• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

How "analog" can digital music sound?

RunOutGroove

RunOutGroove

Addicted Member
Ok, I was just thinking... in terms of recording tech, if it's really possible to produce something that sounds very convincingly like old tape with completely digital gear? I'm not talking about playback at all mind you, a subject that's already been discussed a ton on the site here.

I'm a musician (a drummer) and have been involved in a number of recording projects over the years, but I don't have the gear, much less the knowhow to do audio engineering stuff. I am fascinated by the subject though and ask my friends who have studios lots of questions, so I feel like even though I don't know how to run the gear, I still know something about it. I know that there are lots of plug ins and rack mount effects units that do various things to imitate analog type sounds. These kind of treatments are generally desirable because they can warm up the vibe of a recording in a nice way. Still, it seems that whenever I hear a newer band that is going for a very obviously old school sound, like the White Stripes for example I always seem to find out that they use all-analog gear for recording. I wonder if it's possible and then if it is if there are good examples of recordings that sound very old - like Elvis Sun Sessions, old blues and R&B on Chess records, old reggae (with all of those funky spring reverbs and tape delays) which have been made with purely digital gear?
 
Register to hide this ad
I don't know much about the technical aspects of mimicking tape, but I expect rule #1 for getting some of the best old-school sound would be having everyone in the room together. Some of the best analog recordings never involved a tape recorder - they went directly to a disc cutting head. Everyone involved had to pay attention.
 
sqlsavior said:
I don't know much about the technical aspects of mimicking tape, but I expect rule #1 for getting some of the best old-school sound would be having everyone in the room together. Some of the best analog recordings never involved a tape recorder - they went directly to a disc cutting head. Everyone involved had to pay attention.
Click to expand...
That's true to some degree I suppose, but merely recording all together doesn't necessarily give it the sound of tape (and a particularly kind of rendering, compression, etc that this entails) or the sound of the analog processing that's often used, plate reverbs, spring reverbs. There's also the fact that lots of old rock and pop stuff from the 60s had that kind of warm, stereotypical analog sound, but was made by multi-tracking...
 
Last edited:
For me, it tends to mean slightly rolled-off highs and maybe a bit of a bump in the upper bass region. Its a near-cousin to "dull".

as for stuff from the 60s, it probably had that tonal signature to sound good on AM radio and lesser audio gear. Probably was also some limitation just from the equipment in use at the time. Cut the highs back and the tape hiss from not so awesome tape media and machines goes away.
 
Digital is analog in and analog out. So yes, it can sound 100% analog.

FWIW, I tried Jack White's "Lazaretto" on several different tables and systems, and was not at all impressed with its sound quality.

Regardless of final format, the quality of its engineering (recording, mixing, mastering and physical production) and the skills of those involved, is the difference between a poor, good and great recording.

I own many great sounding record albums that were recorded and mixed digitally, and many not so great that were produced completely in the analog domain.
 
Aaron Hayman said:
Ok, I was just thinking... in terms of recording tech, if it's really possible to produce something that sounds very convincingly like old tape with completely digital gear? I'm not talking about playback at all mind you, a subject that's already been discussed a ton on the site here.

I'm a musician (a drummer) and have been involved in a number of recording projects over the years, but I don't have the gear, much less the knowhow to do audio engineering stuff. I am fascinated by the subject though and ask my friends who have studios lots of questions, so I feel like even though I don't know how to run the gear, I still know something about it. I know that there are lots of plug ins and rack mount effects units that do various things to imitate analog type sounds. These kind of treatments are generally desirable because they can warm up the vibe of a recording in a nice way. Still, it seems that whenever I hear a newer band that is going for a very obviously old school sound, like the White Stripes for example I always seem to find out that they use all-analog gear for recording. I wonder if it's possible and then if it is if there are good examples of recordings that sound very old - like Elvis Sun Sessions, old blues and R&B on Chess records, old reggae (with all of those funky spring reverbs and tape delays) which have been made with purely digital gear?
Click to expand...
With good, that is modern digital equipment, I can't imagine that it is not capable of recording what 'we' think of as old school sound. Honestly, the use, maybe better said overuse of effects, processors of all kinds, and the lack of experience through disuse of recording techniques in the studio having to do with microphone placement and overuse of multi track capabilities, too many microphones. Old school recording engineers developed and honed their art with limited equipment, relying on microphone choice and placement to get it right coming in to the console rather than 'fix' it later. Plus... processors and effects rule and establish a norm around themselves for the simple reason they exist. With that said, I do not think it is the digital medium itself but the way it is used, almost as though the very versatility and options it makes available leads the engineers who in turn establish normalcy.... like the tail wagging the dog.
 
When I put on a compact disk, quite often the first thing I hear in a cut is where the analog hiss kicks in until the music kicks in. Do we really want to duplicate that hiss to get an analog sound, because that's part of the "old school" package?
 
Analogue sounds much more natural, a more 'life like' honest feeling.
Digital is more 'accurate'.

Analogue has the "Yeah - Bash`" sound due to being an analogue sound wave and due to the way it is mastered for LPs.

Digital sounds like digital - 1s & 0s, something is lost, which is why you are asking the question. But I still like digital for many reasons, I mean I got about 1200+ of them. Some CDs do sound fantastic. :)

So to answer your question: one thing I've noticed (to me only) is that speakers with AlNiCo magnets seem to mellow digital. It reduces the 'starkness' of digital.
 
Last edited:
Sorry to hear that.

Several years back I used a CD recorder to burn some album sides from my turntable.

I had some "audio friends" over and after listening to a couple of albums, I cued up one of the albums burned to CD. I already had the CD version ready to go in my CD player.

Switched the input selector to CD (no one was paying close attention), dropped the needle, and started the CD.

As we talked, I mentioned that I found the quality of the recording to be exceptionally good. The others listened more carefully, and agreed that it was a very well done album.

No one suspected they were actually listening to a CD. To me this suggested that there is no inherent flaw in digital recordings, and demonstrated that the characteristic sound of vinyl can be produced on CD without difficulty.
 
I'm an old timer, born with tubes and LPs.

I can easily hear the difference between analog & digital. :dunno: Just saying. Analog has the " Yeah-Bash " sound. I can, and occasionally do, play LPs all night long from 9 PM to 5 AM. No problem, one right after the other.

Digital sound kinda 'bores me' & definitely puts me to sleep after 2 (or 3 max) CDs. After 3 CDs, I've heard enough, no fun no more. But then I can play LPs and all is good again, so there is something to it.

* AlNiCo magnets do help mellow out the digital sound.

:beerchug:
 
Last edited:
So can I. Analog has characteristics that are difficult to ignore, especially during quiet passages. Have no idea of what "yeah-bash" might be. Dirty stylus?

EDIT: I suspect that those of us who grew up with vinyl (I am 65) have a tendency to consider it as "the standard", simply because it is what we are (were) conditioned to expect a recording to sound like.

Too bad about your digital experience. Surprised that you have so many CDs, given that you find them so difficult to enjoy.

There are certainly poor ones, same as with LPs. But a well-recorded CD or high-res file, played thru a digital playback system of the same quality (and investment) as is required for vinyl to really shine can, dare I say it, sound better (to my ears) than an LP.

Honestly, I find that sound quality is just not very good on many albums, especially rock music produced back in the day, when they were stamping them out as fast as they could and didn't give two sh*ts about sound quality. Frustrating, since so there was so much fresh and innovate music being made in that era.

:beerchug:
 
Last edited:
Read something recently about the smallest possible instance of time. It may turn out there is no such thing as true analog passing of time.
 
You folks are really talking more about the differences between analog and digital playback, which if you read my original post, I'm not really interested in. A very "analog" sounding old recording, if it's transferred to digital in a really faithful way and played back on very good gear will retain much of the characteristics of the original... at least that's what it seems like to me.

No, what I'm curious about is not the playback, but the recording. I do think that certain analog recordings don't sound like they would be so obviously different if they were recorded digitally. Some recordings though, like old old Motown, Jamaican reggae, The Who's early albums (the drum sounds have that kind of analog hissy compression), etc have very characteristic analog type sounds that I just don't hear on digital recordings. I'm not making a value judgement either that these kind of sounds make the music so much better, but I just notice that whenever I hear about an artist going for a really vintage sound, they use tape and the old analog gear that goes with it. I'm just really curious if there are artists producers and the like that are really going for that old kind of sound but are doing it with exclusively modern recording techniques... Just how good is the new stuff at imitating the sounds of the old?
 
Last edited:
Though I'm far (FAR!) from an expert on this topic, I think @spicer is onto something, especially the number of microphones. IMHO too many microphones mixed down to a stereo track creates a weird or absent soundstage. Also I believe that having the musicians perform simultaneously likely creates a better recording than having them all play separately and then mixing it together later.

I'd imagine that you could do worse than to try to find some books on audio recording that were published in the 1960's and see what techniques were used then. IMHO the 1960's were the golden era of classical recordings. Not only was classical music much more widely appreciated then, but they weren't using a hundred microphones and mixing everything. They just had the musicians play and they recorded them. Some of these recordings, remastered onto SACD, are amazing.

Anyway, I hope this added something.

Cheers,

Kim G
Boston, MA
Where we are very fortunate to still have one fantastic symphony orchestra and several good regional ones.
 
Aaron Hayman said:
You folks are really talking ore about the differences between analog and digital playback, which if you read my original post, I'm not really interested in. A very "analog" sounding old recording, if it's transferred to digital in a really faithful way and played back on very good gear will retain much of the characteristics of the original... at least that's what it seems like to me.

No, what I'm curious about is not the playback, but the recording. I do think that certain analog recordings don't sound like they would be so obviously different if they were recorded digitally. Some recordings though, like old old Motown, Jamaican reggae, The Who's early albums (the drum sounds have that kind of analog hissy compression), etc have very characteristic analog type sounds that I just don't hear on digital recordings. I'm not making a value judgement either that these kind of sounds make the music so much better, but I just notice that whenever I hear about an artist going for a really vintage sound, they use tape and the old analog gear that goes with it. I'm just really curious if there are artists producers and the like that are really going for that old kind of sound but are doing it with exclusively modern recording techniques... Just how good is the new stuff at imitating the sounds of the old?
Click to expand...
I really do think it is in the processing and the use and placement of microphones with a limited number of tracks... and processing I mean the mastering lab processing more than the studio effects and processing though that can be part of it too. You listen to mastering engineers talk in workshops and it's things like effects added to the attack side of a drum strike and the way it releases to make it 'pop', or some such thing. How about just recording the drums and other instruments allowing them each their own sonic space... really good recordings have that quality which naturally gives a great sound stage on playback. Thing is producing recordings where each instrument, singer, etc., has it's own space during reproduction requires necessary talent to achieve, assuming that is the desire... I do believe the digital medium is perfectly capable of this. I too have heard great recordings from mid to later fifties through the sixties into the seventies that were all analogue captured on tape... used to be one could buy quality 7 1/2 inch reel tapes that were simply excellent, some are still around, many here have some. Yes, there was some hiss, more or less, depending, and was nearly always masked by the program. I've heard third generation tapes from Columbia (CBS) as promotions, sometimes 7/15, other times 15 ips and they don't take a back seat to anything.... in fact, the most open airy sounding recordings I've ever heard. Of course the playback hardware was decent... JBL L300, Altec 19s, etc., using Teac, Tandberg decks and Phase Linear or Mac amplifiers, all current models at the time. Those tapes remain the best quality recordings I've ever heard. I will add these were studio mixes before Mastering. I can't believe modern digital recordings can't match those tapes but for what ever reason many or most engineers do not record to sound like that...something else driving the way they sound. Too many tracks, buttons and knobs and it's just too irresistible not to use them. I'm sure there are books written long ago by recording legends when old school recording techniques were current that would explain it... that along with patience and practice would no doubt produce that old school 'unadulterated' sound.
 
bluesky said:
Analogue sounds much more natural, a more 'life like' honest feeling.
Digital is more 'accurate'.

Analogue has the "Yeah - Bash`" sound due to being an analogue sound wave and due to the way it is mastered for LPs.

Digital sounds like digital - 1s & 0s, something is lost, which is why you are asking the question. But I still like digital for many reasons, I mean I got about 1200+ of them. Some CDs do sound fantastic. :)

So to answer your question: one thing I've noticed (to me only) is that speakers with AlNiCo magnets seem to mellow digital. It reduces the 'starkness' of digital.
Click to expand...
I´m sorry, but that is just ridiculous.

Just my (probably unpopular) opinion.

Where is Davevoorhis when you need him?
 
I have an elderly friend who worked in the original studio in Nashville where the 'sound' that became famous came from. He went on to a long, very successful career working in the center of tape mechanics and has a wall full of patents to show for that work.

Upon leaving the Nashville studio work, he was offered and received a master tape as a present. Some of us got to set down a listen to that very tape a few years back. Bring back to life that moment from I believe the late 50's. Mono machine (with some of his own tech involved) to match the tape and a mono tube amp he'd just completed building. Boy, if you think current digital can match, then you haven't heard that type of sound.

I've heard several other examples like that which show how modern production is more about convenience than any advance in the technology. The mics they used and the style of use are certainly involved in the 'sound'. It was not a world where they sat down later and 'assembled' and 'improved' the product. It went to tape and it was done. The performance of the musicians stood on it's merit.

I do think that some SACD's can exhibit some of the smoothness of sound that real analog has. Just don't mess it up with trying to back room 'construct' a masterpiece. Listen to something like the Red Rose Sampler SACD where Mark Levinson captured straight to a Sony early demo DSD machine, which shows what digital is capable of.

And the numbers only guys will never understand why good analog is so hard to beat.

EV3
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom