Would you do analog recording ?
- Thread starter grimtraveller
- Start date
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
John Willett
Circle Sound Services
No, you are getting me totally wrong.
I never said that at all.
Firstly I was saying what *I* preferred, not what everyone likes, as I was answering the OP's question which was directed personally.
Some people like things clean and accurate, others prefer coloured and dirty - both methods have their place.
With classical music and much music recorded in a live acoustic, recording clean and accurate is normally the best way to go.
Where you are multi tracking in a studio (or a home recording space) you do what gets you the sound you want, as you are creating a product more than capturing a performance. It is in this area that many like the colour that analogue gives.
Saying "....which is totally not true for most listeners..." is not necessarily true - it all depends on the genre of music you are recording.
If I am recording a Stradivarius violin or a Steinway piano, I want to hear the instrument as it is and not added colour or distortion.
It all depends on the genre of music you are recording and what works best for what you are creating.
I'm not saying one way is right and the other is wrong, as they all have validity.
It's like microphones - some people like clean and accurate transformerless microphones; others like the colour added by a transformer, others prefer the warmth of a valve (vacuum tube), others like ribbons, etc..... None is right or wrong and you choose what works for you - they are, after all, just audio paintbrushes and you choose the one that works for you.
Though I did want to make the point that analogue recording on tape is a lot more complicated than the uninitiated tend to think it is and to be fully aware of what it involves.
Though I still thing there is something very beautiful about a tape recorder with 10½" NAB reels.
And I still have one of these in my studio.
But this is what I use now:-
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
I said that *you're* taking the position.....I didn't say that you were speaking for everyone.
I already said all that....that it depends on the music.
Thing is, with home recording and a lot of pro recording, I think it's safe to say most of it is about recording Rock/Pop/Metal/Hip-Hop/Rap/Country Pop music......and not really classical music with a duet on a Steinway and a Stradivarius in some concert hall.
So I think in most cases, people ARE going for a certain sound, as opposed to simply documenting the performance and looking for absolute gear transparency.
My main issue with your earlier comments was you suggesting that tape/analog recording was "horrible" and how you couldn't wait to get away from it. It implied that everyone should run away from tape/analog....which is SO not the case.
Otherwise, I agree with you about the more complicated aspect of tape/analog recording...and that was partly why I was saying people need to qualify what they mean when they say "I record to tape or in analog". It's just not the same thing when you compare a 4-track cassette porta-studio to a really involved analog/tape studio....and folks who simply used "something" analog at some point, don't necessarily have the right perspective on what "recording analog" or "recording to tape" really can mean or how it can sound....so asking them would they go back to it or asking newbie digital users who never did any kind of analog/tape recording....is not going to generate meaningful responses.
At least, people should qualify what they mean when the say analog or tape recording.
With digital, the playing field is more even. Sure, you can buy $5k converters instead of $500 converters....but generally speaking, the guy in his bedroom using some Waves plug is using the same thing that the guy in a pro facility is using. With digital....it's all just a math crunching exercise....so it's not going to vary as much in quality as consumer/pro-sumer/pro analog and tape gear can.
Heck....I just spent $800 getting a *spare* remote overhauled and repaired....and another $350 on a *spare* pinch roller and some *spare* audio cards for my 2" tape deck. Not many home-rec guys are going to bother with that kind of maintenance or be willing to spend that much money on it.....and that's just *some* of the cost/hassle of running tape and analog.
The reason I do it, is because it's different sounding, and to me, more special than just another computer with the same plug-in suite that everyone else is using, though I do love my DAW too, and have invested a lot into that setup and associated plugs and peripherals...so for me it's not a love/hate thing between analog and digital.
On the question of which is "better", that can be argued forever, but as I pointed out earlier....for most music genres and with most recording/mixing situations it's obvious that even the all-digital users are striving for that classic analog sound.
Most of what they use in their DAWs is emulating/modeling something *analog*....so you tell me what that means.
Illsidgus
Desiccated Member
I have a Tascam 244 and find it adequate for most of my recording needs. Would I go digital? If my situation were different, the first thing that I would do is purchase a Tascam DP32. I don't think that I would ever go to a computer recording system, part of the enjoyment factor for me is having buttons, knobs, and faders that I can actually touch. I am a home recording hobbyist not a professional recording engineer, I do it for fun and the joy of making music and sharing it with a limited audience.
Bottom line: I use analog now because that is what I have, I do not have any objections to going digital as I think in many ways it would make the creative and recording process easier.
Bottom line: I use analog now because that is what I have, I do not have any objections to going digital as I think in many ways it would make the creative and recording process easier.
John Willett
Circle Sound Services
I said that *you're* taking the position.....I didn't say that you were speaking for everyone.
But the implication was that I was saying that everyone else was wrong - and I was not saying that.
This is *your* experience - but there *are* people who like to record classical music concerts. Some with simple and inexpensive stuff and some with gear that many professionals would envy.
Recording folk or Jazz would have a different method than recording rock, pop, heavy metal, etc...
There is also "World" music. I was talking to a musician recently who specialises in the Japanese flute and wants to record that in his home studio.
There is a vast number of genres and all need their own specific approach.
So I would take issue with your saying "most cases" as there is so much music out there that needs a different approach.
There is also a lot of analogue sound possible without going to tape - eg: choice of microphone, choice of pre-amplifier, etc.
Yes, I *do* find analogue tape horrible as it distorts the music so much. I was, after all, answering the question "Would you do analogue recording?" and I was answering from that personal standpoint asked.
You seem to be taking the opposite view that analogue tape is the only way to go - which is just as wrong as what you are accusing me of saying.
Analogue in other areas can be fine - eg: mic. and pre-amp choice as I said above.
On the question of which is "better", that can be argued forever, but as I pointed out earlier....for most music genres and with most recording/mixing situations it's obvious that even the all-digital users are striving for that classic analog sound.
Most of what they use in their DAWs is emulating/modeling something *analog*....so you tell me what that means.
I don't want to antagonise the analogue / digital debate as there are many pros and cons for both. But I take being "better" as being more accurate - but being more "pleasant" is a different thing which is where the colour comes in.
And if you like wow and flutter, print-through, etc.... go for it.
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.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
No....I said *I* use tape because it sounds different than digital....there was no "better/worse" or "everyone should".
You said all tape recording sounds "horrible"...which is total BS.
As I pointed out just one example, the most sought after drum sample libraries, from most of the different brand providers are initially tracked to tape because they just sound better that way....that's the consensus. So all that "tape is horrible" stuff has no basis in fact, when you consider something other than a few specific styles of music and how they are recorded.
AFA the music styles....I listed the styles that have little need or desire for absolute gear transparency...and you listed some that do...so that means it's not all abour just one way to go.
Point I'm making that no one wants to touch...is that MOST (yes, most) of the styles that home-rec and pro studios are doing are about some production "sound", and not really about documentation and gear transparency during recording/mixing...and with that in mind, for all those using digital in the home or pro recording studios, to get their production sound, they all reach for a multitude of plugs/apps that are emulating analog/tape gear.
AFA the "money".....it's got nothing to do with "being special", it was mentioned because it underscores what you were saying about how involved analog/tape gear can be.....and the fact that digital was is and will be the choice for the majority of people purely because it is cheaper and more convenient than the analog/tape gear it tries to emulate.
Also…are we now just talking about “tape” or about any/all “analog” gear…..’cuz it seems everyone who uses digital is eager to use a good amount of analog gear every day (mics, guitar amps, preamps, etc) without any problem.
Some will even argue in favor ofusing it....like using real amps instead of amp sims.
So if this is now just about the pros and cons of *tape* vs digital….then let’s at least clarifythatt, because EVERYONE uses analog gear in some form.
That's a much more objective perspective and I totally agree with it.
requires more time and tape cost, so on a commercial level may not be the best option for a commercial enterprise , when things are budgeted and quoted and time frames are given. I prefer the sound of tape on vocals and guitars , but that is of little consequence to the bussiness owner or client who has to put out product potentially on a short timeframe that may have a limted life in broadcast.So then tell why.....don't leave it hanging.
Farview
Well-known member
Since all of my recording is for other people and recording budgets are very, very low, there is no way for me, with my clients to even attempt analog recording.
If someone really wanted it and had the budget to pay me for my time setting up and maintaining the machines, waiting for rewinds, razor editing, etc... then I would be fine with it.
I started out on analog. I do like mixing on a board with oitboard gear, but I never really liked the tape. It bothered me that what you recorded sounded different when played back. I worked around it, but it always bugged me.
I do not miss having to do a total recall of a mix in analog.
I really prefer the workflow and results I get from digital recording.
If someone really wanted it and had the budget to pay me for my time setting up and maintaining the machines, waiting for rewinds, razor editing, etc... then I would be fine with it.
I started out on analog. I do like mixing on a board with oitboard gear, but I never really liked the tape. It bothered me that what you recorded sounded different when played back. I worked around it, but it always bugged me.
I do not miss having to do a total recall of a mix in analog.
I really prefer the workflow and results I get from digital recording.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Yeah....it does require a LOT of notes (and pics of the settings)!
Though for me, even though I do write down everything....I rarely need to recall a mix. It's my own stuff, and I don't go back to it once I'm done. That said....I have some older mixes from a few years ago that I kinda rushed through at the time because I was eager to complete my CD project (which was taking a long time due to digital and it's endless options
)....so I'm planning to remix some of those songs from the CD more properly in the near future....but I'm just going to start them fresh, rather than recall.You are right though....with digital there's more ways to configure your workflow, and maybe sometimes that's good and bad, as it can leave you with way too many options, but tape recording still can’t touch digital editing/comping power...so that's why I don't bother to mix off the tape, but it was/is "faster" since you can go right to mix from the tracking stage.
I'm not running a commercial studio...but if I was, the digital option is probably the safer/easier way to go when dealing with clients. At the least....tracking can be done on tape, but just like I'm doing now, it would then get dumped to the DAW.
For mixing, yeah, I too like using a real mixer, so I come back out of the DAW for that.....but I can see myself at some point staying in the DAW for the mix. I've put together a decent amount of plugs now, so I can emulate the analog outboard gear I have and then some....which could at some point see me do the mixing portion ITB rather than OTB.....but I'll keep tracking to tape for now.
bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
You're shooting film, right? Using a digital cam would be cheating.
Chili
Site Moderator
I wouldn't say 'cheating', but it will certainly miss the warm feeling of granular images. We all know that digital cameras leave an image cold and sterile.
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
I didn't catch that in John's comment at all. He was somewhat vehement in delivery, but I asked the question to each individual and each person can only answer for themselves. It's a bit like when Greg comes out with a statement like "Fleetwood Mac suck." That's how he feels. It doesn't mean they suck for or should suck for everyone.
I refer once again to the obvious import of the OP and the phrase "Analog recorders." There are a variety of analog recorders. The what and wherefore isn't important. Each person has their own level. Therefore, their experience with whatever machine they've used will determine their answers ~ and thus far, they have.
Unless everybody has exactly the same equipment, it's just not the same ! A more obvious statement could not be made.
But I will say exactly the same about digital recorders from a standalone point of view. I have 3 standalone DAWs and have owned three of different brands and believe me, none were the same.
If you have used an analogue recording machine that utilized tape, be it a 4 or 8 track cassette, betamax or VHS video, or 1⁄4", 1/2", 1" or 2" tape or whatever sizes they come in, then you have some perspective on what recording to tape means.
This is a home recording site. Most of us are nobody hobbyists and hacks who do this because we love it and some of us also enjoy talking a bit about it. If one hasn't developed the ears to be able to tell something about tape and recording on an analog recorder, then one's problems run somewhat deeper than whether or not they used a 4 track portastudio and didn't have a Neve console !
You might find this hard to believe, but there do exist people that haven't recorded on analog machines who nonetheless are interested in the history of recording and who are fairly aware of the analog v digital debate to some level. Their curiosity may well have been piqued at some point, if they've read any of the many debates/arguments/wars that exist on many a forum. Asking if those particular people would consider recording in analog will generate their thoughts on the matter if they have them. To say their responses would be meaningless is harsh, elitist and borderline snobby. Actually, I suspect it will simply bring about the feeling of "this is just some cosy club for exalted members who seem determined to make it clear I can have no part to play here."
This is home recording .com, not "I've engineered on dozens of platinum albums and won several grammys and am on first name terms with Phil Spector and Quincy Jones.com"
They don't really need to because the opening set of questions makes it clear for them. The question is not about mics or pre~amps or outboard equipment or effects or tube amps.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
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...?
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
You're wrong about that…IMO.
When they respond on an open forum, they are not responding just to themselves....it's for the world to read.
Saying just "No, I wouldn't, or yes I would do analog recording" without qualifying what they mean by it and how they perceive it....provides us with just a meaningless poll, as I said earlier.
There needs to be more detail that describes what & why each responder is saying, so that their response makes sense to others too...and not just for them.
Also....is this about *analog recorders* which basically means tape recorders....are is your thread about *analog recording* as the title states...?
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....????
Illsidgus
Desiccated Member
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...?
To add my little bit off subject banter, I don't own a digital camera. My wife does, my daughter does and my son does, heck a couple of my cats may too. My favorite camera was an Olympus OM10, I left it in a train station in Chicago and never saw it again. I now have a Cannon AE1 with lenses, filters, etc. but no one in my area develops film anymore. I sure hope I don't sent my 244 down in a train station somewhere and lose it too.
It actually converts your voice to speaker bias voltage. If you are using microphones and an analog bus there is no cleaner way.
So much for analog is distortion BS.
You don't understand what I meant so don't respond to me with your typical trolling lunacy. Thanks.