Separation and Depth superior in Analog?

[Buckeyeslide]

Hi,
First post in the Analog forum...so this may be a naïve question, bear with me.

I have spent far too much time with my DAW and digital gear struggling with instrument separation in my mixes, and especially depth. Put simply, I hate having sound smashed into my face and ears...I like to have it out there "in the pocket", separated, like the 60s and 70s music I loved. I keep working on EQ technique, and reverb/delays, but I can't get there with my digital recording and mixes. (With reverbs, for example, the music is still "in my face" but awash in reverb, if that makes sense). I am sure this is mostly due to my mixing inexperience, but it is frustrating.


Now, on to my analog question. In listening to the many of the clips posted in this forum (vs some of what I hear posted in digital forums...), there seems to be inherently better instrument separation in the analog clips, and a sense that the sound is out there "in the pocket" at arm's reach in the stereo field (vs smashed into my face/ears). Am I off base? Is this just mixing technique, or do you get some natural qualities along these lines with tape?

Like many of you, I also love the natural smoothness and warmth that comes with tape...but I'm more motivated by the question of mix separation and depth with this particular question. I may want to look into a 4-track tape machine, depending on whether there is any merit to this observation. (Or so I simply need to work on my mixing technique in digital?...)

Frankly, I'm also wasting too much time tinkering with plug-ins. Part of me wants to get back to some basics also.


Any thoughts would be appreciated here.

thanks

Buckeyeslide

 

[greatshotpilot]

The part about wasting too much time tinkering with plug-ins resonates with me, and it's why I left a DAW for recording and moved to an eight track cassette recorder (a Tascam 488). If you are looking to forcibly impose some restrictions on your recording and mixing, I can't recommend a 4 or 8 track enough. It's done wonders for me in terms of focusing my songwriting.

 

[miroslav]

Well...as much as I have a really robust analog studio...2" tape deck, console, racks of gear, the works...I couldn't agree that digital is a "problem", other than it may be a problem for some folks to get use to it, to find their process with it and how to use the digital tools...to find their comfort zone.

That said...I think it's better for people to start in an analog environment for getting some basics down, and then carry that over to the digital side.
Analog forces you to work a bit differently, to be more focused on the recording front end to what's being captured, to watch you levels and have good gain staging...but it's also more forgiving when you sometimes don't.
Digital reveals everything...there's no forgiveness...so when you nudge something, it can quickly go to brutal.

There are aspects of analog that I prefer...but I don't find the digital side prevents me from getting the mix how I like it...if anything, the more I've used digital tools, the more I've found them to be helpful and beneficial, and many of them provide options that I just don't have with my analog gear, which is why I like the hybrid approach.
That said...I'm finding myself using digital tools more and more these days. I'll still track to tape and then dump to DAW...but on the mixing side, I'm getting 80% of the mix set up in the DAW, and then I come out through the console, but the console is mostly like a big summing box, and also for inserts and aux bussing for my rack gear, with some mild use of console EQ just to touch up what I've already got going in the DAW.

So neither analog or digital is an impediment to getting decent mixes...and I find that using both provides greater options and flavors to choose from, rather than either one being better or worse than the other...though TBH, if I had to pick the more complete tool set, it would have to be digital.
I mean, you can do much more with it, but at the same time, having so many ways to do things can be bothersome for some folks, where a typical home/project all-analog setup will be much more basic, so some people perceive that as easier to work with.
You would need a million dollar all-analog studio to have the same level of tools and options as what you can with a modest digital setup.

I'm not saying use one or the other (like I said, hybrid is the way to go, IMO)...just don't blame digital technology...I mean, those days are long gone.

 

[famous beagle]

To your original question---about whether it's inherently easier to get separation or depth from analog---my short answer is, "I don't know." I do know that I like working with analog because it just suits me better. I like tactile buttons, faders, etc., and I hate the mouse with a passion. Again, I don't really know why, but it's just me.

I'm also a very nostalgic person in general, so dealing with actual tape and other things from my youth makes me happy in general.

But I'm not an audio snob, and I don't use analog because I think it sounds better or anything. I'm sure that I could be fooled by a digital recording that uses plug-ins to simulate analog sounds in a blind listening test. But it's more about the process to me.

I will say that, IMO, things do seem a bit easier to mix when working with analog. And I'm not really sure why that is.

 

[rob aylestone]

I'd have to say that I really don't care if I mix with analogue sources on an analogue mixer or do everything inside a computer. I can hear no difference in the areas you mention. I expect it's simply that you hear two tracks one that's better than the other and assume the reason is technology level. I just don't hear this kind of thing, and tend to dismiss it. Good analogue is of course very good sometimes, and bad digital is terrible, but excellent digital and awful analogue is equally prevalent.

 

[Gtoboy]

Might be completely off base but the "separation" you are looking for may come more from tracking decisions rather than inherent differences in the medium. I haven't tracked to tape in a while but when I was , I know I spent time making sure that I got the ambient sound going to tape rather than recording everything dry. So before mixing a song was closer to finished when tracking to tape. I still work at getting it close going digital but I am more likely to track stuff dry when not going to tape. If you want to spend less time mixing I would say instead of jumping to analog, spend a bit more time on pre production and track like you were printing a final mix to start with.

 

[Farview]

If you want more depth to a sound, pull the mic back a little bit. The in your face sound generally comes from close micing everything.

If digital was not capable of depth and separation, a CD of an analog recording would lose those qualities. Since you are hearing those qualities on an MP3, digital isn't the problem.

 

[mixsit]

If you want more depth to a sound, pull the mic back a little bit. The in your face sound generally comes from close micing everything.

If digital was not capable of depth and separation, a CD of an analog recording would lose those qualities. Since you are hearing those qualities on an MP3, digital isn't the problem.

This is profound. And one of the things that goes missed in a lot of discussions regarding our home recording spaces.
I.e. as rooms get larger -and better acoustically, so go the options for having micing choices like these.

 

[miroslav]

Put simply, I hate having sound smashed into my face and ears...I like to have it out there "in the pocket", separated, like the 60s and 70s music I loved.

.........................

Frankly, I'm also wasting too much time tinkering with plug-ins. Part of me wants to get back to some basics also.

I think maybe you're dealing with decision overload...and you've fallen into the trap of over-using all the available options.
Just mix in digital the same way you would with a 4-track and small, basic mixer...if that's how you want to work.

Pull up your original tracks...fader levels nominal, no plugins on anything...and then just adjust the individual track levels and panning, same as you would on a basic mixer, and see how it sounds. If you hate the sound of the tracks...it ain't digital doing it....it may be the initial recordings.
You really don't have to over-use plugins...just use what you need. A bit of EQ, maybe a touch of reverb...I mean, that's all people often have with a basic 4-track analog setup.

Often see people stacking a dozen or more plugs per track...because they have them and they can. They start with one or two, kinda like the sound, but want something different...so instead of removing those and looking for an alternative, they just keep stacking one on top of the other, not wanting to change or go back on what they already applied. That's a bad way to work, IMO.

I've got hundreds of plugs, but rarely use more than 1-2 per track...often none...and there are plugs I bought over a year or two ago that I have yet to ever use on anything. I just like having the tools, but I don't need to use them all...all the time.

If you really can't control that...how you use the tools or the need to try and use all the tools all the time...then get the 4-track and small mixer, and force that limitation on yourself. Some people just find it easier to work when they don't have a lot of options in front of them....it's the kid in the candy store syndrome, can't decide on what to buy, wants everything, only has a nickel to spend.

 

[Buckeyeslide]

Thanks everyone, these replies are very helpful. Seems I’m barking up the wrong tree as it relates to separation and depth advantages. That said, imposing some limitations on myself by going 4-track analog (to get back to basics) may be a good path. Plus I really enjoy throwback type processes and overall analog warmth. Thanks all!

Buckeyeslide

 

[Robus]

I haven't recorded in analog for a long time. But I aim to achieve separation and depth in my mixes--it's a priority. I think I do okay. To me it comes down to a willingness to make artistic choices. If something is louder, front an center, something else must be lower, panned outward, or pushed to the back. A leading problem I hear in poor mixes is an unwillingness to prioritize and mix accordingly. Every guitar part is too loud, and too close to stereo center.

Personally, I like to minimize the use of plugins and ITB effects. Some is inevitable--a bit of (subtractive) EQ, a bit of reverb, some compression. More is not better. Each one introduces a little bit of sonic ickiness, and the effect is cumulative.

 

[miroslav]

Thanks everyone, these replies are very helpful. Seems I’m barking up the wrong tree as it relates to separation and depth advantages. That said, imposing some limitations on myself by going 4-track analog (to get back to basics) may be a good path. Plus I really enjoy throwback type processes and overall analog warmth. Thanks all!

Buckeyeslide

Nothing wrong with going the old-school, 4-track tape setup...but I would suggest again that you apply that limited, low-tech approach in the DAW first.
I mean...simply treat your DAW like a 4-track tape deck and forgo all the extra options the DAW brings.
Make sure you really want to work that way...with those limitations...before you completely change over.

AFA getting some "analog warmth"...there's some great tape and saturation plugings that will do that for you!
I mean, seriously...you don't need to roll tape for that anymore.

In my own use of tape...it's not for that purpose, and if I had no tape deck, I would use one several "tape" plugins I have, which will give you the same result.
I mainly like tracking to tape because it lets me get tracks down without the fiddling with the DAW stuff, which can sometimes feel more cumbersome. So with the tape deck, tracking is just a matter of pressing a couple of buttons and flipping from one track to the next. The other reason is that I can get some tape compression that is not the same as adding compression after the fact....but much of it is because it's a process I've used for many years, and the I've had a few decks over the years. I think though at this point, if I didn't already have the 2" deck...I would find an acceptable SOP for tracking with the DAW...which I do sometimes already, like when I want to add one more track well after I'm down with the tracking session.

That's also the other thing...when I'm tracking to tape...my computer is not on, the screens are not on...I never touch the mouse and keyboard...so it lets me treat the tracking as a separate, deliberate process. I notice some people with DAWs tend to get lost in the production process....and they'll be tracking/mixing/mastering...all at the same time almost, and even as they add and go from track to track. It's all a blur.
By using the tape deck...for me, tracking is a very specific part of a production...then I dump to DAW and do my edits and comps and premixing, making that a separate, specific part of the production...then I come back out of the DAW to do final mixing, another part of the production...and then finally all back into the DAW for any "mastering" stuff I want to do.

 

[Buckeyeslide]

Nothing wrong with going the old-school, 4-track tape setup...but I would suggest again that you apply that limited, low-tech approach in the DAW first.
I mean...simply treat your DAW like a 4-track tape deck and forgo all the extra options the DAW brings.
Make sure you really want to work that way...with those limitations...before you completely change over.

AFA getting some "analog warmth"...there's some great tape and saturation plugings that will do that for you!
I mean, seriously...you don't need to roll tape for that anymore.

In my own use of tape...it's not for that purpose, and if I had no tape deck, I would use one several "tape" plugins I have, which will give you the same result.
I mainly like tracking to tape because it lets me get tracks down without the fiddling with the DAW stuff, which can sometimes feel more cumbersome. So with the tape deck, tracking is just a matter of pressing a couple of buttons and flipping from one track to the next. The other reason is that I can get some tape compression that is not the same as adding compression after the fact....but much of it is because it's a process I've used for many years, and the I've had a few decks over the years. I think though at this point, if I didn't already have the 2" deck...I would find an acceptable SOP for tracking with the DAW...which I do sometimes already, like when I want to add one more track well after I'm down with the tracking session.

That's also the other thing...when I'm tracking to tape...my computer is not on, the screens are not on...I never touch the mouse and keyboard...so it lets me treat the tracking as a separate, deliberate process. I notice some people with DAWs tend to get lost in the production process....and they'll be tracking/mixing/mastering...all at the same time almost, and even as they add and go from track to track. It's all a blur.
By using the tape deck...for me, tracking is a very specific part of a production...then I dump to DAW and do my edits and comps and premixing, making that a separate, specific part of the production...then I come back out of the DAW to do final mixing, another part of the production...and then finally all back into the DAW for any "mastering" stuff I want to do.

This is a great perspective on the production process...thanks for sharing your approach! It gives me some great stuff to chew on

Regards,
Buckeyeslide

 

[RFR]

I've not read the whole thread just little snippets. So my response isn't based on any consensus.
1) Separation
In my experience It would actually tend to be less. In my opinion this is from bleed. Mic bleed and to some degree tape bleed over to the next track on smaller fornat machines.
As to the Mic bleed, in analog for some reason it seems there is nore multiple musicians all playing together. In the digital world it seems there are more painstakingly done individual tracks built up. (At least in the home recording world )

So I think you have more separation in the digital domain.

But.......to me the slight bleed (or not so slight) in analog actually enhances the sound. It glues it all together.

2) Depth

I think this is true. It's easier to get more depth in analog. What I mean by depth is fullness and a richness. And again, I think this is in part to the bleed. Also, since it's so much easier to edit the crap out of digital, that the crap gets edited to death. Every track has dead silence in between parts being played, where in tape you'd be more inclined to leave it in.

I took a band that I'd recorded analog years ago and dumped the tracks into Protools. And proceeded to edit the crap out of it. Took out all that 'in between' ambient noise out. Finished the mix, and when I compared it to the original all analog mix, it sounded like shit.
The lack of everything I took out made it very sterile and took the life out of it.
Lets say you have a live performance. While all that is happening at one particular moment may be just a vocal with no band playing, you still have other stuff going on. The ever so slight hum of the amps, the drum skins vibrating, maybe the subtle snare wires, etc. None of this is readily apparent, but if it was dead silent except for the vocal it would sound different.
In digital recording I think the mindset is to remove any and all of that, and while that creates a lot of clarity and definition, it takes away ambience and makes it more sterile.


Anyway, that's just some of my experience. I could say more, but it's a pain in the ass typing on a smartphone.

In short, I got a buddy who's an amazing guitar player, but knows nothing about recording, he's the guy that shows up in a studio and just plays. He's got no interest in anything except hearing the end result in the monitors
Anyhoo, every mix I'll play him, the analog mix are the ones he prefers. And he's listening blind, he has no way to know if it's ITB or an analog console mix.

I prefer them too.

 

[famous beagle]

2) Depth

I think this is true. It's easier to get more depth in analog. What I mean by depth is fullness and a richness. And again, I think this is in part to the bleed. Also, since it's so much easier to edit the crap out of digital, that the crap gets edited to death. Every track has dead silence in between parts being played, where in tape you'd be more inclined to leave it in.

I think this is really perceptive and is likely a big part of what makes a lot of modern music sound a bit more "sterile." Of course, all the "snap-to-the-grid" editing is a big part too, but you're absolutely right about the modern home recording studio method with digital. You look at people's project, and it's just this series of clips that start and stop with split-second precision, leaving nothing but a complete vacuum in between. Working with tape, that's very uncommon, if not simply impossible altogether.

 

[RFR]

Put simply, I hate having sound smashed into my face and ears...I like to have it out there "in the pocket", separated, like the 60s and 70s music I loved


(With reverbs, for example, the music is still "in my face" but awash in reverb, if that makes sense).

(Or so I simply need to work on my mixing technique in digital?...)

To some degree, it sounds like you're a unwitting victim of the loudness wars. Everything is as loud as everything else

60s and 70s Music had much more dynamic range and relied on the radio station's limiting and leveling equipment.
When you got hooked on a song enough to commit to buying the whole LP, as soon as you got it home and put it on your turntable it sounded a million times better.

Modern music since the 90s or a bit earlier is so smashed and in your face. While that can initially get your attention, it just plain wears you out listening to it.

 

[miroslav]

I think this is really perceptive and is likely a big part of what makes a lot of modern music sound a bit more "sterile." Of course, all the "snap-to-the-grid" editing is a big part too, but you're absolutely right about the modern home recording studio method with digital. You look at people's project, and it's just this series of clips that start and stop with split-second precision, leaving nothing but a complete vacuum in between. Working with tape, that's very uncommon, if not simply impossible altogether.

Actually...it's not very "uncommon" with tape/analog, or "impossible".
Maybe it is in the home-rec world where the tape decks and mixers are pretty basic, and you simply let all the tracks play back straight trough...but in bigger studios, mixer automation was available back in the mid-'70s. Crude at first, but very quickly becoming quite sophisticated.
One of the most basic uses of mixer automation was Mutes, to silence tracks when desired....which gives the same result as using smaller clips of audio with complete silence in-between them in the DAW.

Sure, sometimes, for some tracks, the bleed is important...it's the glue...or you want to remove it and have absolute separation...but that's not a digital phenomenon. It's been done with tape in the analog domain for a long time.

AFA snapping to grids in the DAW...yeah, that can kill groove and make things sound robotic...but using digital editing doesn't force you to do that. I've never used grid edit or quantized beats and notes in all the years I've used first MIDI sequencing and then moving to DAWs...though I was using MIDI volume and mute automation with my Fostex G16 back in the early '90s.
I know some people get sucked into the grid ...but it's not really a "digital" problem...it's a production choice.
That said...with stuff like EDM, I think girds are used...the point is to have that perfect, robotic vibe, since there probably was no band or actual musician performance (though I guess the guy playing the synths is technically a musician performing...but you know what I mean).

I think the biggest problems with digital for some folks is that they get too focused on processing rather than recording. With tape recording, and more modest analog home studios, you're limited right from the start, so you think things out, take more care with how you record those initial tracks...and then you can only do so much during mixing, so if the recorded tracks were really good, your mixes will show that.
With digital, people sometimes will just grab a lot of audio...it's often not even proper, thought out tracking decisions, instead they just capture it and then expect to mold it into something in the DAW. Sometimes it works, often it doesn't...and then, instead of backtracking, they'll just keep beating on it with more processing. Not to mention, there's way to many newcomers to recording in general, and their use of processing is purely reactive...try A, and if it sounds OK, use it...if not, try B....without always understanding what A or B really is about or how to best use it....so they fuck up their own tracks by having too many options that they know little of how to best use them.

The pros don't work that way...blindly...and will often they use a combination of analog and digital tools or they have years of experience behind them to know how to use those tools.

 

[famous beagle]

Actually...it's not very "uncommon" with tape/analog, or "impossible".
Maybe it is in the home-rec world where the tape decks and mixers are pretty basic, and you simply let all the tracks play back straight trough...but in bigger studios, mixer automation was available back in the mid-'70s. Crude at first, but very quickly becoming quite sophisticated.

Right... I was referring to the home studio analog paradigm, in which muting tracks with an automated mixer is quite uncommon. But also, the OP initially referenced "bands from the 60s and 70s." And in those instances, mixer automation would have been largely out the window as well. Although, by the mid-to-late 70s, it did start to gain traction.

 

[RFR]

[MENTION=94267]miroslav[/MENTION], Excellent point. [MENTION=15168]famous beagle[/MENTION], Excellent counterpoint.

 

[miroslav]

Right... I was referring to the home studio analog paradigm, in which muting tracks with an automated mixer is quite uncommon. But also, the OP initially referenced "bands from the 60s and 70s." And in those instances, mixer automation would have been largely out the window as well. Although, by the mid-to-late 70s, it did start to gain traction.

Well, I did say in my previous post that it may mostly apply to the home-rec analog paradigm, where setups are generally pretty basic.
AFA the OP referencing '60s and '70s music as examples of separation and depth in mixes...it still has no direct connection to the use of automation or the lack of, and there's been a lot of music post studio automation consoles that has fantastic separation and depth.
I was only pointing out that you could remove bleed from tracks by simply muting on the analog console...the automation just made it easy, which is the same thing you get with digital ease of editing and mixing.
Heck...before automation...there would be a couple of assistants working a console sometimes along with the engineer, helping to move faders, do mutes, and add processing on the fly when needed...'cuz you can only do so much with just two hands.

The point here is that...it ain't the "analog" or the "digital" format...and it's not automation or lack of that creates or negates separation and depth...it's the production approach. If limiting your production approach by going with a real basic setup is how someone prefers to work their production, that's simply a choice, a decision...but there is nothing magical about analog imparting separation and depth to a mix any more or less than digital if the person running the production doesn't know how to get there and how/what tools to use.
I guess I'm just not wanting push someone to do a 180 degree change in setup with some "promise" that in doing so, separation and depth will magically appear.