Is it worth it to record tracks onto analog first?

[stopthebus]

So I know this highschool music teacher who does all the recordings for the school choirs and bands, and he does everything onto analog tape, reel-to-reel. I'm getting ready to record my band's new album, and I thought it'd be cool to record the tracks onto analog; for both the novelty/fun aspect of it, and because the sound I'm aiming for is something that would sound great on vinyl, a more warm sound, that I always associate with analog.

 

He mixes everything analog as well, but I would want the tracks on my computer to mix with Logic. I'm not sure how the transfer would work, other than muting all but one track+recording each track to a CD. But regardless of how it would work, is it worth it? I've never really compared the sounds of an analog recording to a digital -- would I indeed get the warmer sound that I'm going for, or would it be barely noticable?

[wwwjd]

I feel it would slow the production down. warm = colored

[Phil O'Keefe]

What analog tape deck were you considering using?

[stopthebus]

I'm not sure on the specifics, he's got about 10-12 different reel-to-reels, along with one of those big table/desk things that has 4 reels on it.

[Phil O'Keefe]

Well, if it's a good three head analog deck (Studer, Ampex, MCI, Otari, etc.), and not a narrow format "prosumer" model, then you may indeed want to give it a try.

 

One common technique is to do a "pass through". You run the mic preamps into the analog deck, and route the audio outputs of the analog deck into your DAW's multichannel interface. Set the analog deck for monitoring off of the playback head (not the record / sync head)... arm the tracks on the analog deck, arm the tracks on your DAW, and roll tape / spin disk on both. The audio goes from the mikes, into the preamps and then into the analog machine. It hits the record head and gets printed to tape, and a few dozen milliseconds later, the freshly recorded tape passes over the playback head, and the recorded audio is played back and routed out of the analog deck and into the DAW, where it gets recorded a second time; post tape.

 

A similar technique (I learned this from Craig Anderton years ago) can be used to process tracks that were already recorded into a DAW. Route the audio out of your DAW and into the analog deck, set the same way I described earlier. The output(s) of the analog deck are routed back into the DAW, and recorded to new tracks. There will be a delay involved; the amount will depend on the tape deck head spacing between the record and playback heads on the analog deck, as well as the tape speed it is running at. Just nudge or drag the newly recorded tracks back into alignment with the original tracks.

 

There are some significant advantages to using the second technique - assuming you did a good job recording the tracks to the DAW to begin with. You can experiment with how hard you "hit" the analog tape, without the risks that come with recording directly to analog tape first. This is going to be less of an issue for old dudes like me (and possibly your teacher friend - no disrespect or offense intended ) who have a decent amount of experience with analog recording, but for someone who has never tracked analog, it's fairly easy to track with inappropriate levels, and analog VU meters won't tell you the whole story - you have to watch the peak meters (if the deck has any) and really listen to what's coming back off that playback head. Hit it too hard and you'll distort the signal too much and over-compress it, hit it too easy and you wind up with a lousy signal to noise ratio and a noisy / hissey recording... but with the second method, you can experiment over and over if need be with how hard you're going to hit it without risk to the original recording, which is safely on separate tracks on your DAW. You can also experiment with different tape formulations, recording speeds, over or-under biasing the analog deck, etc. etc. - all of which will affect the resulting sound.

 

By the way, that same basic setup, with some minor changes, can also be used for real tape delay, flanging and automatic double tracking (ADT) effects. While my primary recording rig is a Pro Tools HD|2 Accel setup, I still keep an analog deck in service for these very things. Rather than passing everything through the analog deck, I prefer to take more of a "pick and choose" approach, and only "process" the tracks where I feel it is giving me tonal benefits.

[Lee Flier]

Well, like Phil said, it depends on what kind of deck you're recording to as far as whether the benefits would be worth it. And you can certainly get a "warm" sound with digital if you learn some different techniques, as Phil also mentioned.

 

However, I came up recording to tape, and I still prefer it. And actually my band is doing our third CD exactly the way you're talking about - recording the basic tracks to tape and then transferring to digital for editing and mixing. Mind you this is all pro stuff - Otari 2" tape decks and high end Apogee converters to transfer to digital. I'm mixing in Reaper, on my home DAW.

 

I think that there's a certain quality that tape has which I've yet to hear duplicated with digital recordings. I don't know if "warmth" is it. Particularly in the bottom end such as on bass and drums, there's a noticable difference - they can really be "felt" more, and the extreme highs can also be a bit more silky (I say "can be" because this also depends a lot on the mics being used and other factors).

 

I'd say if all you have is a cheaper reel to reel, it might be good for a few tracks to do some experiments using the technique that Phil suggests for processing already recorded DAW tracks through a tape deck (which I've done also - I had a great sounding Ampex 2 track in here for awhile and I used to run some selected DAW tracks through it). That'll give you some idea what you're getting into.

[feralmusic]

analog? digital? it does not matter what you do if it's eventually all going to be squashed down to a standard mp3... which seems to be the current format of choice with the kids.

 

as far as editing goes- when you go digital, you can't go home again.

[Phil O'Keefe]

analog? digital? it does not matter what you do if it's eventually all going to be squashed down to a standard mp3... which seems to be the current format of choice with the kids.

 

He wasn't specific about that, but it sounded like he was thinking about releasing it on vinyl.

[stopthebus]

Yeah, I mean if money/cost wasn't an issue, it'd be a vinyl release, but it's probably going to end up as a CD release. So you're saying that after the conversion to digital, anything gained/altered by recording to analog is lost?

[Lee Flier]

Yeah, I mean if money/cost wasn't an issue, it'd be a vinyl release, but it's probably going to end up as a CD release. So you're saying that after the conversion to digital, anything gained/altered by recording to analog is lost?

 

You'd think so, but in my experience, it isn't. I don't think mixing in the computer from recordings transferred to digital sounds as good as mixing on a nice console, but IMO the qualities of recording to tape at the multitrack level aren't really lost by converting to digital, no.

 

The old argument about "it's only going to be squashed down to mp3 anyway" doesn't really hold water. If it did, we'd all just record directly to mp3's and save a lot of disk space. The further up the chain you go, the more it will affect the outcome. So a high quality multitrack recording that's been compressed to mp3 is still going to sound better than a crappy recording compressed to mp3.

 

And really, if you encode an mp3 correctly, it doesn't lose a whole lot.

[Phil O'Keefe]

And really, if you encode an mp3 correctly, it doesn't lose a whole lot.

 

To me, the top gets a brittle and swishy sound to it on some mixes, especially with low bit rates and bad MP3 converters, but the bigger issue is the over-compression in mastering that some people just can't seem to resist, and IMO, that's what causes the greatest harm... but I do absolutely agree with Lee that the closer to the start of the chain you go, the more important it is to get it right, to get the quality there. There can definitely be audible differences between two or three 192 kbps MP3's; with one sourced from a high bit rate digital recording, one from a quality analog recording and one from a MP3 or low bit rate multitrack recording.

 

IMO, just because a lot of people listen on cheap players or via MP3's doesn't mean that we, as engineers, should use that as an excuse to not do as good of a job on the multitrack recordings and mixes as we can. We can throw our hands up in frustration regarding the limitations of the current standard delivery format, and just give up and quit caring, but I'm too stubborn for that.

[nice keetee]

Create a good work and if others feel need to step on it...

[wwwjd]

IMO, just because a lot of people listen on cheap players or via MP3's doesn't mean that we, as engineers, should use that as an excuse to not do as good of a job on the multitrack recordings and mixes as we can.

 

AMEN! Preach it, brother Phil!!

[Lee Flier]

Create a good work and if others feel need to step on it...

 

Indeed. Whatever your role was, just don't be the one to blame if something sucks.

[scarecrowbob]

"just because a lot of people listen on cheap players or via MP3's doesn't mean that we, as engineers, should use that as an excuse to not do as good of a job on the multitrack recordings and mixes as we can. We can throw our hands up in frustration regarding the limitations of the current standard delivery format, and just give up and quit caring, but I'm too stubborn for that."

 

Fer sure.

 

And it isn't just about trying to care about something that abstractly doesn't matter.

 

As Lee notes, it really does matter in terms of quality. Processing higher resolution files results in massively different results than processing lower resolution files.

 

If folks are skeptical about this, a simple test can be done:

 

record something at a high bit rate and depth,

downsample it to something very low quality,

run the higher resolution audio through some heavy limiting,

output it to the lower resolution format,

run the downsampled audio through the same limiting,

output the lower resolution file to its same resolution.

 

Will you be able to hear the difference? I dunno. But I hypothesize that you would. And it is a pretty easy thing to test in any system.

[The dman]

In my experience experimenting with my Buddies Studer A827 there's more benefit recording to tape and transferring to digital than recording digital to and bouncing through analog even though it does change things.

 

And I agree with Lee that a console with decent outboard sounds better than straight ITB. But that also depends on the convertors and the console. Some may say bullocks but I've done this time and time again and myself and my clients hear the difference.

[Lee Flier]

 

In my experience experimenting with my Buddies Studer A827 there's more benefit recording to tape and transferring to digital than recording digital to and bouncing through analog even though it does change things.

 

 

Yeah, I agree completely. But doing the latter trick is still a good way to find out if you want to pursue the analog road further.

 

 

And I agree with Lee that a console with decent outboard sounds better than straight ITB. But that also depends on the convertors and the console. Some may say bullocks but I've done this time and time again and myself and my clients hear the difference.

 

 

Me too. But compromises on either side are still pretty good - recording digital and mixing through a good analog console is better than all digital, and so is recording analog and mixing in the box.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

analog? digital? it does not matter what you do if it's eventually all going to be squashed down to a standard mp3... which seems to be the current format of choice with the kids.

 

 

I'm sorry, but I could not disagree more. I think this is complete nonsense.

 

1. Analog imparts a specific sound. This sound translates to MP3. Why else would all those analog-recorded MP3s sound so different from, say, reggaeton?

 

2. If we as recording engineers don't care about what something sounds like, who will? I'm not going to do a crappier job of recording because someone is going to listen to an MP3 ultimately. That's just laziness and passing the buck.

 

3. MP3s can sound fantastic....if you start with a fantastic sounding recording. Yeah, sure, I hear the artifacts and thinning of the stereo soundfield. But we've all heard MP3s that just blow our minds at how good it sounds, and we all know that MP3s matter far less than what the song sounded like in the first place. I've heard a Bruce Swedien recording of a big band on MP3 that sounded amazing. I'm really getting tired of people constantly pointing their fingers at music sounding crappy because it's on MP3 when the truth of the matter is that the music sounded crappy before it was converted to MP3s. The thing of the matter is that the recordings that a lot of people are making, with crappy sounding converters, crappy mixes, overcompression, etc. would sound crappy if the final mix were listened to on reel-to-reel, MP3, vinyl, cassette, CD, or DVD.

 

If you truly feel that it doesn't matter, then go ahead and record your music on a Dictaphone while the rest of us who actually do care about capturing detail, sonics, and emotion continue to take great pride in our work.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Yeah, I mean if money/cost wasn't an issue, it'd be a vinyl release, but it's probably going to end up as a CD release. So you're saying that after the conversion to digital, anything gained/altered by recording to analog is lost?

 

 

No, I don't think so. I regularly transfer a lot of stuff from Akai MG1214 (12-track analog) to digital. Those details, artifacts, and qualities of analog, everything, get transferred. I also used to record to analog and have recently transferred a lot of stuff as well, and it's all good. It really helps the recording quite a bit, in my opinion, if you can track at least the bass and drums and and guitars and then mix in digital, maybe just tracking the vocals. It still sounds quite analog. I always get people thinking that I recorded and mixed the whole thing in analog. 'Course, that's also because I don't overcompress or edit very much and have good quality digital converters.

 

And really, when you stop and think about it, if you have decent digital converters, why would it make something stop sounding analog? It's not like digital converters can strip away the analog quality of a recording. If they could, then it'd sound like Led Zeppelin or The Beatles or ELO were all recorded digitally. And thankfully, that's not the case because that's part of the sound.

[Lee Flier]

+ eleventy billion to everything Ken said above.

[feralmusic]

 

And really, if you encode an mp3 correctly, it doesn't lose a whole lot.

 

 

you can't be serious, lee. it's a compressed file ...even at 256. you lose frequencies at both ends of the spectrum.

[feralmusic]

I'm sorry, but I could not disagree more. I think this is complete nonsense. 1. Analog imparts a specific sound. This sound translates to MP3. Why else would all those analog-recorded MP3s sound so different from, say, reggaeton? 2. If we as recording engineers don't care about what something sounds like, who will? I'm not going to do a crappier job of recording because someone is going to listen to an MP3 ultimately. That's just laziness and passing the buck. 3. MP3s can sound fantastic....if you start with a fantastic sounding recording. Yeah, sure, I hear the artifacts and thinning of the stereo soundfield. But we've all heard MP3s that just blow our minds at how good it sounds, and we all know that MP3s matter far less than what the song sounded like in the first place. I've heard a Bruce Swedien recording of a big band on MP3 that sounded amazing. I'm really getting tired of people constantly pointing their fingers at music sounding crappy because it's on MP3 when the truth of the matter is that the music sounded crappy before it was converted to MP3s. The thing of the matter is that the recordings that a lot of people are making, with crappy sounding converters, crappy mixes, overcompression, etc. would sound crappy if the final mix were listened to on reel-to-reel, MP3, vinyl, cassette, CD, or DVD. If you truly feel that it doesn't matter, then go ahead and record your music on a Dictaphone while the rest of us who actually do care about capturing detail, sonics, and emotion continue to take great pride in our work.

 

i could list you all my commercial experience as a composer / producer but i'm not getting into some pissing contest with you. suffice it to say, i know what i'm doing. the record and publishing companies i do business with think so, too.

 

i never heard an mp3 sound as good as a WAVE or AIFF of the same recording. that's my experience. so you can stuff the insults and have a nice day.

[stopthebus]

i could list you all my commercial experience as a composer / producer but i'm not getting into some pissing contest with you. suffice it to say, i know what i'm doing. the record and publishing companies i do business with think so, too. i never heard an mp3 sound as good as a WAVE or AIFF of the same recording. that's my experience. so you can stuff the insults and have a nice day.

 

Well yeah, I don't think anyone's saying that a WAVE and a MP3 sound exactly the same. What they're saying is that the ideas of "as soon as you compress to MP3, any characteristics gained by recording analog are lost" and that "why spend time making things sound good when people are just going to listen to compressed versions anyways" aren't exactly true.

[Lee Flier]

Well yeah, I don't think anyone's saying that a WAVE and a MP3 sound exactly the same. What they're saying is that the ideas of "as soon as you compress to MP3, any characteristics gained by recording analog are lost" and that "why spend time making things sound good when people are just going to listen to compressed versions anyways" aren't exactly true.

 

Yes, you get it, thank you.

[Lee Flier]

 

you can't be serious, lee. it's a compressed file ...even at 256. you lose frequencies at both ends of the spectrum.

 

 

Yes, of course you do. But considering most people listen to MP3's on cheap headphones, car stereos, boom boxes, cheap computer speakers... they aren't likely to miss those frequencies anyway.

 

The point is that given a decent source recording and mix, you can encode an MP3 in such a way that it doesn't lose the impact of the music. I've listened to plenty of music on cassettes and AM radios in my time, too - I certainly never thought that was a high fidelity listening experience, but the excitement and quality of a good recording vs. a bad one still came through. I don't find MP3's much different.