Digital Verses Analogue sound quality.

red_ice

I hear this all the time on the radio. Pompous irish musicians who go on about how they dont want to use protools etc to record their music as they are above it all.. seriously?

Ok, am i wrong here? Let me break down my understanding. I dont have any sound qualifications, but i do understand codecs and frequencies etc...

Wav files have their frequencies at which they will record in. The higher the frequency, the better the sound quality right? Their bitrate, all that lark.

A wav file can produce a crystal clear sound. It will produce sounds that are not possible to hear with our ears also. Thats where the mp3 comes in, it gets rid of those (useless, heavy on the filesize) frequencies.

Now... heres what i find funny. These guys go on about "Yaw, i recorded the toonz on analogue, because ye know, you get a much richer sound, its the one take, a better vibe on tape and again, the sound is much better". So record with protools, keep the vibe going at a consistant rate, and do a one take then? Treat the digital enviroment like an analog one?

Hmm... your talking sh1te arent you? Yea, you are.. Whats your main platform for selling those tracks? Oh? itunes? which deals in... mp3's? And, I see your selling your music in physical form on CD's? Which use? wav files... So, you aim to put out sh1t quality tracks, on a platform you refuse to record with? The conversion from analogue to digital would also downgrade the sound quality too..

I have to be missing something here. Maybe i have an untrained ear... I mean, i can dial in what tone i am looking for on my amp.. but its not something thats as obvious as a picture from a film SRL camera verses the same shot with a DSLR camera.

Can someone shed light on the facts here for me pls? If your dead set on an analog sound isnt that something that mastering could help you with? I dont mean to offend any users here, but i heard a guy going on about this on the radio earlier on and he was very impressed with himself and it really just rubbed me up the wrong way as he just constantly contradicted himself.

Rockshamrover

I think some of the professional guys on here can help you with this.

My non professional understanding of this is as follows.

Music recorded on Analogue feels warmer as the analogue device adds something to the music. It's like a chord played on a crappy 100 Euro guitar versus one played on a top of the line instrument. The quality of the sound is better.

There's a whole industry out there in trying to emulate analogue sound into digital DAWS.

The other thing about the analogue stuff is that no two models sound exactly the same, so all these guys emulating stuff are coming up with different sounding emulations of the same analogue models.

Seziertisch

Any and all approaches are justified. Digital (with its editing powers/ability to alter things quite dramatically after the fact) is more open to abuse (pitch and timing correction for example). Although a lot of times the abilities of digital can be used in very creative and innovative ways (i.e. time stretching vocals to perfectly mesh with a beat).

I think the point that the guy you heard was trying to make was to regard every take as the take and to be prepared and ready to rock when you go to record. Mike Hedges cited the fact that he was no longer expected to record bands that could play in tune/time but also bands that couldn't as one of the reason he gave up producing as such and took up his current A&R job. He gave the example of bands that when asked to redo a take asked why he couldn't just edit it together.

Analogue (tape) as a recording medium has a natural compression and harmonic distortion to it that tends to gel sounds from a number of different sources together in a very pleasing way. Digital has the advantage of (ideally speaking) what you put in you get out. There are of course varying levels, flavours and price points to digital recording. Not all converters are equal and there is more to the differences between converters than just x uses chip a and y uses chip b. There are converters renowned for their accuracy as well as converters with transformers and other analogue technology built in aiming to provide analogue sounding digital. Digital also has the advantage of being current technology (technical support is readily available) whereas tape is a bit trickier and depending on how lucky you are it can make bet quite a bit more expensive. The maintenance of a tape machine might not be worth your while if you are not actually making any money from it.

My way of seeing it is that if someone is getting results whatever they feel to be valid is valid for them. Some producers insist on sticking with tape as much as humanly possibly and only after recording has been finished converting to the digital domain (T Bone Burnett for example), others use whatever is appropriate for the sound they are after in any given situation (Butch Vig for example). Both are getting results. A lot of times in such analogue/digital debates you get guys weighing in heavily for either side that aren't getting results, though both approaches are proven to be equally valid (at least from where I am standing).

Also, I would say that in terms of guitar tone what you hear when you play is not necessarily reflective of what the mics are picking up. For example playing with a group of people putting on the bright switch on the amp means that you sound louder and cut through the competing sources. The bright switch is part of your sound, say. Put a mic in front of an amp in a studio situation with the bright switch on and you would more than likely find that it introduces a certain unpleasant harshness to the sound. The same can be true of any amp eq decisions. If you were to ask sound engineers (both studio and live) how ofter someone shows up with a set up that just absolutely kills when they put a mic in front of it you would probably get "almost never" as an answer. However, if you were to ask the guys being recorded how they rated their tone/sound most would say it was there or thereabouts. That said, even in cases of very capable producers/engineers recording bands with the absolute best of gear using the absolute best of recording gear it can sometimes be difficult to get things sounding right in a certain room/recording space (John Leckie talks about this in relation to The Bends by Radiohead).

red_ice

Rockshamrover wrote: »

Music recorded on Analogue feels warmer as the analogue device adds something to the music. It's like a chord played on a crappy 100 Euro guitar versus one played on a top of the line instrument. The quality of the sound is better.

I dont buy that at all. I mean, at the end of the day, tone is tone, and thats something that you either have or not. You shouldnt have to rely on a certain recording technology to get a good sound! At the end of the day, its going to be a wav/mp3 so whats the point?

Rockshamrover wrote: »

The other thing about the analogue stuff is that no two models sound exactly the same, so all these guys emulating stuff are coming up with different sounding emulations of the same analogue models.

Im sorry? Are you talking about how the tapes can go out of sync etc?

Seziertisch wrote: »

I think the point that the guy you heard was trying to make was to regard every take as the take and to be prepared and ready to rock when you go to record. Mike Hedges cited the fact that he was no longer expected to record bands that could play in tune/time but also bands that couldn't as one of the reason he gave up producing as such and took up his current A&R job. He gave the example of bands that when asked to redo a take asked why he couldn't just edit it together.

Why cant the take be the take with digital in that case? Shouldnt a musician go into a recording studio with that frame of mind when recording? I know i did and we record digital. Thats very true, the quality of musician has gone down alot, but i put that down to the youth of today listening to trash, and the caliber of musician thats producing said trash doesn't know what they are doing. However, could we also see the side of things that mike hedges didnt want to learn digital? Too lazy? Set in his ways? Im sure that theres a bit of both reasons in there!

Seziertisch wrote: »

My way of seeing it is that if someone is getting results whatever they feel to be valid is valid for them. Some producers insist on sticking with tape as much as humanly possibly and only after recording has been finished converting to the digital domain (T Bone Burnett for example), others use whatever is appropriate for the sound they are after in any given situation (Butch Vig for example). Both are getting results. A lot of times in such analogue/digital debates you get guys weighing in heavily for either side that aren't getting results, though both approaches are proven to be equally valid (at least from where I am standing).

Id agree with the results argument... however, using tape as an argument for having to use the take as the only take lark i dont agree with at all. You can use the digital environment as an analogue one, you cant vise vera. Another point to consider is when its put online, said tones surely are effected with the conversion?

dav nagle

I hope the world moves on from tape, just to put this arguement to bed. Digital is the future we all must except it for better or worse. I am pro digital and I have heard these nit wits talking about 'only on tape' bollix.

Seziertisch

red_ice wrote: »

Why cant the take be the take with digital in that case? Shouldnt a musician go into a recording studio with that frame of mind when recording? I know i did and we record digital. Thats very true, the quality of musician has gone down alot, but i put that down to the youth of today listening to trash, and the caliber of musician thats producing said trash doesn't know what they are doing. However, could we also see the side of things that mike hedges didnt want to learn digital? Too lazy? Set in his ways? Im sure that theres a bit of both reasons in there!

Are we talking about the same Mike Hedges here? This is the one I am talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Hedges

I can't see any reason to doubt his motivation seeing as he is a genuine world class producer as well as the fact that "learning digital" really isn't all that difficult. He wants to record bands that can play and not make a bunch of (semi) musicians sound like they can play. The full interview with him is on recordproducer.com I think.

dav nagle

Seziertisch wrote: »

Are we talking about the same Mike Hedges here? This is the one I am talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Hedges

I can't see any reason to doubt his motivation seeing as he is a genuine world class producer as well as the fact that "learning digital" really isn't all that difficult. He wants to record bands that can play and not make a bunch of (semi) musicians sound like they can play. The full interview with him is on recordproducer.com I think.

Wow nice work from Mike! Is there many Irish producers cut from the same cloth?

Rockshamrover

Red,

I am talking about analogue consoles (which I know nothing about as I've never even seen one in the flesh):eek:

But from what I have read, by the nature of how they are made, no two ever sound exactly the same. So they give something unique to a production I suppose. That's probably part of the reason why they haven't been made redundant by Digital. The professionals use these alongside digital to get the best of both worlds.

Good luck.

Rockshamrover

Red,

"tone is tone". were do you think the tone comes from? Pick your favourite guitarist, get him/her to play the exact same piece of music using a crappy guitar with a sh1t amp. Record it.

Do the exact same thing with a quality guitar and amp. You think they will sound the same? Why do you think all the best guitarist's in the world play the best instruments and use the best amps?

splitrmx

red_ice wrote: »

At the end of the day, its going to be a wav/mp3 so whats the point?

The journey to the final medium is just as important (if not more) than the final medium itself.

Recording yourself onto tape, and then transferring that audio to Pro Tools and burning a CD will sound different to recording yourself straight to Pro Tools and then burning a CD. Some people would prefer the tape method in this example, some people wouldn't hear much of a difference. It's down to personal preference really.

Personally I like the sound of tape but using it in the studio would create so many other problems that I wouldn't bother.

DamagedTrax

analog has some beautiful qualities and (this may upset a few people) so does digital.

i think a mixture of both is preferable.

i like recording analog (thru a desk and to tape if possible). i like mixing ITB. and i like to bounce back to tape if available.

limiting yourself to one medium is just that, limiting.

Seziertisch

Rockshamrover wrote: »

Red,

"tone is tone". were do you think the tone comes from? Pick your favourite guitarist, get him/her to play the exact same piece of music using a crappy guitar with a sh1t amp. Record it.

Do the exact same thing with a quality guitar and amp. You think they will sound the same? Why do you think all the best guitarist's in the world play the best instruments and use the best amps?

+1

Neurojazz

http://www.uaudio.com/products/software/fatso/index.html

That sort of thing has got to be getting close!

DamagedTrax

Neurojazz wrote: »

http://www.uaudio.com/products/software/fatso/index.html

That sort of thing has got to be getting close!

it is unbelievably close.. im just demoing the fatso on a mix now. big warm and dirty :cool:. only other thing that comes anywhere near in plugin land is either the uad 33609 or the new nebula tape library.

danjokill

"At the end of the day, its going to be a wav/mp3 so whats the point?"
- There is a big difference between a wav and an Mp3. Anyone recording should record with the point of view that the 2 track bounce-down in the studio should be of the best quality to ensure future proofing of the material. Mp3 wont be around for ever, please god! Hence if you have recorded with the frame of mind this is going to end up an Mp3 and i don't need to worry about X,Y,Z then in 20 year time when some guy plays this back it will sound ****. No?
question : analogue = tape? don't think so!!!
tape is only a storage media! that does colour for better or worse the sound depending on what you want the outcome to be. I could go into a big long debate about saturation and different hysteresis loops but that is for another day.

The biggest problem with the profools camp is summing ........ and this is where digital falls down. The image gets screwed up in digital ......... and the sound has "a sheen" to it.
However if digital media is summed in analogue console it sounds so much better to me.
Something to do with the ones and zeros don't add up as nice as mVolts.
good tape on a good tape machine can sound great. as can digital with good D/A A/D conversion ........ however digital summing sounds weired to me.

madtheory

OMG. There is a lot of misinformation in this thread. I'll give you a few facts, then I suggest you go off to Wiki for more detail, at least to start.

The summing thing is not about fidelity. In fact, it's not about summing at all, despite what the vendors of these products want you to believe. They put in a sprinkling of science, and then a lot of marketting hype, for an overpriced item. Running your stereo mix through anything with trasnformers in it will get you the "analogue" sound, in the same way as a summer will. It's just adding harmonic distortion, which our ears like.

Back when PT TDM was current, Digidesign did not put dither on the mixer by default, so mixes sounded crap if you didn't know that. One solution was to mix on a desk. The other was to use the dithered mixer. That was about 10 years ago. It's OLD HAT and is no longer an issue.

32 bit floating point or 48 bit fixed DAW have huge amounts of headroom, and summing digitally is a trivial operation.

There were some issues with converter technology, but these days with oversampling and cheap to implement good reconstruction filters, most converters are incredibly good at their job.

OK, I don't have time for this now, I'll have to sum up-
tape is noisy, wobbly expensive and inconvenient.
Digital is cheap, facilitates the creative pricess, and it's very reliable.
All digital gear needs analogue bits to get from the mic and to the speaker. So EVERYTHING is "analogue"!
We are spoiled for choice these days with quality gear and low prices.
Pretty much nobody uses tape anymore.
Band width and bit rate are not the same.

danjokill

madtheory wrote: »

OMG. There is a lot of misinformation in this thread. I'll give you a few facts, then I suggest you go off to Wiki for more detail, at least to start.

The summing thing is not about fidelity. In fact, it's not about summing at all, despite what the vendors of these products want you to believe. They put in a sprinkling of science, and then a lot of marketting hype, for an overpriced item. Running your stereo mix through anything with trasnformers in it will get you the "analogue" sound, in the same way as a summer will. It's just adding harmonic distortion, which our ears like.

Back when PT TDM was current, Digidesign did not put dither on the mixer by default, so mixes sounded crap if you didn't know that. One solution was to mix on a desk. The other was to use the dithered mixer. That was about 10 years ago. It's OLD HAT and is no longer an issue.

32 bit floating point or 48 bit fixed DAW have huge amounts of headroom, and summing digitally is a trivial operation.

There were some issues with converter technology, but these days with oversampling and cheap to implement good reconstruction filters, most converters are incredibly good at their job.

OK, I don't have time for this now, I'll have to sum up-
tape is noisy, wobbly expensive and inconvenient.
Digital is cheap, facilitates the creative pricess, and it's very reliable.
All digital gear needs analogue bits to get from the mic and to the speaker. So EVERYTHING is "analogue"!
We are spoiled for choice these days with quality gear and low prices.
Pretty much nobody uses tape anymore.
Band width and bit rate are not the same.

i agree with harmonic distortion in relation to Running your stereo mix through anything with trasnformers to give analogue sound. However i have A/B'ed a mixes with the same mix first bussed out in stereo from the "box" throught the console and the same track broken out in all 24 tracks or so (can't remember how many tracks there was off hand) pan setting as per the inbox and the stereo image centre was well definitly better defined on the console mix break out. This was to my ears ...... But one mans cake is another mans cheese.

"PT TDM" never used it ...... but i can understand the issues with dithers as noted by yourself


"32 it floating point or 48 bit fixed DAW have huge amounts of headroom, and summing digitally is a trivial operation"

I disagree that it a tivial operation ..... digidesign, Steinberg and all the others use different engines to do this work . .... they all sound sound a little different ..... right?

DamagedTrax

I disagree that it a tivial operation ..... digidesign, Steinberg and all the others use different engines to do this work . .... they all sound sound a little different

no, with matched settings they all null. ableton had something weird going on up to version 6 but they seem to have sorted things out now though.

as far as the differances between an ITB and OTB mix with matched settings they will sound entirely differant which is why its very important to learn how to mix in the box. once you're aware of the differances it is very easy to compensate ITB to get the console sound, it might not be 100% spot on but sound is an ever changing thing and theres no denying that digital is the now.

just because it sounds slightly differant doesnt mean its any better or any worse.. just differant.

i57dwun4yb1pt8

I have a pacifica dual pre amp

would it be worth my while recording the final mix out through this and back in before mastering , as it is all transformer ?

DamagedTrax

DaDumTish wrote: »

I have a pacifica dual pre amp

would it be worth my while recording the final mix out through this and back in before mastering , as it is all transformer ?

possibly, with some mild settings you could easily get some nice tone. ive done it with an avalon pre and got results.

agaiin, the only deciding factor is your lugs

madtheory

danjokill wrote: »

throught the console

That's harmonic distortion too, but a lesser amount and of a different quality to a transformer based device.

danjokill

madtheory wrote: »

That's harmonic distortion too, but a lesser amount and of a different quality to a transformer based device.

i know

madtheory

The reason I point that out is because there are several plugins that will do the same thing- Cranesong tape, Massey tape, Vintage warmer, etc. etc. No need to fork out for expensive outboard unless you want to impress certain bands.

I'm not knocking all outboard. Just pointing out that most of it is hyped with marketing and pseudo science.

danjokill

The plug-in verses the outboard question ........ this is the real heart of the mater .......... Without question outboard! However some plugin's do come close.

Tom-eg

I came across this post and i had to reply cause i think youre looking at it the wrong way. Yes an MP3 will compress the audio file. Depending on the amount of compression it may make it a lot lower quailty. It can also make it sound pretty good. All this is besides the point though.

Just think of this situation. You take a photo and the quality is sh1te. You then convert the photo image into a compressed JPEG. Its still gonna look sh1te right? But if you took the photo and in the first place it was of better quality then the compression will do its job but it will still look better. Even with the same amount of compression.

As my tutor used to tell me "you can't shine sh1te". Its very true. No point in starting with a crap sound and expecting other things to mask it or hope that theyll make it sound better. I don't think many people will argue that digital is better sounding than analogue. Digital however is MUCH cheaper and FAR more convinient. Every link in the chain matters and if you can use analogue you should. However using digital can get you great results as well.

I personally prefer the sound of analogue but digital is the future if you like it or not. It makes sense to record with as good quality as you can before compression. No point in not caring because the final product will be compressed. It will only make it sound worse. You are fighting a losing battle if you want to use ALL analogue. Digital (provided you have all strong links, a/d and d/a converters etc) will give you great results too though.

i57dwun4yb1pt8

is it just me or do plugin eq's seem to need more radical " twists of the knob" so to speak than hardware eq's ?

I seem to be going for larger boosts or cuts in plugins than I would expect.

madtheory

These black and white arguments are silly- "plugins v outboard". It's not that simple. Far from it. To make an informed decision you need to know a fair bit about the underlying technologies, and do your listening tests in an acoustically neutral room. Most rooms, you move your head an inch and you get a totally different frequency response. And you have to do a proper AB test.

There are some amazingly good plugins, and there is some very over rated outboard, some that's downright crap, and vice versa. A good designer can get the result he/ she is after regardless of the tools.

Other pointless debates: IC v discrete, tube v solid state, analog v digital, and that old chestnut, mac v PC.

Most studios use a mixture of technlogies, whatever tool gets the job done effectively. That job is music, connecting with people. Not triumphantly collecting vintage analogue gear to impress folk.

danjokill

http://www.anamodaudio.com/

ATS-1 ANALOG TAPE SIMULATOR

Rockshamrover

madtheory wrote: »

These black and white arguments are silly- "plugins v outboard". It's not that simple. Far from it. To make an informed decision you need to know a fair bit about the underlying technologies, and do your listening tests in an acoustically neutral room. Most rooms, you move your head an inch and you get a totally different frequency response. And you have to do a proper AB test.

There are some amazingly good plugins, and there is some very over rated outboard, some that's downright crap, and vice versa. A good designer can get the result he/ she is after regardless of the tools.

Other pointless debates: IC v discrete, tube v solid state, analog v digital, and that old chestnut, mac v PC.

Most studios use a mixture of technlogies, whatever tool gets the job done effectively. That job is music, connecting with people. Not triumphantly collecting vintage analogue gear to impress folk.

Hi MT,

Which software do you reckon is closest to emulating hardware? That would be really useful info for us non-professionals.

Thanks

Rock.

DamagedTrax

Rockshamrover wrote: »

Which software do you reckon is closest to emulating hardware?

for me its UAD, softube (1176 and focusing eq are sublime) and artsacustic nebula (especially the new tape programs)

Neurojazz

+1 on the UAD - i personally can't wait to get a uad2quad (slobber) - it's been the most user friendly, simple and sweet sounding bunch of plugins i've ever used.

DamagedTrax

Neurojazz wrote: »

+1 on the UAD - i personally can't wait to get a uad2quad (slobber) - it's been the most user friendly, simple and sweet sounding bunch of plugins i've ever used.

i'm gonna enable the demo for fatso today i think.. although i know if i do that'll be 200 ill be parting with very very soon!

Neurojazz

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i'm gonna enable the demo for fatso today i think.. although i know if i do that'll be 200 ill be parting with very very soon!

Every other word on Gearslutz has been 'Fatso' for like 2 years now lol - wonder what they'll be baying for next!

DamagedTrax

Neurojazz wrote: »

Every other word on Gearslutz has been 'Fatso' for like 2 years now lol - wonder what they'll be baying for next!

seems like next up is a distressor. in the video about the fatso and how they modelled it you can see them also working on a dist and a few other bits and bobs. and since they're in partnership with EL now, i cant see whay not.

also the manleys should be along soon enough. imagine a uad slam or vari-mu.. that would be pretty special.

madtheory

Hardware is not necessarily better, so it follows that an emulation is not "better" either. I think it's fair to say that's not an opinion, it's a fact..

Rockshamrover wrote: »

Hi MT,

Which software do you reckon is closest to emulating hardware? That would be really useful info for us non-professionals.

Thanks

Rock.

The focusrite liquid mix is pretty cool too. And Altiverb. With Logic's Space Designer- you can make your own impulse responses very easily, very fun. The Tritone digital stuff is great. I've mentioned the Cranesong ones, they're fabuloso.

But there are a lot of plugins that don't emulate any hardware, and sound fantastic. Some of them are free! Like these:
http://www.ddmf.eu/

PaulBrewer

Sorry lads , I missed all this , I've been away in Abbey Road Studio 2 ....

Rockshamrover

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Sorry lads , I missed all this , I've been away in Abbey Road Studio 2 ....

Sounds interesting. What were you up to? Can you say?

Also what's your opinion on the Digital versus Analogue question?

PaulBrewer

I was just mucking about in Abbey Road - subtract the Beatles magic and all that's left is a fairly average studio really ...

In general the question is far too broad for a definitive answer.

The 'analogue' sound does exist - that Elton John song 'Are you ready for love' is a 1977 recording that was re released recently. It sounds fantastic to my ears.
One can clearly hear it sounds 'different' to most recent recordings with similar instrumentation.

Some analogue consoles are flat to 100kHz as it's felt that those 'out of band' frequencies play a part in the musicality of the perceived sound.
This would be the opinion of Rupert Neve himself.

With regard to lads chasing the analogue dream now my opinion would be that unless your analogue equipment is top class and maintained to a high standard you're pizzin in the wind.

A 30 year old Neve and a Studer will sound kak unless everything is in tip top shape. (there may be some truth to the argument that they actually can't sound as good as they did originally as current tape stock is , anecdotally at least, inferior to old stock)

Most studios aligned tape machines twice or more a day to maintain that operational peak.

Unless the current analogue buachaills are doing the same even a poxy Digi 192 will probably out perform it.

Rockshamrover

PaulBrewer wrote: »

I was just mucking about in Abbey Road - subtract the Beatles magic and all that's left is a fairly average studio really ...

In general the question is far too broad for a definitive answer.

The 'analogue' sound does exist - that Elton John song 'Are you ready for love' is a 1977 recording that was re released recently. It sounds fantastic to my ears.
One can clearly hear it sounds 'different' to most recent recordings with similar instrumentation.

Some analogue consoles are flat to 100kHz as it's felt that those 'out of band' frequencies play a part in the musicality of the perceived sound.
This would be the opinion of Rupert Neve himself.

With regard to lads chasing the analogue dream now my opinion would be that unless your analogue equipment is top class and maintained to a high standard you're pizzin in the wind.

A 30 year old Neve and a Studer will sound kak unless everything is in tip top shape. (there may be some truth to the argument that they actually can't sound as good as they did originally as current tape stock is , anecdotally at least, inferior to old stock)

Most studios aligned tape machines twice or more a day to maintain that operational peak.

Unless the current analogue buachaills are doing the same even a poxy Digi 192 will probably out perform it.

Nice one Paul.

It's amazing to think that most people on this forum have more tracks available to them on their DAWs than the Beatles had in Abbey Road.

That Elton John song was good. It had a very nice sound (I cant describe it properly) it was smooth to me.

PaulBrewer

Rockshamrover wrote: »

Nice one Paul.

It's amazing to think that most people on this forum have more tracks available to them on their DAWs than the Beatles had in Abbey Road.

That Elton John song was good. It had a very nice sound (I cant describe it properly) it was smooth to me.

'Smooth' is a good word to use.

madtheory

PaulBrewer wrote: »

The 'analogue' sound does exist - that Elton John song 'Are you ready for love' is a 1977 recording that was re released recently. It sounds fantastic to my ears.

IMO the difference is not because of analogue. It's because of the fashion for dead room acoustics back then, and the different aesthetic of instrument tone. I bet if you recorded in the same room with a PT rig you'd have 99% the sound, assuming you could get Elton of course

PaulBrewer

madtheory wrote: »

IMO the difference is not because of analogue. It's because of the fashion for dead room acoustics back then, and the different aesthetic of instrument tone. I bet if you recorded in the same room with a PT rig you'd have 99% the sound, assuming you could get Elton of course

There are still lots of dead room acoustics studios around but not many tracks that have that sound. Westland Studio in Dublin is one that comes to mind. It's a mid 80s David Hawkin's Eastlake design.

Have you ever recorded on high-end analogue MT?

(p.s. I'll whizz you down that box on Monday)

studiorat

Apart from the tape compression thing which I could never get right anyway I much prefer the sound of digital over 24 track analogue. Or that's to say, a decent modern digital machine, like an Otari RADAR or a Pro Tools HD rig with proper professional quality convertors. And I have done AB comparisons before anyone asks.

However, I still really like the sound of 1/4" and more so 1/2" tape for mastering on to. That said you do have to spend a hell of a lot of time adjusting and tweeking analogue machines to get them to sound right. As an assistant we'd often overbias a machine slightly more than specified just to tweek the sound a bit more.

Alinging multitracks everymorning was a real pain in the hoop too! And considering the amount of dropin's I seem to miss these days I'm pretty glad I have quick punch and an undo feature.

Personally I'd rather keep digital for the ease of use above tape any day. I still prefer to mix on an analogue console though.

dav nagle

What are the tape saturation plug ins like or the Portico tape saturation?

madtheory

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Have you ever recorded on high-end analogue MT?

(p.s. I'll whizz you down that box on Monday)

Yes! Otari MTR 90 II with SR via Amek Angela. What was played is what comes back. Very hi fi Alignment is a PITH. Lookin' forward to the box! ta v much ...

studiorat

madtheory wrote: »

Yes! Otari MTR 90 II with SR via Amek Angela. What was played is what comes back. Very hi fi Alignment is a PITH. Lookin' forward to the box! ta v much ...

Dolby SR!!! And you thought lining up a tape machine was a pain!!!

What's in the box lads???

PaulBrewer

studiorat wrote: »

Dolby SR!!! And you thought lining up a tape machine was a pain!!!

What's in the box lads???

Big Ben

madtheory

studiorat wrote: »

Dolby SR!!! And you thought lining up a tape machine was a pain!!!

It was probably a pain because no one ever lined up the SR... ya, I know, crazy. Still sounded great though. But I think that was because it was a very cool sounding room, and the Angela was very sweet.

PaulBrewer

madtheory wrote: »

Yes! Otari MTR 90 II with SR via Amek Angela. What was played is what comes back. Very hi fi Alignment is a PITH. Lookin' forward to the box! ta v much ...

Sulan ?
There's a whole sonic level above that I've only heard from US studios like Oceanway etc. MJ's Thriller is another good example.

tweeky

Me thinks that had more to do with mr's Jones, Temperton, Swedein and Jackson than the Digital/Analog debate. Oceanway /Windmill/ wherever can still squeeze out a poor one in the wrong hands, Neve /Mackie/SSL/or equiv.
A good song/players/production/engineering on digital will beat a bad one on analog and the reverse is also true. U2 are an example of best gear/analog blah blah but stuff still sounds a bit strange but when it's a good song who gives a S*it.

tweeky

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Sulan ?
There's a whole sonic level above that I've only heard from US studios like Oceanway etc. MJ's Thriller is another good example.

I recorded in Sulan with a Neve rack many moons ago and apart from some issues with the remote for the tape machine and proximity to good techs the room and control room sounded really good for the acoustic gig in hand.
I'm sure Logic with a HD rig would have captured it equally as good though.