Analog to digital fest

[bruno]

So I love this idea suggested by 64Guitars - and it got me thinking ....

So, I pulled out some of my old recordings - and I was stunned comparing old to new how much better the sounds are today - even home equipment versus studio. I would say (trying to be objective), comparing Kemper/BR1600/SE Valve Mike/Beta Monkey Loops to my CD recorded on 16 track analog tape in the studio - my home recordings now sound way better - that really surprised me. I wonder how the rest of you felt about your recordings? Granted, I have spend a reasonable amount of money on great home equipment (although you can easily argue the Kemper is studio grade) - but I'm really, really surprised.

Just to illustrate this point - compare, recorded on analog tape in a professional studio over a couple of days in 1995. Miked up guitars (an Marshall 4*12 JMC 900 and an separate Blues 69 4*12, with my JV Strat, with my band Attica, Rob on vox, Pambos on Bass and Paul on drums. Adam the studio engineer, was and still is a great engineer, having done many, many pro bands.

to say, "My Boundaries" recorded with Hook over the internet, the MusicMan Luke through the Kemper!!!

Time:

0:00

Volume:

50

0

 Stop   Play   Pause   Vol   Vol   Mute   Repeat   Download

https://songcrafters.org/community/index.php?topic=22501.0

The other thing that I struck me was that my playing is much better, compared to 20 years ago. I though, like athletes, that musicians peak due to the physical impacts of getting older - however, although that may be true with speed, you can more and easily make up (and supersede) with tasteful and intelligent playing (experience) - so there is hope for us all :-) Again that really surprised me. I haven't really (and I mean really critiqued) my old music in ages like I do with my Songcrafters tracks, hence this post. I would say listening to all your music has helped me improve greatly, down to listening to yours and asking questions like "I love that acoustic sound, how did they get that sound, and then me experimenting". So, apart from enjoying all your music, the process of listening and commenting really make you improve as an individual. So there you go. :-)

I would be interested in hearing your comparisons :-)

B

[Farrell Jackson]

This is a great comparison Bruno! Like you, the mention of comparing an older analog song to a recent digital recording of the same song is very intriguing so the wheels in my head started spinning. I did a search through my files and discs to see if I could could find such and song and I did! So I hope this idea gets some legs....cause I'm ready to go.

As to my thoughts on your analog compare to your digital recorded song...they both sound good but the biggest thing that stood out to me was the quality of the drums sound. The analog recorded drums had more of a muffled or less lively sound compared to the digital recording. Do you remember how the band was recorded in the studio? All at once or did you do individual takes. With the digital recording I assuming you did, for the most part, individual takes. BTW Attica was great band Bruno!

Farrell

[Hook]

On my phone can't hear the2ND one but I love the first one brother. Agree with the drum sounds , your beat monkeys sound much better.
Rock on!

[bruno]

Farrell - the drums in the studio with Attica (Paul Gowman on drums) were done with multiple mikes, and recorded separately (we recorded 1 instrument at a time) - so not dissimilar to how I record today, but without a guide track . The drums on the second is beta monkey loops - which are recorded in a top notch modern studio with session players quite probably playing top of the range kits I guess its all around the end effect. I love playing with a real drummer, as the drums follow the song - whereas  the way I write, I write the song around the main loop beat, and then finds what fits afterwards - so a little hit and miss

I'm actually really fired up to try and re-create one of these old songs

Farrell - you should record it anyway, I really would love to hear and compare - I think its an intriguing and interesting thing to do. I'm going to have a go at one of mine - although I'm no singer!!!
B

[chip]

I may be the odd one out here, but I like the analogue recording better. It just sounds more warmer, real and contrary to the other posts, I like the drums better too. To my ears the digital recordings including mine sound a little to clean for my liking, too much of a processed sound. Of course this may be down to my upbringing with analogue gear therefore creating a bias over one to the other, and , being a person who was bought up on vinyl is another bias point if you excuse the pun.

Good stuff Bruno, an interesting, subjective and divisive subject.

[Farrell Jackson]

Note: I'll be removing these two song samples today (9-1-15) because soundclick frowns on posting up copyright songs without the proper licensing. They were just a quick short lived sample for comparison purposes anyway. Thanks for listening and for the comments!

Farrell

Following Bruno's song posts: I'm posting up two recordings of the same song, Keep Your Hands To Yourself by the Georgia Satellites, recorded 20 years apart. One analog done in an 8 track tape studio, engineered and mixed by their technician. The other one engineered and mixed by me at my place on a Fostex VF160 digital recorder. I think this is an interesting comparison for a couple of reasons.  It's an analog and digital comparison of the same song and it's the same guitar/bass players but with different drummers. Plus we were 20 years younger on the analog recording and who knows what motivational things we were doing during the recording....lol! The only change I made was to raise the analog recording to a similar volume as the digital recording. Both recordings were done live in the studio and I'm singing lead vocal on both.

Analog recording amps, guitars, and drums were: Farrell - 1967 Tele into a 1965 Fender Deluxe Reverb amp. Steve - 1963 Strat into an early 80's MusicMan 50 watt amp. Dave - A 70's Gibson EBO Bass that went direct. Tom - a 70's Ludwig drum set.

Digital recording amps, guitars and drums were: Farrell a 2000 MusicMan/Ernie Ball OLP guitar into a 90's Fender Pro Jr. amp. Steve - a newer Strat into a Fender Blues Jr. amp. Dave - a newer Carvin bass direct to the board. Kurt - a Tama drum set.

If my memory serves me, the equipment used on the analog recording were SM58's and SM57's mics for the vocals, amps, drums, bass went direct, and all was recorded to a Tascam 1/2 inch reel to reel. At that time I didn't pay much attention to what compressors or effects that were used but you can hear a definite delay of some sort on my lead vocal.

The digital recording was done on a Fostex VF160 digital recorder at my place. I used 6 CAD mics on the drums, 2 1976 AKG and 1 SM58 for vocals, 2 SM57'a for the amp mics, and bass went direct.

That's about it I think? I put them up at Soundclick so I'll be able to take them down after a bit.....I hope this works and that you find the two processes interesting.

Farrell

[bruno]

That's great - you can listen side by side. The analog recording sounds more live, the digital one is much cleaner. They are both great, and really quite different. Will have another good listen to both. Thanks for posting Farrell - this is super interesting.
B

[fenderbender]

Great comparison -Farrell --but both sound great to me -
The first version -analogue---has that punch and drive -plus something special (youth +excitement maybe)
The digital version is classy as well -It also has that punch and drive---

Now I'm listening on old ears ----
both top class recordings ---

I've just been googling The Georgia Satellites -I remember that version Hippy hippy shake--
some great recordings -congrats Farrell.
Jaaaazz you learn something new everyday.

I love this site.

Tommy

[Hook]

I really liked both versions also, you clearly are and have always been a top shelf musician. I think the older version has a defiantly youthful energy that is undeniably recognizable but the newer version is like that really comfortable jean jacket I don't have any more. Both really great recordings, I assume you paid for the 1st one?
I don't think I'll pay for studio time out of my own pocket again...someone else's for sure.
Loved listening and comparing, I plan on joining in the fun with a near 20 year comparison in the weeks to come, maybe more than one. I have a new country band so I'll have to see how much time I can steal away.
Rock on!

[Flash Harry]

Tape machines  - even the best multitracks like the Studer A80 24 track 2inch machine - relied on an inherently non-linear tape medium. The frequency response tailed off quite early with the higher frequencies getting lost in noise, so much so that Dolby Labs came up with a way of putting the higher frequencies onto the tape at a higher level and then attenuating it on replay to cut the noise effects in the higher frequencies.
Tape displays hysteresis which means that the signal going on may not be sufficiently energetic to flip a particle's magnetic field so Tape Bias - a high frequency signal was mixed into the signal going onto tape to improve the hysteresis effects - 240Khz which should put the sidebands well outside the audible frequency range - but there are those who can 'hear' whether a speaker cable is being used in the 'right direction'.
Lining a professional tape machine up was a long and painstaking task - something that couldn't be done on the lower end tape machines, simply because the facilities didn't exist. It required test equipment, calibrated signal generators and a good deal of patience.
Sound desks, microphone cables, effect units and any other components in the signal chain all added noise, then this was pressed onto a lump of plastic which notoriously attracted dust and static electricity. How did we ever do it?
However, a well set-up analog system provided a warm, rich sound that some still prefer.

Interesting comparison.