Forums - Mixing & FX
Subject: Why is digital less warm than....
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 16
Original Message Date: 28-Feb-02 @ 09:02 PM - Why is digital less warm than....
We all hear things like, digital isn't as warm as analog, and while I'm not here to argue that specifically, did you ever think about why that is? Outside of some of the basic physical properties, you'd think the two mediums wouldn't be that divergent.... and in some sense, maybe they're not. Now I'm gonna try a little heresy...
Maybe the reason mixes from analog sounds warmer, more musical, whatever, is: our techniques for recording, mixing, etc., are mostly built and modeled on analog experience. We've learned techniques for, say mic placement, that were establised in the analog realm... maybe we should be evaluating new ways of doing things....?
I mean think about one of the most basic differences between the two mediums, the level meter... Many of us that came from the analog world were sorely surprised to find out we couldn't push the LEDs "past the red" on a digital board... Now once I learned how to use digital LEDs, mt life, and my mixes, sounded better...
I'm not really trying to lay out new "rules" of digital recording/mixing, but just bouncing the idea off you all. If you have any experience with what I'm on about here, by all means share it. If you got a "warm sound" from all digital equipment, what was your methodology? Why do you think it worked that way? If you captured a digital take of a vocalist that just simply shimmers, did you do it the "traditional" (i.e., basically as it's always been done on analog equipment) way, or did you find a technique that is exclusive to digital?
Anyhoos, just some thoughts....
Peace All
Message 21/157 02-Mar-02 @ 12:14 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 22/157 02-Mar-02 @ 12:53 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 23/157 02-Mar-02 @ 01:26 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Also, when I was recording to tape (before cd burning days), I woundn't pay as close attention to some of the very low and some of the very high frequencies, because I knew they would be lost in the delivery. Honestly, with digital recording, I know that what I am hearing through my monitors will be recorded, and delivered, by my digital delivery device (in this case, cd). When I was recording to tape (directly from my mixer), I really had to change my eq's and such for the medium.
I guess I agree with your stipulation. I DEFINITELY engineer my music differently, depending on what I am recording to.
Message 24/157 02-Mar-02 @ 04:32 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
The 'rules' say, one must allow enuff headroom on your pre-amps, setting optimum gain, checking your levels so the gains are optimised....
but the 'excitement factor' can sometimes be in a driven sound, cos there's a certain mayhem that takes place when multiple objects are pushed into clipping together... Like your bassline driven to hell or big booming kicks etc - other sounds such as your 'boom-kiks thru reverb' for breakdowns & starts etc needs to be well set so as not to swamp the track or the verb...
NOT a top-end commercial euro-trance sound... but for garage, drum & bass, techno etc... i like it ruffcut with some 'hum' - i guess you could compare it to a rock band playing clean or cranked-up and 'humming'.
Message 26/157 02-Mar-02 @ 10:57 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
I personally like the "non-warm" mixes better, whether they're on analog or digital, at least as relates to sound quality. Across the board I liked the "warmer" mixes better from a "feel" standpoint.... there is a difference when you record an out board source at 96khz (even if you later take that down to 44.1, it still sounds - to me - like it's more open than an identical recording originally done at 44.1), small brown spiders can actually crawl inside of S/PDIF sockets, and chocolate and resin look a lot alike in dim light.... just some observations...
Kilo's also got a really good point about the "mayhem mixes." Somethin' I noticed from recording my live sets. I often make a DAT or MD of me live shows, just so I can hear what really went down (I get too absorbed to really tell in the midst of doing it...). What I and several of me cronies noted was my live sets, while sometimes a bit erratic on overall levels, were way, waaaay more "energetic" than if I recorded the same thing in the studio. Now, machines (theoretically) dunna get excited, and it wasn't so much that the lines themselves were more energetic, but the "recording" was more energetic. Now, I'm still going onto a digital medium (in the case of DAT or MD), but the board I use live is a little Mackie CFX12, and I tend to push it as I do a set, so I'm occasionally redlining. When I record in the studio, I'm generally mixing inside the PC or on the 01v, and in either case, I'm watchful about clipping and whatnot...
And Influx, that track we were talking about that I did exclusively through the RS7000, I actually recorded the mix that got sent to the presses, live, one fell swoop, with just a bit of post mix compression to even out things. The label folks totally loved that mix, an' originally I sent them a very clean "studio mix" of the same thing - the hands down "winner" betwixt the two mixes was the "live" one.... Now, on that live take, I actually recorded on the 01v, but as with my live sets, I started off a bit lower on levels and gradually increased them through the track, and yep I did redline it here and there... Now whether it's from the A/D conversion or whatnot, the actual recording that got into the computer never actually clipped, it bumped 0db a lot, but never actually went over (and jest so ye know, I used an Aardvark 24/96 to take the digital signal from the 01v into the PC)....
Now, all that said, there were a lot of bits I recorded using (doing a/b analog vs digital) and I really couldn't tell ANY dicernible difference. Also, just to add to the specifics, allow me to relate the following tale:
In December and January I did a lot of work with Jan Johnston (of "Flesh" fame). Now she was just returning from LA where she'd been working with BT, and when she arrived in Boston she was really excited about the Avalon 737 for recording her vocals. Now I didna have one of these lovely preamps lying around me cage, so we borrowed one from another local producer. We even gave BT's engineer a call to get the settings he used on the Avalon, so we could get close to the sound she got while working out there. We did two songs while she was here that round, got some nice vocals and had some fun working the tracks out...
Now about a month later she got the opportunity to come back to Boston, and we decided to put down vox for two more trax. This time we were without the Avalon as my friend was away for a couple of weeks... so, I just recorded her the best way I knew how, straight into the computer using the Aardvark's powered preamp that's built into the box, no FX, and using the Aardvark's built-in soft compressor as a limiter to keep it from clipping.
Here comes the groovy part. When we were finished with all four mixes (the two with the Avalon and the two without), everyone, including Jan, liked the way her vox sounded better on the non-Avalon tracked songs. Now, dunna get me wrong, I really dig what the Avalon can do, but in all honesty, I'm probably more comfortable going straight into the PC totally dry and clean and then applying compression, EQ, and whatnot after the fact. So, it may have just been my unfamiliartiy with the Avalon that made those mixes sound less musical (or as Jan put it, less velvety) than the mixes we did where I didn't use the Avalon. In any case, the vox on the Avalon mixes sounded more "harsh" and "tinny" than mixes that we did without it. So, to sum it up, a lot of this question has to do with methodology and familiarty with one's tools as much as any real differences betwixt mediums...
Alright, I've ranted enuff for now... but thanks to everyone for the comments so far, it's really filling in the picture for me and it's giving me something a bit more rounded to say the next time I'm doing the workshop...
Peace All
Message 27/157 03-Mar-02 @ 12:19 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 28/157 03-Mar-02 @ 01:36 AM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Prodigy oft comes in around -8db RMS, and there's a lot of commercial dance stuff that's around -10. BUT, you are seeing it roll a little back the other way. Tiesto and some others are doing a lot of finished trax in the -13 to -12 range now, and there's always been a lot of the "old school" folk that have kept the dynamics in their bits by not making it too loud.
I mean loud is cool, but when it's as compressed as it often is these days, there's not as much "climax" to a track as there could be. Nevertheless, methinks the "industry standard" is still probably "louder is better." I think that's why I enjoy listening to a lot of "amateur" recordings in obscure genres like dark ambient and other experimental bits. These folk generally don't "know" how to engineer... they just do what sounds good with what they have available. There's generally some SERIOUS dynamics in their work (sometimes that unfortunately extends to speaker killing frequencies, but you learn to start quiet with this stuff...). I could also say the same about a lot of classical music, although I've heard from "those who supposedly know such things" that even classical music is suffering from the loudness wars (obviously we're talking about recorded classical bits here...). In any case, I still find a lot more dynamic in most classical music.
Still, dance music is a different beast, so maybe I shouldn't expect so much dynamics... I wonder though, cos I've got a lot of old dance trax from the early 90's around here, and in my opinion they got a lot bigger sound at much lower overall levels than does say the current crop of "big trance" which one might think, theoretically, to have huge dynamics.... And this extends to a lot of stuff outside of any single "big-sound" genre. "House of God" for instance... Very yummy sound, and even though very "straight-forward" and somewhat monotone, it still had a lot of very cool dynamics. The stuff we're hearing now (and have pity on those of us in the Northeast), at least around here, is that crack, crack, NY hard house sound... Very loud, very persistent, and, at least for me, quickly boors the shit out of you....
Obviously, a lot depends on the style you're talking about, and even within styles there will be variation. An' there's all sorts of possible questions that can arise because of basic differences betwixt styles without even considering the sub-styles.... 'Sides, genres are tedious... maybe they're necessary, maybe they ain't, I dunno. I guess they can provide a framework for doing tracks... help elimniate some possibilities, mayhap... but outside of that, they seem a tool for marketers (an' that's hardly an original thought... jest about anyone who's been around the industry much has observed this...)... Anyhoos, gettin' side-tracked...
Yeah, shit is louder and "flatter" these days... I guess that was all I meant to say..... hmmmm.... damn fine smoke...
Peace All
Message 29/157 04-Mar-02 @ 03:44 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
Message 30/157 04-Mar-02 @ 09:39 PM - RE: Why is digital less warm than....
a little theory for mindspawn:
I was thinking the other day about Kind of Blue-- IMHO one of the just *perfect* albums of all time--and about how much louder the soloists are than the head of the tunes (and the timeless Bill Evans intro is barely audible)...I think that some of the "analog warmth" we all pontificate about may have a bit to do with more natural fluctuations in volume during the course of a piece of music. It seems to give your ear a break in that a lot newer stuff doesen't. I think Portishead's second album also some pretty dramatic dynamics too, though obviously it's way modern-sounding in some respects. I'm a beat nut and all, but...
you should just rehash that "even-order harmonics" bit for your workshop, though. make 'em feel like they're getting they're money's worth. next week, they'll be at the shop asking if the novation's can generate even-order harmonic distortion, and explaining it to their wives when the oldies come on. and no, not to thier husbands; it's *so* us.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 16
There are 157 total messages for this topic
Reply to Thread
You need to register/login to use the forum.
Click here to Signup or Login !
[you'll be brought right back to this point after signing up]
Back to Forum