Paul's Boutique - analog or digital recording?

[FunkyHiFi]

I'm pretty sure the final stereo master tape was done in the analog domain but by 1989 digital was becoming really popular, so that is a possibility too, so was wondering if anyone knew anything about this.

Also, anyone know any stories or fun factoids :) about anything else that was used - hardware or specific recording techniques - to put this complicated-sounding album together.

Thanks!

[mate_spawn_die]

I'm pretty sure the final stereo master tape was done in the analog domain but by 1989 digital was becoming really popular, so that is a possibility too, so was wondering if anyone knew anything about this.

Also, anyone know any stories or fun factoids :) about anything else that was used - hardware or specific recording techniques - to put this complicated-sounding album together.

Thanks!

maybe in this (http://www.amazon.com/Beastie-Boys-Pauls-Boutique-33/dp/0826417418)

i don't know because i never read it

[Micodin]

maybe in this (http://www.amazon.com/Beastie-Boys-Pauls-Boutique-33/dp/0826417418)

i don't know because i never read it

I have that book, and read it. They did use digital samplers and computers on that record. I'm 99.9% sure it was a digital recording.

[Brother McDuff]

If I remember correctly, a portion of the sequencing and production was done using very early digital computer programs. Judging by the era, I can say positively that the vocals were recorded analog, and I'm sure when the actual mixdown and tracking went down it was to tape (analog). It ended up on DAT at some point as well, at what stage I dont know.

Long story short, from what I've gathered, there was some production and sequencing done on computers but the actual recording was all analog.

I'm not sure digital recording was even available back then, and if it was I'm sure it costed an arm and a leg, even by recording industry standards.

hope that helps.

[pm0ney]

They might have been using digital samplers and what-not, but the actual recording was done on tape. Digital mixing/mastering and recording I dont think became the mainstream until the late 90's, early 2000's maybe.

[Brother McDuff]

digital recording was actually heavily mainstream by the mid 90s. of course its become more and more popular as time has progressed, but a whole lot of people were digital by as early as 1995.

[FunkyHiFi]

Thanks everyone for the input.

maybe in this (http://www.amazon.com/Beastie-Boys-Pauls-Boutique-33/dp/0826417418)

i don't know because i never read itThanks Mate, I will be buying that!

I was pretty sure they used some kind of digital-based sampling system, because the samples are so "precise" sounding and put togther so cleanly.

As fas as the analog/digital issue this album has such a warm/smooth sound I figured the Dust Brothers picked that to help the newly recorded parts (vocals especially - thanks Brother McDuff) match all those samples from older recordings particularly those sourced from worn cassettes & vinyl.

Quick story: When Beck was recording Guero, one song included a string section. The string section was a new recording but when placed along with the older samples the track used, Beck said it sounded "too hi-fi". To fix that they made a CD-R of the string section, put it in a boombox, placed mics in front of the box's speakers, pushed play and re-recorded it! Then it finally sounded right for the mix.

As far as digital recording, not to sound like a smarty-pants :) but that has actually been around since the late 70s. One of the first "big" groups to convert to it was Rush, IIRC their album Moving Pictures was their first in 1981. In audiophile circles the album that really got their attention as far as showing what diigtal was capable of was Donald Fagen's 1982 album The Nightfly (Fagen was/is lead vocalist for Steely Dan). Digital back then though was very touchy to work with and the recorders they used were always breaking down and they had to pay 3M engineers (yea they made audio gear back then) to hang out so they could be fixed at a moment's notice. FYI: this recording is so well done - though many think it sounds a bit on the "too clean" side - that supposedly many sound people use it to set their EQ levels when calibrating new sound systems.

Here's one of the singles, and my favorite track, from this album: "New Frontier". (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRrCZCN8Kj0&feature=related) FYI: the song's stories are told from the point of view of a guy growing up in the late 50s/early 60s in a large city (I read this in the liner notes). The track called "I.G.Y." - a google search will tell you right away what that is - is basically about that era. Quite uplifting........until one remembers what happened in 1963. :(

What wasn't digital in the early days were the mixing boards i.e. EQ, channel levels etc and certain SFX and that was still accomplished via analog systems. This is probably why the resulting masters for such albums still had a nice warm or "round" sound to them........and why nowadays many 100% digital recordings can sound very dry, crispy or sterile (pick your adjective! :D) if the engineer doesn't do any tweaking, since digital picks up whatever is fed to it....or not fed to it (this is why CD-Rs made from vinyl - usually called "needledrops" - can sound nearly identical to the vinyl version). This is why so much modern studio gear includes a vacuum tube or two to add some warmth to the sound, and why there are so many software plug-ins designed specifically to make music sound "retro", though I prefer to call it "easy to listen to". :)

* I still own the vinyl bought just after the album debuted, the CD and the dvd-audio version which includes an excellent 5.1 surround mix (Dolby & DTS included for regular dvd players)

[Laver1969]

Digging through my files I found this...

http://www.makeshiftstudio.com/pdfs/tapeop_mario.pdf

It's kinda long so...Bro. McDuff, you're homework assignment is too provide the Cliff Notes version. Please. :)

Actually...I don't think it answers the analog vs. digital question but it's still a really good read.

[mathcart]

Digging through my files I found this...

http://www.makeshiftstudio.com/pdfs/tapeop_mario.pdf

It's kinda long so...Bro. McDuff, you're homework assignment is too provide the Cliff Notes version. Please. :)

Actually...I don't think it answers the analog vs. digital question but it's still a really good read.

wow! that was awesome! I can't give any kind of intelligible summary or even relate it back to whether it was useful in this debate, but goddamn! that was really cool! Thanks for the link. Made my day to have Mario back in my life for a minute!
:D

[abbott]

analog = waves of the real thing
digital = 0 & X of the real thing

i like waves

[3stooges]

i remember reading this dust brothers interview a few years back, in Sound On Sound magazine. they talk about using the old Emax sampler. and they had an early computer sequencing program. this was the beats. then they had this all synced to a tape machine, so they could record scratches and vocals, and whatever else they wanted to record. so yeah, it sounds like it was recorded analog (except the samples).

"The very first sampler we had was a Roland F10," recalls Simpson, "and then we went with the Akai S900. Those were still mono samplers. Then we dabbled with the SP12, the predecessor of the SP1200, and then we had a Roland S770, which I think was the first stereo sampler. We did all of Paul's Boutique on an Emax HD, which was mono and 12-bit and had a 22kHz sampling rate. So we had plenty of experience of the primitive domain of early sampling: low bit rate and low sampling rate. But we've never been in love with the degraded sound of those early machines, we were always trying to make samples sound better. We had Pro Tools in our heads before it even existed. Since both John and I came from a computer background, we knew what computers were capable of, and we were kind of bombed that the samplers were still so lo-fi or hard to use.

"The sequencer we used on Paul's Boutique was very primitive software called Texture by a guy called Roger Powell. This was when computers still had no user interface, it basically was just a bunch of letters and numbers across a green screen. After that we used this very primitive sync box, the JL Cooper PPS1, that allowed us to sync the computer to tape. We also had an Allen & Heath console with very primitive automation with which you could create mute events. So we basically filled all tracks on a multitrack with loops, and arranged songs by using these automated mute things. It was such a painful process. I remember thinking 'God, why couldn't we just have a timeline across a screen and chunks for each sample and a visual representation for the waveforms across the time line? Why do I have to sit here and type all these numbers and MIDI times?'"

full article here:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may05/articles/dust.htm?print=yes

[easy 3]

Wow! Big thanks for the Mario and Dust Bros interview links - this thread is awesome:) - it's stuff like this and the Shadrach on Soul Train thread that bring me to BBMB.(y)

[mathcart]

Wow! Big thanks for the Mario and Dust Bros interview links - this thread is awesome:) - it's stuff like this and the Shadrach on Soul Train thread that bring me to BBMB.(y)

WORD!

:D