Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Not long ago I got into a friendly dispute with one of my buds about digital recording and analog. I guess I still remain of the 'old school' when it comes to recording and what I perceive to be a more 'natural' sound with analog recording. I've wondered how alluring and anomalous many of the Beatles tracks would have been if they hadn't been recorded during the analog age? Or how unique many of these same recordings would have been if recorded with many of the effects gadgets and software which are so readily available today and not by the wizardy of George Martin and the EMI staffers? Would precision digital editing and mastering, as opposed to a grease pencil, a razor blade, splicing tape and vari-speed made a song like 'Strawberry Fields', as just one example, peerless? How much of the ambient sound of the song might have been lost if recorded digitally? I'm not just talking about the basic composition of the song, but the way the final master was devised and textured. Significant, or not? Lots o' questions. Just looking for others opinions.
The Beatles recordings are just one example. How about Dave Davies and the sliced cone in his amp when doing 'You Really Got Me'? Maybe the effect would have been better if digitally created as opposed to ripping up an amp speaker.
There are hundreds of others.

I have often thought digital recording has somewhat stiffled the creativity of an artist, and the producer. But, that's just me. It certainly has made recording easier though.

Sorry, if this topic may have been hashed over before.

Now, time to go crank the old Victrola.

Stan, let me just say off-the-cuff that a lot of attention has been given by the digital music developers to re-creating that old analog sound that I can see. The warmth and presence of analog was well suited to their early intimate production style, you know, John or Paul's lead vocals were always just in-your-face and that's where we liked 'em. To create that feeling now, the Beatles would have to resort to some retro-looking algorithms I believe. At the peak of their studio creativity, however, '66-'67 they probably would have loved to jump into the digital future for a session. Who knows what they could have done with Sgt. Pepper's material in today's digital studio! I'm awed at the thought of it.

I'm curious about what tools they used to create the threetles work in 1995-96.

In the end, I think we would have been impressed with their creativity no matter what tools they used. It's the judgements of the producer that define the sound, much more than any gear they use.

kiramdear wrote: I'm curious about what tools they used to create the threetles work in 1995-96.

I know those were taken from poor quality cassette, but the new parts didn't have the "sound" of the old stuff. I personally think there's something to analog recording that can't be captured with digital. It could just be the way today's music is recorded, but the old stuff sounds more alive to me. I also prefer, when possible, to listen to the old stuff on vinyl.

I began thinking about this the other day and realized that analog is magnetic so maybe all this sound quality difference is in my head. It also leads me to wonder why the Beatles's albums haven't been fully remastered for CD like all the other artists of the era.

I agree it's time to upgrade the entire catalog. The official digital versions sound really bad, compared with, say, vinyl mono experience of it, which we all first heard.

What we perceive as 'warm' or 'more alive' in analog sound has been shown to be background noise (in essense, distortion). The first all digital recordings made back in the eighties when compact discs were brand new disappointed the artists and recording personnel. They sounded flat, seeming to have little high end. The introduction of a tiny bit of white noise opened the recordings up and made them sound more natural.

The Beatles early catalog has not been mastered well for the digital medium yet - Just about everyone feels that way. We're still waiting for their catalog to be remastered properly. Maybe some day...

I can think of a couple of phrases...

"It's the painter, not the brush"

And conversely:

"Only a lousy carpenter blames his tools"

From Wikipedia:

"Even today, many artists of all genres prefer analog tape's "musical", "natural" and especially "warm" sound. Due to harmonic distortion, bass can thicken up, creating the illusion of a fuller sounding mix. In addition, high end can be slightly compressed, which is more natural to the human ear. It is common for artists to record to digital and re-record the tracks to analog reels for this effect of "natural" sound. In addition to all of these attributes of tape, tape saturation is a unique form of distortion that many rock and blues artists find very pleasing."

I need to back up this converstion just a bit, please. What's "tape saturation?"

JimK

I'll take a stab: when the signal is a little more than the tape can handle, it overloads or distorts the sound in a way that is not unpleasing to some. But when the signal clips the limits on a digital recording device it makes a sound not even John Cage would like.

it makes a sound not even John Cage would like.

Unless, of course, it was silence, Kira......... one of John Cage's favourite "sounds"!!

The biggest difference, I'd imagine, wouldn't be the analogue tape sound versus the clean digital sound, it would be in the decision making process.

When you record in analogue - especially four and eight track - you have to make choices and commit to them, which influences the way you record, the way you group instruments, what treatments you give them, and obviously limits your mixing options. For example, if you want stereo drums on a four track, you either only have two tracks left, or you commit to mixing other instruments on to your drum tracks. And if you pingpong your tracks too much they start to lose fidelity, so you don't want to do too much of that, either.

In the digital era, the entire oncept of recording has changed. The biggest difference is that you have as many tracks as you want, in crystal clear fidelity, panned whichever way you want, with volume levels automated. And of course, nearly everyone is using the same set of tools, the same pallette. Don't want to crank up your guitar? Use an amp simulator. Don't like your Fender amp? Use a Marshall simulator. Drummer off a bit? Use the quantizer. Harmony vocals flat? Use autotune. Want a better bass sound? Use a bass preset. Which reminds me:

As I'm sure we all know, in 1965, the Beatles wanted a better low end, inspired by the bass sounds they heard on American soul records from Motown and Stax. No one knew quite how to to get that sound, so they tried new things - the Rickenbacker bass, turning a speaker into a microphone, giving the bass its own track, etc. All of those little inventions give their records a unique character. Now, they'd just use the 'Soul bass' preset.

The Beatles and the Abbey Road staff were very creative people, and obviously thrived on the challenges of recording. If the Beatles recorded their music today, they'd probably sound just like anything else on the charts from the last ten or twenty years (depending on the trends when they recorded)...

...but they'd still have better songs!

This does make me wonder though, without the Beatles and their engineers (having not recorded in the past in this scenario, y'see), and the affection that studio geeks have for Abbey Road sounds, what would our digital presets be??? Whhooaaahhh far out!

beefandbones wrote: As I'm sure we all know, in 1965, the Beatles wanted a better low end, inspired by the bass sounds they heard on American soul records from Motown and Stax. No one knew quite how to to get that sound, so they tried new things - the Rickenbacker bass, turning a speaker into a microphone, giving the bass its own track, etc. All of those little inventions give their records a unique character. Now, they'd just use the 'Soul bass' preset.

!

This is an interesting point, Ethan. I've often wondered what 'Revolver' would have sounded like if the Beatles had gone through with recording it in Memphis as was planned. They had sought this particular sound and it would have been something to hear the final product recorded at the Stax auditorium studio with the possible input of Jim Stewart.

You can't underestimate the impact that the four track or even eight track techonology has. The need to bounce down tracks creates a huge range of issues and colours the sound in ways that digital recording afficianados can barely imagine.

Yes, exactly. As you overdub or bounce down on tape, the sound degrades a bit each time and blends together. Most of the time, you'd begin a session by recording a backing track. If you bounce down the backing track or superimpose onto it, it really does become 'backing' to the more prominent vocals or guitars, or whatever you want to feature. It loses a bit of high end and really creates a 'sound' that you're committed to, and everything else that does on top has to sit well with that backing track you've created. I think this is one of the things people like when they're trying to describe an 'analog sound', rather than, say, comparing an original, single, unoverdubbed track of guitar on analog tape to the same on digital. In digital, every element is just as 'clear' as any other element regardless of volume, which, I think is a bit distracting sometimes. In analog, you've got some focus to your sound.