Reel to Reel decks

Astralography,

Three letters: AAA

From T.H.E. Show, Newport Beach (where the best sonics where evident in rooms featuring RTR and vinyl and where RTR, vinyl, and digital formats were front-end options).

Astralography, I agree on the need to use analog from one end to the other in the recording process.

When my band has released its LPs, although they had set up the studio before I joined the group, none of them had experience editing a master with a razor blade so I wound up with that task. Fortunately there was not a lot of that to do- we did our recordings 'live' which is to say while we did use a multi-track recorder, we did not do any over-dubs.

We kept 24-bit backup digital files too, scanned at double the redbook frequency to avoid the use of a brickwall filter. Compared to the 2-channel analog tape, the digital files essentially fall flat on their respective faces.

I never play my most valuable records after I made a recording. I don't use RTR yet, I use Nakamichi deck. If I ruin those records by accident they will be almost impossible or very expensive to replace, or both. Good for me that I don't have many of those.

If the best sound quality is the primary objective, then I agree you should keep the recording purely analog throughout the recording/manufacturing process. It will sound better. However, if the objective is best quality music, then keeping it pure can actually limit the artistic flexibility of the musician/engineer/producer. I think most people favor flexibility over purity and are only trying to achieve good to very good, not great, quality sound.

However, if the objective is best quality music, then keeping it pure can actually limit the artistic flexibility of the musician/engineer/producer.

I would only suggest that what would appear obvious about digital editing and endless effects and plugins.. this can and actually in most cases takes the music away from the musician themselves and puts it into the digital plethora of endless possibilities which can ultimately hinder the music.

Brian Eno once said "it is not about having more options, it is about having more USEFUL options"

The temptation to over produce is VERY REAL.. and in my opinion hinders the process of creating truly great music which is really best when it is actually being performed by the artists.

Dylan didn't need a lot of studio trickery, and if you love more complex music.. bands like YES and early Genesis just simply had great musicians that where also very creative in the studio environment. But sometimes less is more.. and striving for a better take can actually produce a more heartfelt track than using pitch shifters, and quantizing drum tracks, fixing the mix in protools and so forth.

I suggest that the pressure of having to perform on your instrument properly can lead to better recordings or even great ones.

For us that know... most records these days are created in a very dishonest way. Before the digital age.. I think recordings were much more honest.. and that ultimately transmits to the listener whether they consciously know the recording process or not.

Digital effects can't help but sound digital.
Samples sound like samples and plugins sound like plugins.