was I brainwashed into preferring the "analog" sound?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CyanJaguar
  • Start date Start date
C

CyanJaguar

New member
before getting into music recording, I didnt care about any aspect of the recording. All I cared about was "was the song good"?

I got into recording and all I heard was "Oh, analog sounds so much better than digital"

"digital is cold"
"analog has more depth"
analog has nice distortion"

so I'm thinking to myself : son of man, analog must be this awesome beast that I need.

anyhow, I start listening to analog recordings. What do I hear?

non- extended highs,
distortion galore,
shure sm58ish vocals
sometimes nonexistent soundstage.

I say to myself, yummy, oh to have the old analog sound.

When I think about it though. I dont really like some of those old analog recordings, in fact, some of them downright irritate me the way they sound.

Of course, I love some analog recordings. Old elvis costello is awesome etc etc.


I am not saying that I dont like analog recordings. what I'm saying is that I actually PREFER SOME OF TODAYS DIGITAL RECORDINGS.

things are crystal clear, no distortion, lush fluid vocals etc etc

I was brainwashed by the experts to believe that analog is magic. I say, NO more. I like today's digital recordings just fine. I'm tired of analog artifacts that I really dont like but I'm told that I'm supposed to like.

Have YOU been brainwashed into liking analog?
 
I think the whole "which is better" debate between analog and digital recording is a bunch of bullshit.The two are different from each other and that doesn't make one better than the other,just different.I own both digital and analog recorders and enjoy recording on both.Either can sound good or bad depending on an infinite number of variables.

Digital recording is not "cold and harsh" and analog is not necessarily "warm and pleasant".I think Bruce hit it right on the head awhile back in one of his posts I was reading where he said something to the effect of "digital is neither warm nor cold,it is accurate.If you want warm and fuzzy,make it warm and fuzzy at the source you are recording" (I hope I got that right,Bruce,I went looking for that post but couldn't find it)

I personally think a lot of the responsibility for the quality of digital recordings rests with the converters.Cheap ass converters make for cheap ass sounding recordings.

As for analog,there are a lot of formats out there when you talk about analog.I personally would love to have a 2" studer machine because I love the way they sound when properly recorded to.However,since I don't have the budget to buy and maintain one,I am using adat and couldn't be happier.

As for recording with my little teac 2340 4 track 1/4" machine,I know it can't get the clarity and quality of my digital stuff,but it is fun to mess with anyway.I mostly use it for live stuff with my little 1202 mackie and a few live mics.



Have a great day!
 
Blink 182's "enema of the state" was dumped on to a 2" studer from Protools and back onto Protools to give that nice analog "compression"
 
fenix said:
Blink 182's "enema of the state" was dumped on to a 2" studer from Protools and back onto Protools to give that nice analog "compression"
Click to expand...

I don't get why people do this.....

if you so desperately want the analog thing, track onto 2", and then put it onto pro tools..... avoid the extra conversion.
 
The reason they probably did it that way is that the big 2" decks can be maintainence pigs.They take a lot of work to set up and maintain,so they probably wanted to keep the transport time on the thing to a minimum.And with the quality of converters they have at their disposal,the extra conversion probably didn't really hurt them.
 
Since someone brought up Blink182 ....

I dont get it - the music these guys are emulating is an old "skate rock" formula that was around ages ago. This "skate rock" or "surf rock" stuff was all underground, 8-track-recorded-in-our-basement stuff. It was straight-edge, raw music, with a message. It didnt matter about the recording quality. Most of this stuff was circulated by tape-of-a-tape from a friend anyway. It was about the music. If you listen to the old skate-rock band Dag Nasty, you can hear that this is Blink's main influence.

Dont get me wrong - I like some of Blink's stuff. But that's beside the point. Good quality recordings have their place. But when does it become overkill? Would the Ramones first album be any more influencial recorded in full digital? I think it would sound strange if it were too perfect.

So I guess the question is this ... Do they really need to spend thousands to record a cd when their audience will never know the difference? .... really - do these acts know who their audience is??? Is the target audience ever taken into account when recording the band?? Are recording techniques ever changed to reflect the "feel" of the song?
 
At Omega Studios in maryland they use mostly the 2" Reels. They track everything to The reels and use protools to edit and mix because of it's accurate capabilities. IMO Digital is great for editing but those studers have a sound that no 2000$ digital recorder can match. I have an adat machine and I am happy with it as well but if I had the ends to get a 2" then I would. I have found that digital and analog work well when used together. I would even love to have API 2488 console if I could get my hands on one.
 
I recently switched from analog to digital, and the main difference I find is that it takes much more effort on digital to get the sound I want. While I do think that the comparison bw analog and digital in term of warmth, etc... is ridiculous, it just took me less work on analog to get a cool sound. Digital recording has some great advantages, if you really are into recording, and clear sound obsessed, but if you are like me, a musician just wanting to play and records songs, digital is a pain in the ass.
However, I do like digital recordings as much as analog recordings (done professionally).
 
I found digital a lot less of a pain when I switched. No tape hiss, inexpensive media, accurate--minimal maintenence required. I got tired of cleaning heads and having them aligned and demagnetized.

My first jump into digital was ADAT. It got even better when I went to the computer. I've been able to do things that tape would have made impossible. I like the sound of analog tape when its pushed, but I can easily live without that and be happy.
 
rondo said:
Since someone brought up Blink182 ....

I dont get it - the music these guys are emulating is an old "skate rock" formula that was around ages ago. This "skate rock" or "surf rock" stuff was all underground, 8-track-recorded-in-our-basement stuff. It was straight-edge, raw music, with a message. It didnt matter about the recording quality. Most of this stuff was circulated by tape-of-a-tape from a friend anyway. It was about the music. If you listen to the old skate-rock band Dag Nasty, you can hear that this is Blink's main influence.

Dont get me wrong - I like some of Blink's stuff. But that's beside the point. Good quality recordings have their place. But when does it become overkill? Would the Ramones first album be any more influencial recorded in full digital? I think it would sound strange if it were too perfect.
Click to expand...
Actually, blinks main influence was the Descendants. Anyway, I don't equate Blink to any old school hardcore, like minor threat or dag nasty. As you said, it's music with a message back then, now it's just the same pop mtv music with 'punk' music.

Christopher
 
Sorry about the wrong assumption on Blink's influence. I just noticed the tattoo on the drummers back which says "Can I Say" which is an old Dag Nasty song ...

Anyway, Chris, you're completely right - their stuff is popularized punk. But I did see a live song by them on tv once and they played a very fast song ala old school core stuff. I was kinda suprised. I still love the raw energy of that old stuff - even tho most of it if recorded just awfully :)

But back to the topic - Does anyone use different recording techniques (or hardware) on different types of bands?
 
I don't miss analog (especially the tape costs), except on kick drums and some electric guitars....but especially that kick...
I track on DA38s, and when the session is over, dump the kick track onto an old half-track Studer mono machine, and then right back onto another track of the DA38.
Adjust time so that it lines up again (easy), and it's that old kick sound I'm used to instead of the basketball sound that digital tape seems to give every kick I've tried to record...
But vocal comps, acoustic guitars, just about everything else, digital works for me....

Bruce
www.bruceharvie.com
 
I can't comprehend to save my life how musicians think analog was easier to work with.

Granted....i grew up with digital more or less.

But, you sit down at the computer, open up your multi track software, press record and play.....

I don't see whats so hard about it??

You can go back and change anything to your hearts desire...

In terms of the sound....I'm a young guy....digital is the future...even the here and now. And, I don't have an analog background...so, i'll just have to keep playing with the kick until I get a great sound without tape.

It can be done.
 
strmkr said:

I personally think a lot of the responsibility for the quality of digital recordings rests with the converters.Cheap ass converters make for cheap ass sounding recordings.
day!
Click to expand...

Although by asking this I risk exposure of my newbie underpinnings, I must nonetheless ask:

What is a converter? I have a soundcard, a mixer, recording software, instruments, where in all of this is the converter? is it a piece of hardware? a process? a state of mind? a one? a zero?
 
in your case, your converters reside in your soundcard.

Its what converts the analog music into zeros and ones so that you can edit it in the computer, or save to CD as the case may be.

The quality of the convertes is one of the main dictators of sound quality.
 
An excellent place to learn about analog compared to digital is
www.digido.com
Bob Katz has many interesting articles on his site on this topic.
FWIW, my next set-up will probably be a 8 track MDM like an ADAT or
Tascam DA-XX, preferably with a hard drive rather than tape based.
That way even if it gets outgrown as the main recording device,
it could always be used for location work, mixing to 5.1 surround, etc.
Plus you always have the option of taking it to a top studio to get
whatever help you want after laying down initial tracks.

Chris
 
I think the my preference for hard drive over tape on a MDM might be
wishful thinking BTW. Hopefully over the next few years the
manufacturers will trickle down the 24 track technology to 8 track.

Chris
 
Wes brings up a point which is worth expanding. I was born in 51, and most of my life I heard music that was recorded to tape using tube gear, and later pressed into vinyl. I still like the sound of those old records--even the ones that were far from state of the art recordings. My ear got used to that sound, but it is something that is fading away. The mad rush now is to the computer and hard disk recording. The younger ears are getting used to the sound of digital. Soon, there will be few of us who can recall what analog tape recordings sound like. My hunch is that eventually 3M or whoever will stop making 2" tape because it will not be financially to their advantage.

In the last ten years, we have gone from an analog world to a digital one. I used to record and mix to tape. Used to edit with a razor blade. Used to look at a 24 track machine and think I could never afford the luxury. Now, digital is the hottest thing going and just about anybody can get in the game.

Digital recording is in its infancy. In the next ten years, it will change by leaps and bounds. We'll be sitting around laughing about how we used record at 16 or 24 bit. In twenty years, people will say that the state of the art is all the best of analog sound only digital. And somebody will say, I grew up on 16 bit--all this new stuff sounds too fat and warm! where's the crunch gone!?

At the rate its going, every computer will have a digital studio built in as standard equipment before too long. Thats just the way its going to be. Me--I love the sound of analog, but its analagous to the stand up bass vs. the Fender Precision when it came out. Sure, the stand up had something unique, but the Fender offered portability and the means to be heard--at a cheaper price. Everybody switched. Now the same thing is happening with digital. The number of home studios has probably increased ten fold as a result of the cheaper route.

If you have a high budget recording contract or own a studio that caters to them, keep that 2" going! Otherwise the rest of the world is moving to the land of ones and zeroes.
 
crawdad said:
And somebody will say, I grew up on 16 bit--all this new stuff sounds too fat and warm! where's the crunch gone!?
Click to expand...

that's funny now, but watch it happen when digital becomes great and people want the clean(what we now call sterile)sound of today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top