Would you do analog recording ?

[Greg_L]

I think recording typically gets in the way of playing. One of the lesser romanticized benefits of digital recording is the ability to just let it run and record a 50 minute take without interruption or changing reels...and not burn up money in the process. Disk space is cheap, tape is not. This encourages all sorts of experimentation on the user end.

You're not wrong there. Digital allows endless tweaking, manipulation, re-doing, etc. Maybe it's good for creativity, for some people, but I think it causes people to overthink and overcook their stuff. The process becomes more important than the writing or performance, and that to me is a very bad thing. Look at how many insanely ridiculous workarounds and solutions to problems that don't have to exist get posted in here every day. It's mind boggling the hoops people will jump through just to have a "good" sounding drum or guitar tracks.....and that's without even miking a single instrument. Sound fundamentals have been lost or ignored because people can just "fix it in the mix". People turn to processes and effects without even knowing if they need them or not. People worry about multi-band compression before they've recorded one track. It's fucking stupid.

For me, I try to do better. I record into the digital world, but I treat my entire process from turning on an amp to mixing as if it's all analog. I dial in a sound I want, I tune a drum the way I want, I mic it properly, I play it properly, and I live with the results. I don't have to, I just want to. I feel better about myself when I can be as organic as possible in a very inorganic world. YMMV.

 

[c7sus]

Underlined quotes for emphasis.

Tonehunting and sound synthesis sure is consuming. One can quickly get caught up in the GAS cycle, especially now that we're in the golden age of boutique stompboxes and effects. I've resisted getting a 500 series/Lunch Box because that will get out of hand quickly with Shadow Hills pres and Moog ladder filters, delay, passive parametrics...phew. Big bucks territory. But it will be realized someday and keep me interested in the spirit of exploration. I'm just finding my way out of nearly 3 years of guitar rig assembly and should check out that other thread to compare notes...

I think recording typically gets in the way of playing. One of the lesser romanticized benefits of digital recording is the ability to just let it run and record a 50 minute take without interruption or changing reels...and not burn up money in the process. Disk space is cheap, tape is not. This encourages all sorts of experimentation on the user end. So does assembling an intricate signal chain, be it for guitar, synths or whatever. Analog and/or digital.

Re: BBD chips. I'm right there with ya. I currently own five 30+ year old Deluxe Memory Man delays. All 5 knob versions, all slightly different from one another in response/sound/gain/decay/transient preservation etc. An effect that was created to simulate a tapeless EP-3, and wound up being so much more. Now I'm a time traveler looking to bask in artifacts from the past. The oscillations are otherworldly and mesmerizing. Could spend hours just tweaking a few knobs while basic breaks or arpeggios play.

I have similar affinity for the Uni Vibe, which was an *unsuccessful* attempt at simulating Leslie cabs but wound up being its own brand of iconic modulation. No UV emulation I've tried does it justice, capturing the low end throb without changing the mid/high end character of stacked fuzz. BBD chips, photocell+lamps, transformers and inductance coils all have their sounds, and deviation in component tolerances lead to happy accidents. When all technology has its limitations and perceived flaws, sometimes the flaws happen to be essential to the sound. With analog circuitry I find this is the rule more than the exception, and finding a way to utilize flaws to one's advantage is one of the most enriching paths to personal growth.

PS: I'm envious of anyone with a legit Leslie cab. And Voyager...Taurus...Sub 37 to round things out. Especially together in a single setup. That rules!

Don't have the Sub 37 yet but I'm working on it.

I agree about the quirks of analog. I love Uni Vibes too, really any kind of modulations, especially stuff that isn't always predictable.

When I was a kid about 10 years old I would drool over the cool stuff in the Sears catalog. I wanted to have one of everything just to mess around with it and figure out how it all works. Now I'm just a big kid and the range of music toys is pretty much endless.

When I was a teenager one of the local music stores had an 8-voice Oberheim analog. Every time I got over to that store they would let me tinker around on it. I'd give my left nut for one of those today.

My wife asks me every now and then why I don't record other people and try to get some return off the gear. I'm not even remotely interested in opening up my home for that. When I go there will be one helluva good estate sale.

I figure I'm never gonna be able to afford a Corvette or a girlfriend on the side in an apartment I'm paying for, so music turns out to actually be a cheap alternative, and is much less bitchy than a girlfriend anyways.

All this stuff is about having fun and making some noise.

 

[John Willett]

It's just that you, and a few other born-again digital lovers, always try to use that as some sort of "proof" that digitally recorded music will sound "better".

I have not said that digital will sound "better" - but that it is more accurate to the original.

If you want the colour that analogue distortion adds, then go for it, I don't have any problem with that at all.

Many people seem to be blind to all the distortions that analogue tape recording has - but if these distortions give you the sound you want, then go ahead and use it - I have no problem with that.

 

[John Willett]

I suspect the migration to digital was largely due to the editing potential; of what the word processor did for writers, with "movable text" and non-destructive editing...

No - the drive to digital came well before this.

Denon were recording digitally back in 1973.

The drive to digital was driven by higher quality and accuracy.

Editing was not easy at the start and was awkward and expensive - easy editing only came later.

Early stereo editing was all based around video editing - eg: Sony PCM 1610 and F1 systems.

 

[haunt]

You're not wrong there. Digital allows endless tweaking, manipulation, re-doing, etc. Maybe it's good for creativity, for some people, but I think it causes people to overthink and overcook their stuff. The process becomes more important than the writing or performance, and that to me is a very bad thing. Look at how many insanely ridiculous workarounds and solutions to problems that don't have to exist get posted in here every day. It's mind boggling the hoops people will jump through just to have a "good" sounding drum or guitar tracks.....and that's without even miking a single instrument. Sound fundamentals have been lost or ignored because people can just "fix it in the mix". People turn to processes and effects without even knowing if they need them or not. People worry about multi-band compression before they've recorded one track. It's fucking stupid.

For me, I try to do better. I record into the digital world, but I treat my entire process from turning on an amp to mixing as if it's all analog. I dial in a sound I want, I tune a drum the way I want, I mic it properly, I play it properly, and I live with the results. I don't have to, I just want to. I feel better about myself when I can be as organic as possible in a very inorganic world. YMMV.

Same page. I view sampling/digital recording as a gift & curse. As mentioned it affords one the luxury to record in the background while noodling, practicing or just working out riffs to loops/click tracks with no sense of urgency. A lot of material can be captured for further exploration, that might have otherwise been overlooked and lost to the moment. The flipside is this potential can (and does tend to) encourage the type of overproduction and excessive processing you mentioned.
Tasteful, subtle edits can quickly turn tumultuous. I'm very much opposed to the concept of *Fix It In The Mix*. One time I spent 5 hours editing 4 bars...and wound up scrapping the entire thing in the end. One time. Personally, I barely have enough patience for step sequence editing in my MPC...and will only enter that mode after laying down a few bars of drums in real time/tap tempo, with no timing correct. If the groove isn't captured perfectly on the first try, I typically scrap it and try again instead of moving things around a few mS here and there. And I try to make it count every time, like it was going to tape. If a single snare on a downbeat needs to hit sooner, I'll step edit. If it takes more than 3 step edit tweaks to get it right, take is scrapped. Groove/vibe are easily lost to overproduction and losing focus on the music itself. I want to push a button, count myself in and get down to biz. Whether that button activates capstan or ADC conversion...it becomes very easy to overthink things and question everything you do when one has unlimited takes and no budget crunch by laying them down at home. (Buying studio time is obv another story)

Back in the day when studio access was mostly out of reach, the bands who had their act together made sure they were tight with their material before buying time to record a demo. Nowadays that *FIITM* attitude seems to encourage "good enough" cut & paste productions, snapping everything to grid and making sure the finished waveform "looks good" on a screen. Like there's a witch hunt for anything not "perfect" where the artifacts and quirks are revised, revised, revised until they're sterilized, neutralized whatever. "Living with the results" as you said, IOW accepting flaws, allows one to feel like a project is actually finished. Or if not finished, complete. Flaws & all. I think having the mentality where "I gotta make it count because resources are limited" only encourages performance for the better. Sometimes...

 

[haunt]

I have not said that digital will sound "better" - but that it is more accurate to the original.

If you want the colour that analogue distortion adds, then go for it, I don't have any problem with that at all.

Many people seem to be blind to all the distortions that analogue tape recording has - but if these distortions give you the sound you want, then go ahead and use it - I have no problem with that.

OK. If that's your opinion...but with all due respect, the fact is digital recording isn't *more accurate* to the original source than tape. It creates its own, new set of problems, distortion and color. Both forms of technology in all their glory, are imperfect. Maybe live tracking/ears in the room is like looking through an open window, compared to digital/analog recordings which are like looking through that same window, but with tinted glass one time and an insect screen another.

To piggyback off the template you've provided:

*Many people seem to be blind to all the distortions that digital recording has - but if these distortions give you the sound you want, then go ahead and use it - I have no problem with that.*

I only take issue with the perpetuation of fallacy born from marketing departments.

No - the drive to digital came well before this.

Denon were recording digitally back in 1973.

The drive to digital was driven by higher quality and accuracy.

Editing was not easy at the start and was awkward and expensive - easy editing only came later.

Early stereo editing was all based around video editing - eg: Sony PCM 1610 and F1 systems.

I used the word "Migration" and not "Drive" by design. While the push for digital technology may have been promoted by the typical marketing pitches and promises w/r/t audio fidelity...the migration didn't happen in the 70s. How many "digital studios" were there at that time? The peak of magnetic tape recording only came about in the mid-late 80s, when engineers finally began to understand how to maximize the potential of 2" tape. By then it was already in its twilight years...and being saturated with massive gated-reverb snares and chorus on EVERYTHING. (Yuck!)

When do you think the migration to digital studios gained traction and setups/recordings went pop and actually became ubiquitous?

It is my contention the migration to tapeless digital recording gained its traction in the early-mid 90s, in large part because of the non-destructive editing+cost of resources...and because most people associate "the sound of magnetic tape" as a misnomer, with cassette tape hiss. By then 16bit samplers with enough memory to store entire albums were on the market, along with popular Atari ST setups and even stand alone digital multitrack recorders like the Roland DM800. These could all be had for well under $10k, which by contrast to a pro tape machine, seemed like a bargain.

As it turns out I'm a hybrid-technology fella who appreciates what A/D both have to offer...and my fondness for digital ITB solutions only increase exponentially when it comes time to rearrange tangible gear.

 

[miroslav]

I have not said that digital will sound "better" - but that it is more accurate to the original..

OK John, maybe you haven't...but even if those are not the exact words you use, you tend to imply that accuracy = better. I wouldn't say anything about it if that wasn't what comes across in some of your comments, and those of others.

I even find that the term "accurate" is rather subjective, and prefer to say that digital recording is maybe more "transparent" than using tape. I've done plenty of tape tracking sessions, and they were pretty damn "accurate" to what I was hearing in the room...so whatever extra "accuracy" you want to split hairs over....it's no more or less than talking about digital jitter, which also exists.

Back in the day when studio access was mostly out of reach, the bands who had their act together made sure they were tight with their material before buying time to record a demo. Nowadays that *FIITM* attitude seems to encourage "good enough" cut & paste productions, snapping everything to grid and making sure the finished waveform "looks good" on a screen. Like there's a witch hunt for anything not "perfect" where the artifacts and quirks are revised, revised, revised until they're sterilized, neutralized whatever. "Living with the results" as you said, IOW accepting flaws, allows one to feel like a project is actually finished. Or if not finished, complete. Flaws & all. I think having the mentality where "I gotta make it count because resources are limited" only encourages performance for the better. Sometimes...

One of the things for me about tracking to tape before going to the DAW is that the whole process of tape recording tends to force more focus about what's going down.
When people track to a DAW, they instantly have this almost infinite possibility of things right at the start...unlike a tape deck with limited tracks and no real possibility to immediately start "manipulating" things as you're tracking.
I see a lot of guys who approach ITB recording as a process with no clear set of steps, or start/finish points. IOW....a track is laid down, and immediately people start slathering plug-ins on it...then add another track and more tweaking and processing...etc.

Using the tape deck, I approach the entire tracking session like...that's it....that's all I'll have to work with...and then when I'm done, what is transfered to the DAW is basically a rough-ready mix, same as it would be had I left if on the tape deck and mixed from there. I always record complete tracks as though I would mix from the tape deck.
The DAW is then there to provide the ease of finalizing the production that would otherwise not be as simple or as robust if working only off the tape deck.
That's where I find the DAW, combined with the tape recording, is a "best of both" scenario for me....and the DAW power is there to draw out all the possibilities that are already on the tape.

 

[Beck]

Well, let's put it this way. You know how sometimes you have to bake analogue tape that's been stored too long without winding through it? Well, just now we don't need an oven.



Ain't that the truth. The way people listen these days has a far bigger effect on quality than this esoteric and everlasting debate about analogue vs digital.



May I buy your rose coloured glasses. The amount of time I spent adjust azimuth and drive currents and everything else to just make a recording sound something near the original made me VERY happy when I did the conversion. If you like the effect that analogue has on your sound that's great and I fight for your right to use it. Just don't assume that's the only way to go.

Having said that, I have to say (with the greatest respect to ecc83) is that to judge analogue technology from a domestic cassette deck or a cheap Akai is not totally fair There WERE big differences in performance and quality when you stepped up to pro level gear.

...and that's one of the things about digital. It has hugely minimised the differences between "pro" and "amateur" equipment.

I have no rose colored glasses. Digital has been around long enough now for people my age to glamorize it beyond what it really was in the begining. Guess what I did when digital recording technology was all the buzz in the early 80's? I embraced it and argued passionately in favor of it. I learned the hard way. This analog aficionado was once an early digital apologist. Shocking to some I can imagine!

The story of digital is like the old folk story many of us heard as children called, "Stone Soup." "All you need is this stone... and this and that and more of this and that and even more..." Digital's arrival has always been, "Just around the corner." "Yeah, it's going to be great! New and better converters are on the way!" "Just be patient and wait!"

40 years later we're still waiting. In the mean time most people have lost point of reference and all that has occurred is recording standards and expectations have been lowered. We are now in a post hi-fi era. What the future holds remains to be seen. One day historians may look back on the digital age as a misadventure and it will be pretty clear to the next generation what really happened and what they were robbed of.

The tube revival on the heals of the digital revolution is part of the historical record. It happened. You can prefer digital if you like for any reason you like, but try not to rewrite history. When I hear people talk about how awesome digital was in the beginning I really wonder. Where they really there? Were they heavy drinkers? On drugs? What? Why don't they remember?

I was a teetotaler.... no drink, no drugs, no nothing. I remember everything like yesterday. Come on... fess up! Who was like so many around me in the music/recording world that were stoned all the freakin' time and really don't remember?

 

[laurend]

The analog recording is dead. Digital rules because it's cheaper, faster, easier, sonically better. No more tape alignment, rewinding time, tape hiss, wow and flutter, acrobatic editing, or tape drop out... Some may feel digital so boring without any mojo, but I definitely like it because it works, simply works. It offers more space for creativity.

 

[Niswizzle]

I drive a Ferrari California. I love the way it handles, it's speed and it gets me places. But man do I miss the days when I had a horse. Horses are "Real" transportation. Now days all the young kids don't appreciate how it was back in the good 'ole days of Horseback transportation.

You know, most of the music buying world doesn't give a rats ass what it was recorded with. It's the song and the emotion it brings them that makes it valuable. Not saturation, wow and flutter or how many plugins you used or didn't use to fix it.

 

[fullait]

I compare it to going back to a 35mm Camera as far as the approach to composition and ease of manipulating but still do record a lot on a Teac A3440. and a Tascam 424 MkIII. Can't throw out those old relics.

 

[Nymphadora]

I use Reaper, Presonus, and Audacity because I have to....the final is always going to end up on a CD. But I prefer analogue because it's nice to work with. I even like the smell of the tape. I use old Teac 4 tracks, 3340s, and an Otari 1/2 track, all 1/4". If something goes wrong it's tangible. Loose cable, button not pushed, etc. And I like the old equipment. The laptop programs are more glitchy to me...lag, buffer time, numerous steps just to record. I also am a photographer....and I still use film, 35mm, 6x6, and 4x5....I like working with the old Nikons and even older large press cameras. But I do have digital Nikons and used Photoshop, but somehow I just don't feel as artistic with the digital photos or sound. I guess I'm old fashioned...I love all older equipment...it's not actually better or worse, just more interesting to me. Hugs....

 

[Dick Ward]

I like using the best of both worlds. I track at home on a TEAC 80-8, (8 track, half inch tape). Then I bounce the tracks through a Onyx Blackbird 8 track analog/digital interface to GarageBand on my iMac. I then take the GarageBand tracks on CD to a commercial studio for mixdown and mastering. This studio, Subcat, in Syracuse, NY, has lots of analog outboard gear that they apply through the digital board. I think we get a really nice warm analog sound this way.

This is very effective for me because, as a guitar player/singer, I have to do lots of takes when tracking to get a really good one. If I did it all at the commercial studio, it would cost me a fortune. Back home in my analog studio, I can do as many takes as I want without worrying about the time/cost.

D

 

[miroslav]

I guess the the HR Newsletter went out this morning...

 

[Greg_L]

Must have, I was thinking the same thing. Nothing brings them out of the woodwork to talk about themselves like a general interest thread in the newsletter.

 

[ecc83]

Well, my last thoughts (maybe!).
Just putting the final polish to an old transistor Murphy record player I am refurbishing as a crimble prezzie for my 44 yr old retro mad daughter.

Just played the Let it Be album (sorry Greg!) and HAD to listen to George's guitar break three times!
Crappy vinyl, crappy 30bob (now £35!) ceramic cartridge, prob'3%+ THD from the very primitive Germanium amp...But! Is there another guitar sound SO moving as that?

In the end it does not matter a toss people. If anyone can come close to music like that I don't care how you do it.

Just do it peeps and have a bloody good Christmas and New Year.

Dave. (devout Cathode Follower)

 

[heatmiser]

I don't think I'll ever understand why some people have such strong feelings on the subject of analog vs. digital. It just doesn't seem like something to get excited about.

We've all heard plenty of great and shitty music produced using both mediums, so I don't see why it makes a bit of difference either way.

 

[haunt]

I don't think I'll ever understand why some people have such strong feelings on the subject of analog vs. digital. It just doesn't seem like something to get excited about.

We've all heard plenty of great and shitty music produced using both mediums, so I don't see why it makes a bit of difference either way.

My late grandfather told me "Don't take everything so personal" as advice to lengthen one's lifespan. He moved on at 88 after having emphysema for over 30 years. He also emphasized "listen" because ideas are created, pursued, realized, even stolen from humble beginnings. You have to be paying attention, because not everyone is going to pickup on everything that takes place in spite of arrogance and overestimation in one's abilities. Perception creates reality & all that, it's wiser to attempt looking beyond personal biases etc...

Music is very personal. So is conceptualizing the "best way to do things" in all aspects of life and the philosophy+beliefs+values that take root and shape us all.
Many treat all of their choices as a personal extension of themselves, so to challenge anything held sacred or considered to be universally true is interpreted as a direct attack on the individual. So people who are really into music tend to be really into themselves.
Life is also very difficult or unpleasant for the majority of humans, and negative attitudes, misery, intolerant venom look to spread after festering for so long.
Contemporary societies around the world encourage individuals to suppress the vast majority of human emotions. Bottle them up and move on because there's work to be done...as (terrible) advice in finding the path to personal growth.
Effective communication is also increasingly difficult in these times of impersonal interaction and detached consciousness, where it's the new normal to keep one's face buried behind a screen in one's own little world. Lots of misdirected conflict erupts where 2 realities intersect during basic disagreement.

The babyboomers were the original "Me generation" and the subsequent generations have learned from their example, with mindless competition in petty ego stroking, self-indulgence and posturing for one's own gratitude and the adulation of others. Taking things to their *natural* conclusion, the loudest voices trend toward the extremes, hyperbole and caricature creating monstrous characters.

Oh and blogs+social media. Now that everyone has their own magazine/shrine/autobiography and the ability to instantly be IN YOUR FACE for attention while putting their *individuality* on display in various cliches...all bets are off, we are in post-taste ironic life hipsterdom memeland. A good amount of decision-making that drives *individuals* has become about getting the most attention possible and exploiting it for profit. This also causes drama to manifest itself in places it seemingly doesn't belong. IDK...maybe I'm just full of shit and over-think things. I can't remember.

 

[sparky123]

Good Question.i'm and old guy and grew up recording on an mci 536 in line console with a sony 24 track 2inch tape machine and various out board effects , eq, etc... i'd do it a heartbeat if I could afford the equipment and maintenance costs! but, a true analog recording will give you space and features of different sounds that digital can't do////''' .mixing your recording in digital would save a lot of time and that's good.. so, if we could only afford to do both , I think that would work.

 

[Greg_L]

I don't think I'll ever understand why some people have such strong feelings on the subject of analog vs. digital. It just doesn't seem like something to get excited about.

We've all heard plenty of great and shitty music produced using both mediums, so I don't see why it makes a bit of difference either way.

Because this is the internet and everyone is an expert pro that's never wrong on the internet.