A mastering engineer said this... do you agree

  • Thread starter Thread starter tjohnston
  • Start date Start date
tjohnston

tjohnston

New member
This was written by mastering engineer John Vestman. The orginal article can be found at Johnvestman.com The article is aimed at home recordist. Im interested in finding out others peoples opinion on mixing to analog tape.

HEY...MIX TO ANALOG TAPE on an excellently maintained machine! The vast majority of projects do not need the hiss-less format of digital, and the bottom is so much better on analog! There is just a "hole" that is hard to describe in digital audio. For some reason, the extra thump that analog has (or holds onto) is great and the top end has a silky sound that's hard to beat.

Plus people sometimes don't realize that those good old analog machines were loaded with high-grade electronic circuits that your favorite DAT machine or even Masterlink doesn't come with. Typical stereo digital machines are low-priced because the emphasis is on a semi-pro buyer, not the ultra-high end recording studio.

Analog tape recording has a "sound shape" almost like a processor. When you put in a square wave test signal into an analog recorder, the output looks different - the "hard" edges are smoothed out - they are less square, which accounts for the silkier sound, the wetter edge and woodier sound to acoustic instruments. Ideally, record on both analog and digital mediums, because it's a great way to have more options with just a bit more involved in the setup.
 
Yes, I agree! It has a warmth that is hard to duplicate in the digital world.
 
This could have SOME validity if the analog machine (Otari, Studer, etc) is a half track running around 15" to 30" per second.
 
Oh boy, here we go! :) Digital Vs Analog: round 23,994.

First of all, you have to get your hands on a fantastic analog reel to reel. Then you have to learn how to calibrate and maintain it. Then you have to go through with the calibration and maintanence. Then you have to be able to afford the tape itself. That's a bit much for most home recorders I think. :) After you have done all that, then we can get back to arguing analog vs digital...
 
It isn't so much Digital vs. Analog but more to mix down to analog to get a desired effect or warmth that may be lacking in a digital mix. This doesn't mean don't track or edit in digital.
 
There is some truth to what Vestman says, but its to be taken on a case by case basis. Like all generalisms. Some folks like what the transfer does, while others may not. Does the characteristics of the music benefit from Mastering to tape or not? Some folks will even Master to 1/4 inch 7.5 ips machines if the original work was on a small format like 1/2 16 track or 8 track.

SoMm
 
My old band had recorded a three song demo in a studio that used a huge reel-to-reel straight from the 80's. One of the songs was included on a compilation CD of Oklahoma bands. I believe every other song on the compilation was recorded digitally. Our song stood out big time. You could hear a big difference.

I was a little embarassed because the song was recorded as a demo. We did it in two takes and spent maybe 3 hours tracking and mixing-- it definately wasn't as good as it could have been. But the guy putting together the compilation liked enough to put it on the CD (http://www.woohoobank.com/main.html).

Anyway, my point is there is a big difference in sound. I personally like the analog sound but I agree that it may only be "good" in certain situations. But it is one way to stand out in the crowd now that everyone is going digital.
 
One of my friends at work records totally in analog. He says he loves the "warm" sound. I can't say I disagree with him even though I record totally digital. There is one difference. He is spending $1000s and I am spending $100s. He is single and I am married and have a 7 yr. old (go figure).
 
There's good analog and there's bad analog.

Just like there's good digital and bad digital.


I would imagine that if you were to pit the very best that digital has to offer agains the very best that analog has to offer . . . all other things being equal, I honestly think it would be tough to tell the difference.

Keep in mind that the studios that employ mostly analog are generally the ones that have been around longer, and very likely have more experienced engineers on hand.
 
interesting...

I wonder what people would think if the 'digital' sound was the first style to record with...and then analog came along...I wonder if you would then have a bunch of recording engineers that swore by the cleanliness of digital...
it might just be what people are still so used to hearing...might not be better or worse...just different when using digital...
 
There's one big difference, aside from cost. Nobody is designing the next cutting edge analog machine. Digital will only get better over time.-Richie
 
Analog gear is overall warmer.
Digital is cleaner.

As chessrock said, there is good and bad of each format.

For digital you should get the highest quality AD/DA converters you can afford. This is proabably the most important thing in your signal chain and will have the most effect on your audio signal.

Also mixing down to tape probably does sound warmer. This is the best of both worlds. You can edit undestructively on digtal and then add warmth and smoothness with the tape.

Tukkis:)
 
Your final results are mostly dependent on who is driving, rather than the gear itself.
 
If this article was written for 'homers', its a bit naive, as analogue mastering decks are "a little bit expensive" you could say.
Rather than ging back into the hols a vs d debate. lets just say that over here less than 10% of our mastering makes it to tape.
 
let me chip in and reinforce some of the opinions here:

1. cheap digital sounds tinny and thin, not punchy and warm. cheap digital is reasonably clean. a great mastering engineer could probably still work with the results. talented recording/mastering engineers don't use crappy digital equipment.

2. cheap analog sounds noisy and distorted, not accurate and clean. cheap analog is reasonably warm. a great mastering engineer could probably still work with the results. talented recording/mastering engineers don't use crappy analog equipment.

3. expensive analog and digital both sound GOOD. when you spend serious money on your equipment, you get more disctinctive-sounding equipment, distinctive-sounding because it is quality enough for you to HEAR the difference. most really high-end analog equipment sounds much more warm than anything but the best digital equipment. most high-end digital equipment sounds much more realistic than anything but the best analog equipment. serious pros use both nice analog and nice digital equipment. the gap has been closed to the degree that quality digital equipment is just as viable to the committed engineer as analog. soon, digital will be the clear winner. no moving parts and mass-produced spec-compliant chips will outrun finicky, wear-prone analog for the rest of any of our lives, providing some amazing boutique analog setup is not released before analog recording equipment is officially dumped into obsolescence.

4. at different price-points, for different tastes, different equipment may serve you best. i hear stories about cool old reel-to-reels bought at yard sales for 15 bucks, and i don't often hear about 10 thousand dollar 24/192 high-end DAW setups found for 15 bucks. why? because THEY'RE BRAND NEW.

5. if you're paying someone to record you, expect a quality recording varying on what you pay. if you're not happy, it wasn't worth it. analog v. digital doesn't mean a thing.

6. if you're running your own QUALITY setup, expect to pay a hell of a lot. analog v. digital doesn't matter.

7. if you're trying to piece together a workable setup, you may luck out and find something nice for cheap. more likely, you'll be working with cheap equipment. if you want warmth, go ahead and go analog, but don't expect a cassette 4-track not to sound dirty, cheap, and amateur. if you want clean recordings, go digital, but don't expect a $500 DAW setup not to sound thin, impassionate, and amateur. these are the compromises you as a home-recorder make to be able to write your own musical ticket.

8. there has never been a better bang-per-buck time in recording. digital leads the wave, though it may not be the answer for you. shop around, get opinions, and make your own decision.

edited because i am a butcher of the typed word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top