Hard drive or analogue tape?
_________________
Recording Studio Suntans

To continue the theme I felt this was interesting:

Quote:

Sanctuary’s analogue mobile recording facilities chosen for RHCP in Hyde Park Following on from their stunning analogue recording of the Red Hot Chili Peppers at Slane Castle last year, Sanctuary Mobiles was again at hand to record the band’s three nights in Hyde Park, played over two weekends in June before a crowd of 90,000 per show. ’Live At Slane Castle’, which became one of 2003’s best-selling DVD releases, clinched the decision to once again to go down the analogue route. The resulting album, Red Hot Chili Peppers ‘Live in Hyde Park’, was released on July 26 in Europe, Australia, Japan and New Zealand. Advertised before the concerts even took place, the band’s first official live album, which contains 27 tracks over two CDs, looks certain to become a classic, having shot to number one in the UK album charts straight after release. Once again the Sanctuary Black Truck (Fleetwood One) was used, with four MTR90s whirring away throughout all three gigs to provide a 48-track recording setup with full back-up. Tim Summerhayes, Sanctuary Mobiles’ recording supervisor, kept the signal path as short as possible without compromising the recorded quality. The remote controlled API mic amps fed the signals direct to the tape via the truck’s 96-channel Euphonix console where a little EQ and processing was added where needed. With tapes running at 30ips, a vast quantity of stock was required, resulting in Quantegy cutting and shipping the reels to the UK especially for the project. "We always use two-inch analogue in the recording studio with the Chilis; they love the sound, as do I," sid the band’s studio engineer Ethan Mates, who also works extensively on their live material. "The ‘Live at Slane Castle’ DVD was a surround sound project put together from just one show, so I ended up transferring the analogue masters into Pro Tools to have an easier time conforming to picture. However, as the Hyde Park shows were for an audio-only release, sound quality became a larger priority than in the past. To this end we recorded to 48-track analogue in the Sanctuary truck, using not only the Chili Peppers' normal stage mics but also several extras I hired to better recreate some of their studio sound." After the shows, Mates returned to Los Angeles to mix them - again entirely in the analogue domain - using an SSL G series console and printing to Quantegy GP9 1/2-inch tape. The final masters were assembled from his 1/2-inch mixes at Bernie Grundman Mastering in Hollywood, also completely avoiding any computers, and transferred to 1630 tape for duplication at the plants. The whole process took just three weeks from showtime to delivering the masters to the duplication plant - an incredibly quick turnaround time made possible only by the Chili’s amazing performances. http://www.4rfv.co.uk/industrynews.asp?ID=33411

Naturally there is not one answer to which sounds better, though the interesting aspect is that a number 1 album can still be recorded on glorious tape.

The argument exists for continued training on tape machines, as from what I can gather many training centres simply don't bother anymore. Who will then calibrate our future machines?
_________________
Recording Studio Suntans

This is my take on the issue (by the way thanks for sending me an eee to let me know about this discussion), tubes, tape, and other traditional analogue devices should be viewed more as effects. We are not talking about fidelity we are talking about the way that such devices effect sound. The sweetness of tubes and tapes are how they conform the sound compress and alter it to produce something more pleasing to the ear. I do not believe that digital will ever be able to fully replace the sound of such analogue gear, but I believe that our views need to change from the arguments about which camp is right or wrong. There should be but one conformity, and that is to the sound of the music in your head. When I am behind the board, sometimes I can't get the sound from for instance an 01V96 that I am looking for on vocals. Another time I may be gating drums and irritated that the stupid analogue gate doesn't have the lookahead features of a digital gate so that my attack isn't destroyed.

I don't see it as the same kind of arguments that have been going on about PC's and Mac's for all these years. Both boxes are fundamentally the same. But picking between analogue and digital is like picking a paint brush and a paint pallet. Each different brush will effect the way the paint is placed upon the pallet and each different hue will effect the mood and dynamics of your creation.

I do not see tapes as something that will die soon, rather I expect that simpler machines will become marketable in the same way that digital began to mature and become cheaper. The recording market is growing, not shrinking. But it is moving into a realm of more personal users rather than corporate structure.

Also, I see one of the major reasons that tapes and tubes exist the way they do has to do with people trying to conform to the sound of other artists and other albums. I know there are two camps, (please is you get a chance read Aug Sound on Sound article "Michael Jackson's 'Black or White'") who are out to beat the other guys and then the camp who are oblivious and therefore are out to create something different and never before seen. I don't think it is possible to really cut yourself off from either camp. Somewhere in the middle is where we all find ourselves. And in that, we chose our sound. Our brush and our pallet.

Benjamin

Thanks for that Benjamin, you have added something of great value to the discussion.

Quote:

There should be but one conformity, and that is to the sound of the music in your head.

I like this.

Quote:

(by the way thanks for sending me an eee to let me know about this discussion),

You are welcome.
_________________
Recording Studio Suntans

I did a little (less than perfect) A/B test

We set up a soundfield mic, and recorded some drums to Analogue tape @30ips, 520nWb/m. We had the drummer play a few grooves, and then had a listen.

We then decided to do another pass straight to ProTools (001) using the same mic position etc.

Of course the performances were different, and the fact we were comparing a 001 to a Studer A827 (not exactly fair now is it?). Perhaps it would've been better compared to PT HD/TDM system instead? Anyway....

The digital recording seemed more defined and clear in the top end, but was lacking in the bottom end when compared to the analogue tape. The analogue tape seemed more full, and dare I say "Warm"....just to be obvious

In the end, they both have their benefits. I think the ultimate chain is a combination of the two....

Track to tape via high quality preamps, and then bounce to HD for editing & processing. Mix from HD via nice vintage console, onto 2 track tape or back onto HD (but only after passing through analogue console for summing)

hobbesblb wrote:

I don't see it as the same kind of arguments that have been going on about PC's and Mac's for all these years. Both boxes are fundamentally the same. But picking between analogue and digital is like picking a paint brush and a paint pallet. Each different brush will effect the way the paint is placed upon the pallet and each different hue will effect the mood and dynamics of your creation. [...] I do not see tapes as something that will die soon, rather I expect that simpler machines will become marketable in the same way that digital began to mature and become cheaper. The recording market is growing, not shrinking. But it is moving into a realm of more personal users rather than corporate structure.

now, this is beautiful, well described, even if opinionated, i agree with that opinion, and i dont see how much better it could be put..

now stand up and applaud this man...

So hobbesblb and blaak seem to agree we will be seeing some form of analogue product on the market and be encouraged that it is a niche product, for that certain flavour?

Is that what I understand? - care to expand?
_________________
Recording Studio Suntans

It hasn't happened in this thread, but I find it laughable at how people turn the use of the two recording formats into a religious war.

Often people discussing this topic will compare apples and oranges - particularly novices, who come up with such inanities as "I chose a cassette Portastudio over Protools because I really beleive in that analog sound, man..."

Yeah... right.... a Portastudio was never representative of "the analog sound" and more than My First Sony represents the latest in consumer electronics!

As well, many mistakenly beleive the end-format is somehow responsible for the sound, when in fact, with digital recording - it's all about the quality of the converters. Using Soundblaster as a front-end to Cubase is about the same as using a Portastudio in terms fidelity.

I'm a bit more practical in my opinion on using analog or digital recording -- you use whichever format will give you the sound you're looking for on any given project. Soemtimes it will be one over the other, other times some combination of the two.

There are sonic advantages and disadvantages to both, and with regards to editing, it's very tough to beat digital's inherent capabilities.
_________________
Bruce Valeriani - Mix Engineer

I'm slightly old-fashion becuase of what I grew up to. I grew up to recording music in Analog form. I don't think that analog is better than digital. I'm still trying to learn everything I can about the digital world, and how it works. I'm definitely pleased with how clear everything sounds digitally, so I can easily adapt into something new. I'm just happy that all the older records are being remastered because it's easier to hear all the instruments within a song now. For example, The Band's "Up On Cripple Creek." Before, it was hard for me to hear what the bass and drums were doing in that song. Ever since the song got remastered, I can hear Levon's drumming and Rick's bass playing more precisely than before.


Up On Cripple Creek by The Band
http://www.napster.com/player/tracks/13366065

weaz wrote:

I'm slightly old-fashion becuase of what I grew up to. I grew up to recording music in Analog form. I don't think that analog is better than digital. I'm still trying to learn everything I can about the digital world, and how it works. I'm definitely pleased with how clear everything sounds digitally, so I can easily adapt into something new. I'm just happy that all the older records are being remastered because it's easier to hear all the instruments within a song now. For example, The Band's "Up On Cripple Creek." Before, it was hard for me to hear what the bass and drums were doing in that song. Ever since the song got remastered, I can hear Levon's drumming and Rick's bass playing more precisely than before. Up On Cripple Creek by The Band http://www.napster.com/player/tracks/13366065

The remastered DVD in 5.1 is pretty good listening too!
_________________
Recording Studio Suntans

I would never attempt to take a firm stance on this issue since I'm simply not educated enough (hence my decision to attend Sheffield next year), but from a simple listener's POV I prefer things that are recorded all analog. Take, for example, Primus's Brown Album. While perhaps not their best album, on simply a feeling level it sounds better. Obviously, it's warmer. Which to me, is better.
I know from obsessing over guitar tone for so long that analog is always better in that arena. The brain can tell when something's digital, it's trying. Seriously, have a blind guitarist play through a little 5W tube combo and he'll play all day. Plug in to a digital modelling amp and it wears on the brain, you get tired of the tone. It's just not the same. Apparently it has something to do with the sampling rate never being high enough and the signal decaying and blahdeblahdeblah, but I don't understand that.
Anyway, my point was, does all that carry over to recording?
-Zac

It is all what you grew up with. Soon everybody that is getting into the recording world will have a faint idea of tape and will only know digital sound. People who grew up with the "warm" sound will notice everytime if it was recorded digital or tape. Now companies are offering plugins that give that tape saturation sound which will give a good warm sound but not even close to the sound of a true analog machine.

I find that if you record digital and add a little crackle yourself you can really give your recording a sound that is warm and clear at the same time. RECORDING DIGITAL is much cheaper consider you can do it in your bedroom and then have some one mix it down with any equipment they would like and it can all be transfered with a touch of a button.

There are definitely advantages and disadvantages to both.


http://bandboston.com/html/news_html.html
There's a great excerpt from an interview with Boston's Tom Scholz here
(scroll down to 30 Minutes with Tom Scholz of Boston) where he talks a about what he views as the flaws of digital recording, surround sound and mp3s, etc.

There's another interesting article
HERE
by John Vestman on the Myth of Digital Sound

I think that it is true now a days analog is used as an effect. Digital is mainly more convenient in editing, mixing, recording. Everything is done on a computer and it is more efficient. However I find digital to have a harsher tone because the recording has very sharp peaks unlike analog that is "warmer" due to the natural compression and how the waves are more rounded on the edges this makes for distortion that is pleasant to our ears. I hope this made sense.

Thank You

AC wrote:

Hard drive or analogue tape?

In the long run analouge has been said it sounds better. I believe now a days you can get the same sounds using digital sounds. Talks of over compression, file types and sample rates say that digital is not as unique to analogue. Although if you use the proper equipment in the proper means hard drive sound can sound just as good if not better than analogue.