RSS Feed

Recording Mythology, Pt. 12 / Digital versus Analogue?

 

In the age of digital recording, I am one of those who continue to record in the analogue domain, insisting that the heart and soul of older music is due, in part, to the magic of magnetic media. I have two “old” Tascam 388 Studio 8 recorders in near new condition which I acquired by way of  musicians who had determined that digital was the wave of the future.

The 388 is a songwriters tool by definition: It utilises 1/4″ tape and runs at a speed of 7.5″ per second. This unit is far outstripped by those high grade studio affairs which, in comparison use 1″ or 2″ tape and run at speeds up to 30 ips. The 388 makes use of dbx II noise reduction which was the cutting edge technology of the day. It really does a fine job of keeping the noise floor at an almost imperceptible level and, if the signal is kept nice and hot, the resulting recordings are quite detailed. It goes without saying that any engineer would easily be able to hear the difference between the sound quality of the 388 and a Studer battleship, but I have to roll with the dictates of affordability, availability and necessity. Work of mine which was done on the 388 has surprised some very discerning ears. It’s all about use and manipulation of the tools at hand.

Image

Is digital better than analogue? I believe that it is a rhetorical question. The question should be: Better at what? Quieter? Sure. More flexible? Of course. More durable? Possibly. At least the digital machine won’t mangle the tape, rendering useless the song that you spent thirty hours on. But the digital equipment can ruin work in an instant as well. I am not writing out of ignorance or bias, as I had the opportunity to work with a DAW for some time before the Tascam came my way.

I was afforded the use of a friends’ Fostex unit, a little 16 bit, 8 track deal which recorded to a built in hard drive. It had the jog wheel and all of the buttons for cutting and pasting.. not that I’ve ever done any extensive tape splicing.. but, the Fostex made it look so easy, why not give it a shot?

The first thing I didn’t appreciate was the little high pitched buzzwhine sound that the unit made. I had to null out the bleed by turning my mic at the required angle and tightening up the noise gate to the point of it chopping off my acoustic guitar’s note decay as it closed. I wasn’t so happy about that. The next that I found disconcerting was that I couldn’t be satisfied that the damned thing was even running. Nothing was moving!

By now it is obvious to the reader that I’ve spent a lot of time in front of a tape machine and the transition was going to take some time. I could have stopped right there and used my bullheadedness as an excuse not to try and master the use of Tym’s machine, but I’ve always prided myself on being one of those who was always open to new and better things and besides, I was determined to use the device.

The thing that really turned me against digital recording was what I heard when I was moving the jog wheel either in forward or reverse: Tiny little ice cubes of noise, which, when listened to in rapid succession, sounded like music. It was crisp, and it was crystalline and transparent and all of those words… but it wasn’t embracing and warm and fat and consistent.

That is the problem that I still have with digitally recorded music, in a nutshell. I listen to the CDs that I made while using the Fostex and am immediately struck at how much of what I recorded is missing. I began to wonder if that isn’t why R&B and rock music has taken the direction that it has in the past ten or fifteen years with all of the mega-bass and the tuned-down guitars. Musicians are trying to recapture the very essence of what isn’t getting recorded. They are trying to inject the warmth back into the music that digital sucks out.

I cut one of my recordings up beyond redemption on that little Fostex recorder. Accidentally, of course. I was attempting to “move” a few bars in what is now neither “forward” nor “reverse”. I wound up trashing the tracks altogether. So where was the advantage to not having my tape eaten by an analogue machine? A moment of inattentiveness and everything still goes straight to hell. I could hear the splices. It occurred to me that I’d never attempted to splice anything on an analogue recorder. It simply wasn’t the way that I was used to working. I determined that I didn’t need to splice anything, anyway. Why didn’t I just re-record the entire track as I normally would have done? I realised at that moment that the technology had been sucking me in. It had been attempting to change me simply by existing.

It wasn’t long afterwards that the deal came through on the first Tascam. It arrived at the house in a pickup truck. It took two of us to carry the unwieldy thing inside and set it on the production table. It is four times as big as the Fostex and weighs twenty times more. The desk is built into the machine and flexibility abounds with XLR jacks, insert points and fully adjustable four band parametric EQs for every channel. It can be coupled with a wired remote, a time clock and has SMPTE/EBU capability. Unfortunately, it has no phantom power, but I direct all of my mics into preamps before lining in and they furnish the required 48 volts, so it’s no big deal.

I have to clean the heads and service all of the rubber and metal parts with two different kinds of lubricant. I have to replace belts. I had to locate a supplier up in Ohio for magnetic tape. Not to mention those expensive MRL calibration tapes. I have to take the machine apart from time to time and chase down every weary capacitor and resistor or other component and replace it. In short, I have had to become my own machine technician in addition in fulfilling the role as songwriter and “musician”.

And I wouldn’t change that for the world.

Johnny Nowhere is a songwriter and composer. And “musician”. And tape machine tech. And guitar and amp rebuilder.

Advertisements

About Johnny Nowhere

Johnny Nowhere is a songwriter/composer and owner of Hell Paving Company, music publisher. Johnny doesn't really exist outside of the music industry and Facebook. He is simply a figment of my imagination.

6 responses »

  1. Great article! I think that analog is going to come back in a major way! Music is getting worse over the years, and I believe that the DAW has a lot to do with it… Cheers! http://www.ProToolsHelp.com

    Reply
  2. Obviously, you have not had the privilege to play with the digital big guns… Very unlike that little 16 bit/44 kHz toy you unfortunately ended up with. Recording at 24bit/96kHz or higher on a DAW with all the bells and whistles (including analog input hardware) is an entirely different experience. None of those little noises you mentioned, none of the risks of losing a recording like you did, none of the little noise cubes added together passing for music… In the end, you can still get that tape feel by mixing down on a 2 track reel to reel… I know where you’re coming from, Johnny, but comes a time of diminishing returns with low end analog. Mind you, I am quite impressed with what you have been able to do with your set-up, so a big part of me does not really want you to switch to digital… Where would the reference be without old school engineers like yourself…?

    Reply
    • All very good points, Francis. But many fledgling home recordists have little in the way of funds to purchase high-end digital equipment and when given the opportunity, older (and in some ways, better!) analogue equipment can be acquired much more cheaply. I felt that it was important to point out to such individuals that very good results can be obtained with ‘obsolete’ gear and that the resulting recordings can still hold their own against much more modern and expensive equipment. Much of what I do is at the expense of ‘pristine’ sound, but my goal, in part, has always been to make an example of mediocre gear and to prove that, when properly utilised, outstanding results can be achieved in its use. And, of course, there’s always the factor involved concerning…what is that saying about old dogs and new tricks? X-D

      Reply
      • Keith Richards recorded the guitar tracks for Jumping Jack Flash and Street Fighting Man with an acoustic guitar through a tiny Philips cassette recorder before they had limiters on them, and Charlie Watts used a 1930 practice kit that came in a suitcase… I believe both tunes made it to #1… 🙂

  3. you completely miss the point in the stupidiest-ever discussion: digital vs. analog. if digital doesnt sound good, its the fault of the user. because digital is (nearly) perfect, it has no sound! if it has to much hi-freuq … guess what? you put them in! its your fault, or faulty behaviour learned in analog times! digital is “what you put in you will get out”. so if you get crap out, guess what you put in … and all that dumb stuff as “xy did that and this and it was analog and the music was oh soooo awesome … ” is ridiculous. maybe they put good music into it and it was even good on analog gear? the music was so good, that even analog couldnt ruin it? or do you really think, that the analog rubbish made the music good music?? you analog yesterday freaks confuse a lot of things … think of it. its a silly behaviour to blast out to the world what you never thought through. disgusting. analog is bullshit and there is a reason for it to die out. if not thousands of reasons.

    Reply
    • Well Erwin, if you were capable of writing a complete sentence and justifing your comments, rather than inundating my blog with your baseless and vapid musings, I would be inclined to entertain your assertion.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: