another analog thread -semi rant

[Unknown soldier]

Back in the pre-digital days, when bands overdubbed they obviously had to playback the tape over and over again, until the song is complete. This means that the tape is wearing out and the high end is slowly dissipaiting with each pass. Listening to the old stuff, it's generally flatter in the high end compared to today's brighter recordings.

There's not much you could do about tape degrading after so many playbacks, and I'm sure they noticed it in 1971 and maybe added some treble to tracks as needed, especially after marathon dub sessions. But for the most part, I don't find it a bad thing. So what if the high end isn't super sugar crisp like today's pro tools defacto standard. I like Dark Side of the moon, Boston, and the like. The high end sounds fine to me! Why not just stay with tape until your song is done (please don't say it's just a cost issue!)? Maybe now that is a novel approach, and what we need to get rock back to how they used to make em'!!!!!thumbsup

[kevinc]

I`m actually wondering how good the higher quality tape emulation is compared to recording to tape.
That`s kind of the best of both worlds.
You get the tape thing plus the non degrading aspect of digital.

I put this in a different post too cause I`m really interested in this but it`s a liitle off basis with your topic.

I agree with the tape thing but with good conversion and good emulation you might have the full picture.

[Jay Kahrs]

You can get non-fatiging top out of digital. It just doesn't have the depth that analog does. Analog tape sounds like it's about 10' thick and digital is about 1' thick. That's not a bad thing, it's just a different tone.

[Unknown soldier]

[i]. Analog tape sounds like it's about 10' thick and digital is about 1' thick. [/B]

So analog is a porn star, and digital needs viagra? Sorry.

I don't know - I'm listening to the lastest metal/rock stuff and it seems too "perfect". No charm like the old stuff, when they had mistakes in the recordings and they didnt' care because the performance was what shined through. Plus they had to play all the way through the song, no cut'n pasting the 2nd chorus three times over or whatever....made you practice and get it right! Did they even have sequencers in the 70's?

[paterno]

Originally posted by Unknown soldier
Maybe now that is a novel approach, and what we need to get rock back to how they used to make em'!!!!!thumbsup

Yeah, with musicians that can play with each other instead of at each other. Then it won't matter what the format is, it'll still sound like music...

john

[MIKEHARRIS]

bring back strings n horns...n throw away those parametric EQ's

[Wiggy Neve Slut]

If you have the budget and a digital rig of some kind that can lock to SMPTE, then u could do a time old trick of tracking all the , bass and drums as well as much of the gtrs as possible. Then dump that reel to DAW, stripe SMPTE on new reel and lock together and do ODubs on the virgin reel or into the DAW. Then bring out the master drum reel @ mix and go for gold! with fresh tones.

Kinda expenisve but kik ass way to mix. Lately i have liekd the idea of how a mate has been working wherby he tracks to 2" and mixes from PT cos of the flexibility it affords.. personally i think a marriage of the 2 formats is the best thing around.

Also i have never really found mixing 100% from 2" a problem... if it gets dull jut rebias the 10K on the 2" and use teh desk eq more..

Cheers
Wiggy

[Drumsound]

I agree with what Jay said. Tape is just a thicker, meatier, deeper, more musical tone.

There's also the added energy of knowing the the whole song needs to be played right. That each part needs to be played at all. When musicians are in the hot seat you can get the best out of them.

I do most of my projets from start to finish on 2". Don't believe the hype about the high end going away. It changes a bit over time, but the Digidesign's of the world that tell you that after just playing a tape that it sounds like you put cotton in your ears. It's not as big an issue as some people say IMHO.

[BrianK]

I just had an interesting thought. As there are SO many differences between then and now, it is hard to compare... old/analog vs. new/digi

But let's just say that IF one could copy and paste, tune vocals, snap to grid, edit out breaths and room sounds, control every level and mute - but on old analog tape: Would it still sound better? My theory is - yes, a bit, but not much.

MUCH of what we dislike about digital is not just the high end, latency, and depth problems, but these "polished recordings". Even Boston, the ultra-tweakiest analog, revealed much more humanity and organic character. So maybe it's not so much sound that we should think about, as the "power to control" that IS ACTUALLY BAD.

Too much knowledge, too many mic pre's and mics, too many plug-in's, to many mixes we recall until it's PERFECT. I always tell people - if you take "I Want to Take You Higher" by Sly Stone amd FIX all the timing errors, tuning and looseness - there would be not much left. It's NOT a great song - I do not want to hear someone play it on a MIDI rig.

But how many can LEAVE a blatant mistake on their work? Or even timing problems? Or out of tune vocals? I do - all the time. My records are really GOOD ones too, just like people always rant about. Far from perfect, but they make you FEEL and show off the quality of song and performer...

The Who's "Live at Leeds" is really a bunch of crappy encore jams, but it KILLS their "Who's Next" album, which is a masterpiece of production and songwriting. And it represents the real band better than their polished work.

[Drumsound]

AMEN borther Brian!

[jon]

Dunno guys, I don't hear any treble loss with modern analog tape, even after hundreds of passes.

I often transfer the 2" originals to PT right after tracking as a safety copy. Come mix time, I compare the tape to the PT and the tape still sounds better, with no perceivable treble loss. This with GP9 2" on an A820, +5 over 250. We do clean the tape path 2-3 times a day and de-mag once a week...

[mplancke]

Originally posted by BrianK
The Who's "Live at Leeds" is really a bunch of crappy encore jams, but it KILLS their "Who's Next" album, which is a masterpiece of production and songwriting. And it represents the real band better than their polished work.

Woah, Live at Leeds should have been renamed

"Overdubbed at the studio until we're happy".

Listen closely, you can hear ghosting of the original parts that were replaced.


Mark

[neopotato]

Originally posted by Wiggy Neve Slut


Kinda expenisve but kik ass way to mix. Lately i have liekd the idea of how a mate has been working wherby he tracks to 2" and mixes from PT cos of the flexibility it affords.. personally i think a marriage of the 2 formats is the best thing around.

Cheers
Wiggy

the vines did this, rob and tom

[kevinc]

I remember when I first started recording I looked at some catalog and saw the list price for an 24 track OTARI MK2 something or rather for somewhere like $ 50,000.00.
Now you see them on ebay for $3000.00.
That alone makes me want to pick one up.
You can get some of the best analog decks out there for 1/20th of what they were worth 15 years ago.
Thats ****in ridiculas!


Kevin

[De chromium cob]

Originally posted by kevinc
I remember when I first started recording I looked at some catalog and saw the list price for an 24 track OTARI MK2 something or rather for somewhere like $ 50,000.00.
Now you see them on ebay for $3000.00.
That alone makes me want to pick one up.
You can get some of the best analog decks out there for 1/20th of what they were worth 15 years ago.
Thats ****in ridiculas!


Kevin

And for the price of a PT HD system you can get a Studer A827....

[Jay Kahrs]

Originally posted by BrianK

But let's just say that IF one could copy and paste, tune vocals, snap to grid, edit out breaths and room sounds, control every level and mute - but on old analog tape: Would it still sound better? My theory is - yes, a bit, but not much.

But you CAN do all that stuff on analog. It just takes a hell of a lot more time to do it and will require some degree of bouncing and/or mix automation trickery.

[crispy]

I opened up a couple of months ago. I use an Ampex 2" and Pro Tools LE w/ an RME Anniversary edition A/D converter.

Most of the sessions were tracked and mixed entirely to tape except for one song where I need multiple vox passes to comp from.
The band I worked with were very nice guys, but not particularly talented.
However, Iwas at this point extremely happy 'cos I was getting a really good sound that IMO was very close to a top studio recording.
And I didn't need to use much EQ either...

My last project was a band that are a bit more special, have management, gig a lot, going for a deal etc.
I was to record a new track because non of the labels were particularly impressed with the recordings made previously.

We did an evenings set-up session and got a drum sound together and a cue mix organised ready so all the and had to do was walk in the next day and start playing.
Everything was going to tape.
They came in next day and asked me to track to digital instead, I'm not producing so I agreed happily.

I was appalled at how much loss there was compared to the tape recordings of the soundcheck, my assistant was shocked as well.
No top end on tape? You've got to be kidding me. There was also a marked lack of smoothness and bass response in the low end, and don't even get me started on the midrange, it just wasn't there. Allied to a complete lack of air, depth and a stereo field a few degrees off mono it was sounding like complete shit.

Oh, and the tape machine runs @15 ips, with very little noise!

My mood darkened on a marathon mixdown where I had to wrestle with EQ to get it to a standard where I would let it out the door with my name on it!
And now of course, it sounds over-processed...

I am now truly depressed about having to work with this system again and where and how I'm going to find the money to do something about it.

Crispy

[AlphaDingo]

Crispy, what machine were you using? How difficult is it to aquire the knowledge to maintain a 2" tape machine? What would a studer a827 go for?

[crispy]

Hi AlphaDingo,

I'm using an Ampex MM1200.

I don't know about the cost of an A827, except I think they're still pretty expensive,and if mine's anything to go by, you'll need a forklift truck to install it!

I can do all the day to day maintenance like de-gaussing heads, aligning, even checking the speed of the machine against a test tone. But the hardcore techie stuff I have to get someone in.

If you buy a machine, it should come with a complete manual on maintenance cycles and full circuit diagrams. Don't buy anything without one.

They should have extender cards which allow you to adjust or test channel cards whilst 'live' on the machine.

crispy

[Ted Nightshade]

Originally posted by mplancke
Woah, Live at Leeds should have been renamed

"Overdubbed at the studio until we're happy".

Listen closely, you can hear ghosting of the original parts that were replaced.


Mark

is this true?

Live at Leeds and Who's Next are both fantastic albums, in my book.

[jon]

I'd say plan on $15000-$24000 for an A820 or A827 with remote and probably without Dolby SR, depending on heads condition, number of hours on the rec odometer, etc. They were about $50k new.

At that level of machine and at the higher end of the price range, everything should be working perfectly and reliably.

I bought an A820 for $20k 2 years ago with 3000 hrs and perfect physical condition, with the SR rack space but not the Dolby cards (no one has asked for Dolby SR though). The machine has worked 100% since then with no maintenance issues beyond regular alignment and demag and it now has close to 5000 hours on the meter.

Good luck.

[AlphaDingo]

what are the yearly maintainence costs beyond your time? What does tape cost? How much can you get on a reel? You have a great studio by the way jon. I saw the picture you posted on the thread about mixing spaces.

[drundall]

As for the original post, many engineers back in the day used to add a little more top to say the drums when tracking as compensation for what they knew from experience was going to rub off. If you're using slave reels, it's less of an issue.

I've done many analog records and managed to get a couple too bright .

[jon]

Zero maintenance costs so far beyond buying a han-di-mag, which was $150 over here, $550 for the basic short MRL alignment tape (1k, 10k, 16k, 100 at 30ips and 15ips), and alcohol.

You may need to pay $75/hr for a tech to get the mechanical alignment right, and maybe $100 for a head block optical alignment from JRF Magnetics if needed.

2" tape is $150-$200 per 10" reel, depending on the quantities you order.

One reel is 16.5 minutes of recording at 30ips or 33 minutes at 15ips.

Thanks for the compliment on the studio, I appreciate it!

[Ted]

I'll tell you what, I sure like the sound of RADAR especially at 96K. There's not much depth loss at all if any. So little in fact I'm fine not going to 2" for depth issues anyway. PT is a whole different story...

Thanks,
Ted.

[Drumsound]

Originally posted by Ted
I'll tell you what, I sure like the sound of RADAR especially at 96K. There's not much depth loss at all if any. So little in fact I'm fine not going to 2" for depth issues anyway. PT is a whole different story...

Thanks,
Ted.

I'm finding a definite difference in the midrange between my RADAR and my 3M. I've done a few things were I've mixed to the RADAR from the 3M and the mixes are nice. There’s a different sound between the mix buss and the RADAR. The midrange is softer on the RADAR. The one record I've tracked on the RADAR so far sounds good, but it lacks a bit of the euphoria from the tape deck. Of course the drummer is weak with bad sounding drums, so I need to compare with some other projects. I may do a tape them dump to RADAR thing soon as well.

[crispy]

Originally posted by Drumsound
I'm finding a definite difference in the midrange between my RADAR and my 3M. I've done a few things were I've mixed to the RADAR from the 3M and the mixes are nice. There’s a different sound between the mix buss and the RADAR. The midrange is softer on the RADAR. The one record I've tracked on the RADAR so far sounds good, but it lacks a bit of the euphoria from the tape deck. Of course the drummer is weak with bad sounding drums, so I need to compare with some other projects. I may do a tape them dump to RADAR thing soon as well.

Thing is, the RADAR is good enough to do tracking and tape dumps.
I just can't bring myself to dump tape tracks into my DAW, what would be the point? I only do rough mixes into the DAW to overdub with.
Unfortunately,I can't afford RADAR

[Jules]

"My mood darkened on a marathon mixdown where I had to wrestle with EQ to get it to a standard where I would let it out the door with my name on it!
And now of course, it sounds over-processed..."

I feel for ya...

Opening my doors 4-5 years ago I new that if I was going the digital route I figured I had to get some the best gear possible to keep my previously analog clients happy..

I started with Apogee AD8000SE's and then moved on to Prism Dream ADA. A Fatso Jnr and Cranesong Hedd, soon followed

Cheaper sonic break throughs were the Sony Oxford eq's & recently the great Phoenix plug in.

So expencive cheer up = high end converters
Cheep cheer up = Phoenix plug in (cant recomend it highly enough) + Sony EQ & Dynamics



Every time I immagine how things would have worked out with analog I think........ Naaaaaaaaaaatutt

Digital really suits my business.

[Jay Kahrs]

Originally posted by crispy

I just can't bring myself to dump tape tracks into my DAW, what would be the point?

To get the analog sound and keep it and then gain the flexibilty of working off a DAW. Easier editing, especially for those science project edits...it's easier/quicker to comp vocals or solos, erase and or mute dead space on tracks, stuff like that. I wish my DAW had enough I/O to get 24 tracks playing out in one shot. I'm stuck to 8, gotta do something about that one of these days.

[mlocascio]

Originally posted by jon
I'd say plan on $15000-$24000 for an A820 or A827 with remote and probably without Dolby SR, depending on heads condition, number of hours on the rec odometer, etc. They were about $50k new.

At that level of machine and at the higher end of the price range, everything should be working perfectly and reliably.

I bought an A820 for $20k 2 years ago with 3000 hrs and perfect physical condition, with the SR rack space but not the Dolby cards (no one has asked for Dolby SR though). The machine has worked 100% since then with no maintenance issues beyond regular alignment and demag and it now has close to 5000 hours on the meter.

Good luck.

eBay

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=2366968210