Are you an analogue purist?

Are you an analogue purist?

  • Yes, I'm an analogue purist

    Votes: 23 37.7%

  • No, I'm not an analogue purist and process the sh*t outta my sound

    Votes: 5 8.2%

  • I'm kinda in between the first 2 options

    Votes: 24 39.3%

  • I don't really care how I obtain my sound

    Votes: 9 14.8%
  • Total voters
    61
jpmorris said:
What if I told you that when I've got the thing digitally mastered, I record it back to tape as a safety copy? :p
Click to expand...

Then - Hell No!

:D :D :D
***************

If you ask me: "Are you an analog Ideologist?" - I'd dare say: "Yes" :)

The manifestation of a musical sensation comprises of the Action of The Source, transmission of energy from The Source to the Recipient and The Reaction of the Recipient. An Irrelevant to the Source Puls Driven energy management system ("Digital System") can, shall and welcome to be employed to support the transmission but NOT to interfere with it. Ideally, that is. :)

Ideologist? - Yes.
Purist? - No.
 
I would love to be an analog purist but I think there is a big thing in my way. I'm not that good.:mad:

Anyone ever see Larry Crane from TapeOp's "Purity and Honesty in Recording" Seal of Approval?

Here's the gist of it.

Now that's some real certification!

http://www.tapeop.com/honestrecordings/

Hope this hasn't been posted in this thread yet :eek: Eric

EDIT: If I could recall my vote, I probably should have voted that I process the s@$T out of my sound. That would have been more honest. I'm not as in between as I like to think ... :(
 
Dr ZEE said:
Then - Hell No!
Click to expand...
Damn.

pianodano said:
I believe that the entire purpose of a compotent professional pop engineer and especially when using high quality equipment is to enhance, embelish and otherwise perfect or bring to a higher artistic level, the original often crappy unprofessional sound.

I would bet that if most people could hear exactly how lame that MOST (not all but most) of their favorite performers or group sound in their original, natural state, most poeple would be agast.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough, that's what got me writing songs as opposed to instrumentals. I heard Roger Waters with all the fairy-dust switched off, and realised that I didn't sound much worse.
 
Chilljam said:
Don't know how many of you know... but Ryan Adam's first album Heartbreaker was all analog (maaaaybe a bit of digital reverb, hard to hear), lovely raw warm sound... one of my favourite albums... so how i see it... not only can recording purely analog sound good but in Adams' case, commercially viable as well!



.
Click to expand...

I think all of his recordings are done in analog. He's had Ethan Johns as a producer/engineer same as Ray Lamontagne and Kings of Leon. All bands I like.
 
I try and avoid digital for the most part but I'm not an analog purist. From my experience and preference most things are better in that analog realm but I'm not completely against using digital.
 
I burn to cd eventually for the client, but everythhing before is analog. does that count? I don't hate digital btw, just the very digital sounding records. I hate watching HD TV as well, it's just too fucking sharp...:D
 
I burn to cd eventually for the client, but everythhing before is analog. does that count? I don't hate digital btw, just the very digital sounding records. I hate watching HD TV as well, it's just too fucking sharp...:D

ps. ethan johns rocks
 
Chilljam said:
Electric guitar counted as digital?
Click to expand...

Well, analog recording is basically electricity and magnetism so an electric guitar is perfectly fine. I guess I should have clarified all the finer points of defining a "purist". Well, I even seem to brake my own rules 'cause I do carry over my finished tracks to CD but everything prior to that is totally in the analogue domain. I still define this as being a purist.

I would like to clarify, however, that this is not an exclusively analogue vs digital sorta thing, as "purist" also means, to me, using very little to achieve the end product, which means a minimalist approach to recording, less of everything, including mics and out-board gear, even if it's analogue in nature.

Picture one microphone a said distance away from the piano, another near a guitar / guitar amp, another one or max two mic'ing a drum set, one for backing vocals, another for main vocal etc...... all running straight into a recorder / mixer combo [EQ may not even be allowed] and if a compressor is used, it is done on the way in, with very gentle peak limiting at most. Same thing for tape delay and only to taste. More often, though, natural room sound is solely used.

Basically, your choice of mics, placement of them and room, almost totally dictates the end sound.

The majority of the time is used to choose mics and precisely setup these mics and their levels. The actual recording is accomplished in one live take or overdubbing, if a one man band. Still, under my rules, that's being a purist.
 
I guess I am a becoming a purist.

I'm like Herm, only I use my 38 and M312B. I do have two UA tube preamps and compressors. I also use tape for my delay. I have PTLE and a digi 02rack which have been disconected and I brought my computer upstairs and gave it to my girlfriend. I started back in the in the late 80's multitracking to analog cassette, so analog is very comfortable.
Thinking bout getting an old piano or Fender Rhodes, and retiring my Quadra Synth keyboard.

I am, like Cjacek, trying to get back to all analog. I have been reading the book Analog Recording and have several books from the late seventies and early eighties that mostly deal with analog. The digital side is usually effects. The is no talk of hard disk recording! I'm thinking of selling my Pro tools rig and lexicon f/x rack unit. I also think the the simplist way is best. But then again I don't listen to much music past 1980 and prefer the 50's and 60's sounds, especially rockabilly and surf. I also have a cassette deck in the car and listen to mostly vinyl at home. I did buy a stand alone CD recorder for the guys in my band that want a CD mix. But I master to 1/2 track quarter inch first!

So I guess I am an analog purist!:D:eek:
 
I would also like to add

that I think it's similar to graphic art. You could have several artists with the same model or subject in front of them at the same moment. Finished products could be in charcoal, water colors, oil or bronze. The final product is the same subject but different medium. The medium can be important. books are different than kindle. It's not just the subject that we always respond to;we also respond to the whole package. And the process should be enjoyable or we won't record in the first place. I find tracking to analog more enoyable, thus I record more. and further more, blah blah. Thanks for putting up with this!!:D
 
Instroverb said:
I am, like Cjacek, trying to get back to all analog. I have been reading the book Analog Recording and have several books from the late seventies and early eighties that mostly deal with analog. The digital side is usually effects. The is no talk of hard disk recording! I'm thinking of selling my Pro tools rig and lexicon f/x rack unit. I also think the the simplist way is best. But then again I don't listen to much music past 1980 and prefer the 50's and 60's sounds, especially rockabilly and surf. I also have a cassette deck in the car and listen to mostly vinyl at home. I did buy a stand alone CD recorder for the guys in my band that want a CD mix. But I master to 1/2 track quarter inch first!
Click to expand...


I'm with you on most of this. I also have a UA preamp. I have a Kurzweil digital piano and an alesis drum machine. I just traded my lexicon reverb for a 3340. Though I've used other digital reverb I've like like the Alesis. I'd prefer an analog keyboard and analog drum machine! I've had both and everything analog has always worked best for me. The digital sounds are pretty realistic but the sounds start to irratate me after a while. I find it impossible to use two sounds from the kurzweil on the same track.

I also collect vinyl and have a cassette player in the car. :D
 
sweetbeats said:
  1. track to analog, dump to DAW, master to analog, transfer to digital
  2. track to analog, master to analog, transfer to digital
Click to expand...


I track to digital first, then analog, and finally back to digital for burning, that is if Iv completed a track in the first place.:p As you can see Im not a complete analog purist, I think if you were it would not go back to digital for burning and we would not use CD's. May I say some poeple only have digital keyboards anyway? Maybe a better word for analog purist is analog processor.:D
 
I might consider myself an analog purist. I cringe a little when I borrow my room mate's interface to import stuff onto the computer.

I've been working with different forms of experimental music lately and I've been using my computer to send signals into my gates' sidechains to create various tremelo-type effects. That's about it, really :)

(Added in edit) Oh yeah, and having a second or third tape machine enables me to do almost every conceivable "special effect". Echo? Tape. Reverb? Tape. Slapback? Tape. Atmospheric, double-tracked vocals? Tape. Pitch shifting? Tape!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top