View Full Version : Old technology still very current
http://www.analogplanet.com/content/mark-knopler-cuts-new-song-analog-tape
Ali Tait
21-02-2015, 10:33
Why not?
All the best recordings you've ever heard were laid down on tape..
Why not?
All the best recordings you've ever heard were laid down on tape..
Completely agree Ali!:thumbsup:
I use a Metric Halo recorder and subscribe to their user mailing list.
A short while ago one of the young pro recording engineers posted raving over one of the plugins one can select to alter the sound of your recordings. Several others piped up saying yes, it sounds fantastic doesn't it, and one even said I never make a recording without it any more.
It turns out the plugin emulates tape recorder overload and soft limiting :)
Firebottle
21-02-2015, 18:05
It turns out the plugin emulates tape recorder overload and soft limiting :)
That's just class :)
Light Dependant Resistor
21-02-2015, 22:23
Hi
DBX have been doing this for many years approx 1997; with TSE Tape saturation emulation, and TCM Transient Capture Mode, as well as addressing
A/D ( analog to digital ) deficiencies with Type 4 conversion system
ftp://ftp.dbxpro.com/pub/pdfs/WhitePapers/Type%20IV.pdf is a good read giving insight into how this is achieved and discusses
the challenges involved with preserving dynamic range of recordings, that would otherwise be lost on both analog and digital equipment.
Cheers / Chris
Audio Advent
22-02-2015, 13:31
All of these tools have their own character. Should be used like a painter uses a pallet and old hand-made paints and pigments as and where it is creatively desired.
It all looses something though when people use old tech for the sake of it and constantly, like they're less interested in listening to the sound and more into some ideology, loose touch with the actual creative process, think too much.
The Barbarian
22-02-2015, 13:39
Sam:
Till someone prooves to me that modern tech sounds better than old i will listern but untill then ive never seen any proof in the puddin'
Ali Tait
22-02-2015, 14:41
It's lose, not loose!
Ah, feel better now.. :-)
Lodgesound
22-02-2015, 20:05
Emulation is one thing but machines such as the MCI and the ATR 102 seen in this video have an undeniable quality that is difficult to replace in the digital arena.
Magnetic tape did and still does sound beautiful if set up and handled correctly.
Audio Advent
23-02-2015, 00:16
Sam:
Till someone prooves to me that modern tech sounds better than old i will listern but untill then ive never seen any proof in the puddin'
Well there's a logical bind for you - having to proove it (which requires listening) before you would listen. Proof of the pudding requires tasting rather than looking and deciding it doesn't look like it will taste any good. A good artist is blind to these judgements and uses whatever will achieve what they want, whether modern or old or even their own design.
Most modern artists, musicians are making fantastic music using modern tech, sometimes with the odd bit of old thrown in. So often seems to be old artists who get all nostaligic and go back to what they used to use some decades ago. There are some new artists who get too in-the-head about these things and go all analogue to make a point but I think it distracts from the music making to obsess about what equipment you use and it should be all about the music.
All of these tools have their own character. Should be used like a painter uses a pallet and old hand-made paints and pigments as and where it is creatively desired.
It all looses something though when people use old tech for the sake of it and constantly, like they're less interested in listening to the sound and more into some ideology, loose touch with the actual creative process, think too much.
True, but at the same time some older ways were and still are superior imo. Much depends on your outlook and preferences though :) Personally I like both, but in their own place.
There is a lot of rather daft semi-religious mythology surrounding analogue technology that often makes me chuckle.
This isn't limited to audio but also crosses all other media and is to my mind quite often obscured by experiences with digital tech during its early stages that left many with a deep seated prejudice that is hard to shake. Digital has come on at an astronomic rate over the last decade and current standards leave even the most ambitious (and extremely costly) analogue efforts in the dustbin of history.
One of the last things I did professionally was to put together a DVD based on archive footage spanning 4 decades of AV production (1940s to 1980s) - all of it produced professionally by commercial studios or national broadcasters and all of it, quite frankly, pants in terms of origination and durable audio and visual quality. Fortunately I had access to a couple of technical engineering wizards who could use digital restoration methods to bring most of it up to remotely acceptable standards expected by contemporary consumers.
Audio Advent
23-02-2015, 01:27
Superior in what way? If it imparts a certain sound and that certain sound is the opposite to what you want artistically... then it's useless. Of course if the sound it creates is exactly what you want then brilliant. No sound is superior - it's just a different flavour and you mix the flavours to make what you want. Some gear though is just better designed for the job than others and that applies across the board and across the ages, regardless. Times are definately different too and so much of the old gear necessarily required big money and big studios and so many people employed to actually use it on a recording. That in itself was restrictive for musicians creating anything non-commercial.
I like both too but often mixed and in each other's place.
There is a lot of rather daft semi-religious mythology surrounding analogue technology that often makes me chuckle.
.
Me too but it is best not to mention it round here as it scares the horses ;)
Lol! What did you have in mind in that respect?
I can assure you that any "daft semi-religious mythology”, applied to my analogue gear, hasn’t just been applied for daftness sake! :eyebrows:
Also, given what you’ve heard from my T/T recently (especially at NEBO), I’m surprised that you still hold such a ‘pro-digital’ stance on audio, which subsequently I thought might have ’softened’ somewhat………………
I was under the impression that I’d succeeded in diluting your ‘digital fanboy’ status just a little, but sadly, it appears not ;)
Marco.
There is a lot of rather daft semi-religious mythology surrounding analogue technology that often makes me chuckle.
This isn't limited to audio but also crosses all other media and is to my mind quite often obscured by experiences with digital tech during its early stages that left many with a deep seated prejudice that is hard to shake. Digital has come on at an astronomic rate over the last decade and current standards leave even the most ambitious (and extremely costly) analogue efforts in the dustbin of history.
One of the last things I did professionally was to put together a DVD based on archive footage spanning 4 decades of AV production (1940s to 1980s) - all of it produced professionally by commercial studios or national broadcasters and all of it, quite frankly, pants in terms of origination and durable audio and visual quality. Fortunately I had access to a couple of technical engineering wizards who could use digital restoration methods to bring most of it up to remotely acceptable standards expected by contemporary consumers.
Hey Mike I would love to hear some of this digital music that leaves the "most ambitious ( and extremely costly) analogue efforts in the dustbin of history"
From my experience it is completely the other way round!:D
if i am seen as a luddite then fine but imo when analogue is done right it is the best...after all thats what we hear.
Gordon Steadman
23-02-2015, 13:05
It seems both 'sides' of the argument are just as bad in the quasi religious stakes.
Why not just accept that its about sound. Different people have different needs and likes. Claiming that digital must be better is an objective argument.
I like both and listen to both extensively. Both can sound very good indeed.
If I was pushed to choose then it would depend on the criteria. Absolute fidelity to what I like to hear then analogue. Convenience, storage then digital has it in spades.
By the way, I am one of today's consumers and can quite happily listen to cassette tape if the music thereon is good. My expectations are a little higher than what I suspect a typical modern consumer would have. iPods/Pads/MP3 surely is the generally accepted standard these days!
Yes, ‘accepted’ by either those who don’t know any better or who consider it as ‘adequate’. Count me out on both! ;)
Marco.
The Barbarian
23-02-2015, 15:00
Well there's a logical bind for you - having to proove it (which requires listening) before you would listen. Proof of the pudding requires tasting rather than looking and deciding it doesn't look like it will taste any good. A good artist is blind to these judgements and uses whatever will achieve what they want, whether modern or old or even their own design.
Most modern artists, musicians are making fantastic music using modern tech, sometimes with the odd bit of old thrown in. So often seems to be old artists who get all nostaligic and go back to what they used to use some decades ago. There are some new artists who get too in-the-head about these things and go all analogue to make a point but I think it distracts from the music making to obsess about what equipment you use and it should be all about the music.
Your totally & utterly wasting your breath with me.
It seems both 'sides' of the argument are just as bad in the quasi religious stakes.
Why not just accept that its about sound. Different people have different needs and likes. Claiming that digital must be better is an objective argument.
I like both and listen to both extensively. Both can sound very good indeed.
If I was pushed to choose then it would depend on the criteria. Absolute fidelity to what I like to hear then analogue. Convenience, storage then digital has it in spades.
By the way, I am one of today's consumers and can quite happily listen to cassette tape if the music thereon is good. My expectations are a little higher than what I suspect a typical modern consumer would have. iPods/Pads/MP3 surely is the generally accepted standard these days!
dont get me wrong i love my digital music and have both cds and flac files plus numerous dacs. but the tt is where its at sound wise....not by much but better to my ears
southall-1998
23-02-2015, 15:10
Your totally & utterly wasting your breath with me.
Go steady on the bottle, Andr'e :D
S.
Gotta lurv the irony of this cover :lol:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c7/Donald_Fagen_-_The_Nightfly.jpg
"The Nightfly is the first solo album by Steely Dan co-founder Donald Fagen, released in 1982. It was an early example of a fully digital recording in popular music."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nightfly
On a more serious note ...
A very good article about Fagen's work that illustrates pretty well exactly what Audio Advent has been saying - creative recording involves harnessing the best of both worlds:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug06/articles/fagen.htm
:)
The Black Adder
24-02-2015, 12:58
Another studio who use vintage kit is Toe Rag Studios... That place would be my choice to record.
p6pkCdHQy0Q
Gotta lurv the irony of this cover :lol:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c7/Donald_Fagen_-_The_Nightfly.jpg
"The Nightfly is the first solo album by Steely Dan co-founder Donald Fagen, released in 1982. It was an early example of a fully digital recording in popular music."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nightfly
Yes, and it sounds pants in comparison with the best of the all-analogue SD recordings that occurred earlier! ;)
I like the music, but it always amazes me how folk revere Nightfly for its ‘audiophile’ standard of recording quality, when to my ears, it’s average at best.
Marco.
The Barbarian
24-02-2015, 15:59
Another studio who use vintage kit is Toe Rag Studios... That place would be my choice to record.
Too right Joe.. No way on earth can you create that old 60's recording & Production with today's equipment & Techniques.
Audio Advent
24-02-2015, 16:12
Your totally & utterly wasting your breath with me.
This isn't a private conversation so don't worry about how I spend my energy - I'm fine. Thanks for the concern. :)
The Barbarian
24-02-2015, 16:18
Don't loose any sleep over it
toodle pip
anthonyTD
24-02-2015, 16:28
I tend to agree with you too Ali.
Why not?
All the best recordings you've ever heard were laid down on tape..
Audio Advent
24-02-2015, 16:32
Too right Joe.. No way on earth can you create that old 60's recording & Production with today's equipment & Techniques.
If you want production that gives a modern sound then you absolutely won't want to go down the route of 60s recording and production methods which produce a 60s sound. If you want to work with in a musically creative way which is non-linear and not imposed upon by the equipment one has to hand, then equally you will want to embrace all equipment, modern and old.
Seeing that the thread quickly turned to personal, passive listening preferences in the home and away from the creative processes of a musician in the studio (or at home, or on location anywhere - as can be done with modern equipment, impossible with a massive old Studer 24 track), I guess most aren't so interested in musician/artist's point of view? Mark Knopfler's musical style is kind of born of the 60s and 70s guitar stars he grew up with and so using exclusively old gear will suit his desired sound. If you want an authentic 80s punk/ska sound then you'll be looking for cheap gated 80s spring reverb units, through a cheap desk onto a cheap tape machine as was used when recording obcure 80s punk. And yes, people do actually seek out gear which has cheap op-amp circuits to create particular grunge distortion sounds of the 80s and 90s. Same can be said of modern techniques and equipment too.
anthonyTD
24-02-2015, 16:43
From my point of view, its all about how you use the Technology, and what your trying to acheive, both technologies have they'r place, Digital has superior specifications in certain areas, there is no arguing with the facts, however, Analog' when done right, and on the right equipment can' and has produced recordings many, many times that have an air space and realism that is still hard [but not imposible] to beat.
Ali Tait
24-02-2015, 16:43
Well how else can we answer?
The vast majority here have no experience whatsoever with professional recording, so can only answer by how the recordings we like best were recorded.
Not a case of not being interested..
Audio Advent
24-02-2015, 17:14
Was only that people seemed to be saying that better music/recordings were made with old equipment. It's perfectly easy to make a very poor sounding recordings on old equipment even if that gear is well maintained - all down to engineers and also the sound preferences of the musician. The type of music you can make is also dictate a lot by the recording equipment you use - so again if your favourite recordings are all done on analogue tape, it is also a result of the music you like to listen to, presumably music which can be played live and recorded live?
When I see an artist insist on using all old gear, I think a few things: a) That it's a novelty bit of fun to get that band/musician in a certain frame of mind including pretending they are of a different era, b) that they want to achieve a certain type of deliberately coloured sound they know they can get with certain gear (e.g. subtle tape compression and distortion which sounds very nice indeed), c) a marketing gimmick to play on the nostalgic ideals of the potential listener. I guess it's mostly a) and b) with c) played on later by telling everyone how it was recorded (most people don't go into those details as they're not important to the music).
If you want to record a great sounding record, you find the best engineers you know and let them make the decisions about what gear is used to record with. So often, even the best known engineers will today, and of yesterday, shun analogue simply because it is so intrusive to the recording process and can ruin the flow of a recording session which then effects the cohesion of the band... and negatively effect the music (seperate from the sound). It's kind of niche for a reason, whether one personally likes the sound or not.
Ali Tait
24-02-2015, 17:31
For my part, the best 50's & 60's Jazz and classical recordings have never been equalled, not to mention bettered. I am talking as a vinyl listener.
Ali Tait
24-02-2015, 17:33
I take that back, the vinyl of Hugh Masakela's Hope is as good or better than anything I've heard. Most likely recorded on a tape machine?
For my part, the best 50's & 60's Jazz and classical recordings have never been equalled, not to mention bettered. I am talking as a vinyl listener.
+1, and I frequently demonstrate that fact to visitors, when carrying out vinyl vs CD demos, using some of the best recordings produced on either format. Nothing else I’ve heard (save on reel-to-reel tape) gets close! :)
I do agree with Sam in some respects, though. It’s definitely more about how you use it than what you’ve got. However, those old recordings, produced using valve microphones and mixing desks, and tape, take some beating for gob-smacking realism and sheer ‘musicality'.
Marco.
Oh.....+2 :eyebrows:. lol. yep, like Marco I have live at the sands and it is superb. Mines not the fancy expensive one though, just an original :lol:
Ali Tait
24-02-2015, 17:40
Nowt wrong with an original..
Indeed. One of the best vintage labels on vinyl, for unbelievable sound quality, is 1950s RCA Victor 'Living Voice'. Almost anything produced on that label sounds stunning, as in ‘they’re in the room with you, man’, stunning!!! :eek:
Marco.
Indeed. One of the best vintage labels on vinyl, for unbelievable sound quality, is 1950s RCA Victor 'Living Voice'. Almost anything produced on that label sounds stunning, as in ‘they’re in the room with you, man’, stunning!!! :eek:
Marco.
Completely agree, got some Julian Bream on RCA label and a few others and it is truly superb. Excellent quality vinyl pressed extremely well and superb SQ. They certainly knew how to do things well then.
Don't think there is anything in the world today produced to that standard.
A few interesting considerations.
http://www.laweekly.com/music/why-cds-may-actually-sound-better-than-vinyl-5352162
link is not working for me
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.