HOORAY for the continued use of analogue recording techniques

[MajorWest]

Funnily enough, not wanting to go too off topic, I stumbled upon a very dated cassette Dictaphone today going for a tenner. I got the impression it had been used either in a school, university or college for linguistics. For the sake of 10 pounds, I was curious as to what quality of audio I'd get if I used it to record myself on my synth, vocals included. This was a medium sized machine with an external microphone which is rare these days.

I recall Gilbert O Sullivan who now lives and does his music in Jersey uses cassette recorders placed on top of his piano and he's very keen on doing that when writing initial tracks.

Of course, what I know I really need is a C.D. burner and portable studio combined but, for the time being, I'm curious as to how a very basic analogue recording would sound. I'd also probably try a microphone to amplify my voice.

P.S. as a big Beatles fan I'd like to add George Martin was very into backwards tape playing. This is a now forgotten technique very doable on tape.

Dare I also add or confess to the fact, I'd been watching the Bionic Woman on DVD. There was an episode where she goes under cover as a country singer. Well, this was shot around 1975 and so the studio where she's asked to sing is using lots and lots of reel-to-reel recorders. And that sparked my interest a bit. I wonder how much all that equipment would have cost to install at the time?

I'm afraid when it comes to music and audio I could go on for hours debating. The subject is very involved. In the seventies it was very different and few people could access a proper studio. Maybe a few people had some basic gear in a garage but that wouldn't have been cheap either.

I'm always open to any ideas on how to do inexpensive recording as I'm a musician as a hobby but have only ever made mobile phone recordings (so as not to forget).

[Timvintage]

Hopefully this isn't too off topic, but I just thought I'd say, maybe "better" and "worse" are very subjective. I guess it depends on what people want from listening to music, and really it's all down to personal preference. Some people hate the sound of analogue or digital, and others love it. I don't think either is right or wrong, it's just different. Some people like to hear an album with absolutely no background hiss, crackle or rumble, so they may well prefer digital. However, other people don't mind a little background noise (like me) because they much prefer the overall sonic effect that analogue formats bring.

Also something interesting I thought I might mention, I wonder if anyone else has found this; when I listen to a cd (which isn't that often), ocaisionally I find that for some reason there is quite a lot of background hiss on the tracks, maybe badly mastered from tape? This type of hiss really irritates me, but if I were to listen to the same album on cassette, even though cassettes have hiss, it doesn't bother me at all!

[G6Tanuki]

Originally Posted by Timvintage

Also something interesting I thought I might mention, I wonder if anyone else has found this; when I listen to a cd (which isn't that often), ocaisionally I find that for some reason there is quite a lot of background hiss on the tracks, maybe badly mastered from tape?

Quite a number of CDs have been remastered from the original Vinyl !

There are various techniques used for noise-reduction during this, some more successful than others (it depends a great deal on the dynamic range and acoustic-spectrum characteristics of the program-content as well).

I recall hearing some early attempts at remastering which gave good suppression of background noise/hiss in the quieter passages with little high-frequency component but in one gruesome example when the violins came in it sounded like the tide was coming in up a shingle-beach behind them - and then receding as the violins went quiet again.

A most disconcerting effect.

[TIMTAPE]

Originally Posted by Timvintage

I just thought I'd say, maybe "better" and "worse" are very subjective. I guess it depends on what people want from listening to music, and really it's all down to personal preference.

Yes listening tastes can vary widely whereas the fidelity of a recording method or format can be known objectively. Greater fidelity may or may not be more pleasing to individual listeners but it's still greater fidelity.

[MajorWest]

Originally Posted by Timvintage

Also something interesting I thought I might mention, I wonder if anyone else has found this; when I listen to a cd (which isn't that often), ocaisionally I find that for some reason there is quite a lot of background hiss on the tracks, maybe badly mastered from tape? This type of hiss really irritates me, but if I were to listen to the same album on cassette, even though cassettes have hiss, it doesn't bother me at all!

I have a feeling tape may be coming back as Sony has apparently found ways and means to store massive amounts of data on tape.

Given I have an interest in making retro music based on styles and ideas used in the late sixties, I feel kind of intrigued by the popularity of reverse tape playing (that was used in sixties studio production). This technique has been dropped today for the most part because tape isn't as widely used. Anyway I often read up on some of the things the Beatles were doing in Abbey Road.

One more comment to make is I just heard someone who recorded an early Beach Boys track on reel-to-reel has made a lot of money as now it's in hot demand.

[G6Tanuki]

Originally Posted by MajorWest

I feel kind of intrigued by the popularity of reverse tape playing (that was used in sixties studio production). This technique has been dropped today for the most part because tape isn't as widely used.

These days it's done digitally, either in software or if you're a remix/scratch/turntablist DJ you have a device that looks like a turntable which controls the playback - turn it one way and the pre-recorded audio sample plays forward, turn it rht other way and it plays backwards. At a speed depending on how fast you turn the pseudo-turntable.

See http://www.djbooth.net/index/dj-equipment/reviews/C10 for some examples. or go to any club on a friday night...

[MajorWest]

I may have mentioned before I recently came across an analogue cassette recorder with microphone. I think it had been used some years ago in a language lab as a teaching aid. I was curious as to what quality of recording I would get if I recorded my synth plus another microphone for vocals.

I've been advised to buy a proper portable studio but, for the time being, the analogue cassette recorder may actually give me a half decent recording. It's only 10 pounds.

Another possibility is to actually use reel to reel but then of course it gets tricky to upload onto any internet site.

[jjl]

Originally Posted by Timvintage

Also something interesting I thought I might mention, I wonder if anyone else has found this; when I listen to a cd (which isn't that often), ocaisionally I find that for some reason there is quite a lot of background hiss on the tracks, maybe badly mastered from tape? This type of hiss really irritates me, but if I were to listen to the same album on cassette, even though cassettes have hiss, it doesn't bother me at all!

I've noticed this often on CDs that were mastered from recordings where analogue tape was involved somewhere in the recording or mixing process. This will be many recordings made before about 1990 and very few after this date.
I believe that what is happening is that, due to its wide dynamic range, the CD is faithfully reproducing the hiss that would be heard in the studio should the multitrack or stereo mix tape be replayed on the equipment that originally made them. In other words, the CD faithfully reproduces what is on the original recording or master.
The hiss is much less audible or absent on cassette tape or record as these media do not have the wide dynamic range of CD. In other words, cassette tape and vinyl can mask some of the defects of the original recording or mix as their own defects tend to be more audible.

John

[paulsherwin]

There was quite a lot of hiss on analogue masters before studios started using Dolby A around 1970.

[Nickthedentist]

Do CD's still display the 3-digit analogue/digital code e.g. DDD or AAD?

I certainly have a lot of AAD and ADD ones which are quite hissy. But there's more to life than worrying about a bit of hiss for me!

Nick.

[paulsherwin]

Of course, sometimes the original master and studio tapes have been lost and the release is remastered from a stereo dub produced for some reason or even transcribed from one or more vinyl copies.

[TIMTAPE]

Originally Posted by MajorWest

I have a feeling tape may be coming back as Sony has apparently found ways and means to store massive amounts of data on tape.

Actually tape never left. Tape has been used for data storage since the 1950's and is still used today. Over the decades there has been a steady increase in the density of data able to be stored on tape.

[jjl]

Originally Posted by Nickthedentist

I certainly have a lot of AAD and ADD ones which are quite hissy. But there's more to life than worrying about a bit of hiss for me!

Nick

I completely agree; the hiss is all part of the charm of listening to older recordings.
Apparently the 3 letter code fell out of favour in the early '90s, see here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_code

John

[SteveCG]

Further to Paul's post no. 29

I used to use the "Meet on the ledge" track off a Fairport Convention's double LP as a noise floor check when setting up tape recorders or trying out different tapes. As the LP track started you could hear, monitoring the input, the tape hiss come in just before the music/singing commenced. So by doing an A-B check on the tape-recorder I could hear the change in the hiss level due to the recorder. The LP's noise floor was just at that 'useful' level, not to much and not too little.

[P.Pilcher]

To amplify Paul's post above with regard to the use of Dolby A. I can remember, when a Uni student in about 1967, attending a lecture and demonstration of the system by the then recording director of Pye Records, the legendary Bob Auger. He advised that up until then, tape hiss was always a problem and vinyl was such a good medium that it faithfully reproduced the hiss from the original master tapes. To try to minimise this, recording speeds (it was of course all analogue then) of 30 inches per second were used. There was still a problem as several 10.5" NAB reels were needed to record one movement of a symphony! Then, in the mid 60's Scotch Dynarange tape was introduced which made a significant difference so that recording speeds could be dropped to 15 i.p.s giving better noise performance than the older tape systems at double the speed. On playing CD's made from recordings of that era there is still a little hiss, but I find that by producing .wav files and then using some good noise reduction software, I get a result comparable to the days when Dolby A was in use - not quite a DDD recording, but getting close.

P.P.

[HamishBoxer]

Can I ask without wanting a debate on what is best, it if I have analogue recordings (ie music done with valve amps) as either cd,s or mp3,s will I loose anything or gain??

[TIMTAPE]

Originally Posted by P.Pilcher

On playing CD's made from recordings of that era there is still a little hiss, but I find that by producing .wav files and then using some good noise reduction software, I get a result comparable to the days when Dolby A was in use - not quite a DDD recording, but getting close.

We might ask then why if hiss reduction software is so good, did the record company apparently not use it in remastering to CD. Here's an article about the 2009 remastering of the entire Beatles catalogue by Abbey Road Studios.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct0...sremasters.htm

In the article Guy Massey says:

"De‑noising, meanwhile, was confined to gaps and fades. "Until there's a de‑noising system that works properly and doesn't take the air and all that stuff that de‑noising takes off, we didn't want to use it,” insists Guy. "We'd use it in gaps. If there's no programme, just tape hiss, we would use it very subtly. It's less than one percent of the whole thing.”

Sure a casual listen might suggest otherwise but as the remastering experts at Abbey Road imply, so called single ended hiss reduction doesnt really work. Sure it reduces the hiss but it also reduces the programme. It cannot truly separate the wanted programme from the unwanted system noise.

Whereas Dolby A was a double ended system. The key was the encoding at the record stage. The encoding raised the music above the tape noise in the first place. Other analogue noise reduction systems like Dolby B, C, S and SR as well as DBX were also double ended and when properly set up were successful.

Today a proper remastering of an analog recording recorded with Dolby or DBX will first decode the recording with the properly matched decoder. These days it could potentially be a software decoder but again it would have to operate in true "mirror image" fashion re the original encoder characteristic.

[Diabolical Artificer]

You loose something in terms of quality when converting to MP3 but not recording to 16 bit CD , Hamish.

Digital recording has made pro recording affordable and its now possible for less than £500 to record pro quality recordings in your bedroom.

To do the same with tape you would need deep pockets.

I suspect a lot of analogue recordings appeal,is that it looks good. Lots of knobs,switches, dials and VU meters. I admit to suffering from analogue envy sometimes.
But I give myself a good kick, try to be objective and scientific and get on with recording digitally. I use valve amps for the guitar, keyboards etc, but that's it.

Andy.

[suebutcher]

For me it's nothing to supposed better sound quality; tape recorders appeal because they are relatively simple machines, easy to understand, and easy to repair. Not like CD recorders. They go bust, that's it, goodbye!

[HamishBoxer]

Thank You both for that.