T
Tim Gillett
Banned
So what about the person who comes along to this or any other forum seeking some sound, unbiased audio recording advice? What should they expect from this forum?
lonewhitefly
Active member
They will get biased recording advice ... same as any other forum. No such thing as unbiased advise ... if there is, I certainly don't want any of it! (How can you give advice without incorporating your experience and perspective?)
Victory Pete
Banned
Right! What good would an analog recording be without "Bias"!
VP
famous beagle
Well-known member
As others have mentioned, they'd receive the same thing as if they went to the Digital recording forum: they'd receive biased information. In that forum, they'd probably hear from people like you to stay away from analog.
J
Jon Stoppable
Banned
In the Digital forum, unless they got lucky, they'd probably receive inaccurate info because it's full of clueless newbs. I will give Analog credit for a higher general level of knowledge. Still, there are significant gaps in the information that is shared here. I don't know all of that info, or I would share it.
We could with a bit of effort bang out a relatively comprehensive sticky that explored the weaknesses of both media that would pretty much settle that aspect of the debate forever. Then people would be free to express their preferences on those terms (for the record, I have no problem with OP and think Tim's entry was somewhat gauche). I can do the digital side of that pretty easily, but we'd need somebody with a dedication to quantitative analysis and access to the requisite gear to do the tape side. Vinyl would be nice too although I imagine rather more difficult.
If there is anyone who'd like to honestly take the tape media side, I will post "the weaknesses of digital recording".
We could with a bit of effort bang out a relatively comprehensive sticky that explored the weaknesses of both media that would pretty much settle that aspect of the debate forever. Then people would be free to express their preferences on those terms (for the record, I have no problem with OP and think Tim's entry was somewhat gauche). I can do the digital side of that pretty easily, but we'd need somebody with a dedication to quantitative analysis and access to the requisite gear to do the tape side. Vinyl would be nice too although I imagine rather more difficult.
If there is anyone who'd like to honestly take the tape media side, I will post "the weaknesses of digital recording".
PRHunt
I void warranties
So, you're looking for objectivity, repeatability and and general adherence to scientific rigor - in the realm of stuff which is ostensibly audible but often claimed to be unmeasurable.
Wouldn't that take all the fun out of ad hominem attacks, unverifiable claims, and the general dissing of the equipment and hearing abilities of opponents?
Be careful what you wish for
T
The Ghost of FM
Banned
Apologies for being on topic here.
In a general sense, I'd say to just go ahead and create a stereo master that sounds as good as humanly possible to your ears and let the vinyl mastering engineer worry about how to squeeze that onto the cutting lathe. I can't see much good coming from you compressing the shit out of your mix just to please that guy and make his work easier. I'm sure if he's worth his salt, he'll have all the right mastering for vinyl compression and RIAA equalization gear to do his job. The idea of your stereo master should be focused on the music. And Punk music is not going to generally have the dynamics of a symphony orchestra anyway, right?
But sure, go ahead and use whatever compressors you have at your disposal. But use them to tame parts that actually need taming from an artistic point of view, rather then an engineering point of view.
Hope that helps.
Cheers!
I'm not sure of the specific low end frequencies which need to be in mono in order for the cutting engineer to not have problems but 300hz sounds on the high side to me. Something closer to 80hz and below is probably closer to reality. The 15Khz LPF deal on the top end also seems too low as I can't see any higher frequencies above that messing up the the cutter's job.
In a general sense, I'd say to just go ahead and create a stereo master that sounds as good as humanly possible to your ears and let the vinyl mastering engineer worry about how to squeeze that onto the cutting lathe. I can't see much good coming from you compressing the shit out of your mix just to please that guy and make his work easier. I'm sure if he's worth his salt, he'll have all the right mastering for vinyl compression and RIAA equalization gear to do his job. The idea of your stereo master should be focused on the music. And Punk music is not going to generally have the dynamics of a symphony orchestra anyway, right?
But sure, go ahead and use whatever compressors you have at your disposal. But use them to tame parts that actually need taming from an artistic point of view, rather then an engineering point of view.
Hope that helps.
Cheers!
lo.fi.love
Functionally obsessed.
ghost of fm said:
That has always been my understanding of the transaction: You do what you do well (making a mix), the mastering engineer will then do what he or she does well, which is tune and tweak your two-track mix to make it sound as good as possible, taking into account whatever nuances the target medium imposes.
As an engineer of another stripe, it's waste of time for everyone when my clients guess what I need from them and then do it themselves. It goes back to Marx and the division of labor - just leave that to me, I know what I'm doing, I'm the Expert, thanks
T
Tim Gillett
Banned
Yes, so we are left with the question why the customer is delving into making Eq and compression decisions normally reserved for the ME. In the absence of vinyvamos supplying us with the answer himself, which would be ideal, any thoughts from forum members?
Tim G
Tim G
lonewhitefly
Active member
Mixing with vinyl in mind is a good idea, but I wouldn't focus too much on any specific 'rules'. As mentioned earlier, the artistic quality of the mix is most important.
But the idea of mixing with the limitations of vinyl in mind is based on avoiding additional processing if possible. Think of it this way: anything that you are thinking of doing to the final mix can probably be done better by the mastering engineer. But if there is a specific element that might cause problems, it's better to fix that element than have the engineer 'fix' the entire mix because of that element.
For instance, de-essing (or watching the 's' sounds during tracking) on a vocal is better than the vinyl cutter sending the entire mix through a de-esser if there is too much distortion there.
Watch for high frequency spikes (usually cymbal crashes, etc.) ... if you tame it while mixing, then the cutter won't have to use extra compression. The deal with vinyl is it's a constant battle between surface noise and level. If you have too many dynamics, the cutter will have to apply extra compression to get a decent consistent level.
The mono bass thing has to do with potential phase problems. If have bass frequencies panned (especially two different bass frequencies panned, like a stereo synth or something), this can create problems in cutting and make it so the cutter has to center the bass frequencies on the mix. If you can work it out with just the offending instrument(s), you save the entire mix from extra processing. Some people just say, "center your bass frequencies" because it's easier.
Cutting vinyl is unpredictable and many experienced engineers cannot predict how the track will cut until it's done.
I learned a few things when pressing vinyl recently ... I mixed mono, so none of the phase/stereo issues came up. But I will say that vinyl doesn't take EQ as well as tape or CD. I would shoot for the most natural sound possible. Make sure you don't try to squeeze too much material on it ... and press 45 if you're going 7" (I didn't). And placing the hotter or brighter cuts toward the beginning of a side & darker and/or quieter cuts toward the center is for real.
Additionally, if you wish keep it all-analog, you will need to find a mastering house that cuts without a digital delay ... there are only a few around. Basically, most vinyl (actually fairly common since the late '70s I believe) is cut with a digital delay between the source and the vinyl cutter ... essentially negating the all-analog process. A delay is required to prevent damage to the cutting machine ... but a special tape machine must be used in the analog realm.
But the idea of mixing with the limitations of vinyl in mind is based on avoiding additional processing if possible. Think of it this way: anything that you are thinking of doing to the final mix can probably be done better by the mastering engineer. But if there is a specific element that might cause problems, it's better to fix that element than have the engineer 'fix' the entire mix because of that element.
For instance, de-essing (or watching the 's' sounds during tracking) on a vocal is better than the vinyl cutter sending the entire mix through a de-esser if there is too much distortion there.
Watch for high frequency spikes (usually cymbal crashes, etc.) ... if you tame it while mixing, then the cutter won't have to use extra compression. The deal with vinyl is it's a constant battle between surface noise and level. If you have too many dynamics, the cutter will have to apply extra compression to get a decent consistent level.
The mono bass thing has to do with potential phase problems. If have bass frequencies panned (especially two different bass frequencies panned, like a stereo synth or something), this can create problems in cutting and make it so the cutter has to center the bass frequencies on the mix. If you can work it out with just the offending instrument(s), you save the entire mix from extra processing. Some people just say, "center your bass frequencies" because it's easier.
Cutting vinyl is unpredictable and many experienced engineers cannot predict how the track will cut until it's done.
I learned a few things when pressing vinyl recently ... I mixed mono, so none of the phase/stereo issues came up. But I will say that vinyl doesn't take EQ as well as tape or CD. I would shoot for the most natural sound possible. Make sure you don't try to squeeze too much material on it ... and press 45 if you're going 7" (I didn't). And placing the hotter or brighter cuts toward the beginning of a side & darker and/or quieter cuts toward the center is for real.
Additionally, if you wish keep it all-analog, you will need to find a mastering house that cuts without a digital delay ... there are only a few around. Basically, most vinyl (actually fairly common since the late '70s I believe) is cut with a digital delay between the source and the vinyl cutter ... essentially negating the all-analog process. A delay is required to prevent damage to the cutting machine ... but a special tape machine must be used in the analog realm.
Last edited:
lo.fi.love
Functionally obsessed.
lonewhitefly said:
I'd been wondering about that... if it would cause phase issues if that weren't the case. Low frequencies out of phase with each other create a really violent 'wobble' in the signal and that could really screw up the tracking of the cutting implement, right?
lonewhitefly
Active member
yeh, something like that. I'm sort of ignorant regarding why it can be a problem ! The thing is, I've heard records hard-panned really weird (drums on left, bass on right) ... but I think it comes back to the fact that almost anything can be cut, but who knows what the guy cutting it had to go through to get it? There's also the issue of playback ... it might cut fine but playback like $hit. that's where the test pressings come in. I had to get mine cut twice because the first test pressings were too hot.
lo.fi.love
Functionally obsessed.
I think it would be an issue because it'll be out of phase in every place it's played. But!! It will never be out of phase the way it was in your studio, so everyone who plays your recording will get a totally different playback experience than you did in a way that would really, really suck for you.
Or maybe I'm thinking too much? Heh. It's worth thinking about because it does affect how people will hear your music.
Victory Pete
Banned
lo.fi.love
Functionally obsessed.
Tape machines made for this purpose look really cool, too. There's two headstacks and the transport looks like a weird yoyo trick.
Left picture, second from the top, on this page:
http://www.stevehoffman.info/pic-mastering-5.html
Left picture, second from the top, on this page:
http://www.stevehoffman.info/pic-mastering-5.html
leddy
Well-known member
Good info. Thanks for this.
T
Tim Gillett
Banned
When 100% analog aint 100% analog...like disc cutting for the past 30 years
Having never been personally involved with disc cutting, though I read a fair bit about it over the years, I learned today from lonewhitefly that it was fairly common to have a digital delay stage in the audio chain since the late 70's.
I knew about the need for a delay of some kind. The older method achieved the delay by using a special playback head which read the audio slightly ahead of the proper playback head. This gave the lathe time to widen the groove spacing for the loud passage coming up, or to narrow the groove spacing when the music went quiet. It resulted in fitting more grooves per inch, and therefore longer playing time per side than would otherwise be possible. Neat trick.
As I understand him, lonewhitefly says that from the late 70's it was common to replace the special head with a digital delay.
Wow, think about that. All those 100% analog only vinyl records put out from the late 70's onward which were all analog...werent all analog at all. They went through an analog-to-digital audio stage, and then a digital-to-analog audio stage. Wow, just wow.
And does that shed a possible light on why the OP all of a sudden stopped posting here, right after someone suggested that the adding of a digital stage in the disc cutting signal chain wouldnt change the analog sound at all, and which we have now been told has been in operation in disc cutting for the past 30 years anyway? That someone was me. And I didnt even know until today that a digital audio stage was common in disc cutting from as far back as the late 70's. So now, even more than when I made my initial comment, I stand by what I said. Thankyou lonewhitefly for the extra information.
The picture from Steve Hoffman shows the older system which was totally analog, by virtue of its special extra playback head, and which apparently SH still uses for a 100% analog disc cutting system .
Maybe the OP needs to find an ME like Steve Hoffman with that older pre digital system.
And maybe some of you "true believer" guys need a reality check. What you thought was 100% analog vinyl was at some point 100% digital, and you didnt even know it. "bummer" indeed...
Tim G
Having never been personally involved with disc cutting, though I read a fair bit about it over the years, I learned today from lonewhitefly that it was fairly common to have a digital delay stage in the audio chain since the late 70's.
I knew about the need for a delay of some kind. The older method achieved the delay by using a special playback head which read the audio slightly ahead of the proper playback head. This gave the lathe time to widen the groove spacing for the loud passage coming up, or to narrow the groove spacing when the music went quiet. It resulted in fitting more grooves per inch, and therefore longer playing time per side than would otherwise be possible. Neat trick.
As I understand him, lonewhitefly says that from the late 70's it was common to replace the special head with a digital delay.
Wow, think about that. All those 100% analog only vinyl records put out from the late 70's onward which were all analog...werent all analog at all. They went through an analog-to-digital audio stage, and then a digital-to-analog audio stage. Wow, just wow.
And does that shed a possible light on why the OP all of a sudden stopped posting here, right after someone suggested that the adding of a digital stage in the disc cutting signal chain wouldnt change the analog sound at all, and which we have now been told has been in operation in disc cutting for the past 30 years anyway? That someone was me. And I didnt even know until today that a digital audio stage was common in disc cutting from as far back as the late 70's. So now, even more than when I made my initial comment, I stand by what I said. Thankyou lonewhitefly for the extra information.
The picture from Steve Hoffman shows the older system which was totally analog, by virtue of its special extra playback head, and which apparently SH still uses for a 100% analog disc cutting system .
Maybe the OP needs to find an ME like Steve Hoffman with that older pre digital system.
And maybe some of you "true believer" guys need a reality check. What you thought was 100% analog vinyl was at some point 100% digital, and you didnt even know it. "bummer" indeed...
Tim G
Last edited:
Victory Pete
Banned
famous beagle
Well-known member
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I don't think digital "sounds like crap." I think that (with a suitable bit rate) it copies very well, and, unless I use my eyes, I can't tell the difference between an analog recording and a digital copy of one.
I prefer to record in analog because I like the coloration of tape, and---equally as important to me---I like the physical process of it. I mean ... seriously: Tape is (comparatively) very expensive, harder to come by, and infinitely more difficult and time-consuming to edit. But that doesn't mean it's not more fun to some people. And to me, it's infinitely more fun that recording digitally. I'm a nostalgic SOB though. My studio is even painted up in 70s colors, and I have a brown, corded phone. I don't even own a cell phone for Pete's sake.
I don't think anyone will debate that there is an audible difference between recording a performance to tape and recording the same performance to digital, because tape will color the sound in a way that digital does not. But when it comes to a digital reproduction of an analog recording, I can't tell the difference in a blind test. I don't think that weakens the validity of my choosing analog in any way though. Why would it? It's simply a preference and nothing more to me.
famous beagle
Well-known member
No ... no it's not. Come on people ... stop perpetrating this stupid battle. There were plenty of awesome-sounding albums in the 80s and onward.