Would you do analog recording ?

[grimtraveller]

It seems once the discussion introduced the fact that EVERYONE uses analog in their recording process....and that most digital plugs/apps emulate analog gear.....the thread is turning into a tape VS digital recorder....????

Possibly. However, I gamble on the assumption that anyone reading the title would know what I meant........and thus far, everyone has. John Willet brought up the bit about mikes and pre~amps etc as an afterthought and long after he'd answered the questions as it seems everyone thus far has understood them.

Why you destroy every thread? It's really a poor show.

To be fair, he hasn't done that here. There were equal measures of opinion and humour. I personally think everyone's contribution thus far has been good.

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.

I don't now.
I still recall the first time I recorded with my Akai DPS12i standalone. I recorded my drummer mate playing congas and myself on acoustic guitar and I was expecting this thin, sterile sound. And it sounded more or less how my Tascam 488 recordings sounded, thick and glumpy !
I wasn't very impressed with some of the CDs I'd had in the mid 90s of vinyl that I'd had in the 80s because they seemed really thin and trebley to me. But by the time I got into actual digital recording there had been a levelling of the field, at least to my ears.

Of course, the other part of this hypothetical discussion is the phrase "if they were freely available".

Perhaps this wasn't something I made particularly clear in the OP but Bobbsy has nailed it perfectly. Some of the scenario painted is obviously hypothetical. That's partly why it doesn't really matter what level one is/was at.

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

I really prefer the workflow and results I get from digital recording.

Because I recorded on analogue for 17 years {yes, they were only lowly portastudios but I put together 25 hour long albums worth of songs}, I fell into a particular workflow pattern that developed over the years. When I made the jump to digital {yes, only a lowly 12 track standalone and a lowly 8 track for backwards recording}, my workflow really didn't alter that much. Yes, there have been changes in certain ways, but it was neither exclusively analogue or digital recording that forced all the changes. It's progression and what I've learned. For example, if I'm doing electric guitar, I might record simultaneously from two different amps and/or pedals for a left/right guitar balance.
Most of the things I've learned since going over to digital recording, even in terms of what happens on the actual recorder, would apply to whatever recorder I was recording on. Even in terms of editing and bouncing, I used to do that before anyway. The 'undo' button does help me breathe a whole lot easier though !

 

[miroslav]

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

I know what you are saying....but it's funny that for me, that's exactly why recording with tape/analog is more pleasing and rewarding, and in some ways more creative.

When I record, I'm never looking for or going for "efficiency". It's about taking the time, and the immersion into the more involved process of using tape/analog for tracking and mixing, that is fun for me. Working that way as opposed to just sitting down in front a computer, well, it just feels more like *recording* to me, and I really do find it all VERY enjoyable....the same things that some of you don't.

I get the whole thing about "Oh man, you have to align the decks, you have to clean the heads, you have to buy the tape, you have to spend way more money on real analog gear instead of plug-in emulations.....etc.".....but I am not really bothered by any of that, and I find that working with the analog gear in a more "inefficient" (if you will) manner...better sets a creative mood for me, and I think it's the same for all the other guys who work with tape and analog gear. Some people may feel more creative when they are very precise and efficient...like Steve Vai!

Yes, there are times when/where surgical precision and efficiency are needed in recording, and really, that is mostly a byproduct of digital recording....the whole precision/efficiency thing. A lot of people (me too at times) get obsessed with it because digital tools allow it....but I just never got any real enjoyment from that particular aspect of the studio process.
I track and mix with tape/console/analog outboard gear, but I edit/comp in the DAW, and that's where the precision and efficiency is welcome, because I really do HATE that time and stage of the recording process....sitting at the computer for hours ......so the faster that's done the better.
In some ways....a DAW can also make for very inefficient recording for many people. Too many options, too many decisions, too many possible solutions.....and it becomes a drawn out affair, so it actually requires a lot of personal discipline to stay efficient. With tape/analog....there are built in limitations that can keep you on-track, and some folks welcome and use that.

I guess it's like the difference between guitar amps and sims. If I wanted to be efficient, one "box" or one app full of amp sims would be better than sitting there auditioning guitar amps, trying out mics and positions, etc......but again, for me, THAT is where the pleasure of recording is.

Everyone has their reasons why they record and how they record...some are by choice or by necessity, most are dictated by budgets, and there are some driven by a creative aspect.

 

[miroslav]

Possibly. However, I gamble on the assumption that anyone reading the title would know what I meant........

OK...what did you mean...tape recorder VS digital recorders.....or analog recording as a whole?

Looking at the variety of posts....it's not clear. Some are just taking tape, and some analog in general.

 

[grimtraveller]

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.

For many, this is a matter of integrity and pride. And sometimes it's the practical reality of one's real situation.
With lengthy songs, I record in sections. That was something that came to me in my analogue days and I grew to like it and still do. It came about through the reality of being a hobbyist that enjoyed creating songs and had friends that would perform on them when times could be synchronized. People work, had kids, were students, lived in other cities or other countries etc.
Firstly, we'd record an entire 12 or 17 or 22 or whatever minute piece on bass/drums, guitar/drums, guitar/percussion or bass/percussion. You'd end up with some parts that were great and some parts that were frustratingly lame and I might have to wait months or a year or so to re~attempt it. Or the next week or just do another take there and then if time allowed.
I did used to record demos for them but expecting them to learn my hobbyist crap in their spare time wasn't really on and I abandoned it after a while. It was so much better to run through the bits on the day and work out what we were going to do then just play it and record it until the particular section was nailed. Sometimes it was one take. Sometimes it was 7. But I've developed a fairly useful instinct for determining whether it's the right take. Then move on to the next section. And so on. Also, that way, you can hit upon using accidents and mistakes creatively.
But right back to the 1950s recordings were separated. Vocals were very often done when the music was already recorded. And also, a lot of stuff happened after the bands had downed tools which is why so many of them got upset when they heard the final versions of the songs they'd played on. Fixing in the mix isn't exclusive to modern digital recording though it may be more prevalent.
One thing I've observed over the last few years is that some of the reasons people put forward to relegate digital recording to the second division are things that applied equally to analogue recording when there wasn't any digital recording which kind of indicates that it's not really the medium that is as important as perhaps we think it should be.
For the record, I've long stated that I love both, in the same way I love Gibson Les Pauls or SGs as well as Fender Strats and Teles. They all sound like guitars to me !

sometimes it's just fun to get weird and inspiring to deal with limitations

The former, I'll grant you though I can tell you from practical experience, I can be just as weird now as I ever was.
But I do seriously wonder if many people really, deliberately ignore solutions that are there at their fingertips in order to have to deal with problems in a limiting way.

with tape i've seen people really bring their A game because there's no other choice.

There are those that made the same argument in favour of 4 track over 8 track, which many felt presented too much choice back in the 60s. I don't think the medium is necessarily the final arbiter in the bringing of the A game. I think it's pride and value in what you do.
That said, it's easier to be lazier in creating a song because things can be put together digitally quicker. But it being easier indicates that being lazy can apply to those in either medium.

Additionally analog limits you from being a hack who puts together songs using comps, flex time, and melodyne.

Not with the advent of bouncing/submixing, varispeeding, 4, 8, 16, 24 and 48 track recording back in the day. The main limitation {if you see it that way} of analog was time.......
It's a real eye opener hearing/reading accounts from artists, producers and engineers over the last 50 years about how recordings came into being.
An interesting side question is ¬> is there anything recorded digitally that could not have been recorded prior to digital recording ?

But analog does separate those with talent from those without.

I don't think this is true. There has pretty much been lots of touching up and studio trickery in popular music going back to the 30s. The real changeover came about with multitracking.

 

[grimtraveller]

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

I know what you are saying....but it's funny that for me, that's exactly why recording with tape/analog is more pleasing and rewarding, and in some ways more creative. When I record, I'm never looking for or going for "efficiency". It's about taking the time, and the immersion into the more involved process of using tape/analog for tracking and mixing, that is fun for me.

And for me, both these answers bring out why I personally enjoy debate and the different sides that are brought out on exactly the same topic.

 

[Greg_L]

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) . Edit in the box, and mix out of the box.

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.

You're talking about things that apply to either method. Obviously knowing how and what to play matters. That's not exclusive to tape honks. You know that Metallica album "And Justice for All"? Well, that was recorded to tape and guess what? Lars Ulrich's drum parts were done piece by piece by piece and spliced together as they went. How fucking lame is that? And it's done on tape. So I don't buy the notion that tape makes you play better, or you have to be a better player if you use tape. Anyone can fumble fuck and fudge their way through either recording medium, it just takes longer with tape. And then you've got goofs like the Foo Fighters that made a big deal about recording to tape in Dave Grohl's ten billion dollar "garage" setup. "Purists" salivated over that nonsense and no doubt it was a clever marketing ploy for the band. That album is every bit as hot and squashed and modern sounding as any regular digital release, so I'm still wondering where the advantage of tape is, because the way I see it, there isn't one. They released the album digitally.

And just to clarify - I'm talking recording to tape. I'm all for analog gear - real drums, real amps, real mics, real preamps, real outboard effects, etc. I like real everything up into a computer, I just don't wanna put it to tape because it's not any better than going into a DAW.

 

[sparky123]

I agree with most of you, but having learned on 1970's gear there is something exciting about hooking up an mci 500 to 2" tape .... just dreaming

 

[grimtraveller]

There are a lot of newbs who think ANYTHING that is technically an analog piece of gear instead of digital...automatically has some magical property and that using any of it means you're "recording with analog".

I must admit, I've not come across the latter part of that. The magical property bit hasn't seemed to be limited to exclusively analog gear though, though I won't argue the point.

OK...what did you mean...tape recorder VS digital recorders.....or analog recording as a whole?

Looking at the variety of posts....it's not clear. Some are just taking tape, and some analog in general.

I've just gone through each post in the thread in case I missed something. If you take out Dainbrammage's question to John Willet about the Commodore, the bits of humour from Greg_L and Seafroggys, Mark1971a's blast at Greg and the bits that sidetracked to digital cameras and mdainsds encouragement to jigfresh, then only Chili's piece about analog to digital converters isn't about actual recorders {and I'm uncertain if he was jesting or not}. Every other poster up to post 85 mentions at some point either an analog recorder or tape or maintainance of the recorder which indicates they understood the questions as I understood them in asking them.
When we talk of analog or digital recording, it's a pretty well accepted shorthand/catch all for recording onto tape {reel to reel, cassette portastudio, videotape} or either computers or some standalone DAW.
I never speak of "analog recording as a whole" because as you've pointed out, even with microphones and pre~amps, there's an analogue element in most recording. It would be too hair splitting for me.

 

[grimtraveller]

You know that Metallica album "And Justice for All"? Well, that was recorded to tape and guess what? Lars Ulrich's drum parts were done piece by piece by piece and spliced together as they went. How fucking lame is that? And it's done on tape.

In my early recording days, I saw a documentary on Def Leppard and when they got to the part where they made "Hysteria" they mentioned that each instrument and voice was laid down in the studio individually and sometimes note by note. And that went to tape. I remember thinking at the time, what a crock !
I'm a little more forgiving now because the studio has always been either a laboratory or a cheating house.
Take your pick !

having learned on 1970's gear there is something exciting about hooking up an mci 500 to 2" tape

There is something exciting about the process of recording, in all it's guises......
Well, for me there is.

 

[miroslav]

When we talk of analog or digital recording, it's a pretty well accepted shorthand/catch all for recording onto tape {reel to reel, cassette portastudio, videotape} or either computers or some standalone DAW.
I never speak of "analog recording as a whole" because as you've pointed out, even with microphones and pre~amps, there's an analogue element in most recording. It would be too hair splitting for me.

If you say so....but I DON'T think everyone who has only ever used a computer and plugs, only thinks of "analog recording" as meaning "tape" and nothing more.
How/where does using an analog console fit into your question.....???....or using lots of analog outboard gear....???
THAT is what an "analog recording" really implies.
If you want to just talk about *tape recorders*....then just say so in the OP, don't say "analog recording" and leave it up to interpretation.

So then...if it is just about tape recorders....why would anyone who has never recorded to one, have any opinion about "Would you do analog (TAPE) recording?"

 

[miroslav]

I must admit, I've not come across the latter part of that. The magical property bit hasn't seemed to be limited to exclusively analog gear though, though I won't argue the point.

Well...for the number of newbs who pop in and say....."I've been thinking about adding some analog/tape to my rig to add some life to the sterile digital sound"....or some such nonsense...they really are looking for "magic".
What's funny, is that they think they will find it by adding one little piece of analog equipment, no matter what it is, and for that, they are willing to spend maybe(?) just a couple of bucks. Few are talking about really diving in deep.

That misguided view turns analog and tape into some snake oil solution.....when in fact, it's not, and to really experience analog & tape recording, and reap some of that real analog flavor....you kinda have to do it at a somewhat more involved level, and it's also about the whole chain, not just adding one piece as some FX plug....which is often where their mindset is at.
If you don't ever go that more involved route....you don't really experience the whole "analog" thing, and those folks just dablling a bit, and the ones who never have, aren't quite qualified to comment on it's overall "value"...IMO.....but I know that won't stop a lot of folks here.

 

[Greg_L]

What about the many, many people that have recorded full-bore to tape and still don't see any value in it?

 

[miroslav]

That's their opinion....like John Willett, and that's fine. The same way some people here vote against it, I and some others vote for it.
I guess that's what grimtraveller was after....lots of opinons and some debate.

I only had one issue with John's comment where he felt tape recording as a whole was "horrible"...which isn't true. He may not like it, but saying it was all horrible, was not accurate at all.
If it was, everyone would have dumped it completely when digital came about....but that didn't happen, and tape still gets used in a lot of situations, and it's even made a bit of a comeback, just like the "mostly analog" recording approaches have for some people.

Sorta like how some people dumped their amps for sims.....then realized there was something to the amps that the sims just don't have.

I agreed with John and overall....that there are pros/cons to both. I'm not saying tape is perfect....nor is digital.
AFA as determining "value"....that also brings into question the monatery aspect, and yes, it certainly has pushed people away from the more expensive tape route, but that doesn't immediatley translate to a poor value from an artistic or sound quality perspective. AFA the sound, it depends what you are after...transparency or maybe some kind of flavor.
As I said....I use tape becuase it's different than digital, but I also use digital.
There is no "better/worse" in that....I just use both.

 

[jimmys69]

If the type of media used to record your sound affects it in some way, then it is merely an effect right? Just an expensive strenuous one to me. Just my opinion.

Just thought I would chime in and likely piss someone off.

 

[miroslav]

Well...you can apply that mentality to ANYTHING in the studio
How you position a mic = an "effect".

There is something more straightforward about using a tape deck and console when tracking...and if you mix off the tape, you're basically ready to mix as soon as you are done tracking. You have a clear 2-stage tracking/mixing process.
With digital recording....it's become a mishmash for most....people are tracking and mixing and editing and mastering and then tracking some more and still mixing...etc...etc..etc.
So it's also about work-flow and comfort zones....not just "effect".

I find endless hours in front a computer, jerking around with a mouse to make music, also strenuous at times....

 

[jimmys69]

Well...you can apply that mentality to ANYTHING in the studio
How you position a mic = an "effect".

There is something more straightforward about using a tape deck and console when tracking...and if you mix off the tape, you're basically ready to mix as soon as you are done tracking. You have a clear 2-stage tracking/mixing process.
With digital recording....it's become a mishmash for most....people are tracking and mixing and editing and mastering and then tracking some more and still mixing...etc...etc..etc.
So it's also about work-flow and comfort zones....not just "effect".

I find endless hours in front a computer, jerking around with a mouse to make music, also strenuous at times....

I will agree, there is something to be said about the 'knowing' that what you record is what you get. I remember the days of getting mentally prepared to nail it with emotion or go home with tail between legs. Now digitally, it is like well let's see what happens. I can just punch if I fuck up.

I see the difference there. Hell, I should start charging $100 per hour to get band members to show up ready! lol

 

[XploZiveToyz]

I think the musicianship back in the analog days was perhaps a little better.

 

[skywaveTDR]

I have recorded on analog for a long time and it is those people that put the analog product down that own the low end stuff and junk made like Akai machines that have to have digital. Digital has some advantages but in the overall recording process there are a ton of mistakes made with digital that make it worse than the analog stuff.Too much compression is one of those major mistakes. I am in the repair business of analog devices both reel and cassette. I have a ton of work and no end in sight. Why do you think people are going back to analog and that poor old tape? Out of all media types which one has lasted 60 years so far- not digital and from all indications, more material will be lost on digital media than on any other- I have already seen hours of work go up in a poof just with pressing the wrong button. You digital types can be fooled for some time but I know where the good sound is and I make it happen on my machines. Wow and Flutter, distortion and all the other parameters you mentioned do not come into play with good equipment. Only the junk that is still around that promised life time heads that are all worn out and I have had tape deck record up to 50KHz at 0 Vu with good tape. What lack of highs? Even consumer decks I work on sometimes get into the 25-26KHz region. Digital will not even go that high.

 

[Farview]

Lars Ulrich's drum parts were done piece by piece by piece and spliced together as they went. How fucking lame is that? And it's done on tape.

That was the Black Album, the one after 'Justice

 

[Farview]

In my early recording days, I saw a documentary on Def Leppard and when they got to the part where they made "Hysteria" they mentioned that each instrument and voice was laid down in the studio individually and sometimes note by note. And that went to tape. I remember thinking at the time, what a crock !
I'm a little more forgiving now because the studio has always been either a laboratory or a cheating house.
Take your pick !

There is something exciting about the process of recording, in all it's guises......
Well, for me there is.

There was a Manowar album where every drum was played in isolation. As in, he laid down the hi hat in one pass, rewind, arm the next track, lay down the kick, rewind, arm next track, lay down the snare, rewind, etc...