Best way to get "analog" sound

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vagodeoz
  • Start date Start date

Which part on the audio chain has the most impact in the "analog" sound

  • Microphone (Tube/Ribbon/Vintage)

    Votes: 2 2.6%

  • Pre-Amp (Tube)

    Votes: 3 3.9%

  • Recording (4 trackers/reel to reel)

    Votes: 58 76.3%

  • Mixing (Any analog mixer instead of digital)

    Votes: 7 9.2%

  • Mastering (Processing it through all kind of fancy tube gear)

    Votes: 6 7.9%
  • Total voters
    76
Somnium7 said:
The SMPTE to Midi locking was bulletproof and had no latency. I was constantly amazed at how great it worked.
Click to expand...

I still record this way... Analog/MIDI. Everything is slaved to my Tascam TSR-8, including my DAW.

I have a lot of multitimbral synths and modules though... Ensoniq, Kurzweil, Roland, so I don’t often need to use the DAW.

:)
 
That 2PSE was perfect for my setup. The two Midi ports were a huge help since my Prophet 600 synthesizer only received Midi in Omni mode. So that instrument got it's own dedicated Midi port from the interface.
The only drawback was having to add a 2nd printer port to the PC and setting it up to print from that. You had to manually set the IRQs and interupts with jumpers and sacrifice a chicken or two then do the voodoo dance all covered in the blood of virgins. :D:D:D
Honestly though, pre plug-and-play PC hardware was easier to troubleshoot.
 
Dr ZEE said:
SNIP!

p.s.
Build your own Moog. Transistors are dirt cheap.
Click to expand...



Funny you should say that....I'm just starting up a build of a modular synth. something to lay down on the 16 track. :cool:

-Ethan
 
didn't read all the posts but i think one of the most important things is the recorded gear,a tube amp will make it sound less sterile and more warm,also the effects (outboard or guitar-wise) are very,very important.a cheap digital reverb unit can take all the warmth/analog-sound of an analog-recording...
 
pehjott said:
didn't read all the posts but i think one of the most important things is the recorded gear,a tube amp will make it sound less sterile and more warm,also the effects (outboard or guitar-wise) are very,very important.a cheap digital reverb unit can take all the warmth/analog-sound of an analog-recording...
Click to expand...
Necro post of the week!

And yes, it's obvious that you didn't read all the posts...
 
Getting cold here. If I turn on all my analog gear at the same time, I'll bet I can warm the house up a bit.
 
instruments/amps!

Something that I consider to be huge in the signal chain is the actual instrument and amplifier combo. A lot of one trick ponies in my studio. For example, when I want an organ sound, I play a (gasp!) organ, a Hammond M2 with its original Jensen 12". If I want a big clean 60s jangle with trem, I'll play through by Ampeg Gemini II. If I want a nice drum sound I'll pair the nicest cymbals I can find with my 66 Rogers Holiday kit that's been tuned and has nice new heads on it. I'm a die hard tape head (I run a vinyl-only label!), but I bet a I could make a pretty okay recording on a computer with all of my period amps and instruments. I'd rather record to a computer with all my vintage toys than to tape with some IC chip nightmare amp and Chinese wood!

-scott thee caveman
 
Easy, buy all analog equipment. I know it's not practical anymore! At Least buy an analog tape recorder of some kind and track and mix with that then copy to cd.
 
This is a simple enough question in my mind (if not phrased in a such a way as to allow many people to feel comfortable answering in a straightforward manner).

and as the poll overwhelmingly demonstrates.... its the tape!

yes, everything matters, but provided everything else is clean enough and you haven't ruined your signal somewhere real bad, and (as was the condition in the poll) you could only have one aspect of the chain 'analog' (used here as an adjective in manner of the original poster), most important in my experience is the tape on your tracks - yes, you can run your mix through tape, but in my opinion the individual tracks on tape is far more pleasing and (very important for me) easier to mix (& easier to enjoy mixing!). yes, tube mics/pres/compressors can be nice, but where I'm at now, I'd rather run good solid state mics/pres/compressors to 15ips tape than tube stuff to digital in an hypothetical either/or situation.

...but its quite true that even a 'semi-professional' 1/4" reel to reel 4 track at 15ips is going to have rather a different quality to your cassette 4-tracker.
...I'm just saying different.;)
 
2 cents worth from a junior member.

Farview said:
Like cjacek was saying. The sound that you think is 'analog' is really just top notch equipment. It's not about tubes, it's not even about tape, it's about good quality gear, good technique, and good mixing.

The good analog sound you are looking for will not be found on a cassette 4-track, a sub-$500 tube mic preamp, a sub-$1000 tube mic, etc...

It really is the whole signal chain. If you are chasing the beatles and pink floyd sound and only have $1000 to spend, you are out of luck. The equivelent stuff nowadays would cost $3k - $6k for the a mic, $2k for a channel of preamp, 2k for a compressor, a reel to reel tape deck (a good one), and $250 worth of tape for every 10 minutes of recording time.

Even though some things get cheaper over time as technology marches on, you are looking for old technology that is just getting rarer and more expensive. The people at ART, MXL, etc... do not make anything that compares to the high end stuff. If they did, it wouldn't cost $200. The good stuff costs more than that in parts.
Click to expand...

I can't go along with, It all depends on how much $$$ you spend on equipment! Creativity definitely helps and using your imagination and not being afraid to try something new, just because some psuedo genius says you can't do that. It goes against the rule book!
 
cjacek said:
i may get into problems with my analog brethren but here are my thoughts...

I've heard some god awful analog recordings, which sounded cold and i've heard warm digital recordings and vice versa. While i prefer to record to tape and always will, it's not only about the tape recorder. It's very important but other variables play a role too. It's the totality of it all which makes an "analog" sound, including the type of recorder and tape you're using, speed, noise reduction or not (type of it), mics, preamps, consoles, outboard gear, room, the way it is mixed, mastered etc....

Imho, if you wish to get a certain sound, you should recreate (as best as possible) the entire signal chain (including rooms and recording techniques) of your favorite recordings.

You should have added more options in your poll, including "all of the above".:)
Click to expand...

......this^
 
Well, since this thread has been bumped..heres my take.

I'm an old fart. I like recordings that were recorded in ALL analog studios. I've been listening, playing music and learning about recording for over 40 years and I've come to a FINAL conclusion lately.

For the past 5 years, I listen to music most of the day out in my shop. Either old cassettes, a CD or two, and a few different radio stations. And this is what I've learned.


Somewhere along the line, recordings started sounding different. I can't really put my finger on it, but my ears tell me that after CD's became the defacto standard for music delivery, slowly but surely, most listeners must have become mesmerized by the hype of "digital", or "trained" by virtue of the new technology of the time, that this was the way music was supposed to sound. Over time, new artists/producers gained access to the digital revolution in home recording gear, and all it had to offer in the way of recording/editing/composing/mixing etc. Hell, there must be a zillion studios by now. All of which are now so accustomed to recording in the digital domain, they haven't really taken the time to listen how music has evolved into a sound that I can only describe as "lacking".

Let me be blunt.:rolleyes: In the last year, I really began to notice that most of the music I hear on the radio, and I DON'T mean the artists, actually, the recordings...to my ears....




SUCK


After a half hour or so....I REALLY can't stand it. The digital sonic signature is so pronounced, so dismally thin, so mathamatically sterile, so anti-human, so artistically artificial and the reverbs make me sick. I don't know nor care if this is the result of the Homerecording / digital revolution or lack of understanding by the engineers or a generation or 2 or listeners who grew up listening to this sonic signature..and think..THAT'S WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO SOUND LIKE or what...all I know is..my ears actually become fatigued..or my brain somehow get's sonically overtaxed..or something.

So, what do I do? I go slap in one of my old cassettes of someone like John Lee Hooker, or the Ravens, or any number of old recordings of REAL artists..and low and behold. I smile. I enjoy. My ears LIKE IT!! So, as far as the question of this thread is concerned...I don't have an answer. What I DO know is this. I don't give a damn what all the "digitalized" people say about it. I know what I hear. I know something has changed...and if that's what the general populace likes to hear...be my guest. Meanwhile, I'll listen to what I consider BETTER recordings, BETTER artists, BETTER engineering, and BETTER ANALOG RECORDED MUSIC! They can have their digitized Lady GAGA...their rap...their hip hop and all the other crap on the radio these days. Now, where did I put that John Lee vinyl ANALOG record. I want my ANALOG EARS to hear something that was designed for them. :rolleyes:

Ok...old fart rant done.:drunk::D
 
best way to get analog sound is to use analog equipment... not too tricky is it?

Yes, I too believe your Lady Gaga and general pop/dance top 30 hit songs all sound like shit (recording wise) but I have to strongly disagree that music a few decades ago sounds better than it does now days. Compare mainstream pop nowadays to mainstream pop in the 70s and 80s... the recordings sounded crap then as well... Cyndi Lauper's 'girls just want to have fun' sounds really bad to my ears as does almost ALL the 70's disco tunes. You shouldn't just think about your Pink Floyd, Genesis and Led Zeppelin recordings when your thinking about 'old' recordings.... just like you shouldn't just think about Lady Gaga and Rihanna's recordings when you think about 'new' recordings. Listen to any record put out by Arcade Fire, Grizzly Bear, Radiohead, Ryan Adam's... that's all been recorded in recent years (all recorded on analog tape machines) and is imo some of the best sounding recordings and most talented artists ever.

Also, last time I checked... radio always sucked... now they play lady gaga and that crap and back then they played boy george, culture club and disco.
 
Use reel for real.

I disagree with a lot of the post here that assume such a description exists such as warm or not warm.

Simply put, a good reel to reel is still the best way to duplicate the sound that came through the mic. It's not warm it's just natural. (I'll assume you already have a decent understanding of miking techniques)

Digital will never sound natural due to it's inherited limitations. If you are doing any kind of wave sampling, you are falling short. The brain knows what sounds real and what sounds unreal.

Now if you like hearing unreal sounds and are hypnotized by sound effects created in the digital domain, then by all means explore those possibilities, but if you are after a real sounding recording that captures sound waves bouncing around a room, then you simply can't beat a quality tape machine. There was a good point made here that if you want a certain sound START WITH THAT SOUND!! Forget racks of effect sends, processors, and plugins if you want real.

Use reel for real.
 
All the (recent above)

There's also the analog gear itself. Now I can't afford nor am I recommending some $8000 Manley compressor or what not. But there is something to be said for better designed (which doesn't have to be expensive) vs cheap gear. E.g., there was a thread over in DIY about some compressor that had a 9v wall wart power supply. Now either it operates on 9v (= no headroom) or it has a switching power supply (= unnecessary noise) Either way, it's not going to sound that great.

Now for my rant: I still have my old Teac reciever, and I still have my Pacific Stereo house brand 110w receiver. (It needs work, I use it as a main amp) there were some versions of that receiver that had power supplies *for each channel* with huge heavy transformers, heavy heatsinks etc. and about 24v or so running on the power rails. I'm no audiophile, but IMO you can hear a difference. Now those 70s receivers were something that could be afforded by a middle class teenager....

Also, there is the loudness wars. There was a great rant over in mastering a few months ago, and I think I pasted part of it over here. When even the digital waveform looks like a solid bridk, the music is going to sound well, like a brick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top