[sdiy] Should I repair my Fostex, or should I go HD recording?

[harrybissell]

now this commentary begs another thread... what is the WORST performance with the
highest sound quality ???   muah-ha-hah...    :^P

H^) harry

WeAreAs1 at aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 12/26/04 11:00:59 AM, rude66 at xs4all.nl writes:
>
> << heh.. read the beatles' studio sessions books. sgt pepper and the white
>
> album were made on 4 tracks (or maybe the latter with 8) and include
>
> enormous amounts of overdubs. >>
>
> First, let me preface by saying that I think Sgt. Pepper is still the
> greatest record ever made.  Period.
>
> However, if you listen to it with a critical ear, you will eventually have to
> agree that Sgt. Pepper is an extremely lo-fi record.  You can really hear all
> that sludgy tape-bouncing noise buildup and loss of clarity -- mostly on the
> basic track sounds (drums, bass, etc.).  Since the vocals were usually the
> last thing committed to tape, they usually did not go through any tape transfers,
> and do not usually display any apparent generational loss.  Also, with a few
> exceptions (such as "She's Leaving Home"), it's a very densely mixed and
> orchestrated record.  The sonic density helps to mask some of the crappy sounding
> tracks.  Additionally, in general, the lead vocals on Sgt. Pepper are mixed WAY
> out in front, more so than on most rock and pop records of the day.  Since
> most of the vocal tracks are first generation, your ear tends to hear that vocal
> recording quality as the general tonality of the record, but it's not.  Just
> try to ignore the lead vocal parts and listen to just the drums, bass, and
> rhythm guitars.  You may be very surprised.
>
> That having been said, I'll say once again what I always say:  Records are
> not about equipment or even about the recording process.  They are about SONGS
> and PERFORMANCES.  In the case of Sgt. Pepper, the greatest band in the world
> simply wrote some of the best songs they ever wrote, performed them extremely
> well, and pulled out all the stops with regard to creativity in the studio.  It
> matters not that the recording quality is relatively lo-fi.
>
> For another example of an incredibly GREAT record that was incredibly poorly
> recorded, look no further than Bob Dylan's classic "Like A Rolling Stone".
> Actually, look no further than the very first sound heard on the record, which
> happens to be a single snare drum hit on beat 4, just before the band comes in.
>  That snare drum sounds like a wet cardboard box being hit with a piece of
> meat, possible a turkey leg.  It doesn't get any better later on, either.
> Nevertheless, that record is one of rock's great works of art, and arguably one of
> Dylan's very best.
>
> Oh, and how about Little Richard's incredible "Tutti Frutti"?  The lead vocal
> is recorded so hot and distorted that it may as well have been recorded
> through a Z-Vex Fuzz Factory (it sounds like tape distortion to me..).  Did that
> stop it from being one of the greatest rock records ever made?  No, that
> distorted vocal probably actually helped it achieve that status!
>
> The inverse is true, also.  That is, one can make incredibly beautiful (or
> incredibly horrible) recordings on high quality modern digital equipment.  It's
> never about the gear -- It's all about THE SONGS, baby.  You want to make a
> better recording?  Write a better song.