Recording in analog vs recording in digital
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
CPP
Active member
Since this appears to be addressing the tape area, we can't forget about the analog and digital mixing consoles that are used in processing. OR artist having used both analog and digital to produce an album. Mark Knopfler's British Grove studio uses both analog and digital and his works are usually well made. .
W9TR
Active member
Really good article - thanks for sharing Mike. The one thing the author didn’t touch on was the overload characteristics of tape (soft) vs. digital (hard) and how that sound plays into a lot of older recordings. I also liked the process side of the discussion.
Tom
Tom
Speedskater
Member
Now that all the pros are using 24 bit ADC's, digital overload should be a thing of the distant past.
Very interesting article. Going back to the transition from analogue to digital in the classical world, I got to do extensive interviews with three Decca engineers who bridged the time period from analogue to digital (the 60's-'70's to the '80's and even '90's) for my Decca book that Winston Ma's FIM published in 2014 (Decca Supreme Stereophonic Legacy). Decca classical which was famous for its great sound engineering used minimal multimiking in their recordings (usually just the famous Decca tree and some spot mikes). However, everything was mixed to two channels in real time, so the recording was done with 2 track tape machines. No later mixing or highlighting of one instrument or another in a 24 track machine. They had to get the sound balances right the first time.
Tony Griffiths was the engineer who came up with their digital recording system, based on a JVC video recorder that he modified for audio recording - 48/16 rather than 44/16 beginning in the late '70's. John Dunkerley and Mike Mailes, both long time recording engineers (often called balance engineers) both told me that the one thing they both really liked about the switch to digital was the ease of editing - no longer the need for razor blades and splicing tape, and the edits could be made more precisely and with minimal artifacts. John told me that when he played back one of his old recordings made in the analogue era, he could still hear every edit he made on the recording!
They kept using the same tried and true Decca Tree microphone system as well as the Decca created mixers through the analogue and into the digital era, first developed in the '50's at the beginning of the stereo era by Roy Wallace and the famed Kenneth Wilkinson, who was mentor to both Dunkerley and Mailes. Both "Wilkie" and famed Decca engineer Arthur Lilley both retired in 1980 when Decca was sold to Polygram and entered the digital era.
Larry
Tony Griffiths was the engineer who came up with their digital recording system, based on a JVC video recorder that he modified for audio recording - 48/16 rather than 44/16 beginning in the late '70's. John Dunkerley and Mike Mailes, both long time recording engineers (often called balance engineers) both told me that the one thing they both really liked about the switch to digital was the ease of editing - no longer the need for razor blades and splicing tape, and the edits could be made more precisely and with minimal artifacts. John told me that when he played back one of his old recordings made in the analogue era, he could still hear every edit he made on the recording!
They kept using the same tried and true Decca Tree microphone system as well as the Decca created mixers through the analogue and into the digital era, first developed in the '50's at the beginning of the stereo era by Roy Wallace and the famed Kenneth Wilkinson, who was mentor to both Dunkerley and Mailes. Both "Wilkie" and famed Decca engineer Arthur Lilley both retired in 1980 when Decca was sold to Polygram and entered the digital era.
Larry
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
Now? There have been 24 bit recordings for 2+ decades. IIRC, Pat Metheny 1996 album Quartet was already 24 bit (yes, I know what Johnson noise is and how that relates to "24 bit").
The comments section of the article was pretty funny, I'll admit.
Thanks for that. Very high quality discussion.
Jim Smith
Member
As someone who has made many hundreds of 30 IPS half track masters - mostly for PBS broadcasts - in the late '70s and throughout the '80s, and an even larger number of 15 IPS half track masters from the early '70s through the '80s, it was obvious that the sound of the tape machine (except for the dreaded head bump at 50 hZ on ALL 30 IPS machines) could be changed/adjusted to taste. That's why I cannot remember any two machines from different owners/sources EVER sounding alike.
The notion that analog tape is inherently superior completely sidesteps this issue.
Here is the most relevant part of the article, as seen from a user's viewpoint:
Different machines and headstacks have different frequency responses and low-frequency emphasis curves known as the “head bump,” while different brands and formulations of tape have different characteristics and require different alignment and initial setup. Let us not forget about the (most commonly used) different tape speeds – 15 and 30 inches-per-second or IPS – which bring their own sets of proverbial pajamas to the party.
Various formulations of tape come with their own instructions for ideal alignment and signal levels. But for many record-makers, these aren’t seen as hard rules – rather, nothing more than wide-goalpost guidelines.
Two engineers can be using the same exact tape machine and the same exact kind of tape and wind up with two completely different sounding rigs before a single microphone is hung in the live room.
And what about analog tape’s infamous sonic limitations and irregularities? By their very nature, many of these are also moving targets which will morph the sound of analog recording from day to day, ear to ear.
We’ve got some technical “uglies” inherent to the format – some of which can be heard plain-as-day from the first print and some that take several passes across the heads of the machine to make themselves known.
In addition to your standard noise and tape hiss, you’ve got the phenomena known as wow-and-flutter – a subtle to not-so-subtle variation in speed and pitch due to nonuniform tape motion during recording, playback or both. This is typically related to the design of the machine, wear and tear, and the physical properties of tape itself. And – ah, yes – low-level print-through of signal from one layer of tape to the next.
Oh, and then there's distortion. Incoming and outgoing signal levels, the tape machine’s electronics, the actual tape itself and the adjustment of an inaudible bias signal are all factors. Each one alters how, when and where distortion occurs and whether that distortion is delightfully pleasing or unbearably awful.
The notion that analog tape is inherently superior completely sidesteps this issue.
Here is the most relevant part of the article, as seen from a user's viewpoint:
Different machines and headstacks have different frequency responses and low-frequency emphasis curves known as the “head bump,” while different brands and formulations of tape have different characteristics and require different alignment and initial setup. Let us not forget about the (most commonly used) different tape speeds – 15 and 30 inches-per-second or IPS – which bring their own sets of proverbial pajamas to the party.
Various formulations of tape come with their own instructions for ideal alignment and signal levels. But for many record-makers, these aren’t seen as hard rules – rather, nothing more than wide-goalpost guidelines.
Two engineers can be using the same exact tape machine and the same exact kind of tape and wind up with two completely different sounding rigs before a single microphone is hung in the live room.
And what about analog tape’s infamous sonic limitations and irregularities? By their very nature, many of these are also moving targets which will morph the sound of analog recording from day to day, ear to ear.
We’ve got some technical “uglies” inherent to the format – some of which can be heard plain-as-day from the first print and some that take several passes across the heads of the machine to make themselves known.
In addition to your standard noise and tape hiss, you’ve got the phenomena known as wow-and-flutter – a subtle to not-so-subtle variation in speed and pitch due to nonuniform tape motion during recording, playback or both. This is typically related to the design of the machine, wear and tear, and the physical properties of tape itself. And – ah, yes – low-level print-through of signal from one layer of tape to the next.
Oh, and then there's distortion. Incoming and outgoing signal levels, the tape machine’s electronics, the actual tape itself and the adjustment of an inaudible bias signal are all factors. Each one alters how, when and where distortion occurs and whether that distortion is delightfully pleasing or unbearably awful.
Jim, as usual, has made some very important points. That also means that any digital recording that you are listening to which originated from an analogue tape is subject to the both the vagaries of whatever tape playback system they are using to make the transfer (as well as what generation tape they were using) as well as whatever digital system is being used (not including the DAC you are using to decode the digital signal).
I have the opportunity to compare CD releases from Winston Ma and his FIM label with the same releases issued by Decca. Both used the same master tapes as the source (at least Winston did), but Winston used Grammy winning mastering engineers like Paul Stubblebine and Michael Bishop and Winston's keen ears going back and forth with the engineers (think time and money), while Decca's box set of 50 remastered classical CD's cost slightly over $1 per CD retail. My understanding is that almost all conversion from tape to digital for the commercial market is done to a price point, think K-mart and not Nordstrom. For me, it was pretty easy to hear the difference. BTW, I have both Winston's CD's of the 17 Decca albums that he released, and the 50 CD box, which contains several of the same albums remastered by Decca/Universal.
Larry
I have the opportunity to compare CD releases from Winston Ma and his FIM label with the same releases issued by Decca. Both used the same master tapes as the source (at least Winston did), but Winston used Grammy winning mastering engineers like Paul Stubblebine and Michael Bishop and Winston's keen ears going back and forth with the engineers (think time and money), while Decca's box set of 50 remastered classical CD's cost slightly over $1 per CD retail. My understanding is that almost all conversion from tape to digital for the commercial market is done to a price point, think K-mart and not Nordstrom. For me, it was pretty easy to hear the difference. BTW, I have both Winston's CD's of the 17 Decca albums that he released, and the 50 CD box, which contains several of the same albums remastered by Decca/Universal.
Larry
Kingrex
Active member
Larry, how different are the CD sets. Are the Winston set of 17 available. Provided you find them superior. I have very much noticed the source CD has a huge impact on playback. Some sing like a bird. Who could ask for more. Others are flat, lifeless, recessed, hazy, just no good. Probably also a case of bad microphone placement from the start.
CPP
Active member
And some are just plain turds
, It could be mic placement but ! I think its fails in the CD producing stage. CDs often sound thin, undynamic, threadbare, hollow, tinny, bass shy, whimpy, rolled off, jangly, radio like, congealed, generic, uninspiring, airless and discombobulated. 
Rex, Winston's CD's are available at Elusive Disc and Acoustic Sounds. Type in "First Impression Music". They are both selling the remaining stock. Since Winston's death in 2016, FIM has been disposing of inventory, so not everything is available. Winston did several special things with his CD's. First, he chose really fine sounding recordings, and second he had them remastered by the best engineers, most of them were multi Grammy award winning engineers. He went back and forth with them until Winston felt they were the best sound possible. For my Decca Book that Winston published in 2014, I got to work with Michael Bishop and Robert Friedrich in their remastering (with Winston's extremely active participation as producer) of the four CD's that come with the book. They took excerpts from the 17 Decca CD's that Winston had previously released, plus a couple more to generate the CD's. Winston also developed more precise manufacturing techniques for making the CD's so there is much less error correction needed if you are playing the CD. I don't think it is important for sound quality if you are ripping the CD's and playing back the rips.
The mastering and remastering does make a clear audible difference. I have copies of Telarc CD's that Michael Bishop originally engineered and that he then remastered for Winston's FIM release. I clearly hear the improvements. Michael told me the extra time and effort in the remastering made the difference. Back in the mid 2000's Paul Stubblebine, another multi Grammy award winner did many remasters of Winston's albums, many from original analogue master tapes. Again, the time and effort made the difference between those releases and those done both companies which were done on the cheap, converting tapes to digital in mass quantities at the lowest cost.
Rex, I reread your question in the context of my post. I checked on the Elusive Disc and Acoustic Sounds website and it looks like the original FIM Decca CD's that Paul Stubblebine remastered from the original master tapes in the mid 2000's are no longer available from either ED or AS. I didn't check other potential sources. The excerpts from the Decca albums that Michael Bishop and Robert Friedrich remastered are in my book (Decca:Supreme Stereophonic Legacy which is still available for purchase at ED and AS. Larry
Larry