• 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?

Yeah just to further expand.

I feel a much bigger contributor to why music today sounds so very different is also that now we have SUPER sensitive focused condenser microphones. With crazy high SPL limits. Mic preamps that have crazy high SNR and near no distortion. Then closely mic'd to whatever. And so many of these are used in studio and live shows. Then add the tendency to push everything forward. Not just loudness. Multiple takes used with each player isolated and listening to the rest on headphones in studio (not that this wasnt also used back in the day, just add all the precision equipment to the mix). Then tac on on the polishing and DSP.

Its just so very different from the way things were done to good extent vs mid 70s on back.

To me this is what your describing and hearing in newer rock recording.

One album I like that does use this is Counting Crows August and Everything After. It clearly sounds like the modern means I talk about. Yet the album is completely enjoyable to me. I love it and its music. I suspect if early 70s methods were used it would sound VERY different. And in all honesty I suspect I wouldnt like it as much. But who knows.

Now take by example The Who live at the Isle of Wight and that amazing opening track Heaven and Hell. It sounds absolutely glorious and raw and powerful!!! I LOVE it!!! I cant imagine what that would have sounded like if all of Keith's drums were closely mic'd with the gear I describe above. Everything recorded closely on some 128 track mixer. Broken down polished and leveled evenly and perfectly. Honestly I have no idea if Id like it more or less than what I know and love already. And I never will know. (unless some music loving nerd builds a time machine LOL). Would it hold the same visceral magic that amazing recording holds??? I personally doubt it but again Ill never know.


Again just more food for thought on what we're all talking about...
 
Listen to some of Kunzel's Classical recordings on Telarc and you tell me. Some of Chandos recordings have that tube sound too. Listen to some of Sheffields all tube Direct to disc LP's and you'd swear the Classical albums are digital recordings. Its the mics you choose and the implementation that determines the sound. Not so much the format anymore.
 
spark1 said:
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:
Click to expand...


"Yeah-Bash": like 'total energy', like going to a Zeppelin concert in being in the front! (Actually, the phrase was invented by Robert Plant.)

CDs are fine, I enjoy them. Have many ' specia l' ones. Perfect for many reasons. I like CDs... but I prefer LPs better! :)
 
bluesky said:
"Yeah-Bash": like 'total energy'
Click to expand...

Oh I remember that scene from Song Remains the Same the film ;)

I love the bootleggers scene and their interesting music videos for it.

Come to learn that manager shown in the film was the fellow who was ripping them off
if I recall correctly???

In high school I watched that VHS more times than I can count. And you bet I was watching
it in Zeppelin vision :smoke: LOL
 
My digital cd's sound very analog but my cd player runs the sound through 5687 Tung Sol cryogenic tubes. I can't hear a difference. I have 3000 invested in my digital front end and 40,000+ in my analog front end. oh yeah my cd players do not exhibit rolled off highs,they extend as high as my phono pre amp( Whest Titan Pro).
Just my 2 cents.
 
Last edited:
I have a sample cd from MA Recordings and it’s a full Needle drop cd, it’s really weird to listen to a cd that sounds like you’re listening to a record. It has all the attributes of listening to a record, with that said there are some sacds I have that have an analog sound to them.

I have to add that my Dac makes my cds and streaming sound very analog (it uses Nuvistor tubes) cds more so but streaming is a very close 2nd.

Audiofreak71
 
As noted above, the whole system is different, microphones, amplifiers, multi-tracking, and so forth. However, to get that "analog sound" all you would really need to do is use similar microphones and setups and record without digital manipulation. I've noticed some artists use old fashioned cardiod ribbon mics for vocals -- they produce a rich sound and are very much non-sensitive in dead center, so you don't have to remove lip puffs and breathing noises (the "cardiod" refers to the sensitivity field of the microphone).

Not that anyone actually records anything with a pair of microphones to two direct tracks these days.....
 
PPstereo said:
Oh I remember that scene from Song Remains the Same the film ;)

I love the bootleggers scene and their interesting music videos for it.

Come to learn that manager shown in the film was the fellow who was ripping them off
if I recall correctly???

In high school I watched that VHS more times than I can count. And you bet I was watching
it in Zeppelin vision :smoke: LOL
Click to expand...


That's the scene - " cosmic energy - yeah bash. "
 
What I'm really talking about, to clarify once again, is really the kind of imperfections that are native to analog. Though the idea of these imperfections is very likely not the kind of thing that was originally intended in the old recordings that have them and are probably considered anathema to a lot of the audiophile type folks on here, they do have associations with certain kinds of music and some people (like me) really enjoy those sounds. Some folks here are associating analog sound with a certain kind of naturalism, like what classical and jazz recordings generally go for and they're correct when they say that digital is capable of a similar kind of effect. I'm speaking about something much different though, in that there's a certain kind of compression, the sound of spring and plate reverbs, tape delays, etc that are most definitely not natural sounding and are more the kind of treatments used to make music have some punch through cheap AM car radios and in the case of reggae music, though big, not very accurate (but very loud) sound systems. Often those kinds of sounds aren't subtle at all and really color the sound of the product...

I'll use a caparison from the film world. I heard an interview with the director Robert Rodregez where he was talking about his contribution to the compilation film Grindhouse. He mentioned how all of the contributions to that film were meant to have a retro, shot-on-film quality. He spoke about how he felt his contribution was more successful in how he was able to get that crusty old film look than what Tarantino did (and that Tarantino had to admit that his was more successful in that). While Tarantino insisted on shooting with actual film, Rodregez shot in digital and then added a bunch of effects on post production to muck things up a bit; with color shifts, adding film-like grain, scratches on the "film" etc. It seems to me that film makers who work with the digital medium will often will muck things up a certain way to add a certain "analog" quality. The same is true for graphic designers and I know because I do some of this kind of work; many designers work on computers but imitate the look of pre-digital production. I just don't hear so much about this kind of purposeful analog-imitating muddying used in music production though... and I wonder why? Whenever I hear about a record that's been made to have that really vintage, imperfect sound, it seems that they're mostly using tape machines and old analog type effects to get that sort quality in the product. I just find it interesting that with as many tools as I know that there are to add analog color to digital recordings that there doesn't seem to be a lot of folks really maxing out on that kind of stuff and going for a really obviously, grungy sounds-like-it-could-only-be-made-on-tape type of sound..?
 
As another musician myself (with some limited audio engineering knowledge), I'll throw in my $0.02 here.

I've done some reading up on the matter myself, and it's my understanding that the "analog sound" of older recordings is largely the result of both the gear used back in the day (the various mics, mixing consoles, tape machines and such that were used [and that add their own color to the recording]) as well as the engineering techniques used (i.e - different mic placements and such compared to modern recordings). There's also the fact that audio mastering practices were different in the past (and in the case of much rock/pop music, much better mastering was used - no brickwalling/excessive compression like too many modern recordings).

Getting that sound in your own recordings (or at least to a point where you're happy with it) is going to require a lot of trial and error to see what works for you. I would argue that proper recording technique and mic choices (as well as good mixing) are the most important things to consider in the process, and that the other gear is more so the cherry on top. Some folks are happy with what they can get working strictly in the digital recording realm - possibly using software plugins designed to emulate analog gear's coloration effects (tape simulation, various compressors, tube stage simulation, etc.), and others still swear by all analog gear (Steve Albini being a notable example). Some people also like using both digital and analog gear with recording - a friend of mine does just that (i.e bouncing digitally recorded tracks to tape machines, and back into a DAW for digital editing).

To emphasize the importance of mic technique/mixing skill over gear in the recording realm, I've been in various recording sessions w/some bands in the past, with one session that IIRC, was done in the analog realm with some good gear (admittedly, I wasn't fully paying attention to the gear used at the time, but I remember the engineer said we wouldn't be able to go back and edit out any mistakes more than once or twice - the only session I've been a part of where that was the case). We were quite disappointed when we got the final mixes back from the studio - so much so that we ended up re-recording the demo w/another recording engineer/studio with a much more humble setup (and done in a DAW instead of w/tape) - and got much better results.
 
Aaron Hayman said:
What I'm really talking about, to clarify once again, is really the kind of imperfections that are native to analog. Though the idea of these imperfections is very likely not the kind of thing that was originally intended in the old recordings that have them and are probably considered anathema to a lot of the audiophile type folks on here, they do have associations with certain kinds of music and some people (like me) really enjoy those sounds. Some folks here are associating analog sound with a certain kind of naturalism, like what classical and jazz recordings generally go for and they're correct when they say that digital is capable of a similar kind of effect. I'm speaking about something much different though, in that there's a certain kind of compression, the sound of spring and plate reverbs, tape delays, etc that are most definitely not natural sounding and are more the kind of treatments used to make music have some punch through cheap AM car radios and in the case of reggae music, though big, not very accurate (but very loud) sound systems. Often those kinds of sounds aren't subtle at all and really color the sound of the product...

I'll use a caparison from the film world. I heard an interview with the director Robert Rodregez where he was talking about his contribution to the compilation film Grindhouse. He mentioned how all of the contributions to that film were meant to have a retro, shot-on-film quality. He spoke about how he felt his contribution was more successful in how he was able to get that crusty old film look than what Tarantino did (and that Tarantino had to admit that his was more successful in that). While Tarantino insisted on shooting with actual film, Rodregez shot in digital and then added a bunch of effects on post production to muck things up a bit; with color shifts, adding film-like grain, scratches on the "film" etc. It seems to me that film makers who work with the digital medium will often will muck things up a certain way to add a certain "analog" quality. The same is true for graphic designers and I know because I do some of this kind of work; many designers work on computers but imitate the look of pre-digital production. I just don't hear so much about this kind of purposeful analog-imitating muddying used in music production though... and I wonder why? Whenever I hear about a record that's been made to have that really vintage, imperfect sound, it seems that they're mostly using tape machines and old analog type effects to get that sort quality in the product. I just find it interesting that with as many tools as I know that there are to add analog color to digital recordings that there doesn't seem to be a lot of folks really maxing out on that kind of stuff and going for a really obviously, grungy sounds-like-it-could-only-be-made-on-tape type of sound..?
Click to expand...

Taketheflame said:
As another musician myself (with some limited audio engineering knowledge), I'll throw in my $0.02 here.

I've done some reading up on the matter myself, and it's my understanding that the "analog sound" of older recordings is largely the result of both the gear used back in the day (the various mics, mixing consoles, tape machines and such that were used [and that add their own color to the recording]) as well as the engineering techniques used (i.e - different mic placements and such compared to modern recordings). There's also the fact that audio mastering practices were different in the past (and in the case of much rock/pop music, much better mastering was used - no brickwalling/excessive compression like too many modern recordings).

Getting that sound in your own recordings (or at least to a point where you're happy with it) is going to require a lot of trial and error to see what works for you. I would argue that proper recording technique and mic choices (as well as good mixing) are the most important things to consider in the process, and that the other gear is more so the cherry on top. Some folks are happy with what they can get working strictly in the digital recording realm - possibly using software plugins designed to emulate analog gear's coloration effects (tape simulation, various compressors, tube stage simulation, etc.), and others still swear by all analog gear (Steve Albini being a notable example). Some people also like using both digital and analog gear with recording - a friend of mine does just that (i.e bouncing digitally recorded tracks to tape machines, and back into a DAW for digital editing).

To emphasize the importance of mic technique/mixing skill over gear in the recording realm, I've been in various recording sessions w/some bands in the past, with one session that IIRC, was done in the analog realm with some good gear (admittedly, I wasn't fully paying attention to the gear used at the time, but I remember the engineer said we wouldn't be able to go back and edit out any mistakes more than once or twice - the only session I've been a part of where that was the case). We were quite disappointed when we got the final mixes back from the studio - so much so that we ended up re-recording the demo w/another recording engineer/studio with a much more humble setup (and done in a DAW instead of w/tape) - and got much better results.
Click to expand...

You guys need to watch the Doc in my post #39 if you haven’t seen it yet. It’s mostly about the soundboard they are rescuing and how “everyone“ loved the sound there.

Edit: it also about this subject. Many of the artist talk about how they prefer recording to tape.
 
Last edited:
When I saw the thread title, I thought about what have I heard extensively in analog , that I now have on a digital format.
To me” analog sound” is formed by my experiences and memory. Others may have a different exemplar.

I first heard Chicago II when it was released on LP. I was a teenager at that time, and also had an eight track recording to listen to in the car. I remember vividly the tracks jumping when going through a rail road crossing. That’s the way I heard it , along with AM and FM radio as a source of course. It was just right for the times, a different sound. I had also had the first CTA album on vinyl.

I never purchased a CD of the recording, so I don’t know what it sounded like. When I saw this available on DVD Audio, I added it to my collection. When I played it through one of my OPPO players, analog audio out, I was impressed.

The bass track was lower than I recalled and more pronounced.Of course, years ago, I didn’t have the equipment I own today, but I still have the same speakers I listened to the LP and 8 track on , JBL L100.
Dynamic , vibrant sound , On this recording ,the surround mix blends together quite well. I listened on one of my smaller systems, with the JBL L100s as the front L & R. The horns sound excellent.

Around two years ago I attended a concert in a small venue by California Transit Authority. Danny Seraphine , the original dummer for Chicago played. They played some of the pieces off this album. It was incredible. I was lucky enough to meet Danny after the concert and chat for a few minutes. He is a really great guy, appreciated the fans being there and specifically asked me my name and where I lived.

Some music has a special meaning to many of us. For me, this is one of those in my collection. Having it sound like it does is icing on the cake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom