@@rhettsycoplando4064 And they don't sound the same, and if you think so, you haven't spent much time in either. It's not a "better" sound to many, but it's certainly a different one.
I learned to appreciate Steve on an EP called Racer-X by a band called Big Black. He was the singer/songwriter/guitarist and had a friend called Roland. Back in 1985. This dude is a genius.
I remember that. Big black was also what made me really appreciate Steve Albini. For me, i feel sonically drawn to Alan Parsons and Tom Dowd with some Flemming Rasmussen and Steve thrown in, as different as they are. Spritually I'm Steve Albini all the fucking way.
@@sammy-punkSweet, I’m a tape nerd lmfaoo so I have to ask, What machine did you get? My baby is a Tascam 90-16 and I can say 11 months after I apparently made this comment, she’s running beautifully. She gives me no issues, and she’s a work horse. Barely needs any attention beyond a basic set up before recording as well!
@@sammy-punk That’s sweet dude, I don’t know what you paid for it, but I’ve seen some of the Pioneer machines sell for quite a bit and I’ve been told they’re fantastic. Do you ever use it for live cuts?
Rat the Magnificent - In The Middle th-cam.com/video/WXVToisWy7g/w-d-xo.html If you like the band in this video we've released a single with a video you can view here. Many thanks, Perry
0:45 It does have a magic sound though, at least compared to digital. I'm not sure what he means by using the tape machine as a special effect unless he's talking about how people think they're enhancing the sound of their digital recordings by "bouncing" them to tape, which I agree is pointless. But the reason it's pointless isn't because tape doesn't have a great "magic" sound, it's because the sound of the recording has already been defined by it's digital origin & dubbing it to tape after the fact doesn't change that. The initial recording must be done to tape in order to get the "magic" sound. In fact recording to tape and then bouncing to digital makes a lot more sense if you don't want the extra effort & cost of analogue editing. The end result will still have the true essence of an analog recording unlike the digital recording "bounced to tape." The best way from a purest standpoint is how Albini does it with everything done analogue, because then you can produce records that are full analogue recordings like back in the day Instead of a digital transfer. But for people who aren't too concerned about that & are on a budget recording to tape and then transferring to a computer to edit digitally makes a million times more sense than vice versa.
This is bogus and you don’t know what you’re talking about. Have you ever actually heard properly gain-staged recordings to tape? As in not saturated. That’s the kind of recording albini does. Albini’s recording style would sound like albinis recording even if he were using digital gear. Because it’s not about the gear but the mic placement and skill in faithfully reproducing the sound in the room. Albini doesn’t even use much gear to treat channels and the gear he does use, he uses because it is transparent and doesn’t color the sound. If you knew more about him, you’d know that one of the biggest impacts on his sound is the fact that he uses digital delays to phase-align microphones to a millisecond level. In doing this, that channel’s entire signal is converted to digital (to be delayed by a few milliseconds), then back to analog, and then captured to tape. There are no ways to delay a signal that precisely (with high fidelity) in the analog domain. He has no problem with that conversion to digital (and back again) because he doesn’t feel digital is any kind of compromise. I promise you, you’d hear that channel and go on and on about how it has the “analog magic”-because your ears are not competent like his; that signal WAS actually *entirely* converted to digital when it was delayed. His recordings are full of channels like that. You think it’s the magic of “analog gear” giving that sound, but actually it’s just his skill and knowledge being applied to a surgical set of tools, some of which ARE digital. He phase-aligns microphones because he wants the recording to sound like what a listener hears sitting and listening to a band. Sound takes time to travel. A listener sitting in the audience hears the music a few milliseconds after it’s actually produced from the source. His main technique is to align all the phases of the microphones such that the close-mics are coherent with the distance mics that capture ambience. In this way, a faithful reproduction of the listener’s perspective is captured in a domain that can be played back. He doesn’t use digital to RECORD because he feels it is not an archival-grade medium. Tape, he says, is future-proof. The same cannot be said for software formats. That’s literally it. He wants to make recordings of sessions that can be brought back a hundred years from now, because he feels it is the engineer’s obligation to capture the artist’s music in a “permanent” sense. Data can be overwritten, corrupted, rendered unreadable or obsolete by simple technological changes; there are dozens of digital formats going back decades that can’t be recalled today because the software they used doesn’t exist/is incompatible today. Albini doesn’t use digital because he wants to avoid that. Recordings “back in the day” sounded better because bands actually rehearsed together and people could play their instruments as a band more coherently. Also, there was less of a reliance on click tracks, and the BPM “breathed” and fluctuated more naturally, giving a natural excitement. Nowadays, bands come into the studio with half-written songs that are barely practiced, use the DAW to fix every mistake of their poor playing, and have the whole thing locked to a fixed, robotic BPM. Then they process the shit out of it to try to add excitement. But garbage in produces garbage out. Digital (with good converters, good preamps and proper gain-staging) sounds AT LEAST as good as tape, and arguably better in some circumstances since there is zero compromise in capturing the entire frequency spectrum. Recording to tape entails certain equalization limitations. Sub bass, for example, eats up a lot of headroom on tape, leading to distortion. Naive people like you hear that distortion and find it pleasing, which is what you think you like about tape. But it’s a gimmicky special effect, and doesn’t truly represent the sound of the band in the room. That goes against albinis philosophy. So he uses tape with very conservative gain settings specifically to AVOID distortions. He wants the most transparent sound he can get, without compromising on the archival-grade capturing. His recordings (that you care about) sound so good because the band is good, their playing is good and the songs are good, and they are recorded by a skilled technician who doesn’t get in the way or leave his own fingerprint. He has thousands of recordings you don’t care about because the bands are nothing special... they’re recorded *just as competently* as the stuff that you think “has the magic”. It’s not the recording you’re liking or disliking, it’s the band. Whatever the band sounds like, that’s what albini is capturing. Watch some interviews with him and learn about his approach to recording. He doesn’t see himself as a producer or even a craftsman, merely a skilled *technician*. I’ve studied him a lot. I’m completely right. Practice your instruments or your recording techniques and get over this naive “magic” bullshit. Rehearse with your band, or record a band that has rehearsed well. Processing and capturing will not *add* any magic that isn’t there to begin with. The only *magic* there is in the actual performances; whether or not they hold your interest and attention.
Doesn't seem to be with the way people seem to think anything digital is automatically going to make their music "sterile". And it's amazing how many people don't understand that all that "warmth" they claim to love about analog, is compression. Tape is a compressed format. Vinyl is a compressed medium. When you put music onto vinyl you are losing dynamic range when compared to good quality digital recordings. When you record a master onto tape you have LESS dynamic range than recording digital. Those are facts. I like the "warmth" of analog too, but that comes from it's limitations. Not because it's "better". Yet you'll hear people claim that analog is "more dynamic"......Total nonsense. If someone likes the warmth of analog compression better then fine....I even agree....but don't lie and say it's more dynamic. That is simply an objectively false statement. There is virtually no noise floor with digital. And that's pretty amazing.
What the fuck are you talking about? Who gives a shit about analog to digital? That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about direct digital recording. Obviously if you're going to analog first you will have the compression of the source tape and thus that will transfer to your digital....duh!... I'm talking recording directly into Pro Tools. No analog at any stage. No fucking way any reel to reel has a greater dynamic range than direct digital recording.
Not true. The biggest names including Slash and Sheryl Crow only record to analog tape. All of Slash and The Conspirators music is recorded on tape. Not everyone wants digital. Vacuum tubes won't go away, and neither will analog recording.
Personally I prefer to record all the bed tracks (drums, bass, rhythm instruments) on analog tape and then use the technology (Pro Tools, Logic, whatever) to overdub. Many 70's artists like Steely Dan and Fleetwood Mac destroyed the oxide off of tapes thru overdubbing. You can only run analog tape through the heads so much. I am sorry, but there are only so many bands like Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers and punk groups who record totally live. Legendary artists ranging from The Beatles to the Stones to Pink Floyd to Rush used the studio as an instrument, and as soon as digital came about, they understood the benefit of using both things. I do not feel there is anything wrong with using digital so long as it is used properly and not used as a substitute for real playing and singing. As far as auto tuning is concerned, you are slicing your own throat if you do it because bands do not sell CD's anymore. You have to be able to sing in concert, and it's real obvious when a singer is being auto tuned.
@@shoeengine1161 ...archival reasons. Digital formats and playback machines are still not standardized the way tape is. Sessions from 2000 will be difficult resurrect. In Utero by Nirvana? Steve just loaded the master tape up, read his notes from the session, and remixed in 2013(?). He's said the instant the archival flaws in digital are solved, he'd transition. It's a very unique and honest perspective.
@@limen5442 well don't get me wrong. I actually am for using tape. I just think it's kinda weird to act like digital isn't better based only logistics and nothing to do with sound. I would argue the opposite. But on second thought..... I can understand it. But I would definitely be backing all those reels up to digital just in case. I was messing with a studer a80 recently and I don't understand how people say it doesn't color the sound. It absolutely does. The bottom end in digital really lacks..... And that's coming from someone who grew up on the sound of analog and spent the better part of twenty years trying to recreate the subtleties. I shifted to an analog based setup in the last year and while the difference is subtle.... For someone searching for the subtle differences.... That little bit makes a universe of difference. Recreating it on digital feels like turning around on an interstate because you missed your exit.
Hey guy on the guitar... can you just play 1 or 2 notes over and over in a very repeatable fashion with no style, no life, and no musicality? Yeah, play something that a person who has never picked up a guitar in their life would be able to play. Damn! Thats catchy!
That control room looks beautiful! Oh, and tape is so cool. I love tape, 1/8" to 2" it's all wonderful.
Albe Stevini
Grew up in analog studios making music, just sounds huge, always did always will.
@@rhettsycoplando4064 And they don't sound the same, and if you think so, you haven't spent much time in either. It's not a "better" sound to many, but it's certainly a different one.
I just love the way he makes drums sound
As someone who wears one regularly, blue mechanics suit is a must for every musician/engineer
I learned to appreciate Steve on an EP called Racer-X by a band called Big Black.
He was the singer/songwriter/guitarist and had a friend called Roland.
Back in 1985. This dude is a genius.
I remember that. Big black was also what made me really appreciate Steve Albini. For me, i feel sonically drawn to Alan Parsons and Tom Dowd with some Flemming Rasmussen and Steve thrown in, as different as they are. Spritually I'm Steve Albini all the fucking way.
roland is the man
Very wise words at the end of the video. Really inspiring.
1:46 El Scorcho!
Glad I'm not the only one who thought of that! Goddamn those half-Japanese girls, you know?
I noticed that as well
This is just amazing
Analog is the best i wish never die :-)
Top band. Giant muscles.
Rest in peace 💔💔💔
RIP to a legend
Great tunes! Sounds huge.
Steve Albini is the man...
Not me sitting proudly next to my just acquired 16 channel tape machine at 1 am watching videos to see other people using tape machines lmfaooo
haha same
@@sammy-punkSweet, I’m a tape nerd lmfaoo so I have to ask, What machine did you get? My baby is a Tascam 90-16 and I can say 11 months after I apparently made this comment, she’s running beautifully. She gives me no issues, and she’s a work horse. Barely needs any attention beyond a basic set up before recording as well!
@@PrestonHazard i got a pioneer model rt-1020L! i don't have the money or space for a large 16 channel tape machine
@@sammy-punk That’s sweet dude, I don’t know what you paid for it, but I’ve seen some of the Pioneer machines sell for quite a bit and I’ve been told they’re fantastic. Do you ever use it for live cuts?
@@PrestonHazard yeah! but since it has only 2/4 tracks i feed all the mics and stuff into a mixer before it goes into the tape machine
Radio Friendly Unit Shifter
When I'll die, I whish that Steve will mix all up on analog
Hi i'm Lewis Skolnick, and i was in Revenge of the Nerds.
Albini - The autodidact par excellence !
The right way should not go away
whats the name of that tape machine?
Looks like a Studer A800 to me.
Rest in peace Steve
amo a este tipo
Do you still have this set?
Sir.Steve Albini,
Can you react Guitar Fingerstyle From Indonesia Alip Bata "Lingsir Wengi" 🙏
0:04 what is that display/unit? Looks interesting.
It's a Hameg HM203 Oscilloscope.
does anyone know what he is using to dampen the drums at 1:56? Thanks!
looks like old skins
You can also use tea towels.
Rat the Magnificent - In The Middle th-cam.com/video/WXVToisWy7g/w-d-xo.html If you like the band in this video we've released a single with a video you can view here. Many thanks, Perry
0:45 It does have a magic sound though, at least compared to digital. I'm not sure what he means by using the tape machine as a special effect unless he's talking about how people think they're enhancing the sound of their digital recordings by "bouncing" them to tape, which I agree is pointless. But the reason it's pointless isn't because tape doesn't have a great "magic" sound, it's because the sound of the recording has already been defined by it's digital origin & dubbing it to tape after the fact doesn't change that. The initial recording must be done to tape in order to get the "magic" sound. In fact recording to tape and then bouncing to digital makes a lot more sense if you don't want the extra effort & cost of analogue editing. The end result will still have the true essence of an analog recording unlike the digital recording "bounced to tape." The best way from a purest standpoint is how Albini does it with everything done analogue, because then you can produce records that are full analogue recordings like back in the day Instead of a digital transfer. But for people who aren't too concerned about that & are on a budget recording to tape and then transferring to a computer to edit digitally makes a million times more sense than vice versa.
This is bogus and you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Have you ever actually heard properly gain-staged recordings to tape? As in not saturated. That’s the kind of recording albini does. Albini’s recording style would sound like albinis recording even if he were using digital gear. Because it’s not about the gear but the mic placement and skill in faithfully reproducing the sound in the room. Albini doesn’t even use much gear to treat channels and the gear he does use, he uses because it is transparent and doesn’t color the sound.
If you knew more about him, you’d know that one of the biggest impacts on his sound is the fact that he uses digital delays to phase-align microphones to a millisecond level. In doing this, that channel’s entire signal is converted to digital (to be delayed by a few milliseconds), then back to analog, and then captured to tape. There are no ways to delay a signal that precisely (with high fidelity) in the analog domain. He has no problem with that conversion to digital (and back again) because he doesn’t feel digital is any kind of compromise. I promise you, you’d hear that channel and go on and on about how it has the “analog magic”-because your ears are not competent like his; that signal WAS actually *entirely* converted to digital when it was delayed. His recordings are full of channels like that. You think it’s the magic of “analog gear” giving that sound, but actually it’s just his skill and knowledge being applied to a surgical set of tools, some of which ARE digital.
He phase-aligns microphones because he wants the recording to sound like what a listener hears sitting and listening to a band. Sound takes time to travel. A listener sitting in the audience hears the music a few milliseconds after it’s actually produced from the source. His main technique is to align all the phases of the microphones such that the close-mics are coherent with the distance mics that capture ambience. In this way, a faithful reproduction of the listener’s perspective is captured in a domain that can be played back.
He doesn’t use digital to RECORD because he feels it is not an archival-grade medium. Tape, he says, is future-proof. The same cannot be said for software formats. That’s literally it. He wants to make recordings of sessions that can be brought back a hundred years from now, because he feels it is the engineer’s obligation to capture the artist’s music in a “permanent” sense. Data can be overwritten, corrupted, rendered unreadable or obsolete by simple technological changes; there are dozens of digital formats going back decades that can’t be recalled today because the software they used doesn’t exist/is incompatible today. Albini doesn’t use digital because he wants to avoid that.
Recordings “back in the day” sounded better because bands actually rehearsed together and people could play their instruments as a band more coherently. Also, there was less of a reliance on click tracks, and the BPM “breathed” and fluctuated more naturally, giving a natural excitement. Nowadays, bands come into the studio with half-written songs that are barely practiced, use the DAW to fix every mistake of their poor playing, and have the whole thing locked to a fixed, robotic BPM. Then they process the shit out of it to try to add excitement. But garbage in produces garbage out.
Digital (with good converters, good preamps and proper gain-staging) sounds AT LEAST as good as tape, and arguably better in some circumstances since there is zero compromise in capturing the entire frequency spectrum. Recording to tape entails certain equalization limitations. Sub bass, for example, eats up a lot of headroom on tape, leading to distortion.
Naive people like you hear that distortion and find it pleasing, which is what you think you like about tape. But it’s a gimmicky special effect, and doesn’t truly represent the sound of the band in the room. That goes against albinis philosophy. So he uses tape with very conservative gain settings specifically to AVOID distortions. He wants the most transparent sound he can get, without compromising on the archival-grade capturing.
His recordings (that you care about) sound so good because the band is good, their playing is good and the songs are good, and they are recorded by a skilled technician who doesn’t get in the way or leave his own fingerprint. He has thousands of recordings you don’t care about because the bands are nothing special... they’re recorded *just as competently* as the stuff that you think “has the magic”. It’s not the recording you’re liking or disliking, it’s the band. Whatever the band sounds like, that’s what albini is capturing. Watch some interviews with him and learn about his approach to recording. He doesn’t see himself as a producer or even a craftsman, merely a skilled *technician*. I’ve studied him a lot. I’m completely right.
Practice your instruments or your recording techniques and get over this naive “magic” bullshit. Rehearse with your band, or record a band that has rehearsed well. Processing and capturing will not *add* any magic that isn’t there to begin with. The only *magic* there is in the actual performances; whether or not they hold your interest and attention.
Punk Floyd
@Soul Slip That's a little scary.
Big Black Reunion when
If you want more from this band there's a live session video here th-cam.com/video/vMCN2OOGbAQ/w-d-xo.html
Smiddock Whepp
I wanna make a record with him so bad
Perry M. Anderson holy fuck , thank you
do it
Here’s hoping you have the money
Steve Albini is the Peter North of audio engineering and production.
This recording nerd talk that I will never understand. I’m interested though. But this is more difficult than watching NASA launch.
2:05 - 2:34 what's the song ID?
Just a 12 bar blues riff I use for sound check.
We have worked with Steve for this release th-cam.com/video/b7DZUrfBt4Q/w-d-xo.html
1:30 He sounds (and looks a bit) like Seth Rogen
How Rock should be recorded.
I don't care how it's recorded as long as it sounds good. All the "analog" in the world doesn't mean shit if the song's not good.
doublestrokeroll That's an obvious statement...
Doesn't seem to be with the way people seem to think anything digital is automatically going to make their music "sterile".
And it's amazing how many people don't understand that all that "warmth" they claim to love about analog, is compression. Tape is a compressed format. Vinyl is a compressed medium. When you put music onto vinyl you are losing dynamic range when compared to good quality digital recordings. When you record a master onto tape you have LESS dynamic range than recording digital. Those are facts.
I like the "warmth" of analog too, but that comes from it's limitations. Not because it's "better". Yet you'll hear people claim that analog is "more dynamic"......Total nonsense. If someone likes the warmth of analog compression better then fine....I even agree....but don't lie and say it's more dynamic. That is simply an objectively false statement.
There is virtually no noise floor with digital. And that's pretty amazing.
What the fuck are you talking about? Who gives a shit about analog to digital? That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about direct digital recording.
Obviously if you're going to analog first you will have the compression of the source tape and thus that will transfer to your digital....duh!...
I'm talking recording directly into Pro Tools. No analog at any stage. No fucking way any reel to reel has a greater dynamic range than direct digital recording.
doublestrokeroll its gonna be okay man
Analog Hameg
Tape recordings are no longer made now its all protools
Not true. The biggest names including Slash and Sheryl Crow only record to analog tape. All of Slash and The Conspirators music is recorded on tape. Not everyone wants digital. Vacuum tubes won't go away, and neither will analog recording.
That’s a lie. Tapes still being made.
Personally I prefer to record all the bed tracks (drums, bass, rhythm instruments) on analog tape and then use the technology (Pro Tools, Logic, whatever) to overdub. Many 70's artists like Steely Dan and Fleetwood Mac destroyed the oxide off of tapes thru overdubbing. You can only run analog tape through the heads so much. I am sorry, but there are only so many bands like Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers and punk groups who record totally live. Legendary artists ranging from The Beatles to the Stones to Pink Floyd to Rush used the studio as an instrument, and as soon as digital came about, they understood the benefit of using both things. I do not feel there is anything wrong with using digital so long as it is used properly and not used as a substitute for real playing and singing. As far as auto tuning is concerned, you are slicing your own throat if you do it because bands do not sell CD's anymore. You have to be able to sing in concert, and it's real obvious when a singer is being auto tuned.
if you are going to record analogue you need to mix analogue otherwise you lose information when you convert back to analogue
If you mean what you say, simply buy a book or two, and you'll acquire some knowledge and building blocks.
subscribe to learn more about the guitar player's use of "doggy style"
the band in this clip was hilariously lame
That's your opinion.
Steve Albini seems to like them though.
You could not be more wrong. They are awesome. Let’s hear your super sweet band then, chicken dick
LOL (chicken dick!!)
"its very rare that i would use tape as an effect to change the sound" -guy who records everything on tape
You would be surprised how clean tape can sound. Albini sticks with tape partly because it's what he knows but mostly for archival reasons.
@@BigFatCock0 if it's so clean then go digital. And that's ridiculous... Digital is clearly better for archiving.
@@shoeengine1161 I don't think you actually read my whole comment nor did you watch the whole video.
@@shoeengine1161 ...archival reasons. Digital formats and playback machines are still not standardized the way tape is. Sessions from 2000 will be difficult resurrect. In Utero by Nirvana? Steve just loaded the master tape up, read his notes from the session, and remixed in 2013(?).
He's said the instant the archival flaws in digital are solved, he'd transition. It's a very unique and honest perspective.
@@limen5442 well don't get me wrong. I actually am for using tape. I just think it's kinda weird to act like digital isn't better based only logistics and nothing to do with sound. I would argue the opposite. But on second thought..... I can understand it. But I would definitely be backing all those reels up to digital just in case.
I was messing with a studer a80 recently and I don't understand how people say it doesn't color the sound. It absolutely does. The bottom end in digital really lacks..... And that's coming from someone who grew up on the sound of analog and spent the better part of twenty years trying to recreate the subtleties. I shifted to an analog based setup in the last year and while the difference is subtle.... For someone searching for the subtle differences.... That little bit makes a universe of difference. Recreating it on digital feels like turning around on an interstate because you missed your exit.
Analog rules, but that band sounds horrible.
Lol absolutely not
The irony is that if his vocals were tuned, you’d say it’s brilliant
@@dougleydoritenever go anywhere near a studio lmao
@@Dragonflyer74 are you implying that most commercially successful music on all levels, isn’t tuned?
@@dougleydorite are you implying that the vast majority of commercially successful music isn’t garbage?
so u can understand me my god believes you but the christian man i am find you in the wrong room 1
The mixer is some bull shit that will makle an album.
Hey guy on the guitar... can you just play 1 or 2 notes over and over in a very repeatable fashion with no style, no life, and no musicality? Yeah, play something that a person who has never picked up a guitar in their life would be able to play. Damn! Thats catchy!
To be fair I'm not that good at guitar hahahah
I think your comment sums up why you'll never be as great as someone like Albini.
@@perrym.anderson178 Minimalism works super well if you have a knack for it! I liked the song anyway.
Keep it up bro! I love it! Im so sick of digital!