Was recording much fun??

[Hombre diamante]

In the analog realm before doing things in the box, getting some cassettes to record , cleaning head, things like that... was it more fun than today checking bit compatibility , tons of plugins, etc?

What do you people think?


I appreciate your answers, recorders,

Happy Recordings!

 

[The Ghost of FM]

I think the "fun factor" is a highly personal thing and is based on what system you learned the art and science of recording on, as that will be the more natural way of getting things done for you. But either way can be fun, frustrating or infuriating depending on the results you end up with and how close those are to what you wanted to accomplish in the first place, musically. Analog, to me, is a more involving art as far more areas of study are involved to really understand not only how the gear can get your sound together but also involve things like servicing and calibrating your gear which are lost on the people who record on a computer. Oddly enough, I'm the exact opposite when it comes to photography as I learned most of the disciplines of processing images on a computer and would be lost in a traditional dark room trying to develop film and adjust the colours and so on. Another great example of all this kind of stuff is language. If you only speak one, you're going to be lost very quickly as soon at you go some place else where your language isn't spoken.



Cheers!

 

[JRSIV]

I started recording in 1993 on a Tascam 424 cassette PortaStudio when I was 18 yrs old. Just the fact I could lay down a drum track, add a bass line and then add guitars and vocal was amazing, even if the sound quality wasn't perfect. That made things like cleaning tape heads, conditioning capstan rollers and demagnetizing not such a big deal. I got into larger format analog recording while working at a few nice project studios and really felt for the owner having to really yake care of machine maintenance, recalibrating and worse was doing a rebias with the heads if he got different tape stock. It was just part of analog recording that came with the territory.

A few years after I started ADATS and the Tascam DA-88 were soon taking over project studios and home studios. I still favored the ease of use of the PortaStudio for my home setup for demos and songwriting but the four track 424 was very limited. If you wanted decent sound then internal bounces were to be avoided, which I got around by mixing four tracks to my DAT recorder, and then transferring that digital bounce to 1 or 2 tracks of a new tape on the 424. Eventually in '98 I upgraded to Tascam's last great cassette PortaStudio, the 488 mkII. I loved that machine, still have mine carefully stored away, and I still see them on eBay now in 2015 being sold for $400 to $500.

The Tascam 488 mmkII recorded eight tracks to a cassette, and Tascam proudly proclaimed in their marketing materials that it had better frequency response, wow & flutter and signal to noise ratio than the first 3M and Ampex eight track recorders. If you hit the tape with good levels and didn't bounce you could make some really good recordings on a 488 mkII. I was playing bass and guitar for two project studio owners who made band demos, jingles, etc. and would have me play when he needed guitar or bass parts and I helped engineer, learning a lot in the process. Those sessions were fun, especially when helping like a piano based songwriter flesh out a song, take it into a full band arrangement and then record and mix it for a self released CD. Those kinds of projects were done on ADATS with a Mackie mixer, using early vetsions of Cakewalk/Cubase for preproduction.

Sorry for the long winded history lesson, its just this is a great question that got me thinking so I had to give some context. For me, back in the 90's and early 2000's, while working for project studios and using digital was fun I preferred my home studio with the analog multitracker. It was more immediate, it forced me to work within my limitations with the gear to find different sounds and solutions. Maybe it was because I was working on my own music, lol, I dunno. I thought early digital was a bit clunky, most ADAT rigs were 16 or 24 track meaning that two or three ADAT machines had to be connected together. For every project/song there were multiple tapes to keep track of as well. Lastly, the sound was very "spiky" if you get what I mean, the early A to D converters weren't as smooth as today's so the cold, sheeny quality that digital can have was very present on ADAT stuff to my ears.

Today, with the same ProTools rig being found in a bedroom setup and a million dollar studio the difference between pro and project, home studio and pro studio are essentially erased. Aside from great acoustics, mic lockers full of vintage condenser mics and maybe a big console for mixing out of the box/appearances, the home and pro studio is not much different.

You can still have great experiences making music with digital. I don't fully subscribe to the whole "analog mojo"/analog is better trip but I do love analog recording, and I also love digital recording too. The convenience of it and especially non destructive editing make it very hard to go back to just old school analog.That's why I love the hybrid approach: using a DAW with tube mic pres, analog summing, mixing out of the box, etc. There are so many ways to inject the analog sound and vibe to digital recording. The digital emulations of analog gear have come a long way and can be very convincing. The biggest key for me is to think like I am working in an old school way even if I'm in a complete digital setup. Meaning I try to make DECISIONS and stick with them, I will print effects, submix during recording, etc. Anything to break away from the fix it in the mix, endless possibilities trap. Digital is great but so often BECAUSE you can do something doesn't mean you should. Your computer setup can handle 128 ProTools tracks without breaking a sweat? Fantastic, but does that mean the song that could best be done minimally, with sparse instrumentation and space should be forced into a 64 track session just because you can?

My current demo and songwriting set up is totally an attempt to streamline and go to a more analog aesthetic. My wife surprised me with an iPad earlier this year and as an Android smartphone user I was a bit skeptical about how I would use the iPad or If I'd even like it. After doing some research I quickly realized that the iOS format has accumulated some extremely powerful music apps over the last few years. I learned that the iPad Air 2 I had was almost as powerful as laptops were a few years back and there were DAWS available that were professional level programs. I imagined the touch screen ease of access and portability mixed with a badass digital recording setup. Well, that's what I put together. I use the incredible Auria app as my DAW, it records up to 48 tracks in a variety of pro level specifications (44.1, 48, 96khz and 16 or 24 bit WAV files). I go into the iPad through the lightning port with the USB to Lightning CCK adapter feeding my Tascam US2x2 interface. The AppStore has tons of great apps for studio work: effects that you can use with AudioBus, an app that routes sound from apps into different apps, drum machine's, guitar amp modelers, etc...

I get all the power and clarity of the digital realm plus with the tactile touch screen it is very much like working with analog gear. The ability to take this studio set up anywhere I want, similar to the Tascam 424 PortaStudio that got me hooked on recording over 20 years ago, is still mind blowing to me.

So, after this novel post to answer you brother, yes recording was fun "back in the day", or as far back as my day goes in the analog era, even with the tape limitations, cleaning and maintenance on fussy machines. But the digital era, even with its drivers, plug in protocols, bad auto tuning and packaged music is lots of fun if you can adapt and exhibit some self control.

I love the hybrid approach, old and new, vintage and cutting edge, analog and digital. Best of both worlds and to me a way to get past the short comings of each format by accentuating and exploiting their separate benefits for the greater good of the music.

Be cool...

 

[famous beagle]

Great post, John. I enjoyed reading your story.

I started in '87 or so as a teenage punk with a Fostex X-26 4-track cassette recorder. I think Ghost is certainly right that most people will have a soft spot for our first gear because the thrill of discovering recording is so awesome. Like John, I slowly started to get into digital stuff as the years went on --- minidiscs, ADATs, a Vestax HDR8 hard disk recorder, Roland VS880, Yamaha AW16G, etc. --- but through it all, I always felt kind of nostalgic for the 4-track days, so I would usually also have a Tascam 4-track cassette machine around too and use it occasionally.

Around 2000 or so, I decided I wanted to put together an analog rig with a reel to reel, and I slowly started amassing some outboard gear to go with it (mixer, compressors, processors, eq, etc.). It turned out that the R2R was the hardest thing to come by, and I had an extraordinary bad streak of luck with non-functioning units and/or dire financial straits in which I had to sell a few before I had a chance to use them.

Around 2010 or so, I finally put together a computer-based DAW so I could start recording stuff for my work (I write and edit music instructional books for Hal Leonard). So I use that system for my day job all the time. However, I hate using the mouse --- for anything --- because it always ends up straining my wrist after a while. So, even working in MS Word, I find command keys for everything. At this point, the only time I use a mouse on my office computer is online. I got a NanoKontrol for my music DAW, which greatly reduces my mouse time as well. The only time I usually have to use it now is when editing (trimming tracks, etc.), but I'm hoping I can eventually find commands to do that as well.

Regardless, I don't really enjoy recording on a computer very much. I don't like "looking" at my music with waveforms, and it's just not my thing. I hate it when something doesn't work the way it's supposed to. (I'm not saying that never happens in analog rigs, of course, but it just seems to irk me more when it happens with a computer.) Anyway, a few months ago, I finally got a Fostex 80 8-track reel to reel in great condition, and I'm nearly done with my first song on it. And ...

I'm having an absolute blast with it. I haven't had this much fun recording in years. It's just really awesome to see all this outboard gear working together, and I love punching buttons, twisting knobs, pushing faders, etc. The head-cleaning/maintenance is fun too; it's like polishing your prized motorcycle or something --- like "taking care of your baby." At least, that's the way I look at it. Here are a few pictures from my recent session with it. This was during the first external bounce of 8 tracks down to a stereo pair on my computer.

So, to answer your question: Yes, recording with analog is a total blast (IMO)! I've heard lots of people who say they couldn't wait to switch to digital, though, so it's obviously different strokes for different folks.

 

[JRSIV]

Aww Beag' that kicks ass! I love that controller for the R2R that is bigger than it is! Lol...Fostex stuff gets over shadowed by the Tascam mystique but they made excellent stuff. That Yamaha mixer, the ART VLA, the patch bay with spaghetti everywhere...!! To the OP, THAT is analog recording! It is a different experience just listening and feeling the track take shape.

I completely agree with you about the "visual" nature of digital recording now. The waveforms, constant staring at a monitor, etc. Man, I have seen guys say "gotta change that, it doesn't LOOK right"...look right?!? It sounds fine! I have gotten in arguments with people because I have recorded something hot and it dared get past -8db, making the waveform "too big". It is just a different mindset when you only know computer recording, not a bad mindset, just different.

Thanks for the great post and nice words, I love hearing someone's path through this crazy world too.
Recording is my meditation, my sanctuary. I don't know where I would be if I couldn't disappear to that cool place where inspiration meets machines...

Be cool...

 

[Farview]

I started with a Yamaha 4 track cassette recorder in around '84 (if I recall correctly). It was cool for demos and band rehearsals, etc...

Eventually I started working in bigger and bigger studios when, for the most part, analog was the only way to get stuff done. (never mind the synclavier in the corner) What I remember was a constant fight of trying to put something to tape a certain way in order to get what you wanted back off of it. It always frustrated me that it never sounded the same on playback as it did going to tape, so I was constantly EQing stuff a certain way on the way in, so that it would play back the way I wanted it.

Oddly enough, spicing tape didn't bother me because it was pretty straight forward and the only way to get stuff done.

When everything started going digital, it was playing back much closer to what I was recording, so I didn't have to mess with the EQ as much on the way in to compensate for what was getting lost on the tape. I could also brighten something up a ton without just making the tape hiss unbearable.

 

[famous beagle]

I completely agree with you about the "visual" nature of digital recording now. The waveforms, constant staring at a monitor, etc. Man, I have seen guys say "gotta change that, it doesn't LOOK right"...look right?!? It sounds fine! I have gotten in arguments with people because I have recorded something hot and it dared get past -8db, making the waveform "too big".

This is definitely a huge difference between the two worlds. I've known several people that fall into the trap of nudging every single note to line it up with the grid. They'll do it before they've even listened back to the track! That's why I have that cloud-covered cardboard box over my monitor. Before I make any edits when working with digital, I put that over the monitor and just listen to the song/track first. If I hear something, I'll mark it and make the adjustment when I'm done listening. But I couldn't care less what it looks like with reference to the grid.

And I meant to mention in my last post, cool stuff with the iPad. After my wife and I used iPhone 4s for two years (our entry into smartphones), I'm not a fan of Apple, but I do have to admit that they definitely have the upper hand with regards to music apps. Even the free GarageBand app on there was very powerful and easy to use. In fact, I used it to record this song when I stayed in a cabin several years ago by myself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbDEZW9oAI4

The Audio Technica 4-track I had taken (seen in the video) along ended up going belly up on me, so I had to resort to plan B. I'd brought my Tascam iXZ iOS interface as a back up plan, and it saved the day. That was the first time I'd used GarageBand and also the first time I shot a video on my iPhone.

Anyway, I didn't like much else about the iPhone, so we moved to Android phones once our contract was up. I have a few apps on there now (Audio Evolution Mobile is good) that are ok, but it certainly hasn't caught up with Apple in software or hardware yet.

 

[famous beagle]

What I remember was a constant fight of trying to put something to tape a certain way in order to get what you wanted back off of it. It always frustrated me that it never sounded the same on playback as it did going to tape, so I was constantly EQing stuff a certain way on the way in, so that it would play back the way I wanted it.

Oddly enough, spicing tape didn't bother me because it was pretty straight forward and the only way to get stuff done.

When everything started going digital, it was playing back much closer to what I was recording, so I didn't have to mess with the EQ as much on the way in to compensate for what was getting lost on the tape. I could also brighten something up a ton without just making the tape hiss unbearable.

Yeah, there are just different strokes for people. I can honestly neither of these things have been an issue to me at all so far. Everything sounds pretty much the same to me when I play it back as when I record it, and I haven't detected the slightest bit of tape hiss yet. I'm using the NR on my unit, tracking at very healthy levels, and it seems to be working great. Granted, I haven't done a lot of really delicate quiet music yet.

Now, it very well could be that your hearing is more sensitive than mine is. I struggle with allergies, and I know that I have minor high-frequency loss in one of my ears because of it. (They said the other ear was fine.) Nevertheless, I'm not saying that my machine doesn't suffer from either of those problems --- just that I haven't noticed it so far. Maybe you're talking about 24-track machines where the hiss floor may be higher because of all the extra tracks?

 

[Farview]

I don't think I have particularly sensitive hearing. When I was having these 'problems', I was working on 24 track 2" machines and trying to get really bright, clicky, kick sounds, sparkling acoustic guitar sounds, etc...

24 tracks of tape hiss without NR adds up really fast when you try to add 9db of high shelf at 8k...

Sometimes I would use NR, it depended on what the producer wanted me to do. Some of the guys actually didn't like the sound of the NR, some of them had 'heard' that it 'messes up the sound' and would be completely against it.

Drums were the biggest problem, because at the time, it was pretty popular to have really over the top bright and deep kick and toms, which meant you had to use a lot of EQ. You would have to do it on the way to tape because adding that amount of EQ after tape would sound like crap. Also, since we were sucking out some of the midrange, if you didn't EQ to tape the midrange would affect the tape compression. So it would sound different than if you had EQ's it to tape.

I forgot to mention the amount of time lost to rewinding and changing reels. At 30ips, a reel of tape is only about 15 minutes, so you could only safely get two takes of a 5 minute song before you had to record over something or change the reel.

Slave reels and safeties: If you are doing a big project, you need backups. So someone would back up the tapes, in real time. If the project was more than 24 tracks, you would have to sync machines together and make slave reels to record to, so that you didn't wear out the master tape during the overdubs. Then, once each overdub was completed, the machines would be synced again and the overdub transferred to the master reel.

Really thinking about it, there might be a big gap in attitude between the hobbyist and someone who did it for a living. Even then, if you were doing it for a living and were a top flight engineer/producer, you could have a much more romantic idea of analog than the people whose job it was to do their bidding. (I was that guy at the time)

 

[famous beagle]

Yeah I'm sure all that stuff goes into it. Luckily, I don't have to deal with most of it. I'm only running 8 tracks at 15ips, so I've got over 22 minutes on a tape. And I don't have to worry about syncing machines or anything. I'm definitely on the low-maintenance side of analog recording.

 

[miroslav]

I had fun back my 4-track days....had fun when I moved up to a 16 track tape deck...still had fund when I started messing with MIDI...yet more fun with my first DAW...and the fun kept going when I move up to a 2" 24 track tape deck and I also expanded my DAW rig and added tons of plugs.

What was the question?

I think some people feel that back in tape-only days...it was MORE fun...but I think that's just nostalgia for "good ol' days" that makes people think that. Likewise, this notion that some have, that working with a DAW and plugs is somehow less fun...might be more of a distaste for trying new things (which is why the "good ol' days" seem better).

If you focus on the music...the actual recording and the production process and you don't let the equipment get in the way...there's not much difference between yesterday and today. Sure, gear is different, and we take some different step with digital than with tape/analog gear...but it's still just recording.

I love watching my tape spin, and having my hands on the remote, not to mention on the console, turning knobs...etc...
...but I have just as much cutting up some tracks in the DAW, messing with plugs or building up some drum grooves with MIDI.

 

[sweetbeats]

For me there has always been something about the thrill of playback and hearing what I captured...sometimes I feel like "that was it" after the take and on playback it ends up not being what I thought...then sometimes I'm not feeling it and the playback defies what I didn't feel and its like "oh wow...that was it". This holds true for solo tracking or group tracking, bed tracks or overdubbing...there's a suspense and anticipation of what's going to come out of the monitors after "<<" is pressed and then ">", and for this reason I enjoy the analog process better because you've got to wait for the tape to spool...the motors whirring while you wait...watching the counter ticking back in time...and if its open reel maybe there's the tape smell and the actual breeze from the reels spinning...the process makes you slow down and *wait*, and I'm telling you whether its audio playback, having to wait for the cookies to bake, or waiting at the security check-point for that special person to finally come into view after the plane was delayed, the waiting adds to the value of the experience.

So back in the day when I started recording digital wasn't an available option. That analog process with an eternity of latency between the take and the playback (compared to digital) was the way it was, and I think with the advent of the "digital process" with its random-access instantaneous "<<" and ">" something is missing for me. More can be done in less time and I'm telling you sometimes that is really, really important. But if we are talking about simple fun-factor? Give me a process that makes me slow down and wait, and that is devoid of quick-and-easy plug-ins and processing tools. That stuff is really powerful and extremely useful, but, like fishing, half the fun is *waiting*...to see what you get...putting your heart into the take and then having to just chill for a minute to see if you got it.

Yes, it was fun. Still is.

 

[altruistica]

I've just had a gearlust spending spree......not for the latest gadgets but for some classic home recording gear that has been going for absolute peanuts on Ebay at the moment.
I kid you not, in my studio at the moment I have equipment that new cost almost £100K...I reckon I've got maybe a tenth of that in it. Some recent purchases have been Yamaha O2R mixers.....on Ebay for as little as £3-400. Would you believe I picked one up for £60 (admittedly with the master output not working) but the rest seems fine.
Where I'm going with this is that different projects require different tools. I recently recorded my daughter and it involved using Reason on a laptop, a Fostex D2424LV MKII and an O2R for tacking and mixing. I did try recording the vocals on Reason which I've done in the past, but my system decided to have a bad hair-day and we lost all the vocal takes. Also, the little bit of latency was still off-putting for me so we did it on the D2424LV. I did think about doing the track on a Tascam 688 that I just picked up (a really clean unit) which I'm going to have fun with.

I must admit, I always find Reason too uninspiring to want to start a track in it. When I have done a track totally in Reason, it's never shone through.....the sound is just lacking something. I've also never heard anything acoustic done in Reason, the very nature of the beast means it tends to all be electronic music.

Anyway, I think it's what floats your boat. I have moved away from the Behringer X32 for the exact same reason. The mixer could be operated remotely by wi-fi, but it just didn't feel right mixing on a glass screen rather than a real fader.......and I also picked up four O2R for the price of one X32 producer.

Just my thoughts........(good to hear from you Sweetbeats),

Al

 

[moogyboy]

Working with tape was a lot of fun and a lot of frustration. I cut my teeth as a kid on cassettes, first on a portable Sanyo mono radio/cassette machine with a built-in mic, and then a Sharp stereo deck. I wrung every ounce of possibility out of that Sharp, particularly 1) using the pause button for quasi-musique concrete montages, and 2) overdriving the mic input with my guitar for a killer fuzztone sound. When I borrowed a second deck and a small Radio Shack mixer I even did some primitive experiments in sound-on-sound. I still have a huge box of dozens of tapes I made between the ages of 9 and 20-something, using whatever kind of tape I could find; perhaps one of these days I'll post some of the more interesting clips from my archive.

Moving to multitrack was a real revelation for me. Recording to four tracks was an amazing amount of fun, finally being able to overdub and mix, play with tape speeds, add effects, etc. Although punching in was destructive, as well as forgetting to arm/disarm tracks, I found you could do a lot with only four tape tracks. And there's nothing like playing with faders and knobs.

DAWs offer mainly a lot more flexibility, automation, a whole lot more tracks, and stuff that you can do without bulky and expensive outboard gear, but it's a completely different experience. I think you can appreciate it more when you've come from a background where you had to creatively work around your technical limitations. I think tape forces you to be more creative and resourceful, and to plan more carefully to get the result you're after. Finally, that result is apt to be more "lo-fi"--at least limited analog like 4-track, there is a distinctly different aesthetic that DAW doesn't really match.

My $0.02....

cheers

Billy S.

 

[mixsit]

... Anyway, a few months ago, I finally got a Fostex 80 8-track reel to reel in great condition, and I'm nearly done with my first song on it. And ....

Now that's a familiar 'blast from the past. Don't have it anymore, but still have the Fostex RD-8 out back that chased time code on track eight

 

[jpmorris]

More fun? I'm not sure. I use a hybrid approach anyway, where everything that can be programmed is programmed, and then dumped to tape track by track. But I do find that it's more rewarding to work analogue. And there have been a few weird accidents that sounded good which simply wouldn't have occurred in a DAW setup.

 

[RFR]

Sweetbeats mentioned the "latency" of working with tape.

There's nothing like tracking a band, then after a good take, calling everyone into the control room for a listen.

You hit rewind, and wait in anticipation while you're hearing the whir of the reels rewinding to your RTZ point. What seems like a lifetime finally slows to a stop. Then you hit play, and you and everyone else hears for the first time what you recorded.

With a good take, it's magic every time.

Still is.

So yeah, it was, and still is, fun.

 

[sweetbeats]

That is EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

 

[RFR]

Yup!

Nowadays with a daw and an interface, so many are surgically "implanting" a track or two at a time.
So many are using only two input interfaces.

How the hell do you record a band with only two inputs?

While that works, to me that's just not recording music. That's a clinical assembly process.

Real music in my opinion is where you have a bunch of guys in a room, mics everywhere, the drummer counts off, and everyone springs into action.

Good perfomers, a good room, and good mics to capture it all, is where its at for me.

Just like a good jam session is fun, so is recording in the traditional manner.

 

[miroslav]

Real music in my opinion is where you have a bunch of guys in a room, mics everywhere, the drummer counts off, and everyone springs into action.

Yeah...ideally, working with a band in real-time is rewarding and maybe also challenging...getting everyone in-sync, working as a team, and having that group spontaneity that can lead to great tracks.

The reality is...there are way too many people working solo...and talking about a full band recording doesn't apply to them.
I'll be honest...I think it's more of a challenge working alone to get a good bunch of songs done. You have to wear all hats, all the time...and you have to think like a band, rather than a solo musician, who only concentrates on his/her singular purpose in a band setting.

With a decent band, and a decent engineer...it's actually pretty easy getting good recordings.
You can get the whole song done almost all at once...maybe minimal overdubs..etc.