Background: A producer/composer in Geneva sent me audio CDs of his MIDI music tracks; these are new arrangements of songs written by Phil Jones in the 80s for the band Quintessence. The project was to add Phil's vocal overdubs to the tracks, then send AIFF files back to Geneva for mixdown. Phil and I just finished three days of recording (about 16 hours total).

The signal chain was a BPM StudioTechnik TB-95 tube mike, Neve 1272 preamp, RNC in superNice mode, to the DA7 preamp, to a Mackie MDR. Format is 16/44.1 because it's all going to 16-bit AIFF anyway.

Phil sang pretty much every style, from soft breathy parts to full-blast rock vocals, to Hindu chants. His ability to double his vocal parts is uncannily good. (One double sounds electronically created, it's so close!)

OK, now to the point. On most of the loud sections, there's obvious transformer saturation happening. Plenty of furriness in the midrange, but not raspy fuzz. Many would freak out and get the sound super-clean.

But in the track, the vocal is magical. Sounds like a rock record. The RNC, which often was slamming down 15dB of gain reduction, didn't flinch with the high levels. The Neve certainly wasn't clean at all, but it wasn't at all ugly. The vocals sound so right that we now will suggest better instrumentation in the backing track. Some real guitars, dammit!

The moral? I didn't obsess about a pristine vocal chain. The mike isn't pristine; the Neve surely isn't. Who cares about the DA7 preamp---it's uncolored. The recorder, of course, put down exactly what came in.

It's like recording a pristine electric guitar: where's the character in that? We're so used to distorted guitars that it sounds odd when it's too clean.

So, we had a blast doing the tracking and rolling rough mixes. Now I've got to transfer everything to the computer, which isn't as much fun. The MDR did a great job and it really sped up the cueing, but it has some operational quirks that I'll write up in my review: watch Recording Magazine in the spring.

IMHO, digital is no where near as cold and harsh as it used to be, at least for me. I don't have to fight that anymore in my rig. Actually it's almost becoming to smooth and this is direct to HD, no tube pre's or nice compressors.

Personly I attrubte that to a solid word clock, a 24 bit word and a smooth sounding console.

The only thing I think you can't quite get is the tape compression of analog that makes drums sound so cool.

The new HDR's are really the next best thing and even better in some ways to the ol analog machine.

Yes, the digital end of the chain is generally fine. What goes in is what comes out.

It was just that I found the fuzzy character of the signal chain was important to the overall recording quality. When he really shouted a loud vocal, the chain distorted, which helps the effect. It wasn't just loud and clear, but it sounds *really* over the top.

And I'm talking pretty smooth distortion here, not death-metal vocal grunge.

The reason we use tube guitar amps is because they add distortion even when they appear clean. This "fuzzyness" is what makes things sit right in the analog world. this is the reason blues guitarists use old fender amps and not a roland jazz chourus amp. because it's too pristine and it sucks for any kind of music with raw energy. transformer distortion sounds really good
get a tape machine and you'll really freak out
Electrok

But it didn't use to be that way. What used to go in was analog sound sourse and what came out was a cold, sterel, brittle, overly clean sound. Remember the ol blackface adats and Mackie analog boards?

It was for those reasons that people turned to tubes to smooth out the sound. With the new 24 bit HDRs, it's so smooth I don't need those processors to take an edge off that's not there anymore. Not that they don't sound good for a certian coloration, but i'm personaly so happy that digital audio has gotton to this point where the sound is much more natural.

Jeremy,
What HDR unit's have you tested and what where your conclusions? I can live with XT-20's but is there that much of a difference between them and the sound of the HDR's. If so maybe Ill look into the new Alesis unit? Also how expensive are the swappable drives for the Alesis unit? Thanx
rocc

Oh by the way Happy New Year to all of you out there.

Well this is Ricks thread but I have compared and am currently useing the Mackie HDR to XT20 adats.

In a nut shell, the HDR is a more natural smoother sound than Adat. Comparing the adat mixes to the HDR, the adats sound grainy, and less hi-fi, alittle thinner.

The edge is not there, that slightly brittle high end that can be like razor blades to your ear drums. There is more detail with the HDR.

Jeremy your right it does sound way better. But there is still saturation and compression that comes from tape that can't be copied with digital...yet. tape is the best compressor money can buy.
electrok

Everything ends up 16-bits. I'd have recorded all 24 bits. It costs you next to nothing, and you're getting the best sound out of the DA7.

I know from a review he wrote that Rick isn't sold on 24-bit audio, but it really isn't bull. The difference can be pretty dramatic on some material.

electrok,

Well actully you can copy that tape compresion to the hard drive, but then you have to de-noise it with Dinnr (digital inteligent noise reduction).

Happy New Year
H.