Is PJ digital or analog in the studio

They recorded to analog up through at least Riot Act, but would transfer to digital before putting the music to cd and vinyl.

They are all digital now, cuz that's how BoB (and I guess the band too) likes it.

I dig the Foo Fighters approach more of doing it analog.

A band that talks so kindly about vinyl should really do it analog I think. But digital is easier and faster I guess.

Most likely it is a bit of both.

Even Dave/Foo Fighters route things into digital after the initial tracking. As long as it's tracked direct to real tape the authentic sound is captured, after that it goes into Pro Tools in a lot of cases. Everything is digital in regards to mastering these days, it is far superior, no question there.

I hope PJ has some better dynamic range on this release. Even on vinyl these need improvement.

A great read:
http://productionadvice.co.uk/daft-punk-mastering/

I was actually in the same studio they worked on lighting bolt in about 2 weeks after they wrapped. It's a popular studio in LA and im 99% sure they recorded in all digital...

Gmoney wrote:

I was actually in the same studio they worked on lighting bolt in about 2 weeks after they wrapped. It's a popular studio in LA and im 99% sure they recorded in all digital...

Do they save $20/year like the rest of us by going Digital???

TheDecline13 wrote:

Yea I am pretty sure it is all digital, well the latest stuff sure is. Avocado is brickwalled :fp:

Stuff can be brickwalled regardless of how it's recorded. The last 2 PJ albums have not sounded good..

Stephen Flow wrote:

Vinyl rips of Backspacer & S/T sound much better than the CD counterparts. This has nothing to do with digital / analog though recording though as many digitally recorded albums do not end up sounding brickwalled. S/T sounds worse than Backspacer though. This is just my opinion but I took my fair share of audio engineering courses in college and have some knowledge on the subject.

Given that they all have the same master as their cd counterparts I can't see how that would be the case. Could somebody with a little know how make them sound better? Likely, but I can't see them being improved that much.

S/T vinyl still has that harshness and Backspacer is pretty muddy on the denser tracks.

I'm inclined to think that high res rips of the cd's with a little fixing would probably sound best of all.

Either way, no reason those release don't sound better than they do.

DewieCox wrote:

Stephen Flow wrote:

Vinyl rips of Backspacer & S/T sound much better than the CD counterparts. This has nothing to do with digital / analog though recording though as many digitally recorded albums do not end up sounding brickwalled. S/T sounds worse than Backspacer though. This is just my opinion but I took my fair share of audio engineering courses in college and have some knowledge on the subject.

Given that they all have the same master as their cd counterparts I can't see how that would be the case. Could somebody with a little know how make them sound better? Likely, but I can't see them being improved that much.

S/T vinyl still has that harshness and Backspacer is pretty muddy on the denser tracks.

I'm inclined to think that high res rips of the cd's with a little fixing would probably sound best of all.

Either way, no reason those release don't sound better than they do.

Form what I understand of it, vinyl records have physical limitations that a digital recording simply do not have. This comes into play when working with compression and loudness because a vinyl record doesn't have the data capacity that a CD does... somehow it prevents SOME brickwalling... maybe I'm wrong but this is how I've always understood it.