Eagles Greatest Hits Volume 2

[el_invasor]

Recently popped in one of my dads old Eagles cds. While listening to this in my car (not the greatest system, blown speaker and crappy quality lol) the music just seemed too beautiful. Poppy snares that just hit you in the face, and beautiful voice recording. Sure enough I looked at the case and in the back it said the original recordings were made with analog equipment (tape). Wow, this truly made me a great fan of analog now. Kinda random but just had to comment on this. If it sounds this good on cd, I need to get the vinyl record now.

[SteveMac]

oh yeah, you can't beat an Eagles recording.

[peopleperson]

Of course it's analog. I went through a phase of really being burnt on hearing the Eagles, but I'm back to loving the stuff. Get the Long Run LP...that's my favorite.

[rayc]

As SteveMac says "...you can't beat an Eagles recording..." - in terms of recording. They always used, had, could afford, wanted, aspired to the best available. & that best was brilliant analogue equipment.
Such a pity to waste such gear & technical skill on that music though.
Cheers
rayC

[ausrock]

QUOTE........."Such a pity to waste such gear & technical skill on that music though"

And your music is better?

Personally I've never bought any of The Eagles albums, never been a raving fan but there's absolutely nothing wrong with their music.

[JeffLancaster]

Originally Posted by rayc

As SteveMac says "...you can't beat an Eagles recording..." - in terms of recording. They always used, had, could afford, wanted, aspired to the best available. & that best was brilliant analogue equipment.
Such a pity to waste such gear & technical skill on that music though.
Cheers
rayC

What could possibly be more brilliant than a song like "Hotel California"?

And yeah, the sound quality on the Eagles recordings are great...but do you analog guys truly think the same quality couldn't have been achieved with digital equipment (given highly competent engineers experienced with digital equipment of course)?

[peopleperson]

Originally Posted by JeffLancaster

What could possibly be more brilliant than a song like "Hotel California"?

And yeah, the sound quality on the Eagles recordings are great...but do you analog guys truly think the same quality couldn't have been achieved with digital equipment (given highly competent engineers experienced with digital equipment of course)?

Absolutely not. It simply wouldn't sound the same. All the cliche's about analog and digital exist because their true.

And I completely agree about the music. Yeah, classic rock radio has killed all of that stuff, but the Eagles were fantastic. Very very well assembled songs at all times. Fuck Steely Dan. There, I said it.

[JeffLancaster]

Originally Posted by peopleperson

Absolutely not. It simply wouldn't sound the same. All the cliche's about analog and digital exist because their true.

And I completely agree about the music. Yeah, classic rock radio has killed all of that stuff, but the Eagles were fantastic. Very very well assembled songs at all times. Fuck Steely Dan. There, I said it.

Thanks for the opinion. Of course I expect that most opinions in an "analog" forum are going to be biased towards analog on this. I also realize that the analog vs. digital debate is one that's been going on for awhile and there are other threads on the subject. Personally, I don't have a substantiatable opinion on this as my only real recording experience is with digital equipment (not because I think it's better - it's simply what I'm able to afford to do the job in my home studio). I just find this a fascinating subject and enjoy hearing it discussed. I would certainly like to be able to achieve Eagles' caliber productions in my digital home studio. I'm very interested in hearing from people with experience that can scientifically back up statements such as "You can't get this caliber of recording with digital gear".

[Beck]

In the final analysis it’s not measured by science, but the listener. I, like many others, hear a difference and it’s not quantifiable in a spec sheet. The comments by the starter of this thread are typical of younger listeners that didn’t grow up with analog.

We try to describe the difference in words, but it's only obvious to the ear. The eye cannot hear it, nor can any amount of argument or reasoning describe it to the mind. Only your ear can effectively communicate the information to your brain.

However, the fact that many of the greatest artists, engineers and producers of all time still use analog tape should pique one’s curiosity for further investigation. In that regard I suppose the scientific evidence has been presented here in spades, in the form of words and testimonials from the best in the recording industry, which we have shared here in many threads.

The analog renaissance didn’t start and doesn’t end on this little forum.

[el_invasor]

I for one only remember cassettes, that's all there was when I was little. After cd's became more availabe I switched to that and over the years when most stuff was made on digital I got used to the sound. But after listening to this, I don't know, there was like something magic about it. I never understood why analog was preffered but after this I know why, sounds alot better than most stuff now.

[Beck]

Yeah, I hear you… My opinion is based on living through the transformation from vinyl and cassette to CD as an end product – and the other side, which is the transformation of the recording industry from analog tracking to digital tracking. IMO, the latter has been the most destructive to the music industry from an audiophile perspective.

To those of us that still have old vinyl, cassettes and even older CDs to compare to new releases and digitally remastered oldies, the reality of the difference is not just a scientific proposition waiting for evidence.

That’s not to say there aren’t those that can’t hear it – somehow not attuned to the offending character of digital that we find objectionable. Oddly enough there are many in the music business with below average auditory fitness.

That’s why It’s important for musicians to be aware that there is a controversy whether they can hear a difference or not. Some say it isn’t there because they can’t hear it – many of them wear glasses or know someone who wears glasses.

It ‘s the same with other human frailties – near-sightedness, color-blindness, etc. Just because one can’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not there and just because the colors look the same to one person… well, you get the point.

It’s funny – people are accustomed to wearing glasses in public without being defensive about it or feeling inferior… but tell someone they can’t hear and all hell breaks loose.

[peopleperson]

Another thing to consider is not just the analog tape itself, but every single other piece used in recordings. In 74 or whatever, no one thought they were getting 'that warm analog sound'. It was just the way things were. I think when this type of subject is brought up, people put way too much stock in only the medium it was made on. Everything used has to be taken into consideration. This to me could include everything from guitar picks to drum heads to the playing styles of the day to even the fact that they were mixing music to sound good on the home stereos of the day (they didn't quite have the technology on the reproduction end back then, obviously)....anyway, it's everything. You'd almost have to have a time machine to get that sound.

However......

Recent recordings I can think of that perfectly capture a really old sound is the band Deerhoof, a handful of Billy Childish recordings, and all the latter Ronnie Dawson LP's. Id love to know how some of this stuff was recorded. If you're a fan of wonderfully overblown analog sounding recordings, check some of this stuff out. Deerhoof will kill you. It sounds like it was recorded by Joe Meek himself in 1966.

[SteveMac]

Originally Posted by JeffLancaster

What could possibly be more brilliant than a song like "Hotel California"?

And yeah, the sound quality on the Eagles recordings are great...but do you analog guys truly think the same quality couldn't have been achieved with digital equipment (given highly competent engineers experienced with digital equipment of course)?

I don't think it could be achieved with digital but either way you can't beat it.

[MCI2424]

Originally Posted by el_invasor

Recently popped in one of my dads old Eagles cds. While listening to this in my car (not the greatest system, blown speaker and crappy quality lol) the music just seemed too beautiful. Poppy snares that just hit you in the face, and beautiful voice recording. Sure enough I looked at the case and in the back it said the original recordings were made with analog equipment (tape). Wow, this truly made me a great fan of analog now. Kinda random but just had to comment on this. If it sounds this good on cd, I need to get the vinyl record now.

I love the Eagles recordings. I am not a great fan of their music (not really my style) but I respect the hell out of them. These recordings are what really turned me on to the MCI recorders and mixers. I grew up with that punchy sound and when I was recording pro, I could hear the sound in every MCI I used in many studios. I restored and have a few MCIs (a 24 track 2" and a 1/4" mastering machine) and love the sound still. The Eagles were very consistant in the equipment they used and Don Henly insists even today on MCI stuff.

The sound of the 70s and 80s. Gotta love it.

[rayc]

Hello ausrock,
I didn't realize things would become unpleasant because I expressed an opinion & preference. You infer, through your comments, that you like all music & don't express any preferences.
I acknowledged the expertise in terms of technicians, playing prowess and the gear but qualified it with my personal reservations regarding their music. I could go into an socioeconomicethnomusicalolgical rant about why if you'd like me to. Hey, I don't like it. Sorry. Should I pretend otherwise?
As to comparisons with my own stuff - what do you reckon? I wasn't making any. I know my wife doesn't like most of my stuff & that's OK. These forums are about spreading knowledge, ideas, music and a sense of community. Thanks for sharing. Though, come to think of it, you didn't offer an opinion on either the topic of the thread or, directly, my music. Please feel free to go to any threads carrying songs I've posted & comment. I put things up & by implication invite comment, criticism and comparison & hope that these things, when offered, will be constructive but don't expect that it will always be so.

Hi JeffLancaster,
Hotel California is a prime piece of pop rock, I have to give it credit for being an intro to westerner ears, after Obla Di Obla Da, to reggae rhythms. I do have to admit, also, that I don't like it. My wife does, hence we have the album, but I don't. Taste - eh, what can you do except accept? I'm glad they existed/exist - they made a lot of people happy, I just don't happen to like Country Rock in general & the Eagles - in their many permutations & stylistic bents - in particular.

Back to the topic -I have a great direct to disc recording by Dutch Tilders - an amazing recording - rich, vibrant, jumps off the plastic BUT I don't really like that LP. I have another Dutch that I love but not that one.
I have an ace Cassette EP of the Sunnyboys, only release on cassette at the time - not vinyl. I think it made it to CD as part of a compilation. BUT it still sounds great. Great recording - analogue, great production & mixing - Lobby Lloyd I think, and still plays extremely well in it's original & intended format. Oh, I also like MOST of their music.
Speaking, as we were, of older technologies - I have a half speed mastered copy of an LP - funny how they didn't take EQing ninto consideration when proicessing it. Has anyone else heard a half speed master? Any comments?
Cheers
rayC

[Cosmic]

Not to sidetrack the topic too much, but, yes, LPs reached their analog peak just before they died (or at least fell out of public acceptance.)
I have several: half-speed mastering, 180grams virgin vinyl, direct-to-disc recordings. LPs cut at 45rpm...the sonics on some of these were and are quite spectacular.
I picked up Peter Nero playing the music from 'The Wiz' at a flea market. Sealed. $2. Crystal Clear Records Direct-to-disc. Absolutely unbelievable. As analogue as you can get, straight to the lathe.
Talk about "you are there"-ness. Incredible dynamics.

And they ain't gone yet: Yesterday I picked up Bright Eyes' first album on 180gram vinyl at a local chain store along with The Decemberists 'Picaresque' on a double vinyl album (with 5 songs not on the CD) and a picture booklet. Good fun still to be able to do that in the year 2006.

I also bought a heavy-duty reel-to-reel a short time ago, to master my digital home recordings on and to use as a free-standing recorder. Because it sounds better than my DAW. My multi-track digital is fine for a lot of stuff, but for ultimate sound quality, the reel wins each time.

Best,
CC.

[SteveMac]

Originally Posted by MCI2424

I love the Eagles recordings. I am not a great fan of their music (not really my style) but I respect the hell out of them. These recordings are what really turned me on to the MCI recorders and mixers. I grew up with that punchy sound and when I was recording pro, I could hear the sound in every MCI I used in many studios. I restored and have a few MCIs (a 24 track 2" and a 1/4" mastering machine) and love the sound still. The Eagles were very consistant in the equipment they used and Don Henly insists even today on MCI stuff.

The sound of the 70s and 80s. Gotta love it.

Did the Bee Gees use an MCI in the seventies too? I'm starting to notice some simularities in the sound of certain recordings of the time.

[SteveMac]

I guess they did. Historic MCI Console

[MCI2424]

Originally Posted by SteveMac

Did the Bee Gees use an MCI in the seventies too? I'm starting to notice some simularities in the sound of certain recordings of the time.

Yes. MCI recorders and mixers were the defacto standard for rock. Jeep invented the 24 track and did a ton of work in many studios of the era. He crteated all of the equipment for Criteria Sound (a major studio at the time).

[Chris Shaeffer]

Well, I could have an opinion about whether that sound could be gotten with digital or not, but since I don't have access to the rest of the gear they used that opinion wouldn't be worth a whole lot.

That said, my experience is that its easier to get a smooth, slightly larger than life sound out of a decent tape machine through a decent board than it is with my pro tools LE rigs. You also get a lot more noise, much more difficult editting and more maintenance. (shrug)

They are different mediums and they sound different. One (young) rock band that I'm working with *should* have wanted to track their drums to tape (I have a 1/2" 8 track) but they couldn't stand the tape hiss and thought the Pro Tools test sounded clearer. (It didn't sound clearer, except that there was less hiss) They were also worried about being able to afford the tape. Oh, well. I thought the test tracks on tape kicked ass and would have added a distinct sound to their album.

But that's a pro-consumer tape deck through a Tascam m520 board in a modestly outfitted and treated project studio. Compared to a pro-sumer Pro Tools LE rig (Digi 002) through the same mixing gear in the same space.

The band did agree that mixing analog was the only way to go, though. Seems like in my system the best sound comes from the mixing gear, regardless of if fed by a digital or analog recording.

Take care,
Chris

[JeffLancaster]

A lot of good, interesting opinions, guys! Thanks for all of them. Of course, I probably wont be in a position to trade in the computer and software for a big tape deck and MCI console lke the one above any time soon, but nevertheless, I can understand why certain people are still hanging on to and using their old analog gear. Of course the quality of digital gear and plug-ins are improving at a rapid rate...