What was the last big selling album recorded fully analogue?

Unfortunately not.
Don't forget that White Stripes started back in 1999 and their albums were indeed recorded analog, but in recent years the AAA approach got shifted. I don't follow all his projects, but Boarding House Reach was the first album he utilized Pro-Tools for and the most recent The Raconteurs - Help Us Stranger was recorded analog but had a minor stage of using Pro-Tools. I suppose before Boarding House Reach he still used analog all the way though and there's no wonder about that because he was pretty much very into doing things "old school" and stuff. Not that he was against digital as he mentioned in some recent interviews.

 

Oh, come on man. Don't be like that

 

Jack White has finally started using Pro Tools, and Chris Rock is to blame

Interesting to note that Jack wasn't even using automation on his mixes, which can be done. He was old old school. I wonder if he would fill up an 8 track machine and then bounce down to another.

 

I normally wouldn't be, but when someone insists on proclaiming that NO COMPUTERS WERE USED BLARG BLURGH, they're sort of asking for it.

 

Automated analog mixer? - Gearslutz

 

Boston's Tom Scholz also states on his albums, even the last one, that he records and mixes fully analogue but I honestly I don't believe him with the last album. On the Greatest Hits re-release from 2009 (different from the original Greatest Hits from 1997) I think there's mention of a ProTools engineer.

 

But that's a real far stretch to include digital pedals of guitar/bass players as examples that are going against the overal "analog" process of recording and mixing the record. Of course they meant that no computers were used WHEN recording tracks from the mics and then mixing

 

Chris Rock telling White “Nobody cares how it’s done!” is what White reports motivated him to move away from all analogue. Nobody cares whether the sound quality is affected? Or nobody cares whether it’s analogue or digital as long as it sounds good?

 

For me, I don’t care so long as it sounds good. For most folks, I assume they don’t care whether the sound is affected. After all, if all you do is swap tape for hard drive, the change is relatively minor. It’s all the extra “production” that digital offers that make the sound especially egregious.

 

I would think the later as in nobody wants to how the sausage is made as long as it tastes good. Chris Rock obviously never stopped by this forum.

 

I don't know of any off the top of my head that are pure analog. I do know that Tool mentioned all the instrumentals were recorded to tape, but they use pro tools for the vocals, so that wouldn't really count I guess.

 

What do you think about the sound of Rush's Moving Pictures? I personally like it, both the original LP and the BD-Audio that I'm listenning to right now. Well, the 96/24 stereomix on the BD-Audio is an upsample, I don't have the pics from Spek right now but I remember checking (after ripping both stereo and multichannel tracks) both mixes and the stereo mix has a sharp roll off at arround 22 Khz while the multichannelmix didn't as it had frequency content well beyond 30 Khz. So regarding this album and it's BD-A release, Moving Pictures was tracked to analogue and originally mixed down to digital, and the multichannel must have used the original multitrack analogue tapes and mixed down to Hi Res digital for the multichannel mix.

 

Just so I understand you, you are saying that the ORIGINAL CD sounds great? And would to this day?

I'm just trying to discern whether you are saying your ears have re-acclimated to analog and now you can't tolerate digital, or that the production values (Or the handling of the digital re-production workflow) were so bad it ruined what was originally good?

A good engineer, with LOTS of "colored" outboard gear (mics, pre's, compressors, EQs) should be able to cover for digital to an extent.......but man, I just remember those first-generation digitally recorded rock records......The Rolling Stones "Steel wheels" KISS's "Crazy Nights"......I was a little kid and knew nothing about anything but i KNEW something was WRONG with those records.

Still, great material always going to be the beginning and end of a great record,

 

Frequency content ABOVE 30 KHZ?????

I don't really keep up with the jones's as far as where digital recording is headed, but that's beyond any digital standards I'm familiar with.

 

Yes the original 1994 CD for the Stargate soundtrack sound great and so does the Varese Sarabande 2006 Deluxe CD for what they are: CD's (44.1/16) sourced from a 44.1-48/16 digital master from the early 1990's. Since I was a kid I've liked to put things in context. I think the 2015 192/24 Van Halen remasters,which I have, sound great, but their LP's counterparts mastered by the same engineer, Chris Bellman, sound outstanding played on a decent TT with a decent cart. What I mean is that the 192/24 Van Halens sound great for being digital masterings (actually, the best these albums have ever sound on a digital format) but I prefer the LPs that are fully analogue, not cut from digital files, they're AAA LP's.
I'm 46, (my birthday was last Monday) so I started listening to music on the analogue era but while digital started to catch on, and I've always prefer, given that engineering, mastering and production are good, the sound of analogue over digital, even if I have to listen to a full analogue recorded album on CD. I know analogue tape recording is not transparent, it introduces its own distorsions, it has a benchmark sound, a sound that I like regardless if digital is technically superior.

 

The 5.1 remix that used the original analogue multitrack tapes as a source and was mixed down to 96/24 has frequency content over 20/22 Khz. The originalmix that was mixed down to digital is an upsample on the BD-Audio as it has a sharp cut at around 22 Khz, so despite being 96/24 the stereo mix is not a remix.

 

Analogue has improved massively since the '70s. It continues to improve. Electronics is constantly evolving and getting better. The op amps that are used in the hundreds in mixing desks are *so* much better than the 70s and weren't even affordable in the 60s. As much as valve gear sounds gorgeous for guitars, they ain't the way to go for mixing desks. The techniques for low noise circuitry, power supply, PCB layout were all being explored and improved upon hugely from the 70s onwards and are still being explored. Analogue mixing consoles are still built and used in studios, even when recording to a digital medium.

The quality of quality of equipment compared to George Martin's Beatles' days is incomparable.

 

You're right but today's recording and mastering techniques along with production suck most of the times.

 

Hey, the second I can walk into a studio and not see "Tape emulation" on every piece of software, the second I can see someone.....anyone, say "We are looking to get that great digital sound "so-and-so" got on "such-and-such" a record....the second I hear for myself how digital recording has become advantageous, I'll admit it.

But Digital can become as "clean" as it wants, and for classical music, maybe that is preferable in terms of recording format....but analog recording, not just tape ADDS something, not only that but it INTERACTS WITH YOU as you record....it HELPS YOU.

The gain staging of signal flow to achieve the right harmonic content as it passes through circuits and onto the tape, the natural compression (That is unparalleled by any compressor) achieved by hitting the tape hard, the judgment one must use in assessing how the tape will work with you, this is a real live creative process that is GONE with digital, the end game of that process was harmonic bliss, effortless compression that never sounded "squashed" but like the natural push back from the tape, and a sound that brought the mids to life right in front of your ears,, is not something digital is capable of.

Digital-mania was first sold on the "Low-noise, Low-distortion" ticket, now every digital studio spends thousands of dollars on things that bring that noise and distortion BACK.

As it turns out, they were PART of the package,

Take "Brown Suger" that song starts with tape noise loud enough to be called "The intro" and continues throughout. that song has CONSTANT noise...AND it's awesome, digitally extract that noise and see what you get.


It won't be pretty, I assure you.

 

Well said.

 

I wouldn't agree,

There have been a lot of operational improvements, in terms of how much power you have to perform tasks, but the sound has gotten WORSE.

Any engineer will tell you that, pre-amps, compressors, EQs are more revered, the older they get.

The preamps in a 1960's desk SMOKE the preamps in any desk built in the last 30 years.

Opamps centered electronics are not considered desirable, they are considered a compromise,

There may be certain tasks modern gear is better suited to, like classical music for instance, but for 99% of what is discussed here, the older Gear towers so far above and beyond the new stuff it's not even funny.

 

Unfortunately, although its recorded in analogue on a great desk, it is then brickwalled.

 

Hmmm, well I am an engineer, both an electronics engineer who has worked in design in the pro audio industry and an, admittedly relarively low grade, recording engineer who has worked semi-pro in the past.

I think we may be talking about two slightly different things here. From a technical point of view, the quality of analogue electronics is unarguably better than the '60s. Noise and distorition is way, way better and continues to improve, power supplies are hilariously better, PCB layout is a different world. What you are talking about is a particular preference for a sound that you can get with older bits outboard gear in certain parts of the signal chain. However, building a mixing desk of any size out of discrete components is impractical. I would argue it wouldn't sound any better too.

You are quite right, some desks have mic amps with some discrete front end circuitry, but they very soon go into op amps. It's also fair to say that a lot of people like outboard gear for things like mic amps, but I would bet that George Martin would have preferred an '80s Neve Console and a 2" 24-track machine to record things like Pepper and it would have sounded a boat loaded better too. I think it's equally as arguable that op amp designed electronics is desirable because you were able to get a console with scores of channels with really good paramteric EQ on them because of op amps. It's also unarguable that the quality of those op amps have improved over time in terms of their performance.

Go and look at some of Steve Albini's videos where he talks about using the mixing desks' mic amps and he gets absolutely gorgeous sounding drum sounds for example.

Maybe it's my preference of sound, maybe you prefer the sound of something like the White Album to something like Famous Blue Raincoat or Document, but to my ears the quality of sound produced is immeasurably better in the early '80s onwards to those the late '60s. Maybe I'm arguing from an audiophile and electronics engineer's point of view, but I cannot hear any '60s/early '70s album that sounds anywhere near as good as what was produced ten years or so later and to my mind that is because of leaps and bounds in technology.

Absolutely no argument there. I think we have long gone past peak music quality. As a lover of analogue music, I would argue digital is largely to blame for that. However, the flip side to that is I bet there are young people who would say my claim is me talking out of my rear end and they think stuff sounds way better now than what was possible in the '80s.

 

There may be more dynamic range and resolution available from newer equipment but producers have rarely used it to advantage. I just dislike the production style on many 80s recordings. Of course it is obvious that treble and bass is limited on many 70s recordings and more obvious on 60s recordings but they tend to sound more musical than later mainstream rock/pop productions. Of course you can make better recordings today but the fashion for digital compression in recording and CD mastering more than negates that. Of course there are examples were post 1990 recordings are done right and even some all analogue. Doesn't mean they are generally better. Someone born after the 1980s likely has never heard a good recording or listened on decent reproduction equipment. Audiophile is a £1k Iphone to them.

 

Yeah, I totally get what you're saying and I prefer the sound on Help to that on Pepper or White Album, which are obviously later and down to production trend probably. I also totally agree about [digital] over compression. I find terms like "more musical" to be a bit woolly TBH and would argue that there are plenty of rubbish sounding records from the '60s.

I suppose what I'll stand my ground on is the potential for production to be hugely superior in the '80s and later to the '60s, and from a purely audiophile standpoint I fail to see how you could argue the '60s equipment can even vaguely compare. However, I fully appreciate how you could prefer '60s or '70s production and how some bits of gear still sound amazing to this day.