[RWP] Audio slates in Reaper, is there any point?

[Jes]

I looked at that post about the Behringer BCF 2000. So should we, as blind people, just throw out all analog hardware, and just use digital mixers, effects processors, etc.?


Jes

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 14, 2014, at 10:42 PM, John Schucker <gwynn at tds.net> wrote:
> 
> I have no idea why people think daws are special. A daw is basically replacing your tape machine. OK, a lot of other stuff too, once you get into processing with plugins. But my point is, even though you can get a hell of a lot more tracks in than 24 or 47 or whatever analog deck X supports, tracking is tracking.
> 
> My point being, if it made sense to do that sort of thing with analog recordings, it probably makes sense to do it in a daw, for precisely the same reasons. You might say, well we don't need that kind of organization, because we can just label tracks or clips or whatever, but that doesn't really matter. You're still doing the same thing, just not in audio. Of course if you don't record with takes and just redo your stuff until you get it the way you like it, overwriting/undoing the previous take(s), then of course it doesn't make any sense, as you don't have multiple takes to choose from. You might also reduce the number of takes and mixes, e.g. if you can immediately reject a take/mix. That's maybe a difference we have, if we're recording for ourselves we can make those decisions, whereas if you're recording for somebody else, in theory they get to judge the takes/mixes, or at least have some input.
> 
> That's why I don't get some of these people who feel you can just do any old thing and fix it later with EQ and effects and all in the daw. Nuh uh, I say. You still gotta be a decent musician. You still gotta play. Similarly, a compressor plug is till a compressor, tracking is still tracking, EQ is still EQ, and so on. I'm sure daws have given us effects unique to them, or at least, if nothing totally new, then new ways to manipulate something like reverb. But at bottom, a daw is just doing the exact same job as the hardware it replaced. So my assumption is, if it made sense then, it still makes sense now, until proven otherwise. And that generally works pretty well, because honestly, way less has changed with daws than some people think. I mean in terms of what you're actually doing with recording and all of that, the basic stuff. That's why I like this site, it cuts through a lot of the bullshit. And, agree or disagree with him, at least he's speaking from experience. Take, for instance, his post on the Behringer BCF-2000.
> 
> http://www.recordingreview.com/blog/
> 
>> On 7/14/2014 8:14 PM, Jes wrote:
>> Hey guys.
>> So, I am quite fascinated with analog studios and listening to outtakes. Often the engineers in the control room would announce an audio slate before a take began. IE, Smith take 1, take 2, take 15, etc. Is there any point in doing that anymore with daws? If so, why?
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> RWP mailing list
>> RWP at reaaccess.com
>> http://reaaccess.com/mailman/listinfo/rwp_reaaccess.com
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RWP mailing list
> RWP at reaaccess.com
> http://reaaccess.com/mailman/listinfo/rwp_reaaccess.com
>