had more or less eliminated audible hiss, there was more freedom to do post recording adjustments, and methodology moved in that direction, but low cut and preamp eq was still the norm, and that didn't really change much with the introduction of digital tape. However, for the last twentyfive years there has been a migration towards the "Raw" recording methodology, where less and less eq have been applied to the analog signal before the AD. This is simply because the recording process has by and large kept up with the ADs and the desks, so there has been no loss in the recording/playback part and thus no reason whatsoever other than preference to process before recording (unless you were stuck with a 16 bit ADAT or an old Otari on a 24 bit desk). Since most production today is following the principle of non-destructive editing, why would one want to embrace "destructive" recording when in most cases EQ settings and processing can be separately stored anyway? [/QUOTE]

Verification