How are analog formats doing?

BassDriver. Just to bring you up on a specific point.

You know those funk records from the 70's? The really, really 'alive' sounding ones?

Massive compression.
 
BTW, certain mics have a great warm sound that translates well to digital. Old ribbon mics are a real fave for serious engineers, and make drums sound fabulous.

Bermuda

I've been told this by two different Engineers but never heard it yet. I was told that tracking drums to those old 2" Analog tapes produce a HUGE drum sound, greater than digital. I must say my curiosity is peeking since today's modern drums and heads selections make drums sound fantastic compared to the old days. I was basically told, "If you have access to a 2" analog tape recorder in the studio, USE IT for the drums. What do you think about this?
 
Polly, Bo and everyone, actually.

This actually gets to the crux of the issue. Polly says about her mother, 8Mile, Bo and Grunter about cameras. The analogue formats force you to make decisions earlier because there is no going back and changing it - or it's at least a lot, lot harder to change it.

I think that's the real advantage (or is it?) of digital everything is that you can go back over and edit more easily with an 'undo' button at your disposal. We can argue about analogue sound and the number of grains a ISO200 film might have over a 5MP camera (for the record, I have a small collection of film cameras - a Pentax SFXN, and a pair of student Prakticas (MTL 3 and 5 - the 3 is jammed though) as well as a couple of other lying around and I was brought up with a photography mad Dad)) - so I understand the appeal of the film formats and their tangible quality as well as the downside.

It's arguably more critical in film and video to edit the minute detail because the eye is generally more discerning that the ear, and I agree - if I'm doing quick shots for something like DW, then I'll use an old digital camera because it's quicker, easier and more productive. If I'm doing it for pleasure, I'll use the film if I can - because I actually think it's more 'fun'.

If you're talking about art, then this is where it all gets a bit stickier. I record to digital because it is cheap, quick, high quality and simple. More-or-less all the things that tape isn't, but I often get caught in the 'endless mixing' loop because my workflow doesn't have to be defined by the equipment. The endless freedom to chop and change makes it much harder for me to be productive - so for me, the only solution is to use analogue outboard and effectively use Pro Tools only for playback and recording to stereo from the desk. That forces my workflow and ensures that I'm actually making decisions. I'm sure that if I were a professional, this wouldn't be a problem but as a (fairly experienced) amateur - it absolutely is. I can mix in analogue in two hours (for say, a static 16 - track, four minute mix) and get a decent enough result. I can spend literally triple that doing it 'in the box' because nobody is forcing my decisions. And I need my decisions made early! Like with a typewriter, like with a film camera.

You know, if Ansel Adams were around today - I bet he'd be touting the advantages of the digital medium. Just as music artists tout the advantages of digital too. But the process of making music or images, is the same. You still have to have the ideas to execute. And if you can't seem to get anything done and in the can, that's not the fault of the gear. It's like folks with huge drumsets and folks with small drumsets: how do you use the gear?

Granted, I think the problem is that there's so many ways to get something done, that everyone has to take their time to come up with their own workflow solutions to their end product. Back in the days of film and analog recording, it was a simpler process because you had less choices on how to get it done. But that's not a problem of the gear, that's the brain's fault for not seeing the forest for the trees.

I got a chance to hear professional LIFE photog Joe McNally speak at a conference and he says he'll never go back to film (and the man has been in his business for almost 40 years now). His view of these newfangled digital thingamabob cameras is this: you just bought yourself a Ferrari - don't drive it like the Little ol' lady from Pasadena who only drives to church on Sundays at 30 miles per hour!

My little Zoom R16 16-track recorder is something that the Beatles would've killed for back in the day - it's so easy to do CD-quality recordings with it. It's up to me to max it to its full potential and attempt to make art with it. If anything, having gone digital has made it increasingly hard for me to blame the gear when the images suck or the recording is not up to snuff. And I think that's a good thing.
 
I've been told this by two different Engineers but never heard it yet. I was told that tracking drums to those old 2" Analog tapes produce a HUGE drum sound, greater than digital. I must say my curiosity is peeking since today's modern drums and heads selections make drums sound fantastic compared to the old days. I was basically told, "If you have access to a 2" analog tape recorder in the studio, USE IT for the drums. What do you think about this?

I think this is great. Provided you can actually find a new roll of tape that won't cost you $500 which only gives you about 15 minutes of recording time. There's a reason these older analog studios are getting expensive: maintenance on the gear (a good repair technician costs about $65 an hour to keep that stuff running up to snuff) and tape. Factor in the brick and mortar costs (an outrageously high electric bill since the older gear sucks more amperage and you need better and silent air conditioning to keep it all cool) and I'm not surprised ProTools took off the way it did.

But a friend of mine has a 2" tape deck in his completely analog recording studio that I helped him build, so if you want to go there, I'll give you his number. I suggested to him at one point to keep all the old analog gear but replace the recorder part with ProTools. He thought I was crazy.
 
Bo, I don't disagree that it becomes a mental thing.

That said, I think there are differences with the physicality of analogue mixing that are different from doing it entirely digitally - granted, these can be rectified with a good control surface (usually) but there is a difference even there. It's not something I can objectively quantify - but I feel better doing my mixes on analogue gear.

That's not to say that it's any better though. I know that my computer and the associated software and equipment available to me now would have been considerably more than state-of-the-art even twenty years ago. That's not taking microphones into account, obviously, but the access to gear that is possible now - financially as well as logistically is incredible. It means a lot more rubbish will be produced, but it also means that people like me can do good work with a relatively low outlay. The same is true of your R16 and I've been impressed with those interfaces since I first saw them.

Digital is a superior form, objectively. The quality is better than tape, the flexibility is immeasurably more and everything is much easier - including distribution. I enjoy using analogue, but in a professional environment I wouldn't track or edit using it. I would use whatever is better to get the job done and at the front of the process, it is undeniably digital for the majority of cases. But sometimes I like the old gear.
 
Thing is, with digital's incredible advantages there's the temptation to use it - as much as possible. That's where you end up with quantising, pitch correction, punch ins etc used as a matter of course rather than like a Phantom Agent's gun (only as a last resort!). Maybe I'm just idealistic, but I prefer the sound, and the idea, of a band performing on a recording together, achieving as much separation as possible through directional mics and baffles.

It reminds me of research psychologist, Dan Gilbert's talk about happiness and how too much choice can actually work against happiness. I personally find having too many options a bit confusing.
 
I've been told this by two different Engineers but never heard it yet. I was told that tracking drums to those old 2" Analog tapes produce a HUGE drum sound, greater than digital. I must say my curiosity is peeking since today's modern drums and heads selections make drums sound fantastic compared to the old days. I was basically told, "If you have access to a 2" analog tape recorder in the studio, USE IT for the drums. What do you think about this?

Recorded properly, all drum sounds can be fantastic, there's just a difference in the way they're captured. As I mentioned, there's a saturation (warmth from distortion) that adds to the old sound in a way that digital doesn't inherently do. Compare film to video, both accepted in their own way, but with different textures. Like video where a "film look" can be applied, digital audio can also be manipulated to get an analog vibe. It's not exactly the same, but suitable for a generation listening to mp3s through ear buds.

Bermuda
 
Last edited:
Bo, I don't disagree that it becomes a mental thing.

That said, I think there are differences with the physicality of analogue mixing that are different from doing it entirely digitally - granted, these can be rectified with a good control surface (usually) but there is a difference even there. It's not something I can objectively quantify - but I feel better doing my mixes on analogue gear.

That's not to say that it's any better though. I know that my computer and the associated software and equipment available to me now would have been considerably more than state-of-the-art even twenty years ago. That's not taking microphones into account, obviously, but the access to gear that is possible now - financially as well as logistically is incredible. It means a lot more rubbish will be produced, but it also means that people like me can do good work with a relatively low outlay. The same is true of your R16 and I've been impressed with those interfaces since I first saw them.

Digital is a superior form, objectively. The quality is better than tape, the flexibility is immeasurably more and everything is much easier - including distribution. I enjoy using analogue, but in a professional environment I wouldn't track or edit using it. I would use whatever is better to get the job done and at the front of the process, it is undeniably digital for the majority of cases. But sometimes I like the old gear.

I understand. I would love nothing better than to physically use a patchbay to route a signal from my API mic pre to a LA-2A tube compressor and then onto a physical 4'x8' metal plate in another room for reverb on it's way to a MCI 2-inch deck running at 30 ips. And then the joy of doing an actual razor blade edit on the half-inch mixdown tape using nothing but a china marker and splicing blocks...and before the actual tracking, I laid down a 60Hz tone for 20 minutes so I can sync that music to an ancient U-matic video deck (an ancient form of SMPTE) - too ;)
 
Oh shush you! Your avatar doesn't mean you can get away with that level of sarcasm, sir!

I'm not denying that digital is easier, it is. But the lack of choice and force of workflow means I work quicker when mixing. Editing? No way would I do that on analogue. Not in a million years!
 
Analog's doing well (financially) when I pop into my local record stores.
picture.php


From my personal experience, the formats go like so:

MP3's - Only if I've got a hard copy, usually a CD, version as well. I'm not too hard on this, but there have been many times, where I've bought a song or two and several months or a year down the line it get's lost or deleted. I transfer music to and from my phone at least twice a week, it's easy to forget something is still there and wipe the sd card and then S.O.L.

CD - My personal favorite. I just like to have the actual physical copy. I don't know why I just have a serious problem only having my music in digitized file format. Although it's just as cumbersome as a cassette tape so I rip the discs over.

Cassette - Ha, that's a good one. Only if it happens to be 1990 again.

Vinyl - Yes please!!! Any day of the week as a mater of fact. The best thing about vinyl in my opinion is that you can get full, somewhat obscure albums in their entirety. I hate compilations with a passion.
 
Oh shush you! Your avatar doesn't mean you can get away with that level of sarcasm, sir!

I'm not denying that digital is easier, it is. But the lack of choice and force of workflow means I work quicker when mixing. Editing? No way would I do that on analogue. Not in a million years!


I had this dream that I had to do some editing and I was on a desert island with splicing blocks but no razor blades! Aaaaaahhhhhh!
 
I had this dream that I had to do some editing and I was on a desert island with splicing blocks but no razor blades! Aaaaaahhhhhh!

All hail Joel Tall! :)
 
When it comes to listening to music it seems that digital has dominated with the popularity of CDs and MP3s.

Is the analog age collecting dust or are there any more advancements just as there have been in recent years with digital?

I was surprised when I found out a Melbourne community radio station I listen to was playing new tracks from new albums that were released on vinyl.

Now there is this big debate about analog vs digital but I've got the impression (from what I've read on the net) is that analog (being analogously recorded) makes a truer representation of sound waves and has a 'warmer sound' etc. while digital allows for a higher dynamic range (which sadly isn't exploited enough)...their pros and cons go on

...and what about tape? Does anyone still record to tape? (I'm thinking Compact Cassette Tapes - a much more portable analog format).

I had these kind of wonderings and a few weeks ago I ended up picking up and listening to a few old southern-european-folk tracks (on compact cassette tape) that were collecting dust at my grandfather's place.

...and what's next after digital...quantum?

We are pretty much at the stage where analog is being used as an effect within the digital recording - have a look at the new desk that Neve is making - it's fully analog with no automation and is designed to add 'that Neve analog sound" to your ProTools (or alternative) sessions. (btw I love analog)

Cassette? half of an 1/8" tape going at approx 1.84 feet per second? No thanks.

What's after digital? If we can teach a computer to count to more than 1 maybe there's something - I suspect it will be a fluid organic soup that can think...... but then it won't need us anymore ;-)
 
What's after digital? If we can teach a computer to count to more than 1 maybe there's something - I suspect it will be a fluid organic soup that can think...... but then it won't need us anymore ;-)

A fluid organic soup? That's just a human being sans the the framework and outer layer :)

Everyone says it's quantum but the only thing I know about it is that it uses paradoxes. Also, at the quantum level the act of observation changes the event - something that anyone who's dealt with stage nerves would recognise.


RollingStone000 said:
Vinyl - Yes please!!! Any day of the week as a mater of fact. The best thing about vinyl in my opinion is that you can get full, somewhat obscure albums in their entirety. I hate compilations with a passion.

RollingStone, I've never been a hi-fi buff so I found the switch to digital was simply more convenient and saved me from the pops and scratches ... apart from one thing ...

Album cover art. We've lost all those visual and tactile experiences. My big sister's copy of Sgt Pepper really thrilled me in 1966 - it helped imbue the mind-bending music with an extra sense of magic that I remember to this day. Now the visual side of things is covered by video and, when that's well done, it's a definite advancement. Of course a bad video gives about as much pleasure as this:

awful_album_cover.jpg


... I wonder if the dorky videos of today will be as funny to people in the future as this cover? :)

On the other hand there was Jim Flora's wonderful cover art:

1814657634_bafb4f32dd.jpg


57182518_a5a68151c6.jpg



... not to mention the legendary Roger Dean:

woyaya_hi.jpg



yes_tales_from_topographic_oceans-2SD908-1211848958.jpeg


That's what I miss the most.
 
We are pretty much at the stage where analog is being used as an effect within the digital recording

Not only in recording but even in the live performances as well. You ever hear of Serato or Traktor? Long story short, time-coded vinyl. You set up your turntables, and hook them up to the interface unit. The software is loaded onto a desktop or laptop with your whole music/sound collection visible. The software and interface read the signal that's being emitted from the time-coded vinyl records with is reading your music collection as well and where a decade and more ago you used to have to lug crates of records, now you only need two.

Although, now a lot of your old school cats that had to lug crates look at the new comers who've only used a Serato or Traktor and kind of think of it as cheating.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja9F63jeGOU

Polly: I've got to agree with you on that art aspect. They've got to figure out how to digitally convey all of the backing information and content that an actual physical copy does. That's the biggest reason I don't buy music in digital form only.
 
The information on a CD is a digital file format BTW.

Well yeah... smart guy. Just kidding, I kind of had a feeling there would be a hang up with that statement of mine.

I was kind of referring to this push that tech companies are making to store everything in their cloud system. I just don't trust them; not in the context of big brother, they know where you are, etc. They've easily had the information on a large majority of the population for the last ten years, at least. I just don't trust them in regards to their capabilities to have that information for the next twenty or thirty years and not screw it up in some way. At least if I have a hard copy CD, cassette, or record, it'd be up to me to screw it up. If I've got something stored on someone else's server, there's just more of a chance for something to go wrong.

And just a random prediction, I wouldn't be surprised if in maybe ten or fifteen years down the line people start referring to CDs as analog as well. One of those generational things.
 
I was kind of referring to this push that tech companies are making to store everything in their cloud system. I just don't trust them

Sure, Sony's abortive foray into digital espionage on their customers hardly inspires confidence. Bear in mind, they covertly installed the rootkits via their CDs ... it doesn't matter what you do, they'll find you. "They" being ...


comp_surfing-the-web.jpg
 
I was kind of referring to this push that tech companies are making to store everything in their cloud system. I just don't trust them; not in the context of big brother, they know where you are, etc. They've easily had the information on a large majority of the population for the last ten years, at least. I just don't trust them in regards to their capabilities to have that information for the next twenty or thirty years and not screw it up in some way. At least if I have a hard copy CD, cassette, or record, it'd be up to me to screw it up. If I've got something stored on someone else's server, there's just more of a chance for something to go wrong.

Something along those lines is the phenomena of digital obsolescence...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_obsolescence

...and this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC3z8sXpBHg
 
Åñëè Âàì òîò÷àñ íåîáõîäèìî àíãëèéñêèé â îôèñå, êîìïàíèÿ "Àêöåíò" ëåãêî è ïðîñòî ñìîæåò Âàì ýòî ñäåëàòü. Ìû âäóì÷èâî îáðàùàåìñÿ ê îáó÷åíèþ Âàøèõ ïîä÷èíåííûõ, ïîòîìó îíè â èòîãå èìåþò âñå òðåáóåìûå çíàíèÿ. Åñëè Âû íàöåëåíû íà êà÷åñòâåííûé ðåçóëüòàò îáó÷åíèÿ, òî âû åãî çàèìååòå íàèáîëåå ïîëíî . Ñïåöèàëèñòû êîìïàíèè "Àêöåíò" ïîíèìàþò, êàêîå áðåìÿ îòâåòñòâåííîñòè îíè íåñóò, èìåííî ïîýòîìó èòîã êóðñîâ ïîëíîñòüþ Âàñ óäîâëåòâîðèò. Ïðèìèòå íóæíîå ðåøåíèå ïðÿìî ñåãîäíÿ, è âåñüìà áûñòðî ïîçíàíèÿ àíãëèéñêîãî ÿçûêà ó Âàøèõ ïîä÷èíåííûõ âûéäóò íà íîâûé óðîâåíü.
 
Back
Top