Mixing & Mastering a 100% analog session to vinyl

[Victory Pete]

Yeah, RHCP, Foos, doesn't really matter what you record with if you're gonna master stuff like that. Might as well use a Mr. Microphone. Preferably one with the T-Pain effect to fix Kiedis

Note how SA vs. BSSM are pretty much the same pre-master recording chain and can be the same consumer format (CD), but one sounds quite a lot different than the other

Rock and Roll seems to be more popular here than some "Pretentious" Grandpa Classical Music.

VP

Once again VP you miss the point by several miles. All of those artists' recordings in the last ten years are rather terrible masters that people mostly heard sourced from CD. Yeah, some of them had vinyl releases, but relatively few people have heard them and the vinyl gets almost no radio airplay. When you hear "Around the World" or "Snow" on the radio, you're hearing digital, and a rather bad digital master at that, and that's what fans seem to like . . . they are great songs, even with Kiedis' vocals The funny thing is the equally analog production/digital CDs they did before 1998 sound great, even though the digital equipment should have been lower grade. So it's clear that bad sound has little to do with tools and much to do with method.

Yeah, the bands like analog (although Radiohead, for example, has a massively non-linear hybrid approach, and most of the others had hybrid production too), but the fans don't hear it. Just a few of the vinyl fanbois, and they are probably still hearing a vinyl master sourced from a (different) digital master or maybe a tape master sourced from PT that is a mix off of 2" that might be a recording of, among other things, digitally generated noises.

Which pretty much destroys Beck's argument about digital artifacts, because once introduced they cannot go away by using a process that is more linear. There is no such thing as a magic box that can remove distortion once printed. So most of those vinyl releases should sound like ass, according to Beck, but they probably sound pretty much like any other vinyl release.

Also, R&R *is* grandpa music. If you doubt that, I'll forward you some of the emails I get from their agents. Wanna book the "Teen Idol" tour? Nope, not Bieber: Noone, Dolenz, and Lindsay.

BTW do you like Radiohead, Foos, and RHCP (all of whose members are over 40 now)? Did you like Nirvana? You seem to like more dinosaur rock bands like Floyd from what you usually say.

Seems like your initial post was "Condascending" towards the mentioned "Artists". I am around the same age as those guys and at the time even though my band was labeled "Seattle Sound", I didnt pay much attention to them. I was still stuck in my favorite bands from when I was a "Wee Lad". But compared to the "Anemic" bands of today that 90's stuff is alright with me.

VP

 

[Jeff Ling]

Hey Vinny, sounds like a great project. I used to track on an Otari 1" 16 track, but 8 big fat tracks on 1"... 'oughta be killer!
Try to listen to you mixes in mono a few times as the cutting engineer tends to do a bit of that to make his equipment happy. Sometimes not hard panning overheads and reverb returns can be helpful. Good luck on your project!

 

[Blue Jinn]

OK, from a HR standpoint, how are you guys mastering in analog? (For the complete analog diy project -- assuming you're going to send a 1/4" or 1/2" tape out) For sake of discussion, I'll use mastering to mean getting the songs all in order with consistent volume, eq, etc.

1. Mixing to half track, then sending to a second half track?

2. Splicing and comparing?

3. ???

 

[Tim Gillett]

Tim, the painfully obvious answer is that many people can hear the artifacts and others don't seem to be so sensitive to it that it interferes with listening on a conscious level. That's simply the answer and end of debate. You can continue with the vain babbling, but there is a correct answer and that is it. The mistake you and many others continue to make is to believe you and your limitations are representative of, “everybody else.”

Again, for the millionth time, the people that can witness a phenomenon have the advantage in a logical debate. Someone like Chuck Yeagar with 20/10 vision is a witness that there is something beyond that which you can detect with your poorer vision. When your senses are inadequate you have to ask someone else. That’s probably the best analogy and the closest to bringing this down to a 3rd grade level of comprehension I can manage without having a lobotomy or burning my brain to a cinder by dropping acid until I can’t dress myself. Logical debate isn’t simply whatever you decide to make up. There’s nothing mystical or confusing about it. The evidence presented is overwhelming… simply the sheer number of people in the civilized world that have consistently testified for decades to something objectionable and interfering with their enjoyment of digitally sampled (recorded) music.

There would be no controversy if the phenomenon didn’t first bother a large segment of the population and continue to do so.

For some reason there’s this irrational belief among many music people that everyone is somehow blessed with the same sensitivities when it comes to hearing. People are not wired the same in any of our physical senses. We are all quite different.

You don’t see people hanging their heads in shame because they must wear corrective lenses… glasses and/or contacts, but there seems to be this denial when it comes to audio perception. It’s irrational because it goes against everything we know about sensory perception in human physiology. And that is we are absolutely not created equal in how we are wired. People can share broad commonalities in large enough groups that the groups are quite distinct from one another.

Here’s the bottom line if you want to be correct rather than simply argue with no intentions of reaching any conclusions.

1. There are people who are bothered by digital artifacts and are consciously aware that certain digital processing is the source of an unpleasantness in music recording and reproduction.

2. There are people who are negatively affected to varying degrees by certain digital artifacts, but generally lack the understanding and vocabulary to connect the dots and verbalize the source of the unpleasantness. This category may be the largest category, and as a music professional you should be concerned about the impact on recorded music from either an artistic or purely economic perspective… or a bit of both. This segment is most likely to be controlled unaware… pushed and pulled to and away from certain genres based on subtle aural pain avoidance. Their listening habits largely depend on recording formats and processing.

3. There are people who really don’t seem to be bothered enough by digital artifacts to impact their tastes or enjoyment of recorded music.

If you fit into category number 3 you should be concerned about 1 and 2… those unlike yourself who can hear hash and crap in the music you create, record, produce, etc. Anything less and you really don’t care that much about your generation’s turn at keeping the music flame burning for posterity. In that case we also have a debate between people who don’t care and people who do. Maybe that’s even the larger context of this issue when it comes down to brass tacks.

If you really care about how your or your client’s music is received it’s going to be more important for you to actually be correct rather than appear correct, even if you stand corrected. I call that a professional attitude. Anything less is jacking off.

Tim B, if what you so confidently assert above is true you should have no problems providing the detailed hard evidence to back it up. Facts and figures please. Over to you.

Tim G

 

[famous beagle]

In my humble opinion, the vast majority of people (if not everyone) would not be able to tell the difference between an analog recording and a (high-quality) digital copy of one in a double blind test. I'm fairly sure I wouldn't be able to tell.

As I mentioned earlier, I record to analog because I enjoy the process---not because I think digital "sounds like crap." I may have thought that a while ago, but I've since realized that I was hearing what I wanted to hear. When I arranged a simple blind test of my own, I couldn't tell at all.

I just wish everyone would lay down their weapons and let everyone use what they want to use.

Tim, for what it's worth, you did start this. Why did you feel compelled to chime in? On an analog only forum too?

 

[Victory Pete]

In my humble opinion, the vast majority of people (if not everyone) would not be able to tell the difference between an analog recording and a (high-quality) digital copy of one in a double blind test. I'm fairly sure I wouldn't be able to tell.

As I mentioned earlier, I record to analog because I enjoy the process---not because I think digital "sounds like crap." I may have thought that a while ago, but I've since realized that I was hearing what I wanted to hear. When I arranged a simple blind test of my own, I couldn't tell at all.

I just wish everyone would lay down their weapons and let everyone use what they want to use.

Tim, for what it's worth, you did start this. Why did you feel compelled to chime in? On an analog only forum too?

In my humble opinion, I think some people can tell the difference. I think I can hear "Harshness" in cymbals.

VP

 

[lonewhitefly]

In my humble opinion, the vast majority of people (if not everyone) would not be able to tell the difference between an analog recording and a (high-quality) digital copy of one in a double blind test. I'm fairly sure I wouldn't be able to tell.

As I mentioned earlier, I record to analog because I enjoy the process---not because I think digital "sounds like crap." I may have thought that a while ago, but I've since realized that I was hearing what I wanted to hear. When I arranged a simple blind test of my own, I couldn't tell at all.

I just wish everyone would lay down their weapons and let everyone use what they want to use.

Tim, for what it's worth, you did start this. Why did you feel compelled to chime in? On an analog only forum too?

I've mentioned this before, but I would not be too quick to put much value in a simple double-blind test. The differences are subtle and may not be readily apparent. In my opinion, it's not so much what you hear but what is felt. And pinpointing when you have that 'feeling' and when you don't is something difficult to do consciously.

I also agree there may be some sonic differences. I notice it mostly in the top end of things like hi-hats. I'm not sure I would call it 'harsh', but maybe a 'plastic' type quality. There also seems to be some kind of subtle sonic 'sheen' applied over everything after it's transferred to digital. In my mind, I seem to hear it as something weird in the highs that wasn't present before ... as if the digital is adding something there.

that said, people hear what they want to hear and believe want they want to believe. is there really a difference? probably. can we prove it for sure? probably not.

 

[lo.fi.love]

Hey guys, nice forum! I'm new here, do you talk about analog audio here, or do you squabble about recording technologies?

Har har har. Seriously, get over it and move the discussion to another forum.

Let's talk about mixing and mastering using an analog chain!!

To quote the original post:

For vinyl mastering I have read that only a little compression should be used with no peak limiting. I must LPF at 15KHz and HPF at 40Hz. I must mono everything below 300Hz. I must de-ess the hell out of vocals. Any other ideas/do I even need to do all of this? I am in contact with the cutter himself so he's also giving me pointers.

Where did you get this information about filtering, and mono-ing everything below 300Hz? I've never heard this before and I'm extremely skeptical, do you have a link??

 

[zorf]

thanks lo fi for getting the thread back on track.

 

[Beck]

If we didn’t squabble on this forum it would be dead. You’ll notice the forum can go for days or weeks with little activity until there’s a controversy. Web forums of this type in general are a lot quieter than they used to be. Everyone is on facebook and twitter. I’ve actually tried many times over the years to get people out into another thread to discuses a side issue. It only works if people are willing to follow into that other thread. Someone who’s trying to stir things up is trolling anyway, so they aren’t inclined to leave the thread they want to vent in.

But if you can get any thread in any forum on any site to, “Stay on topic” more power to ya. I’ve never seen it done. By nature these threads mutate. (It's a nice thought though I agree)

If Tim G would be so kind as to open a separate thread to discuss the side issues which he started, I’d be happy to present my arguments there.

 

[Tim Gillett]

Tim B,

It seems you are now inviting a separate discussion on the issue of audibility of digital artifacts. If you're happy to discuss this, I am too, and I'm sure others will contribute.

Not sure what else I would say though as I dont have a problem with digital artifacts. Perhaps some artifacts are there at a very low level but I wasnt aware that they were audible. So there's not much else I feel I could add, but maybe stuff would come out as a discussion proceeded.

It seems audible digital artifacts are a big issue for you. So I feel it's appropriate you start the thread. I'll happily join in the discussion as in times past, if I feel I have something to contribute.

Regards Tim G

 

[zorf]

maybe we could have a special fight section on this site.

 

[lonewhitefly]

maybe we could have a special fight section on this site.

How about the 'Analog Only' forum, and then the 'Analog vs. Digital' forum? I got a lot of crap from the (thinly disguised) Pro-Digital people when I reminded them this was an 'Analog ONLY' section. I ultimately realized what Beck posted earlier -- that the 'discussions' are inevitable, and at least it's mildy entertaining at times.

 

[Beck]

Tim B,

It seems you are now inviting a separate discussion on the issue of audibility of digital artifacts. If you're happy to discuss this, I am too, and I'm sure others will contribute.

Not sure what else I would say though as I dont have a problem with digital artifacts. Perhaps some artifacts are there at a very low level but I wasnt aware that they were audible. So there's not much else I feel I could add, but maybe stuff would come out as a discussion proceeded.

It seems audible digital artifacts are a big issue for you. So I feel it's appropriate you start the thread. I'll happily join in the discussion as in times past, if I feel I have something to contribute.

Regards Tim G

Oh? When you think you have something to contribute, eh? LOL

Well how about this, Tim G? Next time you see a thread like this why don’t you think longer… maybe count to ten before you’re sure you have something to contribute. That way perhaps this wouldn’t happen nearly so much. Next time you feel that pressure to inappropriately hijack a thread in the “Analog Only” forum that dares to express some preference for analog… maybe that could be a clue to yourself that you should start a separate thread to say what you feel you must say.

Remember, you jumped in this thread making declarations and offering no, “Hard evidence” or explanation. You leave others no choice but to let new members know how regularly inaccurate and off the wall your contributions are. Not sure what you think you're doing. You don't represent "The Digital Perspective" or "The Analog Perspective." It's more along the lines of, "The Thoroughly Confused and in over your head Perspective."

Be well, and take those meds on the schedule prescribed if ya got ‘em. Some folks wait until they feel screwy. Well, that’s too damn late!

 

[Tim Gillett]

Well it seems Tim Beck is still here, still the vigilant partisan ranger, patrolling the borders of his (rather diminished these days) little cyber fiefdom.

Reassuring to know some things never change...

 

[zorf]

maybe we could have a tims section?

 

[famous beagle]

Well it seems Tim Beck is still here, still the vigilant partisan ranger, patrolling the borders of his (rather diminished these days) little cyber fiefdom.

Reassuring to know some things never change...

Tim,

I don't know Beck very well at all, so I don't really know the history between y'all. I know that he's been very helpful to me on a few of my questions throughout the years.

However, in this case, I must say he has a point. Where else in the www are we supposed to be able to "live and let live" with regards to the A vs D debate if not in an analog only forum? You clearly have your pro digital agenda, which is fine. But why bring it into a discussion that's supposed to be analog only?

 

[Tim Gillett]

famous beagle,

You seem uninformed. Why not read up on some of the wildly anti digital diatribes that have so often filled the Analog forum threads over the years. It's all there on public record in the archives.

The unspoken rule here is it's quite OK to discuss digital audio endlessly -so long as you're negative about it. No other views are accepted.

Live and let live? I wish...

Tim G





.

 

[famous beagle]

famous beagle,

Why not read up on some of the wildly anti digital diatribes that have so often filled the Analog forum threads over the years?

I have read up on some of these, and that's one of the reasons why I'm tired of this stupid debate.

But again, referencing your quote above .... where else would you prefer anti-digital threads go, if not in the an - a - log on - ly forum?

It's as if you're trolling into a club called "All We Play Is Techno" and preaching about the reasons why classic rock is so much better.

The forum is called analog only. It says it's a place to discuss all things analog. This thread was about someone wanting to do all analog stuff with their music.

But for some reason you feel the need to chime in here and start preaching digital. I don't get it.

Is there a problem with a lot of analog people trolling the Pro Tools, Cakewalk, or Reaper forums and talking about why digital sucks? (That's not just a rhetorical question; I honestly don't know. I haven't seen evidence of it, but I don't know for sure.)

 

[lonewhitefly]

famous beagle,

You seem uninformed. Why not read up on some of the wildly anti digital diatribes that have so often filled the Analog forum threads over the years. It's all there on public record in the archives.

The unspoken rule here is it's quite OK to discuss digital audio endlessly -so long as you're negative about it. No other views are accepted.

Live and let live? I wish...

Tim G





.

The assumption in a forum such as this is that the "A vs. D" debate has already been settled. Analog won. If you disagree, you're probably in the wrong place. Why don't you go into a 'Democrats Only' forum and tell 'em why Republicans are better? You're just ruffling feathers ...