analog purist goin' digital?

SKATE RAT · January 28, 2008, 07:55:03 PM

ok, ive recorded about 10 times,always analog.i've used 1/2" 8 track,1" 16 track and 2" 24 track. my new band is gonna record digital soon,what can i expect? i like old school tones and don't really wanna do it but i guess its time to move into the 21st century.any advice.i've always prefered using 2 mics and no D.I. am i just being a stubborn fool?

gweimer · January 28, 2008, 08:37:32 PM

Analog is always better than digital. It's just harder to do these days. With all the advancements in technology, we still ponder about how Motown got that great sound out of James Jamerson. Sgt. Peppers is still the holy grail of analog 4-track recording. Digital recording is definitely the norm, but to really capture a lot of things, you need an understanding of how sounds work together. Producers like Berry Gordy and George Martin learned how to make magic with limited means.

Barklessdog · January 29, 2008, 06:05:12 AM

Analogue is also more expense. The problem I find with digital is it offers so much that you fix everything, for out of pitch to copy & paste. The problem I find is I stop trying to get everything perfect, one section is not as good as the first, copy & paste the good one twice, why try to re-record the whole thing in one take?

I have a friend who is working on a way to record analogue, but transfer to digital off the bat.

PhilT · January 29, 2008, 03:10:44 PM

I don't really have a hangup about recording onto digital media rather than tape, but recording seems to be increasingly about the process and less and less about music. Our guitarist has been talked into this by the guy who did our previous recordings and thinks this is how we should work next time. We would use a midi guide track and you just have to play one verse/chorus and he can cut and paste the rest of the song. All sounds very efficient, but aren't variations from verse to verse all part of the performance? Maybe I've misunderstood, or am just getting very very old.

Barklessdog · January 29, 2008, 03:17:18 PM

Quotebut aren't variations from verse to verse all part of the performance? Maybe I've misunderstood, or am just getting very very old.

They are, and it's becoming the engineers song who constructs it then, not the band playing it.

chromium · January 29, 2008, 05:13:09 PM

I try to go for the best of both worlds - leverage what digital has to offer in terms of flexibility, and try to preserve the sound of the analog instruments that I know and love in the process.

I used to do a lot of 4-track recording. With a serial medium like tape, you really had to plan ahead both in terms of the composition, and also logistics like bouncing tracks - four tracks just never seemed like enough! I sure learned to work the limitations, though.

When I started with a digital audio workstation, it was kind of intimidating at first. Not only is there so much capability in terms of the software and plug-ins, but it literally changed the entire songwriting process for me (or I should say that I let it change the process for me). What I find myself doing now is usually laying down scratch/guide tracks for the different sections of the song, and arranging the song structure virtually using "cut and paste" in the recording software. This makes it easy to audition different ideas and sections, change the song structure from AABA to ABA, etc... Usually then I'll then go back and re-record the scratch tracks - playing thru the whole song or section. I found that I like this approach to songwriting better, because it actually feels more spontaneous and organic to me. The whole process feels less rigid, structured, and pre-meditated than when I was working with the old 4-track.

SKATE RAT · January 29, 2008, 07:06:43 PM

Quote from: PhilT on January 29, 2008, 03:10:44 PM
I don't really have a hangup about recording onto digital media rather than tape, but recording seems to be increasingly about the process and less and less about music. Our guitarist has been talked into this by the guy who did our previous recordings and thinks this is how we should work next time. We would use a midi guide track and you just have to play one verse/chorus and he can cut and paste the rest of the song. All sounds very efficient, but aren't variations from verse to verse all part of the performance? Maybe I've misunderstood, or am just getting very very old.

well i'm not gonna do anything like that.(its cheating) we will record the same way as always. record bass,drums and guitar live and then double the rythym guitars add solo's vocals,backing vocals etc.. my question was more about sound or tone.if it was up to me we would use 1" 8 track and mix down to 2 track.and only put out vinyl. i'll leave the "cut & paste" for artwork.

Barklessdog · January 30, 2008, 03:01:38 PM

On one hand it is cheating, but even on tape you do punch in's & overdubs, with digital it makes it easier to re arrange & drag & drop song structures.

gweimer · January 30, 2008, 03:38:47 PM

I think we're probably drawing the line between fixing a piece and copying it to complete the song. I'm one who prefers to capture both the song AND the performance of it. Another lost art in the digital age in too many cases.

SKATE RAT · January 30, 2008, 04:18:16 PM

yeah,but can i get an anolog sound from a 'puter?is it possible to make it sound like tape?

Barklessdog · January 30, 2008, 05:37:09 PM

It does not mean much unless you go to vinyl. If it goes to CD it's digital and gets compressed anyway. You can warm things up with tube amps, preamps and a touch of echo.

SKATE RAT · January 30, 2008, 06:56:24 PM

its punk rock! it has to be on vinyl.

gweimer · January 30, 2008, 09:28:49 PM

My old high school pal is now an engineer up at Smart Studios with Butch Vig. He tells me he has a stereo system at home that's so good, he can prove the difference.

Bass VI · January 30, 2008, 11:42:58 PM

Quote from: SKATE RAT on January 30, 2008, 06:56:24 PM
its punk rock! it has to be on vinyl.

Amen!

Having said that, Chromiun is right IMHO about going for the best of both worlds, use the speed of digital recording ( no rewinding, usually unlimited tracks or takes ) to capture the immediacy of the music ( Punk ) although ( again IMHO ) tube preamps and other analog outboard gear are a must.

Good Luck with your project,

Scott

chromium · January 31, 2008, 12:47:46 PM

Quote from: SKATE RAT on January 30, 2008, 04:18:16 PM
yeah,but can i get an anolog sound from a 'puter?is it possible to make it sound like tape?

It's possible to simulate analog-like characteristics, but digital recording is a different animal.

Digital clipping sounds really bad, so you probably won't be pushing tracks into the red as much as you might when recording to analog. Also, the frequency response curve and signal-to-noise ratio in the analog gear influences the sound of the recording. I think its these type of things that contribute to that sterile "digital" sound.

As was mentioned, using outboard analog gear seems to help warm things up (tube pre's, etc...). There are also software tools that attempt to simulate some of these characteristics of analog tape recording - like this one: http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/AnalogChHD/

One nice thing about digital is the virtually unlimited tracks. You could record your two cabinet mics, and simultaneously run DI thru a tube preamp (taking up as many tracks as you like), and have a lot more flexibility in tweaking the sound during mixdown. Then again, for capturing the raw emotion of punk, this might be over-engineering.

It's all a big trade-off - cost, quality, speed/flexibility (pick any two - isn't that how it works?). I'm also a proponent of using the right tools for the job. Digital works great for me, because of the style of music, and the fact that I'm multi-tracking everything by myself. I wonder what Bad Brains' Attitude/ROIR Sessions would have sounded like in ProTools!

I'm guessing not as good...