analog vs digital recording

[amirm]

I've posted transcripts here many times as some prefer to read rather than watch. It's using tools like this, of which there are many;

YouTube Transcript Generator - Free Online, No Sign-up

Easily convert YouTube videos to text transcripts for free online with NoteGPT. Download or copy the transcripts with timestamps. YouTube to transcript for free and read video transcript.

notegpt.io

YouTube Transcript - read YouTube videos

I think it better to provide the full text so the original wording can be understood clearly, rather than an AI generated summary or own summary which may bias or opinionate the intent.


JSmith

I appreciate you trying to help. But it is not proper to post the full transcript without content owner's permission. Snippets are fine. But not full transcript.

 

[Newman]

I've posted transcripts here many times as some prefer to read rather than watch.

I suggest you delete them, or edit them into pithy extracts that are allowable under fair use copyright law.

...I think it better to provide the full text so the original wording can be understood clearly, rather than an AI generated summary or own summary which may bias or opinionate the intent.

Don't get me wrong: I am one of those who finds videos tedious and would prefer to read, so I would benefit personally from your efforts. And I get your logic. But it is a clear copyright violation to do this without permission from the content creators. All I am asking is that we respect that, going forward.

cheers

 

[kyuu]

But it is a clear copyright violation to do this without permission from the content creators.

Is it? I'm curious what part of copyright law forbids making and disseminating transcripts of videos posted online. It's not clear at all to me that doing so non-commercially isn't covered under fair use.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Is it? I'm curious what part of copyright law forbids making and disseminating transcripts of videos posted online. It's not clear at all to me that doing so non-commercially isn't covered under fair use.

I am no attorney. What I've read before is that transcripts are considered derivative work, and you need the copyright holder's permission.

 

[Newman]

Is it? I'm curious what part of copyright law forbids making and disseminating transcripts of videos posted online.

Speaking as a non-expert: US copyright law "copyright law assigns a set of exclusive rights to authors: to make and sell copies of their works, to create derivative works, and to perform or display their works publicly."

I can't see transcription escaping being seen as a form of copying, also potentially as a derivative work. Also, "display their works publicly" doesn't require commercial advantage.

It's not clear at all to me that doing so non-commercially isn't covered under fair use.

If people copy original works 'non-comercially', the court won't look at whether it made them money without also looking at whether it cost the content owner money. The video transcript is available on the YT page but not without clicking on the YT page, so the owner is deprived of income by uploading it elsewhere.

Legal advice would be your friend here, if you want to 'ride the line' instead of playing safe.

But not on ASR, as Amir has made his call, post #21 above, plus an article, so that ends it for now.

cheers

 

[earlevel]

Here is a video that analyzes the difference between analog and digital recording...

Oh no, you restarted the doomed thread from GS that ultimately imploded after 1294 posts and was shutdown by the mods.

 

[solderdude]

Different topic... same words analog vs digital being used but here it is not so much about technical nor audible (or not) differences but rather that the slower and more expensive analog method forces one to record differently which can result in different recordings.

 

[antcollinet]

Different topic... same words analog vs digital being used but here it is not so much about technical nor audible (or not) differences but rather that the slower and more expensive analog method forces one to record differently which can result in different recordings.

It sounds like it is a similar argument to that of some photographers - who state you should always use a tripod. Not because you need it to get the best sharpness (though it often makes a difference) but because it slows you down and forces you to plan the shot.

 

[solderdude]

I guess it depends on the situation perhaps.

I am sure people recording live events will thank their deity(s) on their bare knees for the ability to record live without the many restrictions put on them by analog tape, headroom, noise etc.

In any case the veteran recording guy that made the video seems convinced
Fortunately everyone can still have their own opinions, workflows, favorite gear to work with, budgets etc. It's just an opinion.

 

[Mulder]

There are also some recording studios and recording technicians who are specializing in recording on analog tape in the purpose of getting the specific saturated sound achievable by tape-gear.

 

[solderdude]

I think that, however, is very easy to emulate in digital including tape noise.
So would say it is a gimmick but of course it could easily lead to the 'slow down' effect the video is all about if all they use is analog tape.

 

[Mulder]

I think that, however, is very easy to emulate in digital including tape noise.
So would say it is a gimmick but of course it could easily lead to the 'slow down' effect the video is all about if all they use is analog tape.

I don´t think it is a gimmick in the case i refer to, because they make no big thing about it. It is more like in the fine print. I think it reflects a true believe that analog tape has it´s distinct sound, in the same way that many think vinyl has a distinct different sound. Maybe it could be emulated in digital, similar to how the character of an analog photo can be reproduced in digital photo-editing, but it i still not the "real thing". Some photographers are still working with analog photo gear and processing. Not as a gimmick, but more for personal reasons.

 

[earlevel]

Different topic... same words analog vs digital being used but here it is not so much about technical nor audible (or not) differences but rather that the slower and more expensive analog method forces one to record differently which can result in different recordings.

I was just joking that there'd even be much of a chance that a thread here would get as off topic and angry as one on GS...

But of course there are many ways to have commitment and focus and even dedicate yourself to similar options that you do in analog recording. Glad he found a fun thing to return to while monetizing youtube videos, but I don't think very many people to buy old multitracks for actually getting things done. If you want to limit yourself (and I certainly get that, I could conceive of and finish a song in part of an afternoon when I had a Portastudio, now it seems like I never complete anything), there are a lot of ways to go. Get a standalone multitrack digital recorder and a mixer (analog if you want), or the multitrack recorder built into a digital mixer. Or just a template workflow and commit to having a channel strip on each channel two or three reverbs as effects send, and cut out the parade of plugins on each channel.

The more you can do, the more you will do. It was the same going from typewriters to word processors. The latter didn't make writing a letter faster, it meant that you'd spend more time editing. Pascal once wrote noted that his letter was long because he did not have time to make it short.

 

[solderdude]

Yep, I do believe that taking a bit more time (often time is money so not an option) can help with creative things.
When designing or repairing electronics I often found solutions when walking during a lunch break for instance.
I am sure taking (short) breaks can help with creative processes but should not be long breaks.

His tip is to basically take short breaks (when doing the digital recording thing) between re-recording (parts) of a song and not to do everything as perfect as can be done but leave some small 'errors' behind as there would be when doing a live performance.

This will be quite expensive as a few people will be doing nothing (smoking, getting coffee or whatever) but his idea is that this might help in the creative process and not cost that much extra time in the end as there might be less editing and retries.

So it's not about technical differences but rather the 'taking short breaks' which is kind of 'obligated' in the analog recording chain and disappeared in the 'digital' recording chain.
His theory (and experience) is that these short 'breaks' can help with the recording process when doing 'digital' recording.

That could well be true and is what the long winded video basically was all about and threw in a rant about longevity and connectivity of digital compared to analog.
The latter is what bothers me (as an older guy) as well.... the replace and throw away mentality.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Yep, I do believe that taking a bit more time (often time is money so not an option) can help with creative things.
When designing or repairing electronics I often found solutions when walking during a lunch break for instance.
I am sure taking (short) breaks can help with creative processes but should not be long breaks.

His tip is to basically take short breaks (when doing the digital recording thing) between re-recording (parts) of a song and not to do everything as perfect as can be done but leave some small 'errors' behind as there would be when doing a live performance.

This will be quite expensive as a few people will be doing nothing (smoking, getting coffee or whatever) but his idea is that this might help in the creative process and not cost that much extra time in the end as there might be less editing and retries.

So it's not about technical differences but rather the 'taking short breaks' which is kind of 'obligated' in the analog recording chain and disappeared in the 'digital' recording chain.
His theory (and experience) is that these short 'breaks' can help with the recording process when doing 'digital' recording.

That could well be true and is what the long winded video basically was all about and threw in a rant about longevity and connectivity of digital compared to analog.
The latter is what bothers me (as an older guy) as well.... the replace and throw away mentality.

Yes, I agree. I take breaks sometimes. But I don't get to do big-time commercial recordings. Taking breaks with most things is helpful just basic good practice. My problem with leaving a few small errors has been musicians. They absolutely hate that in smaller groups. Even if something no one else would likely notice because they have in mind this recording will have that mistake forever and everyone will hear it. If it were analog tape, you might tell them it it too small. They know in digital fixing it is possible and just get besides themselves.

 

[goat76]

I think that, however, is very easy to emulate in digital including tape noise.
So would say it is a gimmick but of course it could easily lead to the 'slow down' effect the video is all about if all they use is analog tape.

The "slowing down" part using analog gear is more of a side note here, the main topic the guy in the video discusses is the commitment the old ways of doing things "forced" the audio engineer to do, which often leads to better-sounding results. In the old days, most things had to be done right in every single step right from the start as the editing in the post-production stage was way more limited and way harder to do. Nowadays, most audio productions have shifted from getting most things right from the earliest steps, to the idea that things can always be fixed in the post-production stage.

The commitment to getting things sounding the way the musicians wanted it to sound in the finished audio production could look like this...

1. Does this electric guitar sound the way you want it to sound on the finished record, no, then adjust the sound on the guitar gear and the amp until it sounds freaking awesome before we even put a microphone in front of it.
2. Make sure that the choice of microphones and their position is right to be able to capture that awesome guitar sound as close as possible to how it sounds in the recording space, if not, change the microphones and/or adjust the positions until the guitar sound as close as possible in the control room as the real thing.
3. Do the above things with all the rest of the instruments until they all sound the way the musicians want them to sound, and while they play the song the overall sound can be adjusted to fit together, and most of the decisions of the raw mix will already at this stage be committed.
4. The great thing about the above points and workflow is that the audio engineer could already at this early stage hear if something wasn't correct or not sounding as wanted, and just go back to the live room and change things like microphone choices and their positions until the overall sound sounded as wanted.
5. As the musicians played naturally together in a similar fashion as they had done in the rehearsal studio instead of using a click track, the natural flow and micro dynamics came naturally between the musicians.
6. So even before he pressed the recording button, the audio engineer could pretty much hear a complete raw mix in the control room while the band was playing together in the live room, except maybe a few overdubs and maybe the vocals. This way, most things were already committed as things had been addressed as early in the chain as possible where the problem actually existed and was not fixed as an afterthought as is often the case with modern unlimited ways of doing things in the post-production stage.
7. Human imperfections can often be a beautiful thing, digital editing aiming for perfection can sometimes erase the soul out of the art.

You could sum it all up as if the limitations of the old analog way of doing things forced the audio engineer to make things right from the get-go, often leading to more natural-sounding "documentation" audio productions. Whereas the modern digital unlimed ways of editing things (and recording to a click track)in the post-production push forward many decisions that could better have been addressed and committed to at an earlier stage in the production, and that is IF the engineer even has had the chance to hear the complete audio production before he even pressed the recording button.

The above old workflow can of course be done in this digital time of age, but it's probably not that common.

 

[Snarfie]

Yep, I do believe that taking a bit more time (often time is money so not an option) can help with creative things.
When designing or repairing electronics I often found solutions when walking during a lunch break for instance.
I am sure taking (short) breaks can help with creative processes but should not be long breaks.

His tip is to basically take short breaks (when doing the digital recording thing) between re-recording (parts) of a song and not to do everything as perfect as can be done but leave some small 'errors' behind as there would be when doing a live performance.

This will be quite expensive as a few people will be doing nothing (smoking, getting coffee or whatever) but his idea is that this might help in the creative process and not cost that much extra time in the end as there might be less editing and retries.

So it's not about technical differences but rather the 'taking short breaks' which is kind of 'obligated' in the analog recording chain and disappeared in the 'digital' recording chain.
His theory (and experience) is that these short 'breaks' can help with the recording process when doing 'digital' recording.

That could well be true and is what the long winded video basically was all about and threw in a rant about longevity and connectivity of digital compared to analog.
The latter is what bothers me (as an older guy) as well.... the replace and throw away mentality.

Highly subjective but in my teen time 70ties got offent the impression that the first albums of a Band are by average the best. Later under influence of record compagnies expecting contractual a certain amount of albums the creative process is getting less with expections.

 

[Sokel]

Apart from the romantic side of things and work flow,he points out to a very important factor as well.

It's the way digital evolution makes previous digital stuff obsolete in a very short time requiring a constant flow of investment.
It happens now,so imagine th early days.Plus the way digital stuff can fail spectacularly by a simple bug,again,specially at the early days.

And these stuff aren't the cheap 1k-5k-10k we use at home,you go at least six figure to get nice machines.

 

[HaveMeterWillTravel]

There was a common phrase when computers got powerful enough to serve as home recording studios.

"Any idiot can use a computer to make music. Unfortunately, too many do."

I'm sure it was similar in the film/photography industry.