AGE OLD-Digital to Analog and Back?

[boriscrispin]

Hello people,
I am new to this forum it has to be said, and this subject has possibly been somewhat majorly covered I am sure, but from searching I cannot find specific answers to my question....which is...

I have been lucky enough (hang on this doesn't sound like a question) to record in Toerag studios in London, a rather special (should you be that way inclined) totally analog/vintage studio - the music i make is heavily influenced by the 'old' and would benefit from being recorded analog. NOW the bummer is, I am not going to go out and spend the cash on reel-to-reel 8-tracks and awesome valve mic-preamps, because as important as it is to me, I just want to be able to produce good enough music for EP/Demo quality stuff, to hopefully go back in studio again , etc. Anyhow the actual wonderment I am facing is thus

I'll soon be recording jazz/psych I hope in a nice hall somewhere with my
AW16G digital workstation - yes, that's DIGITAL, shame.

So my question to you guys is, in what ways will it be best to attempt to 'make analog' my end result. My first thoughts were things along the lines of, taking the mixdown - pre mastering - and recording onto a cassette tape, then back onto CD-R (aiff, wav etc) will this give anything like the desired effect, in a simple and relatively cheap way?

Are there better ways - I guess I'm asking basically, how can I analog-up my sound, with a digital workstation and limited funds....?

Thanks for any well experimented suggestions....

Alex

 

[Massive Master]

Stay away from cassette -- 2IPS on 1/32" of tape isn't the same as 15IPS on 1/12".

90% of everything is going to be dependent on the front end. The mic selection, room treatment, preamp - Of course, the core sounds -

Most of the time when people say "more analog sounding" they just mean "recorded well." Digital can sound absolutely fine if everything else is "worthy" of being recorded.

 

[avieth]

A two-track open reel machine really isn't that expensive. The deck alone shouldn't cost you more than $300, and the seller will probably throw in some tapes. If not, new tapes from RMGI are roughly $30/reel. That's pretty much all you need for what you want to do.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Are the songs and performances sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo incredibly good that it'll even make a difference?

I can't think of a single song I've ever heard where I said "hmmm, if only that song was recorded on analog I wouldn't think it sucks."

Or " Man that's an awesome song, though I wouldn't like it at all if it were recorded on digital."

 

[JuliánFernández]

Most of the time when people say "more analog sounding" they just mean "recorded well."

J aj a ja jaj, SO TRUE! Rep just for that!

 

[boriscrispin]

Warmth then...?

so the general response I'm getting here is akin to a light slap on the wrists!

I totally understand the major importance of actually getting a good recording via the mic's/amps before worrying about the format - but it has to be said
that my kind of question will always split opinion, and my personal taste is a preference to analog. (I should shut up and go an buy an old tascam or something then...NO!)

If my idea to attempt to capture a tape feel, after a digital mixdown is un-wise/un-necessary/un-heard of, then perhaps are there any sure-fire general tips people have to retain the 'warmth' or life that analog records appear to me to have over digital ones?

(Let it be said that I do not pointlessly hate or disregard digital recording - I'm just all too aware that it can taint the sound sometimes in a spiky crystalline way)

 

[rayc]

I've missed something - you recorded at Toerag - you liked the vintage/analogue sound. You're going to do more recording and want to retain that sound in the digital world. Is that the gist?
Go back to Toerag!
Buy analogue gear!
Use a PC and buy/dowmload every "analoguer" type plug in you can until you achieve the result you want!
Record digitally and then take it to a semi toerag (both analogue & digital) for a dig to tape & old gear in between mastering!
Hire a good engineer to record you to good digital gear & see how good it is!
BORROW or hire a good stereo 1/2inch or 2 inch to master to.
Master, dup to cassette running HOT and find out that didn't really work.
You choose BUT since you really want a good result you're going to have to pay to have it mastered so shop around for what can be done.
ONE DAY I'll have a song good enough and a recording of that song good enough to get professionally mastered by someone who's good enough to do it justice. At that time and spot in my budgetting future I'll be looking for a combo like the emboldened section but will probably just go for the best ME I can afford.

 

[boriscrispin]

ok well - In an ideal world I'd have a set of keys for toe-rag and no day job
I was lucky enough to record there with my band, so going back there with
my own funds will be unlikely in the forseeable future - unless it goes back to '69 and jazzy orchestrated psych is popular again, hang on...was it ever?

Anyway, I was hoping there were tips that could be thrown at me, that I could employ in my current set-up...(or 'cheaply' add to)

AW16G - 8 track simultaneous 24bit recording

Alesis IO14 - 4 tracks of firewire digital audio

1 x Luna condensor mic, they're nice

a bunch of dynamic mics, sm 57/ battered sm 58, three old sennheiser 419's (not quite the 421's but hey)

1 x of those ART tube pre-amps which seems good, but has yet to be used in context of mic recording (i have been using it to beef up/tube up my fender rhodes/farfisa organ signal)


So obviously, buying better mic's and being richer would no doubt improve my tools BUT things/classic techniques to get (to sound urban for a moment) "phatter" sounds than your normal clean thing, anyone?

Another idea I had, especially when it comes to mic-ing the drums, (and I'm talking in fantasy land somewhere between Axelrod & Rudy Van Gelder sound) to use a vintage mixer prior to going into the AW16G

this is the wrong place to ask.......?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

This is not the wrong place to ask, you're just getting disappointed that the answers are not what you wish they would be. You're getting accurate and correct answers. They're just not the ones you want to hear.

The fact that so so many people have a hard time hearing is that if one wants their stuff to sound like (fill in the blank, any number of adjectives can go here besides "analog") _____________, that they need to do it like ___________. Shortcuts or emulations don't work very well.

You've got it especially bad in that you're trying to dig out of a hole with that AW16G in a couple of ways: First, it's A/D converters aren't exactly the most natural-sounding in the world. At least 90% of the "digital sound" that many analog folks don't like comes from A/D-D/A converters of lesser quality or design. Second, if you plan on doing all your mixing in the 16G, that will limit what razzmatazz you might try in the form of digital plugs that try to emulate analog tape saturation or tube saturation.

On the positive side, it sounds like you are planning to have a good-sounding room to record in. That is important. Take advantage of that when you record. Consider limiting the close miking and try capturing a more live stage feel That in itself can add an "old school vibe" to the recording, while taking advantage of the room, which is one of the good cards you are holding.

If you are anywhere near London, you should have plenty of access to stage and theatrical supply outlets that rent out audio gear on a daily or weekly basis. You can add one or two high-quality microphones and A-list preamps for a couple of days for a tiny fraction of the cost to buy such gear. You might want to consider adding at least a little beef to your equipment diet, especially on the mic preamps. That'll make all the difference in the world.

Finally, record your stuff to 44.1k/24bit, burn to to WAV on a data CD, and do your mixing on a computer DAW where you can have access to some of the kinds of plugs I referred to earlier (not to mention higher-quality EQ, compression and reverb.)

G.

 

[boriscrispin]

ahh

hey man, thanks for themeaty response. So I am to face facts with regards to
my basic equipment. I am based in brighton, and am glad to hear that the choice of recording venue is important, I am hoping to hire a converted church - now community hall, and was very much thinking that at least with the drums, close mic-ing was not going to be the solution.

There is another flaw on the AW16G i have heard about - in that I was planning to mix on my Mac, when exporting onto the built in disc drive, it knocks the quality down to 16bit.

I don't doubt that the AW16G's AD converters are of a lesser quality, but do you know specifically if they are reknowned to be bad? I am restricted in portability of recording, but I could ultimately end up taking my iMac to the recording - with the restriction of my 4track simultaneous firewire device, which I'm assuming has better converters to my dated portable 8 track? But with a nice mixer and good pre-amp or two (don't suppose you know of any brighton hiring places?) could feed my drums into one track - which dare I say is old fashioned and semi-desirable...

Can I ask actually, if I put my drums through a mixer into one or perhaps two channels, instead of taking e.g a four input setup, that would require four nice pre-amps/mics, could I try and take the output signal from the mixer that will be going to the single track, from the mixer into a valve preamp, to fatten the sound as a whole and get a good result, or is this inadvisable? Would the effect be minimal using this shortcut?

 

[Daisy]

Your question is a lot like asking: "How do I get a cat to act and behave more like a dog?"

Why not just get a dog?

 

[boriscrispin]

its funny you should say that, it was going to be my next question

ahh well, I'm beginning to wish i didn't like music - haha

I suppose the crux of it is, I can't afford to re-buy my recording equipment
as analog, and thats that really.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

There is another flaw on the AW16G i have heard about - in that I was planning to mix on my Mac, when exporting onto the built in disc drive, it knocks the quality down to 16bit.

Based upon a 2002 review of the 16g in SOS, the specs are kinda confusing. It offers 32-bit internal processing and uses 24-bit linear converters, but only records at 16-bit:

All audio is at 16-bit/44.1 kHz — there is no 24-bit option.​

and

Simultaneous eight-track recording and 16-track playback at 16-bit, 44.1 kHz.​

This sounds like it's not only CD, but the internal HD files are 16-bit only as well.

I don't doubt that the AW16G's AD converters are of a lesser quality, but do you know specifically if they are reknowned to be bad?

I can't say that I've heard anything specific about the Yamahas or the 16G specifically, but as a class of gear, small self-contained DAWs like that are pretty much assumed not to have top-shelf conerters in them; they would just be too expensive for the price point. Same is true for the mic preamps. Consider that you are getting 8 channels of preamp and conversion, AND HD recording 16 channel mixing, AND cd burning, all for about US$1000.

That's a great value, for sure, and it's a capable machine for making serviceable multitrack demos. But it is, after all, a 6 year old design and a device meant to pack features, not top-shelf quality, into a small box for a small price. To expect "analog sound" from this is rather like Daisy said, not just asking a cat to be a dog, but it's asking a cat to be a Great Dane .

Can you get good recordings with it? Sure. Will they sound like what you are mentally shooting for? probably not.

Can I ask actually, if I put my drums through a mixer into one or perhaps two channels, instead of taking e.g a four input setup, that would require four nice pre-amps/mics, could I try and take the output signal from the mixer that will be going to the single track, from the mixer into a valve preamp, to fatten the sound as a whole and get a good result, or is this inadvisable? Would the effect be minimal using this shortcut?

I don't consider using a smaller number of mics on a drum kit to be a shortcut myself. In fact, this is probably exactly what I would recommend in your situation. Depending upon the kit (is it a simple jazz kit or a full-blown coal-burning rock dreadnought of a kit?) and the type of jazz you're talking about, 2-4 mics submixed to a stereo or mono submix should be just fine.

G.

 

[boriscrispin]

Really appreciate the help I'm getting here - it's good to know there is help out there

So, comparatively, lugging my iMac to the recording room, and using my up-to-date firewire thang, assuming it has higher quality converters, which I'm pretty sure it will have. A good idea?

I agree with you in terms of a slightly more stripped down approach, especially with recording the drums - I welcome the limitations really, as it really helped in the studio (i'm in a seven man band!) to lean and keep a fresh element.

To clarify, my plan was to feed say 3 mics, into a mixer*, then feed that output
into my tube pre-amp and then finally into the firewire device. Do you think that using the valve on the sub mix, prior to going into record will add anything
positive (bigger sound?) - as opposed the other option being i get three good mic's/pre amps (which obviously I should anyway) in the first place, which of course, means more money
Could my need for good individual pre-amps be slightly nullified if i could perhaps buy a good mixer (vintage) that was known to have good pre-amps
if so, are there any specific models?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

So, comparatively, lugging my iMac to the recording room, and using my up-to-date firewire thang, assuming it has higher quality converters, which I'm pretty sure it will have. A good idea?

I have no experience with that Alesis I/F, so I can't speak authoritatively on that myself (maybe someone else can chime in?) But if I had to guess, I'd say that the quality of preamps and converters would probably be somewhat comparable, but that is just a guess. I think the biggest advantage would be if the Alesis lets you convert and record to 24 bit directly. Unless the pres in the Yamaha do sound significantly better to you, I'd say the 24-bit option would sway me to the Alesis.

I agree with you in terms of a slightly more stripped down approach, especially with recording the drums - I welcome the limitations really, as it really helped in the studio (i'm in a seven man band!) to lean and keep a fresh element.

That is a good point. What many folks forget is that the more mics you throw on a kit, the more potential variable and problems you have to deal with. Less mics may not give you as much flexibility, but it's much easier to work with.

To clarify, my plan was to feed say 3 mics, into a mixer*, then feed that output
into my tube pre-amp and then finally into the firewire device. Do you think that using the valve on the sub mix, prior to going into record will add anything
positive (bigger sound?) - as opposed the other option being i get three good mic's/pre amps (which obviously I should anyway) in the first place, which of course, means more money

There are a few questions folded in there:

Will it sound better? The only way to know for sure is to try it. I think it's worth a try at least because it can potentially give you a sound you want.

However...

Where will the use of the ART sound best for you? On the drums? On vocals? Elsewhere? Again, there's no one correct answer. It may work well on the drums, but if it has an even more positive effect using it as a mic pre on something else in your 7-piece band (and if you're recording that something else at the same time as the drums), then you might want to use it elsewhere.

The best thing I can personally recommend is to use some band practices in your practice space to actually experiment around and try the different permutations of the gear you have, and to work out your best recording strategy *before* you head into the actual recording session.

Could my need for good individual pre-amps be slightly nullified if i could perhaps buy a good mixer (vintage) that was known to have good pre-amps
if so, are there any specific models?

It depends on what kind of individual preamps you're comparing to. If you were to rent a *really* good A-List preamp, you're not going to get anything like that in most portable mixers; you'd need something along the lines of an upper-level (e.g. Trident or Toft Designs) to top-shelf-level (e.g. Neve, Amek) mixing desk to get something really special in preamp sound.

However, there are middle-of-the road mixers such as the Mackie Onyx-series or the latest similar small-format mixers from Allan & Heath which, while they will not compare to a quality rented A-list preamp such as Grace, UA, GML, etc., will sound a magnitude or two better than what you have now.

G.

 

[boriscrispin]

Sorry I should have been clearer - I am currently in said seven piece band
but the recoding project that you're helping me with here will be possibly more overdubbed bass, with parts shared between two or three people at a time,

i.e Drums, bass and rhodes/piano at the same time - then most of the tracks will have a vocal overdubbed, and the plan is to get a trumpet/sax (as many of either as possible) to over dub once again. SO to have a few 'live stabs' each time, so stages of tracking.

In this situation it'll be less important that I can record lots of track simultaneously....

HOWEVER, from light research i have just stumbled across this...

http://www.artproaudio.com/products.asp?type=79&cat=1&id=130

the tubefire.

I am willing to part with some cash over time, as the time for recording will be in deep winter, or early next year

It has the tube thing I seem to go on about in a firewire package....my poor alesis. Is an investment in this kind of thing going to yield me more the results I am after?

 

[Daisy]

I think you're basically in dream land.

All of the stuff you're looking at is pure, solid-state digital gear. Only with a few tubes thrown in the signal path that do just about nothing other than muck up your solid-state, digital signal.

To make matters worse, you're talking about submixing your drums on to one track -- which is neither semi-old fashioned nor desirable, as it is only going to lead to a complete lack of flexibility in the mix stage. Not to mention the inevitable phase issues with the drum mics, which will be uncorrectable -- and will surely throw the frequency balance off, and usually make the drums pretty wimpy sounding.

Next, you're talking about submixing your drums through a whole bunch more integrated circuits in that ART thingie, just because it has a tube in it? Hey, you're welcome to try out anything you want, but I'm going to play devil's advocate here and suggest it's probably not going to do much for you in the end.

What you should do with this project is get down the basics. Multi-track the project and focus on getting the best possible sound you can get. Be mindful of all the fundamentals regarding mic placement, room accoustics, and getting the source to sound as close to the finished product as possible before hitting record. That's the "old fashioned" way of doing things. Not to mention that most of the classics were tracked with the full band, in the same room, with natural bleed in the mics; people didn't start getting all "overdub" crazy until the last 20 years or so.

If you're still really itching to use some tube gear, then make sure you use it for it's intended purpose first (before you get in to all the funky experimenting); in other words, use a mic pre to amplify a mic. And if you're looking for a tube mic pre, then get a tube mic pre. I know I'll probably get flamed for this one, but check out a used Bellari RP-220, or one of the Electroharmonix thingamajigs .... possibly even a Groove Tubes Brick. Something with a transformer input and tubes running at full plate voltage. That should get you at least somewhere within the same zip code of the ball park you're trying to play in.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Margarita y yo do agree on the phrase "right preamp". If you really want "that sound", that is. There are preamps with tubes and there are tube preamps. The difference is as wide as the ocean between us. That ART is probably better than what you got now, but don't be fooled into thiking it's going to give you the sound of a $2000+ tube preamp (which is what you'd truly need to get "the sound" you're thinking of.)

Margie is right, get it right from the beginning. Also, don't expect an "analog sound" without working for "quality sound."

And if it comes down to a choice between spending $500 on purchasing 8 preamps or $300 on renting a $3000 preamp and a $2000 microphone for a week, I'd vote for the $300 option every time.

We're in big (but respectful) disagreement on the drums, though.

This is not a metal production. Nor is it 80s synth rock, from what I can tell. It does not require metal/synth rock production values on the drums.

Two OHs and a kick mic won't have phasing issues worth writing home about, and with the right gear in the right room will sound great. Anything more than that on non-headbanging or non-80s Peter Gabrial synth rock drums is little more than self-absorbed masturbation.

Practically the entire 50s and 60s and most of the 70s made it just fine with drums recorded or submixed to one or two tracks. It's not until the era of the disco balls making up for a lack of real balls that heavy multitracking of drum kits became as fashionable as the platform shoes the players were wearing at the time and panning skins all over the globe became popular.

I swear the only time I ever had to worry about phase is when I come into this forum. My time in-studio is relatively phase-problem-free compared to the multi-miked, hand-wringing, just-to-replace-with-drumagog-anyway soap operas happening in here all the time. Then again I have never used more than 4 mics on a drum kit. Then again I don't have many Animal from the Muppets drummers coming my way either.

Right mic, right technique and right preamp in the right room, and a single mic or two OHs and a kick on just about any other style drums sounds just great.

G.

 

[Daisy]

Two OHs and a kick mic won't have phasing issues worth writing home about, and with the right gear in the right room will sound great. Anything more than that on non-headbanging or non-80s Peter Gabrial synth rock drums is little more than self-absorbed masturbation. ..... I swear the only time I ever had to worry about phase is when I come into this forum. er.

If you've ever had the chance to sit behind a desk and mix a project, even a very stripped-down 3-4 mic drum mix ... then you've probably had the experience of nudging a kick track over just a tiny fraction of an inch until you feel that woofer start jumping out of it's enclosure and pushing real air (you might even do it with your hand almost touching the woofer).

You move something over just a tiny fraction of a second, and suddenly it snaps right in to focus. I'm assuming that a guy who's as big on the physics of sound energy as yourself understands this pretty well, so I'll assume that you were merely getting a little off-course for the sake of livening up the thread.

Phase is everything with drum tracks, and that's not even close to a recent development, nor is it more specific to any genre. And if you're trying to submix this kind of thing on the way in, then it's going to be really challenging getting it right. Sure it can be done, but it's nothing like nudging a track over in an audio editor until you see the peaks of the waves lining up.

 

[boriscrispin]

my predicament goes from hopeful to damn near hopeless and maybe ever so slightly back towards the hopeful. It's plainly clear that I am out my depth in terms of my equipment/knowledge - but thankfully I'll not be waking up early in the morning to see if my Grammy has arrived yet.

I wondered if with my relatively crap gear there were any sly little things that I could I have considered when going about to recording, knowing the 'style' of recording I am after. Its clear from the advice that obtaining sexy preamps for equally - if not sexier - mic's is a good start to getting a good sound

In terms of recording drums through a sub-mix, it certainly is what happened when I was in the studio, and of course being a non expert I may not spot incorrect phasing (actually, i would really like to hear the difference between something with correct and incorrect phasing - I have read an awful lot about it over the years), but to me and everyone else, the drums sounded large and powerful.

In terms of bolstering what lacking equipment I had, I threw in the newly found Tubefire, after reading a well written review on it
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/low-end-theory/161501-art-tubefire-8-a.html
I just wondered whether it would be better to start from something such as this 8-input firewire-er, then with that base knowledge of 'supposedly' good quality digital recording attempt to get a few great mic's and a few great pre's - rather than use it with my limited 4-track Alesis. I suppose it is up to me as to whether I want 8-tracks to play around with 'live' or 4. It's pretty much a given that I want to avoid using the AW16G now really.

Incidentally, why would you possibly be slated for recommending the
Bellari? I suppose though - that is whole 'nother thread of fifty thousand replies/opinions.

Can you recommend any others, the dual channel on that Bellari is enticing - can't say no to a good 2 for 1...are there others with even more channels so that I can kill birds with varying stones in a more expensive but roundabout money-saving way? (undoubtedly I imagine the price starts to double)