Why Analog?

[Tim Gillett]

Steve M, I take it you're joking... digital obeying its master... Do recording devices have personalities and ego's?

No one doubts that analog tape has been and continues to be used as an effect on things such as drum tracks, electric guitars. But is that what you are saying?

Cheers Tim

 

[SteveM]

Of course THAT part of what I was saying was a joke, but....

If you want to call it an effect feel free. When it comes to recording to digital.
Whatever it is, it makes a difference when transferring tape to digital. Of course it would still be better listening to it on an analog medium IMO.

To say there is no difference, then why bother going with higher sample rates or bit rates if it's going to go to 16/44 anyway? The reason is it still communicates with the mix down media different.

It's like saying if you are going to cassette tape why bother using a Studer two inch to track on.

Steve M, I take it you're joking... digital obeying its master... Do recording devices have personalities and ego's?

No one doubts that analog tape has been and continues to be used as an effect on things such as drum tracks, electric guitars. But is that what you are saying?

Cheers Tim

 

[Beck]

Those that don’t understand the benefits of tracking to tape before transferring to digital don’t fully understand sampling.

Sampling (digitally recording) a direct signal is much different than sampling that same signal after its already been recorded to tape. It’s not magic. The simple fact is the sampling process has more to work with, as it is also sampling the positive effect tape has on the recorded signal. I call the qualities of tape, “Better than live.” It colors sound in a musical way that is pleasing to the ear. Thus you get a recording that is subjectively more palatable to the human ear, and dare I say the very soul.

I do it all the time. Still to this day, nothing goes to digital before it hits tape. Recording directly to digital always results in less than satisfactory results… without exception. To do otherwise would be compromising my art, and I simply won’t do that. That's the bottom line.

~Tim

 

[Dr ZEE]

Expert on Fire... heh heh
oh, boy

...nonsense.

Cheers Tim

Accepting a vinyl record or a tape from a customer, giving to the customer a compact disc at the end of the "process" and call such "process" a "RESTORATION" is NONSENSE.

To Restore means: to bring back to an original condition. You may want to look up for the definition

Transformation and restoration are NOT the same things.

But, hey, Mr Tim G, for you this is nothing more than just a bunch of meaningless words.
And so, since meaning of the words does not mean much to you, then, sure, you are free to say: "For analog tape to have an infinite sample rate it would need infinite tape speed, infinitely large reels, heads with infinitesimally small losses, etc. And it would all be for nothing (even if it were possible to pull off) because our ears dont have infinite frequency response anyway. Far from it.
Neither analog or digital audio recording methods have 'infinite sampling rate' and neither needs to. It's about having adequate frequency response for the human ear. That's all.".
And that's what you've said.

I say: "Holy Mama frankensteinious Cow in the mud and twelve virgin roosters on the roof!!!!!!!"

oh, boy....
*****************

I like it!

Yeah, Baby! Me too. I get a kick out of Direct Impact.

Sample this! :

 

[Tim Gillett]

Those that don’t understand the benefits of tracking to tape before transferring to digital don’t fully understand sampling.

Sampling (digitally recording) a direct signal is much different than sampling that same signal after its already been recorded to tape. It’s not magic. The simple fact is the sampling process has more to work with, as it is also sampling the positive effect tape has on the recorded signal. I call the qualities of tape, “Better than live.” It colors sound in a musical way that is pleasing to the ear. Thus you get a recording that is subjectively more palatable to the human ear, and dare I say the very soul.

I do it all the time. Still to this day, nothing goes to digital before it hits tape. Recording directly to digital always results in less than satisfactory results… without exception. To do otherwise would be compromising my art, and I simply won’t do that. That's the bottom line.

~Tim

"Better than live" is quite a claim.

Singers devote years of their lives to honing their vocal skills which they perform in front of audiences often without any amplification. Just the beauty of a human singing voice used well. A Domingo, a Kiri. Or a skilled craftsman makes a wonderful sounding violin which is then played by a master violinist in front of a live, appreciative audience. Heifitz, Menuin, Stern. The list could go on.

Apparently that's not good enough. We have to 'enhance' a performance like that with analog tape.

Artistically and from an enjoyment point of view it may or may not enhance the performance. That is an open question.

But from the point of view of authenticity it is tampering with the original live rendition, is it not?

Cheers Tim G

 

[gecko zzed]

"Better than live" is quite a claim.

Yes . . . I too raised my eyebrows when I read that.

It is one thing to claim that analog is better than digital (usually accompanied by phrases that extol the 'warmth' of tape and the 'sterility' of digital).

But it is a bit heroic to declare that analog is an improvement on the live performance.

I've been involved in music since the early sixties, so I grew up with vinyl and tape. For many years I recorded with tape. I disliked the fragility of vinyl and the clicks and pops on records. I had no great affection for the physicality of either medium. I could not buy into the idea of tape warmth and saturation. I loved the music of the sixties, but I hated the way it was recorded.

I celebrate the digital era. I think that coldness does not stem from the technology as such, but from the performance and the skills of the people in the recording chain. I do agree that in the technological obsession with perfection that some people have, and the degree to which digital facilitates this is unhelpful; I observe a lack of naturalness in many recordings, not because of the medium, but because of the way it is used.

 

[Chilljam]

But from the point of view of authenticity it is tampering with the original live rendition, is it not?

Cheers Tim G

definitely. Although personally i believe analog recording sounds more natural, my ears still think a digital recording captures what the actual sound in that room is when your there playing it... (yes that does mean that i think digital has higher fidelity most of the time). Analog definitely adds something and takes away other things that are there in the music when you hear it in the room. Listen to hotel california by the eagles, now don't tell me that they sound like that when they play it in a room together, but it's nice.

I guess what he meant by 'better than live' is that analog adds something to the sound that otherwise isn't there which is true. For most of us on this forum, that is desirable and given that you can't get that sound 'live', you could say analog tape sound is better than live.

 

[jjones1700]

Here we go again with the religious flame war.

Analog vs. digital
Specs vs. personal preference
Windows vs. linux
Creationism vs. evolution
Ford vs. Chevy
et. al.

Blah, blah, blah. It's like the wars in the middle east, they will never end...and therefore pointless.

I agree with Herm; I use it because I like it. I don't care what anyone thinks might be better. Analog is kind of like sticking to a time honored tradition. It is a process which is becoming a dying art; somewhat like an old school barber or photographers that still use and process film. Analog isn't a bunch of lines on a screen or clickety-click of a mouse. The people who like analog like the interaction with the medium and the machines.

There is something about punching the power button and hearing the motors whir around for a second and then go idle, popping a reel of tape out of the box and guiding it onto the reel table, clamping it down, pulling the tape through the series of guides and tensioners, and wrapping it around the take up reel, meanwhile taking the extra second to be careful to hold the leader in place while spinning the reel around to keep it from falling back down. A final revolution on the reel for good measure and then press the play button to get past the first minute or so of tape. Hearing the solenoids kick in and seeing the motors come to life is a never-ending source of amazement. It's the sub-conscious wonderment of how the people came up with these devices and how beautifully they were crafted. Hit the stop button and another "clunk" is heard as everything disengages. Get the levels just right and now it's time to put it in record mode, as the distinct "clunk" is heard again and the reels turn again, but with a purpose this time. The meters dance as the signal passes through and onto the tape. The spinning of the reels becomes hypnotic.

So what the hell is wrong with enjoying the merits of a finely crafted machine? People enjoy vintage cars, vintage airplanes, etc. They all serve a purpose, even still.

I'm just so freakin' tired of seeing the whole specs war with analog vs. digital. You either use it because you want to or you don't; simple as that. I'm not going to rip on somebody because they don't have the same mindset. I use digital from time to time as most of the guys in here. It has it's place in the studio. Digital and analog can coexist in a studio. They both have their respective strengths, which seems to be the source of the religious war between the two camps.

I think I'm going to fire up one of my decks and enjoy some tunes for a couple of hours.

 

[ausrock]

...........even if digital needed healing, which IMO it doesnt.

And therein lies the problem with your participation in the Analogue Only forum................you are satisfied with what digital has to offer, which is fine, so why the hell bother to come here and bother others with your opinions

 

[Tim Gillett]

Exactly, JJones. And why cant it be left at that? We use that gear for the love of it, because it is old perhaps, well made, and for whatever positive reason ..we just enjoy the experience.

Beck likes the effect of analog tape artifacts on, apparently, all music and instruments he listens to, regardless of genre. I could never be like that. I only like that sound on certain instruments in certain types of music, not all the time. But good luck to him for enjoying it as he does.

No, it's when people out of ignorance perhaps say that contemporary digital recordings are harsh, cold, brittle etc that something seems wrong. Digital recordings are a dream come true for anybody who enjoys making or listening to recordings. They can do what they are supposed to do which is basically to give back what you record into it. Mind you analog tape can also do the job remarkably well as it has done for so many years.

After many years spent working with and servicing analog tape machines I have pretty well stopped recording new material to analog tape.
But I continue to maintain and modify existing analog machines in order to replay at best fidelity old one-off analog tape recordings that dont exist in any other form. I get satisfaction from doing that. I still love working with the old machines. I probably own more analog tape machines than most of the regulars on this forum too. It can be hard to part with them. Of course I cant hope to compete with Dave!
Using them just as replay machines means there's no longer much point in aligning their record circuits which I sometimes miss. Sometimes I will align a complete machine just for the love of it even though there seems no practical use for it.

But that's me I guess.

Cheers Tim

 

[Dr ZEE]

... when people out of ignorance perhaps say that contemporary digital recordings are harsh, cold, brittle etc that something seems wrong.

Perhaps they say so out of ignorance.
Perhaps they say so out of experience, and out of in depth knowledge (knowledge and of recording technology and general science, AND! recording industry as well ) and out of serious analysis.
That's perhaps.... one only can guess.

Here's something that one does not need to guess: The following quote erupts with a load of passionate ignorance (lack of knowledge and comprehension of both - recording technology and general science). And that load is so heavy - it hurts! , The quote:

""For analog tape to have an infinite sample rate it would need infinite tape speed, infinitely large reels, heads with infinitesimally small losses, etc. And it would all be for nothing (even if it were possible to pull off) because our ears dont have infinite frequency response anyway. Far from it.
Neither analog or digital audio recording methods have 'infinite sampling rate' and neither needs to. It's about having adequate frequency response for the human ear. That's all."."

**********

... Digital recordings are a dream come true for anybody who enjoys making or listening to recordings. ...

Incorrect. Not true.
Simple Proof:
Fact A: I enjoy making AND listening to recordings.
Fact B: Digital recordings are NOT a dream come true for me.
*************

P.S.
(A general advice. Good for staying healthy )

"When experiencing passion driven by obtaining or possession of a unit of knowledge - DON'T get passionate about it."

 

[Tim Gillett]

1. Mike, if you dont like digital recordings from an acoustic angle you can always say so, and why.

2. Twice you've now quoted what I said about infinite sampling rate without saying why you disagree with it, except in vague allusions to 'knowledge' and 'science'. Tell us what you think is wrong with it in specific terms and we will all benefit from the discussion.

Cheers Tim

 

[Beck]

"Better than live" is quite a claim.

Singers devote years of their lives to honing their vocal skills which they perform in front of audiences often without any amplification. Just the beauty of a human singing voice used well. A Domingo, a Kiri. Or a skilled craftsman makes a wonderful sounding violin which is then played by a master violinist in front of a live, appreciative audience. Heifitz, Menuin, Stern. The list could go on.

Apparently that's not good enough. We have to 'enhance' a performance like that with analog tape.

Artistically and from an enjoyment point of view it may or may not enhance the performance. That is an open question.

But from the point of view of authenticity it is tampering with the original live rendition, is it not?

Cheers Tim G

No, not at all… not in the least. Live has never been the beat-all and end-all in the era of modern recording. (1960’s and later).

I was recording professionally when we still had a music industry (1979 – mid 90’s)

I spent much of my recording career recording classically trained singers, pianists, violinists, choirs, quartets, trios… you name it, in music halls built with acoustics in mind.

We could say using a microphone at all is corrupting the sound and one should either go hear it live or not at all. There is no recording method or medium that does not alter the sound from what one would hear at a live concert in an auditorium, and even that depends on what area of the house the listener is sitting.

The art of recording is all about knowing how to capture the music and translate the essence of that music through various sound reproduction systems used by the end listener.

This is not something you sit around a guess what it might be like in a hypothetical sense. You have either done or you haven’t. Those of us who’ve successfully done recording in these environments know what it takes.

Classically trained singers can be especially problematic, because they are trained to project a non-amplified voice from a stage. Thus diction is as exaggerated as stage makeup so they can be heard as well as seen over greater distance.

So you need to know your craft and the tools that go with it. Analog tape is one of those tools… and so is a compressor, a de-esser, and a pop filter, to name a few. None of these are, “Natural” yet are necessary to make the music sound natural when reproduced in a listener's living room from a given recording medium.

Same with pop music…

From the fan’s perspective live rock in medium to large venues had/has a huge attraction other than sound. It was the energy, the group participation, seeing the band live and all the excitement that goes with it, etc. However, sonic considerations were at the bottom of the list, if even on the list at all.

Most pop concert environments were not even built with music in mind, or perhaps as an afterthought. You never hear people say, “Oh I can’t wait to go to the concert so I can hear the music in its pure unadulterated form!” People don’t say that, and it's not what they’re going for. If you don’t already know the words from listening to the album before, you’re often lost trying to understand the lyrics in a concert environment.

For this reason live recording has always been a challenge to the engineer. Not to capture the live sound as is, but to make it more listenable than the audience heard it at the time. This takes good engineering on site and more postproduction and sweetening than you might have on a typical studio album. I can assure you, the “Live” album is anything but natural. It takes a lot of work behind the scenes to take a live recording and make it sound “Live.” A bit counter intuitive to the layman I’m sure, but I’m not a layman.

People must first and foremost get beyond the myth that digital does not “Color” the original source. Only then can you fully appreciate what analog tape did to make the music industry possible, as we once knew it in pre-digital times.

~Tim

 

[Dr ZEE]

2. Twice you've now quoted what I said about infinite sampling rate without saying why you disagree with it, except in vague allusions to 'knowledge' and 'science'. Tell us what you think is wrong with it in specific terms and we will all benefit from the discussion.

Cheers Tim

Sorry, Tim. I can't do this. Actually nobody can do this.
Can you argue with my statement: "I see a Holy Mama frankensteinious Cow in the mud and twelve virgin roosters on the roof ...everywhere ever I go."
Can you? If you can, good for you.
But I can't argue with your "statement". Simply, I'm not capable.

For one you could at least refrain yourself from applying the word "ignorance" to people who say things about "contemporary digital recordings" that don't fit into your upper chamber. But since you can't control your passions, then take what you ask for. Take it as a man

arghhhhhhhhhhh,
nevermind

 

[ofajen]

The term "infinite sampling rate" gets bandied about in some analog tape circles. It's a myth.

My sense is that what has pushed the buttons of folks here in this forum is that "infinite sampling rate" isn't merely a myth, it's a term that didn't exist in the context of magnetic tape audio, but rather comes from the language (but not the reality) of digital audio and really isn't needed and doesn't really apply to magnetic tape audio.

I suppose some folks who mainly know only something about digital audio might find it to be a convenient notion or limiting case by which to understand something about magnetic tape, but I think that is probably not very helpful. It may also be an arguing point for some analog buffs who feel the need to argue the superiority of audio accuracy of magnetic tape over digital audio, which (argument) is also unneeded and not very helpful.

Cheers,

Otto

 

[Dr ZEE]

... live rock in medium to large venues had/has a huge attraction other than sound. ... sonic considerations were at the bottom of the list, if even on the list at all.

I'd say - no list at all

... “Oh I can’t wait to go to the concert so I can hear the music in its pure unadulterated form!” ...

Ha-hah-ha!
Yeah, baby, good luck.
And get ready to get Pissed BIG TIME, then ...

If you don’t already know the words from listening to the album before, you’re often lost trying to understand the lyrics in a concert environment.

What lyrics?
"Girls, Girls, Girls" ? or something like that ?

 

[Tim Gillett]

No, not at all… not in the least. Live has never been the beat-all and end-all in the era of modern recording. (1960’s and later).

I was recording professionally when we still had a music industry (1979 – mid 90’s)

I spent much of my recording career recording classically trained singers, pianists, violinists, choirs, quartets, trios… you name it, in music halls built with acoustics in mind.

We could say using a microphone at all is corrupting the sound and one should either go hear it live or not at all. There is no recording method or medium that does not alter the sound from what one would hear at a live concert in an auditorium, and even that depends on what area of the house the listener is sitting.

The art of recording is all about knowing how to capture the music and translate the essence of that music through various sound reproduction systems used by the end listener.

This is not something you sit around a guess what it might be like in a hypothetical sense. You have either done or you haven’t. Those of us who’ve successfully done recording in these environments know what it takes.

Classically trained singers can be especially problematic, because they are trained to project a non-amplified voice from a stage. Thus diction is as exaggerated as stage makeup so they can be heard as well as seen over greater distance.

So you need to know your craft and the tools that go with it. Analog tape is one of those tools… and so is a compressor, a de-esser, and a pop filter, to name a few. None of these are, “Natural” yet are necessary to make the music sound natural when reproduced in a listener's living room from a given recording medium.

Same with pop music…

From the fan’s perspective live rock in medium to large venues had/has a huge attraction other than sound. It was the energy, the group participation, seeing the band live and all the excitement that goes with it, etc. However, sonic considerations were at the bottom of the list, if even on the list at all.

Most pop concert environments were not even built with music in mind, or perhaps as an afterthought. You never hear people say, “Oh I can’t wait to go to the concert so I can hear the music in its pure unadulterated form!” People don’t say that, and it's not what they’re going for. If you don’t already know the words from listening to the album before, you’re often lost trying to understand the lyrics in a concert environment.

For this reason live recording has always been a challenge to the engineer. Not to capture the live sound as is, but to make it more listenable than the audience heard it at the time. This takes good engineering on site and more postproduction and sweetening than you might have on a typical studio album. I can assure you, the “Live” album is anything but natural. It takes a lot of work behind the scenes to take a live recording and make it sound “Live.” A bit counter intuitive to the layman I’m sure, but I’m not a layman.

People must first and foremost get beyond the myth that digital does not “Color” the original source. Only then can you fully appreciate what analog tape did to make the music industry possible, as we once knew it in pre-digital times.

~Tim

Tim I agree with virtually everything you said about trying to capture a live performance (you are not the only one to have worked in that field).

I'm especially interested you saw fit to bracket along with processing tools such as compressers and de essers, analog tape! And I think I know what you mean.

But from its inception, magnetic tape recording went on a development pathway of higher and higher fidelity. The engineers were trying to make it less and less unwittingly alter the signal presented to it and instead more like the theoretical perfect amplifier, "a piece of wire with gain". I guess "a piece of wire with memory"! Or to quote a long since defunct British manufacturer , "With the Ferrograph the aim has been to make it a strictly linear device." (from the manual of the Ferrograph Series 5. 1963)

If we speak about a tape recorder sometimes making a live performance "better" in an artistic/ production sense, I see what you mean. But when you speak of a recorder as needing to be non linear as a design and engineering goal, you lose me.

A recorder which can just record faithfully, just like an amp can amplify faithfully (or so closely approximate it that we cant tell the difference) is a dream come true, isnt it?
Sure, analog tape can give some desirable artistic/production effects when, for example, you overdrive it but AFAIK that's not been the design engineer's goal in analog tape's long and distinguished history.

Cheers Tim G.

 

[famous beagle]

Tim I agree with virtually everything you said about trying to capture a live performance (you are not the only one to have worked in that field).

I'm especially interested you saw fit to bracket along with processing tools such as compressers and de essers, analog tape! And I think I know what you mean.

But from its inception, magnetic tape recording went on a development pathway of higher and higher fidelity. The engineers were trying to make it less and less unwittingly alter the signal presented to it and instead more like the theoretical perfect amplifier, "a piece of wire with gain". I guess "a piece of wire with memory"! Or to quote a long since defunct British manufacturer , "With the Ferrograph the aim has been to make it a strictly linear device." (from the manual of the Ferrograph Series 5. 1963)

If we speak about a tape recorder sometimes making a live performance "better" in an artistic/ production sense, I see what you mean. But when you speak of a recorder as needing to be non linear as a design and engineering goal, you lose me.

A recorder which can just record faithfully, just like an amp can amplify faithfully (or so closely approximate it that we cant tell the difference) is a dream come true, isnt it?
Sure, analog tape can give some desirable artistic/production effects when, for example, you overdrive it but AFAIK that's not been the design engineer's goal in analog tape's long and distinguished history.

Cheers Tim G.

But seriously though, Tim. If digital really did "give back what you put in" back when this was first claimed, why have they felt the need to continually upgrade sample rates, bit-depth, etc.?

 

[Blue Jinn]

I'd say - no list at all



Ha-hah-ha!
Yeah, baby, good luck.
And get ready to get Pissed BIG TIME, then ...


At this point in my life when I get to see a band live, I wear earplugs to save the old eardrums. Ain't nothing unadulterated about that.

 

[Tim Gillett]

But seriously though, Tim. If digital really did "give back what you put in" back when this was first claimed, why have they felt the need to continually upgrade sample rates, bit-depth, etc.?

Who are "they"?

The CD as a consumer format at 44/16 came out in 82.
27 years on, we still have the CD unchanged as a consumer format.

Some years ago, higher than CD res formats came out such as SACD and DVD A. The uptake from consumers has been small.
Many consumers especially the young and mobile listen almost exclusively to mp3's, a lower than CD quality format.

I only mention consumer formats here. Yes, manufacturers have provided higher res formats and the public have mostly left them sitting on the shelves. Why would that be?

Cheers Tim