I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THE SOUND OF ANALOGUE MUSIC RECORDING!!!

Bruce Swedien · October 13, 2010

THERE... I SAID IT!!!!

BRUCE SWEDIEN

Bruce Swedien · October 13, 2010

Analogue Music Recording, a Pleasant Listening Experience.....

by Bruce Swedien

Talk about analogue and digital sound usually is preceded by the definition of analog recording as a constant signal, "analogous" to the real world we live in. I think that

Ara Ajizian · October 13, 2010

Completely agree, though anymore it's impossible to shun everything digital. I still love the convenience of my iPod (I encode at high-quality only), but if I want a physical copy of an album, I buy it on vinyl and enjoy it on the hi-fi.

Mark L · October 13, 2010

Depends how old you are, I suppose

Bruce Swedien · October 13, 2010

Bruce deserves deep and abiding respect for a lifetime in the recording business and helming some amazing records in a variety of styles form classical to pop, working with everyone from Sinatra to Michael Jackson.

But this thumbnail description of the fundamentals of digital audio is fundamentally inaccurate and anyone who has looked at the analog signal coming out of the DA converters should be aware of that.

(Pardon the US spelling,

analog

, but I'm writing this in the US and it's too big a pain in the backside rooting through my incomplete mental catalog of differing Brit-English and American English spellings just to consistently match my fellow American's choice of UK spelling.)

Bluee....

Thanks but I have to say this...... I never did record Frank Sinatra. However I did record Nancy Sinatra..... Is that the Sinatra you were referring to????

Bruce Swedien

Taylor Davis · October 13, 2010

HI bruce, Just watched and listened to CRAZY HEART. you know that movie about an old guy playing music? I cried a bit. but in a totally manly way. hurrrmmphhh.

Yeah, I like analogue jams but the ease of digital has me grabbed.

I have recorded both analogue and digital and with the advent of new mathmatical equations that further the musical endeavors of simple cats like me(miow), would like to recorde on tape and then digitize to my ease of like.

it's so much better to be able to slam tracks down and ease those same tracks to musical fruitation without rewinding and more rewinding of tape.

In a perfect world I'd record on tape and mix it all to digital.

So when do you wish to record a collection of jams with me.

I'm ready bruce.

your fan TD

Anderton · October 13, 2010

Lately with a lot of my mastering, I've been adding steep high-frequency rolloffs to digital masters, like above 15kHz. With pop/electronic music it takes away nothing from the music, but makes the high end far less "brittle" and "digital."

I'm convinced that digital will be able to sound like analog...someday. The problem for engineers trying to emulate the "analog" sound is that it's an extremely complex and sophisticated signal processor, while digital is (if you measure it) far more "accurate." I've played with tape simulator plug-ins since they were introduced, and the improvement of later ones compared to earlier ones is huge. They may not be there yet, but they will be...it's only a matter of time.

Then, you'll be able to take a digital system and choose "accuracy" or "warmth"!

But another thing that's worth mentioning is how many people combine the two. I remember at that seminar we did in Mexico that you captured with tape, then transferred to digital to avoid the degradation of tape. Don't know if you're still doing that, but it seems so logical and sensible...get the sound you want, then preserve it with accuracy.

There are also lots of people using analog mixers to mixdown from digital "stems" or even individual tracks, or people mixing digital down to a really nice two-track. And, I like that so many DAWs let you insert outboard analog gear as "pseudo plug-ins." Being able to toss a tube compressor or tube EQ in a digital signal path can be a thing of beauty

In fact now that I think about it, I wouldn't be surprised at all if more recording engineers are using a combination of analog and digital than going purely digital.

Bruce Swedien · October 13, 2010

Completely agree, though anymore it's impossible to shun everything digital. I still love the convenience of my iPod (I encode at high-quality only), but if I want a physical copy of an album, I buy it on vinyl and enjoy it on the hi-fi.

Well Said, my friend.... (I love the part about hi-fi!!!!)

Bruce Swedien

Bruce Swedien · October 13, 2010

Lately with a lot of my mastering, I've been adding steep high-frequency rolloffs to digital masters, like above 15kHz. With pop/electronic music it takes away nothing from the music, but makes the high end far less "brittle" and "digital."

I'm convinced that digital will be able to sound like analog...someday. The problem for engineers trying to emulate the "analog" sound is that it's an extremely complex and sophisticated signal processor, while digital is (if you measure it) far more "accurate." I've played with tape simulator plug-ins since they were introduced, and the improvement of later ones compared to earlier ones is huge. They may not be there yet, but they will be...it's only a matter of time.

Then, you'll be able to take a digital system and choose "accuracy" or "warmth"!

But another thing that's worth mentioning is how many people combine the two. I remember at that seminar we did in Mexico that you captured with tape, then transferred to digital to avoid the degradation of tape. Don't know if you're still doing that, but it seems so logical and sensible...get the sound you want, then preserve it with accuracy.

There are also lots of people using analog mixers to mixdown from digital "stems" or even individual tracks, or people mixing digital down to a really nice two-track. And, I like that so many DAWs let you insert outboard analog gear as "pseudo plug-ins." Being able to toss a tube compressor or tube EQ in a digital signal path can be a thing of beauty

In fact now that I think about it, I wouldn't be surprised at all if more recording engineers are using a combination of analog and digital than going purely digital.

Wow.....

Wasn't that fun Craig?

I'm just in the process of buying myself a Studer A827 24 Track 2 inch machine. Then my old pal John Klett will come down here and hook up my Analogue Studer 24 track to my big-ass Pro-Tools rig. What does that look like I'm doing?

Bruce Swedien

UstadKhanAli · October 13, 2010

I like analog.

I also like analogue.

I like digital.

I like that I can send MP3s by email.

I hope this clears everything up.

blue2blue · October 13, 2010

Bluee....

Thanks but I have to say this...... I never did record Frank Sinatra. However I did record Nancy Sinatra..... Is that the Sinatra you were referring to????

Bruce Swedien

Ah, you caught me before I deleted that post. (Deleted just because, well, I didn't want you to misunderstand the tenor of it. [EDIT: tough morning, for no good reason. I'm just a moody guy. Sometimes it comes out.])

Sorry I inflated your resume. Of all the resumes in the recording world that don't need inflating, I'm thinking yours is high on the list.

Anyhow, whatever the science, I do appreciate your feelings about analog and, while I might tend to look for slightly different explanations for them (than your somewhat poetic description of the DA output ), I do completely understand how someone could prefer working to analog tape, no question.

Bruce Swedien · October 13, 2010

Depends how old you are, I suppose

What Do You Mean By That Smart-Ass? Oops... My age is showing isn't it?

Bruce Swedien

Jeff da Weasel · October 13, 2010

I'd love nothing more than to do an "analog all the way" project on a release of my own stuff. Record to 2", and work it analog all the way through to 180g vinyl.

It's not going to happen (for me), but it's a wonderful dream.

WRGKMC · October 13, 2010

Theres good and bad analog the same way as there is good and bad digital. I by no means mis wow flutter, and all the maintainence required in getting good analog.

I think most, or at least the biggest good portion of this is relates directly to the access available to musicians.

Studios that had good analog equipment in its hay day with engineers who knew how to use it effectively was far less accesable to musicians then digital is now.

It cost big bucks which filtered out all the beginners and loosers who couldnt afford the cost. It took alot od dicipline and saving to save enough to get recorded at a studio and if you were the one spending the cash, you made sure your playing was top notch. The recording had alot of monitary value which translated to a status symbol of having an album. in other words you were the hottes band on the block if you had a studio recording, and it got you jobs and status amoung your peers.

Even at a budget studio it could easily cost a grand for a 15 minuite cassette of completed work and that didnt include the master tape. Thet wasnt easy to get together for working musicians. Bands willing to pay that, usually had their sh!t wrapped tight playing wise and could knock out a recording with minimal takes and editing. Its rarer that musicians had bucks to burn, but there were plenty of those too. I got enough crummy LP's on the shelf to proove that.

So while I love quality analog myself, It does not cast a magical mask over reality of using both for many years and knowing their strengths and weaknesses.

I would have to say therefore. I love to record great musical performances

In my opinion, If a performance, composition and arrangement are truely great its going to sound great no matter which system you choose.

Its even good digital because you can tolerate listening to it as many times as needed to tweak the sound in just right.

Then when you add in the editing and effects digital offers and the cash it can save time wise, it can be a truely great medium. But all those bells and whistels do nothing for bad music. If the performance sucks it sucks man and theres aint nothing you can do with it.

Theres no magic in analog that will make it bad music sound better and in fact, digital does have some amazing tools that can be used to fix things that you cant fix in analog. I think many engineers have resigned to becoming audio doctors to keep a cash flow happening because they know if they keep the prices where they should be for their experience, they cant make ends meet.

MikeRivers · October 13, 2010

I'm just in the process of buying myself a Studer A827 24 Track 2 inch machine. Then my old pal John Klett will come down here and hook up my Analogue Studer 24 track to my big-ass Pro-Tools rig. What does that look like I'm doing?

Would you be getting a CLASP with that?

MikeRivers · October 13, 2010

Digital doesn't capture a continuous record of the sound, but thousands of "samples" of the sound per second which are strung together to fool our audio receptors (ears and brains) into thinking that we are actually hearing the constant sound.

Bruce, while I fully agree that with an analog recorder in the chain, recordings can sound as good as they used to, and maybe even better because we have some better tools today than we used to. But please don't confuse the novices. The sampling theorem really does work. Take enough samples and you really can completely reconstruct the sampled signal. The brain doesn't get fooled - no need for that.

We like to hear what we've become accustomed to hearing. We like what the analog recording process adds to the pure signal chain. We like what comes out better than what goes in. In other words, we like the inaccuracy. Take away that inaccuracy and what we don't like is the accuracy.

Of course there are better and worser A/D and D/A converters, but even in the project studio class of equipment, there hasn't been a really bad converter. It's the D/A that's most important because that determines what we hear, and how we "fix" the digital recording so it sounds as right as we can get it. If we can hear something wrong with the A/D converter, we can fix it or get a better one. There are all sorts of ways that you can make a digital recording sound like an analog one, including putting an analog recorder in the signal path. But if you don't have accurate monitoring (the D/A converter) you could be making it worse, and probably are.

Somewhat related to this discussion (I was going to post about it anyway) was something I read in Tape Op recently. The author claimed ".. coveted preamps, EQs, and compressors of the 'analog era' were designed specifically to work with the sonic imprint of analog tape machines."

Now it's true that they had no choice - short of direct to disk recording and live sound, that's what they had to work with. But I seriously doubt that those devices were designed to overcome the coloration of analog recording. They were designed to do certain jobs, and that's what they did.

Geez, I sure feel fired up today. Must have been the tacos for lunch.

russrags · October 13, 2010

I'm Loving my new Christmas record I'm working on. Some of the songs have a Synth Orchestra with each part played separately. Reamped them one at a time out in a big tracking room to record some killer early reflections. Now everybody can sit in the proper seat from the conductors point of view. Fat like Santa now.

Merry Christmas Bruce.

Russ

Nashville

Ronan Murphy · October 13, 2010

I've played with tape simulator plug-ins since they were introduced, and the improvement of later ones compared to earlier ones is huge. They may not be there yet, but they will be...it's only a matter of time.

I do not think Tape sims sound like tape but they have a useful sound. I recently used a Tape sim plug in on a mastering project that had been tracked to 2 inch and mixed down to an old studer tube tape 2 track. It brought something valuable to the mix that the tape machines had not done.

blue2blue · October 13, 2010

I do not think Tape sims sound like tape but they have a useful sound. I recently used a Tape sim plug in on a mastering project that had been tracked to 2 inch and mixed down to an old studer tube tape 2 track. It brought something valuable to the mix that the tape machines had not done.

This younger generation!

I can sound pretty stick-up-the-wazoo about science issues to folks, I think. But I think a lot of those folks would be shocked at how I approach the actual process of making music and recording, which for me is a totally seat-of-the-pants, intuition-driven process. I'll try anything and leave what works...

UstadKhanAli · October 13, 2010

I do not think Tape sims sound like tape but they have a useful sound. I recently used a Tape sim plug in on a mastering project that had been tracked to 2 inch and mixed down to an old studer tube tape 2 track. It brought something valuable to the mix that the tape machines had not done.

I use the Massey Tape Head. I don't really know that it necessarily sounds like tape...but it can have a nice sound and "glue" things together nicely.

nat whilk II · October 13, 2010

90% of everything I listen to is digital (or a digitization of analog). I must say that, when I take the rare opportunity to listen to a good analog bit of vinyl on a good system, it's startling..again. All the already-noted adjectives come to mind - roundness, depth, sweet/silky, beefy, etc....a "thunk" quality.

But it's not "more real" I don't think. It's more real in some ways and less real in others. So that translates into "different in a good way but can't say in all the best ways"

It is more musical for various types of music I think, but not all.

It's more of a situation of shifting standards seems to me - at least in the long run.

The scientific-measurement of pure-dee accuracy is the closest thing we have to quantifying the reality, HOWEVER the reality is that we are not all scientific measuring devices, and there's no Great Commandment that says the most accurate per the measuring machine is best as music, either.

It is a standard to be reckoned with, for sure, BUT - our ears are not the most accurate, nor are our memories, our abilities to hear multiple things at once, nor is our sensitivity to nuance, etc etc etc.

Let's keep the sloppy give and take and ambivalences of multiple modes of perception, recording, and reproduction. I feel better in that world...

nat whilk ii

Bookumdano2 · October 14, 2010

I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THE SOUND OF ANALOGUE MUSIC RECORDING!!!

THERE... I SAID IT!!!!

BRUCE SWEDIEN

Yeah, I dunno. You kind of perplex me Bruce.

You've got a magic key in there somewhere that I'm still trying to get to that has nothing to do with a lot of the recordings people discuss with you. Analog or otherwise.

For example, if the focus goes completely to , say "Oh Girl", by the Chi-Lites, you've got a masterpiece there that will live forever on the airwaves. As it should. I'm guessing you don't hold your engineering on that one in quite the same place as others.

Maybe you knocked that one off in an hour and it doesn't mean much to your way of working. But gee... that's an exact example of 3 minutes of magic that will live on through infinity.

Technique-wise, it's really screwed up if you try to work it into a classrom engineering project by today's standards. And yet it's not screwed up. It's perfect.

You've got those twin rhythm guitars left-right playing against each other at the intro. Doesn't sound like stereo mics to me. The balance of the low solo organ lines that come in... the (seemingly) mono strings on the left, overdub hits on the right.. seemingly close micd. Magic. The strings sound all screwed-up in the way they're mic'd. As in very very close. And I don't mean "screwed up" as anything other than ... this is not the way you'd record a Stravinsky work. It's totally not the way I would see an engineering class show as a way to record strings ... and yet for this song ... it's brilliant and magical !!! Al Green's strings always sounded screwy to me too on his records. But in context, they're perfect !

The piano even seems dead center where it's mixed up and then at 1:40, flips over to the left. The mix is brilliant. And yet none of it follows any sort of technique I'd necessarily use in 2010.

I have lots of good tape machines and I don't really use them any more. I may use them more . Just dunno. The thing about you that intriques me though is that if I think "magical analogue", I'm thinking something of yours like Chi-Lites". The entire technique you chose there ... and who knows what console or tape machine you were using ... results in a far far far more interested engineering feat of magic than most anything else you've ever done.

I'm just trying to figure out how to latch onto what you've done on that record to make that work the way it did. You say you like analog and stereo cardioid mics ... but I would've given anything to be at the session I mentioned, because there is way way more to it than that.

blue2blue · October 14, 2010

Despite my comments about the spelling of analog/analogue in my deleted/but quoted post (comments which seem insufferably snarky in the rear view mirror), I have to admit that I'm so old that I did grow up spelling analog as analogue, just as I learned to spell theater as theatre. When I was a kid, theatre was what I read, ditto analogue. Of course, back then, they weren't talking about sound, they were talking about analogies or types of computers. (Yes, kiddies, there were analog computers which typically used mechanical parts like gear assemblies and cams and photoelectric circuits to simulate complex real world conditions.)

But, just as I've tried to mostly resist the lure of the exotic in calling mixing consoles desks (I've slipped a few times 'cause I worked with a few Brits along the way and it sneaks in on you ), I made a conscious effort to retrain myself to always spell it analog, just as, once I'd rolled all the possibilities around in my head, I made a conscious decision to use miking instead of micing (ugh) or mic'ing (which at least makes sense). I just don't want to seem like one of those guys who has to use the supposedly cool term. (Good thing I started late. 'Cause I was one of those guys when I was at university -- as I might have said -- I was insufferable. Of course, I'm still insufferable. Just in the other direction. So it balances out. )

blue2blue · October 14, 2010