Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Emerick is still working -- he produced Nellie McKay's album a couple of years ago, which got rave reviews.

According to his book, he most definitely yearns for the analog days and still seems convinced that analog sounds better than digital. I imagine there are more than a few people who would agree with him.

I think, for all its precision, digital actually doesn't lend itself to better music recording. Analog was a golden age.

Analogue recordings IMHO are significantly "warmer" in tone as compared to digitally recorded material. There are pros and cons but if I had my druthers (not to mention the cash required) a good analogue system would be gracing my little studio.

Very true. OK, question for anybody. Anybody at all.

If many of the great engineers, musicians, producers still like analog, are there companies making "new" analog recording equipment?

Or has the digital wave completely taken over?

No, I don't think there is any new analog equipment still being made. Ampex (which changed its name to Quantegy) stopped making 2-inch and 1-inch multitrack tape awhile ago. (Not sure if they still manufacture half- and quarter-inch tape.)

Digital seems to be the thing now. It's gotten a lot better than it used to be (24/96 sounds a whole lot more like analog than 16/44.1) but for all its precision and ease of editing it still doesn't have that analog warmth.

Kinda sad when "progress" takes us backward instead of forward. (Kinda like MP3s.)

I just finished reading Emerick's book and this quote shows his feelings about analog vs. digital..."That's not to say that I'm not excited about some of today's technological advances. Some of the newer high-resolution digital audio systems sound pretty good to my ears-almost as good as analog tape..."

All in all, I thought this was a good read and I disagree with those of you who say he was trashing anybody. He seems to be pretty balanced in his assessments. His assessment of Lennon, for instance, seemed pretty fair. Sure, he didn't hesitate to point out the downsides he perceived in Lennon's character but he was equally willing to discuss his positive attributes. And, has been mentioned, these are his own impressions and should obviously be read as such. Whether you agee with his assessments or not, I think it would be a hard case to make that he was out to slam anybody with this book.

On the digital versus analogue debate, I definitely agree that tape "sounds," better, but as a non professional musician who has to afford his own equipment, I love digital because with a computer and the right software, I can get a good enough recording of a band for a fraction of the price.

Well,
It seems that from hearing from vox populi (at least here at the Forum )that the Emerick book should be a commercial success.

No doubt, the "Kitty Kelly" style to writing books historically apparently translates well into delivering dollars at the cash register.

But, as I learned from my father I remain very picky with whom I'll become "friends" with or take a drink from.

Ladies and gentlemen, the always delightful David Clarke!

I'm off to have that drink with Kitty Kelley now...

Gadzooks!

Geoff Emerick's skills are un-debatable and he was at Abbey Road from the beginning of the Beatles era. I do believe that deserves some merit for an author who is writing from the "know" perspective.

For a hardcore Beatles fan, particularly one whose favorite is not Paul McCartney, certain passages could have been phrased differently, but Geoff Emerick was there. It is his prerogative to write a book pertaining to recording the Beatles, as Emerick was a key player in said recordings. That is unarguable! For a reasonable thinker anyway. Perhaps that is the key: A reasonable thinker. Pot-stirrers are the exception.

Only George Martin logged more hours with the Beatles in the studio.

Well stated, Alex.

I doubt there are many reasonable thinkers who would put Geoff Emerick in the same category as Kitty Kelley... and still fewer who would feel the need to launch personal attacks on the man.

I guess it takes all kinds to make up a world.

It may not take all kinds, but we've certainly got all kinds...

Personally, I only drink when I'm alone or with friends...

On another forum that I'm a member of, we have the option of hitting an "ignore poster" button.

I'd be real tempted to hit that one on the old Daver-roni!

This has happened before. We get new posters that come in stir the pot (sorry Dane not that pot) and ride off into the sunset never to be heard from again.

Actually in this case I hope Dave sticks around...and hopefully mellows somewhat.

The thing to remember is that none of us were there. Emerick was and he has written about his experience. Again to be perfectly clear I have not read the book, but I have to think that it probably contains a very different viewpoint from all other books written on this subject.

Personal observations aside it will make for an interesting read. If that means by logical extension that I put money in Mr. Emericks pocket, so be it. That's commerce at it's finest. You trade something of some apparent value for pieces of paper that have monetary value.

You know it's very interesting.

On most forums that I've been member of, above board ethical members/persons always provide the Forum membership data section with complete personal background information as requested at the time of registration.

Those that desperately try to hide or conceal information about themselves and/or have questionable dubious personal backgrounds do not.

Interesting, isn't it!