Monkey Man
Super Moderator
True dat. Get it? DAT?
Uugghh...
Uugghh...
Analog recording vs Digital recording
- Thread starter Kyrpajyra
- Start date
Kapo_Polenton
Well-known member
Totally. I'm like everyone else. Always hopeful they can make something with a cool GUI that costs 39$ that holds up to a unit that costs 5k.
They get close but ultimately....... that unit is 5k for a reason
Kapo_Polenton
Well-known member
Bingo. Probably also in part why music has become so polished. Endless tracks. endless edits. Perfection.
Monkey Man
Super Moderator
... and oftentimes sterility.
True DAT.Totally. I'm like everyone else. Always hopeful they can make something with a cool GUI that costs 39$ that holds up to a unit that costs 5k.
They get close but ultimately....... that unit is 5k for a reason
@Kapo_Polenton that's exactly what i'm planning to do. Even tho tape is great, the drawbacks, cost of tape reels and all the hassle is just too much for me to deal with.
Isn't there any hardware units that emulate whole mixing consoles in a smaller format? One that i have to get also is a mic preamp or a channel strip.
Isn't there any hardware units that emulate whole mixing consoles in a smaller format? One that i have to get also is a mic preamp or a channel strip.
Of course there is… API makes “The box”… you got 20k? SSL makes smaller format all analog hardware units, so does RND ( at about 10k for the cheapest option)…tape is not the answer to your quest, im sorry but it just isn’t. There is no doubt digital is more prominent because of its usability and ease, price etc. but that doesn’t mean it can’t sound great either. Like @DanTravis62 said right before I could… causation is not correlation and vice Versa.
That API one's a bit too large. I meant something in size of an average hardware compressor or an EQ. Also i said already in the OP that tape's not everything as Michael Wagener didn't use it back in the 80s.
DanTravis62
Well-known member
Yep this is 100% a situation where causality and correlation are getting confused.
I think people are confusing liking older records with liking the sound of analog. Really high quality analog tape is nearly as crisp as digital, and basically indistinguishable. I think what these guys are hearing is the style of recording, and their preferences with it.
I totally get where they are coming from, because I despise the sound of a lot of modern music, but I sincerely doubt digital recording is to blame as far as the sound quality itself.
I think it's more about the tools and convenience of digital that promotes styles and techniques that enable sounds me, and others posting don't care for.
That's the crux of the issue, at least in my opinion.
You are correct about the fact that most of it has to do with how music is being mixed and recorded nowdays. What i'm trying to say is that the outboard analog stuff could probably give you an "extra mile" towards your mixes sounding more like back in the good old days.
Also just listened an isolated guitar tracks of Megadeth's Hangar 18 and those guitars sound choppy and harsh as fuck even tho it was an analog recording. Technique and acoustics certainly play a role in this.
Speeddemon
Well-known member
I have a nice RTR tape recorder (1/4", true 2 track, Philips N4522) in my home-studio, but more for nostalgia/another mastering option and even looks...
I mean..
My approach is 'hybrid' as well, albeit without a PC in my homestudio.
Nice analog/digital desk (Allen & Heath GSR24 with Firewire/ADAT card) via 6 ADAT lines (3 in, 3 out) to an Alesis HD24XR, which basically is my digital HDD 'tape recorder'. No plug-ins to be found. I do have a fair slew of nice outboard hardware though.
Now I realise a few things;
1) the Alesis is long in the tooth. I've upgraded some parts, got one SSD drive to work in the drive bay (originally it only accepted IDE harddrives) and it's not very flexible.
But I'm realistic enough to know that if the Alesis becomes beyond repair, I'm going to add a little RME USB box (4x ADAT I/O) to connect the desk to a PC, do my tracking hybrid/ITB and mixing/editing hybrid as well.
2) I proactively chose this method to limit myself, to be more like the old days. Not in terms of some pink-colored glasses outlook of 'in the old days everything was better', but to prevent creativity from stifling due to choice overload, which you can run into with a myriad of plug-ins or track stacking, etc. I can still bounce back and forth to record 20 rhythm guitars layered, but pre-bouncing, I have to commit to a mix then.
To further this effect, because my desk has 24 channels (+ a few stereo returns for fx) (and my recorder is limited to 24 tracks as well), I've made it a point to not own more than 24 mics. I'm at 24 right now, so if I want to add something, it needs to be an upgrade and sell the 'lesser one'.
A few more pointers;
tape indeed isn't always better. Especially old budget solutions were really hard to get a good sound out of. I've recorded on a 4 track Tascam Portastudio in the mid 90's to cassette and it was meh at best. Our drummer then upgraded to a Yamaha 8-track MiniDisc recorder (with these weird ass special minidiscs, that could only record like 14 minutes). Sonically an improvement. Two years later I got myself my first all-in-one harddisk recorder, the Korg D16. 16 track recording, 8 tracks simultaneously, a touch screen!
This thing was awesome! Without any real effort, my recordings easily surpassed that of the old stuff we recorded on before. Mind you, this thing was expensive at the time; I bought it used and it still cost me an arm and a leg.
Biggest drawbacks at the time; only 2,1GB HDD, no phantom power on the mic inputs, no CD burner on board and/or no digital multi-track output. I later had installed a 40GB HDD, which helped, but still...if it had USB out and phantom power, I'd probably still have it.
I went through a whole bunch of these all-in-ones, from simple (Boss BR600) to the most complete (Akai DPS24). I still have a Korg D1200mkII to this day as a quick demo recorder, because I always loved the workflow on the Korg, it sounded good (none of that hideous Roland VS-compression bs) and it had a physical pan-knob per channel, which most of its peers didn't have.
Now, I've also recorded on a 24 track 2" tape Studer recorder in a great studio; sounded awesome.
I think part of the problem that people associate with digital recording(s), is that almost simultaneously with digital recording becoming more prevalent, a lot of professional recordings took part in the so-called loudness war.
And it's the negative artifacts resulting from that, we tend to attribute to the digital recording of things, when it's actually more a question of how things are mastered.
Case in point: Metallica's "Death Magnetic" album tracks sounded better (not as clipped, overloaded) on a Guitar Hero game than the actual release. Record company execs wanted things to appear louder. Well, 0dBFS cannot be crossed, period. If you do attempt to, horrid distortion appears.
My 2ct.
I mean..
My approach is 'hybrid' as well, albeit without a PC in my homestudio.
Nice analog/digital desk (Allen & Heath GSR24 with Firewire/ADAT card) via 6 ADAT lines (3 in, 3 out) to an Alesis HD24XR, which basically is my digital HDD 'tape recorder'. No plug-ins to be found. I do have a fair slew of nice outboard hardware though.
Now I realise a few things;
1) the Alesis is long in the tooth. I've upgraded some parts, got one SSD drive to work in the drive bay (originally it only accepted IDE harddrives) and it's not very flexible.
But I'm realistic enough to know that if the Alesis becomes beyond repair, I'm going to add a little RME USB box (4x ADAT I/O) to connect the desk to a PC, do my tracking hybrid/ITB and mixing/editing hybrid as well.
2) I proactively chose this method to limit myself, to be more like the old days. Not in terms of some pink-colored glasses outlook of 'in the old days everything was better', but to prevent creativity from stifling due to choice overload, which you can run into with a myriad of plug-ins or track stacking, etc. I can still bounce back and forth to record 20 rhythm guitars layered, but pre-bouncing, I have to commit to a mix then.
To further this effect, because my desk has 24 channels (+ a few stereo returns for fx) (and my recorder is limited to 24 tracks as well), I've made it a point to not own more than 24 mics. I'm at 24 right now, so if I want to add something, it needs to be an upgrade and sell the 'lesser one'.
A few more pointers;
tape indeed isn't always better. Especially old budget solutions were really hard to get a good sound out of. I've recorded on a 4 track Tascam Portastudio in the mid 90's to cassette and it was meh at best. Our drummer then upgraded to a Yamaha 8-track MiniDisc recorder (with these weird ass special minidiscs, that could only record like 14 minutes). Sonically an improvement. Two years later I got myself my first all-in-one harddisk recorder, the Korg D16. 16 track recording, 8 tracks simultaneously, a touch screen!
This thing was awesome! Without any real effort, my recordings easily surpassed that of the old stuff we recorded on before. Mind you, this thing was expensive at the time; I bought it used and it still cost me an arm and a leg.
Biggest drawbacks at the time; only 2,1GB HDD, no phantom power on the mic inputs, no CD burner on board and/or no digital multi-track output. I later had installed a 40GB HDD, which helped, but still...if it had USB out and phantom power, I'd probably still have it.
I went through a whole bunch of these all-in-ones, from simple (Boss BR600) to the most complete (Akai DPS24). I still have a Korg D1200mkII to this day as a quick demo recorder, because I always loved the workflow on the Korg, it sounded good (none of that hideous Roland VS-compression bs) and it had a physical pan-knob per channel, which most of its peers didn't have.
Now, I've also recorded on a 24 track 2" tape Studer recorder in a great studio; sounded awesome.
I think part of the problem that people associate with digital recording(s), is that almost simultaneously with digital recording becoming more prevalent, a lot of professional recordings took part in the so-called loudness war.
And it's the negative artifacts resulting from that, we tend to attribute to the digital recording of things, when it's actually more a question of how things are mastered.
Case in point: Metallica's "Death Magnetic" album tracks sounded better (not as clipped, overloaded) on a Guitar Hero game than the actual release. Record company execs wanted things to appear louder. Well, 0dBFS cannot be crossed, period. If you do attempt to, horrid distortion appears.
My 2ct.
Monkey Man
Super Moderator
... and a very-worthy 2¢ at that, mate; thank you.
Something that hasn't been mentioned and seldom is in these sorts of discussions is the prevalence of bad DAW-mixing habits that lead to less-open, "smaller-sounding" mixes.
Most peeps unwittingly set their individual tracks at too-high a level, either because they recorded them as near to clipping as possible (old analogue habits or having heard about them) or in an attempt to maximise their S/N ratios. Both of these are obviously borne out of the pre-digital gain-structure methodology.
In fact, DAW's tend to sum more-accurately-and-cleanly when given lots of headroom in the component tracks. A simple experiment should demonstrate this - mix the same project with hot track levels and then dialled back to, say, two thirds and listen to the difference. IMHO you could say that quality-wise, the former equates to a quality of 1, the latter 2 and quality external summing 3, if you get what I mean. How close option 2 gets to option 3 depends on how good one is at finessing levels to accommodate the shortcomings of digital summing, which in-theory for the time being at least cannot produce the accuracy of feeding all the tracks into a chunky copper rail. The digital-rounding errors per-channel compound the more tracks you run and are exposed when compared to the analogue equivalent, which by definition retains and combines all the harmonic content of the source material sans compromise.
Just MHO of course, but that's my 2¢ worth.
Speeddemon
Well-known member
A very good 2ct too and actually the reason why most of my mixes, when I was starting out, already sounded quite relaxed and open to begin with.... and a very-worthy 2¢ at that, mate; thank you.
Something that hasn't been mentioned and seldom is in these sorts of discussions is the prevalence of bad DAW-mixing habits that lead to less-open, "smaller-sounding" mixes.
Most peeps unwittingly set their individual tracks at too-high a level, either because they recorded them as near to clipping as possible (old analogue habits or having heard about them) or in an attempt to maximise their S/N ratios. Both of these are obviously borne out of the pre-digital gain-structure methodology.
In fact, DAW's tend to sum more-accurately-and-cleanly when given lots of headroom in the component tracks. A simple experiment should demonstrate this - mix the same project with hot track levels and then dialled back to, say, two thirds and listen to the difference. IMHO you could say that quality-wise, the former equates to a quality of 1, the latter 2 and quality external summing 3, if you get what I mean. How close option 2 gets to option 3 depends on how good one is at finessing levels to accommodate the shortcomings of digital summing, which in-theory for the time being at least cannot produce the accuracy of feeding all the tracks into a chunky copper rail. The digital-rounding errors per-channel compound the more tracks you run and are exposed when compared to the analogue equivalent, which by definition retains and combines all the harmonic content of the source material sans compromise.
Just MHO of course, but that's my 2¢ worth.
Because I was tracking at -12dB to -6dB (to digital media), leaving plenty of room for summing.
I received a few criticism in that time saying I was playing it too safe and the levels were too mild, but on the flipside, I never ran into that issue where everything becomes this big, mushy mess, fighting for sonic real estate.
Another tool that helped me in losing some of that demo-quality feel was a good SSL G-Series Stereo compressor (clone).
Once I put thát on the mixbus, it magically glues everything together better and suddenly your mix has a more professional sheen for a lack of a better description.
Monkey Man
Super Moderator
Absorootly brother. 
Well see this is I agree with, if that’s what you meant! Using analog gear can definitely give you that extra something! I have a hybrid setup with 1073 preamps and analog compressors and eqs( pultec and GML clones), so this I can definitely agree with for sure.
Will take this route as well. I just have to get a new interface first so i can connect some outboard gear to it. Currently running a 2i2 scarlett 2nd gen with a scratchy volume pot, probably time to come to this decade already.
Big thanks to others as well who've given some amazing insight about recording here.
Kapo_Polenton
Well-known member
Don't make the mistake of isolating individual tracks and judging them on their merit alone. Always go off the mix. If anything, those tracks teach you how to develop the ear for EQ and mixing so that your end mix sounds as good as theirs did.
Also, I think you need to take a step back and realize how much money you are going to be spending. I by no means have great gear and this is the costs for me soo far:
500 series rack (500$)
2 x vintech 73 preamp (got both for 1200$)
1 bus comp I have on order 1200$
24 out motu digital to analog converter (1300$)
1200$ 8 channel in and preamp Audient ASP 880 for my conversion in bound
500$ for the old Ramsa console 20-8
cabling? (400$ all in I am sure for snakes)
Assorted outboard compressors, I have about 800$ in.
and my setup is still missing an EQ for 2 bus
Add all that up and it is still no where close to the setup hybrid studios are using. So really, you need to decide how you work. Is 2-4 channels in enough?
Your best bet is probably an old console and then a nice mastering EQ and Comp. But you won't get that in a small 2U rack format. That is a summing mixer worth 2-4k which is a stupid price for something that doesn't do much.
"extra mile" only if the material is good and only if you know how to use what you got.
Bardagh
Well-known member
I would personally disagree with the idea that the decline in worthwhile music is largely due to the mixes becoming boring, digital etc. Truly good material will overcome a lackluster production, and in the past has overcome way worse.
Especially in the underground metal world we listened to stuff that sounded 100x worse in the 90’s and 80’s and would have given our left nuts to be able to have production values available to the average Joe today. But hey, technically a Tascam 8 track cassette is analog. It sounds real “warm” by the time you’re done.
I agree the cookie cutter sounds, robotic feel and lack of dynamics all do detract from the experience and make it extra hard to find anything that stands out today - but it’s also that there just aren’t that many bands out there with something to say and a style to say it. If there are, they’re being drowned out by the endless swarms of copycats of this or that. While most bands being copycats (and not even inspired ones) is not new, it used to be that they were confined to their local/regional scene just playing shows. Today everyone everywhere is competing for your attention in the same few places on social media.
Especially in the underground metal world we listened to stuff that sounded 100x worse in the 90’s and 80’s and would have given our left nuts to be able to have production values available to the average Joe today. But hey, technically a Tascam 8 track cassette is analog. It sounds real “warm” by the time you’re done.
I agree the cookie cutter sounds, robotic feel and lack of dynamics all do detract from the experience and make it extra hard to find anything that stands out today - but it’s also that there just aren’t that many bands out there with something to say and a style to say it. If there are, they’re being drowned out by the endless swarms of copycats of this or that. While most bands being copycats (and not even inspired ones) is not new, it used to be that they were confined to their local/regional scene just playing shows. Today everyone everywhere is competing for your attention in the same few places on social media.
DanTravis62
Well-known member
I would personally disagree with the idea that the decline in worthwhile music is largely due to the mixes becoming boring, digital etc. Truly good material will overcome a lackluster production, and in the past has overcome way worse.
Especially in the underground metal world we listened to stuff that sounded 100x worse in the 90’s and 80’s and would have given our left nuts to be able to have production values available to the average Joe today. But hey, technically a Tascam 8 track cassette is analog. It sounds real “warm” by the time you’re done.
I agree the cookie cutter sounds, robotic feel and lack of dynamics all do detract from the experience and make it extra hard to find anything that stands out today - but it’s also that there just aren’t that many bands out there with something to say and a style to say it. If there are, they’re being drowned out by the endless swarms of copycats of this or that. While most bands being copycats (and not even inspired ones) is not new, it used to be that they were confined to their local/regional scene just playing shows. Today everyone everywhere is competing for your attention in the same few places on social media.
That's a fair point man. But you cannot possibly mean that the sterile, cookie-cutter productions haven't hurt heavy music as a whole? Just anecdotally, the amount of sneap copies alone has instantly turned me off hundreds of bands as soon as I hear them. I'd much rather have shitty analog production, as long as its SOMETHING different.
RevDrucifer
Well-known member
Funny, I was working on a mix last night and for shits and giggles tried the JS37 and Kramer Tape plugins on the mixbus. It’s not a metal tune, hard rock at the most and just piano/strings/acoustic for the first half. You can dial the saturation back with those and in a couple situations I could see the appeal of it, but overall I removed it because of the reduction of transients. With Kramer Tape there’s some EQ going on, with one preset it actually worked really well with that particular song as far as the low end went, but still, the softened transients removed a lot of the snap from the snare and took away all the life from the guitars.
Bardagh
Well-known member
No, it has hurt, its just that the glut of cookie cutter material hurts way more. Uninspired material with a great sound will not get me listening but great material with not great sound still will, and I’ll find a way to look past the ugly. That doesn’t mean I want bad sound, but I see an irony in how easy it is to sound “good” today but we can’t find anything worth listening to, especially when I remember how hard it was to sound halfway decent 20 years ago.