Why do you record in analogue?

  • Thread starter Thread starter James K
  • Start date Start date
But if people used the same levels to digital as they do to tape, digital sounds much more "analog" also.

0dBVU being 0dBVU no matter what - But so many people record to digital with levels that would melt through tape - and then they wonder why it sounds "harsh" while they're overdriving the hell out of their input chain... But I digress.

That said -- On the rare occasion that I'm managing a recording session anymore, I tend to go to 2" and pull right off the repro into digital. Best of both worlds and all.
 
I like analog because of the sound.I have a 16 track Korg digital recorder which I can get some nice acoustic guitar and vocal tracks on,
but when it comes to micing up a drum kit, I cannot for the life of me get a good sound.But if I use the exact same micing set up,that is 1 condenser overhead,1 kick mic in the drum and 1 sm57 on snare its sounds REALLY good through my 388.No comparison,way nicer in analog.Thats why I hardly touch my korg anymore.I just gave up 8 extra tracks because of the sound difference.
Also with analog,it's not a lazy mans game.Im always climbing behind my gear switching things around,getting tangled in cables and enjoying it.
 
Bottom line it sounds better to me. In addition it will and already has outlasted countless digital trends. Many digital solutions have died... become obsolete before analog has, and that will continue to happen moving forward. Digital is a future hope... it always has been and always will be as long as marketers can keep you riding the crazy train with promises of better digital that never really comes. In fact because of the digital revolution the industry as a whole has lowered its standards of sonic excellence. The bar has been lowered. It doesn't matter that digital is dominant... that only says the masses are gullible, which they've always been... so nothing new there.
 
Recording to a reel to reel tape machine through an analog mixer gives my recordings a certain character (That, to my ears, makes the music I record sound better) that is not there when I record straight to digital.

The music still ends up in the digital domain and the individual tracks on the tape will probably be edited and (sometimes) summed digitally, so really I am using the tape as an instrument to enhance the music I record.
 
RandyRhoads1981 said:
Analog is about the process of Recording, not the sound it gives so much.
We see all of this Analog-emulation plugins which are supposed to make the music "warmer", but the warmth is in the performance and the working with music hands-on in "real life". It's like painting a picture with paintbrushes and painting a picture in Photoshop.
There is a certain feeling that spinning Reels and someone saying "rolling" that gives off the sense that music is actually "happening" and being physically documented.
Click to expand...
I find those differences that existed in the early days of digital recording to be virtually gone. I have used a Tascam 488 portastudio since 1992 and I have loved it, I've learned much of what I know about recording on it and I don't regret having cut my teeth in analog. But over the last couple of years, I've been also recording on an AKAI DPS 12i and I have to say that the workflow and process hasn't changed, in essence. What's changed is that I have more tracks and with virtual tracks, I can do a bit more. If I had one track left on the 488 say, and I wanted to do a complex keyboard part, as a shitty keyboardist, I'd be stuffed because I'd be struggling in real time. With virtual tracks I can put that part together as I go and bounce them down to one track. But if I'd had a 16 or 24 track analog recorder, I'd've been in the same situation, that's what I would have done. So the change isn't in the format, but in my own progression and having more tracks.
The sound aspect is interesting. When I first went digi, I expected a brittle tinny sound from my recordings and remember being surprized when the guitar and congas I was recording that first time sounded exactly as it always did on the 488. The only time the sound is different is sometimes when the recording pushes too hot and distorts. But even then, the digital 'clip' isn't always a horrid sound or even noticeable.
Call it lazy and cowardly if you will, but I salute whoever came up with that 'undo' button !
For me, it's not a contest between the two. They're both awesome. I'm like a kid that's still fascinated that sound can be captured and recorded !
 
I must confess, I derive absolutely no joy from switching cables.
 
grimtraveller said:
I must confess, I derive absolutely no joy from switching cables.
Click to expand...

Yeah, me neither. It's almost as bad (But not quite) as moving virtual faders one at a time with a mouse. Yuck! :D

grimtraveller said:
What's changed is that I have more tracks and with virtual tracks, I can do a bit more. If I had one track left on the 488 say, and I wanted to do a complex keyboard part, as a shitty keyboardist, I'd be stuffed because I'd be struggling in real time. With virtual tracks I can put that part together as I go and bounce them down to one track.
Click to expand...

One word... MIDI. I've been doing what you describe above with MIDI, but still recording with analog since about 1986... and still do. And before MIDI I was syncing drum machines and synths in other ways, like Roland's proprietary pre-MIDI synchronization method. Endless virtual tracks with MIDI instruments by sacrificing one analog track for sync. Nothing has changed and I still don’t need to record (sample) anything with digital. The things I can't do with virtual tracks like guitar and vocals don’t sound right anyway with digital to my ear so it all works out just peachy. ;)
 
Last edited:
I use to do lots of MIDI virtual tracks...sometimes locked to my tape deck where I had a bunch of recorded tracks.

Then I got away from that madness. One time I came back to a session...and with the virtual MIDI tracks, I had to recall or setup all the sounds/patches, and then I ended up not being able to find some that I used...so that pissed me off.
Once I began working with a DAW...virtual MIDI tracks simply had no real purpose. I could just record them to the DAW if I really wanted them, and still not chew up all my tape deck tracks.
But these days...I record even the MIDI tracks first to tape...and then dump to DAW.

AFA why I record in analog...well, I don't actually, at least not 100% from start to finish. I do hybrid analog/digital on everything these days. I'll track to tape, dump to DAW...or sometimes direct to DAW...but in either case I come out of the DAW and mix OTB using an analog board and mostly analog processing, with the exception of my racked reverb boxes, which are digital...thoguh I also have tape delay and spring verbs if desired.

I think it's a good way to go....even if I had the money to afford the best analog gear and a nice Studer tape deck...I've become fond of dumping to DAW for digital editing and then back out to mix OTB using analog gear, but I wouldn't mind doing some pure analog sessions, though that's only realistic if you have a band playing/tracking together. Trying to do it all myself, track by track...I need the DAW to help me edit my way past the stuff I'm not really good at...and it's hard for a one-man studio...playing, producing, engineering ...I mean, I only have two hands! :D
 
grimtraveller said:
I must confess, I derive absolutely no joy from switching cables.
Click to expand...
I must confess, to me quarter inch plug action is a "secret ritual" :D

heh heh :drunk:
 

Attachments

  • cables2.webp
    cables2.webp
    38.6 KB · Views: 119
miroslav said:
I use to do lots of MIDI virtual tracks...sometimes locked to my tape deck where I had a bunch of recorded tracks.

Then I got away from that madness. One time I came back to a session...and with the virtual MIDI tracks, I had to recall or setup all the sounds/patches, and then I ended up not being able to find some that I used...so that pissed me off.

...Trying to do it all myself, track by track...I need the DAW to help me edit my way past the stuff I'm not really good at...and it's hard for a one-man studio...playing, producing, engineering ...I mean, I only have two hands! :D
Click to expand...

Yeah I hear ya... but I've also only got two hands. :P I'm a one-man-band as well when I'm doing my own stuff, but was doing it that way before DAWs came out so I'm used to it. The key to syncing up with Virtual MIDI tracks is keeping good notes, but I'm so used to that it seems easy to me. I guess it depends on where a guy is coming from. Some will say they don't need MIDI or outboard synths and MIDI modules because they have a DAW. But I say I don't need a DAW because I have MIDI and some really nice vintage synths I'll never part with. And the thing with me is I've never heard an emulation that's very convincing. I have a studio full of the real things.

But I also have a nice DAW. I can do projects without it, but its there if I need some extra cheap tracks. I always hit tape first however and then bounce to the DAW. Everything hits tape first during tracking, but the MIDI instruments get mixed down through the console along with the analog tracks to the analog half-track. It's basically how it was done in the mid-80's to 90's except for the addition of the DAW. And actually the DAW for me is inconvenient, so if I can get by without it I do. For digital its good though. I’ve always been picky about choosing equipment and my DAW is no exception. I built the PC for it from scratch as I always do to be super quiet and efficient. It’s cool and all that and useful at times. So my system is hybrid as well. It’s all there and I can use what I need depending on the project.

Mostly my point about MIDI is that it gave us capabilities that many people attribute to the advent of the DAW, when actually there’s nothing new under the sun. We were using virtual tracks with multitrack sequencers long before affordable and decent sounding DAWs came along and even before the ADAT changed everything. Until soft synths start sounding as good as the real ones I have I’ll still be doing it that way. My Moog, Ensoniq, Roland and Kurzweil synths are safe… they don’t have to worry about being replaced anytime soon. ;)
 
I actually record the MIDI stuff to the multitrack. The only time I've ever mixed the MIDI live like that was for one song on a duff RMGI tape, where the edge track with the drums on it had died.
The other advantages to doing it this way are that you can overdub monosynths, or monotimbral synths and also bake in effects like tape delay or bizarre arrangements of pedals. If anyone remembers my 'Demonhunter' song on the new album, the ring modulation effects in the intro would have been a horrible nightmare to do at mixdown (though I believe Joe Byrd of the USA did actually do it that way on 'The American Metaphysical Circus').

I am probably unusual in this part of the forum in that I work primarily in MIDI, being a rather incapable musician otherwise.

Why do I record it analogue? Because it's more fun.


Dr ZEE said:
I must confess, to me quarter inch plug action is a "secret ritual" :D
Click to expand...
...is that a Jaz drive there? Does it still work? I could ask all the usual questions about still using that which people usually ask about still using tape, but I imagine there's a good reason for it :3
 
Last edited:
Beck said:
We were using virtual tracks with multitrack sequencers long before affordable and decent sounding DAWs came along...
Click to expand...

But I'm not talking about "virtual" tracks with a DAW...I'm saying, record the MIDI/synths into the DAW as real audio tracks (or to tape if you have the spare tape tracks).

I did virtual MIDI from the late 80's to the late 90's, but I was already working with a DAW in the early 90's. Finally it just didn't make sense to me to use virtual MIDI tracks when I had all the room I needed to record them into the DAW (usually bouncing through my tape deck). I wanted to treat them like another real intrument...instead of as "virtual" stuff.

jpmorris said:
The other advantages to doing it this way are that you can overdub monosynths, or monotimbral synths...
Click to expand...

Right, that was the other thing....and also the MIDI lag when you had a ton of virtual tracks layered in your sequencer.

I still use my synths on occasion...but I just play/record them just like any other track. I don't even bother to sequence them anymore. I don't think I've even used a MIDI sequence in over 8 years now. If I make a mistake playing...I would rather just play it over or edit it in the DAW rather than take the time to program a sequencer to play it for me.

I find my synths/electronic instruments sound much better when they get recorded as audio and played like an instrument...much more natural, but I can see why MIDI sequencing is still popular with a lot of folks.
 
My recording sucked on tape. Now I'm totally awesome. I like being able to make a horrible musician such as myself awesome.
 
It's not about sucking and then using a DAW to fake it. :D

DAWs just let you have some additional control over your tracks...which comes in handy when you work alone.
 
I went digital in '98 - going back to analog made me realize that the workflow suits me better. I have to rewind the tape and use the time for thinking about what I'll do next ... I tend to prepare better because getting rid of an error is not just "Apple-Z" or a click with the mouse ... If you grew up using digital formats, that will feel natural to you but my "inner tempo" was set in the 70s with the analog mehtod.
It´s like LP / CD - I actually enjoy having to get up after 20 minutes to turn the record over. Suits my inbuilt tempo.
 
I'm loving my 440 right about now. Wish I had more tracks but I love this thing to pieces. :o
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top