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

[Lukenskywalker]

 

Not true. We've had lots of threads about analog vs. digital, tubes vs. sims, and all those other hot button topics with nary a Bruce in sight. Fact is, this is a forum - people are welcome to express opinions, no matter what their name is. As to Bruce, few of you have had the opportunity to meet him or hang out with him. I've had that pleasure multiple times, but what's most telling is the way it started. We were both doing seminars in Mexico, and there was famous engineer Bruce Swedien. He came up to ME and said "Hey, Craig, how are you?" as if we'd known each other for years. I suppose we had, in a virtual way; I'd listened to his music, and he'd read my articles. Bruce is a big guy with a big laugh and a big smile. So, I have context. When he comes in here and posts a thread like "I love the sound of analog recording," he's not trying to provoke or put down digital (as he said, he has a "big-ass" Pro Tools rig to which he transfers sounds recorded on tape). I think the scenario is more likely that he was working on an analog project, thinking to himself "Damn, this sounds good!" and went to post something to his buds on SSS because, well, he was just really happy with what he was doing. Anything Bruce posts, you pretty much have to imagine being accompanied by a smile and a basso profundo laugh. Like most people I've met who are truly successful and high up on the food chain, he's totally unaffected, and what you see is what you get. Knowing this puts a different shade on what he posts than if some know-it-all newbie tries to start a food fight on analog vs. digital.

 

 

Deftly said, Herr Anderton.

 

For the life of me, I just don't understand people who are in the recording Biz, (or any other Biz for that matter) taking umbrage to an established Individual such as Bruce who maybe hasn't the time or inclination to answer any and all questions thrown his way randomly by every forumite who thinks he deserves an immediate answer/shortcut to his own recording issues.

 

Bruce, Et.Al. learned his craft by trial and error, the 'School of Hard Knocks',and pure innate talent, not withstanding formal educational training that cost him bucks and considerable time.

 

Where is it written that he is obliged to share his recording prowness/acumen with any Manny, Moe, and Jack that fields a question to him just because he is a fellow forumite on SSS?

[Bookumdano2]

 

Deftly said, Herr Anderton. For the life of me, I just don't understand people who are in the recording Biz, (or any other Biz for that matter) taking umbrage to an established Individual such as Bruce who maybe hasn't the time or inclination to answer any and all questions thrown his way randomly by every forumite who thinks he deserves an immediate answer/shortcut to his own recording issues. Bruce, Et.Al. learned his craft by trial and error, the 'School of Hard Knocks',and pure innate talent, not withstanding formal educational training that cost him bucks and considerable time. Where is it written that he is obliged to share his recording prowness/acumen with any Manny, Moe, and Jack that fields a question to him just because he is a fellow forumite on SSS?

 

 

I do it because I'm whiney and self-centered. I used to do that with letters to R-E-P magazine every month in the early 70's too and by hanging out at Criteria Miami until Ron and Howie couldn't stand my whiney questions and told me to go back to my own studio. I'd ask self-centered whiney questions at AES in New York a lot too in the 70's.

 

Come to think of it, Westlake sold my first 85-16 to me. Wonder if I could've been whiney to Bruce's face then if he'd been around that day.

 

Now with the internet, I can stay in the studio and get pushy from here. Sometimes, it works and I get the answers I need so that I can burrow back into the studio to try things out on my own.

[Lukenskywalker]

 

I do it because I'm whiney and self-centered. I used to do that with letters to R-E-P magazine every month in the early 70's too and by hanging out at Criteria until Ron and Howie couldn't stand my whiney questions and told me to go back to my own studio. I'd ask self-centered whiney questions at AES in New York a lot too in the 70's. Now with the internet, I can stay in the studio and get pushy from here. Sometimes, it works and I get the answers I need so that I can burrow back into the studio to try things out on my own.

 

 

'Book 'im Dano,...Whining One.'

[Anderton]

Craig, Honestly, the point was not about analog vs digital. Its about the last couple of threads that Bruce has started.... just stating an opinion and then moving on. I normally don`t care because I do the same thing at times when I`m feeling crabby but I guess when its Mr. Bruce Swedien were talking about here, I expect something more than "I love analog and thats that."

 

He's made several posts here since his initial post.

 

I know its all BS anyway... normally parody threads don`t get deleted so easily but I guess when you`re parodying a legend, its not funny.

 

Actually, the topic of women farting is not something I want to see on the main page of this forum. Parodying a legend could be funny, but that wasn't it...

 

Unless you're another legend...

 

I've never thought of myself as a legend, but damn, sure is cool that someone does!

 

I agree that analog sounds better but it really doesn`t matter because when you`re recording true talent, no one really cares what the format. Do we?

 

As I say at seminars...no radio station ever called me up and said "You know, we were going to play your CD...but you're using a solid-state mic preamp, aren't you? If it had tubes, well, then you would have gotten airplay."

[Anderton]

...does that noise really bother you? If so, you're not listening to good enough music.

 

Can't agree there. After transferring classical recordings to CD, I couldn't go back to vinyl. There is simply no physical way to obtain comparable dynamic range or frequency response from vinyl; you'd have to violate the laws of physics.

 

Now, if you could get the same dynamic range and frequency response from vinyl that you can from digital, THEN I'd be interested. But to me, dynamics are a big part of musicality. That's one reason why it took me a while to be convinced about digital - as I think I mentioned earlier in this thread, reel-to-reel with Dolby SR can hit dynamic ranges of 102dB. It took a while for digital to catch up - especially when so many consumer CD players had 12-bit D/A converters

[Han]

Yes I like analog, I like the spinning reels, the big console with it's thousand little blinking lights, I love the process, the sound, the smell, I can work very fast with a really good band. I even bought 40 reels of new 2" tape last year, do you have any idea how much that costs?

 

But...............being a moderator om a hi fi forum (audiophiles forum) I've done many double blind tests and I can assure you that most people won't hear any difference between an analog two track and 24/96 because they don't know how to listen and where to listen to.

 

We have compared interconnects, $5 to $1200 buck interconnects, amps of $170 to a $6000 amp, CD players of $100 to a $10000 one and so on.

 

And in any double blind test the results of some 20 to 30 audiophile people is 50/50. Even a rabbit will have a 50/50 result I guess.

 

But, I simply love analog recording and I will do this untill I die.

[Anderton]

A propos of nothing in particular...I don't think the comparison actually should be between analog and 24/96, because I think DSD sounds better than 24/96. As Blue pointed out, digital is not about discontinuities in sound;*there are none. BUT - how we get there is through filtering technology, and that definitely does make a difference. Perhaps what people think of as sounding "digital" is more the sound of the filters than the media. Take those filters away, as you can with DSD, and it's a whole other ball game.

[Kotch]

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

 

I didn't really mean to create a sub-thread. I only meant to suggest that digital has been a blessing at the low end of the market (which, the way things are going, will pretty soon be all of it). You can listen to one of those huge productions that used to happen -- albums with five figure budgets that took months to record -- and of course it sounds good. It would have been pretty disastrous if you'd spent that much money for an album and it didn't. But under that system, there was lots of worthwhile music on the fringes that got the shaft.

 

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.

There was a second Saints album that sounds much better than the first. But it didn't have the fire in the belly like the first one. The third album is in a completely different style, much more akin to Ed Keupper and the Laughing Clowns (Ed Keupper is the guitar player in the clip I posted). After that, anything released as "The Saints" was pretty much just one of Chris Bailey's vanity projects. But as the Laughing Clowns demonstrates, these guys are serious musicians. They were playing fast and heavy music, but I doubt whether they actually wanted to sound bad -- not like in the London scene, where being crap was kind of the point.

 

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.

That's a fair point. And yet, when I put Never Mind the Bollocks on, it sounds really good, tight, and well-recorded. (How much of it is actually them playing is another question.) I'm Stranded doesn't, and they're real musicians who actually cared. It offends my sense of justice of rightness that this should be so.

 

That's why I'm glad digital exists. Anyone with the right amount of passion and dedication can learn how to make a passably good recording on gear that won't cost them more than a couple of thousand. And if that offends the sensibilities of people who bust a gut putting together a brand-name analog studio for the bragging rights, then tough {censored}.

[Kotch]

 

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

 

 

Like I said, it's a truly epic performance. One critic wrote: "...You like Quo or the Ramones? This pounds them into dirt." That pretty much sums it up for me.

 

I'm Stranded is probably the best sounding song off the album, and the most accessible, which is why it got released as the single. You might be giving it a pass because you're listening to it on Youtube, where most stuff sounds pretty crappy anyway. But the album is really not very well recorded.

[Kotch]

 

Do you think analog captures reality better than digital or do you just prefer the sound of analog subjectively?

 

 

Okay, I'm not going to stick my neck out to venture an opinion on how well either medium captures reality. I really don't know. At this point, I'm not even sure the question is relevant to me. I'm just a guitar player who records a bit on the side.

 

But do you know what I think's going to happen? People will get used to the sound of digital, just as the likes of Bruce Swedian got used to the sound of analogue. It's going to become the baseline of what a "normal" recording is supposed to be, if it hasn't already. You're going to hear conversations like this:

 

"Okay, this is the analogue recording. You'll spot the difference straight away."

 

"Um... wow, yeah. Is your machine broken or something? That sounds kind of wrong."

 

"No, no. That's how it's supposed to sound. Can't you hear how warm and naturalistic it is?"

 

"It sounds like ass, can't we just do it in Protools?"

[MikeRivers]

Note from Craig: When I went to reply to Mike's original post, I clicked on Edit instead of Quote, thus obliterating his original post and instead putting words in his mouth. Ooops. The quote is one of the things he said in his post, the reply which looks like it was from him is from me. Oh well. At least he agrees with the words I put in his mouth, but we lost the rest of his post, which was pretty informative IIRC. Sorry!

 

The frequency response obtainable from a phonograph record and good reproduction equipment exceeds that of "CD quality" digital.

 

 

Only in the high frequencies, and frankly, most people don't hear too much in the range in question, nor do "real" instruments have much energy in that range. On the low end, however, there is absolutely no question that CDs outperform phonograph records. Cartridges simply can't follow wide bass excursions unless they're right-down-the-center mono, and even then, it's often necessary to trim the low end to accommodate vinyl. And you can NEVER have stereo bass, as you can with CDs and is often used in dance music recordings.

[blue2blue]

Just so we're clear here (I seem to be misunderstood at least as much as either Nina Simone or Eric Burdon ) -- I was speaking specifically of the output of a DA converter providing a continuous, analog signal, which doesn't have to 'fool' the brain into supplying missing info, although we may certainly debate the accuracy of the signal in its correlation with the signal before conversion.* (For me, on that debate, the best evidence seems to be the standards of objective audio signal measurement we used prior to digital; happily, for me, those objective measures seem to corroborate what I hear. YMMV.)

 

 

*That, however, could, in a manner of speaking, be said of lossy, perceptual encoding data compression schemes like mp3, AAC, Ogg, WMA, ATRAC, etc.

[blue2blue]

Somehow this thread seems to have taken a successful longevity pill:) WILL IT LIVE ***FOREVER***??? nat whilk ii

I think it's more like taking one too many of those pills where, if the effects last more than four hours, ya better see the urologist.

[Hard Truth]

 

I don't give a flying poop about reality....

 

 

Bruce may not need to care about reality because he has a firm idea in his mind of what he thinks music should sound like and its been proven to be successful on many levels. For us mortals I think reality is good place to start. Much like how the best abstract painters are capable of doing accurate representational art. It seems to me that if you start by capturing reality then you can then do anything you want with the recording by modifying in the post production/mixing process.

 

In the motion picture world, we have reached the point where the best video is a better representation of reality than film, yet for story telling the film look (which can be achieved quite effectively in video these days) is preferred. One of the most significant aspects of the film look is the short depth of field, which blurs the unnecessary parts of the picture and highlights the key elements. But once that can be easily achieved in post, I think blurring part of the picture during the original capture of the image will not be considered as desirable. Isn't that where we are with audio today? We can capture reality accurately with digital recording and then use any of several techniques to highlight the key elements and deemphasize the unnecessary elements of the original recording.

[blue2blue]

A propos of nothing in particular...I don't think the comparison actually should be between analog and 24/96, because I think DSD sounds better than 24/96. As Blue pointed out, digital is not about discontinuities in sound;*there are none. BUT - how we get there is through filtering technology, and that definitely does make a difference. Perhaps what people think of as sounding "digital" is more the sound of the filters than the media. Take those filters away, as you can with DSD, and it's a whole other ball game.

Just to throw a random grenade in, have you read Dan Lavry's writings about the limits of fidelity with DSD? You know me, lit major drop-out and all, but he seems pretty persuasive.

 

Here's his sum-up:

If you look at the information content of DSD, it yields around 22KHz, and mostly in the 17-18 bits of dynamic range. I am not against DSD, it is a good format, but for all particle purposes it did not make it in the market place.

http://www.lavryengineering.com/lavry_forum/viewtopic.php?p=2254&sid=0f858cf1611815ea882e2c25f453a5b9#p2254

 

I believe Dan types faster than he proofreads. Pretty sure particle, above, should be practical.

 

The whole post is quite long (and in a thread of long posts) and deals with some technical questions about higher sample rates and issues with reduced accuracy at higher sample rates.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

You might be giving it a pass because you're listening to it on Youtube, where most stuff sounds pretty crappy anyway. But the album is really not very well recorded.

 

 

That's what I'm thinking as well, which is why I even mentioned that I only heard it on computer speakers. I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed it.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Bruce may not need to care about reality because he has a firm idea in his mind of what he thinks music should sound like and its been proven to be successful on many levels. For us mortals I think reality is good place to start. Much like how the best abstract painters are capable of doing accurate representational art. It seems to me that if you start by capturing reality then you can then do anything you want with the recording by modifying in the post production/mixing process.

 

 

As anybody who has known me knows, I am also not interested in recreating reality when recording. The whole thing is a total fabrication; it's fantasy. And I LOVE IT!!

 

Think about it. How many here are truly interested in creating "reality"? What does a band truly sound like when playing live? How do they play? Almost everyone who records pop or rock music revels in the complete fabrication, not the reality. We overdub. We multi-mic a drum kit (who listens to a drum kit the way we mic it?). We stuff mics an inch from an amp, assuming we use an amp at all and not a sim. We tame rattles and vibrations. We switch guitars for the chorus. We switch amps or stompboxes for overdubs.

 

Then we comp tracks. We edit. We use Auto Tune. We snap to the grid. We use drum replacement. We remove "warts". We add delay and reverb. We de-ess. We gain-ride.

 

And on and on.

 

I would submit that very few of "us mortals" are interested in trying to capture reality from the very beginning.

[MikeRivers]

 

That's what I'm thinking as well, which is why I even mentioned that I only heard it on computer speakers. I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed it.

 

Isn't enjoying it the important part? You might enjoy it more in high fidelity, but maybe it would lose some of what goes along with the video image.

[UstadKhanAli]

Isn't enjoying it the important part?

 

Yes, I think so!

 

You might enjoy it more in high fidelity, but maybe it would lose some of what goes along with the video image.

 

The fidelity, the equipment choices, the aesthetic choices, everything that we do should enhance the visceral and artistic statement of the song. So could have something been done on better equipment to accomplish this? Most likely yes. If the recording is "lo-fi" enough that it interferes with the emotional and artistic statement of the song, then certainly something else could have been done. So who knows. But at least based on how I listened to it, the recording captured enough of the performance that I still enjoyed the song.

 

I try to make these choices when I go about recording music, though, making the best decisions for equipment and aesthetics and all else based on the song.

 

Regardless of whether it mimics "reality".

[scud133]

This thread inspired me to pull up random videos on Youtube of Bruce talking about anything.

 

[Bruce Swedien]

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.

 

 

You got it!!!

 

Bruce Swedien

[blue2blue]

As anybody who has known me knows, I am also not interested in recreating reality when recording. The whole thing is a total fabrication; it's fantasy. And I LOVE IT!! Think about it. How many here are truly interested in creating "reality"? What does a band truly sound like when playing live? How do they play? Almost everyone who records pop or rock music revels in the complete fabrication, not the reality. We overdub. We multi-mic a drum kit (who listens to a drum kit the way we mic it?). We stuff mics an inch from an amp, assuming we use an amp at all and not a sim. We tame rattles and vibrations. We switch guitars for the chorus. We switch amps or stompboxes for overdubs. Then we comp tracks. We edit. We use Auto Tune. We snap to the grid. We use drum replacement. We remove "warts". We add delay and reverb. We de-ess. We gain-ride. And on and on. I would submit that very few of "us mortals" are interested in trying to capture reality from the very beginning.

These are good points. I think the example of a rock band is a particularly potent one, since most folks who only see live music in concert venues and on the screen probably have a very unrealistic view of what an actual, live band typically sounds like.

 

I remember, back when I was getting started (back around 1981) pondering the sound of a real drum kit and thinking, Man, how am I ever going to get that to sound like the drums on a typical studio album?

 

What's come to concern me a little more, though, in recent years, is how few 'recording engineers' actually see live, unamplified musical performances (apart from living room jams and such).

 

So many of them would seem to have little real grip on what such a performance should sound like.

 

And while many of them will go on and on and on about their own digital or analog preferences, few ever seem to stop to consider that the real 'bottleneck' in capturing and reproducing truly realistic recordings of live real world performances is the range of problems posed by single and multiple point capture, particularly when wedded to presentation of the capture through one or more single point loudspeakers.

 

 

But, while the subjective impact and illusion of performance or even music separated from illusions of performance (as with much unabashedly electronic music) may be just the thing for much pop music, it's a tricky business when applied to specialized acoustic music like string quartets and classical orchestral works.

 

There's plenty of expertise kicking around for making orchestral sounding music that is big -- huge, even -- with spectacular sonic impact blasting out every orifice -- but if classical fans wanted movie soundtrack music, they'd be sucking up John Williams and James Horner like they were the next Beethoven and Mozart.

 

And they most certainly aren't.

[Bruce Swedien]

 

Bruce may not need to care about reality because he has a firm idea in his mind of what he thinks music should sound like and its been proven to be successful on many levels. For us mortals I think reality is good place to start. Much like how the best abstract painters are capable of doing accurate representational art. It seems to me that if you start by capturing reality then you can then do anything you want with the recording by modifying in the post production/mixing process. In the motion picture world, we have reached the point where the best video is a better representation of reality than film, yet for story telling the film look (which can be achieved quite effectively in video these days) is preferred. One of the most significant aspects of the film look is the short depth of field, which blurs the unnecessary parts of the picture and highlights the key elements. But once that can be easily achieved in post, I think blurring part of the picture during the original capture of the image will not be considered as desirable. Isn't that where we are with audio today? We can capture reality accurately with digital recording and then use any of several techniques to highlight the key elements and deemphasize the unnecessary elements of the original recording.

 

 

Not bad, my friend.... Not far off the mark.

 

Bruce Swedien

[Beck]

I agree that analog sounds better but it really doesn`t matter because when you`re recording true talent, no one really cares what the format. Do we?

 

 

Yes, some of us actually do care and will choose analog for various reasons. The medium has a significant impact, all other things being equal. And therein starts the debate. It's not at all academic for those of us that still prefer and use tape. It's not a hypothetical, nor is it a distant longing for the old days... we record with tape on a regular basis by choice.

 

My studio us is built around an analog multitack, mixing consoles and outboard processing. I use digital to augment the studio in ways it can benefit me. But honestly I could get rid of my DAW altogether and still record the same as I have for about 20. I was recording 10 years before that, but my studio looks about 1989, except for the DAW and a few newer devices. I really could take digital or leave it.

 

I need some way to transfer to digital after mastering of course if I want anyone to hear it LOL but in the tracking and mastering phases I really wouldn't need digital at all when it comes down to it. I would toss my DAW before I would my analog stuff.

[UstadKhanAli]

If the choice of equipment and recording medium didn't matter, we'd all choose the cheapest one and be done with it. And we could all choose the same one. And we wouldn't need to discuss equipment and its impact on the emotional and artistic statement of each song.

 

But hmmmm....as evidenced by the length of this thread, it does seem to matter.