class bias and the debates about in the box recording

[Hard Truth]

There is a story that violin makers gave guitars to stable hands and other low status peasants to make the violin seem more high class and valuable. I mention this because I think there is very much a class bias in the whole analog-tube-tape vs. in the box debate. Now that everyone can buy a workstation or computer for a few hundred bucks and quickly make adequate recordings there is absolutely no status associated with using these tools.

 

Tape OP magazine often epitomizes this class bias with their constant celebration of the invariably middle (or higher) class white kids who buy and repair old obscure gear and make indie recordings that are generally only heard by college radio DJs and a handful of other insiders.

 

I'm not saying that there aren't cool sounds to be derived from using older style gear, but I think the significance of the difference from using vintage gear is wildly exaggerated. It makes sense for pro studios to promote the snob appeal of their gear, otherwise they start to appear unnecessary. (Although I think emphasizing the golden ears and expertise of their staff engineers is more valid.) But I think it is sad if an amateur or semi-pro musician/recordist feels like they have to buy or use tube, tape or vintage gear to make decent recordings because they believe the party line promoted by the likes of Tape Op.

[UstadKhanAli]

I had the impression that TapeOp was interested in getting cool and different sounds from older gear, much of which was purchased for cheap from radio stations or even obtained for free.

 

While they, like all of us, celebrate cool sounding gear of all sorts, their DIY series in making your own plate reverb from cheap materials, constant articles on doing things "on the cheap", mentions of getting old gear from eBay, radio stations, and pawn shops makes me think that it's really not so much about class, but more about an aesthetic and a way of doing things without having to buy top-dollar gear.

 

As always, YMMV.

 

P.S. "Amateur" or "semi-pro" people don't typically have a lot of money, and are only too happy to do things as cheaply as possible, often with off-the-shelf Dell computers and cheap gear from Guitar Center or Craigslist.

[John Sayers]

I'm with you HT - I recently had to mix a couple of tracks that were recorded at a high quality studio (one I designed actually ) on ProTools 24/48 and I could tell the vocal was put through a vintage compressor - it sounded awful pumping away, I'd have preferred to have been able to use a C1 instead.

 

The only vintage analogue I miss is the EMT140 and 240 plates - they had a sound of their own. The 140 is irreplaceable because the steel used was totally unique, in fact when the line of steel ceased and the plates ceased along with it as EMT couldn't find a replacement steel, hence they moved onto the 240.

 

I also reckon the sound must be compromised by the constant conversion to analogue and back again that goes on to get in and out of all that add on gear.

[Anderton]

As I've always said, the cheapest, quickest, and most effective way to improve the sound of your studio is to write a better chorus

[John Sayers]

yeah - I grew up with the Roland Dimension D. we used to string two of them together.

 

[YOUTUBE]gujdbZ1csng[/YOUTUBE]

[John Sayers]

I forgot to mention we put them through a Roland Stereo chorus amp first.

 

I love Chorus

[Lee Flier]

Wow HT - this is got to be one of the more nonsensical posts I've seen here recently, and that says a lot.

 

I don't have a whole lot of money. But I like the sound of vintage gear just because, well, because I like it. The sound of it moves me. So I use it. I don't think the difference is negligible between that and cheaper digital gear - I can hear it. Just because you don't think it's audible or important doesn't mean that anyone who does is guilty of "class bias."

 

I'm not sure why some people can't just use whatever they like to use to create music, without someone else second-guessing what their "real" motivations" are behind it. Seriously, that's just beyond silly and presumptuous.

 

Time for me to take a break from this forum, I reckon... between this and Craig saying "The best way to improve your studio is to write a better chorus" yet again, and a few other things, it's getting awfully boring. I think I'm gonna go crank up one of my vintage tube amps and record some tracks, just so I can lord it over the neighbors who can't afford one.

 

 

 

[UstadKhanAli]

Lee, it's actually the opposite of "class bias" in many cases. It's frequently a way of getting a cool sound without having to spend a bunch of money on new gear. And as I mentioned above, it's frequently accompanied with people making their own binary heads, plate reverbs out of cymbals or whatever, or other DIY projects. It's about people scrounging around at garage sales and old radio stations to score something that sounds cool and hardly costs anything. The opposite of "class bias", I'd say.

 

I too have a problem with people trying to squeeze a whole group of people into a box. Sure, it might have a "coolness" factor for some ("Hey, check out what I just scored at the Pasadena swap meet!! An old cool Russian 1950s mic preamp!"), but does that mean that an entire group of people who use old gear in TapeOp think or feel the same way?

[Goobers]

Wow HT - this is got to be one of the more nonsensical posts I've seen here recently, and that says a lot. I don't have a whole lot of money. But I like the sound of vintage gear just because, well, because I like it. The sound of it moves me. So I use it. I don't think the difference is negligible between that and cheaper digital gear - I can hear it. Just because you don't think it's audible or important doesn't mean that anyone who does is guilty of "class bias."

 

Normally, I'm all for confrontation. However, in this case, can't you both be right? Can't you hear a legitimate difference between vintage and digital gear AND vintage gear is also used by analog snobs to lord over digital plebes?

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Normally, I'm all for confrontation. However, in this case, can't you both be right? Can't you hear a legitimate difference between vintage and digital gear AND vintage gear is also used by analog snobs to lord over digital plebes?

 

 

Of course that can be right, and of course that happens. But in the examples of TapeOp, the articles tend to be generally of the "Hey, scored this old piece of gear that was gonna be tossed out in the trash by a radio station" or "Look what I found at a swap meet". They're right next to tech articles about computers, plug-ins, new gear, DIY projects and everything else. Most of the people writing these articles or featured in the articles are not rich by any stretch. They're people who are trying to squeeze out every penny's worth and get the best audio. They're excited about audio, whether it's something new, a computer, something vintage, or whatever. So this class bias thing? I just don't see this at all.

 

As I mentioned, if anything, it's often the opposite. People don't scrounge through lots of trash and go to swap meets because they're rich. They don't try and make their own binary heads or plate reverbs or broadband absorption because they're rich and exhibit a class bias.

 

And not to denigrate a manufacturer, but if you had the choice of scoring a good-sounding vintage board from a radio station for next to nothing or buying a Mackie board, which would you get more excited about?

[Lee Flier]

Yeah, what Ken said. Tape Op is ALL about trying to get more done for less, with whatever type of gear or working method you happen to prefer. HT's post is just plain ol' way off base.

 

I also don't think I've ever encountered anybody who uses vintage analog gear "so they can lord it over digital plebes." I've seen the opposite, though - people who love digital accusing anyone who still prefers analog of being "Luddites" and the like... either way though it's very silly, and not really representative of people who use either method.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Yeah, what Ken said. Tape Op is ALL about trying to get more done for less, with whatever type of gear or working method you happen to prefer. HT's post is just plain ol' way off base.

 

 

What's curious is how people key in on one thing. They review plugins and computers. They review new gear. Cheap gear. Expensive gear. Older engineers like Walter Sears. Younger engineers. People doing laptop recording in the Congo. People recording in their basements. People with a cheap laptop and an M-Audio interface. People in airplane hangars with tons of gear. And everything in between. I could just as easily key in on something and say, "Hey, why are you always interviewing people who only have a laptop and a cheap stereo interface? Isn't there anything more interesting than this?"

 

But jeez, of all the publications to pick on...TapeOp has always been about trying to get something recorded really well on less money, so the very notion of "class bias" strikes me as, well, bizarre.

[UstadKhanAli]

Why do we have to pigeonhole people and try and paint all their motivations with one brush anyway?

[Lee Flier]

Why do we have to pigeonhole people and try and paint all their motivations with one brush anyway?

 

[UstadKhanAli]

I think I'm gonna go crank up one of my vintage tube amps and record some tracks, just so I can lord it over the neighbors who can't afford one.

 

To think I almost missed this!!!

 

Lee, you effin' snob!!!!

[Anderton]

I think the problem is that there are some people who feel all wonderful and superior just because they have analog tape and classic expensive gear, and some people who feel all wonderful and superior because they have a fully decked-out Pro Tools HD system, and some people who feel all wonderful and superior because they are such rebels and use nothing but low-tech weird stuff.

 

We can safely ignore all of them

 

As to the chorus comment, Lee, I always try to inject the concept of the song being the most important thing in threads like this...sorry if it's a bromide to you, but a lot of people still need to be reminded of it. Remember, I'm the kind of person who, the first week of every month, nags my Twitter followers to back up their data. FWIW I believe that I am the first person to be an internet nag via Twitter.

[blue2blue]

I tend to see Tape Op as Ken does. I read it all the time. (And, though I got all my commercial studio experience in the analog tape world, I now use digital recording focused around quite modest affordable gear.)

 

Tape Op reflects a wide range of views from both professionals and from those who pursue recording as a sideline or avocation. Do I read bits in various articles I don't agree with or that strike me as factually incorrect -- you bet, all the time. Doesn't bother me in the slightest because as long as I've been reading stuff from other recordists in magazines and online, I've been finding stuff that I agreed with and didn't agree with, as well as stuff that either struck me as probably or even certainly factually incorrect. That, seems to me, is par for the course in a field with such a wide range of practitioners and levels of technical understanding.

 

I have no doubt that individuals behind Tape Op have their own points of view but I certainly have never got the sense that the magazine as a whole reflects on the publishing team as any kind of price-tag oriented gear snobs.

 

Passionate about gear? You bet. Look at photos of Larry Crane's gear racks. But look closely and you'll see lots of affordable gear that wouldn't normally get a second look from gear snob elitists.

 

 

PS... and I would say I tend to see the kinds of snobs Craig is describing in about the same light he sees them: unless they have something else going for them, other insights, other talents, I don't have much use for their blather, no matter what the object of their snobbery is.

[Anderton]

Why do we have to pigeonhole people and try and paint all their motivations with one brush anyway?

 

You're exactly the type of person who would say something like that

[Lee Flier]

 

As to the chorus comment, Lee, I always try to inject the concept of the song being the most important thing in threads like this...sorry if it's a bromide to you, but a lot of people still need to be reminded of it.

 

 

Sorry Craig, but it's a completely irrelevant statement in a discussion about audio. We're discussing, specifically, ways to get better sound or better workflow, which has absolutely nothing to do with how good the song is. Let's just assume for the sake of argument that everyone in this discussion has written a great song - now how do we best get that song across in the studio?

 

If the song isn't good, then pretty much nothing in this forum is going to be relevant anyway. But if it's a good song, I presume people care about how to improve their recording of that song. If the song were really all that mattered, then we could all just record our songs on cassette boomboxes and SSS would have no need to exist.

 

So it's a silly, irrelevant comment, sorry.

 

 

Remember, I'm the kind of person who, the first week of every month, nags my Twitter followers to back up their data.

 

 

And I appreciate that! Because 1) it's actually relevant to audio, and 2) there are many, many people at all levels of recording who often forget to back up often enough. That's worth nagging people about. But I'm sure if someone responded by saying "the best way to make sure your data gets backed up is to write a better song," you'd think that was pretty ridiculous. And that's exactly how your comment sounds in threads like these.

[Anderton]

 

So it's a silly, irrelevant comment, sorry.

 

 

Exactly. That's called "an attempt to lighten things up." I'd categorize people getting so worked up in these threads as silly too.

[Lee Flier]

 

Exactly. That's called "an attempt to lighten things up." I'd categorize people getting so worked up in these threads as silly too.

 

 

I don't think so. I think it means people care about what they do, which isn't silly.

[Goobers]

 

I also don't think I've ever encountered anybody who uses vintage analog gear "so they can lord it over digital plebes." I've seen the opposite, though - people who love digital accusing anyone who still prefers analog of being "Luddites" and the like... either way though it's very silly, and not really representative of people who use either method.

 

 

Maybe that's from your perspective if, what it kind of sounds like, you have a bone to pick.

 

But I've definitely seen both, and I would imagine you have too, since I'm pretty sure you've had more experience with this than me.

 

I know rockers who go all out to find studios with vintage analog gear and honestly don't know what they're talking about, they just want to be cool. And it could be that there's method to their madness, even accidentally, but I know some people who don't know {censored} who seek out analog just cause it's analog.

 

I've also seen the opposite, with musicians I respect using analog because it gives them just what they want. I have a musician friend who brought me over to show me some analog gear he got a hold of. Sounds like the Tape Op type person and he's definitely not full of {censored}. He's more advanced in this stuff than I am, he uses digital as well as analog, and his analog "finds" do stuff for him nothing else does.

[Anderton]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the general invalidity of the concept that vintage gear is something you use or you don't. At least in my situation, vintage gear's utility diminishes over the years, but I hang on to it because it still does something other gear doesn't.

 

For example, I started off with an analog synth and did all my synth sounds with it. Then FM came out, and it did better bells, some types of basses, etc. So the analog synth did less. Then sampling hit, and now I could get a whole lot of effects and stuff that neither the analog synth nor FM synth could do, so they became less important in the grand scheme of things, but still did things that samplers didn't do, so I didn't get rid of them.

 

It's important to remember that the reason why we aren't ALL using vintage gear is because it was perceived to have various flaws, so new gear was designed that was an attempt to overcome those flaws. However, despite having flaws, some vintage gear still does some things better than newer gear. So, someone might keep a particular compressor around because even though it pumps with voice and sounds terrible, it adds a really cool attack to electric gear.

[UstadKhanAli]

I don't know that this thread has gotten to that point of silliness (and if it matters, I'm not terribly worked up about this, but just felt that I wanted to present my point of view in respect to "class bias" and TapeOp).

 

Now, if you want silly....well, I'm quite capable of that too!!!

[Anderton]

 

I don't think so. I think it means people care about what they do, which isn't silly.

 

 

Caring isn't silly. Getting so worked up and personal about it is, at least in my opinion...and maybe yours, too ("either way though it's very silly")!

 

Besides, out of the volumes of stuff that I spew forth here, I think I'm allowed to throw in a silly comment every now and then.