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

[Jeff da Weasel]

Disagreeing is great. Calling Bruce a troll for saying that he loved analog? Not so great.

[Bruce Swedien]

Disagreeing is great. Calling Bruce a troll for saying that he loved analog? Not so great.

 

 

You can call me anything but late for dinner!

 

Bruce Swedien

[Jeff da Weasel]

We didn't live this long by being thin-skinned, eh Bruce?

[Extreme Mixing]

I suppose I was the one who made the personal attack on MrKnobs. I just felt that you were lecturing Bruce on things that he has known for 25 years. That's about how long ago it was that I took his UCLA class. He went over most of this stuff then. He has been consistent about his opinion all this time. He likes the accuracy and editing possibilities of digital, but he loves the sound of analogue. Always has. I just didn't feel that he needed a lecture from you.

 

Now about that CLASP...

 

You should really check into it, Bruce. I think you would like it.

 

Steve

[MrKnobs]

I suppose I was the one who made the personal attack on MrKnobs. I just felt that you were lecturing Bruce on things that he has known for 25 years.

 

Well, because you took that class, you knew that Bruce didn't really believe the stuff he posted whereas I didn't.

 

Posting something you don't mean to stir up the pot is called trolling, btw.

 

Seriously, though, no worries.

 

 

Terry D.

[Jeff da Weasel]

Knobs, I'm still trying to find this inaccurate statement by Bruce in regard to digital audio. Is that from another thread? I can't seem to find it here.

[RockViolin]

I'd be surprised if Bruce was surprised that his comment wasn't taken at face value here.

It seems the rough equivilant to me of going to a Pittsburgh sports bar and yelling, I SURE DO LOVE THE BENGALS!!! Or maybe Josh Bell walking up to a violin section and saying, I SURE DO LOVE MY STRADIVARIOUS!!! (Something he'd never do, btw.) Or maybe even going to a forum like this where the vast majority record digitally and saying, "I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THE SOUND OF ANALOGUE MUSIC RECORDING!!!"

It was provacative, but he means it as well.

[MrKnobs]

Knobs, I'm still trying to find this inaccurate statement by Bruce in regard to digital audio. Is that from another thread? I can't seem to find it here.

 

He said two things (which I now feel trolled for having taken seriously) that I commented on:

 

Who knows how long digital recordings, which can be stored on anything from a hard drive to a CD, will last?

 

Few things have been studied more than the above (obviously mostly through accelerated testing) and in any case the data can be made to last forever even though all media deteriorates with time. Digital media has much less of a deterioration problem then analog media mostly due to the fact ones and zeros stay ones and zeros until a large change has occurred.

 

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.

 

Digital is a continuous record of the sound, even though that record is created from discrete samples. For that matter, analog tape is discrete also, an averaging process always taking place in the playback head gap.

 

I'm sorry I brought this up, just didn't expect the old Socratic method coming from Bruce.

 

Terry D.

[Anderton]

Stepping back, I think the problem is this: We all want some kind of perfect solution, and it doesn't really matter what the technology is. But, the problem is that neither analog nor digital is perfect. Therefore, we have to choose our battles as to which imperfections to accept or reject, and that's going to differ for different people.

 

As Terry points out, if managed properly and refreshed, digital data can - in theory - basically last forever. But, if you just bounce something to CD-ROM and figure you're covered, that's not true. If you just make a safety copy to tape, it will probably be recoverable years afterwards, but not always.

 

The biggest problem for analog backup is that you can't clone analog, but you can clone digital. The biggest problem for digital is formats, readers, and the need to constantly refresh.

 

One way to look at this is: Suppose you wanted to send something into space for aliens to understand our music (actually NASA already did this). Would they find it easier to deal with tape, vinyl, or digital data? I suspect vinyl would be best, because they could see the waveforms and figure out a way to read them

 

And Bruce, thanks for sticking around. As you've learned, it's easy to be misunderstood on the web, but if you just persevere, the heat eventually gives way to light. This thread has certainly given me lots of food for thought, and is particularly appropriate because the Sonar column I'm writing for Sound on Sound this month is about backing up and archiving.

 

BTW - I'm going to be starting another thread later today (after I prep a picture) that will add a whole other dimension to this discussion!! It will be both hilarious and scary. Stay tuned...

[Anderton]

Here's the thread:

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/showthread.php?p=41170981#post41170981

WARNING: Do not look at the image on a full stomach!

[The dman]

 

You can call me anything but late for dinner! Bruce Swedien

 

 

or ice cream:)

[blue2blue]

Disagreeing is great. Calling Bruce a troll for saying that he loved analog? Not so great.

Um... it was someone else who used the words troll and trolling. Not Terry.

 

dman was responding to something that Terry had said, but, I believe was referring to someone else entirely. At any rate, it was that party (who later softened his stance and affected a friendlier tone, I think it would be fair to say), and not Terry who used the T-word.

 

So, we should all be careful to go to the direct source, rather than risking a faulty inference.

[Kotch]

 

But that's what it sounded like when it was recorded. Somebody must have thought that it was art, otherwise you never would have heard it. Think of all the stuff that's 'archived' on YouTube today.

 

 

It's one thing to do the lo-fi thing intentionally, and quite another to have it forced upon you. There's a huge wasted opportunity in that. And most of the sort of stuff I grew up with is still very obscure today, simply because it wasn't well captured at the time. But I'll draw on an example you might have heard of.

 

Imagine you're sitting in your studio and there's some young unknown band coming in to do an album on the cheap. You don't know it yet, but these kids are about to turn in the most kick-ass rock performance that you'll ever hear. Heck, it's probably the wildest, rawest, most kick-ass performance that will ever be captured on tape in your country. And one that will never be repeated -- not even by this band. It's a unique historical moment. Your recording of this performance is going to make these kids reputation for them, and people will still be listening to it forty years from now.

 

Pretty much an engineers wet dream, right?

 

Except, there's a catch. You're not sitting in some fancy-schmancy studio in LA, with a Studer 24 track and an SSL. This is 1977, and you're at the ass-end of the world in Brisbane. Top notch analogue gear never traveled this far out of the US. You do you're best, but at the end of the day, the recording comes out sounding like this:

 

Q-GueNOKolo

 

I guess you can shrug that off. I mean, you can still hear the performance. But to me, it just seems like a huge wasted opportunity. These guys never got famous in the same way that The Ramones did, or the Sex Pistols. I would think at least part of that is because the quality of the recording is so much worse than a Sex Pistols or Ramones album.

 

I'm not sure if that same studio is still operating today, but even out in the ass-end of Australia, modern studios like that would have a digital rig that can at least achieve a minimum standard of quality.

[Jeff da Weasel]

Um... it was someone else who used the words troll and trolling . Not Terry.

Um... I wasn't referring to Terry having said that.

This thread has more loopholes than a crocheted doily.

I like ice cream.

[Lukenskywalker]

Um... I wasn't referring to Terry having said that. This thread has more loopholes than a crocheted doily. I like ice cream.

Um, to wit, refer to post #42 to see who first mentioned the 'T' word about Bruce.

Weez, I was with a 'Crochety Dolly' last night...who told?
She was 72, but didn't look a day over 70....my wife was out of town...I was drunk, the old madam brought over a bottle of Absinthe that she scored in Paris in the 1960's....I was lonely, she was ripe for action...

we had ice cream later,

I like ice cream.

Don't tell Beck, he'll be mucho jealous

[blue2blue]

Knobs, I'm still trying to find this inaccurate statement by Bruce in regard to digital audio. Is that from another thread? I can't seem to find it here.

[...] 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. [...]

You mean that part?

The signal coming out of the DA is a continuous analog signal. We can argue about the degree of its accuracy, but it is in no way the sort of atomized, segmented sort of thing that people using this line of description paint it to be, nor does the analog signal coming out the DA look anything like a 'stairstep' pattern, as some folks sometimes suggest.

The brain is in no way fooled into thinking it hears a continuous sound. It hears a continuous sound. And if you scope or graph the output signal of a properly functioning DA, you will see a continuous analog signal that will look very much like the analog signal going in -- and in all likelihood will be closer across the nominal audible range to that original signal than the same source captured to analog tape and played back -- by any objective measure we have at our disposal.

Which is not, not, not, of course, to suggest that people will or should like the sound of that signal better.

___________________


About the t-word... I looked back and saw that it was just that I'd interpreted it that way -- but that it could just as easily be taken as referring to someone else's statement. My bad for not seeing that it could be taken that way the first time!

[MikeRivers]

 

And most of the sort of stuff I grew up with is still very obscure today, simply because it wasn't well captured at the time.

 

I doubt that's true. They remained obscure because they were a good band that never left the ass end of nowhere.

 

Your recording of this performance is going to make these kids reputation for them, and people will still be listening to it forty years from now. Pretty much an engineers wet dream, right? Except, there's a catch. You're not sitting in some fancy-schmancy studio in LA, with a Studer 24 track and an SSL. This is 1977, and you're at the ass-end of the world in Brisbane. Top notch analogue gear never traveled this far out of the US. You do you're best, but at the end of the day, the recording comes out sounding like this:

 

What's wrong with that? Sounds like a recording of The Ramones to me. If anyone liked what they did where they were doing it, they'd certainly buy that recording. They didn't need a better recording, they needed a better manager. And they needed to work harder if they wanted to get famous. Maybe even starve for a year or two in the US or England.

 

These guys never got famous in the same way that The Ramones did, or the Sex Pistols. I would think at least part of that is because the quality of the recording is so much worse than a Sex Pistols or Ramones album.

 

Sorry, I don't buy that. Recordings didn't make the Sex Pistols or The Ramones. Hard work and luck did. I think that recording captures the essence of the band pretty well. But if nobody hears it, they aren't going to get famous. Nope, you can't blame this one on the gear or the studio.

[nat whilk II]

Somehow this thread seems to have taken a successful longevity pill:)

WILL IT LIVE ***FOREVER***???

nat whilk ii

[rasputin1963]

I think it's beastly to make personal attacks in a forum. We're not adolescence-arrested teenage boys. Just sayin'.

[blue2blue]

I guess you can shrug that off. I mean, you can still hear the performance. But to me, it just seems like a huge wasted opportunity. These guys never got famous in the same way that The Ramones did, or the Sex Pistols. I would think at least part of that is because the quality of the recording is so much worse than a Sex Pistols or Ramones album. I'm not sure if that same studio is still operating today, but even out in the ass-end of Australia, modern studios like that would have a digital rig that can at least achieve a minimum standard of quality.

I'm just picking up on this sub-thread.

I was something of a fan of the Saints. I remember the album I have as sounding pretty reasonable as punk stuff of the era went. They had a following here. And, for that matter, I'd suggest that the Saints were a harder working band than the Pistols, any day. Most punk bands were, I'd say. The Pistols were a boat riding the crest of a perfect storm wave... a lot of things came together in order to make them who they were for their fifteen minutes, not the least of which was a restless, hungry public more than willing to suspend all reasonable skepticism and good taste and go along with the masquerade. They were simultaneously wildly illegitimate and fake and yet as real as a freeway wreck.

Good times. Or was it? Really, it was kind of hard to tell.

[Goobers]

Not really. I've witnessed an awful lot of 20 year olds' faces light up when they hear something spinning off a tape for the first time.

 

 

I've read that comment from you before.

 

I always imagine this to go down something like this. Forgive me if any of this is not quite accurate:

 

I imagine you to be this very cool, smart, alluring audio chick. Who loves analog.

 

And there's this band of 20 year old dudes.

 

And you say to them "OK, now want to hear something REALLY good... listen to this on ANALOG!!"

 

And then YOUR eyes light up. Golden sunbeams shine on your head. Perhaps you elevate an inch off the ground as well.

 

The 20 year olds looks at each other like they're about to enter some special place lead by their newly discovered analog goddess. Their own process of eye lighting has already begun.

 

Hovering an inch above the ground, the beam of light following you as you glide towards the vintage machine, you push PLAY.

 

The tape starts spinning. It's a cool tune. It sounds great. Maybe you're on it, confirming to the 20 year olds yet another dimension of your awesomeness. If you had some kind of cool blank expression on your own face before, now you are subtly smiling and nodding, animated twinkles plinking out of your eyes.

 

The 20 year olds are mesmerized.

 

Maybe they love analog. Maybe they don't. But they love you, and they're in your spell. You've enchanted them. You could tell them there's nothing more delicious than eating their shoes and their eyes would light up as they chew on their kicks.

 

And just as you describe, they listen to the tape, they've got that little smile and nod going on as well, and yes, no question about it, their eyes have lit up.

 

I apologize if I'm off on a detail or two. For example, perhaps instead of pushing PLAY on your machine yourself, you nod to an assistant trained to start the song at the precise moment the 20 year olds have lost all executive functioning in their frontal cortex.

 

In any case, since your comment was somewhat short, I figured I'd flesh it out a bit, granted with some degree of speculation, to emphasize just how much a 20 year old's perspective on analog is exactly like Bruce's!

[UstadKhanAli]

(discussing The Saints): I guess you can shrug that off. I mean, you can still hear the performance. But to me, it just seems like a huge wasted opportunity. These guys never got famous in the same way that The Ramones did, or the Sex Pistols. I would think at least part of that is because the quality of the recording is so much worse than a Sex Pistols or Ramones album.

 

 

I've just only heard this on your YouTube clip through computer speakers, but I gotta say I really enjoyed that.

[UstadKhanAli]

I've read that comment from you before. I always imagine this to go down something like this. Forgive me if any of this is not quite accurate: I imagine you to be this very cool, smart, alluring audio chick. Who loves analog.

I think she is that.

But 20 year olds aren't idiots. They know that not so long ago, people weren't recording music on computers.

I keep saying this, but I don't think most people on SSS believe me: a lot of kids are listening to music from the '70s. I work on a high school campus. I come in contact with hundreds of kids per year. They're listening to AC/DC, Hendrix, The Beatles, Black Sabbath, SRV, The Doors, Led Zeppelin, all sorts of stuff. They're wearing those shirts. Who do you think keeps buying Pink Floyd merch?

I don't mean a few kids here and there. I mean a LOT of kids.

And some of those kids are musicians. They know what people recorded stuff on. They know that it sounds different.

I think people on SSS, or forty-somethings, fifty-somethings...they like to think that kids are completely clueless and only download MP3s and listen to rap. And a lot of kids do that, of course. But there's far more to it than that.

And I've repeated this many times over the years. This isn't like this is the first post I've done on what high school kids listen to. But nonetheless, older people will still keep selling kids short.

[Lukenskywalker]

I think she is that. But 20 year olds aren't idiots. They know that not so long ago, people weren't recording music on computers. I keep saying this, but I don't think most people on SSS believe me: a lot of kids are listening to music from the '70s. I work on a high school campus.

 

 

 

hey Ken, When did you start working on a High School campus?

I thought you were an Elementary teacher w/kids with Special Needs...

 

Did you start this year?

 

You prolly posted it, but I must have missed it....

 

Do you enjoy it?

[Goobers]

I think she is that. But 20 year olds aren't idiots. They know that not so long ago, people weren't recording music on computers. I keep saying this, but I don't think most people on SSS believe me: a lot of kids are listening to music from the '70s. I work on a high school campus. I come in contact with hundreds of kids per year. They're listening to AC/DC, Hendrix, The Beatles, Black Sabbath, SRV, The Doors, Led Zeppelin, all sorts of stuff. They're wearing those shirts. Who do you think keeps buying Pink Floyd merch?

 

 

I agree with you about kids not being musical idiots, but think those kids are pledging their allegiance to bands not recording techniques.

 

By the miracle of the internet, Bruce Swedian is actually in this thread!!

 

BRUCE: if you're still here, say Pink Floyd showed up on your doorstep today. Would you be able to record The Wall using everything at your disposal EXCEPT an analog tape machine? Or would you say, "sorry, no tape deck, no Wall."

 

If Pink Floyd recorded The Wall on a top flight digital system instead of an analog one (and the year was 1980 except for 2010 technology), would kids no longer embrace Pink Floyd music and merch?

 

Of all the things that make Pink Floyd Pink Floyd, or Led Zeppelin Led Zeppelin, or The Beatles The Beatles, are you saying (is anyone saying?) that the analog tape machine is THE irreplaceable component?