Jump to content

Anyone still using analog?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I've often said that musicians don't choose tape because engineers don't present it as a viable option. All you ever hear is that it's "harder to make edits, more expensive, more background hiss", etc.

 

No one ever explains how it allows for a more intuitive and efficient recording process, a more pleasing dynamic response, a more harmonically rich recording. Hell, I'd fall over and die if a recording engineer told me he wanted to listen to my music instead of stare at a computer screen full of little sign waves all day...

 

Anyone looking to get rid of a sweet A820 for a desperate price? I'd make use of it :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Occasionally sample some analog cassette or reel of my own stuff, or listen to old tapes of improv. Never seem to get around to using Otari to run audio thru and back, hope I do. Times have changed, I don't like modern upkeep, but I don't miss cleaning heads and de-magnetizing either...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

No one ever explains how it allows for a more intuitive and efficient recording process

 

 

How much intuitive is it to hit Record on the screen vs. hit Record on a tape deck? Also, I have to day, how easy is it to do 10 alternate takes and comp the best parts out of them, when working with a tape based system? That kind of stuff is very easy with a digital system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

How much intuitive is it to hit Record on the screen vs. hit Record on a tape deck? Also, I have to day, how easy is it to do 10 alternate takes and comp the best parts out of them, when working with a tape based system? That kind of stuff is very easy with a digital system.

 

 

I'm sorry Dean, but your justification is a big reason digital platforms are counterintuitive to the recording process.

 

Yeah, hitting the record button is the same on both formats, but cutting and pasting ten takes into a lifeless puzzle is waste of time and creative energy for everyone...and a clear sign that the band is not ready to record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Recording to tape is a different process from digital. That's all there is to it. It's the linearity, of course, but everything goes into it. It'll come out different. Until recently, I recorded analog and digital, and I can just tell you that everyone goes into it with a very different mindset. Knowing that you cannot edit the hell out of something, knowing that you don't have infinite takes, knowing that you can't comp tracks easily puts everyone in a very different mindset, and that mindset is often (although not always) more conducive to creating great music. As a bonus, analog also glues things together sonically much better than digital, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

What are you using for your 1/4" deck?

 

 

It's an Otari MX-55, with the roll around cart and meter bridge. Big ass machine. I stole it for $300 from the local NPR station. They also gave me their entire tape archive, about 150 reels. The tape is most likely useless, I haven't even tried to record over it....mostly I have been transferring the material into digital for use in "weirdness"...y'know, backward snippets of jazz heavily effected, odd bits of spoken word. It's a big job weeding through it all.

 

One gem I found was a tiny reel, recorded at 3 3/4 ips, of Jack Kerouac reading from the Subterraneans with a short interview..I'm guessing from around 1966. I had to digitally time stretch it in order to understand what it was, in pieces, because I don't have a machine that can play at that speed. I need to find an example of Kerouac speaking so I can reference the tempo and pitch of his speaking voice and try to match it.....I don't know what he sounded like.

 

I took it for the metal reels, mostly, but I have been getting off listening to all that weird {censored}.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one ever explains how it allows for a more intuitive and efficient recording process

---

How much intuitive is it to hit Record on the screen vs. hit Record on a tape deck?

 

While I'll be the first to admit that there are significant differences between analog and digital that in some cases require different techniques and approaches, at least in that respect IMO, they don't have to be that different. You can use a DAW as a tape deck replacement / substitute if you want, and forgo the editing. You can always turn off your monitor, or leave your Mix screen on top (instead of the edit screen), or even use a hardware controller / "remote" (and again, turn off the monitor) if the temptation to "look at waveforms" gets to be too much. ;)

 

Analog is not without its own set of inefficiencies either. For example, waiting for the tape to rewind, or having to switch reels (and I always clean heads when I swap reels, adding to the delay) isn't exactly "efficient" either. :)

 

IMO, a DAW isn't evil or good in and of itself - it's what you do with it, it's how you approach it and use it that matters; and the same is true of a analog tape deck, although that is, in some aspects, a bit less flexible. But they're both just inanimate objects: The question is - what are YOU (and the musicians) going to do with them to bring them to life? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:D


oh, wait, he's serious.



:freak:

 

It's his opinion - and opinions are personal and not always shared by everyone else. That doesn't always make them "right or wrong" - I know folks who can't stand working with tape for various reasons (some of them legit IMHO, while others make me scratch my head because I disagree), while other folks can't stand using DAWs or hardware recorders or whatever. None of that is worth fighting with people over though. If someone is happy with recording to wire or wax, who am I to argue with their decision? It might not have been the choice I would have made, but hey - it's their system, their recordings.

 

The one thing that I DO expect - at least here on this forum that has "my" name on it - is a certain amount of civility in the course of discussions. I don't expect everyone to have the same opinions, but I do insist that everyone remember the forum motto when posting - "Be excellent to each other". IMO, AJ's post crossed that line - not because of his strongly held opinions about gear (he's perfectly entitled to those, and I'll defend his right to that, along with everyone else's), but because of the personal insults / name calling he used while expressing his POV about a particular piece of gear. That's what got his post edited - not his POV about the gear itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I have a Sony APR 5003 1/4" 2 track for mastering and analog layback. I use it occasionally. It adds the analog quality to a digital mix.

 

The Radar is a great sounding machine, and probably the best DAW out there. I wish I could justify the cost to buy one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


No one ever explains how it allows for a more intuitive and efficient recording process

---

How much intuitive is it to hit Record on the screen vs. hit Record on a tape deck?


While I'll be the first to admit that there are significant differences between analog and digital that in some cases require different techniques and approaches, at least in that respect IMO, they don't
have
to be that different. You can use a DAW as a tape deck replacement / substitute if you want, and forgo the editing. You can always turn off your monitor, or leave your Mix screen on top (instead of the edit screen), or even use a hardware controller / "remote" (and again, turn off the monitor) if the temptation to "look at waveforms" gets to be too much.
;)

Analog is not without its own set of inefficiencies either. For example, waiting for the tape to rewind, or having to switch reels (and I always clean heads when I swap reels, adding to the delay) isn't exactly "efficient" either.
:)

IMO, a DAW isn't evil or good in and of itself - it's what you do with it, it's how you approach it and use it that matters; and the same is true of a analog tape deck, although that is, in some aspects, a bit less flexible. But they're both just inanimate objects: The question is - what are YOU (and the musicians) going to do with them to bring them to life?
:)

 

 

:love::love::wave:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

How's the 499 holding up these days? Back when it (and 3M 996) were both relatively new, I preferred 996; for not only sonic reasons, but because I found the 499 had some shedding problems.
:(
It sounded good though - but I personally liked 996 a bit better.

 

I didn't have any problems with the 499. I will say, though, that we were limited in our choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'd love to have a tape deck - a 16-track 2" would be a lot of fun. But, looking at the cost of owning, operating, and maintaining a tape deck compared to my little ProTools LE rig, and considering that I'm a hobbyist who makes zero money with recording, it just isn't going to happen. I sink enough time and money into this as it stands now without adding a tape deck to the equation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

AJ, that's way over the top, and not the type of dialog I want on a forum with my name on it.
:(

You're entitled to your POV, just as Sean (and everyone else) is entitled to theirs, but I insist we keep it reasonably civil on this forum, even when we have strong disagreements with others.


Please edit your post so that it reflects that policy, or I will have to.
:(

Thanks.
:wave:

 

HA! i cant even remember what you deleted, but im sure it was spot on!

 

when have i not been over the top? i call em out like i see em...

 

just give me a great band to record... the rest is just bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

My band is working on our third CD and it's all tracked to 2" tape. It is so much easier to get the sound we want, the session flows so much nicer and your eyes aren't hurting at the end of a session. Ahhhhh.

 

The studio where we're working has a full PT rig with nice Apogee converters too... so far it has only been used on our sessions to provide some effects on the monitor mixes. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sure, they still own the machines; probably in part due to some client demand, but probably also because they can't get anywhere near what they paid for them out of them if they were to sell them off.
:(
Like I said, nearly every major LA area studio that I walk into has hallways lined up with the analog tape decks instead of having them in action inside the booked rooms. In some ways, that's a pity.
:(

 

That

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...