Why Analog?

[DuddyGuy]

Tape is easier to understand, no drivers to mess with, no blue screen of death, no 'buffer overrun' or bitrate error or any number of annoying quirks. However, I've never spliced a tape. The thought of that scares the crap out of me, and it is a lot easier to hit "Normalize" with a mouse, rather than try to get all the levels to match up on a tape. I don't mind using digital to finish something off that is going to wind up on CD anyway, and I don't myself own a record lathe, (although I did see one for sale once in Long Beach, CA and wondered where the hell I'd fit that thing....)

Although not easier to understand, the one thing I really like about my digital system is that it's linux based. No blue screen of death or other errors ever! Once the initial set-up was complete I've never had a problem, and the Jack system is unbelievably awesome. All the software is free, as in open-source not pirated crap. And I can do almost anything you can do in a windows or mac based system. Not to take the the topic off of analog but open source has some pretty cool pro audio stuff!

 

[DuddyGuy]

My set up at the time I recorded the 2340sx songs that are on my Soundclick page was the 2340sx and an M35 mixer. I have both again now. I also used a Traynor YBA 1 bass head on my vocals and bass direct into the M35.. but not really a good idea to do that as I later learned. It didn't blow anything but it can fry your mic amps in the mixer.

I actually might have been going direct into a dbx compressor. Because those amps did get fried.

I had very basic stuff.

I used sm 57 on acoustic guitar and beta sm 58 on vocals plugged into the YBA. I recorded guitar and vocals at the same time on one track.

I used the beta sm 58 hung above the kit as an overhead, sm 57 on the snare and an unknown omni mic on kick. A mic I liked a lot but it broke.
I also used a Dolby unit as effect on the overhead and snare. But I don't really think that's necessary. I think the 2340 really makes the drums sound good and the eq. I think the Dolby unit acted more as a preamp to drive up the signal.

I've saved all my settings. I can get the eq settings for you later if you want to try them out.


I had a method where I would use the same eq settings all the time for instruments, for convenience. And I'd track with eq and reverb. I used a Traynor spring reverb which I still have. The way I came about getting them was by getting the best sound I could get on drums and then went to bass and then to guitar and then vocals. Trying to find a niche for each by eq-ing them on top of each other. And then I just used those settings all the time.

I have another song I wanted to put up because the recording sounds so good. But I don't like the song.

Getting a good sound on drums is the hardest and most obvious thing on a recording.

There are so many ways to go about it. I really think the 2340 really makes the recording itself.

Thanks for the info Steve, I am interested in your eq but we should talk about this in another thead, as I feel I may have all ready taken this one fairly off topic

And by all means you should post the song which you don't like! Perhaps we'll like it but even if not I would love to hear the production.

I feel I should also get some shure mics, as I've avoided them as being over hyped and I've been trying to avoid over-done sounds, but so much of what I like is done with them!

 

[Bobby Darko]

Some reasons:

I like to record in the red
I don't like looking at pc monitors while mixing, it distracts me
With tape it's what you play is what you get
With digital there's always something new to buy, upgrade etc. With my Tascam 688 it's pretty simple.
Tape is more organic (not per se the sound, but the workflow)
I am addicted to cassettes and the way they sound...

(I am now in the process of linking two of my 688's via a Midiizer I just received, tips are welcome!)

 

[famous beagle]

Yeah I would say the number one reason for me is the nostalgia of it. I started first overdubbing by using a dual-cassette boom box in 85 probably. I think the Christmas of 86, I got a Fostex X-26 cassette 4-track, and it was on. I recorded so much crap on that thing, and I didn't even know the first thing about recording back then. But it was more fun than I could have imagined.

I could say that I prefer the sound of analog to digital, and that very well may be true, but I wouldn't feel right saying that unless I had tracked the same song at the same time on both formats so I could compare the two. There are just too many other variables that go into it. I could say that I can hear the coldness of digital, and that may be true, but I just wouldn't bet on it or anything. I'm sure I could probably be eventually fooled if someone asked me to identify whether a new recording had been recorded on analog or digital.

There are, however, many other reasons why I love analog:

1) I love the physical process of it. I love loading cassettes or reels, I love cleaning the heads, etc.

2) I love moving faders.

3) I love the way most of that old analog equipment looks.

4) I love working within the restrictions of an analog system. You have a set number of tracks, a set number of processors, compressors, etc., and you do the best with what you have through careful planning and arranging. I've found that when working with the wide-open blank canvas of a digital DAW, my creativity is actually stifled more, as ironic as that may seem. Even though they market it as pure, unbridled creativity, it certainly does not have the same effect on me.

5) I like the fact that you don't have to worry about a hard drive crashing or software upgrades, bugs, etc. When I'm done recording on my 4-track, I just turn it off and leave.


Digital certainly has its advantages with editing, storage, flexibility, etc. And I do use a digital DAW when time is money. But when I'm working on my own stuff, it's as analog as I can make it.

 

[Blue Jinn]

Although not easier to understand, the one thing I really like about my digital system is that it's linux based. No blue screen of death or other errors ever! Once the initial set-up was complete I've never had a problem, and the Jack system is unbelievably awesome. All the software is free, as in open-source not pirated crap. And I can do almost anything you can do in a windows or mac based system. Not to take the the topic off of analog but open source has some pretty cool pro audio stuff!

Good point about Linux. I have a few older digital devices for which there aren't Linux 'drivers' and I have to use Windows 98. But I do have a couple of M-Audio cards which are completely supported in Linux. I am assuming you are using Ardour? I don't have the latest and greatest PC hardware and I found the pre-packaged Demudi (which was a predecessor to 64Studio) and using v1.3 of that. Works great. And I've used Audacity on both Windows and Linux.

It took me a little effort to get my head around Jack, and I'm not sure I completely understand how it works, but sound comes in and wav files get created, so I must be doing something right.

 

[FALKEN]

I am posting from linux now. I have used reaper and audacity. It's nice, it works, but setting everything up for my Layla 24 was a major pain, and I dont really like recording on it, but the OS is good for browsing the web.

I really like the Alesis HD24XR I recently bought. The sound is very, very good, and it has headroom for miles. It doesn't quite have the "depth" that tape has, but for recording ideas, demos, etc, it is very quick, easy, reliable, and sounds very good, as well as operates exactly like a tape machine, except you dont have to rewind or fast forward, or bias it or clean it. Also you can fit like days on a drive and drives are cheap now.

Same goes for the Alesis Masterlink. I use an external converter and it just sounds good. I can burn straight from it, I don't have to edit anything, or do any normalization or anything, and I can archive the files on CD's, as well as pop them in the computer to save for later or forever. And it functions just like a tape machine, only you dont have to rewind or fast forward, or bias it or clean it.

But for important stuff, I still use tape.

 

[famous beagle]

I really like the Alesis HD24XR I recently bought. It is very quick, easy, reliable, and sounds very good, as well as operates exactly like a tape machine, except you dont have to rewind or fast forward, or bias it or clean it.
Same goes for the Alesis Masterlink. And it functions just like a tape machine, only you dont have to rewind or fast forward, or bias it or clean it.

Heheh ... I would change these statements to:

but you don't get to rewind or fast forward, or bias it or clean it.

 

[Blue Jinn]

Heheh ... I would change these statements to:

but you don't get to rewind or fast forward, or bias it or clean it.

I have a DAT recorder that I have to rewind and fast forward and clean....

 

[Herm]

I like it!

 

[sweetbeats]

Maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about...maybe I'm just fooling myself, but I can hear the effects of the digital sampling on vocals close mic'ed with a LDC...its like the air coming off the vocal chords gets cut-cut-cut-cut resulting in a rough edge to that muscle vibating and then you listen to the same thing tracked to analog and it is smooth and natural. I did an A/B comparison of this once and on playback I could hear that digital sampling...at least I thought I could. But it has gotten to the point that listening to the vocals in digitally tracked and mastered music that is further being processed for radio airplay is really distracting...there is a distortion that is there that comes to the front with the airplay processing and its literally hard for me to hear past it and then I hear something that was tracked to analog, even something that has been converted to digital and it is a relief...ahhhhhh.

 

[DuddyGuy]

Good point about Linux. I have a few older digital devices for which there aren't Linux 'drivers' and I have to use Windows 98. But I do have a couple of M-Audio cards which are completely supported in Linux. I am assuming you are using Ardour? I don't have the latest and greatest PC hardware and I found the pre-packaged Demudi (which was a predecessor to 64Studio) and using v1.3 of that. Works great. And I've used Audacity on both Windows and Linux.

It took me a little effort to get my head around Jack, and I'm not sure I completely understand how it works, but sound comes in and wav files get created, so I must be doing something right

I am posting from linux now. I have used reaper and audacity. It's nice, it works, but setting everything up for my Layla 24 was a major pain, and I dont really like recording on it, but the OS is good for browsing the web.

Hey some nix guys! I didn't think there were any in here. Yep I'm on an Ardour set-up with vst support compiled in, Seq24 as my main midi sequencer, use mainly Hydrogen and Zynaddsubfx for drums and synths. If you have any questions about Jack feel free to shoot me a pm, I'm no guru but I've got a fair amount of experience with it.

My understanding was the Layla24 should be well supported, but I could see it being a pain if your not used to recompiling kernels or building modules or any of the other fun stuff you end up having to do for some cards... You should check out Ardour, it is imo a very nice rig and coupled with Jack I can achieve significantly lower latency and stability with my cards then I could in an ms set-up. Sorry to be OT, back to analog now....

Maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about...maybe I'm just fooling myself, but I can hear the effects of the digital sampling on vocals close mic'ed with a LDC...its like the air coming off the vocal chords gets cut-cut-cut-cut resulting in a rough edge to that muscle vibating and then you listen to the same thing tracked to analog and it is smooth and natural. I did an A/B comparison of this once and on playback I could hear that digital sampling...at least I thought I could. But it has gotten to the point that listening to the vocals in digitally tracked and mastered music that is further being processed for radio airplay is really distracting...there is a distortion that is there that comes to the front with the airplay processing and its literally hard for me to hear past it and then I hear something that was tracked to analog, even something that has been converted to digital and it is a relief...ahhhhhh.

Nah I don't think your fooling yourself, sometimes with vocals I almost think I can hear the tape moving across the head, not as in noise but the way the sound comes through, I don't know, maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about.

 

[dintymoore]

Maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about...maybe I'm just fooling myself, but I can hear the effects of the digital sampling on vocals close mic'ed with a LDC...its like the air coming off the vocal chords gets cut-cut-cut-cut resulting in a rough edge to that muscle vibating and then you listen to the same thing tracked to analog and it is smooth and natural. I did an A/B comparison of this once and on playback I could hear that digital sampling...at least I thought I could. But it has gotten to the point that listening to the vocals in digitally tracked and mastered music that is further being processed for radio airplay is really distracting...there is a distortion that is there that comes to the front with the airplay processing and its literally hard for me to hear past it and then I hear something that was tracked to analog, even something that has been converted to digital and it is a relief...ahhhhhh.

Me too, it's like the graphics on a cheap video game like Donkey Kong.

That's why my gut tells me that the main problem with digital is that they are trying to convince us that 16 bit/44.1 kHz recording is sufficient, but I don't think that it is.

Our brains don't work smooth. They are actually like digital where it is cut-cut-cut-cut. You can see it in birds, the way they think and move their heads. But the cuts are way, way faster than the 44.1 and even 96 kHz sampling rates. I think if the rates were way faster like 512 or 1024 it might start to sound right but the technology isn't there yet to do that cheaply.

 

[nate_dennis]

Ok, I figure that if I asked the question, I should answer it.

I'm scared to say that I can hear the difference because I just don't trust my ears that much yet. It started off as an idea to get some cheap gear for a deployment. But then I started really getting into the idea of it all. Now, I think for me, it's almost my way of rebelling against the status quo. I hate the cut/paste and CTRL+ALT+DEL type recording. I'm tired of system crashes. I'm tired of endless edits and tracks and plugs. I would much rather have a stellar performance that sounds OK than an ok performance that sounds STELLAR. Now its just the way I think and the way I do things. I haven't had a ton of time to record, but when I do, I love it. (On that note ...) I'm taking all of next week off and hiding away in my church building and recording ALL WEEK LONG!!! So hopefully I'll have something to add to the "share your recordings" thread. Anyway, that's why I work the way I do.

 

[SteveM]

Me too, it's like the graphics on a cheap video game like Donkey Kong.

That's why my gut tells me that the main problem with digital is that they are trying to convince us that 16 bit/44.1 kHz recording is sufficient, but I don't think that it is.

Our brains don't work smooth. They are actually like digital where it is cut-cut-cut-cut. You can see it in birds, the way they think and move their heads. But the cuts are way, way faster than the 44.1 and even 96 kHz sampling rates. I think if the rates were way faster like 512 or 1024 it might start to sound right but the technology isn't there yet to do that cheaply.

I think birds move like that because they have to move their heads to see changes and depth. Their eyes just take snapshots. But their brains might too. Who knows.

I think human hearing is more like a stream. Like electricity. Not snapshots but currents bouncing off currents.

 

[miroslav]

Like others here...I began with tape a long time ago. My earliest recollection of using a small tape recorder was when I was about 11 years old.
For me, there is something very pleasant about working with tape...holding the reels, taking care in threading the tape, watching them reels go 'round...
..there's just has a very organic quality to it.

Beyond tape...there is also some sense of mystery, almost magic in how electricity is moved around and transformed as it passes from one device to another, and even internally, one component to another. There isn't anything absolute about it...it's almost as though the electricity breathes and changes...and it's never quite exactly the same every time.

While I do use digital also these days...I still find the digital process rather removed, cold and all too exact and calculating.
It's just number manipulation once the computer has it...and the organic quality is gone.
Plus...I spend too much time with computers for other things...I hate when I also have to spend a lot of time with computers to make music...
...but, they're the thing for editing since sliced bread!

 

[Tim Gillett]

Maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about...maybe I'm just fooling myself, but I can hear the effects of the digital sampling on vocals close mic'ed with a LDC...its like the air coming off the vocal chords gets cut-cut-cut-cut resulting in a rough edge to that muscle vibating and then you listen to the same thing tracked to analog and it is smooth and natural. I did an A/B comparison of this once and on playback I could hear that digital sampling...at least I thought I could. But it has gotten to the point that listening to the vocals in digitally tracked and mastered music that is further being processed for radio airplay is really distracting...there is a distortion that is there that comes to the front with the airplay processing and its literally hard for me to hear past it and then I hear something that was tracked to analog, even something that has been converted to digital and it is a relief...ahhhhhh.

I cant pretend to hear what you hear but...

The term "infinite sampling rate" gets bandied about in some analog tape circles. It's a myth. For analog tape to have an infinite sample rate it would need infinite tape speed, infinitely large reels, heads with infinitesimally small losses, etc. And it would all be for nothing (even if it were possible to pull off) because our ears dont have infinite frequency response anyway. Far from it.

Neither analog or digital audio recording methods have 'infinite sampling rate' and neither needs to. It's about having adequate frequency response for the human ear. That's all.

If you have a sample rate of 22khz, half of CD, all you will basically hear is a lack of the high highs. Similar to analog tape where the tape speed is too slow to capture the high highs.

Cheers Tim

 

[nate_dennis]

For analog tape to have an infinite sample rate it would need infinite tape speed, infinitely large reels, heads with infinitesimally small losses, etc.

I will respectfully disagree with you.

Since sample rate has nothing to do with the quality of the heads, that statement really has nothing to do with the conversation. While it is true that the heads, tape speed, and such do affect the sound they don't affect the number of times the sound is chopped up and "photographed" (if you will allow me that analogy.)

The sampling rate, sample rate, or sampling frequency defines the number of samples per second (or per other unit) taken from a continuous signal to make a discrete signal.

The number of times per second that the sound is sampled in inversely corespondent to the space or time in between samples. i.e. at 96kHZ 96,000samples are taken every second effectively eliminating the space between them. While at 44.1 kHZ you see a larger gap between the samples. By this logic, the smaller the gap, the better. With tape, there is no gap. The sample rate is perfect. That is not to say that the medium is perfect. Just that the idea of a "sample rate" in the analog world is un-needed.

 

[Chilljam]

I too must disagree with Tim here, nate dennis was correct in saying that infinite sample rate doesn't mean bigger reels and heads with smaller losses..... you seem to have the wrong idea, perhaps you are thinking of fidelity?

I also agree that 'sample rate' is not a concern in analog recording as of course, the audio is not sampled but there are physical implications that exist moreso in the analog realm. Nate dennis has not grasped the theory completely from what ive read.
Let's take a look at the difference first, when recording digitally: the current (audio signal) from the mixer is stored as one bit of information at some point in time, it will be a 16bit or 24bit (depending on bitrate) sequence of 1s and 0s that is stored onto a HD etc. as a digital representation of the audio signal in one particular moment in time. The higher the sample rate, the more times the audio signal is stored as a digital signal. When playing back the digital signal, the computer will only read the digital signal (obviously) and the soundcard will convert it back to an analog audio signal (current) using the sampled information so your non-digital speakers can understand it.... this was done because lots of people can't hear any decrease in fidelity from doing this.

Analog recording however, the current from the mixer goes through the gap in the heads and a magnetic flux is created which induces a magnetic field on the tape. So when you play back the tape, it will play back that stored magnetic field and convert it back to current (a moving magnetic field also has a magnetic flux which induces a current on the playback heads) and from there the signal goes to the speakers.

So now lets look at the relevance, the current is not 'chopped up' (sampled) or simplified (number of bits) but is kept as the mixer outputs it (the conversion to a magnetic field is not really a 'conversion' like the digital conversion because any moving current has magnetic field so it does it whether you like it or not).
All the current (we assume) passes through the head gap and (once again assume) all the magnetic flux caused from this is induced onto the tape. For the analog recording to have infinite sample rate, every infinitesimal change in current (audio signal) coming in should instantaneously cause the magnetic flux and therefore field on the tape to change. This is true theoretically but there is always uncertainty (quantum mechanics 101 sorry guys). And because of this uncertainty, the tape cannot store an infinite sample rate of the input audio signal (store every single infinitesimally small signal change). Think of say a piece of wood that is one meter long, you can't find a piece of wood that is exactly one meter long, you may measure one that is 1.000m and can safely say that it's 1 meter exactly but is it 1.00000000000000000000.... meters long? Until you can measure the wood to an infinite accuracy (impossible), there is uncertainty.

I haven't personally measured how much of the audio signal really makes it on tape or know of anyone that has, but even if the heads perfectly transfer the current from the mixer to the tape and the magnetic field response on the tape compared to the current change (analogy: sample rate), what about the microphones that picked up the sound? did the diaphragm react to every little sound wave exactly? Once again, it can be assumed yes theoretically but really it is impossible.

That was all just stale physics theory, given we are dealing with the recording of music i always leave all theoretical and mathematical thought and conversation outside.
As many people here appreciate, what sounds good is good... if you think it sounds good then it does, if you want others to think it sounds good, let them hear it. Theoretically, analog recording should respond quicker and more accurately to the audio signal than digital recording but i don't know if it does...

 

[Tim Gillett]

I was responding to Sweetbeats comments that he could hear (or he thought he could hear) the "cut, cut, cut" of the digital sampling whereas the same voice tracked to analog tape was smooth and natural.

Let me say that there is potentially some distortion possible but it's right up near the highest frequency that the sample rate can cover. This was always acknowledged. It depends on the converters used. But if there is any doubt about this, people just sample at a higher rate so that any potential distortion is now well out of the range that we can hear.


To suggest that good digital recordings have some basic weakness which can be heard, and further that somehow by recording the track to analog first and then to digital somehow fixes this, is IMO nonsense. It's regarding analog tape as some sort of disinfectant or antibiotic which can cleanse digital of its distortions even ahead of time. But how could it possibly do that?

Remember, an analog tape playback is still just a waveform. If digital is going to distort the signal it's going to do it anyway regardless of whether it's a live input or from an analog recording. The sound from an analog tape has no magic 'digital healing' property to it, even if digital needed healing, which IMO it doesnt.

Another thing is blind listening tests. The best way to keep oneself honest is to not know what one is listening to. Have a friend play you excerpts so that you dont know which is which. Do it repeatedly, on different material and see how many times you get it right. Write down your choices and comments. This is the only reliable test. We tend to try and justify our own equipment, methods and purchases. Blind tests are great at levelling out these biases and giving us objective data about what we hear as opposed to what we think we hear.

Cheers Tim

 

[SteveM]

To suggest that good digital recordings have some basic weakness which can be heard, and further that somehow by recording the track to analog first and then to digital somehow fixes this, is IMO nonsense. It's regarding analog tape as some sort of disinfectant or antibiotic which can cleanse digital of its distortions even ahead of time. But how could it possibly do that?


Cheers Tim

Still insisting noone can hear the difference eh Tim?


I've transferred individual tracks to digital from tape and it's made a big difference. Something as simple as just having an acoustic guitar that was recorded to tape first.

Somehow, sometimes, digital has no choice but to obey it's master.