Adding warmth to digital

S

scottr

New member
This threads probably run its course at least a hundred times, but I always want an updated opinion... Whats the best way to add some warmth to my digital recordings? I was thinking probably a nice tube preamp would be much better than the preamps in my Mackie 808s (stage mixer)....Any other paths I should explore?

Scott
 
Oh Scott. First of all get the tube word right out of your head. Just concentrate on getting some good preamps instead, regardless of it's topology. I've been recording for a long time, both analog and digital and I can tell you a good solid state preamp can sound plenty warm (whatever that is).
 
Other possibilities based on various professional engineer's comments;

1) Mix to 2 track reel to reel 1/4" or 1/2"
2) Use a photo-electric compressor like a Joe Meek, or a "tube" compressor.
3) Try dynamic microphones or ribbon microphones on vocals.
4) Use a more "musical" sounding parametric EQ (Aphex 109 or better)
than the EQ found on a semi-pro mixer. Tend to have the "boosts" set with
as wide of a "Q" range as sounds good AKA "British EQ".

Chris

P.S. Of course, Bruce is a "pro" too, and believe it or not not every pro agrees
with everything posted above. So feel free to "discuss" things!
 
Try different micplacements, give the mics some air, placing them further from the source.

Or buy a FATSO Jr.......

Amund
 
chessparov said:


3) Try dynamic microphones or ribbon microphones on vocals.

4) Use a more "musical" sounding parametric EQ
Click to expand...

Here's a good analogy: Digital recording is very accurate. Imagine your original sound source as having some blemishes or zits on it's face. When recording to analog tape, the interaction of the magnetic particles, particularly when saturated, can have a very mild airbrush effect on some of the blemishes.

In my opinion this effect is greatly exaggerated, because I've heard a lot of analog recordings that lacked just as much warmth as anything tracked purely digital.

Chessparov's suggestions are really good ones. A lot of cheaper condensers tend to have a somewhat metalic sound to them, that digital recording isn't going to do much to hide/cover up. Ditto on the EQ. Good dynamic mics running in to good, accurate preamps can sound very smooth and rounded (ditto on the ribbons, though I have limited experience with them). Example: A Shure SM7 or an Electrovoice RE20 in to a Grace Design or similar lower-impedence solid state pre (The RNP, or Alan's new pres might be worth a look as well).

On guitars, be wary of your amp tone. If you're using a POD or similar amp modeler, then don't expect the same lush sound you'll get with a dynamic mic pointed at the grill of a Vox or a Mesa.

Be wary of your room accoustics, as a lot of early reflections and/or nodes will just plain sound bad, period. And certainly nowhere close to "warm."

If you just like the sound of tubes, ala 60's, Revolver, etc. Then I'd look at the prospect of investing in some good tube gear. There's not much "real" tube stuff that can be had on the cheap, though, so be sure this is the sound you're after before you go sinking a lot of money in to it.
 
OK, to swing this around a bit.............if I record on tape (1/2" format), then transfer those tracks to my hard disk based system, how much degradation of the "analogue" sound can I reasoably expect to encounter...........will all traces of analogue be wiped out or can it carry through to the end product.

:cool:
 
I was pretty amazed when I was in Nashville and got to drop by some big sessions. At the time the Sony Digital multitrack was the hot item. What was interesting was they had racks and racks of all this old vintage gear--preamps, equalizers, limiters-, choosing to run many of the instruments through this stuff. There was a million dollar Focusrite board sitting there and it was getting bypassed in favor of all this old stuff. I remember Pultec stuff and Neve stuff but there was much more.
 
The most popular pro solutions that I see these days for adding analog qualities to finished digital mixes is either the Fatso, Jr. or the Cranesong HEDD.
 
ausrock said:
OK, to swing this around a bit.............if I record on tape (1/2" format), then transfer those tracks to my hard disk based system, how much degradation of the "analogue" sound can I reasoably expect to encounter...........will all traces of analogue be wiped out or can it carry through to the end product.

:cool:
Click to expand...

Except for the width of the tape,it's my understanding that this is the preferred method of recording for an awful lot of producers and pro engineers.A lot of records are cut this way--see the Mixerman saga.
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
With good converters you should hear EXACTLY what you had on the analog tape........
Click to expand...



Id like to say this : With world class converters you can get relatively close to what you had on tape.

By the nature of the a/d converters, only a certain amount of the original signal will pass all the way through the converter.
When the converter bandwidth EXACTLY matches 2" tape for instance, then ANALog folks will have to concede. But even the best converters today that have 24/192 capability are still not getting it all.

I know what Bruce meant within the context of thread. The sad awakening for most folks is that, all that music gets literally stripped when it goes through the truncation process we call making a red book CD.
The warmth most folks think they are talking about isn't really attainable with prosumer devices. For most home recordists and consumers ADAT is more than enough for making a hit record IMO. Where I believe the 2" tape comes into play is film soundtracks and DVD where the frequency interaction and higher resolution are needed. Big Speakers in theaters require more pwer and higher bandwidths.

Here is test for ya alls. Get out your favorite acetate on a pretty decent table and play in through your console into the monitors (no ns's) and see how much "fuller" it sounds compared to the cd of the same music. Bob O said the old 3 tracks still sound better than most of the newer. Is it possible also that alot of this is due to overuse of iso booths, cutting and pasting instead of excellent musicians interacting together in front of a Funken Mic? Mmm. Maybe warm is the environmental surroundings?

NEVE vs SSL
API vs NEVE
Shaken but not Stirred.

On with the debate!

SoMm
 
Thanks Bruce, I'm basically an eighteen year old with over 20 years practice!

The most important factor IMHO is like the old saying "it's not the
wand, it's the magician".
Hand me a Studer 2" along with some world class musicians/singers, and give someone like Roger Nichols or George Massenburg a cassette portastudio along with the same
talent.
Who do you think is going to come up with a better record?

The emphasis on equipment to replace the skills I need to develop ended some time ago. Now the question is how can I
use what I have to learn how to make things sound better,
whether that means "warmer", etc.
There are so many factors inherent in the recording chain besides
being concerned over having a tube mic pre or not.

Chris
 
When the converter bandwidth EXACTLY matches 2" tape for instance
Click to expand...

Son of a Mixerman, you bring up an interesting point for me.

What tape width does the current converter bandwidth match or exceed at the present time?

I should have added the following:

Converter bandwidth comparison for tape width against:

Different recording software/ HD systems
Alesis and Fostex ADATS
DAT
Roland and other DAW's
Professional digital mastering equipment.

Enquiring minds want to know.:confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top