Is Dr. Doherty saying that the now common advice to not worry about low recording levels is not good?

[Zukan]

Amen to that Elf.

Jack's on the money.

[MonkeySpank]

I find the opposite to be more often the case - older dudes are usually glad to see the back of tape, but young guns mistakenly believe in its mystical mojo without appreciating how big a PITA it was!

+1,000,000

Let's open the debate.

As I see it there are 3, modern, analogue 'things':

Recording using multi-track tape
This forces an artist, especially a band, to record a certain way. Witness the recent Foo Fighters album where the entire project was recorded in a garage, on tape, via analogue desks and outboard. It actually became a promotional selling point for the album. The band must be good musicians and well rehearsed because errors can't be "fixed in the mix". Editing has to be expertly done with a razor blade. The equipment has to be expertly maintained. Et cetera. This method of recording brings out the craftsman aspect of musicianship, studio engineering and production. And a huge chunk of what makes studio personnel tick is respect for craftsmanship.

Using analogue outboard (including software emulations)
This is when specific, characterful outboard is used to deliberately affect the recorded sound. Analogue tape need not be involved at all. Tube compressors, classic EQs, classic reverbs. This is really the search for something new resulting in reaching back in time for something old; the realisation that, just because the previous generation used it, doesn't mean it has been superseded.

Analogue Synths vs. soft synths
"My old Moog sounds waaaaaay better than your Arturia soft synth." Yet again this is the search for something new (which originally began as the search for something cheap) resulting in reaching back in time for something old.

Somehow these 3 analogue things have been conflated into 1 thing, namely that analogue sounds better.

- Is it because it is more immediate to use? Knobs and sliders versus mouse & click?

- Is it because it is easier to understand? Signal levels nudging the red line versus digital dB overhead, floating point summing on virtual mix busses, clock jitter, etc?

- Is it because it is associated with the halcyon days of post-war music when bands and songs seemed less [ ****** ], and life in general seemed less complicated?

Does the latest Foo Fighters album sound better than the previous one? No. It sounds absolutely amazing, and definitely different to the previous one, but not better.

Could Rob Swire manipulate the entire audio frequency range to make Pendulum's trademark beefy sound by using tape and outboard alone? Not a chance. He analyses each track's frequency curves in his DAW to make sure everything has its place and room to breathe.

Only a pedant would argue that an Arturia or GeForce soft synth doesn't sound authentic enough, especially in a mix, and especially when the old duffers who used the originals are nowadays more than happy to endorse and use the soft versions.

My personal situation is that I make music using analogue synths (currently a Juno 6 and a Eurorack modular which has become the love of my life). This is partly for nostalgia (I was too poor in the 80's to afford them), partly for the sound but mostly for creativity and speed. My synths can't store presets so I have to twiddle knobs instead of calling up familiar old sounds and using the same old chops, and I have to record their sounds there and then and move on. I record using Apple Logic for reasons that should be obvious. Sometimes I route my synths through a 1975 Akai 3-head reel-to-reel and back into Logic for that 'recorded to tape' sound. That's just for fun, and looks as cool as f_ck in the corner of my studio, and it does make a difference to the sound (and the noise floor!), but I also have tape plug-ins that sound exactly the same.

So I guess I'm one of those older dudes who sees the analogue smorgasbord for what it really is and cherry picks what he needs to get the best out of his pitiful artistry.

Don't leave me hanging: RSVP.

[dmills]

Sounds about right, but I am not at all sure that analogue is any simpler then digital!

Sure, if you look at analogue in the same simple minded way that gives rise to silly stairstep 'waveforms' in books for the hard of thinking about digital audio then maybe it appears simpler, but having been there I am a LONG way from convinced that it really is.
You seldom see a scope cart in a studio these days, or even a tentelometer, both of which were standard equipment back in the day.

When you dig into the detail of how these things really work I think analogue is in some ways more complicated then digital because digital allows many, many simplifying assumptions that work most of the time (at least until you get right down to the physics), analogue has simplifying assumptions that tend to hit the buffers rather sooner.

Understand your tools, and know where the limits are, and you can get the result either way, but for my money digital is usually faster for most things most of the time.

Regards, Dan.

[Tui]

There may be something to the analogue v. digital debate we haven't yet considered.

In essence, we live in a world that is "analogue", i.e. inconsistent, somewhat unpredictable and in a never-ending state of flux. In the natural world, nothing can ever be reproduced exactly, even one more time, let alone millions of times. This includes sound. No instrument can be played identically again. Not a single note can be made to sound exactly like the previous one. The physical, molecular properties of performer, instrument and room do change irrevocably, moment by moment.

Maybe this is what's weird about digital technology. Digital recordings, to me ears, typically sound "locked in", as if they can't "breathe", as if the life of the original performances has been sucked out of them. "Perfect", yet in a deadly way.

I remember, sitting with a friend a while ago and listening to old vinyl records, mostly jazz but also 70s pop. His stereo system was cheap junk, really, bought at some garage sale, and the speakers were tiny. Yet, there I was, listing with amazement to the depth of the stereo field. I was struck by the realism and excitement that came across in particular with the way the bass was projected into the room we were sitting in. You could literally see the performers with your mind's eye, and you could get a sense of the studio, too. The effect was, as if a small version of the actual recording studio had been transported into the listening space; as if we were witnessing a true representation of the original performances.

This is what recorded music used to sound like (you can tell I'm a bit older). Music used to regularly transport me into the middle of the recording session. It was as if the band was right there in front of me. However, when I listen to contemporary recordings, this never happens. By contrast, I feel as if I'm miles away from the action, as if I'm not needed. My presence seems entirely superfluous. (Little wonder, I haven't felt like buying an album for ages, not helped by the demise of good songwriting and story telling in music).

Real life is not broken down into digits, it is not ones and zeros. It is not quantised, dithered, processed and eventually reconstituted from strings of numbers.

Perhaps this is what's fundamentally wrong with digital media - it is alien to and separate from the natural world around it. It never interacts with it. To the contrary, as we all know, it needs to function perfectly and 100% identically each time, for it function at all. Errors in the digital domain are unworkable and consequently unacceptable. So, we end up with sterile, lifeless, non-interactive, forever unchangeable digital products that fail to reach us on levels deeper than the most obvious (the same would be true for paintings v. computer graphics, or film v. digital photography)

If this is true, I can't see how digital could ever catch up with analogue, since it wont be possible. If we require the medium to interact with us and the environment, to be moved on deeper emotional (let alone spiritual) levels, digital technology will eventually be considered incompatible with artistic expression.

Alternatively, man could adapt to technology, even merge with it. This is a very real possibility, too.

[ConcertinaChap]

I'm sorry, but to me it's as if you writing in a foreign language. Many people try to set up some sort of division between science and technology on one hand and the natural, artistic, "human" world on the other. I've never seen it myself. Science is a human endeavour, just as art is a human endeavour. Much harm has come from trying to force them apart (cf C. P. Snow's Two Cultures).

In the present discussion digitisation is just a technique, no more and no less. Words like sterile and spiritual can be applied to digital products and analogue products equally. What matters is the end result, not how you got there.

CC

[Tui]

Science is a human endeavour, just as art is a human endeavour. Much harm has come from trying to force them apart (cf C. P. Snow's Two Cultures).

Agreed.

What matters is the end result, not how you got there.

Indeed. However, if you try to understand the point I'm making, you'll see that digital technology behaves very differently from more traditional, analogue ones, in particular when it comes to capturing and reproducing real events.

[ConcertinaChap]

However, if you try to understand the point I'm making, you'll see that digital technology behaves very differently from more traditional, analogue ones, in particular when it comes to capturing and reproducing real events.

Of course it does. But if you'll try to understand the point I'm making, that's irrelevant. What's relevant is what the final product sounds like and that is down to how the maker uses the techniques they have chosen to use, not on what the techniques are.

I dare say that on pottery forums there is endless debate about the merits of different clays and glazes and whether to use gas fired or electric kilns, but as a viewer all I am interested in is whether the pottery moves me.

CC

[Guest]

[Hi Tui, hope you're well]

[BJG145]

Real life is not broken down into digits, it is not ones and zeros. It is not quantised, dithered, processed and eventually reconstituted from strings of numbers. Perhaps this is what's fundamentally wrong with digital media - it is alien to and separate from the natural world around it.

Maths is beautiful too y'know Tui.

[Tui]

In case anybody's wondering, I'm in no shape or form "anti-science", "anti-maths", or any of the sort. I love technology. For a start, it allows me to publish my musings worldwide, free and instantaneously. Fancy that.

[Tui]

[Hi Tui, hope you're well]

Yeah baby!

[ef37a]

In any case, how "analogue" is analogue in truth?

Tape is sampled at the bias frequency. FM radio by the IF (ok, 10.7MHz but pulse counting discriminators were said to give the lowest distortion and ran at about 200kHz IIRC?).

It could even be argued that vinyl audio is sampled by the surface noise? That is what, a 13bit system. But it all starts with tape.

Dave.

[Tui]

I guess you could say analogue data is "sampled" on a molecular level, when you consider audio tape or photographic film (ever noticed the incredible depth of field and realism in old photographs, in spite of inferior lenses when compared with modern ones?). The achievable resolution of analogue is finite, too.

[ef37a]

I guess you could say analogue data is "sampled" on a molecular level, when you consider audio tape or photographic film (ever noticed the incredible depth of field and realism in old photographs, in spite of inferior lenses when compared with modern ones?). The achievable resolution of analogue is finite, too.

Photography is a chemical process, tape recording is not. The bias frequency must be at least twice the upper HF input (familiar?).Tape domains are not "molecular" in size.
And have you ever noticed the incredible amount of noise on old recordings compared to modern ones?

Dave.

[Richie Royale]

We should have stuck with wax cylinders.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnsizkVjGm8

Oh wait...

[zenguitar]

ever noticed the incredible depth of field and realism in old photographs, in spite of inferior lenses when compared with modern ones?

Wrong cause, wrong effect. The lenses used in many old cameras were generally superior to modern lenses. Lens technologies that were common during the 1930's and 1940's only appeared on modern SLR's during the 1990's, and even then only on high end models. Many of those lens technologies that were promoted as being new and improved were really just new to the 35mm market. They applied proven lens designs to the new, mass market, format.

The qualities that you describe in those old photographs are largely due to using a tripod, a small aperture, a long exposure, and a very good lens. All perfectly achievable with modern equipment if you make the right choices.

Andy

[dmills]

The key thing being the small aperture, slow film and tripod!

Actually the small aperture makes even a relatively poor lens much better behaved at the cost of long exposure times. The fact that almost all the cameras back then used fixed primes helped as well, they are almost always sharper then a zoom for a given technology level and lens speed.

I would also note that the surviving photos from the 30s are probably mostly those which people cared about enough to preserve, and this effect in music as much as photography should not be underestimated, what we think of as the 'golden age' of recorded music (whatever that means for you) has really the top 1% or so of everything recorded at that time.

Regards, Dan.

[Tui]

The lenses used in many old cameras were generally superior to modern lenses.

I find this difficult to believe, considering the technological advances that have been made since then. I would have thought modern lenses are more pure and polished and tested, using computerised equipment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T7BDeMU_Ks

All perfectly achievable with modern equipment if you make the right choices.

That's the point, "right choices" are typically not made. From what I understand, photographic film before the digital age was vastly superior to anything that's available today.

The situation is similar to availability of high-quality analogue tape for audio recording. Yes, IF today we made a big effort and cobbled together a studio with old tape machines and tube gear and IF we would press the recordings onto vinyl and listen to it through a proper Hi-Fi, rather than an iPod, we could recreate that intimate and captivating sound. However, we are not doing that, are we. 9 out of 10 times, whether played on telly, radio or in the club, we listen to products of el cheapo hybrid analogue/digital signal chains. When you follow the forums, you'll quickly realise most people use the cheapest gear they can get away with. Someone like Sting may be an audiophile and use a rack of Prism converters, but I don't hear his music being played too often anymore.

[Hugh Robjohns]

From what I understand, photographic film before the digital age was vastly superior to anything that's available today.

Again it all comes down to what you mean by 'vastly superior'. In terms of absolute picture resolition and the ability to blow a print up to silly sizes, large format film probably still just has an edge -- but from what I've heard and seen there really isn't much in it these days when using high-res large format digital camera backs, and the expectation is it will be surpassed imminently. So not 'vastly superior'...

But in all other respects wet film is a disaster in comparison. From the nasty chemicals required, and the high physical cost of raw stock and processing, to the time it takes to move from shoot to print, the difficulty of getting images from studio to publisher, and so on. The pro's moved to digital shooting years ago for very sound reasons, making digital vastly superior in the ways that matter to most people, most of the time.

IF today we made a big effort and cobbled together a studio with old tape machines and tube gear and IF we would press the recordings onto vinyl and listen to it through a proper Hi-Fi, rather than an iPod, we could recreate that intimate and captivating sound.

You would create a sound full of musically pleasant distortions that might well be captivating for some musical genres, yes. And equally, it might sound rather unnatural and bent for others...

When you follow the forums, you'll quickly realise most people use the cheapest gear they can get away with.

Wasn't that always the way? Amateurs almost always are limited in their budgets and have to compromise on some aspects of their recordings -- most commonly on the acoustics of the recording space!

Not many home studios were ever equipped with Studer A80s and A820s, EMI Redd consoles or Neumann lathes. The high end recording chain of the 1970s and 80s was flawed, albeit in an entertaining way. Pro studios today still use pro equipment, but the cost has come down dramatically so that many home studios can also afford much of it.

To my mind the difference in sound quality is really not down to the equipment, it's down to the production styles and the talent involved. Put simply, we hear more dross today than we ever used to because the entire process has (a) been democratised where it was once specialised, and (b) people use the technology to fix things in preference to recording the right things!

There are countless fantastic digital recordings out there, of music across most genres, which proves without doubt that the technology is perfectly capable.

Hugh

[grab]

find this difficult to believe, considering the technological advances that have been made since then. I would have thought modern lenses are more pure and polished and tested, using computerised equipment:

They *could* be. But equally that computerised equipment can be used to produce an acceptable (but lower quality) result very quickly and cheaply. And the majority of lenses these days are plastic - not in serious cameras, sure, but most people taking photos aren't using serious cameras.

[zenguitar]

The lenses used in many old cameras were generally superior to modern lenses.

I find this difficult to believe, considering the technological advances that have been made since then. I would have thought modern lenses are more pure and polished and tested, using computerised equipment:

Most of those technological advances are in manufacturing for the mass market. Also, large format cameras are a very different beast to 35mm SLRs and DSLRs. Focusing is handled very differently so that SLR lenses can be made compact and easy to handle at the expense of added complexity. And generally putting wide angle and telephoto lenses into the compact package with wide apertures for using hand held in low light places different demands on lens design and manufacture. And that's before we even consider zoom lenses which are quite rare on large format cameras but the norm on SLR/DSLR these days.

So while a Nikon D7000 is on my shopping list, when I can finally afford to get one I'll also be getting an adaptor plate so I can use the Nikon body on my 5"x4" monorail plate camera and take advantages of all the things the monorail can do that no SLR can manage. And I won't have any concerns about the lenses on the plate camera.

Andy

[Exalted Wombat]

Wrong cause, wrong effect. The lenses used in many old cameras were generally superior to modern lenses. Lens technologies that were common during the 1930's and 1940's only appeared on modern SLR's during the 1990's, and even then only on high end models. Many of those lens technologies that were promoted as being new and improved were really just new to the 35mm market. They applied proven lens designs to the new, mass market, format.

Careful you don't fall into the "Golden age" trap!

[Exalted Wombat]

Kids seem less willing or able to devote the time to practicing an instrument than they did when I was their age.

Probably just as many take it seriously than ever did, (though the cut-backs in school instrumental teaching have a lot to answer for). There's just a whole load more as well, playing with the toys that let you "make music" without knowing how to make music. That's OK.

[Richard Graham]

I've been in and out of rehearsal rooms for the last 25 years and the standard of both (young) bands and musicianship at the rooms I'm now in is far higher than it was 25 or 20 years ago in the rooms I was in then. This despite the fact that the rooms I am in are as strictly amateur now as they were in the late 80s.

Also, the standard of music teaching when I was at secondary school was so bad I don't see how it could get any worse.

It surely all depends which school you went to/go to and which musicians you came into contact with, which for me were mostly indie whan I was a young 'un, and mostly rock and metal now. Everyone has different experiences.

[Exalted Wombat]

Also, the standard of music teaching when I was at secondary school was so bad I don't see how it could get any worse.

Classroom teaching was generally a waste of time, (with some shining exceptions!) There's just so much you can do with "everybody".

But there was an era when, sometime in the first year of secondary school, the teacher would say "anyone fancy learning an instrument" and any kid who put his hand up got loaned one plus a (free) weekly session with a specialist visiting teacher. A few areas (notably Leicestershire and the London Borough of Redbridge) extended a comprehensive scheme into junior schools as well. It got results. Graduates of these localities were well over-represented in a generation of intake to the London music colleges, and, later in the professional orchestras.