Best way to get "analog" sound

[Rat Lizards]

Just a couple things.

No music fan gives a shit.

Well, maybe. Most listeners lack the discretion to hear what a trained listener hears a lot of the time. But at other times, they do hear it. They just can't articulate what they hear. I'm convinced that a naive listener who says this guitar track sounds awesome while that one sounds lame is exercising some kind of distinction, and it's possible for a trained person to put that into technical terms and even reproduce it based on that analysis. And some of this could break down into analog vs. digital characteristics.

In other words, sometimes they don't give a shit and can't tell the difference. Other times they do give a shit and can tell the difference, but they may not know it.

I mean let's A-B Dick Dale through his usual rig vs. a Fender Frontman 15, record the results, and see if the average music fan gives a shit.

If i came on here and some kid was asking advice about how to record some tunes he was working on id be a complete and total asshole and a liar if i told him the promised land was in analog reels.

The promised land isn't in the hard drive, either.

That individual can for a fraction of the cost and a fraction of the time and a fraction of the tech skills do an endless amount of creative things in the realm of even the most modest digital setup.

Well, I don't know. Are we talking only R2R tape vs. a computer somebody already has? Then of course it's cheaper to get going on the computer. But if we count the computer, I could get someone going a hell of a lot cheaper with 4-track cassette than with any digital setup.

As for a fraction of the tech skills, I dunno. To me, VSTs and all that are complicated and invite endless tweaking vs. sticking a reverb unit on an aux loop, dialing up Hall, and hitting Record. I have noticed that the logic does escape some people who cut their teeth on software multitracking, but to me analog is easy and cheap. (And I program computers for a livng, so I'm not a technophobe.)

you tell me what is better for a working class guy, buying a Minimoog for 3 grand or downloading a cracked plugin that sounds exactly the same to 99.9 percent of listeners. Only an asshole would tell that kid in his room he doesnt have shit until he spends the 3 grand. Its also a lie.

Yeah, I agree. I have virtually no costly gear myself, and I view analog recording partly as a great opportunity for bottom-feeding on "obsolete" (cheap) equipment. So it's not about having expensive shit to me. At the same time, it has its own charms, at least one of which is that you just roll it and go. Software tends to pull me into tweaking parameters all day.

Im really not for or against either format really. Everything has its place and its own glory. But id rather empower the home recordist/songwriter rather than tell them they wont ever be doing shit until they have 40 grand worth of equipment and 25 years tech experience behind them.

Same here. Analog, to me, is not some exlusive club but just a different way to get things done. And to me, it's in no way about high fidelity. The opposite, really. I'm looking to color the sound, thicken it and muddy it in a subtle, musical way. I dunno, it seems that the engineers are getting really good at modeling this sort of thing in the digital domain, and I'm all for that, especially if it puts the tools into more hands. But as Zee said about the Moog, I'll say about a low-wattage Class-A triode tube amp: one absolutely sure way to get that sound is to plug one in and mic it. And that's easy and cheap and fast, in my experience.

And I think the analog charm is very real, or the engineers wouldn't be trying to model it in digital.

If someone else gets the same sound from another easy, cheap, and fast method, I'm for it. This is just the way of working that sounds and feels best to me at the moment.

I'm old, though, and my way is going away. I can't even find CrO2 cassettes in any store at all anymore. And if I were about ten or twenty years younger, I'm sure I'd never twist a physical knob if I could help it. Or at least I'd start out that way. So yeah, whatever gets somebody recording.

And I agree that the material and the performance are more important than the tech or the fidelity.

 

[Dr ZEE]

The promised land isn't in the hard drive...

Yes it is.
And much much more.


/later

 

[Dr ZEE]

oh, btw,
Having "40 grand worth of equipment and 25 years tech experience behind them" is NOT required.
So?
Hmmmmmmmmm.
If so, then... ????

Now, here's the question:
- Then, What is SOOOOOOOOOO great about having ALL THAT at the click of a mouse? (uh! >>>> at the "fraction of the cost", - but of course! )

/later


p.s.
Build your own Moog. Transistors are dirt cheap.

 

[7x7]

Same here. Analog, to me, is not some exlusive club but just a different way to get things done. And to me, it's in no way about high fidelity. The opposite, really. I'm looking to color the sound, thicken it and muddy it in a subtle, musical way.

I fully agree on this and all your other points.

Personally I like to think an analog mixer and recorder are part of the composition. Every signal processor in the chain will leave it's own musical signature but it is something you want or don't want...
Cause good, bad, worse, better, inferior, superior... those are absolute terms... I hate to say it, cause it ends all discussion, but it is a matter of personal taste... Some find an analog and dynamic signal pleasing to the ear, some find a harsh and compressed signal pleasing. There's no way of telling why, there's no science to back it up, it's more a matter of psychology or even philosophy. The only thing certain is that the sources you use and the way you record them and play them back do have their effect on the final sound. You can use these effects to get a sound that you like, but the way you perceive and value sound, that's personal.

To me there's also some romanticizing involved... I just love recording analog cause the whole process of recording analog is fun, from routing and adjusting all signals right down to my cat getting ready to attack the moving reels on my recorder... It feels good, it feels real, it feels like you're actually doing something and I like the results I get. If I could do all this digitally I probably still wouldn't, cause I like the craftsmanship that goes with the ' analog domain'. Probably that's also the difference between the home recordist and the pro studio's... A home recordist can do whatever he feels like, there's no band or studio executive telling them otherwise. It's you recording your music the way you like to hear it.

 

[cjacek]

To me there's also some romanticizing involved... I just love recording analog cause the whole process of recording analog is fun, from routing and adjusting all signals right down to my cat getting ready to attack the moving reels on my recorder... It feels good, it feels real, it feels like you're actually doing something and I like the results I get. If I could do all this digitally I probably still wouldn't, cause I like the craftsmanship that goes with the ' analog domain'.

That's exactly how I feel too and probably is at least 50% why I chose analogue [except the cat part - I don't have one]. The whole process is organic and intuitive. In addition to the above, there's something inherently comforting about storing ones musical compositions on a tape format, in a linear fashion, with nothing really being 'throw out' as with sampling and such......

I do, however, concede that some aspects of analogue are romanticized / psychological but that's all good. I feel the actual process of recording should be as fun as possible and analogue provides in spades.

Plus, I like real, palpable hardware and things with which you interact in real time. The fact that one can use 80's technology, a tape machine, with minor servicing and it delivering stunning sound for decades to come, right 'out of the box', is comforting. Heh, imagine infinite sampling technology, which needs no software updates / upgrades, will never, IMHO, be made 'obsolete', will never crash or with one button delete all your work and will provide reliable, repeatable performance over time, right out of the box, is something to consider.

Sure, I love the sound of analogue and can def tell the difference but there's more to analogue than sonics alone, at least for me. Still, I'd prefer the sound of my cassette portastudio than just about any low or high end digital format, which may seem crazy to some but that's what I feel. Analog, from it's hardware to sound, has plenty of character which I like very much.

Still, it bears repeating, that the above experience(s) may change depending on condition of machine and, unfortunately, there's plenty of ones out-there not performing to spec, unserviced or outright thrashed in transit during shipping. Also, we get people new to analogue who wish to try the format, who have unrealistic expectations, they don't know what they're getting into, purchase problem machines and want to put them into immediate use and some even use bad tape.

There's so much you need to know prior to going the analogue route and need to know what you're buying and what to service prior to use and how to deal with tape, shipping etc....... Too many people are looking for 'magic' right out of the box and a 20 year old run down recorder will not provide, not to mention shipping disasters - all too common. It is at this time people get frustrated and give up.....

------

 

[Beck]

I dig you Dr ZEE, you are dedicated to nonviolent hobbies. Anyone who keeps busy without disturbing the peace might as well be my own brother in my mind. I would never take what is yours or intentionally cause you trouble.

But on the subject of music, fidelity, and so on... I went and listened to some of your songs on your site. Mostly the "dub" style tunes. Now i am not saying this to bum you out or anything, cause i doubt i could anyways. But for the sake of argument it doesnt really "sound" analogish to me. Its actually very very clean and not at all murky like real dub reggae sounds. The echo tails are crisp and sound very much like how a digital delay sounds.

The point of this is not to bust balls because i have no idea what your intent was on those projects and plus i dont really care. But just for the sake of argument i would think those tracks were recorded straight to the computer. SINCERELY i would if someone had told me that. The point of this is, all that time all that trouble for nothing. Cause i actually MISS the hiss and murky sound of actual dub, sounds that to some are highly undesirable and unprofessional. OK OK so maybe saying all that time and trouble for nothing is wrong because you got your thrill working with the equipment and all that. But the listener doesnt get that thrill, they only have the song, and either it thrills them or doesnt.

My sound has never been hissy or murky, even when all we had was analog. A lot of people have misconceptions about what using analog was/is all about. You can use tape for extreme effect if you wish, but other than that it records very cleanly, though with a quality that makes it pleasing to the human ear. But the differences between analog and digital are as much about what digital leaves out as the subtitle warmth analog adds. If analog is the airbrushed Playboy centerfold, then digital is the photograph taken in harsh lighting that results in an unnaturally sharp and unflattering image.

The idea that digital gives back exactly what goes in is a broad misconception based on a couple specs… its almost perfectly flat frequency response and the ability to reproduce almost exact copies digitally without generational loss. This is what was originally understood at a technical level as “What goes in is what comes out.” However a flat frequency response does not address the subjective character of digitally reproduced sound, as humans perceive it. Marketing, together with a non-technical general public created the broader myth of infallible digital.

This is very easy to prove… simply consider the plethora of competing digital devices and different converters that people have been obsessing about for the last 20 years. Which one is the perfect digital that reproduces exactly what was recorded? It depends on which manufacturer you ask and which products they’ve discontinued. 25 years ago we were told that CD at 16/44.1 reproduced the music perfectly. 5 years later it was even “perfectlier” because of better converters, etc. 10 years later it was even better than perfectlier because of even better converters, greater bit depth and resolution, so they say.

Hmmm… how did they improve on perfect? Or is it that digital wasn’t delivering 20, 10, or even 5 years ago and perhaps not even now?

Every time people get into debates about which converters are better or which software or hardware gives better sonic results they acknowledge (even though they don’t realize it) that there is no one digital system that represents “What goes in is what comes out.” Digital is in fact no different than analog in this regard… different systems and machines have different character.

This myth has given us the situation we have today… people believing they can get the same results on a home PC that it used to take a room full of hardware, and more importantly, talent and skill to get.

On to the subject of going to a lot of trouble for nothing because the audience won’t appreciate it. That’s not necessarily an analog vs. digital argument, because IMO we are living in very dark times in the history of popular music. It’s not a great time to strive for excellence and expect to be appreciated. But this too shall pass… I pray. It’s gotta hit bottom… history shows it always does. And after the smoke clears people discover beauty again. Keep your candle burning.

 

[cjacek]

...plus, what's more sexy than an analogue tape deck? I rest my case!

 

[cjacek]

...even more sex!

 

[7x7]

Sheer beauty indeed!

To get the analog sound, I think most of us agree.
To keep it, I'm afraid a soldering iron is the most important piece in any studio.

 

[ausrock]

Not my pic but I've got the same machine and they're as sexy as hell to play with

 

[Tim Gillett]

Call me old fashioned but I prefer a woman.

 

[7x7]

I haven't yet met a woman that ages as well as my analogue equipment

edit: Maybe it's the soldering iron that scares them off...

 

[Dr ZEE]

...we are living in very dark times in the history of popular music. ...

YES we are.
Also, thanks for quoting good friend, without it I'd miss that post - when "system" works - it works -
ah, anyways,

But for the sake of argument it doesnt really "sound" analogish to me.

For sake of WHAT argument? What exactly are you arguing? and with who?
You were streaming mp3s 96kbps of some stuff I've recorded 10 years ago or so. I have even older stuff. Yep, all recorded to digital recorders, sometimes to computer, almost all the time using load digital midi "synthesisers" (yeah, they call them "synthesizers" , and so did I - ) and digital samplers, a lot of digital effects, I always mixed on analog mixer (so what? big deal ).
I've been doing this sh*t for years: from trance, house and acid-techno through midi-orchestration classical/movie scores. That's how I know what it's really worth. That IS! exactly why I would never advise anyone (who may "think" that he/she has some musical talent and/or real passion for music) to commit digital suicide.
*********
In order to really know what REAL waste of time is one has to waste it first, so to know how does it feel after it's gone.

I guess I'm still dreaming about making a good recording, and am sort of working on it. If it will never happen, so be it.
I'm running out of time.

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr


now I have to repeat this:

...we are living in very dark times in the history of popular music. ...

YES we are.

 

[Tim Gillett]

Even if we are living in very dark times in the history of popular music (I'm not sure either way) that's the beauty of recordings. There's enough recordings of the greats of the past to keep us happy for many years.

Only last week I sat down in my comfy chair and spent an evening listening to the genius of Art Tatum on piano, over 50 years ago. Once I get into listening to really great music performances questions of which sort of recorder, microphone etc was used, are definitely secondary.
Tatum just happened to be recorded on an analog tape machine because that's what was used at that time. It did its job and the rest is history.

Tatum lives on! That's the most important thing to me.

Tim

 

[Dr ZEE]

Tatum just happened to be recorded on an analog tape ...

One lucky soul.

 

[Somnium7]

p.s.
Build your own Moog. Transistors are dirt cheap.

Now that's what I'm talkin 'bout boyee! Whip out that soldering iron and do that DIY thang!

Right on!

 

[Somnium7]

Oh hell I need to reply again.

Observations of the differences between my current computer based setup and my former Tascam 388 setup.

PC- requires software dongles too record
388- requires tape

PC- requires internet connection to validate software key
388 - Requires power switch turned to on position

PC- crashes, freezes and blue screens sometimes right in the middle of recording
388- reaches the end of the tape

PC- requires driver updates for I/O hardware
388- Requires demagnetization

PC- downloads Windows update and ceases to function properly and requires a rollback.
388- requires more tape

PC- Completely wrecks hot synth basslines requiring me to use a limiter and pads
388- eats hot synth basslines for breakfast and turns them into something amazing to the ears

PC- Allows random access editing
388 - has punch-in with optional footswitch

PC- has options of 16 bit 44.1K, 16 bit 48K, 24 bit 96K, 24 bit 192K, sample rate conversion, dithering, ASIO, DirectX, SPDIF, AES/EBU, wordclock, etc. etc. etc.
388 - just makes sound, can sync to SMPTE, does not require thinking in binary

PC- needs CDR, DVD-R, Removable HD, Flash drive, File Compression
388 - needs more tape

PC- generates lots of RF interference through power circuits and radiation which adversely affects neighboring audio equipment
388- makes tape hiss, not intrusive to other equipment

I could go on...
However, thinking so much about my long since stolen 388 is making me sad

 

[cjacek]

Great post Somnium7!

---

 

[cjacek]

However, thinking so much about my long since stolen 388 is making me sad

Makes me sad too. I luv my 388 and I'd also be pissed all to hell if it was stolen!

BTW, keep an eye out for a local 388. I'm sure something will come up soon. Failing that, any nice tape multi-tracker, I'm sure, would make you happy again..

---

 

[Somnium7]

Great post Somnium7!

---

Thanks cjacek!

I don't have the room for a 388 now that my Toa RX-7 occupies such a huge hunk of real estate in my studio.
I guess it could be cool to find a stand-alone two track machine one day. I would love to be able to send my mixes to tape at the very least.

MY old setup with the 388 was a hybrid. See I also used a computer
However, that computer was an old 486DX with no sound card running the Windows 3.1 Cubase 1.0. On the printer port was a Midi/SMPTE interface.
Everytime I began a new project it began with me disabling noise reduction on trk 8 and striping SMPTE from the beginning of the tape to the end.

Then I could start sequencing my synths, sampler and drum machine. I didn't have any multi-timbral synths then so I used tape tracks for that. I always left two blank tape tracks for the final mix and then copied that onto cassettes. I still have some of those old cassettes too and love to listen to them just to hear that old sound. Great stuff!

The SMPTE to Midi locking was bulletproof and had no latency. I was constantly amazed at how great it worked.

For awhile I was toying with this crazy idea of having my music mastered for vinyl and getting a small number of records made. I would then use the record as the master for the CDs. It would be so cool to get a CD that sounds like vinyl because it was mastered from it.
Too much of a technical nightmare though.