Electrical magic. Analogue. Lunacy.

[John A.]

I wouldn't describe analogue as "warm and rich". I would say it sounds more real.

All I can say to that is that the first time I heard a CD ca. 1983 was the first time I heard a recording as it was intended. I can understand people preferring vinyl (or at least non scratchy skippy vinyl), because compression, distortion, and reduced frequency response sound good. But they do not sound real.

Listen to a mix of a jazz group in a studio before it’s mastered. Then listen to it mastered for vinyl, and then to it mastered for CD. Then listen to the vinyl record and CD. There’s no question which is closest to the real thing, and it ain’t vinyl.

[jads57]

I’m as guilty as anyone when it comes to being super picky about my gear. But if there are newer technologies that are easier, more reliable, lighter in weight( I’m 68 Lol) and less expensive as well.

We are so lucky to have the choices nowadays. The problem is there are so many less paying gigs to use them in.
Ive owned most of the prized vintage gear,and believe me it had it’s limitations.
So bottom line is buy what you are happiest with. And don’t be always swayed by what’s popular opinions.

[DawgBone]

All I can say to that is that the first time I heard a CD ca. 1983 was the first time I heard a recording as it was intended. I can understand people preferring vinyl (or at least non scratchy skippy vinyl), because compression, distortion, and reduced frequency response sound good. But they do not sound real.

Listen to a mix of a jazz group in a studio before it’s mastered. Then listen to it mastered for vinyl, and then to it mastered for CD. Then listen to the vinyl record and CD. There’s no question which is closest to the real thing, and it ain’t vinyl.

None of it is truly realistic. Who has one ear on the bass drum, one ear on the snare, another ear on the guitar, and the bass running an xlr cable into the back of their head and then a vocalist sitting in front of them singing. Everything is an approximation, and a trade off. It's up to the musician to decide what is gonna make it sound best.

There is something to be said for the old days when one room mic captured everything. It's more like an actual listener in the room would hear, but then you are at the mercy of the musician's using the right volume levels to attain a good mix and some things aren't going to be able to made to pop as hard as with modern recording....

[Bob_Ross]

Who has one ear on the bass drum, one ear on the snare, another ear on the guitar, and the bass running an xlr cable into the back of their head and then a vocalist sitting in front of them singing.

If your records -- or CDs, or tapes, or wax cylinders, whatever -- sound like ^^^that, it's not the fault of the medium, it's the fault of the recording/mixing engineer(s).

[DawgBone]

If your records -- or CDs, or tapes, or wax cylinders, whatever -- sound like ^^^that, it's not the fault of the medium, it's the fault of the recording/mixing engineer(s).

I think you are missing my point. The point is everything gets a mic in front of it now, and then is mixed together to approximate how your ear would hear it, which means a game of trade offs. There is no ideal medium for music, and there is no ideal way to record that music.

[BBGuitar]

It's kind of like when monks argued over how many fairies could dance on the head of a pin.

Now that this dead horse has been thoroughly whipped. Just how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin?

Does it depend on if they are 8, 12, 16-, 24-, 32- or 64-bit fairies???

[emanresu]

Now that this dead horse has been thoroughly whipped. Just how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin?

Does it depend on if they are 8, 12, 16-, 24-, 32- or 64-bit fairies???

The horse is dead, moved on, got dead again... yes.
But I thought to give a new angle to kick it.

Pointing to digital-defenders being more insane than the analogue-ones.

[m_d]

"Never" is a long time.

And, of course, solid state can still be analog.

I know a guy who designs electronics for and operates a high-end home audio company. He recently replaced tube power amps in his offerings with house-made class D power amps. He spent a couple of years designing them rather than using an off-the-shelf version to get what he wanted, but to his ears they are much superior to tube power amplification.

The litmus test is whether people can hear the difference in a blindfold test and guess which is which at a higher hit rate than chance. We have demonstrated multiple times in the forum that we often cannot tell the difference between a solidbody and an archtop guitar purely on the sound of it. Tim Lerch, in particular, posted a very interesting video about this as has Jens Larsen. This, too, might very well be the case with digital and tube/analog sound production equipment, if not now then in the future and not so very far away.

Says the guy who has virtually all analog gear… I think the only digital thing in my signal chain right now is a reverb pedal (TC Electronic Hall of Fame).

For high fidelity, although there's always going to be people claiming tubes and vinyl sound better, measurements say otherwise (a good resource about that topic is the Audio Science Review site, run by a former Sony and Microsoft engineer). On ASR, virtually all of the best ranked hi fi amplifiers are solid state (class A and D), some of very modest cost. But then some people will claim measurements do not tell the whole story - a very dubious argument IMO.

For jazz guitar specifically, Morten Faerestrand put up an interesting YouTube video a while back about the modest Roland Cube where he said he clearly preferred that over a Fender Deluxe Reverb to amplify his floating-pickup archtop, a Campellone, specifically.

[Alter]

I can live with digital effects, like delay, reverb etc, but not with digital amp and speaker simulation. Have tried to for years but i can hear and feel the difference and i much prefer analog sound and response. As long as my basic signal remains analog i'm good, tubes and solid state.

Must have tried a million digital amps and IRs with a fusion project a couple years ago, i finally got a JCM800 and it was night and day. Still too lazy to mic amps for YouTube though, there i just use a Tonex one or HX Stomp. Many times i split the signal so i hear a tube amp and record the digital unit, or if clean i just mute the speakers and hear the guitars unplugged.

[LesB3]

For high fidelity, although there's always going to be people claiming tubes and vinyl sound better, measurements say otherwise (a good resource about that topic is the Audio Science Review site, run by a former Sony and Microsoft engineer). On ASR, virtually all of the best ranked hi fi amplifiers are solid state (class A and D), some of very modest cost. But then some people will claim measurements do not tell the whole story - a very dubious argument IMO.

I would not be surprised to hear that engineers believe that their measurements (selected by them) prove their point. Unfortunately, their measurements may or may not capture the whole of reality, and oftentimes fail to account for the "je ne sais quoi" that may or may not apply to their specific situation. If I'm sounding completely nebulous, its because I don't believe that reality can be fully quantified by a spreadsheet. Not coming down on any one side of the issue (I have records and CD's that both sound amazing).

[emanresu]

Human ears are quite bad with "less needed" frequencie ranges. And loose their sesitivity in the upper range.
But what is excellent, is their timing and comparison job between both of them.
If both ears are working fairly well (no damage yet), then the phase difference sensitivity is just badass.
And also comparing the frequency differences. Both of those are the source of "realism", direction, size of the object, etc.

The point is, those functions very well may exceed even the measurment device's capabilities.

Btw. By "real", I didn't mean close-to-realism-reproduction. Just that "real" in audio for me means that it feels more real.
Has nothing to do with how close it is to the source.

[Spook410]

Side note: Many have tried amp simulations and speaker IR's. There are many reasons this may not work out for them. The biggest one I've seen is trying to use a mediocre speaker for the FRFR. Next is expecting it to sound exactly the same in their setting and/or 'feel' the same as what they are used to with an open back cabinet. Thing is, the digital stuff keeps getting better while the analog stuff remains the same. At some point digital not only sounds as good but provides all the other benefits like flexibility, format (weight, size, et al), reliability, consistency and cost.

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

I used to own one. Noone would ever record with digital, unless it's Coldplay. Musicians use them because they're portable and brand new and nothing else.

I strongly doubt that there's any way you or anyone else could reliably tell a current digital Hammond B-3 or XK5 Pro from an original tonewheel B-3 in blinded listening. I've looked hard and regularly for such a comparison, and no one has yet had the courage to even try to do it and talk about or post the results. I'm sure we'd all be very grateful if you'd undertake this yourself and post the video. If you can pick out the analog from the digital 8 out of 10 times, you'll be a hero. I've tried unsuccessfully to do it from recordings, but I've never had the opportunity to play and record a mechanical B-3 and a digital B-3 side by side.

I doubled on an XK5 Pro through a Leslie 3300 two shows a week from 2017 through the end of 2024. I've been playing and playing guitar with Hammonds in bands for over 60 years. To me, their digital tonewheels are now every bit as good as mechanical B-3s. I assume you're aware that the insides of the current "B-3" and "B-3P" are identical to those of an XK5 Pro. Most top jazz, rock, and blues organists today who want the tonewheel sound use a digital Hammond even when they have a choice. For example, assuming you accept that Roger Smith is an OK source of taste and judgment, he plays a new Hammond B-3P both live and in the studio. He and the bands with whom he plays (notably Tower of Power) can well afford to bring a restored and well maintained B-3 along everywhere they go. But they don't.

Andy Burton's no slouch either. He plays with the likes of Steven VanZandt, Cyndi Lauper, John Mayer, and Rufus Wainwright. Yes, he drags a B-3 on gigs when he can - he just loves them. But his comparison of the XK5 with his own 1971 B-3 clearly shows that they're interchangeable, and he readily admts this:

Some players with the resources to get one have demanded an original B-3 for gigs. And some studios are willing to put the cash and effort into maintaining one, despite the amounts of both required to keep it operating properly. But a mechanical B-3 that's not in perfect shape can sound pretty bad. They go out of tune. The many, many contacts get dirty and corroded, the tonewheel rotating mechanism has to be lubricated and wears over time, the hundreds and hundreds of wires break, solder joints deteriorate, etc etc. The tonewheels themselves are subject to a lot of damage. They're not perfectly round and balanced, so there can be secondary tones from any that are sufficiently out of round to generate additional tones when the warp passes the pickup. They get magnetized over time, which can cause distortion, and they're easily damaged during servicing (which can lead to distortion, tuning problems, and ghost notes).

So B--3s that are not in perfect condition often sound much worse than even non-Hammond keyboard clones like Nord. The only sonic difference I can detect at all (and it's so subtle that I couldn't pick it out in peformance) is in the sound of the percussion tones, which is a tiny bit less precise in the "real" B-3 than in the XK5 / B-3P. This is probably because it's triggered more precisely in the new ones than it is in the mechanical B-3 (which has keys that are more than twice as long inside the case and are not as well fixed in place in all planes). I can only really hear this listening to the percussion tones in isolation with the tonewheels off.

PS: Here I am on a real B-3 at the Hudson River Park Blues Festival with Larry Garner. When I turned it on, it died. Within 90 seconds, a tech came running over with a toolbox and fixed it. He told me that top rental companies still provide a few B-3s, but they're so unreliable that a tech goes with them.

[DawgBone]

SThing is, the digital stuff keeps getting better while the analog stuff remains the same. At some point digital not only sounds as good but provides all the other benefits like flexibility, format (weight, size, et al), reliability, consistency and cost.

The "digital getting better" part is just digital trying to catch up with analog sounds that are 60 years old already.

[emanresu]

The "digital getting better" part is just digital trying to catch up with analog sounds that are 60 years old already.

That's a fun view. Catching up with 100 year old tech.

[Christian Miller]

Meanwhile bass players have moved on with their lives. But they actually have gigs, so practicality is a bigger concern.

[omphalopsychos]

I was thinking about this and realized my ideal solid state amp would be based on my favorite pedals. Imagine if you took the Fairfield Barbershop for its touch sensitive and harmonically rich JFET drive, the Diamond Yellow Comp for that transparent optical compression and added a blend control, and the Empress ParaEQ II for surgical yet musical tone shaping, and then built them straight into the preamp. Add a lush studio style Lexicon 224 hall reverb running only on the wet path so the dry tone stays 100 percent analog, and feed it into a clean high headroom Class D power section. The result would be a portable and reliable amp that feels like a boutique pedalboard permanently wired into the best sounding solid state rig you have ever heard.

[DawgBone]

Meanwhile bass players have moved on with their lives. But they actually have gigs, so practicality is a bigger concern.

The SVT is still the pinnacle of amplified bass tone.

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

[DawgBone]

I was sold this bill of goods in the 80's and 90's then starting in the 2000's everyone wanted a lounge act with tan pants and 15 watt amps. I am slow to change.

[Spook410]

Actually, the commercial market has only been dealing with copying tube amps using software (sim amps, IR speakers, et al) for a relatively short amount of time. Assuming accuracy and feel are still a question (not sure they are, but fine by me either way), it won't be long until the tech achieves the result tube fans are looking for. Except, of course, for those who will never accept a result no matter how compelling.

As for solid state, I have a Roland Artist. It's a really good sounding combo amp and for me, that's good enough.

[Christian Miller]

The SVT is still the pinnacle of amplified bass tone.

Those things? Sometimes you see them on the backline on festival gigs, next to Tama rock kit and the Marshall stack. I have to say, my experience of that type of set up has been coloured by the fact that I'm usually with an acoustic bass player and a jazz box - and the engineer has also decided that what we really want is more kick drum. So it's a struggle for everybody.

I expect they are great if you play in a rock/soul/funk/blues/whatever band or whatever which I don't. I'm a jazzer, so I don't really have a dog in this fight.

What I did see is that bass players - acoustic and electric - didn't miss a beat embracing modern technology. They like Mark Bass amps and so on for practicality and punch, and they don't by and large need the stuff to sound exactly like old records. As soon as things like the Tone Hammer came out they were everywhere. By and large, I'd say bass players appreciate similar things to straightahead jazz guitarists - headroom and practicality.

The practicality thing is huge for working guitar players doing theatre and live arena stuff. They have all switched over to modelling, because that's been the expectation now for quite a while. But it's a one time outlay to get a pro level modeller. And then you have all the sounds you need.

But that's more about the convenience than sound, true - that tech is being used to chase those classic analog/tube tones, by and large.

However, the aesthetics of rock/pop guitar sounds have now also shifted towards what digital modelling offers. The kids are into super sparkly cleans, huge reverbs and post-Mesa digitally modelled saturated but tight overdrive sounds. They grew up playing plug ins and modeller amps and they wouldn't know what to do with a Plexi. Their style is modelled around that type of sound and they aren't wedded to what came out of the limited (if good sounding) equipment options in the late 60s and 70s.

I mean I'm more into the older sounds too, but I'm a Gen X and no one cares what I think. (Although can anyone explain what people see in driven Tweed sounds? I have enough flatulence in my life as it is.)

[John A.]

(Although can anyone explain what people see in driven Tweed sounds? I have enough flatulence in my life as it is.)

Much of what people assumed are Marshalls on recordings are actually tweed Fenders. Ditto for on-stage Potemkin village stacks. And of course a plexi is in essence a tweed Bassman. It’s a thin line between love and fart.

[John A.]

I use plugins when I record. Do they sound like the real thing? Basically, yes, or at least far more so than I’d be able to achieve mic’ing an amp given my poor skills in that domain and problematic home recording environment. There is a difference between playing through an amp at stage volume vs a direct sound through headphones, which is true for all DI methods. But IME that difference doesn’t really carry through to the sound that’s captured. In a mix, no one can tell.

Live I often use a small Fender modeling combo. It’s a good sounding amp that reacts to player input the way an amp is supposed to. Not worth nitpicking over how close to the real thing it is. Blindfolded I’d never be able to guess whether it’s digital or analog.

I used to be a tube purist, but setting aside my preconceptions and actually using a variety of tube, SS, and modeling gear has turned me into an agnostic on these subjects. If it works it works. If something else would hypothetically work better but is not what I’m actually using, I don’t dwell on the hypothetical.

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

It’s a thin line between love and fart.

Oh, baby - that’s a forever quote! You’ve just created your legacy, John.