Old 02-06-2013, 08:31 PM   #41
richie43
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 9,090
Default

Look into the Nebula plugins stuff. It eats your CPU and is a workflow killer, but I have 25+ years of analog audio experience, and using Nebula has been the most convincing to my ears. It has been an endless rabbit-hole for me, but I would never even consider going back to the digital audio I had before I discovered it. It's definitely not for everyone, but I secretly am glad for that so I still have some secret weapons....bwahahahaha.......
__________________
The Sounds of the Hear and Now.
richie43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 08:42 PM   #42
Normie
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Topock, AZ
Posts: 367
Default

I swear you are like a digital crack dealer....You are going to make me try Nebula even if I have convinced myself it's bad for me...



Quote:
Originally Posted by richie43 View Post
Look into the Nebula plugins stuff. It eats your CPU and is a workflow killer, but I have 25+ years of analog audio experience, and using Nebula has been the most convincing to my ears. It has been an endless rabbit-hole for me, but I would never even consider going back to the digital audio I had before I discovered it. It's definitely not for everyone, but I secretly am glad for that so I still have some secret weapons....bwahahahaha.......
Normie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 08:49 PM   #43
richie43
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 9,090
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Normie View Post
I swear you are like a digital crack dealer....You are going to make me try Nebula even if I have convinced myself it's bad for me...

lol
I DID say that it is not for everyone, didn't I? And I DID admit that it is a workflow killer and a total CPU muncher, right??? I have seen a monster i7 whimper like a sissy before because of Nebula..... And for the record, I am not an employee of Acustica audio (Neb devs) nor do I benefit from you trying it, other than me getting to hear more music made with it!! But I guess I am a bit enthusiastic about it....... Like I have said many times, MY ears won't be as happy without it, unless I make the commitment to going back to all analog. But I do love not having to maintain all of the gear, and I could NEVER even own nearly a quarter of the gear that I have really nice emulations of...... Ooops, here I go trying to sell you more crack.......
__________________
The Sounds of the Hear and Now.
richie43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 09:07 PM   #44
Swamp Ape
Human being with feelings
 
Swamp Ape's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Asheville NC
Posts: 1,335
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vudu12 View Post
Emulating the technique, ie. only having 4 mono channels and 2 mono effects (spring reverb & tape delay) can really help too. I haven't even tried to set something like that up in the box yet... so hard to reduce reaper down to such lows!
I just picked up a Tascam 414 this week - 4 mono tracks and two mono effects. I haven't had a chance to record on to it yet but I took a night and figured out how to bounce down some decade-old 4-track recordings into four Reaper tracks and then used some internal plugins to clean it up a bit. It sounds awesome! I've also been working on a reverb box made out of an old hi-fi speaker, although it's proving to be a huge pain so far. I managed to get some good reverb out of my dryer tooh.

I don't see any point in trying to mimic it in Reaper, though - part of the mojo is from bouncing down the tracks and adding on more layers on the fly. You could set up those limitations for yourself, but you'd just never get the same vibe.
Swamp Ape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 09:16 PM   #45
Vudu12
Human being with feelings
 
Vudu12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Denver, CO / Vancouver, BC
Posts: 25
Default

To be fair to the Kustom 250 head, it's an excellent bass/guitar/hardware synth DI before going into the computer, makes them sound so much better than just plugging in straight.
__________________
algorhythmic http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/sscrew
Vudu12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 09:25 PM   #46
Normie
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Topock, AZ
Posts: 367
Default

Download just finished...oh hell...

Quote:
Originally Posted by richie43 View Post
lol
Ooops, here I go trying to sell you more crack.......
Normie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 09:48 PM   #47
Normie
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Topock, AZ
Posts: 367
Default

Yea...I'm seeing what people mean about high CPU....

1 preamp on 1 track = 3% on an AMD quad. An i7 would pretty much be a requirement.

Sounds great though
Normie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 11:41 PM   #48
richie43
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 9,090
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Normie View Post
Yea...I'm seeing what people mean about high CPU....

1 preamp on 1 track = 3% on an AMD quad. An i7 would pretty much be a requirement.

Sounds great though
I have a "normal" quad core , a Q8400 Core2 Quad, NOT an i-monster of an sort, and I do very well. For some reason the Nebula free version is less optimized, so you will get better performance from the paid for version. I know it is tough to basically buy blind, but I recommend the server version, it has ram sharing for shared presets, so that helps. IF you go this route, after you figure things out a little, there are some people here and on their forum that can help tweak it to work better on your specific system, so you are not alone my friend..... here, have just one more toke of this..... bwahahaha.....
__________________
The Sounds of the Hear and Now.
richie43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 12:35 AM   #49
Vudu12
Human being with feelings
 
Vudu12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Denver, CO / Vancouver, BC
Posts: 25
Default

Ferox
http://www.toneboosters.com/tb-ferox/

I got it when it was free from http://www.jeroenbreebaart.com/

Going pretty radical for my worn mid-70s gear emulation: Tape speed 50%, High cutoff 10kHz, 50% saturation, 25% hysteresis and your anemic digitally recorded drums get beefy and the highs don't hurt your ears any more but are still very present. A plugin where you can actually hear the difference as you turn the knobs (at least tape speed and high cut - this does not sound like an eq cut). Not sure how these setting would be done on the new TB Ferox though.

And to go farther, Wow & Flutter VST here http://www.interruptor.ch/vst_overview.shtml think I'll put it on the Master with Jamaican 45 vinyl setting...
__________________
algorhythmic http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/sscrew
Vudu12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 02:57 AM   #50
ivansc
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near Cambridge UK and Near Questembert, France
Posts: 22,754
Default

The problem with the Search for The Analog(ue) Sound is that no two people can agree on what it IS.

Having done a lot of home stuff on domestic reel to reels previously, I made my first "proper" recording in 1962 on a Philips mono single track pro tape recorder.
The only way we could do it with the two mic inputs on the machine feeding ONE tape channel was to put up two mics AND our live PA system.
One mic up high to capture the PA sound (including the spring reverb!) plus top end of the drumkit and the other down low to capture the amps and the bass drum.

Listening to the recording now it sounds like shit but has so much energy it transcends the noise-to-signal ratio, etc.

Since then I have recorded on just about anything and everything, including (god help me!) one of those Akai 12 tracks all the way up to 24 track 2" tape.

The biggest factors involved every time were the skill of the engineer and the quality of the players and the material.

Some of them wound up sounding great, others not so great.

There was no common denominator between them, certainly not digital vs analog(ue).

So maybe when we all go looking for analog(ue) emulation we are all barking up the wrong tree?
ivansc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 04:38 AM   #51
chronocepter
Human being with feelings
 
chronocepter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 232
Default

Man lets just keep it real.

ANALOG


DIGITAL
Attached Images
File Type: jpg analog.jpg (14.7 KB, 452 views)
File Type: jpg digital.jpg (38.7 KB, 460 views)
__________________
"Another pointless experiment in synthetic stupidity." - Piz
chronocepter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 05:30 AM   #52
Cosmic
Human being with feelings
 
Cosmic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Online
Posts: 4,896
Default

I've cracked it.Its dead easy.

Roll off the top end from about 17k.
__________________
it aint worth a bop,if it dont got that pop
Cosmic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 05:50 AM   #53
Andywanders
Human being with feelings
 
Andywanders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivansc View Post
So maybe when we all go looking for analog(ue) emulation we are all barking up the wrong tree?
+1

Exactly
__________________
Some of My Songs

Andy M. VST
Andywanders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 10:11 AM   #54
richie43
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 9,090
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmic View Post
I've cracked it.Its dead easy.

Roll off the top end from about 17k.
I actually agree. The things that people are seeking to emulate are things we in the analog audio work used to "have to deal with". lol. My interest in Nebula has never been a quest to directly obtain "that analog sound". It just sounds better to my ears. Go figure... I'm 47 years old and nearly rejected digital audio until I discovered what I could achieve with MUCH less gear.
__________________
The Sounds of the Hear and Now.
richie43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 11:21 AM   #55
Vudu12
Human being with feelings
 
Vudu12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Denver, CO / Vancouver, BC
Posts: 25
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivansc View Post
The problem with the Search for The Analog(ue) Sound is that no two people can agree on what it IS.

Having done a lot of home stuff on domestic reel to reels previously, I made my first "proper" recording in 1962 on a Philips mono single track pro tape recorder.
...
So maybe when we all go looking for analog(ue) emulation we are all barking up the wrong tree?
I too started in analog, from a 4-tr cass to narrow format 8 and 16s. I do remember the struggle to make anything sound good, probably more due to very limited board eq, no proper mic pre's, no good mics; essentially all bottom-of-the-line gear a teenager could afford. So I sampled kicks, snares, etc. to "borrow" the million dollar room sounds and it always sounded great! (Thanks Casio FZ-1!)

To the point, I want digital tools to give me the best of what analog has been, not the bad. And yes analog comes in a million different flavours too.

For my current project emulating the sound of a late 60s Ampex vacuum tube 4-
track through a pre-production MCI mixing board to a tube 2-track (mono really, but the mono image moves a bit side-to-side due to old Scotch tape) is what I am after. Without getting all the original gear! The Ferox VST plugin really proved itself last night, I'm kind of in shock still, but has far exceeded what I have done with anything else. I actually have ReaEQ, ReaComp and FerricTDS in front of it but they didn't do anything more than clean up the sound and compress, not CHANGE the sound fundamentally like Ferox did.
__________________
algorhythmic http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/sscrew
Vudu12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 01:24 PM   #56
Tim Ragnur
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Denmark
Posts: 112
Default Analog sound?

Use microphones.
Tim Ragnur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 02:28 PM   #57
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andywanders View Post
+1

Exactly
If you could flash everyone Men In Black style from all romantic memories of analog, I'd bet money they would not complain about digital nearly as much. Sorry but in some cases it is like the memory of an old girlfriend that you get back with 20 years later only find out she wasn't really all that after all.

I love nebula for example but in some cases, it removes stuff from digital that I didn't want removed; in otherwords the piece of gear emulated for its beautiful saturation was also lacking in low end and now that low end is missing. Let me stress however that what nebula does, it does better than anything else anywhere period but you can, if not careful, turn your tracks into faithful reproductions of the shitty part of analog where analog emulation is concerned (yes its that accurate).

The lesson here is don't fall in love with either, find the strengths of analog and digital and make them work together as a coherent piece of fine music where the medium is not the topic of discussion instead of chasing some analog pipe dream that really never existed to the extent we sometimes give it today.

Last edited by karbomusic; 02-07-2013 at 02:34 PM.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 04:37 PM   #58
brainwreck
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,859
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
If you could flash everyone Men In Black style from all romantic memories of analog, I'd bet money they would not complain about digital nearly as much.
Until they hear a record again.
__________________
It's time to take a stand against the synthesizer.
brainwreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 04:44 PM   #59
richie43
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 9,090
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brainwreck View Post
Until they hear a record again.
I want to agree with this, but as karbo is alluding to, there were plenty of crappy records along with those warm and nice records.....
__________________
The Sounds of the Hear and Now.
richie43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 04:45 PM   #60
richie43
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 9,090
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
Let me stress however that what nebula does, it does better than anything else anywhere period but you can, if not careful, turn your tracks into faithful reproductions of the shitty part of analog where analog emulation is concerned (yes its that accurate).

The lesson here is don't fall in love with either, find the strengths of analog and digital and make them work together as a coherent piece of fine music where the medium is not the topic of discussion instead of chasing some analog pipe dream that really never existed to the extent we sometimes give it today.
Nicely put sir.
__________________
The Sounds of the Hear and Now.
richie43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 04:50 PM   #61
Cosmic
Human being with feelings
 
Cosmic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Online
Posts: 4,896
Default

I don't buy it.I just dont buy it.

When I hear music..I dont hear analog or digital..I just hear music.

I either like it or I don't.I don't care how it was made,how it was played or how it was laid.

If it sounds shit and thats the reason I don't like it..well then,shame on the the person releasing it.

If I like it..dosent matter how it was made.

This is how people hear music.
__________________
it aint worth a bop,if it dont got that pop
Cosmic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 05:10 PM   #62
ngarjuna
Human being with feelings
 
ngarjuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Miami
Posts: 2,298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
If you could flash everyone Men In Black style from all romantic memories of analog, I'd bet money they would not complain about digital nearly as much. Sorry but in some cases it is like the memory of an old girlfriend that you get back with 20 years later only find out she wasn't really all that after all.

I love nebula for example but in some cases, it removes stuff from digital that I didn't want removed; in otherwords the piece of gear emulated for its beautiful saturation was also lacking in low end and now that low end is missing. Let me stress however that what nebula does, it does better than anything else anywhere period but you can, if not careful, turn your tracks into faithful reproductions of the shitty part of analog where analog emulation is concerned (yes its that accurate).

The lesson here is don't fall in love with either, find the strengths of analog and digital and make them work together as a coherent piece of fine music where the medium is not the topic of discussion instead of chasing some analog pipe dream that really never existed to the extent we sometimes give it today.
Yes! In this day and age I think we should be seeking the most optimal advantages of all technology past and present as opposed to just living in the past. It's really important to remember the 'bad old days' as clearly as the 'good old days'.

That said I think there are characteristics of the 'analog sound' that flat out 'sound like a record' and it's often valuable to be able to call upon those attributes as appropriate.

I seem to spend a lot of time chasing the dragon that is analog emulation. I say seem because I try to always keep in mind that the emulation is not an end unto itself (for my purposes, anyway) and it's only as useful as it is useful, plain and simple. I'd grab for just about any digital algorithmic compressor plugin before I'd load the Nebula program for say...a 3630 heh (or patch in a real one).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmic
I've cracked it.Its dead easy.

Roll off the top end from about 17k.
That's not far off. Distortion plays its part too. And the musicality of the distortion has proven to be difficult to model thus far if current offerings are any indication.
__________________
cheers,
@ngarjuna
Gist
ngarjuna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 05:12 PM   #63
brainwreck
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,859
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richie43 View Post
I want to agree with this, but as karbo is alluding to, there were plenty of crappy records along with those warm and nice records.....
Maybe I should have said, a well recorded record, rather than just, record.

edit: because I'm a dweeb sometimes.
__________________
It's time to take a stand against the synthesizer.
brainwreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 05:13 PM   #64
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brainwreck View Post
Until they hear a record again.
I'll still put money on it that without previous psychological conditioning the number of aha moments would decline dramatically. The number of people innudated with the idea of analog magic far outweighs the magic itself. That doesn't discount its qualities (I use it myself to an extent) but it does discount the beauty of all the nastiness that also came with analog and breaks a few hearts of denial along the way.

Let me add, I'm not dissing analog, I have an 80s 2 track 10 feet away and lots of nebula libraries.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 05:19 PM   #65
brainwreck
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,859
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ngarjuna View Post
That said I think there are characteristics of the 'analog sound' that flat out 'sound like a record' and it's often valuable to be able to call upon those attributes as appropriate.

I seem to spend a lot of time chasing the dragon that is analog emulation.
Lots of us are chasing that dragon. I never wannted to, or intended to, but that is how things turned out. I was perfectly fine with digital recording, until I noticed that many records sound better than anything that I have heard come out of the digital recording and mixing.
__________________
It's time to take a stand against the synthesizer.
brainwreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 05:29 PM   #66
brainwreck
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,859
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
I'll still put money on it that without previous psychological conditioning the number of aha moments would decline dramatically. The number of people innudated with the idea of analog magic far outweighs the magic itself. That doesn't discount its qualities (I use it myself to an extent) but it does discount the beauty of all the nastiness that also came with analog and breaks a few hearts of denial along the way.

Let me add, I'm not dissing analog, I have an 80s 2 track 10 feet away and lots of nebula libraries.
I think that the sound of some records is gorgeous, and it is something that I haven't heard matched by digital emulation. Analog's biggest strengths are in it's more pleasing sound qualities (subjective opinion, but common). All other things aside.
__________________
It's time to take a stand against the synthesizer.
brainwreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 05:31 PM   #67
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmic View Post
I don't buy it.I just dont buy it.

When I hear music..I dont hear analog or digital..I just hear music.

I either like it or I don't.I don't care how it was made,how it was played or how it was laid.

If it sounds shit and thats the reason I don't like it..well then,shame on the the person releasing it.

If I like it..dosent matter how it was made.

This is how people hear music.
Well its easy to play the "a great song sounds good on a 3 dollar guitar card" but there are multiple aspects to recording "sound" in such discussions and songwriting isn't part of this one.

A great engineer micing up an amp is there to address it 100% sonically first and foremost. Its his jobby job to pay attention to stuff that isn't on the mind of the songwriter/performer, that's why they hired him. Don't get me wrong, what you are saying is of ultimate importance but many an engineer have helped make many an artsy musician famous by paying attention to the things the musician was oblivious to because the musician was only into the song man... We always fair better in the long run when someone else pays attention to the stuff we don't give a rat's ass about.

Last edited by karbomusic; 02-07-2013 at 05:39 PM.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 05:36 PM   #68
brainwreck
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,859
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
Well its easy to play the "a great song sounds good on a 3 dollar guitar card" but there are multiple aspects to recording "sound" in such discussions and songwriting isn't part of this one.
Yea, a good song is a good song, and a good recording is a good recording. If we're lucky, we get to hear both at the same time.
__________________
It's time to take a stand against the synthesizer.
brainwreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 05:38 PM   #69
Cosmic
Human being with feelings
 
Cosmic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Online
Posts: 4,896
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
Well its easy to play the "a great song sounds good on a 3 dollar guitar card" but there are multiple aspects to recording "sound" in such discussions and songwriting isn't part of this one.

A great engineer micing up an amp is there to address it 100% sonically first and foremost. Its his jobby job to pay attention to stuff that isn't on the mind of the songwriter/performer, that's why they hired him. Don't get me wrong what you are saying is of ultimate importance but many an engineer have made a multitude of artsy musicians famous by paying attention to the things the musician was oblivious to because they were only into the song man...
Well..I must accept that most musicians are dopes and don't pay attention or are even aware theres a bigger picture than that which they make with they're weedy little small minded take on the world.

Nonetheless...analog..digital..its all bollix.

Either sounds great..or it doesnt.

Bad worker blames the other worse workers
__________________
it aint worth a bop,if it dont got that pop
Cosmic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 05:48 PM   #70
Cosmic
Human being with feelings
 
Cosmic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Online
Posts: 4,896
Default

You won't pay extra for a well-marketed illusion?
__________________
it aint worth a bop,if it dont got that pop
Cosmic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 05:50 PM   #71
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
Nonetheless...analog..digital..its all bollix.
A fair point it is. As a all-in-wonder, like you I can start cutting a tune now and be done in a few hours and digital/analog would have .0000001 percent to do with whether I want to hit delete when I'm done.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 05:59 PM   #72
Cosmic
Human being with feelings
 
Cosmic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Online
Posts: 4,896
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
A fair point it is. As a all-in-wonder, like you I can start cutting a tune now and be done in a few hours and digital/analog would have .0000001 percent to do with whether I want to hit delete when I'm done.

If its any good you'll not delete it though..you'll let it ROCK

You'd have to.
__________________
it aint worth a bop,if it dont got that pop
Cosmic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 06:03 PM   #73
Cosmic
Human being with feelings
 
Cosmic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Online
Posts: 4,896
Default

Its only a mater of time before we're all into BONE CONDUCTION
http://www.finisinc.com/swimp3/
__________________
it aint worth a bop,if it dont got that pop
Cosmic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 01:24 AM   #74
ivansc
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near Cambridge UK and Near Questembert, France
Posts: 22,754
Default LIGHTBULB MOMENT!

I cant tell the difference....because my hearing has deteriorated so far that I don't need a high end filter any more.

Everything above 12k is no longer there!
ivansc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 11:05 AM   #75
Vudu12
Human being with feelings
 
Vudu12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Denver, CO / Vancouver, BC
Posts: 25
Default

As a thought experiment (or real one), say there was a contest (for a million bucks) to reproduce some classic tune (ie. Eagles Hotel something...) and everyone had a big budget and musicians at their disposal.

Who do you think would get the closest, the ITB people, the try everything and anything group, or the ones sweating it out on the exact same gear that was originally used?

I've tried in the past, recreating even a 90's rap record, and now trying 70s dub reggae, and depending on how authentic you want to be, really authentic in my case, it can be very hard ITB. I'm learning a lot, my sound is getting better, don't know how far down the rabbit hole I want to go. I enjoy the music I am trying to emulate so much; new tunes go out of rotation but some older ones are in permanently. I want to really get it right, and yes I could create all digital music tomorrow for a different project and not have to go through all this, but I want to make something to stand the test of time so this knowledge is good. I DO think there is something to the analog sound worth having. Our ears are analog and spitting digital graininess at them all day long is only going to make them shut down.
__________________
algorhythmic http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/sscrew
Vudu12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 12:15 PM   #76
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
I've tried in the past, recreating even a 90's rap record, and now trying 70s dub reggae, and depending on how authentic you want to be, really authentic in my case, it can be very hard ITB.
I'm not so sure about that from an ITB/OTB perspective. It would be harder recreating how the instruments were captured vs whether it were analog or digital etc. Room, mics, mic positions, how it was performed etc would play a much, much larger role. I've recreated a few here and there and the fact that I was ITB/Digital really had little or nothing to do with how faithful my recreation was (or wasn't).
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 04:29 PM   #77
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrew grove View Post
Has anyone got to recreate the peripheral and elusive sound of Analog yet?...
Yes, absolutely.

1. Step one is to have someone make a sound in the real world. That sound is analog.

2. Step two is to record that sound. I have generally found that digital recorders are a cheap and easy way to play back the sound exactly as it was heard. So if you want pure "analog sound", the best bet is usually a high-quality digital capture.

To clarify this last point, if you put an inexpensive but fairly-accurate mic (say, a Behringer ECM8000) in a room full of people, record a conversation in a room through a typical onboard computer soundcard, and then play it back through a reasonably-accurate home-stereo, people in the room will, often as not, start replying to "recorded" conversation, thinking they are actually hearing each other speaking.

"accurate" and "realistic" sound-quality is not all that difficult or expensive to achieve these days. A forensic analyst or audio-engineer in a controlled room with reference-monitors could tell the difference, but that's not what making good records is usually about. If that is what matters, replace the Behringer mics with earthworks mics, replace the soundcard with Clearmountain pres and mytek converters, and replace the speakers with ADAMs or soffit-mounted acoustician-designed whatever.

OTOH, there are a lot of distorted and corrupted, but flattering-sounding analog circuits that can especially helpful when it comes to making stuff sound "louder" or "better" or "bigger". The obvious example is guitar amps: they are not even close to accurate or "hi fi", but the inaccuracies are a critical part of a lot of popular music.

A well-designed tube circuit is capable of being just as functionally transparent and low-noise as a solid-state circuit, but it's a lot more expensive, and uses a lot more electricity. Extremely high-quality transformers can approach transformer-less front ends in terms of sonic transparency, but even the best involve some degree of distortion.

When people talk about "analog" or "vintage" sound, most of them are simply talking about well-made recordings, made by skilled sound engineers with a deep musical and technical background, which the ignorant modern listener attributes to something magical in the equipment. A smaller proportion are referring to the specific distortion characteristics of magnetic tape, or vinyl, or something.

Anything that can be reproduced digitally, can be produced digitally. That is absolutely axiomatic. It is not possible for a CD or DVD to contain information that could not be produced by a digital system. It is factually and categorically wrong to think that anything on a CD or mp3 requires "analog" anything to produce: digital information is digital, and can be produced digitally, by definition (even if it means manually typing ones and zeroes).

Probably 90% of what is commonly thought of as (desirable) "analog sound" just boils down to engineering skill and musicianship. Back in say, the 1940s~1960s or whenever, musical acts were generally expected to actually sound good on their own. The recordist was not necessarily expected to flatter or improve the sound of the band, just to record it. And that was (at the time) regarded as an almost entirely technical skill: "engineer" was not a euphemism, but a description of a sort of practical scientist. Mics and preamps and so on were high-technology, and were expensive things made in laboratories.

Sometime starting around the late 60's, and especially with explosion of multi-track "studio records" from the 70's on (especially since the era of Led Zeppelin and disco), "audio engineer" started to become a much hazier term. "Records" increasingly became sounds that had never previously existed in a room together, they were often pure studio constructions which could not be properly played live.

This era also overlapped the emergence of the "big console" era of multi-track recording, where companies like Neve, SSL, and API began offering huge, high-quality track counts and big mixing consoles with lots of features such as EQ, dynamics, and per-channel effects inserts.

In those days, and leading into the post-punk, post-disco rock/hip-hop resurgence of the 80s~90s, producers and engineers really started to exploit the capabilities of these big, multi-channel formats. It was no longer necessary to limit yourself to four or eight mics, nor to fear a generation-loss by bouncing. It became possible to put spot mics everywhere, to have the bass-guitar close-miked AND recorded DI, and to have to separate mics on the kick drum, snare, toms, and so on, and per-channel EQ, compression, and effects became commonplace.

The thing is, you still had the same "engineer" engineers working the mics and controls. They just had access to a level of control and sound quality that was previously unattainable. And frankly, a lot of them were working very hard to achieve what would be today called a "digital" sound: something pure, accurate, high-headroom, low-noise, etc.

They also had the advantage of working with musicians who had no expectation that anyone was going to "fix" their sound. I seriously think that like 90% of all "digital recording" problems (other than clipping) are rooted in musicians who basically just grew up in an era where they expect to be able to fix it in the recording. And that's not always an unrealistic expectation, but it's important to remember that the Beatles and the Beach Boys and Led Zeppelin and Motown and so on... they had to actually PLAY that music, and make it sound the way they wanted it to sound, on their instruments, in real-time.

Frankly, I think most people looking for "analog sound" are barking up the wrong tree. If playing the "correct" notes at the right time were all that matters to musicianship, we'd all be listening to MIDI tracks or player-piano rolls. 50 years ago, it was the musician's job to make it sound good. The engineer was just a technician whose job was to accurately capture the sound of the musician.

Now it's like everything is flipped on its head, and the musician is supposed to be just a mechanical technician whose job is over when the correct notes are played, and the engineering is supposed to make it sound good.

It's like, near-perfect recordings are available to just about anyone for very low cost, and when the record doesn't sound good, instead of making the music sound better, people want to find out what kind of tape-heads or reverb the Beatles used, as though that matters.

To the point, genuine "analog sound" is basically bandwidth-limiting (especially 40HZ-12kHZ), higher noise floor, plus soft-clipping at every recording stage. This last is the hardest thing to reproduce: you really have to saturate/soft-clip at the input, at the EQ, at the reverb send, at the compressor, etc, etc, plus the whole mix. It's nothing magical, it's just that the compounding effect of saturation at every gain-stage is not something you can reproduce by dropping in one plugin somewhere.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 05:01 PM   #78
Tim Ragnur
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Denmark
Posts: 112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yep View Post
Yes, absolutely.

1. Step one is to have someone make a sound in the real world. That sound is analog.
Sound is actual physical air pressure differences and as such not "analog". For that conversion to take place we use a microphone.

Otherwise I agree with your points. People forget that the art that goes into transforming music into a record isn't about the gear but the ears of the creative team standing behind it.

I think "analog" is a hyped up word, that actually doesn't mean anything. Everybody is just throwing one myth after another refering to fantastic "analog", without having a clue about what they are saying. BUT trying so hard to sound like they do like it was some sort of commonly known truth.
Wtf are you guys talking about?!
Tape? Vinyl? Vintage mics? Old signal paths and preamps? Tubes...?

Then maybe we can have a conversation about what our actual opinions and experiences are.

Last edited by Tim Ragnur; 02-08-2013 at 05:36 PM. Reason: Added some stuff
Tim Ragnur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 05:06 PM   #79
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Ragnur View Post
For that conversion to take place we use a microphone.
Or ears.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 05:07 PM   #80
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
they had to actually PLAY that music, and make it sound the way they wanted it to sound, on their instruments, in real-time.
You are kidding right? Musicians having being responsible for making the music? C'mon?
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.