Running a song through analog?

As Keith Moon said, they remember your entrance and your exit. (Or something similar ;) )
How does that reply to recording music one may ask?
Well the source is the entrance and the speakers reproducing it are the exit.
If both are great, what happens between them is based more on skill than gear.
Give any of the great producers/engineers a basic consumer set up, such as a 2 to 300 dollar interface and stock plug ins and they'll do a record that will leave people saying "How did you do that?"
:D
Or as Bette Midler said in her 70s hit song, "it ain't the meat, it's the motion"
;)
 
Because they make things sound 'right' to the human ear.
I have to object to the broad generalization here in that it implies some genetic component. It may be true that we tend to prefer sounds where the mathematical relationship between the harmonics is relatively simple. We tend to shy away from noise and dissonance both of which are mathematically more complex.

But I think that actually most of what you're talking about is learned behavior. It sounds right to us modern western music listeners because it's what we're used to hearing. It's comfortable and safe and places things in a context that we recognize and understand.

The first person to plug in an electric guitar said "ugg that doesn't sound anything like a guitar", but the benefit outweighed the loss, so they went with it, and people got used to it and then somebody came out with a guitar and/or amplifier that made it sound much more like the acoustic sound and people went "ugg that doesn't sound like an electric guitar". They started turning those amps up further and further and at first when it distorted they said "ugg" but again the benefit outweighed the loss and then somebody came along with an amp that could be louder but stay clean, and people said "ugg that doesn't sound like rock and roll". So they made boxes to go before the amp to get the distortion. Then somebody had the bright idea to plug that distortion straight into a mixing desk and everybody said "ugg that doesn't sound like a distorted electric guitar, but it's the Beatles so we have to like it." ;)
 
Hehe. Let it roar like a lion! :)

Seriously though...I think it's perfectly valid and good to discuss the differences between the formats...as long as it doesn't turn into some war about which is "better", in some absolute way, because neither is.
The fact that digital plugs and processing for the most part try very hard to emulate analog sounding gear...speaks volumes for analog.
The fact that digital runs circles around analog when it come to mixing, routing and pretty much anything your mind can conjure up, plus has the ability to NOT impart any of its own "sound" on your audio (which some people prefer, maybe always - maybe sometimes)...speaks volumes for digital.

I can't say enough positive things about running a hybrid analog/digital studio...but it's not for everyone. There's a greater commitment and expense on a variety of levels. Best bet if you want some analog spice...focus on better mics and preamps, maybe a comp...but I wouldn't bother with getting say, some prosumerish tape deck just to run you tracks through....and to repeat what I said before...just run your digital audio through some "tape" emulation plugin or some saturation plugin, and get on with your project...which I think the OP already has done. :)
 
Seriously though...I think it's perfectly valid and good to discuss the differences between the formats...as long as it doesn't turn into some war about which is "better", in some absolute way, because neither is.
The fact that digital plugs and processing for the most part try very hard to emulate analog sounding gear...speaks volumes for analog.
The fact that digital runs circles around analog when it come to mixing, routing and pretty much anything your mind can conjure up, plus has the ability to NOT impart any of its own "sound" on your audio (which some people prefer, maybe always - maybe sometimes)...speaks volumes for digital.

I can't say enough positive things about running a hybrid analog/digital studio...but it's not for everyone. There's a greater commitment and expense on a variety of levels. Best bet if you want some analog spice...focus on better mics and preamps, maybe a comp...but I wouldn't bother with getting say, some prosumerish tape deck just to run you tracks through....and to repeat what I said before...just run your digital audio through some "tape" emulation plugin or some saturation plugin, and get on with your project...which I think the OP already has done. :)

Agreed. No debate. We can all live together. :)
 
I have to object to the broad generalization here in that it implies some genetic component. It may be true that we tend to prefer sounds where the mathematical relationship between the harmonics is relatively simple. We tend to shy away from noise and dissonance both of which are mathematically more complex.

But I think that actually most of what you're talking about is learned behavior. It sounds right to us modern western music listeners because it's what we're used to hearing. It's comfortable and safe and places things in a context that we recognize and understand.

The first person to plug in an electric guitar said "ugg that doesn't sound anything like a guitar", but the benefit outweighed the loss, so they went with it, and people got used to it and then somebody came out with a guitar and/or amplifier that made it sound much more like the acoustic sound and people went "ugg that doesn't sound like an electric guitar". They started turning those amps up further and further and at first when it distorted they said "ugg" but again the benefit outweighed the loss and then somebody came along with an amp that could be louder but stay clean, and people said "ugg that doesn't sound like rock and roll". So they made boxes to go before the amp to get the distortion. Then somebody had the bright idea to plug that distortion straight into a mixing desk and everybody said "ugg that doesn't sound like a distorted electric guitar, but it's the Beatles so we have to like it." ;)

Objections noted.

However, there many studies over the years that indicate certain tones, musical structures, bandwidths, etc etc have much effect on the human physiology both physically and neurologically.

Are we living (in these advanced times) with learned behavior and reacting to things because of this? Most assuredly. Does that mean there's no truth in my simplistic summation about why the application of an 'analog component' to a digital signal makes some sort of difference?(on occasion) Maybe. Or not. I'm not looking to start a "which is better" discussion.That would be the proverbial 'dancing about architecture' discussion....something no one wants!! It's an individual thing brought on in EACH individual by many factors....one of which may be "learned behavior".

It's not that way for me. I don't care which format or media is used as long as it serves the project. I mix plenty of songs completely in-the-box and am very happy with the results as are my clients. But every so often there comes along a song that needs that little something. Something that the 1's and 0's just don't quite do it for no matter what emulation is applied. How do I (as a producer) know this?

Learned behavior.

You could call it experience.
 
But every so often there comes along a song that needs that little something. Something that the 1's and 0's just don't quite do it for no matter what emulation is applied.

I agree.
I wouldn't be running hybrid if I though real analog gear could be completely replaced with emulations.

I've got some analog hardware AND the plugins that emulate that same gear, manufactured by the same company...and yes, there are subtle differences.
Sometimes the plugin does the job well enough, and I don't have to dick around patching in the hardware...but other times, that "something", that subtle difference provided by the analog hardware, matters enough to use it.

AFA my suggestion to the OP...it's more about reality and practicality for his situation.
I mean, if he was to just get some used tape deck or an analog "box" to run his audio through...there's no guarantee it would make things better, and while it might impart some new "flavor" to his tracks, if it's not what he wants, then what...?...get another analog box to try it?
I've got a bunch of tape/saturation plugs...and even with my real tape decks and analog gear...the plugs also get used.

I don't want to dissuade anyone from diving into the analog pool...I'm just saying that for the casual users, the just-for-fun home rec people...it may not be worthwhile enough. The guys who are more involved with recording and/or doing it on some commercial level...it's about having a lot of tools, and an ongoing accumulation of said tools - analog and/or digital.

What's that saying....if all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail to you. ;)
 
To Miro's last line:

But if you add screws to the mix, then you need a different tool! :)

Good lord I sound like a spambot. lol
 
But if you add screws to the mix, then you need a different tool! :)
You can drive a screw with a hammer if you try hard enough. A screwdriver doesn't do you any good when all you've got is nails. ;)

(No I don't know how that applies to the current discussion)
 
You can drive a screw with a hammer if you try hard enough. A screwdriver doesn't do you any good when all you've got is nails. ;)

(No I don't know how that applies to the current discussion)

HAHA! It doesn't, unless you have a really big screwdriver...

Sorry, I jacked this thread. Neg rep me. I could lose some points anyway... :)
 
You can pry things apart with either a hammer or a screwdriver. One might work better than another depending on the situation, but probably neither is actually the right tool for the job. :/

---------- Update ----------

It doesn't, unless you have a really big screwdriver...
Almost anything can be a hammer, if you really want it.
 
I want peaceful co-existance as well (enough narly political shit going on here to last several lifetimes anyway!) I would like however to commnet on a couple of points raised?

"Don't think stuffing tracks through some cheap prosumer tape gear is going to fix it". This is a vital lesson to the noob who might think droppping $100 on an old cassette deck of dubious spec, is going to turn him into George Martin! The Beatles used state of art for the day gear.

And "the inconvenience of various operating levels". Now I am a nerdy person and cannot abide bits of gear that are not compatible in terms of connectors and levels. In the past I modded cassette and mini disc machines to at least have Z balanced outs on TRS and the Teac A3440 went to a breakout box that converted RCA to TRS. If son were still here recording I would be making lifting amps (NE5532) to get everything up to +4dBu and probably balanced to boot!

Now I have no need of the analogue kit except for the odd cassette dub and for those I suffer the RCAs!

Dave.
 
Back
Top