Analog newbie. Why does this seem easier?

[Foamfoot]

Hello again,

Just finished doing some of my first (rough) mixes completely analog. Using a carvin mx1688 with Fostex b16 and some outboard compressors. The only fx was using a Tascam 32-2 for tape delay and some real room reverb.

I must say I'm impressed. The mixes have a certain grittiness to them but I'm doing sort of a classic rock stuff so I really like it. The first mix I took out to the car, then headphones and then home stereo and everything seemed to translate better than I've ever heard. I thought at first that I just got lucky so I did another mix (different song) and it was the same.

I'm coming from a vs-2480 and before that a vs-880. Although I enjoyed those machines and my mixes weren't bad they just seemed, well, ah.....(loss of words).

For some reason I was constantly struggling to get things to just "sit" right together. Now it seems things just "blend" better. I used much less eq and compression than I would have normally used on the digital machines. Not sure why exactly, it just felt like it didn't need it.

As far as the part about being easier, I just seemed to enjoy it more. It seemed to take about half as long far twice the results, and I really like turning real knobs, watching the tape roll, etc. I don't miss the screens or a mouse at all. In fact I really liked just sitting back listening to the music. And the rewind time gave me a chance to slow down and think about what I was doing.

I can only imagine what a much higher quality board, recorder, and compressors would sound like. But, although I still have gear lust, I'm completely happy with the results. Also, I don't do this for a living, so I just acquire what I can and make the best of it. If anyone wants to donate a really nice board and 2" 16 track I'll take it though.

Anyway, just wanted to share my experiences so far.

Thanks for the help on the questions I posted earlier.

 

[sweetbeats]

Welcome to analog. Since journeying into it I simply cannot understand why not everybody isn't using at least a good halftrack for mastering...it makes so much other monkeying and equipment unnecessary AFAIC.

Certainly not everybody agrees, but I can tell you I agree and can relate to 100% of the experience about which you wrote. 100%.

 

[SteveM]

I'm coming from a vs-2480 and before that a vs-880. Although I enjoyed those machines and my mixes weren't bad they just seemed, well, ah.....(loss of words).


.

I was using a vs1880, so I know exactly what you're talking about. You'll go crazy trying to even come close to the same sound on one of those.

I'm glad you're enjoying it. It's a huge difference.

 

[dodgeaspen]

Awesome post man. Ya, analog is the best and the cool thing is it's fun. Why not post a few tunes so we can give a listen to them. BTW I'll try to shoot a few points your way.

 

[ofajen]

Obviously, there is a sonic goodness and a way the parts seem to hold together with tape. For a musician, the process advantages (no screen, no plugins, no microediting and copying, etc., etc.) foster a focus on music and performance. I also find it more intuitive and more inspiring, and that counts for something, too. Have fun!

Cheers,

Otto

BTW, what the heck happened to the look of this forum?

 

[sweetbeats]

I used to have a Roland VSR-880...rack-mount version of the VS-880. Navigating was a nightmare. It actually was a neat unit though and well-made IMO...and did sound good. But I don't miss it one bit.

 

[ofajen]

In addition to my tape machines, I do have a Yamaha AW1600 standalone recorder. It mainly sees use as a portable machine, since it is relatively small, portable and complete if I bring along mikes and headphones.

It actually sounds good in a different way and is very handy. I'm careful to keep average levels down around -20dB, and I usually hang a pair of real VU meters off one of the outputs to check that.

The mixer is pretty good, too, with full parametric eq and dynamics always available on every recorder track and input and every bus. Even if I do tracks on it, I usually mix to 1/4" tape. In the studio, though, I pretty much always track to the 8-track if multiple tracks are needed. Somehow, it seems a lot quicker and easier to get great sound on the tape machines without nearly so much effort.

Cheers,

Otto

 

[nate_dennis]

Hello again,

Just finished doing some of my first (rough) mixes completely analog. Using a carvin mx1688 with Fostex b16 and some outboard compressors. The only fx was using a Tascam 32-2 for tape delay and some real room reverb.

I must say I'm impressed. The mixes have a certain grittiness to them but I'm doing sort of a classic rock stuff so I really like it. The first mix I took out to the car, then headphones and then home stereo and everything seemed to translate better than I've ever heard. I thought at first that I just got lucky so I did another mix (different song) and it was the same.

I'm coming from a vs-2480 and before that a vs-880. Although I enjoyed those machines and my mixes weren't bad they just seemed, well, ah.....(loss of words).

For some reason I was constantly struggling to get things to just "sit" right together. Now it seems things just "blend" better. I used much less eq and compression than I would have normally used on the digital machines. Not sure why exactly, it just felt like it didn't need it.

As far as the part about being easier, I just seemed to enjoy it more. It seemed to take about half as long far twice the results, and I really like turning real knobs, watching the tape roll, etc. I don't miss the screens or a mouse at all. In fact I really liked just sitting back listening to the music. And the rewind time gave me a chance to slow down and think about what I was doing.

I can only imagine what a much higher quality board, recorder, and compressors would sound like. But, although I still have gear lust, I'm completely happy with the results. Also, I don't do this for a living, so I just acquire what I can and make the best of it. If anyone wants to donate a really nice board and 2" 16 track I'll take it though.

Anyway, just wanted to share my experiences so far.

Thanks for the help on the questions I posted earlier.

Obviously, there is a sonic goodness and a way the parts seem to hold together with tape. For a musician, the process advantages (no screen, no plugins, no microediting and copying, etc., etc.) foster a focus on music and performance. I also find it more intuitive and more inspiring, and that counts for something, too. Have fun!

Cheers,

Otto

Welcome to the world of analog!!! I do agree that not mucking about with screens, and GUIs, and Plugs is a much more inspiring process. Part of the reason things seem to be "meshing" better is that you are summing real waves in real time and moving oxide on real tape. So you have a physical reaction to a physical process. It's not math, it's nature. So it's going to sound more natural. (IMHO) I'm glad you enjoy it. We'd all love to hear what you've been doing.

 

[diggy_dude]

Welcome to the world of analog!!! I do agree that not mucking about with screens, and GUIs, and Plugs is a much more inspiring process. Part of the reason things seem to be "meshing" better is that you are summing real waves in real time and moving oxide on real tape. So you have a physical reaction to a physical process. It's not math, it's nature. So it's going to sound more natural. (IMHO) I'm glad you enjoy it. We'd all love to hear what you've been doing.

Try explaining this to some of the more clinical types and they'll swear you're some kind of New Age hippie nutcase.

 

[Blue Jinn]

I thought I replied to this already.... (?)

Anyway, my $0.02: I've had more trouble with device drivers this, general protection fault that, does it work on ALSA, do I need to recompile (I use both Windows 98 and Linux) SCSI device not recognized.....................

I find it is always a *lot* easier to troubleshoot why sound isn't getting from here to there when its a cable run, switch, or knob issue (and it usually is a switch or knob issue) than trying to figure out why windows can't write to drive D....

It is easier to line up tracks on a computer, than it is to splice 1/4" tape, I'll grant that. (at least for me) But otherwise, I completely agree that analog is actually easier in a weird sort of backward way. You can go down way too many rabbit holes on a computer that you just don't have when it is just knob at seven or five...

 

[nate_dennis]

Try explaining this to some of the more clinical types and they'll swear you're some kind of New Age hippie nutcase.

Maybe, but it's funny that they'd cite me as "new age" when analog is "obsolete." But it's not a matter of opinion. The truth is that having a physical reaction to physical waves is a more natural process. Why do you think that analog summing boxes have become such a huge industry? It's because, especially at the point of summing, adding all those little 1s and 0s together becomes ...... uh......congested(?)

That's not even to mention the fact that just a "skotche" over digital 0 and it sounds like shit. You have no room to move. So, yeah. If you prefer digital, cool, I won't knock it. I just find it funny that people record to computers and then say "what's a good tape emulator?" .....uhhhhh TAPE!!!!

Anyway, my $0.02: I've had more trouble with device drivers this, general protection fault that, does it work on ALSA, do I need to recompile (I use both Windows 98 and Linux) SCSI device not recognized.....................

I find it is always a *lot* easier to troubleshoot why sound isn't getting from here to there when its a cable run, switch, or knob issue (and it usually is a switch or knob issue) than trying to figure out why windows can't write to drive D....

It is easier to line up tracks on a computer, than it is to splice 1/4" tape, I'll grant that. (at least for me) But otherwise, I completely agree that analog is actually easier in a weird sort of backward way. You can go down way too many rabbit holes on a computer that you just don't have when it is just knob at seven or five...

Exactly!!! Too many options just kill creativity. We stop being forced to make decisions and it kills us. So, i don't think it's backwards at all. Track it and go!!!

 

[subtracktion]

Hey, everybody, I've been lurking around reading stuff for a while and just decided to register on the forums. I've always recorded digitally but I've been toying with the idea of "regressing" (or progressing?) back to something analog - maybe just a cassette recorder to start. I'm not ready for the big guns yet. This thread got me wondering: could part of the difference in the comparative "ease" of mixing analog be due to the mixer alone?

In other words, let's say you tracked to a digital recorder like the VSR-880 that sweetbeats mentioned (I didn't even know the Roland VS existed as a rack-mount version). Then you sent the outputs to something like a Tascam M-308 for mixing. Obviously it wouldn't be exactly the same but do you think there would there be a similar, noticeable difference in the sound and experience of mixing?

 

[pianodano]

Hey, everybody, I've been lurking around reading stuff for a while and just decided to register on the forums. I've always recorded digitally but I've been toying with the idea of "regressing" (or progressing?) back to something analog - maybe just a cassette recorder to start. I'm not ready for the big guns yet. This thread got me wondering: could part of the difference in the comparative "ease" of mixing analog be due to the mixer alone?

In other words, let's say you tracked to a digital recorder like the VSR-880 that sweetbeats mentioned (I didn't even know the Roland VS existed as a rack-mount version). Then you sent the outputs to something like a Tascam M-308 for mixing. Obviously it wouldn't be exactly the same but do you think there would there be a similar, noticeable difference in the sound and experience of mixing?

Absolutely. A nice mixer does have a lot to do with the sound imo. Although I have the "luxury" of having a pristine Tascam MS-16 atr, I find myself using it not nearly as much since I had the core i7 built a couple years back. That finally gave my system the stability I had for so long sought, although I absolutely admit that the Toft ATB console I have helps me quickly get that certain mystique that was always so elusive in my earlier days. It is a certain grit that nobody seem to be able to adequately describe. Just tons of even ordered harmonics that are very pleasing. And fwiw, I have to give thanks to UAD for making such awesome analog sounding plugins to the daw world. And the best convertors that you can get your hands on can help a bunch.

There are so many things that come to mind in response to you question. Mixing down to a nice 2 track tape recorder definitely. Ribbon microphones can also add so much when used for just the right application. A really nice preamp like the 6176 will just about put you over the top everytime.

Conversely, I have observed that we are nearly there now, digitally speaking. But you will probably notice that in the end when all is really said and done, that in order to "get there" digitally speaking, it would be much cheaper just to get a decent console and a recorder and just be done with it. Unless you happen to be mainly a keyboardist like I am and are always needing just one more track.

Danny

 

[ofajen]

HThis thread got me wondering: could part of the difference in the comparative "ease" of mixing analog be due to the mixer alone?

That's a piece of it. There is the sonic quality of tracking to tape and a quality of mixing thru a console and then of mixing to tape.

Then there is a qualitative difference in the music making process associated with tape versus computer that ranges from the types of brain activity of just playing and recording into an appliance versus staring at a computer screen to the limitations of tracks and the need to prepare and practice before recording and to make decisions and move on and then all the way down to the lack of latency in analog systems (measured in irrelevant microseconds versus annoying milliseconds) and many other differences along the way. There will be some sonic difference from the mixer, but not always a lot. There will be a process difference in comparison to either a DAW or digital mixer without a knob for every single function.

Hope that helps. BTW, neither tape nor we here on this forum are at all scary.

Cheers,

Otto

 

[diggy_dude]

Maybe, but it's funny that they'd cite me as "new age" when analog is "obsolete." But it's not a matter of opinion. The truth is that having a physical reaction to physical waves is a more natural process.

You're preaching to the choir, son. I was being facetious, really. The actual reason I got accused of being a New Age loony was because I tend to wax metaphysical over analog processes. But they do invite that sort of poetic license, no?

 

[SteveM]

I used to have a Roland VSR-880...rack-mount version of the VS-880. Navigating was a nightmare. It actually was a neat unit though and well-made IMO...and did sound good. But I don't miss it one bit.

There are definitely some good qualities about it. I just finished a Christian recording I did for a friend of mine on my 1880. 4 songs.

I actually just took the WHOLE thing apart. I never thought I'd ever attempt to open a digital unit, until I found out how much they wanted to charge me to fix it. The LCD screen died in it and I ordered another and also the direct outs are not working. I've got word it is the opamps so I'm going to replace them myself and see if it fixes it. To get to the LCD screen I had to take every single piece of guts out of it.

 

[SteveM]

Hey, everybody, I've been lurking around reading stuff for a while and just decided to register on the forums. I've always recorded digitally but I've been toying with the idea of "regressing" (or progressing?) back to something analog - maybe just a cassette recorder to start. I'm not ready for the big guns yet. This thread got me wondering: could part of the difference in the comparative "ease" of mixing analog be due to the mixer alone?

In other words, let's say you tracked to a digital recorder like the VSR-880 that sweetbeats mentioned (I didn't even know the Roland VS existed as a rack-mount version). Then you sent the outputs to something like a Tascam M-308 for mixing. Obviously it wouldn't be exactly the same but do you think there would there be a similar, noticeable difference in the sound and experience of mixing?

Summing can definitely be a problem with some DAWS. This is why I'm trying to get my direct outs working on my workstation, so I can just direct out the tracks to the mixer. I've had the problem with mine before where I would isolate a track, it would sound wonderful, bring everything else up and it would virtually disappear, turn into mud.

 

[LUNE]

things just "blend" better.

yup, what an little angsty aesthetic headache digital recording & mixing can be - endless fiddling w/ plug-ins, trying this or that; maybee feeling like your getting somewhere, but then you bypass everything and it seems your really going backwards. i so often felt it took a LONG time to go either nowhere or round in circles and things rarely 'felt' right.

Perhaps over time & with experience one can become more critical (maybe a mixed blessing) and want to continually refine what once would have been just fine, but with Analog, it IS easier for me to get things zoned in, sit back, and say "yeah, that's it."
I rarely had that sense of unreserved 'confidence' or 'satisfaction' with digital, it did happen from time to time, but I find the same, that its easier to use less compression, verb etc. and everything can find its place. feels nice, eh?