Analog recording something for the youth ? Or older nostalgia ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter *ADRIANA*
  • Start date Start date
A

*ADRIANA*

New member
When I said I have a tape recorder to older, "tape ops", grey haired, the reaction was, that they wondered for a moment and asked that I am young and have been grown on digital.

Then I ask myself, why do I bother with this big gear, why I should keep it and if it is worth.

Thus my question, if this is something for the young or only a hobby of the "experienced", older ? nostalgia ??? retro ?
 
It's a hobby insofar as as any home recording pursuit is a hobby. The "retro" nostalgia component certainly comes into play for those of us who grew up with tape recorders. A fair number of old-timers think analog simply sounds better, and many young people who have been introduced to analog will agree. At the end of the day, it's all about getting the sound you want.
 
definitely for both old and young. it just sounds good and is a fun and fulfilling way to record imo.
 
Peck said:
definitely for both old and young. it just sounds good and is a fun and fulfilling way to record imo.
Click to expand...

+1

Absolutely. There's a joy in using electromechanical devices that solid state can't touch. It's like the difference between eating home cooking and eating junk food. Both will fill your belly, but the latter doesn't make you feel nourished afterwards. My opinion anyway.
 
Analog is for any age of person looking for a certain sound and recording experience.
 
I agree, sure there's a nostalgia element for a lot of guys who started out on older gear, but analog media are still relevant and valid today.

I know of a few hight end digital studios who have installed and maintain a lot of analog equipment purely because there's a fairly big interest in and demand for it.

Lately I've been listening to country on old inherited four track reels.

I can't explain why, and the novelty might wear off, but there's something so much nicer about threading a tape and watching it spin :)
 
Steenamaroo said:
Lately I've been listening to country on old inherited four track reels.
Click to expand...

Don't you love listening to used tapes? I have a lot of UD 35 reels with oldies and country on them.

Steenamaroo said:
I can't explain why, and the novelty might wear off, but there's something so much nicer about threading a tape and watching it spin :)
Click to expand...

Yes! One of the fun sidelines of reel-to-reel is collecting different styles of metal reels. I have a set of mint 7" Maxell reels on my 4300SX right now. :cool:
 
Steenamaroo said:
I can't explain why, and the novelty might wear off, but there's something so much nicer about threading a tape and watching it spin :)
Click to expand...

There's no question that the tactile experience is a very important element of analog equipment, whether it's cleaning and threading tape paths, cueing a turntable stylus on a record, turning real knobs, or the sensation of hearing and seeing backlit mechanical meters flick around. Even if digital emulation could exactly emulate the sonic characteristics (personally I think it inherently cannot but that's another discussion), it's this tactile element and the different, more disciplined and savory approach to its use that would ensure the real deal will always have a place in the recording and playback of music for some of us!
 
I'll be 29 in a month. I chose open reel tape and analog recording because after I had some introductory experience with both digital and analog recording formats, I found that the analog metaphor and workflow suited the way I work better than with digital. I think there's enough awareness among younger people (16-30) that analog is a viable choice, albeit a niche one.

The other thing is that, once I moved from doing primarily live recording to making "handmade" electronic music at home, I found that I had much more creative control with physical media than I did with digital. It's something about working within set parameters / constraints which, strangely, gives me a sense of freedom and control.

I don't have any arguments re: analog versus digital, but my appreciation for analog recording certainly grew out of a hobby.
 
Plus, I think there's a real sense of accomplishment doing music production in the analog realm. It's somehow more tangible, which I think serves as a great incentive and learning tool for people starting out. It's a great way to introduce someone to how sound works, in both the physical and mechanical/electrical sense.
 
lo.fi.love said:
Plus, I think there's a real sense of accomplishment doing music production in the analog realm. It's somehow more tangible, which I think serves as a great incentive and learning tool for people starting out. It's a great way to introduce someone to how sound works, in both the physical and mechanical/electrical sense.
Click to expand...

Yes. We're accustomed to hearing digital technology referred to as "virtual" this and "cyber" that, and come away with the sense that none of it is real. And when something doesn't seem real, then one feels that it doesn't really matter.
 
There are certain things required of you to use tape successfully, but it can be quite good and rewarding.

If you are going to do your own maintenance and tech work, there is a skill set and some needed equipment that will have to be taken care of, or you will not be happy.

In use, there are some stupidly good habits forced on you by use of tape: track limitations and efficiency in tracking, a focus on working out parts and arrangements in advance and a speed to the process because of both a naturally workable sound and also limitations in editing. Of course, this favors those who can actually play their music and have a clue what they're trying to record, versus those who don't. If you suck, tape will let you know, loud and clear.

Also, the sound will naturally have some limiting or leveling because of the use of tape, particularly because many of us push the levels a few dB to maximimize S/N at the expense of a slight bit of distortion, but with a bit of corresponding limiting. This is a good thing for many styles of music.

So, tape demands certain things: technical ability regarding service of an electrical and mechanical device (or money and local access to such ability), general musical ability and some degree of focus on musical concepts and arrangements. If you can meet those basic needs, tape can work quite well, indeed.

Cheers,

Otto
 
It's obviously impossible, but ideally, I think everyone in audio should be forced to understand the limitations (and benefits) of analog recording.

You mentioned track limitations there, and editing as well.
It's so easy to bitch about how your q6600 isn't handling your 96 track recording session, but it's kinda scary just how recently 24 track tape was the biggest thing.

Personally, I don't mind admitting, I couldn't transfer a quarter of my 'skills' to the analog realm.
I'm 100% digitally dependent, but at least i know it I guess! lol.
 
My personal opinion/2p...it sounds so much better. And here goes the nose up in the air: if you can't hear how much better it sounds, if you've taken the time to A/B identical material direct off the D/A converter vs. off the converter and through a good tape machine then don't bother. Its not worth your time unless you just like the tactile experience (which is a totally legit reason AFAIC to use a tape deck, including Philips cassette format). But if you can't hear the difference like night and day then something in the setup isn't conducive to hearing difference (quite possibly your ears) and if you don't care about the tactile experience then go back to that data-compressed digital song your were enjoying on your iPomp3 player and be happy. Yeah, I know I sound like a jerk, but EVERYTHING sounds better through tape...significantly...to my ears. And you betcha I like the tactile part of it to...like, a lot.
 
It took me a long time to understand that what I was hearing on those early CD remasters of old albums - high end phase distortion, etc. - was wrong. I more or less took them at their word that the CD was simply "revealing limitations of the analog source".
 
diggy_dude said:
It took me a long time to understand that what I was hearing on those early CD remasters of old albums - high end phase distortion, etc. - was wrong. I more or less took them at their word that the CD was simply "revealing limitations of the analog source".
Click to expand...

I don't know about phase distortion, but I've heard a lot of remastered jazz albums from the 1950s and 1960s and the ride will often sound like a gasping bead blaster.... I don't think it's the medium so much as the artifacts introduced during the remix/remaster process. A lot of 'remastered' mixes are compressed much more than the original mixes, which creates artifacts that weren't present or noticeable in the original. A lot of work is put into making the remastered version sound 'cleaner', and more 'modern' than the original, too, which is something I've never understood because it's often at the expense of the overall detail of the recording.
 
I'm 25 and had experience with making cassettes compilations from vinyls and other tapes I borrowed at the library as a kid. For some years I recorded digitally because tape seeming too big a challenge and too expensive - and was in bands with very digital minded people in charge of the production and engineering role.
First started recording to tape two years ago because a guy I was making music with introduced me to the great sounds he could record with his machine and learned me a few basic things about tape recorders.

To me the difference is obvious; when you know the basics it is so much easier to make recordings sound warm and "organic" in lack of better words. Also one thing I like about analog is that happy accidents do occure and can be a part of a musical expression unlike in digital where any kind of distortion coming from the recording device just sounds like shite.

I don't get why so many people spend big bucks on expensive 60's Fenders or Gibsons to archieve a certain sound when a Epiphone guitar, some patience and a decent reel-to-reel could have improved their sound big time for a smaller amount of cash.
 
WarmJetGuitar said:
I don't get why so many people spend big bucks on expensive 60's Fenders or Gibsons to archieve a certain sound when a Epiphone guitar, some patience and a decent reel-to-reel could have improved their sound big time for a smaller amount of cash.
Click to expand...

Hmm... can't really say too much about Epiphones, but I'm pretty fond of my Gibsons. I got a Gibson Bass for about $200 back in 1983. Dealer didn't think much of it, but it sounded great after I had a tech rewire it to original spec. Got my Melody Maker in a trade years ago. Ironically, I traded a 3M M-23 2-track for it and an amp.

Cheers,

Otto
 
It is definately for everyone. I would say that to a large extent it depends on the musical genre and your intended expression. A great example of the "new generation" using analog tape gear is Jack White famous from The White Stripes as well as The Raconteurs.



This guy wouldn't want to use digital equipment under any circumstances. Although it definately has something to do with nostalgia, many would say analog equipment captures aspects of the music that no digital equipment would ever be able to. It may be a sort of "placebo" but nevertheless.
 
Well, it wasn't to neglect Gibson guitars and their place in rock history - rather to say that IMO recording to tape and being a good engineer makes a bigger difference in archieving a nice warm sound than having a top-of-the-line guitar.
Its not because I only fancy cheap guitars as I'm playing a Rickenbacker 330 most of the time and love the thing dearly but for some sounds a cheap Danelectro or Epiphone would be equally good.

Sounds like a nice deal on your Gibson - lucky guy!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top