Will Analog Multitracks ever be made again?

[Tim Gillett]

Well then excuse me for misunderstanding you, but then what IS your contention here? What point are you trying to make?

You really do seem to be generally pro digital no matter what....which I said is OK, but it's simply your view.
I made comments about how something sounds to me when comparing my analog to digital...and your reply is that the analog must be broken....?
It just sounds to me like you are of the belief that analog can't ever beat out digital for sound quality.

Just because I observe a limitation of analog recording methods doesnt make me "pro digital no matter what". It means I am being objective and truthful on the point in discussion by pointing out a factual error. Is that such a bad thing? Or would you prefer I only tell you what you want to hear?

Unless your machine is really out of whack I doubt it is widening the stereo image. Assuming it is well aligned, specifically the record and play heads are closely aligned to each other and you are recording at a relatively high speed such as 15ips, what you are "hearing" as a widening of the stereo image is probably...your imagination.

Also possibly auto suggestion. You may have heard someone else speaking of a wider stereo sound stage with analog tape and you have uncritically believed it.

In any case, as I said before, insofar as analog tape doesnt widen the stereo image, that is a compliment to it. It is only achieving "input = output". If you want to deliberately widen the stereo image, go back and widen it in the mix. The analog tape machine will faithfully record that widened stereo effect, as it should. So will a "non analog" recorder.

If by "sound quality" you mean strict fidelity to the input, yes I do believe that the analog recording method "cant ever beat out digital for sound quality". That's not just my belief. It's an empirical fact. Only a fool would say otherwise.

Again, deliberately induced tape distortion sometimes is a pleasing effect.

And as others have said, you are free to use whatever gear you choose.

Tim

 

[Victory Pete]

You, my friend, are in heat. . . Obsessed. . . A stalker of analog. . . If I lived in your neighborhood I would want you to have to list your name and address publically, and never let you near my equipment ! !

Agreed! (Panting profusely)

VP

 

[lonewhitefly]

Without involving myself in this debate (again), I would like to add some observations:

It seems as though there are two "discussions" taking place. Problems arise when the two discussions are mixed together and treated as the same thing.

In the first discussion, everyone seems to basically be on the same page: Analog adds artifacts that some people like and the workflow is different and some people prefer that. There really seems to be no issues there; great.

The 2nd discussion is relating to some people who feel analog actually captures more information than digital and in fact represents a 'truer' sound. Some people whose opinions I trust feel this way and point to various technical reasons beyond my understanding as to why this is happening. Some people whose opinions I trust indicate this cannot be so and point to various technical reasons beyond my understanding as to why this is the case.

My gut tells me there's more to analog than artifacts and workflow. But I can't prove it and I doubt anyone else can. And this is the one forum I'm aware of on the internet where this debate is irrelevant. Coming into this forum and posting comments with the presumption that digital is 'more accurate' is simply rude and offensive.

 

[miroslav]

Just because I observe a limitation of analog recording methods doesnt make me "pro digital no matter what". It means I am being objective and truthful on the point in discussion by pointing out a factual error. Is that such a bad thing? Or would you prefer I only tell you what you want to hear?

Unless your machine is really out of whack I doubt it is widening the stereo image. Assuming it is well aligned, specifically the record and play heads are closely aligned to each other and you are recording at a relatively high speed such as 15ips, what you are "hearing" as a widening of the stereo image is probably...your imagination.

Also possibly auto suggestion. You may have heard someone else speaking of a wider stereo sound stage with analog tape and you have uncritically believed it.

In any case, as I said before, insofar as analog tape doesnt widen the stereo image, that is a compliment to it. It is only achieving "input = output". If you want to deliberately widen the stereo image, go back and widen it in the mix. The analog tape machine will faithfully record that widened stereo effect, as it should. So will a "non analog" recorder.

If by "sound quality" you mean strict fidelity to the input, yes I do believe that the analog recording method "cant ever beat out digital for sound quality". That's not just my belief. It's an empirical fact. Only a fool would say otherwise.

Again, deliberately induced tape distortion sometimes is a pleasing effect.

And as others have said, you are free to use whatever gear you choose.

Tim

But again...you're missing my point.

I'm not suggesting that analog doesn't have limitations or that digital isn't more accurate WRT to signal capture.
Also, I'm not just talking about *tape*...I'm talking about the entire analog system...tape, console, outboard gear...etc.

I'm saying that I hear a better image representation from my analog rig than I do from my digital. That when I mix/sum in the DAW it's not as 3-D sounding, that it's a bit confined and clinical sounding...but when I take the same tracks and send them to my console, out through my analog outboard gear, and mix down to tape...it's a much more pleasing sound..."bigger" and very "organic". So your position that something must therefor be "faulty" with my analog gear if it sounds better *to me* than my digital setup...well, I find that rather amusing.
Sure, the analog rig may be adding some distortion or artifacts or whatever, that digital never would...but WHO CARES, that's not a worry to me...because it sounds better to me!

I'm not disagreeing that from a signal measurement perspective, digital will beat analog in many ways....but really, that is NOT the whole point about how something sounds to someone and/or why someone would prefer what may on a spec sheet be shown to be the "lesser" fidelity medium.

Again...I just get the impression that your position is rooted in the belief that because digital specs out better, it is therefore better sounding, and anyone disagreeing is doing so from a faulty position or faulty listening experience.
We ARE talking subjective here...NOT specs...and IMO, when people listen to sound, it's mainly a subjective experience, not a clinical one.

 

[Victory Pete]

Interesting, the tables are slowly turning. (Pun intended)


Yes 37 45.12%

No 45 54.88%


VP

 

[grimtraveller]

Again...I just get the impression that your position is rooted in the belief that because digital specs out better, it is therefore better sounding,

Not guilty !

and anyone disagreeing is doing so from a faulty position or faulty listening experience.

Guilty!

We ARE talking subjective here...NOT specs...and IMO, when people listen to sound, it's mainly a subjective experience, not a clinical one.

Guilty !

Coming into this forum and posting comments with the presumption that digital is 'more accurate' is simply rude and offensive.

You seem easilly offended and give the definite impression that any disagreement with your stance is born of rudeness. I've said it before, I'll say it again, there are a number of people that have an interest in both kinds of recording and who are not into analog /digital pissing contests but who will correct "opinions stated as facts" that they happen to think are innaccurate. Someone that records digitally but still loves analog will sometimes gravitate to the analog forum because there, they will find things of interest that they won't find in other places.

 

[lonewhitefly]

Not guilty !Guilty!Guilty !You seem easilly offended and give the definite impression that any disagreement with your stance is born of rudeness. I've said it before, I'll say it again, there are a number of people that have an interest in both kinds of recording and who are not into analog /digital pissing contests but who will correct "opinions stated as facts" that they happen to think are innaccurate. Someone that records digitally but still loves analog will sometimes gravitate to the analog forum because there, they will find things of interest that they won't find in other places.

I'm pretty easy-going, generally not easily offended. But I've noticed a lot of long-time posters leaving this place and posting less often because threads such as this being derailed as well as the comments of certain individuals. Perhaps I should use the term 'disrespectful' instead.

I have no problem with digital recording or digital technology personally. I have no problem with people using both. I have even dabbled with it from time to time and it has it's uses. But these types of conversations in which we are arguing over which is more accurate or better are not productive and only serve to push people away. This really is not the place for 'digital is better than analog' propaganda, in my opinion. Essentially, it's off-topic at best. At worst, it threatens the validity of the forum.

 

[miroslav]

You seem easilly offended and give the definite impression that any disagreement with your stance is born of rudeness.

Huh...?

I don't know where in this thread I seemed "offended"...if anything, I thought Tim was getting offended when he said I was way off on his position, to which I said, "excuse me if I misinterpreted" and ask him to please clarify.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, there are a number of people that have an interest in both kinds of recording and who are not into analog /digital pissing contests but who will correct "opinions stated as facts" that they happen to think are inaccurate. Someone that records digitally but still loves analog will sometimes gravitate to the analog forum because there, they will find things of interest that they won't find in other places.

I'm actually one of those who is not interested in any analog VS digital pissing contest, and have said so a few times that I use both, and feel together they are stronger than either alone.

My only point with Tim's position in this thread is that he appears to be looking at things from a specs/fidelity perspective, *which is OK*....while I was and am talking about subjective impressions and suggesting that they too are IMHO important (maybe more than the technical stuff?) when we *listen* to music...but that's just my opinion, and I said it's OK for people to feel differently, because that's actually the point I was making....it is very subjective...
...so I don't get where/why you think I'm being offended about anything...?

I agreed with Tim that digital does spec out better than analog and is able to more accurately capture the signal, but his contention that I was perceiving my analog rig to sound better then my ITB rig is due to some "faulty" gear in my analog setup was rather amusing...again, I was not offended.

And I certainly am not looking to get Tim (or anyone) to give up their digital or analog views...and I hope Tim understands what I was/am getting at now WRT the subjective way we all listen, and that IMO, it is not necessarily a bad thing to listen subjectively.
Believe me, I stopped arguing against digital a long time ago, but I think I can still say that to me my analog rig sounds better or more pleasant or more organic or whatever...can't I?

One of the problems in this thread is what someone already mentioned...there are multiple views about multiple issues...so it's not just an analog tape VS digital discussion any more. I also do think that there are some who have very extreme views about some of these issues, and they are not going to be persuaded by the opposite side...which is OK too, yet some people will try endlessly

 

[miroslav]

This really is no place for 'digital is better than analog' propaganda, in my opinion. Essentially, it's off-topic at best. At worst, it threatens the validity of the forum.

I'm not going to explore who is or was doing that here....but I do agree with you that anyone coming into the Analog forum just to attempt to "dispel myths" or "correct the uninformed" or whatever way it is angled...shouldn't be doing that.

And you must have edited your thread before I quoted you... ...but in some way, I do agree that analog recording has some spiritual and yes, as you put it, "religious" vibe for some folks. No one should take that as an extreme view...I mean, analog-only folks don't pray to the analog gods or anything like that......but there is something very inviting, often soothing and certainly very ritualistic about working with analog gear that just isn't there in the ITB world...and yes, I use both, so I can say that as an opinion based own my own experiences.
It may not be that way for everyone....so no right/wrong here, but I'm sure many of the analog lovers, the tape-heads, would agree. I mean, isn't that also why we stay with it, and not just the sound of it?

Anyway...sometimes it's hard not to talk about one when talking about the other, especially for folks who use both, so I don't see any problem with mentioning digital in the analog forum and even discussing basic differences...but yeah, no one should be coming into this forum just because of their negative perspective about analog.
Everyone is free to use what works for them.

 

[lonewhitefly]

yeh, he was talking to me about being easily offended. But I wasn't really speaking just for myself; the point was more along the lines of this type of pro-digital propaganda is offensive to the purpose of this forum and the community here. The better word is probably 'disrespectful'.

 

[lonewhitefly]

I'm not going to explore who is or was doing that here....but I do agree with you that anyone coming into the Analog forum just to attempt to "dispel myths" or "correct the uninformed" or whatever way it is angled...shouldn't be doing that.

And you must have edited your thread before I quoted you... ...but in some way, I do agree that analog recording has some spiritual and yes, as you put it, "religious" vibe for some folks. No one should take that as an extreme view...I mean, analog-only folks don't pray to the analog gods or anything like that......but there is something very inviting, often soothing and certainly very ritualistic about working with analog gear that just isn't there in the ITB world...and yes, I use both, so I can say that as an opinion based own my own experiences.
It may not be that way for everyone....so no right/wrong here, but I'm sure many of the analog lovers, the tape-heads, would agree. I mean, isn't that also why we stay with it, and not just the sound of it?

Anyway...sometimes it's hard not to talk about one when talking about the other, especially for folks who use both, so I don't see any problem with mentioning digital in the analog forum and even discussing basic differences...but yeah, no one should be coming into this forum just because of their negative perspective about analog.
Everyone is free to use what works for them.

ha! yeh I decided against the 'religious' or spiritual angle in fear of starting up some weird argument! but, I will say that maybe some people take it more seriously than others and don't realize that there are people here who have a spiritual relationship with recording that is only present with analog recording. and perhaps those individuals are a bit more sensitive to some of the careless comments thrown around !

And maybe I am taking things too personally. One of my oldest, closest friends (like a brother) used to refer to our recordings together as 'church'. The analog process was paramount to this experience. We made a few songs and I put them into an album, which is very heavy for me to listen to -- I mean they can bring me to tears at times. And my friend and I have since had a falling out and I haven't seen him for several years. I heard he went down a bad path and I don't know exactly where he is now or what situation he's in.

But analog recording, the rituals, the experiences shared ... they are very personal to me. And I know some will disagree, but these experiences could not have been made in the digital realm -- for whatever reason. My friend agreed with me. There was no thought as the whether tape or digital should be chosen. Analog recording was church. Digital recording was never considered.

And perhaps I shouldn't be posting these sentiments in a public forum. But I feel that people are often putting up a front, hiding behind internet avatars, attempting to be something that they are not. The picture you see to the left is me. The words I post are the same things I would say to you in person. My name is Donny Lang. I believe in analog recording.

I guess the way I see it is there are endless places on the internet to discuss digital recording. And plenty of places to discuss the integration of digital and analog. But this is the only place that focuses on the analog aspect as the center-point. And every time these threads get derailed into analog vs. digital, we're losing that little by little.

What's ultimately going to happen is some person or group of people who used to be more involved in this site will likely start a separate forum. And maybe that is a better option anyway.

 

[miroslav]

yeh, he was talking to me about being easily offended.

If that's what it was...then grim, excuse me for misunderstanding you, but with all the "guilty" comments after qouting me, followed by your post...it looked like you were saying I was being offended.

No blood, no foul....

 

[miroslav]

What's ultimately going to happen is some person or group of people who used to be more involved in this site will likely start a separate forum. And maybe that is a better option anyway.

There already exist a few "tape-heads" type of forums on the Internet, and quite frankly, they are rather dead most of the time...and it's often guys who are mostly using 2-track decks in an audiophile music playback rig, rather than guys actually recording original music with multi-tracks and whatnot.

I kinda' like that this forum sits somewhat in the middle of all the current/new technology forums...and it's actually pretty active, and gets a lot of visits even from those who aren't heavily into the tape thing, and most people are just curious and/or come to discuss a particular point that they are not familiar with WRT analog/tape stuff...so I think we are good here.
There are enough tape users here that still believe in it enough to ward off them evil digital spirits.

 

[lonewhitefly]

There already exist a few "tape-heads" type of forums on the Internet, and quite frankly, they are rather dead most of the time...and it's often guys who are mostly using 2-track decks in an audiophile music playback rig, rather than guys actually recording original music with multi-tracks and whatnot.

I kinda' like that this forum sits somewhat in the middle of all the current/new technology forums...and it's actually pretty active, and gets a lot of visits even from those who aren't heavily into the tape thing, and most people are just curious and/or come to discuss a particular point that they are not familiar with WRT analog/tape stuff...so I think we are good here.
There are enough tape users here that still believe in it enough to ward off them evil digital spirits.

True ... yeh, the 'home hobbyist' vibe sites are kind of a different beast. The Ampex and Scully mailing lists are probably the closest thing out there, but the format is quite different from an actual message board.

 

[SteveM]

I kinda' like that this forum sits somewhat in the middle of all the current/new technology forums...and it's actually pretty active, and gets a lot of visits ...

I noticed last night there were 40 something guests on here viewing. ..or something like that. I was shocked.

 

[miroslav]

Well...you know how it is here on the forums....any thread that gets a little flame going always draws in a lot of moths.

 

[AtoDeficient]

And every time these threads get derailed into analog vs. digital, we're losing that little by little.

Well, this particular thread would certainly and eventually address The Debate. . . A discussion of the making of new analog multitracks will certainly include a digital angle. . . And a financial angle. . . and a workflow angle, etc. . . I think we're all starting to arrive at the same place, in that The Debate can be avoided because it takes two to argue, and this particular thread has had much more civil and respectful exchanges than past threads. . .

I think we're all learning to co-exist. . . I feel a vibe that is positive. I don't feel the negative loss, but maybe that's just me. .

 

[RKHambridge]

I have wondered this for a while now. Please vote.
VP

Of course they will!

I'm certainly not about to throw away my perfectly good, £1400 (when new), Fostex R8 8-track reel-to-reel tape recorder nor my £750 Tascam DA-20 DAT recorder!

 

[lonewhitefly]

Well, this particular thread would certainly and eventually address The Debate. . . A discussion of the making of new analog multitracks will certainly include a digital angle. . . And a financial angle. . . and a workflow angle, etc. . . I think we're all starting to arrive at the same place, in that The Debate can be avoided because it takes two to argue, and this particular thread has had much more civil and respectful exchanges than past threads. . .

I think we're all learning to co-exist. . . I feel a vibe that is positive. I don't feel the negative loss, but maybe that's just me. .

The loss that I'm noticing is that some of the people who would normally contribute are no longer contributing. And a decent portion of the dialog is coming from people who likely do not even use analog tape currently (not just in this thread but this forum in general). That's what I mean by these kinds of 'conversations' threatening the validity of the forum. I'm finding myself reading and posting less often as well, so I know why some of these people are absent.

 

[Dick Ward]

I doubt if they will be marketed again, of course. But I am currently tracking with my Tascam 80-8 8 track on 1/2 inch tape in my old analog home studio. Then I take the tracks to a commercial studio and we mix and master there. I don't do this because I think the analog sound is so much better. I guess my ears aren't good enough to tell. But I like to record the original guitar, bass and vocal tracks at home so that I am not watching the clock at the studio. I can take my time and experiment with different things.

I still have my Tascam 32B 2 track, but my mixing skills and the ability in digital to fix the mistakes means that the half track machine does not get any use. In fact I will probably sell it.

But I think about analog recording the same way I think about my 1996 Buick Roadmaster Estate Wagon. They don't make them like that anymore! Best vehicle I ever owned for a gigging musician. With the back deck down, there are 3 points of entry that makes loading and unloading a snap, compared to crawling into the back of a truck. And then there is the incredibly efficient LT-1 Corvette engine. I average 24 mpg on the highway, and about 19 in town.

Somebody did a survey on three cars people would like to see brought back into production. I forget the other two but the Roadmaster wagon was one.

So with that in mind, which 3 analog machines would y'all like to see brought back?