Just curious as to why still analog??

acorec said:
You are not fit to kiss Blue Bear"s ass fuckwad.
Click to expand...


These sorts of comments serve no constructive purpose in our forum. I find them offensive and I know other’s do as well. We’ve all had bad days and familly squabbles, I know, but this is unrelenting harassment and beyond the pale. Dr Zee didn’t deserve that swipe and I couldn’t disagree with you more in your assessment of Falken.

-Tim
 
once you're dead a buried and gone from this world, no one will care how you made your music, just that you made it at all.
Click to expand...
Ghost, thats the most rational statement on this bbs. Let me expand on it though..instead of
"once you're dead a buried and gone from this world"...how bout when they listen? I know when I listen to music I like, I don't give a shit about the quality. Hell, my favorite artist is Django Reinhardt, and tell me those recordings don't suck! But the MUSIC is all that counts, and I love it. Fuck the sonics!! In fact, I kinda like the old timey sound to some of those. It gives "authenticity" to the recordings, which is SERIOUSLY lacking in todays POP music......if you can call it that :rolleyes: :p
fitZ
 
Hi Tim, I posted a new thread just now which may help u understand. I found the AW16 was like like programming a very complex video playerand was non-indusive to creativity. I use 1 side of my brain for writing/playing/painting and the other for technology type stuff. I could not record at all. Instead of looking forward to recording I made excuses not to. As to the warm sound....Im not too convinced but I am a little.
 
Darrell2 said:
Hi Tim, I posted a new thread just now which may help u understand. I found the AW16 was like like programming a very complex video playerand was non-indusive to creativity. I use 1 side of my brain for writing/playing/painting and the other for technology type stuff. I could not record at all. Instead of looking forward to recording I made excuses not to. As to the warm sound....Im not too convinced but I am a little.
Click to expand...

The one thing Analog will always be miles ahead of digital is in its ease of use department. But hey, lets not forget the fun factor, which Analog gives you in spades. You actually look forward to using it.
 
cjacek said:
The one thing Analog will always be miles ahead of digital is in its ease of use department. But hey, lets not forget the fun factor, which Analog gives you in spades. You actually look forward to using it.
Click to expand...


(Bill Lumbergh [Office Space] voice)...Um yeah, Ok , I'm, uh going to have to, uh, go ahead and agree with you on that.
Flipping through mulitple screens is no easy task and does take focus. Focus from the actual sound? maybe not for some. For me, to a degree yes. Once you learn the pattern (like on my DM Pro, but 4-line screen or something like that) it gets a little easier, but I could have gotten the drum sounds I wanted (and it's an ongoing process, btw) quicker on an acoustic set with mics, I bet. But for cut and paste and editing, you betcha'...digital rules in that field, on EFFICIENCY only though, my opinion of course. Conversely, if I put my mind to it I could probably get some decent and quick digital recordings. Again, analog-style (namely an analog board and outboard gear, the actual medium I prefer but I'm not as taken aback by as the doing everything or most everything 'in the box' process) is only my choice and preference, nothing else.
Analog is the way I like it and it's my money I'm spending on gear, so I'm going to spend it on what I like. :)
 
I, too, was sucked into the vortex!

The Ghost of FM said:
I'm not sure if staying on the original topic is still relevant at this point but I'll give it a shot.

I've been a home recording enthusiast for about 25 years at this point.

When I started out there was only analog gear available to me as a home user and I did introduce certain digital components to my set up as the technologies became decent and affordable.

As for why I stuck with analog for tracking and mixing, it largely because I enjoy the tactile feel of an analog mixer versus a flat, fake picture of one on my computer screen and as far as the sound goes, I like what analog tape does in capturing my efforts and the reliability and storage longevity of the medium.

To me, analog is a mature technology; stable, workable, fixable and pleasurable to listen to.

I don't hate digital. I just don't find it as friendly a medium to work with.

In the end, it's all about the music you create with your gear, what ever your gear is and just as painters prefer different mediums to produce their works of personal expression, analog recording gear should be viewed as just another brush or type of paint.

Something else to consider, once you're dead a buried and gone from this world, no one will care how you made your music, just that you made it at all.

Cheers! :)
Click to expand...
I echo Ghost's sentiments, exactly. That's my rationale,... no more & no less. Why retype the same memo, when Ghost said it so well. GFM & I often think in "uni-thought" on many things, with this being only one.
 
In my case, I simply just enjoy working in the analog realm more. Maybe there is nostalgia involved, maybe I do have somewhat of a reluctance to digital, but then, maybe not. In any event, I just like it a LOT! It feels creative to me, whereas digital recording, especially via computer software, is very unenjoyable to me. Who knows, maybe I'll record on a wax cylinder for my first 78 release!
;) Heather
 
Woah, how did I miss this one? :confused:

My signature explains it all. I was using my recording software and deleted my computer. Now, all I have left is a tape deck. ;)
 
That's a good one! LOL!!

Mikey likes it! said:
I was using my recording software and deleted my computer. Now, all I have left is a tape deck. ;)
Click to expand...

LOL!! cjacek LIKES IT too! :D ;)
 
This thread has really inspired me to give analog recording a go. I've never done any A/Bs but i think it sounds like it could be for me. I recently bought a 16mm film camera because i love the picture quality over digital, and I am about to trade in my solid state amp for a fender blues jr because i figure there is no point arguing with your taste... I've done a bit of recording using my condenser mic and the us-122 onboard preamps (probably not great) and the quality isn't amazing me. I figure this would be a decent avenue to check out rather than dropping a ton of cash on more digital gear.

A couple of quick questions for the analog people here:
1) If i track on analog then transfer to my pc/digital for mixing and editing, is it still going to sound better than if i had tracked on digital? I'd imagine it is a similar deal to how i shoot on 16mm film them transfer to digital for editing which still looks far better.

2) What is something good to start with equipment wise? I have a tascam us-122 usb interface which i can use as an A/D i guess, and i have a sm58 and an *okay* condenser vocal mic. Would i track one channel at a time and then transfer or do i have to mix live generally and transfer all at once?

I'm finding this all pretty exciting!
 
bendeho said:
1) If i track on analog then transfer to my pc/digital for mixing and editing, is it still going to sound better than if i had tracked on digital?
Click to expand...

It may sound better.... another words it will have 'potential to sound better' ;) ,
You'll have to get 'friendly' with analog recorder.
*******
"bad analogy": say, a car with manual transmission is potentially better driving machine than a car with automatic transmission. A person who only knows how to (or can) drive a car with automatic transmission, potentially can 'drive better' a car with manual transmission.
********


bendeho said:
2) What is something good to start with equipment wise? I have a tascam us-122 usb interface which i can use as an A/D i guess, and i have a sm58 and an *okay* condenser vocal mic. Would i track one channel at a time and then transfer or do i have to mix live generally and transfer all at once?
Click to expand...
In general I'd say: to get the best out of analog recording you need first to get the best reel-to-reel machine you can (in general: more square tape per track and more rec/play tape-speed) and second to get a nice analog mixer.

To me mixing on analg mixer is actually MUCH more important than recording to analog tape (unless there's no much to mix there, like if you record a solo instrument, or recording live show with one stereo/pair mic, as example). But, I guess, this can be discussed separately.
And what is a 'nice analog mixer' ????.... that would be a special topic as well ;).... allot will depend on what kind of music do you (or do you plan to) record/produce and how... (Is it a band, a rock-band, a solo play, a 'one man band', a 'fusion genre, where anything goes', electronic music/groove? etc etc)
 
I should probably rephrase that, I'd like to foray into analog recording but i don't particularly want to spend a heap of cash, or sacrifice a massive degree of convenience. The tascam 488 mkII sounds like it could be the sort of thing i'm looking for given its cassette usage and so forth. I assume those are relatively cheap to get still?

In terms of what i'll be recording on this, at this stage it will be more 'one man band' type of stuff centered around electric guitar. Rock, punk, as well as some hiphop vocals potentially, and probably some ADR (post produced) dialogue for films.

Due to my lack of a proper recording environment (acoustically) i'm thinking of tracking one instrument/vocal at once and then mixing afterwards. This could change but at this stage i'd say thats how i'd have to do it.

Forgive my ignorance but I'm not quite clear on how overdubbing works with analog cassette mixers. Say i record a rhythm guitar take on one channel with a guitar solo simultaneously on another channel. Am i correct in thinking that those are effectively stuck on tape together and basically set in stone? Ie if i wanted to keep the rhythm guitar but do another solo i'm stuck with recording the take again?

This might also sound stupid, but can you rerecord over cassettes without much issue or is that frowned upon? Are they special tapes/expensive/easy to find?

Assuming that i'd be recording on tape (for the most part) individual tracks then wanting to overdub other layers afterwards, am i going to find it easy to do so (including getting it onto my pc?).

The main thing i guess i'm going for with all of this is a warm natural sounding recording... or would i be better off just getting a preamp and plugging it into my us-122?
 
bendeho said:
I should probably rephrase that, I'd like to foray into analog recording but i don't particularly want to spend a heap of cash, or sacrifice a massive degree of convenience. The tascam 488 mkII sounds like it could be the sort of thing i'm looking for given its cassette usage and so forth. I assume those are relatively cheap to get still?

In terms of what i'll be recording on this, at this stage it will be more 'one man band' type of stuff centered around electric guitar. Rock, punk, as well as some hiphop vocals potentially, and probably some ADR (post produced) dialogue for films.

Due to my lack of a proper recording environment (acoustically) i'm thinking of tracking one instrument/vocal at once and then mixing afterwards. This could change but at this stage i'd say thats how i'd have to do it.

Forgive my ignorance but I'm not quite clear on how overdubbing works with analog cassette mixers. Say i record a rhythm guitar take on one channel with a guitar solo simultaneously on another channel. Am i correct in thinking that those are effectively stuck on tape together and basically set in stone? Ie if i wanted to keep the rhythm guitar but do another solo i'm stuck with recording the take again?

This might also sound stupid, but can you rerecord over cassettes without much issue or is that frowned upon? Are they special tapes/expensive/easy to find?

Assuming that i'd be recording on tape (for the most part) individual tracks then wanting to overdub other layers afterwards, am i going to find it easy to do so (including getting it onto my pc?).

The main thing i guess i'm going for with all of this is a warm natural sounding recording... or would i be better off just getting a preamp and plugging it into my us-122?
Click to expand...


If the rhythm guitar and solo are on seperate tracks you can re-do either one even if done simultaneously. They'd have to be done direct if you do them at the same time so one track doesn't pick up the other. I don't think direct guitar sounds too good but that's up to you. Or you can always do them one at a time.

The best tape to buy would be a high bias tape not the normal bias. Those machines are meant to re-record over tracks so you shouldn't have a big issue with old tracks bleeding through.

With cassette based recording you may run into more noise than you're used to on your pc but with the NR on it may be fine. I think you should try it out just to see the differences. You can get some great feeling recordings done on tape they just may not sound as hi fi but still very listenable.
 
Thanks Steve, that all sounds fine. For some reason i was under the impression that all tracks were mixed into one channel on the tape which seemed pretty impractical.

Am i right in thinking i should be able to easily dub what i track on the 8track straight onto my PC via line out? Does that mean i could even use the 8track as a mixer directly into my pc with its preamps and so forth?

Lastly, does the tascam 488 mk2 sound like a good option for my uses or is there something else i should look at?

Thanks for the advice guys!
 
There are a lot of people here who are more familiar than I am with cassette based multitracks. The only one I have had is the Fostex x-15 4 track. I got it when it first came out which was I think the first one on the market EVER. :D So I can't really answer those questions. I do know that sometimes those things need to be in record mode in order to get a source signal. You may have to run a tape in record just to get an output signal to run into your computer if you wanted to use it just as a mixer. With tracks you record and want to mix on your computer there maybe direct outs for each track. So depending on what you have for inputs on your sound card you may be able to send each track to it's own track on your computer. There would be at the very least a stereo out. So it all depends on your computer as well.
 
Well, I haven't had much of a chance to use my new reel-to-reel yet, but I can tell you why I was so hot to get it. Pro Tools recordings generally don't have the feel I'm after. The Chili Peppers, 311, Pearl Jam, and I think Audioslave still track to tape. Pro Tools is no doubt involved, but the instruments are still tracked to tape.

The reason I decided to get 8 track reel was quite simply what I have discovered myself as far as bass tone. I use a mid-80's Mesa/Boogie Bass 400 tube amp. ALL TUBE. I've tried tube pre's and they just cannot nail it. I hate it when I go up on stage to find that the sound man has DI'd me before my amp. Those tubes are a part of my sound. Yes I play bass, yes I run my tubes hot, yes it overdrives, and yes it does sound awesome when mixed with the rest of the band. And yes, Motown recordings had slightly overdriven bass on them. It sounded great. Every attempt at "tube" tone without tubes, is in my eyes, a failure. Too grainy.

We recorded our last CD with ProTools. It sucked.

Whether you go ProTools or Analog, there is no substitute for getting it perfect before it ever hits the microphone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top