cjacek
Analogue Enthusiast
At the suggestion of my good friend Tim (Beck), I thought I’d make my 5000th post 'count' and it seems only fitting that it begins with how my journey began, some 8 or so years ago...
I thought it'd be more appropriate [and perhaps more succinct] to share with you a link and article below, which pretty much sums up my own feelings toward analog [and digital], through my own experiences, which seem frighteningly similar to the author's.
I did, however, need to clean it up a little, which means formatting, spelling etc....
Oh yeah and if some of you are still on the fence on this.... whaddya waitin' fer?! Come on over to the dark side!!
So.... who's with me?
Tim, I hope I made it a good one...
DISCLAIMER: ONCE AGAIN, THIS WAS NOT WRITTEN BY ME
For further reading on this subject, go here:
http://www.gcmstudio.com/rtech/rtech.html
Source: http://www.gcmstudio.com/argumentfortape/argumentfortape.html
-----
I thought it'd be more appropriate [and perhaps more succinct] to share with you a link and article below, which pretty much sums up my own feelings toward analog [and digital], through my own experiences, which seem frighteningly similar to the author's.
I did, however, need to clean it up a little, which means formatting, spelling etc....
Oh yeah and if some of you are still on the fence on this.... whaddya waitin' fer?!
Come on over to the dark side!! So.... who's with me?
Tim, I hope I made it a good one...
DISCLAIMER: ONCE AGAIN, THIS WAS NOT WRITTEN BY ME
People may ask me why I am such an advocate of analogue technology. After all, almost all people operating mid-sized studios such as mine are switching to computer based Digital Audio Workstations (DAW) for all of their production. Actually, this is part of my reasoning behind it. If there are twelve studios in my area using Pro Tools, is it really wise for ME to offer exactly what you can get anywhere else? Now, some people who know me may say I'm stuck in the past or just "inexperienced"with DAWs. This is a far cry from the truth. A little history is appropriate here. I started getting into recording in 1995 to create a musical sketchpad for my band at the time. Using an almost non-existent budget, I experimented and researched every related technology available. The first recordings I did were on a Tascam Porta-01, a 4-track cassette machine with a low quality built-in mixer. This suited my needs as a musical sketchpad (to get the band's idea recorded for further development). By 1997, I had outgrown the abilities of the small cassette format and traded the deck for a Behringer Autocom which I still have today (though rarely use I admit). In 1998, I was using a full-blown DAW and was being hired by other bands to record them on location or in my home studio. My first non-linear video productions were done on the same computer, very tricky when you only have 6GB of storage. This was also my introduction to mastering. Though I knew what it was, I had never done it myself before this time. I continued recording on this system throughout the year 2000 and found myself increasingly frustrated with the limitation and low sound quality of the DAW. I was also increasingly frustrated with constantly having to upgrade as well as backing up files. Not to mention the glitches that would happen randomly in this system.
I completely rebuilt the computer with the best technology available to me (and I was one of the first people locally who had 24bit 96KHz capability). I tried every software I could find. Overwhelmed by the difficulty of simple things like changing the routing of a particular channel, I started relying more and more on external processors, mixers and patching hand written algorithms into my softwares. I broke down and bought a Teac 80-8 which was a 1/2" 8-track with DBX noise reduction. People kept telling me switching to analogue was a mistake. I was supposed to be swamped with all this maintenance I had to do and it would be noisy. Well, I spent a few minutes cleaning the machine before each session and it worked flawlessly every time. Every once and a while I had to degauss it and check the alignment. It sure was a lot less work than keeping the computer glitch free and backing up files all the time. As far as noise goes, I didn't even have the noise reduction connected most of the time and nobody ever complained of noise problems. When I DID use the noise reduction, the tape typically had an 90dB or better signal to noise ratio which was less noisy than the first 16-bit converters I had (about 76dB).
I continued running both DAW and 1/2" together until one fateful day in 2003 when I was recording a band that had brought me a lot of business. In the middle of some vocal overdubs, my computer crashed and lost their entire project. I lost those clients for good after a 2-year relationship. I swore I'd never record a band on computer again, so I upgraded from a 2002 DAW to a 1980 1" 16-track. Strangely, my record/mix times were cut by about 30% and people seemed endlessly more impressed with my work. Not that the analogue recording in of itself sounds that much different. Instead of struggling with the horrid digital signal processing of the DAW or labeling files so they don't get misinterpreted, I could concentrate on engineering. I no longer have to back up files or wait for the computer to save takes. I hit "stop" at the end of a take, take the reel off the hub and put it on a shelf where I know it won't get deleted accidentally. I can change the reverb setting with the single push of a button. I can completely change a mix in a matter of seconds instead of using a mouse to go through menus, dragging virtual sliders and manually entering numerical values into tables. On top of that, I am now one of the only two mid to large studios in my area that even has the ABILITY to record in analogue. This has brought me a lot of business because there's a lot of people out there who don't like the sound of DAWs. If you don't believe me, read almost any magazine about recording. There's hardly any professional engineers of new or old that likes the sound of digital over analogue. But most people continue to use digital because it makes editing easier. But now instead of redoing a bad take in ten minutes, they’re now spending an extra hour chopping it up to make a "correct" but very artificial sounding take. Whether you notice it consciously or not, psych studies show that edited tracks create a sensation of stress because they do not sound natural to the ear. Now, a list of facts that make me more comfortable with my already existing choice.
* The average lifespan of a hard disk is 3.1 years
* The average lifespan of a CD-R/DVD-R is 10 years
* The average lifespan of a Digital Audio Tape is 2 years
* Average lifespan of a home computer is 3 years.
* Average lifespan of a computer PROGRAM is 3-5 years.
* When an analogue medium deteriorates slightly, the quality diminishes slightly.
* When a digital medium deteriorates slighly, it is completely unusable and all data is lost forever. This is more true for DAW's than tape based digital formats.
* NASA uses analogue recording media because it is the only type that meets their requirements for reliability.
All this means that you have to constantly copy and convert to the latest format in order for it to last.
* the average lifespan of open-reel tape is 19.5 years (mostly offset by defective tapes made in the late 70's/early 80's, there are tapes made in the 40's & 50's that are still usable).
* My tape machines which were made in 1976 and 1980 spec out better than factory requirements with no major repair or mods. What R-DAT or DAW can live that long?
* THIS is what a high frequency sine wave looks like on a 44.1KHz medium. Strangely, a square wave looks the same and even sounds the same as a sine wave when played back from a digital medium but not an analogue medium [see attached below].
On this note, in blind listening tests, analogue and digital recordings have been made of the same musical performances using the same signal path. It is always almost unanimous that the analogue source is superior. I performed a blind test myself in college, year 1999, using a recording of a band using 16-bit 44.1KHz digital, FM tape and vinyl. My results showed that most people had no preference but those who did have a preference said the FM source was the best. It has been argued that people favored the analogue recordings over digital because the flaws of analogue technology covered up the inherent flaws in the source material. Imagine a car with a few minor scratches in the paint. If you were to take sand paper to the car, would that make it look better or worse? The same applies to audio. Almost all audio starts in the analogue domain and all audio ends in the analogue domain. To convert an analogue signal to digital and back to analogue once again is a very artificial process. Therefore one can determine that the common subconscious preference for analogue recordings states that digital recording is in fact the more flawed of the media. Psychological studies actually show that recordings played back from digital sources create brain patterns similar to frustration (I was a psych major after all). The same is true of recordings made from class AB amplifiers but this is another subject. Subjects who listened to playbacks from analogue sources showed brain patterns similar to joy. While some claim digital is the clearer format, I firmly believe that it is a false sense of clarity cause by the distortions which occur primarily in the upper register of the digital domain. There is an effects processor called the Aphex Aurel Exciter. The Aurel Exciter is a processor which creates a compressed signal with distortion localized to the upper register of the audio spectrum. This distorted signal is then combined with the original dry undistorted audio signal. The result is the perception of increased clarity because of the artificial introduction of false overtones. Digital sampling generates alias harmonic and subharmonic frequencies within the range of audio where human hearing is most sensitive. That range is the same part of the spectrum the Aurel Exciter manipulates and thus a similar outcome results. This will be explained further in the follow up article listed at the bottom.
In this day of constantly changing formats (with CD on the decline and DVD-audio & DSD coming up), analogue tape can readily take advantage of the newer formats by simply copying from the original to the new format. If you recorded on a 2 inch 16-track and mixed to 1/2 inch tape, you can master it for CD and it'll be fine for now. Coming from the common 44.1KHz CD master over to say DSD, you're stuck with 44.1KHz sound on a medium that takes up much more storage space. If you go back to the 1/2 inch mix tape and remaster for DSD, your new master can instantly take advantage of the new format in all its splendor. When you record digitally at 44.1KHz and remaster for DSD, all the extra resolution of the new format is thrown away. It will sound the same on DSD as the original CD print did. Analogue has theoretically limitless resolution so when you remaster your 4 year old album, you can take advantage of the full resolution of the new medium. The problem, however, is that even though good analogue is WAY better than good digital, cheap digital sounds cleaner for cheaper than cheap analogue. Consequently, most people in the home studio or mid studio level will never be able to hear how good analogue can sound. Now, DSD, which means "delta-sigma digital" AKA "direct steam digital" AKA “delta slope digital” or as I call it, "decent sounding digital" is a technology I have researched and shows a LOT of promise for the future. DSD is not your traditional digital signal. It's actually the first two steps of the digital conversion process without the remaining filtering and combining algorithms. The result is a 1 bit recording at approximately 2.8224MHz. There are a few problems with this signal but it is by far the best digital has ever been. The biggest problem is storage. At the time of writing this essay, there are a few DSD mixing boards out there, there are no multitracks, only stereo DSD recorders. It will be along time before a reliable multitrack hits the market and it won't be cheap.
Furthermore I support analogue processing whenever possible. In all my time with DAWs and digital mixing, I have yet to hear a digital EQ that is acceptable. I'm very picky about EQs so there aren't many analogue EQs I like either but at least there's a few. But you have to understand that a digital processor uses delay to create cancellation & reinforcement of frequency instead of electronic resonance like analogue EQ does. Digital EQ is like trying to move walls and baffles in a studio to change the frequency response without changing the ambiance. It's just not possible. Yes you can change the frequency response that way but it will also severely harm the ambiance and detail of the recording. Nice sounding digital compressors are also very hard to get but I have a couple of plugins that are acceptable. Another thing to note is that other studios who run DAWs have commented that they have a hard time getting clean sound when mixing digitally especially when using a large number of tracks. This is because every time you double the number of tracks, you have to reduce the volume of each track by about 6dB in order to prevent clipping. This is the sonic equivalent to removing a bit off your word-length every time you double the tracks. Let's say you have a 24-bit DAW. When you have one track running, it can be at its full 24-bit potential. When you add a second track, you have to cut the volume giving roughly a 23-bit per channel resolution. When you get sixteen tracks going, you have more like 19-bit resolution. Now this may sound like plenty but remember that those 5 bits you lost through buss mixing cut your resolution down to 1/16th of the original 24-bit sound. Also bear in mind that when you added EQ to your signal, you had thousands of delayed signals mixed back into the line which already reduced the output resolution. I've heard of people who own DAWs sending single channels or pairs of channels through outboard passive summing busses and being much happier with the result than mixing purely in the digital domain.
When you mix in the analogue domain, adding more tracks means more loss through the summing network and thus requires more make up gain, which adds noise. There is, however, no noticeable effect on overall sound quality or clarity and the added noise is usually below the already existing noise level of the recording. On another note, have you noticed the craze over vacuum tube gear lately? It is by no coincidence this fad started when DAW’s started taking over the industry. People are noticing how edgy, hollow & sterile their DAW recordings are so they think that using tube preamps or fake tube line amps available from dozens of manufacturers now will “warm up” the cold digital world. I put it to the test and got a 2 channel mic/line tube amp and did some comparisons. What I heard was not nice, natural, “warm" audio but cold digital audio with distortion added. Now the craze is going toward software plugin simulations of tube and tape devices because people are using hardware less and less. These are a far cry from the real thing. I’ve seen so many plugins that are supposed to make digital sound like analogue. I demoed some of these. Listen guys, it won’t make your DAW recordings sound like they were recorded and mixed from a Studer A827. If the “Studer A827 with 996 tape” plugin did its job perfectly, it would still sound like a recording done on a DAW, bounced to a tape machine and bounced back to the DAW. With all this tube gear and plugins people are collecting, wouldn’t it be better and cheaper to record on analogue from the beginning instead of trying to simulate it?
If you or your musicianship is really so bad you can’t record an album without editing the crap out of it on a DAW, you probably shouldn’t be in the business from the beginning. But let’s say you’re determined to have an album and need the DAW but want an analoguesque sound. You can track your band in your home studio and take it elsewhere to be mixed through areal board down to ¼” tape. This is avery common practice. It works. I myself hate editing on DAWs or on anything else for that matter. With tape, people don’t expect me to be able to turn their mush into a performance for them. Editing is a tedious process and sounds at least at a subconscious level, unnatural. While even though I can edit tape, I like to avoid it. It is something I do once and a while though.
I also in a way feel that digitalis not in the true sense, recording. Let’s say you map a grid on top of a fine painting and write down the color that shows in each square of the grid. Later, you take your notes and make another grid of the same dimensions. Then you use your information about the colors as they applied to the original to create a new painting. It looks quite a bit like the original, especially when you’re further away, but it’s not the same painting, just a recreation. This is in a sense what digital “recording” is. Taking measurements of a sound, assigning a discreet numerical value to each measurement and using those values to create a new sound. What you’re hearing is a computer generated simulation. Analogue processes use a chain reaction of molecules and subatomic particles to store the patern of sound on a medium. The medium in one way or another induces a chain reaction of particles in motion to reproduce the sound. So in that sense, analogue recording is more like taking a photograph while digital is more like writing down measurements and drawing the same scene over again based on said measurements. Neither are the original but analogue is a more direct representation of the original scene. After all my reasoning, I just like analogue better. It’s not that I refuse to work on material of digital sources, I just prefer to use analogue in my own studio.
For further reading on this subject, go here:
http://www.gcmstudio.com/rtech/rtech.html
Source: http://www.gcmstudio.com/argumentfortape/argumentfortape.html
-----
