Would you do analog recording ?

[Greg_L]

Cool your jets big boy! LOL! I wouldn't exactly say I latched on to anything. I just asked if anyone had read the article since it was basically about this topic. Personally, if I were rich, I'd have myself a Studer, a nice board, racks of outboard gear, and employ two full-time engineers so that I could record 24/7, whenever the urge hit me. However, since I went bust after the dotcom bubble burst, I guess digital is the way to go!

I wasn't talking about you. I just used your post to make my point about hero worship.

 

[Greg_L]

OK, we're cool....and if you read some of my earlier posts, .

I didn't. I have no idea what stance you're taking here. I saw a some long miro posts and I know you use tape, so I knew where this was going without even reading it. My comments about tape people weren't about you specifically, but more about the attitudes of tape people.

 

[XploZiveToyz]

I wasn't talking about you. I just used your post to make my point about hero worship.

Do it again and I'll give Barry C your phone number!

 

[Greg_L]

Do it again and I'll give Barry C your phone number!

Go ahead. I'll track him down and make him my prison bitch.

 

[miroslav]

I didn't. I have no idea what stance you're taking here. I saw a some long miro posts and I know you use tape, so I knew where this was going without even reading it. My comments about tape people weren't about you specifically, but more about the attitudes of tape people.

Yeah, I use tape...but I don't always agree with some of the Analog Only forum guys on everything tape/analog.

Some of it has to do with me running a hybrid tape/analog/digital setup...so I don't always fit in with some of the "only analog" views, and then there are my views on what type of tape and analog setups people are running, and how that translates in real-world recording AFA sound and stuff... if you are after something decent as an end-product.

I've been in the 4-track world, that's what I started on, so I can dig when someone is having fun with their portastudio....etc....but when the discussions get a little more deeper about tape & analog gear, I have a hard time listening to someone who's really only dabbled a bit with a cassette deck or open reel deck.... and they're going on and on about how much *better* it sounds than digital.
I mean...that shit is just over the top sometimes.

If I didn't think tape was something worth using....I would not have gone from the 4-track, to the 16-track, to the 24-track. I mean, I'm not proving anything to anyone....I got no clients to "impress"....it's just a personal choice, and I find it both enjoyable and rewarding to use as part of my recording process.

 

[XploZiveToyz]

Go ahead. I'll track him down and make him my prison bitch.

That's what the pathetic bastard really wants. He just craves some Greg Time.

 

[grimtraveller]

You miss the point.

I think not. I've answered it a few times.

Point I was/am making is that when someone says "analog recording"...it really IS much more than just using a tape recorder. People erroneously thinking it's just about "tape", even en-mass on this forum....doesn't make it so.

In your view. Which is, at best, debatable and was debated and answered by Farview.
To lots of people, all the extra bits and bobs are not what come to mind when they're asked a question about recording, as the OP asks "on analog recorders." As the Stones sang, "Well, I've told you once and I've told you twice......This will be the last time...." My opening post did not speak of analog recording. I did not use the phrase. I asked about recording on analog recorders.

That fact that some digital folks THINK it's just about the tape deck....is wrong.

Well, there are obviously differing aspects of recording to tape but that's actually irrelevant for the purposes of the questions. They're simple "would you ?" or "wouldn't you ?" and with a couple of notable exceptions, everyone that's answered has seen it that way.
For the final time.

Also, knowing (and not knowing) what a tape recorder does for audio, is NOT the same as knowing about what war does to people.
That's a lousy comparison.

It isn't. That's why it's a comparison. Of course it's not the same as. I used it here to demonstrate that you don't have to have direct experience of something to have thoughts about it. And having an interest in recording to tape having not done so doesn't invalidate your thoughts on whether you'd like to.

Sorry for the derail

Don't be. Sometimes, the intensity needs a little light relief.

Grim is after one thing - an argument with someone.

Not really. I like a peaceful life, even in Cyberspace. Besides, you can't really argue with someone if they say they'd consider recording to tape or wouldn't switch back to tape. I'm more interested in the path they've taken to get where they are than in getting someone to do something they've chosen not to.

but this thread, like so many, is just a debate of differing views. If we didn't have these...then you could just close down HR and there would only be an FAQ on how to do this and that for recording.....no discussion and no differences of opinion.

It's more about this.

 

[miroslav]

In your view. Which is, at best, debatable and was debated and answered by Farview.
To lots of people, all the extra bits and bobs are not what come to mind when they're asked a question about recording, as the OP asks "on analog recorders."

I'm not debating about what YOU meant, I just wanted to be clear.
I was stating that IMO, "analog recording" or "digital recording" often refers to the more complete "process of recording".
That's not to say we can't narrow the discussion down to just the *recording device*....though alone, a tape deck is not going to do much for you, as you do need more equipment in the front end, and certainly in the back end...
...so then that broadens the discussion as to what the equipment would or could be....analog, digital, both...??????
That's all I was and am getting at.

He recorded his album using analog.
What does that really mean or imply....???

 

[Farview]

When you are recording digitally, the only thing digital about the recording process is the recorder. Up until it gets recorded, it is all analog. So the main (only) difference between analog and digital recording is the recording medium, tape or data.

I could see your point with mixing, but not recording.

 

[miroslav]

Well...if you want to limit the term "recording process" to just mean the act of recording to a medium....OK, but I'm saying that when people talk about "recording"....they really do mean the more complete process.

When we say "recording studio"....that means much more than just the place were you use a "recorder" and nothing more....right?
"We're going to be recording our album in the next two months"....also implies a complete product, and not just one phase of the whole process.
An audio recording engineer does more than just operate the recorder.

At least that's how I think people would read that....but we can certainly just talk about *recorders* here....as if alone they have any real significant impact, and without considering or discussing the rest of the signal chain.
I'm all about looking at the complete signal chain...which is why I don't say...."I record in analog" or "I record in digital"....because I use a hybrid setup, and the "recorder" is just one item in my hybrid recording process.

Anyway...at this point I know what Grim means, and what you mean, and you guys know what I mean....so it's all clear now.

 

[miroslav]

Hey Jay....speaking of analog.....you still have the Ghost, or did you sell it (or was that someone else here)...?

 

[Greg_L]

When you are recording digitally, the only thing digital about the recording process is the recorder. Up until it gets recorded, it is all analog. So the main (only) difference between analog and digital recording is the recording medium, tape or data.

I could see your point with mixing, but not recording.

That was my point in my first post about it. I only object to using actual tape. I want as much analog signal as I can until it becomes raw data.

 

[acidrock]

I'm not reading sixteen pages, and there's no way I'm waiting for a tape to rewind either.

 

[Farview]

Hey Jay....speaking of analog.....you still have the Ghost, or did you sell it (or was that someone else here)...?

I sold it to someone in Nashville.

The urei 813's went all the way to poland!

 

[John Willett]

…are we now just talking about “tape” or about any/all “analog” gear…..

My negative comments were only about tape recording and not about any other analogue gear.

 

[mdainsd]

Yeah, that it is "horrible". You are the first person I have ever seen post something that damning of analog tape. Probably suitable for a discussion, but in a newbie forum? Really?

 

[Greg_L]

Yeah, that it is "horrible". You are the first person I have ever seen post something that damning of analog tape. Probably suitable for a discussion, but in a newbie forum? Really?

Should n00bs be protected from his opinion? Why?

You should take down your sig. Think of the n00bs.

 

[grimtraveller]

It took me about 5 songs on a 4 track portastudio to conclude that it was too limiting and that all the wonderful recordings that came about through bouncing on 4 tracks in the 60s weren't going to be happening with me !
I was advised by a guy in a shop in the course of my research to avoid 8 track portastudios but that's the way I went. For the next 17 years, I had a ball. Most of what I know about recording came in that period. Sometimes, it was quite limiting but with track sharing, there was always a way around it, even if mixing was a logistical nightmare for my memory !
It was a chance remark by Charlie Watts in a Rolling Stones "In their own words" autobiography that I was reading at the end of 2003 that sowed the seeds of me going over to the dark side. He was commenting on changes within the biz and he said something like "if you wanted a tabla on a track back then in the 60s, you'd rent a tabla player and bring him to the studio whereas nowadays, you'd just use a sample." That intrigued me. And I had been in conversations with a couple of security guards at a place I did deliveries at who did their own recording and for a long time they would extol the virtues of computers. They recommended "Computer recording" and "Sound on sound" to give me some idea of what they were talking about. I also bought a couple of books on computer recording and read them. I understood very little of what I read but I did understand about some of the editing that could be done. That's what really sold me. I liked the idea of being able to muck around and not have to cut the tape. Digital really is my razor blade.
One day, I happened to be walking past a shop I've used since '94 called Rockstop and I saw a Zoom 12 track DAW and I had a quick read of the blurb and bought it. Although I soon sold it and got an AKAI DPS12i instead I was on the road to digitalia. It turned out not to be the horror show that certain people said it was. My stuff sounded pretty much the same and my workflow barely altered because of the new medium.
All these years on, my stuff sounds better not because of the medium, but because I've progressed. Both with tape and digital, I could record whole 22 minute pieces in one go or in sections.
I wouldn't go back to tape simply because there's no need for me to. I tend to never go back. The only time I've gone back to something musically was when I went back to acoustic drums after a 2 year flirtation with a Roland electric kit. I'm a small time hobbyist with no designs on conquering any worlds. When I say "I dig analog and digital", perhaps what I'm really saying is "I loved the Tascam 488 and love the AKAI DPS12i."
It's all Moroccan roll.

 

[mdainsd]

edit: delete

 

[Greg_L]

whatever

Exactly. Stop trying to play policeman, especially since you are obviously biased. Had he called digital horrible you'd be internet high fiving him all over the place.