Would you do analog recording ?

[1wedge]

Analog

I doubt I would ever go back to full analog, start to finish, recording. In an ideal setup, I would have the ability to take my buss sub-mixes (drums, vox, guitar, etc.) and send them to say an 8 channel reel to reel. Even if I don't actually record to tape, just the preamps in the deck would add some analog warmth, but getting it to tape would be great. I keep a few old mixing boards around for tracking because I love their sound. I have one old passive 8 channel mixer where the eq section is basically "cut" only. The thing sounds incredible, especially on drums. In the new digital world, I believe there will always be a place for analog. That's how we hear when there are no electronics between a source and out ears. Its ultimately up to the artist / engineer when they think incorporating analog into a mix is a benefit.
~W

 

[philbo]

For those that record digitally, would you ever consider recording on analog recorders if they were freely available ?
And for those that made the change to digital, would you ever go back to analog ?
Do you think that the evolution of digital recording and it's tools have brought about a different kind of musician and engineer than the one that existed pre~digital ?
The thoughts of those with hybrid set ups and those that don't record digitally are more than welcome.

I've worked on some stuff in the past that was printed to vinyl, and did a lot of recording to tape over the years. It's much more expensive (a full LP on 2 inch tape will fill the trunk of a good-sized car, and cost about $500), and one must learn a lot about the limitations of tape to get the sound you want. Then there is constant maintenance of the tape transport (cleaning and demagnetizing heads at the start of every session). The time needed to rewind tape at the end of each take also adds significantly to the time spent (more cost!) in the studio. There are also specialized techniques and skills used just for tape - - like splicing, punching in & out, window edits; etc.

The upside is the 'magic' tape compression sound. It can do good things to your sound.

 

[philbo]

You use the tools you want to get the result you want.

If you really want a good analogue tape sound, it may be a good idea to record on tape and then take the output of the replay head direct to a DAW. This way you get all the characteristics of the analogue tape sound, but without any print-through, as you take the signal off the tape before any print-through occurs.

This is how I use my tape machines now - - more like an outboard processor than recording medium. I generally mix to 4 stems, then bounce them through my old Teac 3340S back into the DAW before doing the final mixdown.

 

[kr236rk]

yes but

Yes, but - the only analogue music recording I ever did was onto cassettes, & for me they suck (stretch/distort/jam tight) big time. There used to be a 1/4" reel-to-reel up at the old home, that's about it. I have never even seen an analogue recording studio set up. But still I am interested, because analogue is vinyl (quality sound) and vinyl is cool sleeve artwork. But that's a dream & I will continue with my DAW because it knocks what I was able to achieve on C-90s into the cocked hat in the corner

 

[altruistica]

I've just read a few comments on this thread...my tuppence worth.

One can't possibly talk about the quality of analog recording without talking about specific equipment. One of the best made multitracks ever made (Studer A827) is nothing like a four-track portastudio. Not that I've ever used a Studer, but I have heard albums that were made on those machines and they sound wonderful.

John makes the point about digital equipment from the 80's but it sounds like he's talking about 2-track machines. I think this is different than multitracking digitally where many separate pieces of audio are summed digitally. This is where all the digital artifacts seem to come from.....even mixing digital multitrack recordings on an analogue console sound 'better' in my opinion than mixing ITB.

I remember buying one of the first DAT players in the late 80s ( Casio DA-1 I think it was called). I've just Googled it now....A/D 15bit and D/A 16bit.....giving a NR of 85dB. At the time I was using REVOX 1/4" reel to reels as mastering machines which must have been around the 55dB NR, so the apparent quality was noticeably different......but better? My ears are different now and so is my knowledge and experience....so maybe that's why I'm gravitating back to tape.....the hiss probably bothers me less cause I can't hear it now!

I think hybrid is the way to go...you wouldn't ask an artist to solely use pastels or oils or acrylics......same difference to me.

The individual project should dictate the medium.

Al

 

[kr236rk]

The 4 track I used was fun but compared to a DAW primitive. The analogue sound was interesting but it doesn't resemble LP's from back in the day, which were generally precise and crisp (like a DAW). My project is like an experiment with analogue tape multi-tracking in the 21st century, and that's what it sounds like - which is all well and good. I feel I benefited from the experience and the kind help I received from the forum

 

[haunt]

I just want to sound good. There's always a rub, whether maintaining and fixing finicky analog gear or the frustration of being faced with fixing (in the mix) the recordings of other finicky folks and fakers. "Easy" doesn't seem to translate well to *sounding good* AFAIC. Typical of life.

Some styles of music just sound "right" or "more right" when recorded to tape, in part due to their rise to prominence during the height of analog recording. Obviously cassettes sound little like open reels, but *digital* sounds even less like it/them. I don't think there's any one perfect format, compromise is a given.

But punk, hardcore, noise rock, dancehall, hiphop, black metal and even musique concrete all sound extra raw, even more authentic when put to tape and played back. Lofi or hifi. I don't want a sheen of pristine clarity or flat response where I feel it is out of place. Same goes for tape saturation. It's hardly a skeleton key.

For low-level classical music, minimal techno and acoustic folk? The greater S:N and consistency of digital formats is ideal. Digital recording colors audio, too...but in a different, more transparent sounding way with lower noise floor than analog recording. It's hardly a magic wand.

An interesting observation I've made (IMO) when picking brains and discussing recording setups with PRO TOOLS-only guys; there's a pattern of emphasis put on "being industry standard" as their end game. A high degree of uniformity is found between setups and stressed as being essential to record anything thrown its way in attempt to chart a hit record. I'm reminded of stories of studios from 20 years ago, chasing u87/ADAT setups on top of the SSL. And A800. While I view this philosophy as misguided, I'm aware there's no accounting for taste and varying sonic prefs exist W/R/T whats best to realize personal vision. Do what ye will; I think it's best to do your own thing and not really concern oneself with how other people do things...that don't affect your doings.

 

[ecc83]

To me this analogue lovefest is a relatively new phenomenon.
When recording great musicians, be they classical, jazz, big band whatever, the recording engineer was not so vain as to want to "warn up" the sound!
Sure, he wanted the best recording he could make but that was essentially capturing the actual sound in the studio or hall.
Digital recording is far and away the most accurate way of doing this. Of course, if the aim is to CREATE a "piece of art" then tape will add distortion but do not for one moment forget that the "old guys" were forever battling against the limitations of their technology!

And re the dig about the Commadore PC. Digital (PCM) recording was articled in the September 1973 issue of the AES journal by N.Sato of the OKI Electric Co Japan and Hiroshi Twahamura et.al of the Nippon Columbia Co Japan.
They are at pains to point out that PCM recording is superior in almost every parameter to analogue tape.

Stand alone hardware is shown and commercial digital recorders soon followed.

Dave.

 

[haunt]

To me this analogue lovefest is a relatively new phenomenon.
When recording great musicians, be they classical, jazz, big band whatever, the recording engineer was not so vain as to want to "warn up" the sound!
Sure, he wanted the best recording he could make but that was essentially capturing the actual sound in the studio or hall.
Digital recording is far and away the most accurate way of doing this. Of course, if the aim is to CREATE a "piece of art" then tape will add distortion but do not for one moment forget that the "old guys" were forever battling against the limitations of their technology!

And re the dig about the Commadore PC. Digital (PCM) recording was articled in the September 1973 issue of the AES journal by N.Sato of the OKI Electric Co Japan and Hiroshi Twahamura et.al of the Nippon Columbia Co Japan.
They are at pains to point out that PCM recording is superior in almost every parameter to analogue tape.

Stand alone hardware is shown and commercial digital recorders soon followed.

Dave.

Could the desire to "warm up" audio as a recent phenomena, be pushback from the trend where everything became overly loud and bright with digital recording? The loudness war that existed prior to PCM technologies only became a matter of rapid ear-fatigue after 0dB headroom was no longer treated as a hard cap tech limitation, but a mandate. Brickwalling mixes to sound cranked and IN YO FACE at low listening levels wasn't something being done with the "best musicians" of the 20th century. Perhaps the technology that is superior in nearly every way encourages use that emphasizes less than flattering detail? Battling limitations of technology is a constant struggle...one that humans have dealt with since our earliest inventions. It's the cost of doing business. User limitations, however, will be problematic with or without technology complicating things its promoters promise to make simpler...or better...for a premium. Caveat Emptor.

A superior artist should be able to achieve remarkable, even spectacular results from any chosen medium. Personally I think one of the most interesting characteristics of analog circuitry is the variety between similar, yet different hardware due to component tolerances, variety and topology. Fuzz pedals from the 60s and 70s are a great example of potential in deviation. Many view the construction techniques and materials as flawed, inefficient and inferior. So what? A little experimentation and intrigue are welcome here, along with happy accidents, some chaos and flaws that turn out to be flattering. The purest copper wire may not sound the best in transformers and pickups for my purposes. Limitations are challenges to overcome and workaround keep you curious, variety is the spice of life blah blah blah.

There is much wisdom and beauty beyond better numbers, efficiency, trends, and the predictable. And also in trying what others aren't doing, for whatever reason.

 

[ecc83]

"A superior artist should be able to achieve remarkable, even spectacular results from any chosen medium. "

What rubbish. An "artist" such as a classical pianist will be, and always was, looking for the very best recording medium. They are concerned with the MUSIC and conveying that in its best possible light.

If by "artist" you mean a person who both plays AND gets involved in the recording process in a creative way then yes, they can do as they like but all I could do is capture another's performance and they would not have been happy if the results had been unduly marred by wow, noise or one of the legion flaws of analogue recording.

The recording PROCESS is not to blame for the excesses of the industry. Even discs were cut that jumped in less than V15/SME rigs.

I noticed only yesterday listening to opera via Radio 3 HD and my Tannoys how clean and clear was the soprano. Very rarely have I heard the human voice reproduced on v disc without a degree of harshness.

Perhaps I am luckier than most of the rest the world ? I grew up listening to music reproduced via high quality FM and, as soon as I was able to afford it (mono!) a decent speaker. I had to fix the Dansettes, Blaupunkts and Fidelities (sorry Neil!) to earn a crust but I did not like the sound!

For at least 95% of the listening public high quality sound is gone. They listen on grotty PC speakers or low rate MP3 on buds.

And "pure" copper wire does not have a "sound" despite what the Russ A brigade claim. It has a bit of resistance and a tiny bit of inductance. Oh! And you don't want it too pure, bit of 02 improves conductivity!

Dave.

 

[John Willett]

To me this analogue lovefest is a relatively new phenomenon.
When recording great musicians, be they classical, jazz, big band whatever, the recording engineer was not so vain as to want to "warn up" the sound!
Sure, he wanted the best recording he could make but that was essentially capturing the actual sound in the studio or hall.
Digital recording is far and away the most accurate way of doing this. Of course, if the aim is to CREATE a "piece of art" then tape will add distortion but do not for one moment forget that the "old guys" were forever battling against the limitations of their technology!

And re the dig about the Commadore PC. Digital (PCM) recording was articled in the September 1973 issue of the AES journal by N.Sato of the OKI Electric Co Japan and Hiroshi Twahamura et.al of the Nippon Columbia Co Japan.
They are at pains to point out that PCM recording is superior in almost every parameter to analogue tape.

Stand alone hardware is shown and commercial digital recorders soon followed.

Dave.

Perfect - couldn't have said it better.

 

[John Willett]

Could the desire to "warm up" audio as a recent phenomena, be pushback from the trend where everything became overly loud and bright with digital recording? The loudness war that existed prior to PCM technologies only became a matter of rapid ear-fatigue after 0dB headroom was no longer treated as a hard cap tech limitation, but a mandate. Brickwalling mixes to sound cranked and IN YO FACE at low listening levels wasn't something being done with the "best musicians" of the 20th century. Perhaps the technology that is superior in nearly every way encourages use that emphasizes less than flattering detail? Battling limitations of technology is a constant struggle...one that humans have dealt with since our earliest inventions. It's the cost of doing business. User limitations, however, will be problematic with or without technology complicating things its promoters promise to make simpler...or better...for a premium. Caveat Emptor.

Very possibly...

Loud and bright is not a characteristic of digital recording - it is more to do with the choice of microphones, how you position them and what you do with the sound file in the DAW.

The "loudness wars" have certainly destroyed the music and, yes, I would agree that adding analogue distortion may be a way of mitigating the effects of the loudness wars.

Take a modern CD and you, very often, find that the waveform is clipped - that's not digital recording, it's the loudness wars compressing and hammering everything in the DAW to make it LOUD and, in the process, ruining the music.

A modern "digitally remastered" re-release is nearly always mush worse than the original, even if the original was engineered for CD release at the start.

But a properly mic'd recording, not overly compressed can sound absolutely wonderful as a digital recording and much better than if recorded in analogue.

 

[miroslav]

But a properly mic'd recording, not overly compressed can sound absolutely wonderful as a digital recording and much better than if recorded in analogue.

"Better" being a very subjective, personal definition, as there's really no way to measure it when you're working at the upper-end in either format.

 

[ecc83]

"Better" being a very subjective, personal definition, as there's really no way to measure it when you're working at the upper-end in either format.

Yes there is. Comparison with the original sound. The lack of dynamic range (even on solo Joe) and the W&F will quickly point up the annyloggy.

Dave.

 

[Dave Holmes]

Huge thread and I've not read it all but I've been on the lookout for a nice Tascam 688 for ages...
Shame when the nice ones come up I'm skint... Bad timing...

Yeah, I'd record onto tape and then back to PC...

 

[ecc83]

"Yeah, I'd record onto tape and then back to PC... "

Well now. A couple of years ago, Son was talking about the tape sound he used to get from the A3440.

Now the machine is some 5mtrs away from the computer as the cable flies but a cunningly designed multicore allowed four tracks up and down. But, I only had 2 in 2 back from a 2496 and no spare PCI slot. Enter Thomanns with a cheap ESI 1010e.

I sweated over an 8x8 breakout jacks box but he could not get on with the setup so I ripped it out (the 1010e still does duty in my L room for telly sound). Square One.

Then Son buggered off to France. Six months or so ago I built a new PC and made DDSure it had at least 2 PCI slots.
I now have 2 2496 cards in it and just need to work out in Cubase how to setup the Tascam as an "Effect". Hopefully before he gets home for Crimble!

Dave.

 

[miroslav]

Yes there is. Comparison with the original sound. The lack of dynamic range (even on solo Joe) and the W&F will quickly point up the annyloggy.

Dave.

Yeah....all those records recorded to tape sound lousy and with all the W&F going on....

News flash....recording & mixing productions is usually NOT about just documenting the "original sound"...regradless which recording format/medium you use.

Heck, the minute you put up a few mics, and record a few tracks and start mixing it all together, you've already crossed that line...never mind all the EQ/FX/Processing that you apply along the way.
That's why the notion that digital is better when looked at as a "documentary" recording format, holds little water when it comes to actually making a music production sound good.....or "better".

If that's all recording is about...capturing audio in documentary fashion...then why do we need all these analog plug-in emulations to use on the audio after the fact?
C'mon Dave....let's not go down this silly analog VS digital path again....

 

[ecc83]

Yeah....all those records recorded to tape sound lousy and with all the W&F going on....

News flash....recording & mixing productions is usually NOT about just documenting the "original sound"...regradless which recording format/medium you use.

Heck, the minute you put up a few mics, and record a few tracks and start mixing it all together, you've already crossed that line...never mind all the EQ/FX/Processing that you apply along the way.
That's why the notion that digital is better when looked at as a "documentary" recording format, holds little water when it comes to actually making a music production sound good.....or "better".

If that's all recording is about...capturing audio in documentary fashion...then why do we need all these analog plug-in emulations to use on the audio after the fact?
C'mon Dave....let's not go down this silly analog VS digital path again....

All I can say is..IF I was the conductor of the LSO or Philly phil I would not let you within a country MILE of my orchestra with your arrogant, sound trifflin' ways!

Dave.

 

[miroslav]

All those dynamic and wonderful sounding symphony orchestra records over that years...
...recorded with that shoddy analog format.

Anyway...when did "better" sounding audio product for music recording only concern itself with classical music recording?
If anything...in the big scheme of modern audio recording productions, classical is not what I would call the driving force or deciding factor.
Is that's your only argument for a "documentary" approach to audio recording....?

 

[Greg_L]