Why do you record in analogue?

  • Thread starter Thread starter James K
  • Start date Start date
well, fellows, i think that maybe we're coming from a different place with this stuff, and that is totally cool. for the record, i have a crummy listening system, a sony boombox with a cheap record player with built in preamp. i am anything but an elitist or audiophile. i'm really coming from a more philosophical/spiritual place. i put most of my money into the recording side of things, my playback system is, as you mentioned, just to listen to music and connect with it. i think analog really just gets me to that connection faster. the ritual is cool, but i'm sure i could point out what was tape, record, or CD in a blind-fold test. or maybe i couldn't BUT ... over the minutes, hours, days, months, i think i would become more interested in music if it was presented to me in analog. true, i like the artifacts, but i am talking about something else here.

i'm not one of these guys that is coming to analog because it's cool, or vintage, or has a ritual ... growing up as a poor kid in the '90s, i could not afford a CD player and listened to garage sale records on hand-me-down stereo systems. i bought cassettes new. i noticed when i finally got a CD player, i started slowly losing interest and didn't make the connection for a long time.

in terms of recording, i have never done digital recording. i was born in '79, started on boombox cassettes, hooked into each other via rca cable to overdub (or just speaker to microphone!) in the '80s, finally went to 4-track cassette in the late '90s when i became an adult, moved on to 4-track teac 3340 reel around '05, quickly moved to 8-track 1/2" that year as well (teac 80-8). i'm still honing my chops on the teac, my recordings sound better and better each year, i'm learning the process ... i really want to get the most out of the stuff i have before upgrading. i considered digital briefly around '05 but i thought about all my favorite recordings and how they were made, as well as the workflow, and decided against it. anytime i try to do anything music related on computers, i just get super frustrated, and not in the exciting, creative analog way.

i recently started splicing a 1/4" mix to do some editing on a track that was a mess. man, was that challenging, frustrating and time consuming. but it was also exhilarating, and the end results have a certain human, imperfect touch that i am so proud to have been a part of.
 
Well...now you are talking about the recording experience, rather than a pure listening experience as a typical music fan.

I started on 4-track 1/4"...many moons ago, maybe it was just before you were born, and these days I still use tape, but I also use computers and digital, though I still mix all analog. I don't find the digital bad or difficult, but like anything, you have to embrace something before you can get past its learning curve.
I believe that this hybrid approach is were it's at...you can get analog vibe but with the benefit and precision of digital editing and processing as needed.
 
miroslav said:
I don't find the digital bad or difficult, but like anything, you have to embrace something before you can get past its learning curve.
I believe that this hybrid approach is were it's at...you can get analog vibe but with the benefit and precision of digital editing and processing as needed.
Click to expand...

I totally agree :)

Or at least that's what works for me; I like aspects of both digital and tape and combine them in a way that suits me.

For the way I compose, digital is great as I can use copy/paste to move sections around, add little bridging parts until I have a complete piece of music. Once that's done I'll use sync'd tape with the DAW to build the finished piece using a combination of digital tracks and taped tracks.

At the end of the day, unless you're doing it for a living, the whole point of music is surely to do what gives you the most pleasure and for me the impatient side likes the convenience and editing capabilities of digital but I love the sound and process of tape so being able to combine them is great.

Jumping into the slightly OT analogue vs digital listening experience discussion I think that it actually isn't that big a deal. I'm typing this listening to digital radio and it sounds crummy but I can still connect to tracks that do it for me. On the move I love the convenience of mp3 (although I can't tolerate low bit rat mp3s) and at home I have a large collection of vinyl, CDs and cassettes. Some recordings really stand out in terms of their sonic depth and clarity and others are shockingly bad regardless of the medium.

Music for me is just about whatever grabs my attention and gives me a buzz.
 
In a lot of ways, it's the attention to detail that makes something great. Why put the detail into something if you know the end user is not going to experience it? Why worry about the shimmer of a nice set of cymbals or the subtle vibrations of a beautifully constructed guitar if it gets lost when you do two analog to digital conversions then slam something into a crap 16 bit file, then further kill it by compressing into an MP3?

I would argue that having a great system for playback has ONLY promoted me connecting to a much wider variety of music than I ever would have imagined. For instance I would have had no interest in listening to Rickie Lee Jones first album UNTIL I heard it presented properly, and now I can totally connect with it because of it's sonic brilliance. It's invited me into the songs in a way I could never have heard before only listening to it on the radio or a CD.

Peter Gabriel is another example of an artist that was obsessed with sonic quality and detail that is very deeply intertwined into his analog work. I listened to "So" and there was so much going on in there that I had never heard it was like listening to the record for the first time.. even though I had heard all the songs before.

I can hear production values properly now.. and it has helped me connect with the work of certain engineers and producers and their artistic input. I can really hear how things are compressed, or not compressed. I can appreciate a guy like Ken Scott much more that I could have before. I understand what he was doing behind the board now.

I can hear jazz records in a way I never could. I can hear all the subtle little things a good jazz drummer is doing. This helps me appreciate the record, and the artist.

When you connect to music, you can connect on many levels. You can connect to the melody of the song, or the nuances of how it was mixed, recorded, miked, as well as the backing performances of musicians that often are not heard in the mix on a system with poor playback.

As a maker of music myself, it opens up a window of insight I could not ever have had listening to 16 bit CD versions.

I can really feel the energy of a performance so much more on things as diverse as Uli Roth ripping solos on Tokyo Tapes with the Scorpions, to Stan Getz breathing into his sax on the debut album of Getz Gilberto's "Girl from Ipanema" The later being just an amazingly beautifully recorded album that made me want to learn more about how they got that sound, and I found out they recorded it live inside The Unitarian Church in NYC with ambient miking techniques. A great system takes you into the room, right into that church with the music vibing off the walls and into the mic. It's something special, and you can't feel that properly hearing it on a CD player. NO way.

So I think connecting to music is only enhanced in a HUGE way if you can actually hear things properly.. and this is why some people really go over the top to get into higher level listening systems. I have a very basic system.. nothing fancy other than maybe my turntables cartridge. Ironically enough, most audiophiles have very bare bones TT's usually without auto return arms or anything like that.

So I would argue that proper playback also makes me much more aware of my own playing, how to record it properly, and motivates me to perform it much better and in a more natural way so that it can connect with the end listener, even if they have a proper system. At that point it becomes better and better rather than worse and worse as a CD will as it gets exposed to it's inevitable shortcomings as the microscope zooms in so to speak.

A good recording gets better.
 
Music for me is just about whatever grabs my attention and gives me a buzz.
Click to expand...

I would bet my bottom dollar that a lot of stuff that might pass your ears listening to it from a streaming internet radio might blow your socks off if you heard it properly on a quality vinyl or open reel set up.
 
the whole point of music is surely to do what gives you the most pleasure and for me the impatient side likes the convenience and editing capabilities of digital
Click to expand...

I would also bet that if you knew you had to really shed and practice the track knowing editing it to death was not an option, you would be a much better musician over the course of time.

I think computer editing is very helpful in the writing or composition process as you say.. I think this is where the real power of the software is.
 
Astralography said:
I would also bet that if you knew you had to really shed and practice the track knowing editing it to death was not an option, you would be a much better musician over the course of time.

I think computer editing is very helpful in the writing or composition process as you say.. I think this is where the real power of the software is.
Click to expand...

Hmm, you seem to have jumped to the conclusion that my copy/paste mode of work is used to make up for musical deficiencies/laziness. Maybe I should have expanded on my workflow explanation; once I have finished creating the structure of a song I then re-record pretty much all of it - some in digital, some on tape - using, as far as is possible, one pass takes. I do take great pains to add detail and depth to my recordings and the digital/analogue combo helps me get there.

Astralography said:
I would bet my bottom dollar that a lot of stuff that might pass your ears listening to it from a streaming internet radio might blow your socks off if you heard it properly on a quality vinyl or open reel set up.
Click to expand...

Again, you have jumped to the conclusion that my listening experience is always compromised when I gave no detail about my other listening options. My point was that while some digital and analogue media compromise audio quality (actually, pretty much all systems have some compromises) this does not necessarily mean that you can't enjoy music reproduced through them.

I actually do have a pretty good vinyl setup and a nice Revox A77 and yes, quality recordings sound better through these but I like to have music on pretty much all the time and I have yet to find a TT that doesn't skip on potholed roads ;)
 
Quite simply, I record in analog because I like the sound of it. I also am mesmerized by the reel spinning as I listen back to what I've put down. I love pulling a reel of tape out of the box, pulling it from the plastic bag, lining up the hub on the reel table, spooling the leader through the tension arms and tape path, and taking up the slack with the take-up reel. It's a great sensation to see and hear the mechanical genius behind the design when I hit the record/play buttons, hear the "clunk" and watch the tape ebbing by. It's the experience of the medium that captivates me.

There is a tactile feel to working with tape. I have a nice mixer which I can physically control. I have outboard gear to adjust the sound to suit my preferences.

Sure, I record some tidbits in Reaper from time to time, but it's not the same. I always have the "oh shit" feeling when I think of all the data that I have to back up. At some point, it will all be transferred to tape for safety's sake.

It's a matter of preference. I've heard some nice stuff done in digital. Did I wonder what it would sound like on tape? Of course, but I was happy with what I heard off the CD. I've got a low end Pioneer turntable and a few dozen albums. I enjoy listening to those, but I know that I'm not getting the "full benefit" of the vinyl since I don't have a $100k turntable, stylus, and headshell. Am I ever planning on spending massive quantities of money on a turntable? Absolutely not. I might eventually get a nice used B&O turntable and call it a day.

I think the analog vs. digital religious war gets way out of hand much too easily. There are all kinds of "tests" showing that one is better than the other. It's like food, one day milk is bad for you, the next day it is great for you; depends on what organization did the study that day and what their intention was. I enjoy both mediums. I like analog more though. However, mp3 is the total bastardization of any form of audio. It was a great gimmick, but there are better formats out there.

That's my .02. You may now continue with the regularly scheduled religious war.
 
MSH said:
My point was that while some digital and analogue media compromise audio quality (actually, pretty much all systems have some compromises) this does not necessarily mean that you can't enjoy music reproduced through them.
Click to expand...

This is what I was also getting at. There's no argument that the better the playback system, the better the listening experience, but I've never had problems connecting to music because of the playback system. These days I probably listen to music the most ---- streaming through my small computer desktop speakers, and the good music, the stuff I like, is still totally enjoyable to me. When I am able to, I put up stuff on my larger Hi-Fi system and I enjoy that too.

AFA recording mediums (which is what this thread is about)...as much as I was somewhat reluctant, dismissive and doubtful about the value and quality of digital, that went away a long time ago, after I dove in to see what it was really all about.
Now...I love working with the hybrid setup, and even if I had a Studer 2" 24-track and a mint Neve mixer and loads of top-end analog gear, I still wouldn't hesitate to pull something into the DAW for editing/tweaking...and then back out to analog for mixing.

Yeah...digital has it's own learning curve and "SOP"...but you can tailor it to YOUR needs and blend it into your analog setup as little or as much as you like. Once you embrace it, you will find all the great things you can do with it...stuff that was only a dream with analog.
That said...I would have no problem recording purely in analog or digital if a situation called for it or if the mood struck me.

"Come to the dark side of the force, Luke" ;)

Actually...digital is not "evil"...it's a tool, like anything else.
 
jjones1700 said:
However, mp3 is the total bastardization of any form of audio. It was a great gimmick, but there are better formats out there.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree with this completely. Now that memory space has gotten so cheap, I see no reason why there isn't ipod-like portable players that can play hi-res digital. That's one thing that mystifies me; as the professional digital formats have gotten better and better, the consumer ones have stagnated and even gone down in quality. It's crazy, because since physical media is becoming a dinosaur, I would assume a high-quality multi-format portable player would be something desired because then musicians and labels could easily release albums in hi-res formats via download and not even have to worry about the limitations of CD... of course, vinyl appear to not be disappearing anytime soon, so perhaps there is hope after all. Personally, I prefer tape - less noise and better dynamics!
 
Personally, I prefer tape - less noise and better dynamics!
Click to expand...

I agree, the open reel to reel playback is going to give you the best quality assuming the source is the same between say a 7" reel or vinyl.

I saw on ebay people were bidding up to $150 for a factory issue 7" reel of Miles' "Kind of Blue"
 
If you guys say there are people spending $100K on playback systems (really?!) then $150 for 'Kind of Blue' is worth it!

I would consider paying that and my playback system probably didn't even cost me $150.
 
Chilljam said:
If you guys say there are people spending $100K on playback systems (really?!) then $150 for 'Kind of Blue' is worth it!

I would consider paying that and my playback system probably didn't even cost me $150.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, there are definitely systems that cost that much out there. I used to work in a high end hi-fi shop in Chicago and that's the kind of stuff they sold. I don't own anything close to that, but getting to work in that environment was a real gift to my ears and I spent much time listening and ear training.
The crazy expensive systems do start to show diminishing returns though, a $100K system really doesn't sound that much better than a $10K system, and a $10K system isn't really a huge jump from a simple $2K one... but, that $2K one is a mammoth leap from the average junk you can find for a few hundred. And if you're on a budget, it's not hard to put together something very nice with used gear. My personal listening system was a Dynaco Stereo 70 with a pair of Magnepan SMGa, and that system cost me no where near $1K. The old Magnepans have died, so now I'm on the hunt for new speakers. In the meantime, I'm suffering through with a pair of Sony MDR7506 and keeping any critical listening strictly headphone, LOL.

I think this conversation crosses over a bit: when I went to school for recording, I was taught that it's important for a would-be engineer to either own or have access to a decent hi-fi reference system and spend time listening to recordings critically for the purposes of ear training and learning how other recordings were done. I think this was good advice and I know my recordings benefited very much from my taking the time to listen critically on a system with the resolving power to reveal other recording's inner secrets.

But that crazy $100K stuff is just fancy toys for rich people, no need for anything like that to enjoy listening to a good album. LOL
 
I record analog because:
(1) the greatest recordings were done with analog
(2) I grew up using analog and I'm more comfortable using it
(3) computers are NOT the end-all be-all to ANY situation not just recording
(4) even though I'm fairly new to digital I have used different digital tools to learn how to record digital so I've observed that
(a) software still has bugs to be worked out;(b) certain plug-ins will never replace the real thing;(c) even seasoned digital engineers have problems with computer-based programs that weren't visible using analog; (d) computers are still unreliable
 
Most new tracks have much bigger problems than being put on CD or distributed via MP3. Overcompression, autotune, cut and paste, grid-locked parts, and drum replacement to name a few.

Also, if I were spending $100K on a playback system, I'd probably put the first $75K into fixing the room, the next $20K on acoustic treatment, and most of the remaining $5K on speakers.

Cheers,

Otto
 
If I were spending the $100 grand that Otto has graciously allocated, above, i'd spend a good chunk of my budget on creating a vibe with a functional kitchen, some comfortable furniture, and ping pong table, pool table, old school video games, bball hoop, batting cage, barbecue area, cool lighting, lots of parking, lots of cool instruments and funky old amps and mics.
 
Actually,
if i had a 100 large, i'd by a roll of tape and a new mic, and keep recording until the money ran out.
 
soulsonic said:
I want to be able to spool up a reel of my music 40 years from now when I'm an old man and be able to listen to it. With analog, I am assured of that possibility.
Click to expand...

...if you can find some working hardware to play it in 40 years...

Wav will never die. It's too big and too simple to implement. Anyone with some programming skills should be able to create a wav player. And there will be no need for special hardware to play them. Just software.
 
Boray said:
...if you can find some working hardware to play it in 40 years...

Wav will never die. It's too big and too simple to implement. Anyone with some programming skills should be able to create a wav player. And there will be no need for special hardware to play them. Just software.
Click to expand...

Never say never. I've seen enough over 30+ years in IT to know that you'd better have a backup of the files, operating system, and software used to create, record, or playback the files, and the machine to run it all on. Four years in technology is a long time. I can't even imagine 40.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top