Analog isn't dead yet?

[RICK FITZPATRICK]

http://www.record-producer.com/learn.cfm?a=26




Where has he been?

[SteveM]

I love some of the replys there.

Yup, things seem to be coming full circle in the world of recording equipment. I had a wonderful analog setup (24 tracks worth) but got tired of maintenance, tape storage, tape cost, etc. etc. When the digital machines came out, I offed most of the analog gear (like a DUMB-ASS) to get a 48 track hard disk system - I wish I'd never done it. Digital recordings maintain a certain amount of detectable sterility no matter what you do to them, whereas my old analog masters (I still have my half-track) sound meaty and alive.

In the analog days I always dreamed of perfect un-altered reproduction of what went in (which was never the case). Now I dream of altered imperfect reproduction, but none of the plugins quite do what real tape does. Plus, real tape machines (especially big 2" machines) have a certain smell to them that the software companies have failed to reproduce.

Also my modest $800 worth of plugins require no patchbay or maintenence and would cost $100K in the real world.

Yes, in the "real" world.

[Beck]

Someone actually spent $800.00 on plug-ins!

That makes sense though. The TV series Survivor is still going (How it even made it through one season is scary), as is American Idol. Not to mention TV Land plays Three's Company back-to-back.

History will not view our times as an intellectual age.

And here's something else you don't see every day:

[Muckelroy]

We had a guest engineer, the head engineer from Austin City Limits, come by today. He had a Pro-Tools session of a live Spoon Concert taped at ACL in 2002. This was recorded onto a Studer A-820 2" 24 track, and then directly dumped to Pro-Tools later.

He did an all-outboard mix of the thing, just basically showing his methods of balance and EQ of the whole thing, and then it dawned on me-----

This was the first time I had actually heard a 2" tape recording for more than a couple of minutes at a time!! (I know, not actually with the machine next to me, but close enough!)

There was NO noise to be spoken of, and that was attributed mainly to the Dolby SR on the recording. But, MAN it was pristine!

I will say that the BAND was awesome, therefore the TRACKS were awesome. But the whole thing seemed to mix itself. Other than EQ here and there, hardly anything had to be done level wise to the mix.

So I can agree with the statement that analog is easier to mix than DAW tracks, for whatever reason. I've had that kind of experience with what little 4 track and 8 track analog junk I've done, so yeah.

[Flangerhans]

I have to say that the information in this article leads me to believe that there is a little digital bias behind the scenes there, the left-handed compliment tendency..I'll list the stuff I have trouble with, and you can be the judge whether I'm justified here...

"The reason why analog recorders have now fallen out of favor with the majority is that they are expensive - very expensive compared to digital. They also create significant noise and distortion, and that was once thought to be a bad thing."

Well, distortion is a bad thing in my book, still. I don't find tape to be that expensive, but then, I'm a quarter track guy and I re-use my tapes when I don't need what's on them. Still, for the cost of a top end digital system, you can have a mighty fine 2" machine with a couple dozen reels of tape thrown in.

"This isn't really to say that they sound better than digital; in fact their faults are easily quantifiable, but their sound is often said to be 'warm', and it is often true to say that it is easier to mix a recording made on analog than it is to mix a digital multitrack recording."

Here's the left-handed compliment section. Tape sounds better than digital, at least to my ears. This "warm" stuff is owl crap...and saying it's easier to mix is just wriggling around trying to avoid the fact that good sound is good sound.

"There is also a school of thought that say that since there is no theoretical limit to the amount of sonic detail an analog recorder can capture, even well below the noise level, they are intrinsically superior to digital recorders where what they can capture is certainly limited by the number of bits they work to."

This sounds like more owl crap. An analog recorder IS more limited in bandwidth, it's just a fact of life. You can't record lower than the tape hiss, that's how it works. There is no reproduction method, though, that can actually reproduce the dynamics of, say, a live concert orchestra without distortion. I know it sounds like I'm pulling arguments out of thin air, but I can back this up if anyone wants to read technical specs.

"The other useful feature of analog recorders is that they are universal. You can take a tape anywhere and find a machine to play it on. With digital recordings, you are often compelled through the sheer complexity of digital systems to play back the recording on the same system you used to create it. (That's a problem that analog recorders once had, but it was solved in the early 1950s!)."

Now, this is totally a huge, steaming pile of owl crap. Different tape machines record and play back differently, they are calibrated for different tapes, and when you start fiddling about with the various and sundry noise reduction schemes, this business about universiality falls apart like a condom in vaseline. If you're lucky, a top end tape from one machine will play back similarly in another machine of the exact same type, but don't count on it, especially after the last twenty years has led to some interesting calibration techniques on the part of some users.

Now, that's my take on this. I am an amateur, and maybe I've got a biased view, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[RICK FITZPATRICK]

Doggone, I keep sayin it but it doesn't sink in. The main thing for HR enthusiasts is... FUN. Yes friends. Analog = fun. Digital = well....digital.

[cjacek]

Yup, same feeling here that the article was less than objective and not only that but it seemed, at least in certain parts, as if it was written by some high school kid.

[jpmorris]

Originally Posted by Flangerhans

This sounds like more owl crap. An analog recorder IS more limited in bandwidth, it's just a fact of life. You can't record lower than the tape hiss, that's how it works. There is no reproduction method, though, that can actually reproduce the dynamics of, say, a live concert orchestra without distortion. I know it sounds like I'm pulling arguments out of thin air, but I can back this up if anyone wants to read technical specs.

It's not quite that cut-and-dried when it comes to frequency range, though. If you record via PCM at a sample rate of 44Khz, you will NOT be able to reproduce a 44Khz tone and a 22Khz one will be pretty weird-looking waveform unless you use some fancy interpolation algorithm. PWM is a different kettle of fish, but it's not what most people think of by 'digital'.

With the right head design you can actually recover the bias tone from an analogue tape - there were some researchers using this effect to reduce wow and flutter for digital restoration.

[Flangerhans]

Originally Posted by jpmorris

With the right head design you can actually recover the bias tone from an analogue tape - there were some researchers using this effect to reduce wow and flutter for digital restoration.

That's amazing! Up to 60KHz? That kind of information keeps me coming back here...I learn something new all the time. That's also a good argument for the audible difference between tape and digital, although I don't think even dogs can hear bias tone. Is there a theoretical limit then for frequency reproduction on magnetic tape? I guess if you run it fast enough, the spacing of the oxide particles wouldn't be a factor, but the head gap would be.

I made the assumption that the author of that article meant dynamic range by "sonic detail." That is sloppy thinking on my part, I admit. It's good, though, that this forum has folks that can catch such errors and fill me in on the reality. +1 jp.

[jpmorris]

Originally Posted by Flangerhans

That's amazing! Up to 60KHz? That kind of information keeps me coming back here...I learn something new all the time. That's also a good argument for the audible difference between tape and digital, although I don't think even dogs can hear bias tone. Is there a theoretical limit then for frequency reproduction on magnetic tape? I guess if you run it fast enough, the spacing of the oxide particles wouldn't be a factor, but the head gap would be.

Found it: http://www.plangentprocesses.com/
As I recall, they use custom-designed heads. Your normal machine won't be able to replay it, but it doesn't mean the information isn't on the tape.

[Dr ZEE]

Originally Posted by Flangerhans

You can't record lower than the tape hiss.

Aaaaaaaaaah!
Now I know why "I'm in love with you." was not actually whispered.
You never know what you may discover

[SteveM]

Just a theory, but I had the idea that even if you can't hear some the higher frequencies they are still moving the particles in a way that maybe alter the lower frequencies giving the impression that higher ones are there.

[SteveM]

Originally Posted by Dr ZEE

Aaaaaaaaaah!
Now I know why "I'm in love with you." was not actually whispered.
You never know what you may discover

I'm in the middle of reading Geoff Emericks book, he says he's not a big fan of Beatles music on CD. He said that they were meant for vinyl and they just don't cut it on CD. So there you have it.

[Dr ZEE]

Originally Posted by Beck

TV ...

Originally Posted by Beck

History...

Speaking of 'entertainment' and 'history'.
The history of recording industry and related portion of entertainment that was inflicted on us by it went: From real bands with real music through real music with fake bands to fake music. ... and! - no bands.
In the "age of ease" who needs a band?
**********
Now, Tim, while "quoting you", have I taken a word or two out of context yet?
heh heh

I'd be happy to attach a picture of a band here, but we live in the "age of ease".
So.
... no band, so.

[MCI2424]

Originally Posted by SteveM

I'm in the middle of reading Geoff Emericks book, he says he's not a big fan of Beatles music on CD. He said that they were meant for vinyl and they just don't cut it on CD. So there you have it.

A few monhs ago, TapeOp had an interview with Geoff and he praised the CD format. I guess he just does'nt like the mastering.

[SteveM]

Originally Posted by MCI2424

A few monhs ago, TapeOp had an interview with Geoff and he praised the CD format. I guess he just does'nt like the mastering.

He does say that in the book But he also said that he was impressed with some of the remastered versions on CD. I was impressed by Eleanor Rigby on the "Love" CD it just sounds huge.

[Beck]

Originally Posted by Dr ZEE

Speaking of 'entertainment' and 'history'.
The history of recording industry and related portion of entertainment that was inflicted on us by it went: From real bands with real music through real music with fake bands to fake music. ... and! - no bands.
In the "age of ease" who needs a band?
**********
Now, Tim, while "quoting you", have I taken a word or two out of context yet?
heh heh

I'd be happy to attach a picture of a band here, but we live in the "age of ease".
So.
... no band, so.

NO PICTURES? That's what I keep coming back here for... our 1000 word per picture top-secret communications.

[Golden]

If the day comes when analog dies. Music dies with it. Unless the future of digital is tape.

[cjacek]

Originally Posted by Beck

NO PICTURES? That's what I keep coming back here for... our 1000 word per picture top-secret communications.

Hear, hear

[Dr ZEE]

Originally Posted by Beck

...1000 word per picture top-secret communications.

in that respect a "no-picture" is a kind of picture.

[Beck]

Originally Posted by Dr ZEE

in that respect a "no-picture" is a kind of picture.

Oh, I get it... a John Cage painting that you stare at for 4 minutes and 33 seconds. You are a clever fellow.