Does anybody here have any experience with analogue recording?

First and foremost, know your shit forwards and backwards. Analogue recording requires precision. Its a lot easier to fix mistakes when you're recording digitally.

>>75135593
If you don't already know an engineer that will work with you on this then give up.

The whole "all analogue" shtick only works if you're willing to either go dirt cheap or super expensive, and either way if you don't know what you're doing from the very start you'll likely end up with a piece of shit record.

Know how to get stuff sounding the way you want it without post production (especially in terms of tone and performance)

>>75135593

If you're using an older analogue console that has no automation you'd be best to plan fucking everything in advance - with complex mixes you're going to have to get as many hands on the mixer as possible at the mixdown stage (since everything has to be done in real time) and a lot of the things that need to be done will need to be done with a fair amount of precision.

If you can find a studio with mixer automation you're better off in that respect, but studios with fully analogue signal paths these days tend to lean towards vintage mixers in conjunction with vintage tape machines, so you might have to go with a bigger budget than you first planned to in order to find a good mix of the signal path you want and the automation that ensures a mix goes 100% to plan.

Not OP but bump. I'm learning a lot

>>75135593
Find a studio that will record everything to a real 24 track tape machine. Getting a good mix onto tape is the first step.

Harder yet, is the mastering for vinyl. The studio should be able to point you to a mastering engineering who can create a master disc from the master tape on the fly with a lathe. If the master disc sounds good to your ears - it will likely be sent to a plant and then copied/pressed

Higher quality vinyl masters would involve the studio digitizing your final tape master and sending that to a mastering engineer who can master it for tape without any realtime pressures of a fucking lathe, and it will likely sound better.

This digital master will then be sent to a record plant, and they'll make their own master disc to press with. This is by far the better/modern method, but there is one step of digitization -- which is not "pure" analog, but not a big deal.

>>75136290
PS, this will cost at least $2000 to get even one printed vinyl into your hands

>>75136290
>one step of digitalization
>not a big deal

wrong. the whole appeal of completely analog music is transient definition. the digital filters found in AD/DA converters smear transients. some add pre-ringing, some add post-ringing, but it's always on the order of magnitude of ~100 microseconds. considering humans can distinguish phase coherence down to the nanosecond level, this is huge.

plugins like nebula can fake all the harmonic distortion, subtle compression, and EQ characteristics of vintage gear, but nothing can replace the 100% time domain accuracy of vinyl printed directly from tape.

>>75136501
Of course, having mixed in a completely analog domain, I'm aware of these digital conversion artifacts... The reality is however, you are talking about "humans" (really 1 in every 100 people) discerning phase on a system that is not only capable of reproducing such transients via Class A, A/B, or D N-core amplification, but also a system that is configured correctly... in a room with superb treatment.

Or maybe they have a wicked pair of headphones and amp.

Regardless, such artifacts are impossible to hear when listening to anything but the master on a near perfect high-end system...

and ratio of people consuming music in that way vs mp3 is beyond 10000:1

record basic tracks, punch in to patch, record vocals, record vocals a lot more, record overdubs, do all this to 24-track

now mix to 2-track off all these fucking tapes you made

shit ain't easy

>>75136622
so where do you draw the line? 99% of music is consumed by people who don't give a damn about sound quality through earbuds/car stereos. OP obviously wants to be better than that, hence their desire to "have it sound amazing on vinyl..."

you're letting market forces dictate your thinking. people like you are killing the art form. why educate when you can pander?

>>75137086
Oh yeah, I'm definitely killing the art form by literally running an analog studio and encouraging artists to explore the medium of tape.

Read before you speak, and quit vomiting out hyperbolic rhetoric like some /pol/tard

>>75137307
whoopsie, looks like it hit a nerve.

so you run an analog studio and still chimp out on the last step by sending a digital file to a mastering house because it's too much pressure for you to handle? you just admitted this step degrades the quality, but rationalize it with "only masters can hear the difference." let me guess, you're one of those masters, right? i'd argue that a lot more people than you think can tell the difference on much cheaper equipment than you realize and your ego is getting in the way.

>>75135593
dude just find some tape saturation vsts and stick it in your master buss and then post a publicity photo of you standing next to an analogue mixing desk (it doesn't even have to work) and poof! instead indie cred

if dubs then post your music op

>>75137086
>OP obviously wants to be better than that, hence their desire to "have it sound amazing on vinyl..."
lol OP does not give a shit about pre ringing or time domain accuracy, he just wants to record his music on some old ass gear