OK since we're talking about tape...

[Blast9]

I presume most of those mid-to-late 80's recordings were still recorded and mixed analogue...

So why do a great deal of them not sound "holy grail-like" "warm" "euphonic" --- i.e. the desireable characteristics of the analogue chain?

My conclusion (probably obvious) - simply the recording approach... what with all the bright reverbs and cold, clicky-sounding drum machines, the emphasis on the attack of the note (drums and bass) chorus/flange/delay hell on guitars... big bright synth sounds... rockman and Gallien Krueger guitar amps... active basses with heinous top-end boost... more advanced noise-reduction systems to get a cleaner, more precise sound... working well within headroom limits... This all adds up to something quite the opposite of what we regard as "THE TAPE SOUND" i.e the medium was more of a storage device than an instrument.

er... discuss

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by Blast9

I presume most of those mid-to-late 80's recordings were still recorded and mixed analogue...

So why do a great deal of them not sound "holy grail-like" "warm" "euphonic" --- i.e. the desireable characteristics of the analogue chain?

My conclusion (probably obvious) - simply the recording approach... what with all the bright reverbs and cold, clicky-sounding drum machines, the emphasis on the attack of the note (drums and bass) chorus/flange/delay hell on guitars... big bright synth sounds... rockman and Gallien Krueger guitar amps... active basses with heinous top-end boost... more advanced noise-reduction systems to get a cleaner, more precise sound... working well within headroom limits... This all adds up to something quite the opposite of what we regard as "THE TAPE SOUND" i.e the medium was more of a storage device than an instrument.

er... discuss

For some of us that were there i can tell you this for sure..the producers i worked with wanted a sound that got closer and closer to digital actually. They liked the bottomn end that good analog provided but they wanted the punch and pristine quality of digital.The fact is people who weren't around don't know that there was no digital to dump your tapes down to. Your tape in a middle of a long production process(and back then it was long) took such a beating that come mix time so much hi end was gone. Yeah if you were smart you made copies, but sometimes the copies lacked the sparkle of the originals. Lots of guys i was working for were experimenting with dumping vocal takes to samplers just to be able to assemble the lead vocal and to preserve the sound. If there is one place where digital did improve things is in vocal production. Also Midi was in its hey day so again there was alot of shuttling back and forth between midi productions on sequencers synced up by SMPTE with tape. Again the more shuttling back, the les the hi's, the more EQ was added the more the noise. Also only the really hi end studio and i mean hi end could afford a 24 track Dolby SR system.

Eventually the Sony machines started taking over and the rest is history.

That is why people who came up in the tape era do not always have fun or warm memories of working with tape. Heck i remember the first time i read about Thomas Dolby using a very early 2 track Studio Vision system and me thinking "wow wouldn't it be great to be able to work on something like that one day?"

[Blast9]

Wow - samplers - how many seconds could the high-end samplers store back then? (Do you mean Synclavier/Emulator or Akai samplers?)

And after how long would you notice the multi-track tape degenerating? Are we talking hours or days?

[Outlaw Hans]

I have some 30 reels of basf 911's with late 80's productions on them.
Most of them have a full programmed backing track of drums, bass, synth's, percussion on two tracks and then the rest (vox, guitars etc.) is added on the other tracks. So 80% is fake digital instruments that only have little tape sound added to them since they were never multitracked to tape to begin with.

[Blast9]

Do you mean they were assembled on sequencers first, then balanced on a mixer and recorded to 2 tracks?

[adamcal]

exactly, vocals and whatever real is on tape, TC on track 24 running a sequencer will all the synths running live into the desk.

I thought this was great at the time, but just try bringing up one of those tracks now, where are all the sounds? where is my Atari, or the QX1. where did the Emulator 2 and S900 disks go?

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by Blast9

Wow - samplers - how many seconds could the high-end samplers store back then? (Do you mean Synclavier/Emulator or Akai samplers?)

We used 2-3 Akai S1000 samplers with maxed memory synced to a sequencer.
The hardest part was getting it to lock exactly to the music.

That is also how some producers did pitch correction. You sampled the offending words and pitch shifted in the sampler and flew it back on to tape.

Also its how we copied the choruses. Mixed them down to 2 tracks(16 tracks of vocals), sampled it and played it on 2 free analog tracks.

Yeah fun times.

Originally Posted by Blast9

And after how long would you notice the multi-track tape degenerating? Are we talking hours or days?

Depends on the machine.

You have to remember studios back in the day were running 24 hours a day(i know it sounds funny these days that studios were working that hard), so the tape machines and tape took a beating.

Speaking about machines one machine you never hear much around here which had its little run in its hey day was the Akai MG1214 & 1212.

Not cool enough to be in the hi end sound motels, but a big step up from an 8 track, these machines saw alot of work in the midline and project studios in the 80's. Lots of records were cut on those...when they actually worked. And you thought ADAT machines had problems.

A really suped up midline/project studio had 2 of these synced up with a sequencer to give the producer of the month a "real pro studio".

[vernier]

I presume most of those mid-to-late 80's recordings were still recorded and mixed analogue...

3M, Sony, and Mitsubishi digital multitracks was in the eighties, as well as analog.

So why do a great deal of them not sound "holy grail-like" "warm" "euphonic" --- i.e. the desireable characteristics of the analogue chain?

Drum machines and too much digital verb hurt the eighties.
'

[duckoff]

We used 2-3 Akai S1000 samplers with maxed memory synced to a sequencer.
The hardest part was getting it to lock exactly to the music.

That is also how some producers did pitch correction. You sampled the offending words and pitch shifted in the sampler and flew it back on to tape.

Also its how we copied the choruses. Mixed them down to 2 tracks(16 tracks of vocals), sampled it and played it on 2 free analog tracks.

Yep - that was me too ! I'd have 4 or 5 Maxxed out Akais running just vocals - all tuned & pieced together on my Atari 1040 - fix it up & track back to tape

As for the tape degeneration problem I just used to do alot of work on slaves - for example doing vocals I'd just do a rough 2 track mix & bounce to a second machine / new reel & do dubs on that so at least the main backing track reel wasn't being screwed up. When it came to mix time I'd just sync the 2 machines ( keeping fingers crossed that any splicing hadn't screwed the timecode track ) & hey presto - an almost virgin backing track to mix with.

I was definitely one of those who couldn't wait to get away from tape to digital ( although I still occasionally track drums to 2'' )

[Sounds Great]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

Speaking about machines one machine you never hear much around here which had its little run in its hey day was the Akai MG1214 & 1212.

Not cool enough to be in the hi end sound motels, but a big step up from an 8 track, these machines saw alot of work in the midline and project studios in the 80's. Lots of records were cut on those...when they actually worked. And you thought ADAT machines had problems.

Hall and Oates were known to both have had them and trade tapes back and forth with ideas they were working on. I had an MG1214 when they first came out and sold it before long to be replaced by a Fostex E16 (30 ips version). The Fostex sounded much better. The Akai actually sounded pretty good and worked great, but the DBX noise reduction compressed the bass like crazy to my ears.

[jindrich]

thrill,
were really "lots of records" cut in the usa with the mg1212s? that thing was really cool but i always thought it couldnt be used beyond a writing or demo tool. The 16 track fostex and tascam machines were on another level though.

and dont you think it was more the h3000 (with or without sample option) the one dedicated to pitch correction? the s950/1000s certainly were dedicated to comp and fly in vocals, even fired by hand when smpte-midi didnt work too well together for some odd reason.

an entire day to assemble a vocal line with a sampler, those were the days...

[Blast9]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

We used 2-3 Akai S1000 samplers with maxed memory synced to a sequencer.
The hardest part was getting it to lock exactly to the music.

Wow - so how many MB did a maxed-out S1000 have? Must have been pretty tiny!

[jindrich]

Originally Posted by Blast9

Wow - so how many MB did a maxed-out S1000 have? Must have been pretty tiny!

the s1000 could have up to (VERY EXPENSIVE) 32MB of RAM, and it worked at 16@44.1 so you do the math.

[Outlaw Hans]

"Do you mean they were assembled on sequencers first, then balanced on a mixer and recorded to 2 tracks?"

-yep.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by jindrich

thrill,
were really "lots of records" cut in the usa with the mg1212s? that thing was really cool but i always thought it couldnt be used beyond a writing or demo tool. The 16 track fostex and tascam machines were on another level though.

People said the same thing about 8 track 1/2" & 1/4" machines rememeber?

This was before affordable home digital existed so lots of midline/project studios that needed 24 tracks it was a way in.

I've never considered the 16 track 1" & 1/2" format a pro format either.

Fostex main thing is that it used Dolby for its noise reduction while to me the Tascam machines had a more solid transport.

Originally Posted by jindrich

and dont you think it was more the h3000 (with or without sample option) the one dedicated to pitch correction?

Yeah if you were engineering a big studio but remember we are talking about the 80's and the H3000 was really expensive. Heck everything that was pro audio back then was real expensive. Its part of the reason i get upset when i hear people complainig about how expensive a Digi PT HD rig is.

People getting into recording now really don't know how good they got it.

Originally Posted by jindrich

the s950/1000s certainly were dedicated to comp and fly in vocals, even fired by hand when smpte-midi didnt work too well together for some odd reason.

an entire day to assemble a vocal line with a sampler, those were the days...

Yeah using samplers for things other than sampling was becoming a reality. Dance music had influenced every form of popular genre since the late 70's so remixing or reproducing was gaining its foot hold in a big way. And the funny thing is the guys who were at the fore front of doing this were Bob Clearmountain, Andy Wallace, Tom and Chris Lord Alge...names that sound familiar right?

Being in the studio in the 80's was an exciting time but also very tedious. I miss it sometimes...especially here in NYC.

[jindrich]

Thrill, it must have been great to be in the NYC studio scene in the 80's. Along with London those were the two Mecas at the time when emerging technology turned the entire studio, and this time for real, into another whole instrument: S1000, Emu, SMPTE, MIDI, H3000, Drawmer, SPX, Linn, FM and TX, early sequencers, plus the first semi-automated consoles.
All that opened new horizons to all engineers specially in the way they used those new tools, often in very inconventional forms. That made every studio and engineer/producer to retain a distinctive sound, completely different to one another. Unlike nowadays, where the ubiquitous "DAW-style" has levelled everything out and you can't tell Eminem from Metallica, U2, Madonna, Beyonce or American Idol anymore. They all just sound the same now.

Besides the desirable big studios, the thing is back then a simple analog 8 track, an Atari and an S1000 were already enough to get you in the game, as long as you had the talent (notice it wasnt about the stupid 20 preamps and compression flavours). While very primitive by today standards, the posibilities of such setup were considered unlimited. After tracking to tape you could sample the vocals into the S1000 ,cut and spread one or several vocal takes all along a master keyboard, even one word per each of the 88 keys, and assemble any vocal comp you could think of, even map that into a MIDI sequence. And then filter or tune each phrase or word., etc. And that was just the beginning!


Looking back then it all seems wonderful but even when I remember being completely blown away when I was demoed the original H3000, I won't trade all that for what we got today, really. It's just mind blowing what you can achieve nowadays with just a MacBook Pro and Logic Studio, for instance.
What I do miss though is the attitudes. People really listened to the records; actually to the very same vinyl or compilation tape, over and over again, at their bedrooms. And even with Stock Aitken and Waterman, it still was all about music at the time, and labels poured LOTS of money for bands to stay for months in the studios to make great albums. Will we see another Thriller or Joshua Tree again?



On the technology side, now that I think about it it's funny how everything has changed and how Digidesign has built its empire out of that paltry Audiomedia card. It wasn't the software, because SoundTools wasn't as powerful as Opcode's Studio Vision or Digital Perfomer. And now look at where those as well as AKAI, NED, Fostex, Tascam, Ampex etc are today.

Btw Thrill, regarding the complains about PT rig prices you're right. But remember how a Synclavier cost as much as a house and it was trumped by the newer audio sequencers, a Mac IIci and a Samplecell card, all at a small fraction of the cost. The same happens today comparing the established Vs the newcomers: a $35-50k D-Command rig Vs a 24" iMac, Logic Studio, apogee ensemble and some Euphonix Artist, offer exactly the same features for just $5-6k. History repeats itself.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by jindrich

Thrill, it must have been great to be in the NYC studio scene in the 80's. Along with London those were the two Mecas at the time when emerging technology turned the entire studio, and this time for real, into another whole instrument: S1000, Emu, SMPTE, MIDI, H3000, Drawmer, SPX, Linn, FM and TX, early sequencers, plus the first semi-automated consoles.
All that opened new horizons to all engineers specially in the way they used those new tools, often in very inconventional forms. That made every studio and engineer/producer to retain a distinctive sound, completely different to one another. Unlike nowadays, where the ubiquitous "DAW-style" has levelled everything out and you can't tell Eminem from Metallica, U2, Madonna, Beyonce or American Idol anymore. They all just sound the same now.

Besides the desirable big studios, the thing is back then a simple analog 8 track, an Atari and an S1000 were already enough to get you in the game, as long as you had the talent (notice it wasnt about the stupid 20 preamps and compression flavours). While very primitive by today standards, the posibilities of such setup were considered unlimited. After tracking to tape you could sample the vocals into the S1000 ,cut and spread one or several vocal takes all along a master keyboard, even one word per each of the 88 keys, and assemble any vocal comp you could think of, even map that into a MIDI sequence. And then filter or tune each phrase or word., etc. And that was just the beginning!


Looking back then it all seems wonderful but even when I remember being completely blown away when I was demoed the original H3000, I won't trade all that for what we got today, really. It's just mind blowing what you can achieve nowadays with just a MacBook Pro and Logic Studio, for instance.
What I do miss though is the attitudes. People really listened to the records; actually to the very same vinyl or compilation tape, over and over again, at their bedrooms. And even with Stock Aitken and Waterman, it still was all about music at the time, and labels poured LOTS of money for bands to stay for months in the studios to make great albums. Will we see another Thriller or Joshua Tree again?



On the technology side, now that I think about it it's funny how everything has changed and how Digidesign has built its empire out of that paltry Audiomedia card. It wasn't the software, because SoundTools wasn't as powerful as Opcode's Studio Vision or Digital Perfomer. And now look at where those as well as AKAI, NED, Fostex, Tascam, Ampex etc are today.

Btw Thrill, regarding the complains about PT rig prices you're right. But remember how a Synclavier cost as much as a house and it was trumped by the newer audio sequencers, a Mac IIci and a Samplecell card, all at a small fraction of the cost. The same happens today comparing the established Vs the newcomers: a $35-50k D-Command rig Vs a 24" iMac, Logic Studio, apogee ensemble and some Euphonix Artist, offer exactly the same features for just $5-6k. History repeats itself.

The 80's itself was an interesting era since the early 80's production and sonic wise sounds so different than the later 80's.

The early 80's because it came out of the punk/disco era of the late 70's & the conceptual album format before that had a raw spunk & energy to its sound. Even though pop music is pop, there was still something about the music that felt like real music. Also you could hear how electronics & digital was becoming part of the main stream, but it hadn't caught up yet. So the music came out sounding bright and fresh but you heard the music straight through.

I think when midi really took over in the middle and late 80's here in America the music started to go downhill some, while to me the music coming out of Europe got more polished and funkier.

And yeah gear back then was expensive. I mean i could only dream of a synclavier since only a chosen few had them. And back then i was doing sound design for synthesizers/samplers and programming beats for hire on drum machines. It was cool to be the keyboard player back then believe it or not. It was even cooler than the lead guitarists if that's possible.

You could actually get laid as a keyboard player.

And the Digidesign thing could be said about Yamaha back then. I mean the DX7 made them a household name.

All people would ask if you had a DX7? A DX7 back then was like a top Gibson or Strat.

[jindrich]

Thrill, You were a DX7 man? Did you wear the kind of clothes and hairstyle Nick Rhodes did too? (who btw hated the dx7)
Please post a photo of you dressed like that as your avatar

For those who asked about the "tape sound" of the time, here is a video of a young Steve Lipson at his 2nd home SARM, tracking a song without a tape machine at all, just a 4000E and a Synclavier. Ok, there's a Sony tape machine there at the end, but you can see that most of the recorded stuff went thru a Synclavier/ S1000/ Kurzweil K250/ E-mu at some point, back and forth from tape.