Pete Townshend on analog...

  • Thread starter Thread starter shedshrine
  • Start date Start date
shedshrine

shedshrine

Member
:Damong other things.

Great current interview with Pete, good analog tips etc...

http://www.eqmag.com/story.asp?storycode=19099

excerpt:

"EQ: How do you feel about what seems like the democratization of recording, where currently, one no longer needs to have a large budget in order to realize their music with some semblance of fidelity?
PT: I think it is the most wonderful thing. No one thinks twice now about the fact that they can shoot a good little movie, or take a good photograph. Why shouldn’t they make a good recording? For the composer, computer tools present a dilemma. For most people, creative ideas emanate and are nurtured on the right side of the brain. However, technical matters are dealt with on the left. So one immediate problem is that before we can get creative with a computer we have to do things like organize our tracks, create a file, make sure we have somewhere to store it, etc. Being able to just run a tape machine (analog or digital) on a whim, always set up and ready to go, is a good thing to have in your life. Or you could have something like an Edirol R09 digital recorder handy. Try to stay in the right side of the brain until the music is properly shaped. Then computers (and compact microprocessor-controlled digital studios) are wonderful to arrange and modify what you have composed. For me, tape machines offered a way for me to compose, not to record great music, but merely to write it — as I had no other way of doing it.

Of course those people who work entirely within the computer environment, using loops, MIDI, samples and reflex-driven software like Ableton Live, can get used to making very frequent jumps from one side of the brain to the other. But the music they make tends to sound a little different to the kind of music most of us feel reflects something of the heart. There are many exceptions. This is not a rule, but I often urge musicians I meet who love to work with MIDI software to try some of the old methods — however, getting a decent tape machine is not easy, nor is it cheap."

So remember, start with a good sounding space. And if it sounds bad, fix that first. You may just have to deaden it right down. Next, buy at least one truly great microphone. Next, buy at least one truly great mic preamp. If you can, buy a single module from some old board — an API, a Neve, or whatever. If not, buy a new “classic” channel, or something as good as you can afford. Next, pick your recording medium, and use your brain. If you start with tape, use nothing less serious than a reel-to-reel Revox, TASCAM or Fostex of some kind. Don’t go over one track per 1/8 inch of tape width (1/4" tape is good for stereo or four track, never eight tracks. If you want to work in eight tracks, the thinnest tape to use should be 1/2". That will sound pretty good). See whether you can do without noise reduction, hiss is not the end of the world. That said, I like and have used both dbx and Dolby on home sessions.

If you start with digital hard disk, try some test sessions at different sample rates and bit depths — you may be surprised that your system sounds better at “lower” quality rather than higher because it doesn’t have to work so hard. So, use your ears if you can when making these assessments; pretend to be one of those old jazz guys who could “really” hear. I would recommend using a single pair of earphones for some of these kinds of tests. Pick the ordinary ones used in studios. Use your speakers just for playbacks of these tests and checking detail. If you can afford none of these things, buy a small tape Portastudio. Four tracks will sound better than eight. Remember that what you are doing is using a medium, not a modifier. I would say the part of any recording chain to be most suspicious of is the speakers, and the room in which those speakers sit. So a familiar pair of earphones are not just useful, they can be life saving."
 
Last edited:
Yeah,...

If you start with tape, use nothing less serious than a reel-to-reel Revox, TASCAM or Fostex of some kind. Don’t go over one track per 1/8 inch of tape width (1/4" tape is good for stereo or four track, never eight tracks. If you want to work in eight tracks, the thinnest tape to use should be 1/2". That will sound pretty good). See whether you can do without noise reduction, hiss is not the end of the world. That said, I like and have used both dbx and Dolby on home sessions.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a guy who's been there & done that & who knows his shit.:eek:;)
 
"1/4" tape is good for stereo or four track, never eight tracks. If you want to work in eight tracks, the thinnest tape to use should be 1/2". That will sound pretty good. "

Disgusted, I carried my 388 out to the curb and left it..

Hope it's still there in the morning if I change my mind.;)
 
That is a very interesting article and some good advice from Pete. Thanks.
 
The Pete Townsend guide to choosing and using a reel to reel recorder. I am in awe.
 
I've tried to say pretty much everything he covers, but he did it better! His advice on mikes, preamps, rooms and speakers is right on. I especially like the first paragraph about right and left brain and using tape, then digital. That has been exactly my experience over the last year or so. I keep my portable 2-track rig set up pretty much all the time so that I can easily record whatever's going on. The computer stuff isn't as good for me to create on as either the 4-track or my portable 2-track, but once the structure is there, it opens up a lot of options and allows for incredible control in mixing and can be a good thing.

BTW, Pete did much of his home recording in the early days on a 3M M-23 1" 8 track, which is a fabulous sounding machine.

Cheers,

Otto
 
shedshrine said:
"1/4" tape is good for stereo or four track, never eight tracks. If you want to work in eight tracks, the thinnest tape to use should be 1/2". That will sound pretty good. "

Disgusted, I carried my 388 out to the curb and left it..

Hope it's still there in the morning if I change my mind.;)
Click to expand...


:D I hope it's still there too... at least until I get your address... :D
 
According to Pete he started out with 2 Vortexions and later added 2 Revox G37s. It's a great interview, well worth the read!
 
Is It?

Hey look, im not trying to start an argument, because there is no argument. But i am curious about the real realities of recording and why people say and do what they do. But first, a brief comment on my tiny history of recording, which is no doubt different from others.

I started out on all analog and got a reel and all that. I hated digital recordings and i could always tell if something sounded digital. I also hated staring at the screen and clicking with the mouse. It seemed INHUMAN, COLD, etc. But when i was recording with the reel i was believing a lie that i wanted to believe. It WAS NOT easier. It was in fact much harder. So basically what im saying is why do people bitch about the computer making it harder to create something (all that left/right brain talk)? Digital recording is the easiest way to come up with ideas and realize them over time. Before, with reels, i had to thread the tape, find the position on the tape, write or record something that i knew was a certain length because i wanted to put other stuff after it because tapes are 70 bucks etc. With digital, the program loads instantly with track templates already ready to go with one single click. You can make a full template with tracks ready and be up and running within seconds, and no matter what your style of recording you can customize the template to what you do and how you do it. You can even have preset up beats and other rhythmic placeholders to even further speed along the tedious. Which it IS tedious all that stuff. Also if i wake up late at night with an idea, i can roll over, start up the template for a song in 3/4 or whatever, record the idea, roll back over to sleep, and whenever im ready i can fully realize the idea and the soul of the idea can be maintained. The only way digital recording sucks and is lifeless is if YOU make it sound lifeless. People complain all the time about using to robotic and too digital sounding methods. But its all a lie man. YOU control if it is perfect or near perfect, and in what way as well. Only an idiot or a non creative would blame a machine that basically allows you ANY level of control you could ever want for a less than ideal end result.

I know this isnt really the point of the article, but its just weird to me that people think analog is easier now that ive tried both. If you are a songwriter, analog is a costly hassle filled mine field where the mines look like flowers. You WILL be limited to what the machine lets you do. Digital does not require you to be computer minded in any way i dont see what the fuss has been about all this time. I recorded about 8 songs in 2 years on analog and it was a bitch and i still hated parts of the tracks. Every time i used the machine was like pulling teeth even though it sounded great. In just a few weeks of using a digital recording program i have written 40-50 half finished decent usable songs and they are not techno or anything one would associate with the image of a computer. In fact, they sound very home recorded and remind me of my cassette recordings.

I only say this to any others who might be on the fence. Analog will sound better faster, and you will feel like you are home baking a cake, and if youre an analog lover you may love working with the reel because it is a symbol of what you love about recording and that will never change. But if youre a songwriter and trying to get your ideas together i would HIGHLY recommend using a digital recording program like REAPER. Its not hard, you dont have to be a computer genius, your shit doesnt break like everyone claims, it is not hard to mix digitally, and you can see a project through more easily because the machine supports you and lets you be creative without limits. If those limits are amusing challenges to overcome then none of this means anything to you, continue to record on analog and youll be fine. But all this about having to be computer minded and technical to run a software program is the biggest lie ever. Can you hit record? Can you hit play? Can you select a loop selection? Than you can run a digital recording program.

YES it does sound a little more flat and 2d. I will admit. But there are ways around that and to me, in all honesty coming from someone who loves records and loves tubes and loves the sound of tape and grew up using and swearing by it, it is the tiniest price to pay for actual creative writing freedom. Dont let people tell you its inhuman. YOU can make it as robotic or as off as you want. Want it a little lo-fi? Record through an old cassette player. Want it to sound like a home recording? Take all your old 4 track cassette recordings and put them into the program and cut up all the little fizzes and crackles and pops and weird anamolies and cut and paste them all over your tunes in places that feel "right". IF thats what you want.

But this is no attack on analog by any means. I wish it would have worked out better for me because i prefer the sound and feel. Its just too slow and all the warnings about digital are half truths that dont mean a thing if the feel of the song is solid and the song is a good one. And i hope everyone who records gets what they want out of it whether its analog or digital or hybrids or whatever.
 
OH, Wow. I feel so enlightened now after reading your post goodfriend. :rolleyes:
 
Good Friend: You seem sincere in your post but why bother? Your argument is rather self serving, as if you're trying to publicly convince yourself that whatever decision you've made, with regard to recording, is the right one. You made a choice and have opinions. Fine. Stick with it. Good luck.
 
the thing is, when i hear cut and paste digital, it sounds like cut and paste digital, even when analog bits are being used... that's really boring to my ears.

GoodFriend, I see your angle... however, being creative and nutty can still suck.
 
I'm happy to be able...

to get consitently good sounding results from both analog & digital recording, that's so consistent sounding across the board as to be virtually indestinguishable from one another. The format doesn't define the sound, as GF clearly states, & is something with which I'd agree. Sometimes it's about work flow and convenience as well as sound in the recording game. Digital is capable of recording & reproducing an analog sounding signal, based on what your signal chain is on the front end. Getting a good hifi recorded sound is an art as well as a science. Good Friend just found what's best for him, and he wants to expound on it. That's fine. I'd say, you use what's easier & you use what sounds best, or get the best combination of the two and you just do it. Whether that's analog, digital DAW or 'puter shouldn't be an issue. If u have the basic skillz your productions should translate regardless of the medium, E'one's going to find a different combination of stuff that works for them, & that's why they say YMMV. There's no single answer as to what's best. None of what I've said is new or a secret. GF also states that in his opening, so is there still a debate about analog or digital? You just rock on, dude!:eek:;)
 
high fives to GF! He's my hero...

sometimes we gotta throw the high fives around... I'd reckon it's because we can't stand to see ourselves fail.
 
Heh... I've never thought of analog being "Easier." In fact this whole frustrated generation was lured into the home recording thing because they were told it’s as close as the personal computer they already owned. Expectaions were initially referenced to “Point ‘n click.”

Well, as I’ve often said, you can’t help when you are born, but when I have nothing else to give thanks for I am always thankful I lived through the digital revolution from its very beginnings and that my reference was tape.

I’m a writer and composer first. The music and sound come first. Method and workflow dead last, so I use tape. :)

On the other hand, if you do want easy, it's hard to beat a good 4-track on cassette for getting down ideas. That's easier than anything else for me. :)

Just curious... how many composers/musicians are on this forum? I would be writing and playing even if we had no recording technology at all.

On yet another hand (must have three to read on) PC based systems can be useful when they work, but I might finish this post before my pc crashes again or I mi
 
Last edited:
One of Pete's points was that he could walk into his studio, turn the tape deck on and go. No booting. Anyway, I think hybrid systems are what most people use anyway, best of both worlds,each used for its strengths..
 
Beck said:
.. I've never thought of analog being "Easier."
Click to expand...
It is Harder, so it's easier! :D
It is very hard to fool yourself with analog setup throughout the entire music recording / production process. This, alone, makes an analog setup an easy way to avoid doing something that you will greatly regret later after the party is over and your bloodstream is free of residue.
On the contrary, Digital technology frees your hands and provides them with obility to overcome control of conscious mind. Such condition can be easyly confused with freedom of expression, which rather is the obility to freely control your hands (or other parts of your body) by conscious mind that is free of residue.
*************
...is there still a debate about analog or digital?
Click to expand...
- Not in my gradually losing consciousness mind.
:)
 
I've been recording my friends band on the Roland digital workstation. He prefers analog too but keep saying "man,what would we do if we weren't able to undo and redo with the overdubs." and I say "well, you'd probably have your parts worked out better before you recorded them and you wouldn't spend so much time piecemealing the whole thing for "perfection" ." :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top