• READ BEFORE POSTING!
    • If posting a video, please post HERE, unless it is a video as part of an advertisement and then post it in this section.
    • If replying to threads please remember this is the Promotion area and the person posting may not be open to feedback.

watch Rivers Rubins' Analog Recordings

Hey Everyone,

So, this is geared towards music/audio - but I figured I'd throw it into the experimental area - because it is very experimental. Every time I release a new episode, I'll just throw it in this same thread.

So, I began a weekly series last week where I will be releasing one fully analog recording each week - usually a cover song that's a bit more of a deep cut, to expose people to some interesting songs. It began when I decided to veer away from my digital studio for a bit to record on tape instead, simply because I just found it entertaining. However, I found that some of these songs when played minimalistically on an acoustic guitar can be really hauntingly beautiful in the scratchy realm of analog tape recording.

So, there you go!

First two episodes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2I_TN2xew4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwgJzyolHTc
 
Fourth installment -

Also, learned something interesting - Since these recordings are in analog, the Youtube Content ID can't pick them up - I suspect the scans have much more difficulty with content that isn't digital and shiney! So, that's sort of nice!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wAwqxUTrT8
 
Also, learned something interesting - Since these recordings are in analog, the Youtube Content ID can't pick them up...

I don't think you have learned anything interesting because your recordings are obviously NOT analogue. You cannot upload an analogue tape to YT (or anywhere else). Youtube just sees your digital audio file, there is no way it can differentiate a digital audio file which was originally recorded with an analogue tape machine from a digital audio file which was originally recorded digitally. Let's not forget that with the exception of purely synthesized music, all recordings start life in the analogue domain.

G
 
I don't think you have learned anything interesting because your recordings are obviously NOT analogue. You cannot upload an analogue tape to YT (or anywhere else). Youtube just sees your digital audio file, there is no way it can differentiate a digital audio file which was originally recorded with an analogue tape machine from a digital audio file which was originally recorded digitally. Let's not forget that with the exception of purely synthesized music, all recordings start life in the analogue domain.

G

I'm aware of this, yes. The point I am making, is that the rougher style of the recordings likely has an impact on the Content ID. I tested it this week - I wired my mics into my analog mixer/tape and into my audio interface at once, and recorded analog and digital recording of a Bob Dylan song (Forever Young) that I always get Content ID'd on. The one recorded on tape didn't get content ID'd from the same recording, the clean, digital version did. I'm not saying it's 'because it's analog' - I'm saying because it was initially recorded ON analog tools, the recording is rougher, and less recognizable to their system.

I'm aware it's not analog when it gets uploaded to Youtube - Of course. It's the sound of a recording that was mixed and mastered analog originally - the crooning high notes and cracking guitar - the simplicity of the sound in comparison to a shiny digital take.

It's no different than Neil Young releasing a fully analog album this year - Just because it's technically 'digital' by the time it hits my Spotify, doesn't mean that it wasn't recorded on older, tougher tools to give it a more aged, cracking sound.
 
Last edited:
I'm not saying it's 'because it's analog' - I'm saying because it was initially recorded ON analog tools, the recording is rougher, and less recognizable to their system.

The analogue studio recording is "rougher" than what? A digital recording of a live gig, a studio digital recording with a high noise floor, poor or improperly positioned mics or a clean digital recording which has had tape saturation and/or other analogue modelling software applied? These are just a few of many examples of how a digital recording can be "rougher" or noisier than an analogue recording and AFAIK there is currently no software capable of reliably identifying a digital recording originally mixed in analogue from one originally mixed in digital and even if there were, I can't see Youtube attempting to implement it. Aso, let's not forget that even a completely digital recording is not actually completely digital, several "analog tools" have to be used even in a digital recording and those tools impart a significant sonic signature (mics and mic pre-amps at least).

Far more likely is that CD or other digital metadata is being preserved by your ripping/recording software and Youtube is simply reading that metadata.

G
 
I really like the Nirvana cover – you've got a good voice and the style is cool.

I actually think it would fit really well as a credits song for the IT Community Project. Is that something you might be interested in? I'm not sure what the cover licensing fee would cost us, but I could look into it if you're interested.
 
Far more likely is that CD or other digital metadata is being preserved by your ripping/recording software and Youtube is simply reading that metadata.

G


Regardless, for the same recording, Youtube Content ID picks up the recording that went through the audio interface - and digitally sounded much clearer, with less hum, buzz, or harshness. It doesn't pick up the same recording that was digitized from tape - which sounds much rougher.

I don't mean to start a massive debate/argument over the semantics of analog/digital, and how my recordings are not actually analog. There's a much different point I'm trying to convey - The sound that results from an analog recording is something that is more different and unique than if it sounded all pretty and polished from my interface instead. It's the same exact reason someone Neil Young would record an entire album in a 1940's phone booth, or the White Stripes would record on a tape recorder being held together with duck tape. YES - The recordings will become digital when they are uploaded to digital platforms such as Youtube - I am NOT debating that. Nor am I debating that the software can recognize the difference between something recorded on analog and digital - I'm really not arguing that at all.

I am purely making the assessment that the harsher sound from the tape recording - One with buzz and hum, doesn't seem to be afflicted by Content ID.

To further my point of 'why' you'd want the rougher sound, or 'what' the rougher sound is, see the video below. I think it's an exceptional example of an artist utilizing a rougher, older recording method to achieve an artistic sound, even though, yes, it will be digitized later.

The whole idea of the series is that it is more of an artistic styling to do the songs on tape - less about whether or not it's truly analog, since after it goes to Youtube, it isn't. It's just a fun way to present songs in a style that's a bit more interesting that if I miced myself up and made it sound like a modern studio recording. It just so happened that the harsher sound of the tape recording didn't seem to get picked on by Content ID.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H47jI6xanA
 
Last edited:
I really like the Nirvana cover – you've got a good voice and the style is cool.

I actually think it would fit really well as a credits song for the IT Community Project. Is that something you might be interested in? I'm not sure what the cover licensing fee would cost us, but I could look into it if you're interested.

Thanks Nick! I'd love to have you guys use it. If you want, even, I could always hop back into the studio and record a cleaner version with multiple instruments and whatnot on digital equipment. But, if you like the rougher sound of the analog, that works too!
 
I am purely making the assessment that the harsher sound from the tape recording - One with buzz and hum, doesn't seem to be afflicted by Content ID.

I was making the point that your conclusion, what you thought you learned, is in fact based on a non-sequitur argument. I am not debating the artistic (or marketing) merits of recording in analogue or of deliberately "distressing" a recording (analogue or digital).

G
 
I was making the point that your conclusion, what you thought you learned, is in fact based on a non-sequitur argument. I am not debating the artistic (or marketing) merits of recording in analogue or of deliberately "distressing" a recording (analogue or digital).

G


I think I misphrased my conclusion, because I still think it makes a lot of sense. I did learn that Youtube's Content ID has much more difficulty picking up a more distressed, rough recording, than the same recording more clearer. While it logistically has nothing to do with the former recording being analog, because that can't be determined by the system, the method of recording still impacted the song enough to not allow Content ID to pick it up.
 
While it logistically has nothing to do with the former recording being analog, because that can't be determined by the system, the method of recording still impacted the song enough to not allow Content ID to pick it up.

If you can't see the logical contradiction in this statement, there's no point in continuing this discussion. You are of course free to believe whatever you want but IHMO, it might be better if you kept this particular nugget of "information" to yourself.

G
 
If you can't see the logical contradiction in this statement, there's no point in continuing this discussion. You are of course free to believe whatever you want but IHMO, it might be better if you kept this particular nugget of "information" to yourself.

G


Clearly you're entirely missing the point I'm making - so much so, that you quoted it and misunderstood it further. The point I made in that quote, is that I do understand the system on Content ID can't identify how something was recorded, so saying 'because it was recorded analog' is a moot point. However, the recording style did impact the sound of the recording, thus, Content ID didn't pick it up, which would have otherwise happened if the same recording had been polished having gone through digital equipment first, without ever being on tape.

The entirety of my point, is that technically, no it doesn't make a difference it's recorded on analog. Not to Content ID, no. But, since it was recorded on analog, the recording sounds different, and more rough, hence, why it wasn't picked up. It's not a contradiction, because I'm saying that technically, no, it doesn't make a difference. However, the sound does - and the sound is achieved by recording it first on analog.

We obviously aren't going to get anywhere regarding this, you're missing my point entirely, and apparently, I'm missing yours? So let's leave it, and focus back on the music, which was the point of this thread, after all.
 
Last edited:
It's not a contradiction, because I'm saying that technically, no, it doesn't make a difference. However, the sound does - and the sound is achieved by recording it first on analog.

It's really very simple, either an analogue recording is changing the sound (relative to a digital recording) and Content ID can detect that change/difference and therefore behaves differently or it can't detect the difference and Content ID is behaving differently for some other reason (say metadata for example)!

G
 
It's really very simple, either an analogue recording is changing the sound (relative to a digital recording) and Content ID can detect that change/difference and therefore behaves differently or it can't detect the difference and Content ID is behaving differently for some other reason (say metadata for example)!

G

Well, can't we rule out metadata, because I recorded the same track on digital and analog at the same time, and both went through the same DAW - meaning they'd have the same metadata?

I think Content ID has trouble picking up the rougher sound. As you can hear in these recordings, there is a lot of crackle, buzz, etc. That could conflict with Content ID detecting them, because without the crackle and buzz, it does.
 
I think Content ID has trouble picking up the rougher sound. As you can hear in these recordings, there is a lot of crackle, buzz, etc.

It may or may not be the case that content ID struggles because of the rougher sound. Obviously there will come a point where extremely high noise levels would make identification impossible but the noise on your recordings while noticeable, is no where near extreme. I've certainly heard far noisier digital recordings (either deliberately "distressed", incompetently recorded or recorded in an uncontrolled environment). If recording in analogue really is what defeats content ID then it would seem bizarre to implement an identification system which would fail to identify ALL content without exception recorded before the mid 1990s and even a fair percentage of content since the mid 1990s. For example, it seems bizarre that Content ID can identify your digital recording "Come as You Are" but wouldn't be able to ID the original Nirvana CD release of "Come as You Are", which was of course recorded on analogue tape!

G
 
It may or may not be the case that content ID struggles because of the rougher sound. Obviously there will come a point where extremely high noise levels would make identification impossible but the noise on your recordings while noticeable, is no where near extreme. I've certainly heard far noisier digital recordings (either deliberately "distressed", incompetently recorded or recorded in an uncontrolled environment). If recording in analogue really is what defeats content ID then it would seem bizarre to implement an identification system which would fail to identify ALL content without exception recorded before the mid 1990s and even a fair percentage of content since the mid 1990s. For example, it seems bizarre that Content ID can identify your digital recording "Come as You Are" but wouldn't be able to ID the original Nirvana CD release of "Come as You Are", which was of course recorded on analogue tape!

G



Well, I think it's important to note that if content entered their system already having been initially recorded on analog, or having distressed sound, buzz, or hum, then it wouldn't make a difference to the system in that regard. If you use an old Elvis single in your video - it'll pick it up because it's the same recording as the one they are scanning for, regardless of quality.

In the cases of these videos of mine, the original recordings are very clean - if you listen to 'Come As You Are' as Nirvana's initial take, it's high, studio quality, which could explain why a much more distressed sound isn't picked up.

I think it's important to remember that the system is cross checking with what is already it's catalog of content to check for - so in that sense, the quality it is checking for is only as good as the quality of the original piece of work.
 
If you use an old Elvis single in your video - it'll pick it up because it's the same recording as the one they are scanning for, regardless of quality.

But here is your logical fallacy! Either the noise/quality of the recording does not affect Content ID, in which case your original assertion is incorrect, or it does affect Content ID, in which case a similarly distressed analogue re-recording of the old Elvis single would stand MORE chance of being picked-up by Content ID than a pristine digital recording, which is the exact opposite of your original assertion!

if you listen to 'Come As You Are' as Nirvana's initial take, it's high, studio quality, which could explain why a much more distressed sound isn't picked up.

That's exactly my point! With this quoted statement you now appear to be agreeing that the deciding factor could be a "more distressed sound" but that a "more distressed sound" is NOT a function of recording with analogue tape! If your recording and Nirvana's recording are BOTH analogue tape recordings then how can analogue tape recording be the differentiating factor? So even you seem to be saying that your statement "Since these recordings are in analog, the Youtube Content ID can't pick them up" is incorrect, which makes me wonder why and what you have been arguing all this time! Either way, I think it's time to knock this discourse on it's head.

G
 
Last edited:
hC5C3CAE2
 
But here is your logical fallacy! Either the noise/quality of the recording does not affect Content ID, in which case your original assertion is incorrect, or it does affect Content ID, in which case a similarly distressed analogue re-recording of the old Elvis single would stand MORE chance of being picked-up by Content ID than a pristine digital recording, which is the exact opposite of your original assertion!



That's exactly my point! With this quoted statement you now appear to be agreeing that the deciding factor could be a "more distressed sound" but that a "more distressed sound" is NOT a function of recording with analogue tape! If your recording and Nirvana's recording are BOTH analogue tape recordings then how can analogue tape recording be the differentiating factor? So even you seem to be saying that your statement "Since these recordings are in analog, the Youtube Content ID can't pick them up" is incorrect, which makes me wonder why and what you have been arguing all this time! Either way, I think it's time to knock this discourse on it's head.

G

Alright -

If you read my statements in the thread, I conceded that the actual, physical process of 'recording in analog' does NOT affect Content ID - that's something we already established, and I never argued. I argued that as a RESULT of recording in analog, the sound is distressed - So yes, logically, the recording process had an effect on the quality of the outtake, thus allowing it to not be picked up by Content ID. I'm not sure how much more I have to argue this...

Furthermore - If you read my post, the post you quoted, I was stating that for an older recording, something LIKE an old Elvis outtake, the distressed sound is ALREADY there, so having it in your own recording could be picked up by Content ID, whereas something recorded more recently, in the past thirty years or so, would be a high enough studio quality that a low-quality version of that song wouldn't get picked up, either.
 
Back
Top