Would you do analog recording ?

If I HAD a 32 track tape deck and the money to go out and buy great mic preamps, compressors, etc. I would certainly use them. But for what I use my home studio for. VST's, plug-ins, and Reason's vast amount of rack modules and mixer features are more than enough. So, although I would use analog if I had it, I don't. So I won't. :D
 
miroslav said:
:laughings:

My studio is a hybrid analog/digital setup....so I can use a digital camera. :)

I do still have my old 35mm film camera....actually it's a good one, with all the lenses, etc.....but I haven't shot film in years, though I always loved the hardcopy picture quality. Nothing wrong withdigital cameras...but most people end up with all their picutres as files on some computer. Will they last for 50 years? Will people rememebr to save/copy them when they get new computers?
I still have some hardcopy picture albums, with photos of my great, great grandparents....and I wonder if they would still be there had they been digital images...?
Click to expand...
My father passed away a month ago and I am going through all the old pictures that he had in the house.
Since I have no kids and my brother doesn't have any kids, we are just going to scan them and throw away the hard copies. They take up too much space, they are musty and no good for anyone's allergies. We will simply let hard drive failure take them away.
 
grimtraveller said:
For those that record digitally, would you ever consider recording on analog recorders if they were freely available ?
And for those that made the change to digital, would you ever go back to analog ?
Do you think that the evolution of digital recording and it's tools have brought about a different kind of musician and engineer than the one that existed pre~digital ?
The thoughts of those with hybrid set ups and those that don't record digitally are more than welcome.
Click to expand...

Me? No, I wouldn't. I lived and worked in the era of tape and, even comparing high-end equipment, the move to digital was like a breath of fresh air in terms of what we could do and how we could do it. Note that I'm talking about the technical process of recording and mixing here, not any subjective views on how things sound. I have no problem with the sound quality of digital but I knows others prefer the "tape sound". Nothing wrong with that--it's just not something I feel strongly about.

Of course, the other part of this hypothetical discussion is the phrase "if they were freely available". Analogue gear isn't freely available and, as the second hand market gets older and older, using the gear becomes more and more the province of enthusiasts who enjoy the process of maintaining the equipment. Again, if that's what you like, great--it's just not for me.

Having said all that, I miss the spinning reels on my old Brennell 8 track 1 inch recorder!
 
Bobbsy said:
"if they were freely available".
Click to expand...

Even were it to be freely available, I don't think I would return. Others have mentioned the magic of seeing reels spinning on NAB hubs. My personal favorite element from that era was the smell of Scotch 206 (or 207) tape.

But it is the process of recording that interests me, and for me, the digital process is much more efficient.
 
gecko zzed said:
Even were it to be freely available, I don't think I would return. Others have mentioned the magic of seeing reels spinning on NAB hubs. My personal favorite element from that era was the smell of Scotch 206 (or 207) tape.

But it is the process of recording that interests me, and for me, the digital process is much more efficient.
Click to expand...

^^^^

Yup. This.
 
This is more of a rhetorical question, or thought. If the only 'mixing' options you had were to set the level of each track, pan and reverb, nothing else, would it make a difference if it was tracked to digital or analog? 95% of the song sound _Had_ to be at the mic and the performance. Period. Would the medium be that important? Listen to Casino Royale, or Blood Sweat & Tears first album. Do you think the tracking medium was the sound? Total professionals in a good sounding room with limited tracks. Room, performance, and mic placement.

Including myself... I think we have too many options. We are all mentally stuck at 'Fix it in the mix' instead of capturing the sound in it's completed state.

Just a thought.
Saddle
 
try it you might like it.

i keep a 4track cassette recorder and 2 tape players around the studio.
sometimes it's just fun to get weird and inspiring to deal with limitations.

it's partly for my own sanity. i've become pretty skilled with protools editing
to the point where i feel confident that i can edit the worst drummer into sounding
like clockwork. while this comes in handy, it's never much fun.

using tape and digital on the same project is kind of an eye opener when you see how much treble you have to roll off to get
a digital track to sit next to a tape track in a mix. you learn new stuff.

lastly there's a psychological focusing effect that happens when someone knows they're recording to tape and takes it seriously.
with digital you can punch in every note if you want to and i believe that thought can often sneak into peoples minds.
it's quiet, but it's there.
with tape i've seen people really bring their A game because there's no other choice.

anyway, see Mac Demarco or Tame Impala as examples of dudes playing every instrument themselves to 8 track tape,
killing it, and then getting famous. compare those sounds to a garage band recording with EPIC DIVA preset on the vox and you'll know what i'm talking about.

cheers,
www . rogerpaulmason . com
 
rogerpaulmason said:
lastly there's a psychological focusing effect that happens when someone knows they're recording to tape and takes it seriously.
with digital you can punch in every note if you want to and i believe that thought can often sneak into peoples minds.
it's quiet, but it's there.
with tape i've seen people really bring their A game because there's no other choice.
Click to expand...

This brings a new perspective. If both were free, and people would play their A game if using tape, then would you as a record for pay tech find it more appealing?
Great first post. Welcome to the site!
 
Last edited:
This is a great question! Having worked with both analog tape (with razor blade editing) and the digital world (Reaper and Pro Tools 11), I could only say that everything in audio is subjective...some people will like the sound of analog tape and others will not! That said, if it's possible, try it out if you can, and see for yourself whether you like it or not. This will not necessarily come cheap, but in my view and experience, education and discovery are worth the investment. Best of luck.
 
I love the sound of analog but don't like the idea of analog editing when digital editing is so easy. I have considered getting a studer A80 one day, for mastering purposes, there's something special about the way that particular machine sounds to me, and the way it compresses things. For now though I'll stick with u-he satin plug-in for tape emulation as it does a very good job when I need it.
 
Greg_L said:
Analog people just love to tell you how special they are and how much they spend, meanwhile they sound no better than anyone else. There's not one single solitary sonic or technical benefit or advantage with using tape. None. Zilch. Zero. Maybe back in the early days of digital, sure, but now? No.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say thats entirely true. I have heard clips of things recorded in analog and digital and you really can't hear a difference. But you don't hear about people slamming their DAW's for awesome digital saturation.

Personally being a youngain if I had to choose I would stay with digital. My dad was a musician and I was playing around on cakewalk 2 from the time I was old enough to use a computer. Additionally analog limits you from being a hack who puts together songs using comps, flex time, and melodyne. This doesn't work when you are recording artists who don't have their material well rehearsed. If I had all the money in the world I would track to tape (and hit it hard) :D. Edit in the box, and mix out of the box.
 
Digital is pretty smart. It is very standard, and you need almost nothing to do it. That would be the place to get your feet wet.

Analog is the best for analog instruments, midi and vst's will get you by. They get better and better, and that shows progress.

You cannot hear the difference? No way.

Do you have a 2x2 and 1/4" reel to compare out the monitors? There is a big difference. You have to master it completely different to get even close to the same sound. So to my ears its different , and if you need to remaster for digital that should tell it is different too.
 
rogerpaulmason said:
see Mac Demarco or Tame Impala as examples of dudes playing every instrument themselves to 8 track tape, killing it, and then getting famous.
Click to expand...

:thumbs up: This is completely true. There is a lot of people who use digital as a way to turd polish. Mac Demarco and Tame Impala both write great songs and know how to play their instruments. That's not to say they wouldnt have succeeded digitally. But analog does separate those with talent from those without.
 
I love analog, i have an old otari mx7800,1" 8track and a fostex b16.
I don't mind that it's "slow" ,no easy additing etc.
The otari,nothing does it better.
I'm 63,but i'm no fossil,Rock now,Rollater!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top