Mixing & Mastering a 100% analog session to vinyl

  • Thread starter Thread starter vinyvamos
  • Start date Start date
famous beagle said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well . . . maybe if you ignore the gated verbs on the snares . . .
 
lo.fi.love said:
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.
Click to expand...

one solution: MONO ! This is partially why people like Phil Spector and Brian Wilson preferred mono -- the producer has more control over how the sound is presented to the listener. I've also found since I started mixing mono that my mixes transalte better accross different playback systems.
 
Tim Gillett said:
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
Click to expand...

Don't go there bro. I can tell the difference; this is just one reason which is why '50s-early '70s pressings sound better than late '70s and on pressinngs. The other reasons being the use of 24-track tape and the quality of vinyl suffering. I can typically tell when a vinyl record was pressed with digital in the chain or not, just by listening. I have a pressing of Belle & Sebastian's "Fold Your Hands Child ..." LP which I am certain is all-analog just by listening (I have never researched to find out if it's true -- I don't need to). Also, the 4 Men with Beards' LP reissue of 'Starsailor' by Tim Buckley is most certainly a digital transfer -- the original 1970 pressing sounds much better.

Additionally, there was a period of transition, as I'm certain many records from the late '70s and on (even some now, such as many of the Sundazed reissues) are pressed without any digital delay.

I would also treat my comments are anecdotal as opposed to hard data -- I am aware of the digital delay system being implemented in the late '70s as becoming more and more common as the years progressed.

PS - For me, I prefer analog in the recording environment and am not a Nazi when it comes to digital being involved. I believe the analog recording and playback experience is most important, regardless of whether or not digital reared it's ugly head somewhere along the line.

That said, all-analog is really beautiful and is an ideal to strive for.
 
Last edited:
lonewhitefly said:
Don't go there bro. I can tell the difference; this is just one reason which is why '50s-early '70s pressings sound better than late '70s and on pressinngs. The other reasons being the use of 24-track tape and the quality of vinyl suffering. I can typically tell when a vinyl record was pressed with digital in the chain or not, just by listening. I have a pressing of Belle & Sebastian's "Fold Your Hands Child ..." LP which I am certain is all-analog just by listening (I have never researched to find out if it's true -- I don't need to). Also, the 4 Men with Beards' LP reissue of 'Starsailor' by Tim Buckley is most certainly a digital transfer -- the original 1970 pressing sounds much better.
Click to expand...

If you can tell this just by listening, then you indeed do have some golden ears. But --- and I mean no disrespect by saying this at all --- if you can't tell 100% of the time without error, then doesn't it kind of negate the argument that digital sounds like crap? I mean, if digital is so harsh sounding, and the artifacts are so obvious, then someone should be able to tell 100% of the time in a blind test. Right?

P.S. In case you haven't read my earlier posts, I prefer analog myself. But I've tried a blind test on myself to see if I could tell the difference between an analog recording and a digital copy of one, and I couldn't. So I gave up the "analog sounds awesome, digital sounds like crap" torch. I just record to analog because I like to.
 
leddy said:
Good info. Thanks for this.
Click to expand...

an email I received from Gabe Roth (Daptone) awhile back (some good tips):

"Hey Donny,

The best way to get your 1/4" to vinyl right and without digital delay:

1. Make sure that it is being mastered off a machine that is calibrated (uncalibrated) like yours. Either:
-record 1KHz, 10KHz, and 100 Hz tones to a piece of blank tape on your machine and bring it with you to the mastering studio, OR
-bring your tape machine to the mastering studio

This will insure that it plays back in the studio the same way it does off your machine. If your machine isn't calibrated, there will be a lot of variation in frequency response and phasing from one machine to another, so don't skip step one.

2. Avoiding digital delay can be done one of two ways
-cut at a fixed pitch. If your song is not that long (3 min?) you should be able to adjust the lathe to a FIXED pitch at a decent level and cut without a delay line.
-find a mastering studio that has a tape machine with a working delay line. All old mastering decks have this. It's a machine with two playback heads and a matrix of tape guides in between them that can change the delay depending on how you thread the tape configuration (33rpm- 15 ips, 45rpm - 15 ips, 33rpm - 7 1/2 ips, etc.). This allows the first playback head to feed program material to the pitch computer while leaving the second head to send analog audio live to the cutter head.

Good luck.

G"
 
famous beagle said:
If you can tell this just by listening, then you indeed do have some golden ears. But --- and I mean no disrespect by saying this at all --- if you can't tell 100% of the time without error, then doesn't it kind of negate the argument that digital sounds like crap? I mean, if digital is so harsh sounding, and the artifacts are so obvious, then someone should be able to tell 100% of the time in a blind test. Right?

P.S. In case you haven't read my earlier posts, I prefer analog myself. But I've tried a blind test on myself to see if I could tell the difference between an analog recording and a digital copy of one, and I couldn't. So I gave up the "analog sounds awesome, digital sounds like crap" torch. I just record to analog because I like to.
Click to expand...

Try recording just cymbals and have a listen.

VP
 
famous beagle said:
If you can tell this just by listening, then you indeed do have some golden ears. But --- and I mean no disrespect by saying this at all --- if you can't tell 100% of the time without error, then doesn't it kind of negate the argument that digital sounds like crap? I mean, if digital is so harsh sounding, and the artifacts are so obvious, then someone should be able to tell 100% of the time in a blind test. Right?

P.S. In case you haven't read my earlier posts, I prefer analog myself. But I've tried a blind test on myself to see if I could tell the difference between an analog recording and a digital copy of one, and I couldn't. So I gave up the "analog sounds awesome, digital sounds like crap" torch. I just record to analog because I like to.
Click to expand...

I don't have golden ears, I don't have a crazy fancy system, and I cannot tell 100% of the time. But there are some records I gravitate toward playing more often for some subtle reason I can't put my finger on (re: sound quality, not content). I think I mentioned this earlier, but I don't listen to music to 'test' my hearing or some other bull$hit. I just gravitate toward what sounds best and I've generally found the more analog the thing is, the more I gravitate toward it. This was something that I did way before I even knew there was a difference. I wouldn't rely on any kind of double-blind test to come to any musical conclusions.

I don't think digital sounds 'harsh' or 'like crap' in general. I think digital is fine but it doesn't resonate with my in the recording process. CDs are okay for playback but I like vinyl better -- mainly for the experience. My main beef with digital is that I think it's ruined music, but this is not really a sound quality issue.
 
lonewhitefly said:
I don't have golden ears, I don't have a crazy fancy system, and I cannot tell 100% of the time. But there are some records I gravitate toward playing more often for some subtle reason I can't put my finger on (re: sound quality, not content). I think I mentioned this earlier, but I don't listen to music to 'test' my hearing or some other bull$hit. I just gravitate toward what sounds best and I've generally found the more analog the thing is, the more I gravitate toward it. This was something that I did way before I even knew there was a difference. I wouldn't rely on any kind of double-blind test to come to any musical conclusions.

I don't think digital sounds 'harsh' or 'like crap' in general. I think digital is fine but it doesn't resonate with me in the recording process. CDs are okay for playback but I like vinyl better -- mainly for the experience. My main beef with digital is that I think it's ruined music, but this is not really a sound quality issue.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you said here --- especially the bold parts. However, I don't know what you mean by this:

"I wouldn't rely on any kind of double-blind test to come to any musical conclusions."
 
famous beagle said:
I agree with everything you said here --- especially the bold parts. However, I don't know what you mean by this:

"I wouldn't rely on any kind of double-blind test to come to any musical conclusions."
Click to expand...

You and I have already had this conversation in this exact thread. I'll quote myself from earlier in this thread:

lonewhitefly said:
I've mentioned this before, but I would not be too quick to put much value in a simple double-blind test. The differences are subtle and may not be readily apparent. In my opinion, it's not so much what you hear but what is felt. And pinpointing when you have that 'feeling' and when you don't is something difficult to do consciously.

I also agree there may be some sonic differences. I notice it mostly in the top end of things like hi-hats. I'm not sure I would call it 'harsh', but maybe a 'plastic' type quality. There also seems to be some kind of subtle sonic 'sheen' applied over everything after it's transferred to digital. In my mind, I seem to hear it as something weird in the highs that wasn't present before ... as if the digital is adding something there.

that said, people hear what they want to hear and believe want they want to believe. is there really a difference? probably. can we prove it for sure? probably not.
Click to expand...

That's all I'm going to say on the digital vs. analog thing. This thread has been derailed enough. I was just trying to help add my experience and knowledge with vinyl pressing. Whether digital vs. analog makes a difference or not is not relevant to this discussion -- we are operating with the assumption that it does; we have already made this decision.
 
lonewhitefly said:
You and I have already had this conversation in this exact thread. I'll quote myself from earlier in this thread:



That's all I'm going to say on the digital vs. analog thing. This thread has been derailed enough. I was just trying to help add my experience and knowledge with vinyl pressing. Whether digital vs. analog makes a difference or not is not relevant to this discussion -- we are operating with the assumption that it does; we have already made this decision.
Click to expand...

:)

Sounds good to me.

By the way, I dig the MHvsRP stuff. Too bad I'm only hearing a digital representation of it though. :)
 
famous beagle said:
"That is why records from the late 70's and before are the best sounding!
VP"

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.
Click to expand...

Who cares if the records "sound" great from the 70s - the music was crap!

(Kidding, kidding.... I grew up on 80s hardcore punk and used to hate that 70s stuff but I really like a lot of it now ;) )
 
tim said:
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...
Click to expand...

(bold emphasis is mine)

Thing is, folks, he's 100% correct.

;)
 
Just wanted to say that I hope I didn't piss anyone off in this thread. I'm an analog lover all the way. Digital is a necessary evil in my work, but for my own stuff, I keep it at bay as much as possible.

All of my comments are in the spirit of trying to lay this A vs. D debate to rest and nothing more. I, like many of you, don't enjoy having to wade through pages of debate in a forum that's meant to celebrate analog recording. And I suppose in my efforts to make peace and be done with it, I've contributed to the problem. And I'm sorry for that. I'll try to restrain myself in the future.

I've learned a ton of stuff from folks here, and for that I'm really grateful.
 
The question about "digital" comments being in the "Analog Only" forum....

I don't think the title "Analog Only" should be interpreted as "Analog ONLY!!! :mad:"

:)

Many of us are straddling the analog/digital chair, and it's hard to do anything these days as *only* analog or *only* digital. The original topic of this thread might one of those rare *only* situations...but for the most part, all of us tape hounds usually end up with a digital file or CD or some digital outboard or processing...and many are very hybrid in the setups, which is where I am. and on the digital side...they have mics, preamps, etc.

So...I think when you talk about analog, it's necessary to sometimes reference it against digital and vice-versa...though I agree that no one should really bash someone else's audio SOP just 'cuz they don't agree with it.
Some folks like tape, some like DAWs....some like VUs and some prefer LEDs....some like CDs and some prefer vinyl.

But really, what the important thing here...?

How it sounds in the end!!!! :cool:
 
I don't think LEDs are audible at all. VU needles make a little bit of noise, but it's *really* hard to hear.
 
lo.fi.love said:
Who cares if the records "sound" great from the 70s - the music was crap!

(Kidding, kidding.... I grew up on 80s hardcore punk and used to hate that 70s stuff but I really like a lot of it now ;) )
Click to expand...

I have a love/hate relationship w/ '70s music ... mostly hate !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top