Why do you record in analogue?

[bruiser1964]

I find this post unacceptable, completely disrespectful and inappropriate.

Unacceptable? why? you made pseudo scientific statements which were complete bull, I called you on it, cest la vie.
Disrespectful, perhaps, but I don't know you from Adam so I don't owe you respect.
Inappropriate? no.

 

[James K]

Unacceptable? why? you made pseudo scientific statements which were complete bull, I called you on it, cest la vie.
Disrespectful, perhaps, but I don't know you from Adam so I don't owe you respect.
Inappropriate? no.

It's just not very nice, there's no need for it

 

[lo.fi.love]

Remember, folks, that we're talking about why we make the choice to record in analog, and we're not having a debate on analog vs. digital.

And at any rate, anyone who makes a living in pro audio or as a recording engineer would dismiss any possible argument here as nonsense. Working artists and 'professional' painters don't fight about oils vs acrylics, and I think that recording enthusiasts should not quibble about analog vs digital. It's a choice we make based on taste, so let's just leave it at that and talk about why we like the things we do, OK?

 

[James K]

Remember, folks, that we're talking about why we make the choice to record in analog, and we're not having a debate on analog vs. digital.

And at any rate, anyone who makes a living in pro audio or as a recording engineer would dismiss any possible argument here as nonsense. Working artists and 'professional' painters don't fight about oils vs acrylics, and I think that recording enthusiasts should not quibble about analog vs digital. It's a choice we make based on taste, so let's just leave it at that and talk about why we like the things we do, OK?

^^ Exactly

 

[Astralography]

Isn't this the analog forum?

I would assume posters here would understand the obvious.

 

[Lance Lawson]

Nice thread. I've been around long enough to have recorded mixed and mastered in analog when analog was the state of the art. The only state of the art for that matter. I knew the earliest digital rigs and CD's from the beginning. My switch to digital recording came in 2001 with a Cakewalk program. My initial impression was that the digital domain for whatever perceived weaknesses it possessed more than made up with the editing ease and the fantastic consolidation of the entire process within the confines of a PC. I happily wrote recorded mixed and finished 100 of my own recordings content with the digital process and the results I was obtaining. However things didn't remain so. Somewhere along the line I realized that no matter how I tried I was never able to reproduce the sound I was hearing in my headphones as I was performing and setting levels. That is to say the mix could be achieved but the essence of the sound was never quite right. So one day I set up my TEAC reel to reel and recorded a live mix into it while at the same time recording it into my SONAR program. The difference was stunning. The tape machine had a presence, depth and sense of space that the digital version lacked. So I refurbished my TEAC bought some fresh new tape and began mastering my digital recordings onto tape. I quickly discovered that the analog remastering had the classic effect of turning digital recordings into something that was pleasing to ear in ways that defy logic and audio science. Since then I've all but finished transferring my entire digital music collection onto reel to reel tape and high end cassettes. I find myself listening a lot more to my music collection. While I have an extensive vinyl collection my first choice has always been reel to reel to tape.

My stand on the digital vs analog issue is as follows. Digital is infinitely easier to work with and the editing possibilities are priceless. It allows for less performance preparation and that's a double edge sword. Clearly digital can sound great and frequently does. But it is still different from analog and analog is still more accessible to the human ear.

Without a doubt it takes more skill and more chops to go into a studio setting with a reel of very expensive 2" tape and get a 5 minute song down in 3 to 5 takes with one of which could be used to build the rest of the recording on. When I went into an analog studio I went in rehearsed and ready to perform.

Digital allows you to be lazy. Today's analog demands dedication on all levels. I have no use for analog emulators they're worthless each and ever one of them. Perhaps if you've never heard tape those things might create a cozy illusion of tape but I've yet to be fooled or impressed with them.

I consider myself fortunate that I have a great reel to reel tape machine and that it's likely to outlive my current PC. I'm not going to abandon my digital recording on SONAR. But I won't consider a piece finished until its been mastered through the reel to reel and at least archived onto tape as well as hard drive.

 

[Blue Jinn]

I'm going to take this slightly off topic, but I've always found it interesting that one of the greater advocates of digital recording was Herbert von Karajan, someone whose musical credentials speak for themselves. There is an urban legend that the CD format is 74 minutes in order to accommodate Beethoven's 9th due to his discussions with Sony. Additionally, some of the earlier arguments for digital recording, was the ability to capture the extreme dynamic range of many classical performances (as opposed to pop music e.g.) with a better S/N ratio.

IMO the roll off rather then cutoff of analog sounds better, and I'm guessing that the harmonics, even if I can't hear them have an effect on the room and interact with other frequencies that I can hear, which is why I prefer analog, and why *subjectively* to me it just sounds better.

 

[Massive Master]

Working artists and 'professional' painters don't fight about oils vs acrylics,

I don't want to change the subject, but I used to work professional artists all the time and the oil guys always thought the acrylic guys were pu**ies. But they didn't argue much with the watercolor and gouache crowd...

 

[andicustherobot]

I looooooooove analog

for these reasons

1. My artists consistently ask for it
2. I trust the mechanical tape machine more than the computer box
3. It just sounds better to me
4. It brings out the presence and quality of my ribbon mics (and I looooooove my ribbons)
5. Studys show that the average person can tell the difference in an analog recording and they typically prefer it
6. It gives me the edge on competing studios

Long live tape machines and other analog equipment. It is the way of the future and the past.

 

[lo.fi.love]

I don't want to change the subject, but I used to work professional artists all the time and the oil guys always thought the acrylic guys were pu**ies. But they didn't argue much with the watercolor and gouache crowd...

Yeah, but that was before acrylics had the sampling rate that they have now. Big improvements have been made in the last 20 years and some would say that acrylics now are as good as oils

 

[lonewhitefly]

i think people were originally excited about digital because of the benefits, namely lower noise and ease of editing. from the inception of sound recording through the digital age, engineers fought an uphill battle against noise and artifacts, anything that got in the way of the music as it sounded in the room. the problems with digital are subtle and take time to become apparent.

the best example i can think of is i always listened to vinyl growing up and made a slow switch to all CDs during the early 2000s (mainly due to moving around a lot). i noticed over the years that i didn't want to listen to music as much and i didn't sit and down and listen to albums with the same attention i used to have. i started buying records again and slowly stopped listening to the CDs ... the old feelings returned and i felt connected to the music again.

 

[miroslav]

i noticed over the years that i didn't want to listen to music as much and i didn't sit and down and listen to albums with the same attention i used to have. i started buying records again and slowly stopped listening to the CDs ... the old feelings returned and i felt connected to the music again.

Not sure why sitting down, listening to albums and "connecting to the music" on vinyl is any different than CDs...?

I'm not talking about minor audio differences between the two mediums...I'm talking about "connecting to the music".
When I'm in the mood to just sit and listen to a whole album...I get the same music vibe with a CD in my stereo system as with a vinyl LP.

The hard part is doing that...sitting down and listening to a whole album in the comfort of a nice listening environment...rather than on the iPod while jogging (or whatever) or in your car while driving.

 

[Beck]

I think I know where lonewhitefly is coming from… if his are the same reasons as mine. To my ear the sonic differences between vinyl and CD are significant, with CD causing ear fatigue making sitting through an album or two difficult for many of us. The other aspect is seeing the album as a complete work made to be taken in as a whole and in the order the artist intended. Sure you can do that with CD, but with remote in hand the temptation is too great to skip around. Back in the day we could get up and move the stylus of course, but people were more likely to let in run it’s course.

But again, for me the sound is the major difference. I can’t sit in the sweet spot for long with most CD’s without my ears feeling they need a break… I get annoyed. There’s a very real discomfort that I don’t feel with vinyl or tape. If I have a CD running in my living room and I’m in another room it’s not so bad. I can listen to it as background music while I’m doing something else, but that’s not really connecting with the music. It’s not the same as focused listening as an activity with nothing else going on.

 

[miroslav]

I know what you mean about the sound...though most of the differences come when comparing an old-school vinyl album to some current CD album, but if you have an album that you like and it exists in both CD and vinyl...the differences are not going to be any greater than when listening to an album in a car VS your home stereo VS a small boom box.
Back in the pre-CD day I never had trouble enjoying the same album in vinyl on my stereo or at the beach on a boom box. I was listening to the music...not comparing the sound quality, though it was obvious that it was different between the two.

IOW...if you are connecting with the music...the medium IMHO, isn't that strong as to break that music connection on its own.
While there are really "rude" sounding CD, the real problem isn't CD quality for most good albums these days...it's the process of SITTING DOWN to listen to that album (in any format). Few people do that anymore, and digital formats have made it too easy to listen without having to sit down.

I think vinyl simply forces you to sit down...because there aren't any portable vinyl players or car systems... ...but put a decent CD into the same stereo system, SIT DOWN and listen to it, and it's as easy to connect with the music as with a vinyl album.

Not to mention...how many really good plays do you get out of a vinyl album before it starts to noticeably deteriorate? I have several hundred albums and tons of 45s, and I never listen to them, because almost every single one has noticeable clicks, pops, hiss. Even the ones that are not *damaged/real old*, start getting that static hiss after a bunch of plays. When I do "sit down" to listen to albums...I just pick my faves on CD.
What I really miss about the vinyl albums VS CDs...is the ability to hold a larger copy of the artwork, and read all the liner notes with ease. I hate fumbling through those small CD inserts with microscopic text.

 

[Astralography]

Miroslav,

I can only suspect you are listening to your vinyl on an inadequate system. I don't mean this with any disrespect, but I would guess you have a solid state amp, a medium or low grade cartridge, and speakers that are not giving your ears the detail they deserve. Remember, in the age of vinyl, records were created to fill the speakers of great systems with lots of detail, depth, and clarity. A few years back I had a friend dial me in with a proper analog listening system with a "return to spec" tube amp, a proper set of cables, a great TT with a very sensitive tonearm and an high quality cartridge running through a very good set of speakers with passive radiators. I really think you would have a change of heart if you could hear your favorite vinyl recordings on a properly tuned up system. In this day and age it's not something many people have, but if you are into music, making music, or a serious listener, you really owe it to yourself to hear things properly.

If you have an inadequate system, then you are simply not going to hear the differences between digital recordings and vinyl or even tape. Remember also that a properly made cassette from a good source can sound excellent and also be portable into a car stereo or what we used to call a walkman.
There were some good ones made back in the day.

I am also a believer that speakers need some size for proper sound reproduction. Most great bass players especially back in the day played through cabinets with 15 inch cones in them. Guess what? They need to be played back through 15" cones. Horns will always sound best coming back through horn drivers.

Clicks a pops might mean you don't have a good vacuum system to clean your records with. But you will always have some with vinyl.. but don't forget that a lot of classic stuff was also released on 7" open reel tapes that will not have those clicks and pops. Personally, I view it as ambient room noise, like going to a jazz club and people walk behind you or toast their wine glasses while you watch a performance. There are always other sounds in the air. If you are connected to the music like you say, I can't see it being a problem.

You really don't have to spend a ton on a good vinyl system. I think you can easily get into a great set up for $1500.

I saw some nice guitars on the walls of your studio that probably just one of them could be turned into a great playback system for you.

Thanks for the nice guitar soloing on there.. enjoyed it! I'm a Zep fan also like so many others. Page was a bit audiophile nut back in the day also.

 

[miroslav]

I have a pretty decent Hi-Fi system...sweet Technics turntable, 3-way Technics speakers and amp (though not a tube amp), tuner...this cost a pretty penny back in the late 80s, imported special from Japan. The 3-way speakers sound fantastic...got a 12" for the lows with tunable mids and highs.

The point is more about the vinyl...it wears out with every play, no matter how high end your system, and if you are going to make a cassette copy of the original vinyl in order to preserve the album from too many plays...well, a cassette just isn't going to top a CD for portability or play quality IMHO.

I'm not saying a very expensive Hi-Fi system with brand new vinyl albums isn't going to sound marvelous...but you already made my point when you mentioned copying to cassette. Like I said, I'm mainly discussing the ability to "connect to the music" which was brought up by lonewhitefly. I don't see why that would be difficult for some to do when listening to decent CDs on a decent Hi-Fi system???
If you can't connect to the music on a decent CD...I don't think hearing that same album on vinyl will be such a huge sonic revelation to turn your opinion, though I agree some CDs do get so horribly mangled with blown dynamics and whatnot...but that's not what I'm getting at.
I mean...if you can still connect to the music off a cassette in a car...c'mon now...are you going to tell me that a CD will turn you off to that same music?

Not to mention...I base my sonic judgments using my studio monitoring system as my reference. It's pretty darn flat and true.
Most Hi-Fi systems are not (even the expensive stuff)...and often accentuate frequencies for a more pleasant "listening" (not monitoring) experience.

Thanks for the props on my guitars and playing.

 

[lonewhitefly]

maybe i'm just a freak, but i sometimes buy a reissue LP and then put it up and don't play it very often (i'm talking about albums i already own and love, musical content itself being ignored for the sake of this argument). then other reissue LPs, i play more often. i started wondering why. i would do research and find out that the ones that i don't like to play as often were cut from digital masters (like most LPs today) and the ones i liked to play were cut from analog masters (like much of the sundazed stuff). i don't know if i can "hear" the difference as much as "feel" it ... it's a true connection. i think that a vinyl LP cut from an all-analog recording and cut from a tape to disc contains a certain kind of electro-magnetic energy that is transferred in each stage. like connecting to the ghosts of the past, or rather, electrical/magnetic energy from the people of the past.

allow me to make my point with a simple analogy:

CDs -- robots
LPs -- human beings

yes, they wear out, yes they are flawed and imperfect, but it's the real thing.

 

[miroslav]

i don't know if i can "hear" the difference as much as "feel" it ... it's a true connection.

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

allow me to make my point with a simple analogy:

CDs -- robots
LPs -- human beings

I don't know how you get "CDs -- robots" and "LPs -- human beings"...but I know where you are coming from when you say you can't hear it but you can feel it.

It's like back in the '60/'70s...1.) you could smoke a joint...or...2) you could first light some candles and incense, put on some "head music" and then smoke *the same joint*.
Most everyone swore they got higher doing it the #2 way.
Something about the ritual that made for a different experience.

I just think people have gotten to that nostalgic, vintage vibe point with vinyl the same way some people get with certain old-tech audio gear.
I don't knock it, I like certain "old" things instead of new...I'm just saying that 90% of that music connection you feel with vinyl is pure "self-hypnosis", especially if you ain't got that $10k Hi-Fi with the wooden knobs and hydraulic-gyroscopic isolators.

It's mostly the act of using vinyl. I think if you were listening to the same album on both CD and vinyl with a blindfold, so you could just focus on the music instead of the "process/ritual" of playing/touching vinyl instead of CD...you would connect about equally if you really liked the music...IMHO.

 

[Astralography]

It's mostly the act of using vinyl. I think if you were listening to the same album on both CD and vinyl with a blindfold, so you could just focus on the music instead of the "process/ritual" of playing/touching vinyl instead of CD...you would connect about equally if you really liked the music...IMHO.

I probably would have agreed with this a few years ago until I got a proper analog system. Now I really understand this entire change in the direction of music.

Just a bit of background, I made my living as a record producer in the 90's.. until Napster and other file sharing sites killed us... so I got out of the biz. Being a musician, I realized a couple years ago the need to create doesn't go away. So I am jumping back in now to actually do things correctly this time... as far as recording.
Digital music recording I found myself spending way too much time on the computer, cubase, protools, or whatever... with way too many options, too many plugins, too many editing possibilities and not enough time on my instruments. The amount of time I have spent trying to fix a track I could have rehearsed the track and laid down a new one, in one take, 10 times over. By rehearsing the track, I feel it better, might even change something for the better in that process, and actually am preparing myself for a better track to be laid down.

In a nutshell, electronic music creation within a computer is a painter's version of photoshop. It is what it is.

But I will predict this... when it's said and done.. true music lovers are going to value vinyl more than music on CD. It's happening already.

Back to a stereo system. I teach, and have a student who happens to be a well known high audiophile product reviewer. We got to talking and we decided to barter a deal and he hooked me up with a correct and proper system. I THOUGHT I had a good system.. I had an NAD amp.. good clean British no frills audiophile amp.. very well respected. I had a Dual TT with what I thought was a quality Sure Cartridge.
I had a set of Klipsch KG's which are actually decent speakers. He let me keep those.
I also had a monster cable like spinoff that were said to be "good".

Let me start with the tube amp. I was able to get hooked up with a completely professionally restored 1964 Scott 340B.
Only 35 watts per channel. My NAD was 100 watts per channel.

Guess what?

The tube Scott killed the NAD in volume! Not even in the same ballpark. The Scott plays so much cleaner and clearer than the NAD it was comical. I set them up side by side and it was shocking.. not subtle.. SHOCKING!

It was like lifting a sleeping bag off the face of the speakers.

Then came the new TT.

I really didn't believe that a different cartridge was going to make a difference, and certainly not the tracking quality of a proper tonearm. But again the difference was HUGE!!

What I had now... was completely in another world of audio listening experience.
And you know what? I haven't even spent $1000 yet.

Then I got a proper set of interconnect cables. While the difference wasn't as shocking as the amp and TT, it was still more than significant. Moving from 14 gauge copper to 8 gauge silver stranded and properly insulated.. another wow moment for sure. I kept my Klipsch and added another pair to run in serial that filled out the sound nicely with two sets of horn drivers on each side, a 12", (2) 10" (2) 8" and a 15 inch sub.

I had to relisten to my vinyl collection because I could now actually hear everything going on. It was like I had never heard them before. There were all kinds of tracks and things going on I didn't even know existed. It was also an Xray into how good or poor albums are actually recorded. Simply put, you hear the truth.

Now a lot of this stuff was well known in the 1960's and 70's and analog studios had great monitors to playback their recording sessions for mixing and mastering. Musicians put lots of detail into their music because they knew there were a lot of people at home that had great stereo systems.. so music was mixed to accommodate the audiophile market. They knew that friends would come by and hear their music on these great systems and that would also help sell records. There was a real connection between the creators and the end users. Both were concerned about the quality of playback.

However, today, you cannot say this. Today's end user is listening to an ipod. I don't have to discuss how horrible an ipod sounds do I? This is at least the analog forum here right?

The creators are mixing FOR ipod. Producers today are more concerned with homogenizing production values.. and mixing everything in a much more bombastic way. More concerned about quantitizing a drum track and even replacing the drummers kick and snare drum with a sample of some other drummers kick or snare that sounds "better".

For one thing.. you can't really go out and buy a new decent stereo system unless you spend $10K. So you have to go used vintage and find a good tech who still knows how to work on them.. just like here with tape machines.

My point really is that you need a proper playback system to understand why some people are vinyl diehards for the REAL reasons... NOT nostalgia.

To be honest, I was a cynic a few years back like many here.. but now I understand.
Solid state is not the proper way to playback music. Nor is a poor tube amp with burned out tubes and capacitors.

What is going to happen is that over time... people are going to listen back and say.. wow... listen to that over produced lifeless junk that sounds unreal and unnatural.
You can do that now already especially if you listen to some of the horrible drum machine stuff from the 80's.

What I hope happens is that a tube set up with a quality TT and tonearm with a proper set of cables can be made available at new retail for people to get good quality sound back in their livingrooms.. NOT the crappy surround sound home theater set ups that are popular today with 4 canons of subwoofers under the couch.

True story..
I had a guy come over and buy a set of extra speakers from me last year who said my little $1500 set up sounded better than his $100K digital system.

Why? because a CD that has been dithered down to 16 bit simply cannot compete with a properly recorded analog pressing on vinyl or open reel.

Does vinyl wear out? Sure if you play a record 4000 times. Keep it clean, and make sure your tonearm is tracking at no more than 1.8 grams and it will last you a lifetime.
If you play different records you will not kill one particular piece of vinyl.

 

[miroslav]

I dunno...back in the day way before CDs we listened to albums on vinyl. Some of us had "decent" Hi-Fi systems, many had mediocre systems (just like these days)...few had very high-end esoteric Hi-Fi systems. You know what, most enjoyed and connected with the music...on any of these systems.
Then came cassettes, making it all very portable, and all of a sudden we were all in our cars listening to our favorite albums or on the beach or in the park listening on boom-box cassette players...and most enjoyed and connected with the music.

CDs came along, then iPods and MP3s and cheesy small computer speakers...and most are still enjoying and connecting to the music.

Guys...it AIN'T the medium...it's the MUSIC!
Granted, you might hear subtle nuances on a very expensive Hi-Fi compared to iPods, and no one is saying there aren't any sonic differences with various mediums...but that's irrelevant AFA connecting to the music. If you like the music, the medium is not important. You will still connect to the music, as long as you don't convince yourself that you can only connect through a specific medium.