Analog vs. Digital ... Microphones

[On Slide Guitar]

I've lost track of all my old recording engineer buddies so I have come to you, oh esteemed audio experts!

Remember back when digital finally came along and there rose up a question about the microphones we'd always used: "these microphones were intended for recording on analog tape, now their frequency response un-naturally colors sound in digital recording". I never heard much more once digital became the standard, and I kinda lost track of digital production until recently, so I have a question for you older guys who (I take it) don't exclusively use flat mic's:

Was it ever sufficiently explained how we could all use the traditional analog mics with a new medium that was colorless? Wouldn't all of our mics color or enhance frequencies that they were designed to make up for in the colored world of analog tape?

Please don't start an analog vs. digital is better thing, that's not the question.

And thanks!

 

[pipelineaudio]

we use analog microphones because the world is analog, not because of analog tape, or disc or wax cylinder that preceeded that tape

There was a lot of talk almost ten years ago about using light for certain microphone applications

 

[Dani Pace]

I can't offer any technical or scientific info but from my experience (using the same mics for both analog and digital) there seems to be little or no difference. There is a difference between digital and analog preamps and mixers though.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Remember back when digital finally came along and there rose up a question about the microphones we'd always used: "these microphones were intended for recording on analog tape, now their frequency response un-naturally colors sound in digital recording". I never heard much more once digital became the standard, and I kinda lost track of digital production until recently, so I have a question for you older guys who (I take it) don't exclusively use flat mic's:

Was it ever sufficiently explained how we could all use the traditional analog mics with a new medium that was colorless? Wouldn't all of our mics color or enhance frequencies that they were designed to make up for in the colored world of analog tape?

Wow, it's interesting how bad- and mis-information takes different shapes and sizes over time.

That stuff about mics not being fit for digital is - to be frank - a bunch of mis-information several different ways:

First there is nothing "colorless" about digital; every digital system has it's own color the same way every analog system does. Granted, the best of the digital systems have the least coloration (or maybe the most desirable coloration), but the same is true of analog systems as well. Digital sounds different than analog, to be sure, but not because it imparts less color, but beause the nature of the color it does impart is different.

Next, any such coloration in the recording links in the chain have absolutely nothing to do with the sound or appropriateness of any given microphone. Whether Shure SM57 or Sennheiser 441, Neumann U47 or RCA 44, or anything in-between, the exact same mics are cherished for the exact same reasons and used for more or less the exact same purposes now as they were 20 years ago; the recording medium has had no discernible effect on that.

G.

 

[Farview]

There was a lot of this talk when people switched over from analog to digital. They were reacting to the lack of tape sound. Everything sounded thinner and brighter (and slightly more dynamic) coming off the digital deck. The mics were still doing the same thing they always did, they just lost the tape sound as a tool to get the tones they were used to getting.

Of course, the early days of digital didn't sound very good. Much of this has been fixed over the last 20-30 years.

I still use the same mics that I used to. I just mix a little differently.

 

[LeeRosario]

I've lost track of all my old recording engineer buddies so I have come to you, oh esteemed audio experts!

Remember back when digital finally came along and there rose up a question about the microphones we'd always used: "these microphones were intended for recording on analog tape, now their frequency response un-naturally colors sound in digital recording". I never heard much more once digital became the standard, and I kinda lost track of digital production until recently, so I have a question for you older guys who (I take it) don't exclusively use flat mic's:

Was it ever sufficiently explained how we could all use the traditional analog mics with a new medium that was colorless? Wouldn't all of our mics color or enhance frequencies that they were designed to make up for in the colored world of analog tape?

Please don't start an analog vs. digital is better thing, that's not the question.

And thanks!

In addition to what's been said and I can be totally full of shit when I say it but...

I always fail to see where the argument stems from. The whole "old gear from an ancient era" and how to cope in the new world. A good engineer can argue that it's not an issue and never was an issue. There's old school thinking and there's new school thinking.

It goes back to the true credo that is being a "recording engineer": to capture sound the best you possibly can, no matter the cost.

Whether it's on digital or on analog is what we all signed up for. 20 years from now, we have to be ready to accept the next era of technologies and adapt to them. That or get left behind.

I've witnessed the mental adjustment alot of recordists (professional and non professional) have made to lean towards bringing digital back to analog. Spending hours on end figuring out how to get these digital tracks to sound more analog.

I mean, yeah, it makes sense that by all scientific measure, analog tape and analog treatments are the most pleasing sound to the ear. However, if you listen to what's happening out in the industry today, that's a subjective statement.

So to answer your question in my own words, I go back to my beginning statement: an engineer captures that sound, no matter what cost. If it's digital, analog, outer space, whatever...the engineer is an Audio US marine that adapts.

Understanding the relationship on how certain preamps match to certain mics (outboard gear or internal DSP, etc), combined with technique, ability and expertise, applied to both the digital and analog world, is what makes an engineer a credible asset.

Not how well an engineer can make something digital sound "analog".



Like glen said, every piece of gear has it's color. Digital is just another palette to work from that just happens to have grown into a major standard in this era.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Although I personally never heard the "microphones designed optimally for analog tape" argument, I did start in this racket in the days before digital and was around for the digital evolution, and I can offer a speculation on where that misunderstanding may possibly have come from.

Like Jay alluded to, may of the early digital converters were pretty awful; very brittle or cold sounding in the higher registers. A lot of the early complaints about digital in general were due to this; people thought that was the way digital was supposed to sound, that "colorless" meant "cold", and therefore that digital meant cold or brittle-sounding. It turned out it wasn't digital's fault per se, it was due mostly to an offending "coloration" being added by the early first-generation converters.

So it's possible, perhaps that one may have, at the time, extrapolated from that the theory that because analog tape was "warm" abut digital was (they thought) transparent and colorless, that the digital brittleness must have been coming from microphones designed to try and offset tape's warmth.

What they failed to take into account was that "tape" or "analog" is not one sound. There were many different formulations of tape and many different colors of analog hardware, not only at any given time, but that evolved over time. One cannot make a microphone that works best for all flavors, formulations or colorations any more than one can make one wine that goes best with all types of Italian food.

Also, that theory completely ignores the facts that a) the most cherished microphones (vintage Shoeps, Neumann, RCA) were developed at a time when most recordings were recorded direct to disc and not to magnetic tape, and that b) these same mics were designed to work just as well for broadcast as they were for recording; there's no bias for recording (DTD or tape) in most of these mic designs.

G.

 

[On Slide Guitar]

This is a very good discussion and I thank everyone for their input. I got more than I imagined I would. I just remember when studios were switching to digital, and digital was touted as "natural" sound. In other words, all the manufacturers and studios who were investing everything into their new gear were really selling us on the idea that digital had no competition. And it's true, it killed analog, record pressing plants, and everyone was speaking in terms of converters instead of calibration. Local small studio owner gets an Sony F1 and makes it sound gawd awful (maybe it just did anyway. Mark Penske comes online with all new Sony multitrack gear and it was the best available. Yet now, 20 years later, we scoff at that early digital sound because we learned the hard way that yes there are in fact different digitals. I posted because I took a break from the industry and focused on composing/band stuff.

Now that I am involved in recording again (with one of these 16x portastudios) I am thrust right back into having to deal with a sound I have to drastically modify to sound warm. So I asked, is it my old mics? Either way, as you all have generously pointed out, it still comes down to the engineer using his ears.

 

[Farview]

It's not your old mics. (assuming they are not radio shack or similar) It is more likely the rest of your audio chain. Back when analog was the only choice, it was mainly only professionals recording music. There really were no cheap mic preamps, compressors, etc... As time went on, companies started making cheaper equipment that didn't sound as warm as the good stuff. That alls started happening right around the time that digital (with it's crappy converters of the time) started getting a foot hold. Even though converters were getting better and better, more and more companies were putting out pro-sumer preamps, compressors, etc...

It really didn't start getting better until recently with 24 bit converters and well designed, resonably priced outboard.

Case-in-point, the Metallica 'black album' was mastered from 16 bit DAT tape. Using the internal converters on the Sony DAT machine. Those converters suck, but the album sounds great.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Now that I am involved in recording again (with one of these 16x portastudios) I am thrust right back into having to deal with a sound I have to drastically modify to sound warm. So I asked, is it my old mics?

As far as the signal chain, without knowing your mics, and without knowing just what "portastudio" you have, I'd say that it's just as much your portastudio as anything else, to be honest.

If by "16x portastudio", you're referring to an all-in-one mixer/DAW/burner like the ones from Roland, Yamaha, Tascam, etc., you've got a perfectly fine box with a lot of functionality for a decent price, but it almost assuredly not going to have "the sound" your looking for.

It's like the difference in the old days between an all-in-one compact stereo system that had the radio tuner, tape deck and turntable all in a single convenient box, vs. a component stereo system where you had to buy your tuner, amp, tape deck, and turntable all separately. The all-in-one units were made more for convenience and cheaper price point than they were for quality of the individual components, and just did not have the same sound as the individual components (and even the components varied in quality.)

In the case of the portastudios, the main quality compromises in the signal chain are going to be in the mic preamps and the converters. In your case, they need to get 16 of each of them into a box without adding $16k to the cost of the box. The converters can be especially guilty of "sounding digital" if you have a unit that only records at 16-bit, though the full 24-bit systems can still be quite guilty of it.

Consider pairing a quality mic with a decent-quality preamp with decent quality conversion for at least one channel of "gold". Use it for lead vocals or acoustic instruments and use your other channels for the rest. Often that can be enough to "warm up" the overall mix enough to give you what you're looking for. The downside is that one channel can easily cost as much or more as a whole 16-channel portastudio.

That said, there are still more important things such as room acoustics in your tracking room(s), room acoustics in your mixing room, mic selection *and* technique, and recording levels/gain structure that need to be nailed down to get the best of whatever gear you've got before you go chasing the gear.

G.

 

[SonicAlbert]

Some good detailed responses, so I'll just say what I have to say very simply:

A great mic sounds great no matter what medium it is being recorded to.

If anything, the very quiet digital recording medium should allow you to hear the quality of the mic even more.

Where that changes is if you have a low quality mic, bad room, crummy instruments, bad recording technique, etc. In those cases the very clean digital recording allows you to hear the flaws even better than if they are covered up by tape hiss.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Albie bring up a good point about flaws revealed.

I'd also like to light up another factor...

You could simply head over to eBay and find yourself a good refurbished Teac, Tascam or Otari multi-track sound on sound open reel recorder and record your stuff to that. The sound will be far from transparent, but it will have that analog hiss and high-end saturation that, like an old sweatshirt, some people just can't seem to ever part with.

G.

 

[Farview]

Also, some of those all-in-one units don't provide a full 48 volts of phantom power. Some mics really don't like that.

 

[On Slide Guitar]

one channel can easily cost as much or more as a whole 16-channel portastudio.

G.

True dat!

Message received on all the advice and tips regarding converters and signal chain. Yes, I got a deal-o'-the-month Fostex which is great for the price but I wish I could do a converter mod on one or two channels. It is not a full function board either but I can run it into ProTools to edit and mix (at least a friend of mine has done this). Sticker shock on the Neve 5042 true tape effect is the only thing stopping me from being done with the problem (I would prefer something like this over using my old Tascam 2x for warmth because I can't stand ANY wow and flutter, and prefer no hiss at all). The plug-in route on a mix may be my only other option.

I've learned a lot with all these comments. Never expected digital to vary so much, but since analog tapes and decks do why not digital too? It's refreshing that I'm not alone and that this topic of digititis has been thoroughly confronted by so many. I applaud your ears!

Next stop: upgrading my microphones.

 

[TerraMortim]

I think that the tape saturating vintage tubes are better in that line of chrome plated mics more than the digital confounders that are rumored to exist in plastic digital mics.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I think Terra's been hitting the BC Bud again

G.

 

[Tim Gillett]

I agree there's a lot of misunderstanding about getting "that analog warmth" or "that tape sound".

If you had to change your eq when recording to tape, your machine probably needed a service, or you were pushing your record levels too high (unbelieveably common, as it still is today with digital), or you needed a better machine. Or possibly a combination of all three.

Changing your EQ or even your mic to compensate for the analog tape? Willi Studer would turn in his grave.

Cheers, Tim

 

[Farview]

I remember having to do that. Mostly with kick drums and such. Because if I added as much top end on mixdown as I wanted, it would bring up the hiss to stupid levels. So I would record it to tape with the high up. Now, I don't.

 

[Tim Gillett]

I remember having to do that. Mostly with kick drums and such. Because if I added as much top end on mixdown as I wanted, it would bring up the hiss to stupid levels. So I would record it to tape with the high up. Now, I don't.

Are you saying that you deliberately fed to the recorder a kick drum sound that was unnaturally trebly so that when played back it sounded about right for the mix? If so, you were saturating the tape in the highs, a pointless exercise unless you wanted that effect, or you couldnt afford a better analog recorder setup.

In early analog tape days, pre good NR, a good engineer recording a piano might boost highs on the way in, if he knew there werent many highs coming from the piano and so there was "room" on the tape for more highs, relative to the lows. He would then cut highs by the same amount on playback. The result was less tape hiss.

In many ways good double ended analog noise reduction starting with Dolby A in 1965 lessened or eliminated the need to do that, as it automatically boosted the weaker frequencies in tracking and then automatically cut them by the same amount in playback, far more effectively than any human operator.

Manually boosting highs on the way in was always a valid technique when done for the right reasons, in the right situation.

Cheers Tim

 

[pipelineaudio]

I think what farview was saying is that he'd commit the sound he thought he would want later to the tape. He probably found that if he did it during the mix, that in addition to the frequencies he wanted boosted, any frequencies in the same range that were tape hiss would get louder as well. Perfectly valid. Yet one of the 9 trillion reasons Im glad to be liberated from analog tape nowdays