Analogue studios

[upadeg]

Now that im getting to grips with a digital enviroment (Logic) im really interested in how dance music used to be made. My brief understanding is that everything is hardware (Drum machines,synths,mixers etc), but id really like to find out more about how tracks were made before the introduction of digital technology.Its confusing to imagine how everything would be arranged and automated. Anyone ever worked in an analogue studio? Some videos would be nice too! Also are there any modern producers still using the analogue systems?
Sorry if my request is a little vague,my knowledge on the subject is virtually zero!

Thanks again

[harveykartel]

I make my tunes on an all hardware rig: Boss DR-660 Drum Machine, Roland SP-404 sampler, Korg Electribe EA-1, Behringer Eurorack 1602, Zoom Studio 1204 FX rack and I occasionally sample sounds from a Casio FZ-10M.

I'm lucky in that all my sound modules have onboard sequencers (and pads to input with) so that means I can record parts on each of them individually without the need for an external sequencer. In terms of automation the electribe allows you to record one piece of automation per patch and each patch can be 4 bars long so it's not extensive but you learn to work with it's limitations instead of against them.

[Sharmaji]

back in the 80s, you had a standalone sequencer (the old yamaha ones looked like calculators), a drum machine for drums, synths for synths, all going into a mixing desk.

Then came samplers.

and then along came the atari amiga, which let you do the unheardof bit of sequencing midi on the computer (!)

commerical dats came along in the mid-to-late 80s, and although they sounded like shit for a long time, once they hit 20bit and were relatively affordable, digital recording began its current trajectory. Stereolab's "dots and loops" was one of the first LPs recorded fully to a hard-disk recorder (still standalone from the computer), in I think 96 or 97?

I didn't start seeing protools as a full-on multitrack recording environment until after that, 99 or so... before then, it was always record to 2" tape or dat, mix to dat or 1/4" or 1/2," and either master to another one of those, or to protools/sonic solutions.

But yeah, the idea of creating ANY kind of full production on a single computer, using only-or-mostly plugins, didn't really exist until the early part of the last decade. THe hardware wasn't fast enough to keep up with multrack recording/streaming, and the converter & clocking technology wasn't up to snuff... yet.

I think we hit a point, when mac was fully into os9 and protools mix and HD were available, that there was no looking back-- 2002 or so. it's been a very fast trajectory from DATS on up to hard disk solutions. We as a culture spent more time making music and cutting it DIRECTLY TO ACETATE, no "mastering" or anything, than we did in the interim period of DAT.

[Sharmaji]

1996 interview w/ photek:




and Depeche Mode in 1987:

[Aquathesis]

Now that im getting to grips with a digital enviroment (Logic) im really interested in how dance music used to be made. My brief understanding is that everything is hardware (Drum machines,synths,mixers etc), but id really like to find out more about how tracks were made before the introduction of digital technology.Its confusing to imagine how everything would be arranged and automated. Anyone ever worked in an analogue studio? Some videos would be nice too! Also are there any modern producers still using the analogue systems?
Sorry if my request is a little vague,my knowledge on the subject is virtually zero!

Thanks again

Automating didnt exist, youplayed with effects while recording was on, cut that up by hand...

Arrangement worked on the same principl, you played the tapes back while recording, and would tape little pieces onto the endsto make them longer

Check out the sig, analogue recorded/mixed goodness. I do use a DAW for sequencing though, Im lazy, and dont actually own a sequencer...

And watch this video, should start to make some more sense how cutting actually worked.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXEBDCX_O6M

[mks]

My early studio consisted of two analog synthesizers, a sampler, a drum machine, two effects units and a small mixer. For sequencing I started with an Alesis MMT-8 but quickly moved on to an Apple computer running sequencing software called Opcode Vision. You would record your mixes in real time down to a DAT. This was circa 1995 and well into the 2000's. Like Sharmaji said, it wasn't until the early 2000's that you could even think about doing everything in the computer.

[deadly_habit]

rob playford
all that needs to be said

[amphibian]

Learn about it if you must, but don't bother trying to emulate those days. Terribly inefficient. haha. Some people however, do like the meticulous production that said days had.

[decklyn]

In the really old school days sequencers used were the old old cubase on the atari xt that triggered hardware via midi and then the song was recorded kindof like a live performance.
Things changed once automation came into the picture.

[mks]

Learn about it if you must, but don't bother trying to emulate those days. Terribly inefficient. haha. Some people however, do like the meticulous production that said days had.

There was also a lot of inspiration in those days. I've been digging out my old Reinforced, Metalheadz and Photek records and they are sounding so good to me.

[upadeg]

Thanks for the input everyone! Some of it's gone way over my head so googles getting a tuning tomorrow!
Although it may be primative and tedious, there's something inspiring about hearing about analogue studios. I'm guessing sound quality would be much richer and warmer compared to digital solutions ( I had a jcm 900 guitar amp when I was 15 and always loved that sound compared to my mates wanky line 6 tranny amp with shite digital effects!). Do you think it will ever get to the point where digital equipment will ever be able to emulate the sound of analogue equipment?
Again,sorry if that's vague or doesnt make sense, I'm still learning

[wolf89]

I don't think it will. I personally own a Korg Ms-20 and at uni we have an analogue modular synth by by Analogue Systems. There's just something in the way these both sound that's hard to describe but very present that I have never heard on a digital synthesiser. Which I would guess is the product of the method of sound creation of using voltages through different circuits instead of ones and zeros to say what a sound should be. One thing I will say is if you listen to records made using analogue synths you can hear the character in the sounds but really having a go at using them yourself will really make it a lot more obvious to you what character these instruments have (or at least it did for me).

We also have an old Neve mixing desk (worth about 500 grand I think) and a Studer A800 tape machine. Nothing sounds quite like recording live through the Neve's EQs and hard onto the tape giving some saturation. I think it's impossible to recreate the sound of it. It's a colouration created by the analogue nature of the devices. I can't see a way to do that without recreating the actual hardware.

[Sharmaji]

I'm guessing sound quality would be much richer and warmer compared to digital solutions

debatable (hugely debatable tbh). The majority of our recording tools-- mic's, circuitry, documentation format-- were created to be as scientifically accurate as possible, and then caught on commercially because they sounded good. Telefunken and RCA made a ton of great mic's in the 40s and 50s, but it was the u87, u47, and rca44 ribbon that really caught on because they sounded so good when recording the instruments of the day on the medium (tape) of the day. There classic atlantic & blue note records from the 50s through the 70s sound AMAZING. But you also have to add the artists, engineers (guys like Rudy Van Gelder), and rooms into the mix.

I doubt anyone who lived/surivived through the DAT era misses it. Converters sound better today, and you no longer have to deal with syncing 3 8-track machines through those huge transport controllers, etc, etc.

To my ears, a lot of early electronic stuff-- Kraftwerk, etc-- really didn't translate all that well to being recorded. There was an interview near the end of his life w/ Bob Moog about how he loved digital recording, because a square wave could be properly documented-- tape would inherently round the wave and take away some of the body.... "warmth" can mean a lot of things.

having worked in studios in the 90s and come up writing/producing/recording in the early part of the 2000s... really, every day i sit behind logic and ableton and think HOLY SHIT I CAN'T BELIEVE WE CAN DO THIS. It used to be that even just switching the order of effects would take 12 instances of unplugging-replugging. And you can't appreciate the wonder of opening a session and having everything be where it was when you left it until you've gone through and oldschool recall session in a room.

But really-- getting sonic quality is far, far, far easier now than ever before.

[bum robot]

I'm guessing sound quality would be much richer and warmer compared to digital solutions

debatable (hugely debatable tbh). The majority of our recording tools-- mic's, circuitry, documentation format-- were created to be as scientifically accurate as possible, and then caught on commercially because they sounded good. Telefunken and RCA made a ton of great mic's in the 40s and 50s, but it was the u87, u47, and rca47 ribbon that really caught on because they sounded so good when recording the instruments of the day on the medium (tape) of the day. There classic atlantic & blue note records from the 50s through the 70s sound AMAZING. But you also have to add the artists, engineers (guys like Rudy Van Gelder), and rooms into the mix.

I doubt anyone who lived/surivived through the DAT era misses it. Converters sound better today, and you no longer have to deal with syncing 3 8-track machines through those huge transport controllers, etc, etc.

To my ears, a lot of early electronic stuff-- Kraftwerk, etc-- really didn't translate all that well to being recorded. There was an interview near the end of his life w/ Bob Moog about how he loved digital recording, because a square wave could be properly documented-- tape would inherently round the wave and take away some of the body.... "warmth" can mean a lot of things.

having worked in studios in the 90s and come up writing/producing/recording in the early part of the 2000s... really, every day i sit behind logic and ableton and think HOLY SHIT I CAN'T BELIEVE WE CAN DO THIS. It used to be that even just switching the order of effects would take 12 instances of unplugging-replugging. And you can't appreciate the wonder of opening a session and having everything be where it was when you left it until you've gone through and oldschool recall session in a room.

But really-- getting sonic quality is far, far, far easier now than ever before.

wow did not know thse things to this extent that was a great read, thanks

[nowaysj]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNTspVqt ... D&index=23

and so many 1,000's of others on the tube.

================

Yeah yeah yeah, comp production is amazingly facile.

I starting making music in like 93 so had a front row seat for all of this. On the low end, I sprinted away from analog. It was very hard to record anything close to what it sounded like in real life w/o a lot of money. Low end tape hiss was my nightmare. I jumped into the adat with abandon. Then logic in the pre vst days. Then kind of got out of music right when vst's were starting to be usable. Came back to music and was like the possibilities were just fucking limitless, and for VERY low budget, especially relative to previous budget requirements.

BUT:

This is just me, but for whatever reason I went on a psycho hardware kick the last month, and have been having a ton of fun working with hardware units. The computer is there in the equation, but it is not everything, it's not the whole universe. It's now just one instrument that is used to produce sequenced sound. I like being able to work for 3, 4 hours on a beat with the computer completely off. For me, the computer IS the grid, and once I get into that gridspace, I just start loosing groove by the second, and start focusing on all of the details that comps open up. Surely it is my personal limitation, but that's how it goes. I think I'm developing what is called a hybrid setup. Mind you, almost everything is all digital, but not computer based. I am on the hunt now for a local half track reel to reel at 1/4" or 1/2". If I find one, the comp will take yet another step back in my process.

=====

With that said, I'm selling some hardware and software (below, and more too), help me support a spontaneous and raging gear addiction. PLEASE!

[Aquathesis]

Noways, how much for the vestax?

[nowaysj]

PM bra

[Ldizzy]

inspiring thread...

read that article... its biased.. but ive enjoyed it.. a lot
http://www.innerclocksystems.com/New%20 ... tions.html

now please, i do not want to be the one turning this thread into a ''old vs new'' thread... i think OP has made a great job at writing something truthful and open... i wish im not destroying it.. however i still wish to share my view on some of the thoughts i have on the subject... as i think it could add to the convo...

i guess a cool attitude towards all of these considerations of ''how do the older ways compare to the newer ones'' is one of mind openness to both the old and the new.. and a proper understanding of your tools... when i first started making music i was fascinated by the older methods... and then i understood that if someone wanted to go back to the old ways just because of that fascination.. they were kinda missing on the big idea about what the pioneers of such and such genres had made...

i always get into arguments with people who praise the ''grittier'' hip hop (im from a hip hop background)... and try to explain to them that the people who made it simply made what was best at their time... and its that spirit that creates the great music...

when coltrane shorter and those guys played the sax.. it was a very ''young'' instrument... and hendrix was loved because he played the guitar with very a unusal twist for the time.. so their attitude was one of innovation... although they had enough foundation to understand what they were building on... modern is nothing bad.. really.. most of our music wouldve been impossible to think of a couple years ago... (well, thats my opinion)

however those ''classic'' tools dont vanish... and they do have their own character if u ask me... i simply think one should take them for what they are... and make his/her choices from there...

just remember that the cats we all love were pushing the tools they had as far as they could go.. and that its a great creative guideline

just my 2 cents