Words From the Analog Faithful

[A Reel Person]

Right on, my brutha!

I'm all about the 388, these days. I love it. Features, value, sound and beauty,... the 388 has it all! The 388 literally CRUSHES the 8-track all-in-one competition. It's the bomb.

Riff on!

 

[Beck]

Hi Beck,

Actually the point I was making was really about how you hear what you want to hear when you "think" you are hearing something other than what you really are!

I have a song I recorded years ago and just love the way it sounds. For the longest time I thought I did it on my 388 and would use the demo to show what the 388 can do. Low and behold my brother recently pointed out it was really done on our old 688 cassette deck, ha! He had an video tape of his girlfriend recording us while recording that song and sure enough it was the 688! Still sounds damn good but surely not as good as my 388 recordings ... or does it?

The mind plays tricks when you think you are hearing what you want. One of the Dixie chicks producers just went digital after swearing on analog and saying he'd never go digital. When all the hoopla was over they compared tracks done on both and all agreed the digital sounded better. Van Halen for the first time recorded digital in 2003 on three tracks that were included on their greatest hits release. Eddie Van Halen (an analog nut) said he wished he'd stayed with his old analog board, only because the digital took him days before he could even get a sound recorded, he said he was so frustrated he was close to tears, BUT, he said he can't deny the sound was fabulous. I think for the home market there's nothing like analog, it just sounds better than digital from what I've heard, but when you get up into super high end gear I don't think the difference is as desrenable, at least not to some former analog freaks. I love my 388 and I'm not giving it up.

Yeah, I got your original point -- The mind is easily influenced by suggestion and social pressure. Ironically, it is that very weakness that helped spawn the "digital revolution." It was pitched as superior and many including me expected it to be. But being the objective independent spirit that I am it wasn't out of character or difficult for me to say, "Hey, that sounds like shit!" People would say, "What do mean dude? That's CD quality!"

I started recording seriously in the early 80's, so I watched the birth and coming of age of digital. I had high hopes and expectations for it. It was about 1989 that I first realized how inferior digital was as a recording technology, both in the studio and as a consumer end-product. I've been waiting for it to improve and have remained objective.

Who wouldn't want it to work as advertised? It's so damned convenient. As it stands it still doesn't justify me switching from the mature and proven analog realm.

We can exchange stories all day long about he said she said. There are indeed more people who have embraced digital recording technology. I just find it satisfying to see some of the greats verbalize what I found to be true on my own. It reinforces my confidence in my own musical perception. That's what this thread is for -- basically saying, "look, if you have problems with digital you're not alone."

However, I don't agree at all that the difference lies in pro vs. semi-pro digital. The quotes that started this thread are from people who can afford the highest level of digital available.

I'm not anti-digital. My studio is full of digital effects, keyboards and drums. Digital reverb is the greatest things since sliced bread, and my Kurzweil sounds incredible... as long as I record it all to analog tape.

-Tim

 

[A Reel Person]

As with any thing in life,...

we make our own individual reality, that fits our individual needs.

 

[Beck]

I'm all about the 388, these days. I love it. Features, value, sound and beauty,... the 388 has it all! The 388 literally CRUSHES the 8-track all-in-one competition. It's the bomb.

Riff on!

The 388 is one machine I always wanted (but couldn't afford) back in the day. Quite a few people built working studios around that beauty.

There was local music store that had one on display and I used to go visit it when I was a youngster. I still have the brochure, which I read until it was dog-eared.

 

[cjacek]

Tho I prefer the sound of tape, I'm not into analog for that reason alone.

(1) Analog is practically "idiot proof" - anyone can operate
and the outcome is predictable, provided that you have a well maintained machine, console etc ...

(2) Tape captures real, living and breathing frequencies with all the crap in between - no "snapshots" of sound here

(3) The interactivity between you and analog is unsurpassed and brings much joy

(4) Analog is tangible

(5) Results are real, measurable and physical and not "virtual".

Do you want your sound to physically exist ?? Do you want to flick a switch and have something "real" happen ? I do!

The above 5 reasons, not neccessarily in order, are the main selling points of analog for me. Sound of tape is but the icing on the cake.

~Daniel

 

[cjacek]

The 388 is one machine I always wanted (but couldn't afford) back in the day.

Tim,

Did you ever purchase the 388 ?

~Daniel

 

[A Reel Person]

The 388 is one machine I always wanted (but couldn't afford) back in the day. Quite a few people built working studios around that beauty.

There was local music store that had one on display and I used to go visit it when I was a youngster. I still have the brochure, which I read until it was dog-eared.

Me too,... my comments exactly,... verbatim! What a coincidence!

Difference is,... that now I have [4]!!!

 

[A Reel Person]

...

Tho I prefer the sound of tape, I'm not into analog for that reason alone.

(1) Analog is practically "idiot proof" - anyone can operate
and the outcome is predictable, provided that you have a well maintained machine, console etc ...

(2) Tape captures real, living and breathing frequencies with all the crap in between - no "snapshots" of sound here

(3) The interactivity between you and analog is unsurpassed and brings much joy

(4) Analog is tangible

(5) Results are real, measurable and physical and not "virtual".

Do you want your sound to physically exist ?? Do you want to flick a switch and have something "real" happen ? I do!

The above 5 reasons, not neccessarily in order, are the main selling points of analog for me. Sound of tape is but the icing on the cake.

~Daniel

Excellent post, Daniel! Right on the money!! I couldn't have said it better!!!

WTG! Riff on, my man!!!

 

[snipeguy]

Yes, yes, yes to everything said so far. Some reasons I love working in analog are as physical as anything. I have heard the slowness of rewinding tape as being an issue with digiheads. Well I enjoy that pause in the action. It gives me a moment to reflect or gather my thoughts as I prepare for the next task. Rarely am I in such a hurry that I am simply waiting for the location to be found. If I'm not alone, I chat about what has just happened, did it suck or was it great or just OK. I don't like digital VU's. I like a needle that I can actually see moving. I like my board and the feel of the faders and switches. I like to lean on it when I'm listening closely. Mixing with a mouse is very uninspiring and it feels somehow distant. I like cables. They tell me what is going on in my signal chain and they are repairable. I like the fact that I can repair almost anything on any of my many decks and boards. I like to think that I understand what is going on under the hood. I get ear fatigue quicker when working in digital. (I still use my aDat and minidisc occasionally) And sure, analog sounds better to these ears.
Still Real to Reel
Snipeguy

 

[A Reel Person]

Fyi,...

Rewind time never bothered me. I'm not that high strung!!

When people go on on how digi'mal has no rewind time,... I'm like,... "yeah,... so?

It's not a convincing argument for going digital,... IMO/YMMV.

 

[acorec]

I'm all about the 388, these days. I love it. Features, value, sound and beauty,... the 388 has it all! The 388 literally CRUSHES the 8-track all-in-one competition. It's the bomb.

Riff on!

I recorded for over 10 years on a 388 that my drummer had. I really don't like the sound of that machine. It sounds "canned". It does sound far better than any other "all-in-one" machine, but my drummer always got really frustrated when we recorded stuff in my studio (TASCAM 80-8 and Fostex E-16). He always commented on how professional the sound was compared to his 388. He engineered all of the songs on his and my setups, so operator was not the culprit. When I engineered a song on either machine, the sound difference was even greater (i have much more experience in pro studios).

He finally went with the Roland 24 track digital setup and the recordings no longer sound "canned". So, the recording environment and equipment was'nt to blame. That is just my experience with the 'ol 388.

 

[A Reel Person]

I've never gotten a "canned" sound from the 388.

My 388 mixes sound as natural as can be.

There's a lot to be said about variance of technique (and other factors), when comparing recorders or sound quality, but that's probably another post.

 

[Milkfaj]

The thinking in this comparison is usually wrong. The analog equipment from yesteryear was very expensive. A good pro recorder went for way more than $10,000. If you were to sink $10,000 for digital stuff today, you would understand that pro digital stuff does not sound "cold" at all. A RADAR system sounds incredible and *very* tapelike. I have used them and can attest to their sound. They still cannot get the tape compression though. That is mainly why I still go to 2" for bed tracks and finish up in digital at 48kHz 24 bit (or straight 24 track analog, depends) mixed through a big analog board.

that makes sence, but i havent got $10,000 to drop into anything! I belive you that good digital equiptment can sound great and very "tapelike" but my TSR-8 cost me $600 and it is VERY tapelike...

another issue for me is that i dont want to have to worry about a little message popping up on the screen of my digital recorder saying "error #75 dump code blah blah blah" because then id have to smash it with a hammer! reel to reel recorders have too much charm to ever smash with a hammer.

 

[whyseye]

Tho I prefer the sound of tape, I'm not into analog for that reason alone.

(1) Analog is practically "idiot proof" - anyone can operate
and the outcome is predictable, provided that you have a well maintained machine, console etc ...

(2) Tape captures real, living and breathing frequencies with all the crap in between - no "snapshots" of sound here

(3) The interactivity between you and analog is unsurpassed and brings much joy

(4) Analog is tangible

(5) Results are real, measurable and physical and not "virtual".

Do you want your sound to physically exist ?? Do you want to flick a switch and have something "real" happen ? I do!

The above 5 reasons, not neccessarily in order, are the main selling points of analog for me. Sound of tape is but the icing on the cake.

~Daniel

Beautifully stated!

And strangely enough, I make the exact same arguments (word for word!) about digital photography vs. film.
The tangibility, in particular, for me.........
I can easily print from negatives over 100 years old - where will your technology be 10 or 15 years from now?
How accessible will your images (or music) be?

 

[Beck]

Tim,

Did you ever purchase the 388 ?

~Daniel

No

When I was setting up a home studio again after several years off I was looking at the 388 and a few other options. I settled on the TSR-8. I would have been happy with the 388 if I could have found one in good condition at the time. Anything can sound canned if not used correctly. I got professional results on a 246 portastudio -- nothing canned about it. All one has to do to make a narrow track format sound canned is to use the wrong kind of tape, or drive it like a 2" machine, overloading the dbx circuits, etc.

Speaking of those few years off. It was a real eye opener to get back into recording expecting to trim down and be all digital. It's funny, all my old stuff was in mothballs and I had planned to sell it all on ebay and "upgrade." Every time I popped into a music store everything was digital and I just assumed digital must have arrived and it would be cool.

I had been out of the loop for a few years. I went to Chicago and started looking around at the big stores I used to frequent. What a shock -- the pricy digital wonder boxes sounded like utter vomit compared to the sound I was used to getting with analog. After a couple months of research, talking to old friends, visiting studios and trying all kinds of digital options I decided to keep all my analog stuff and expand upon that.

My own observation was that digital had not arrived, but rather the bar had been lowered, the music scene in general sucked and there were thousands of younger people out there that had never known anything but digital.

So instead of selling everything on eBay I kept it all and bought even more vintage stuff. The only new thing I bought was a Fostex CR300 CD burner (made by Pioneer and same as the HHB CDR-850) -- a very nice unit as digital goes. I only bought that because CD is where we're at, like it or not.

I'm a computer consultant. I live in a digital world -- it's my profession. My mind was wide open for a digital solution. It just wasn't there.

And now thanks to the new "digital standard" my analog home-studio productions sound comparatively better than ever.

-Tim

 

[cjacek]

I recorded for over 10 years on a 388 that my drummer had. I really don't like the sound of that machine.

I respect your opinion my friend but from my own personal side, I have heard recordings done on the 388 and I'm quite puzzled by you disliking its sound. Perhaps we interpret sounds differently or the 388 was used inappropriately (ie: meters driven to extreme red continually with dbx on ; wrong tape used etc ...) or it was ill maintained or its heads in poor condition plus a zillion other variables gone horriby astray, I don't know .. but the 388 to me was always an amazing sounding machine, despite its rather narrow track width. As an example, listen to ARP Dave's cuts done on the 388 ... and that's just mp3's! I'd surely wouldn't describe the sound as being less than magnificent!

~Daniel

 

[388woes]

I'm not anti-digital. My studio is full of digital effects, keyboards and drums. Digital reverb is the greatest things since sliced bread, and my Kurzweil sounds incredible... as long as I record it all to analog tape.

-Tim

You mean you don't have an actual 10x6 plate for reverb sitting in your home studio? I though all us analog guys did!

 

[388woes]

I'm not anti-digital. My studio is full of digital effects, keyboards and drums. Digital reverb is the greatest things since sliced bread, and my Kurzweil sounds incredible... as long as I record it all to analog tape.

-Tim

You mean you don't have an actual 10x6 plate for reverb sitting in your home studio? I thought all us analog guys did!

 

[up-fiddler]

uh oh uh oh. . II''mm rreeppeeaattiinngg mmyysseellff..

 

[willymac3]

Thankyou Brothers & Sisters form the REEL world

Greetings to ONE & ALL................
Willymac here......................
After months of dicking around with computer software/interfaces/uncreative bullshit, I dicided to checkout the WWW. to see who else might be suffering from the same woes I was facing.
I had checked so many forums about computer music software and related gear only to discover 1000's of creative souls out there trying to get their shit to " work " so they could continue with the creative process .

I came across this site ,again looking for product reviews, and feeback and again,..same problems ,..creative souls, struggling with technical jargon abound.
It was nice to see a forum honouring Analog ,.......it brought me to the realization that has been burning in the back of my mind for years.
I'M GOING BACK TO ANALOG,..............AND BACK TO MUSIC................

Thanks ...Willymac....