Brief Summary
In this article Julian looks to the world of watchmaking to try to answer a much debated question in pro audio. Using analogue equipment is worse in every quantifiable way than the modern alternatives. Why do we still want it?
Going Deeper
Seeing the pro audio world from the perspective of an outsider, by which I mean someone who doesn’t fill their time thinking about the production process or the gear associated with it, isn’t really possible. It’s like me trying to understand how I sound to a French speaker when I speak French. It’s a perspective which is withheld from us because of who we are.
I am aware that, to the outsider, overhearing audio people having a detailed conversation about audio stuff is more than just uninteresting, it’s irrelevant, sometimes comically so. I enjoy the opportunity to AB different mics, preamps or compressors. Trying to convince someone without a background in audio that that is a sensible use of an adult’s time is probably futile. But they would however see people with a shared passion enjoying their mutual interest and hopefully appreciate that as a good thing in itself, even if it is slightly bewildering from the outside.
On to what might at first inspection seem like a completely unrelated matter, the other day I was wasting some time on YouTube when I came across a video of John Mayer and Ed Sheeran. Assuming it to be something about songwriting or playing guitar I was surprised to see it was a discussion of watches, and the video was over an hour long! Intrigued, I clicked on it and I found a version of the outsider perspective I was referring to above.
I haven’t worn a watch since I was 15. Being very much the stereotypically unaware adolescent, one day I left my watch in the changing rooms at school, didn’t notice for some days and then didn’t make any attempt to locate it. Rather than fess up to my mum I just didn’t say anything and quietly stopped wearing a watch. I suspect she’d be OK with it by now! In the intervening decades the landscape in which watches find themselves has changed unrecognisably. And the more I think about it the more familiar that seems…
Having watched the video on watches I think I know what it feels like to people who aren’t interested or involved in audio when two gear-heads get together. And unexpectedly I’ve since noticed several similarities between the history of watches and pro audio. However I’m not sure whether than makes me feel more or less comfortable with being a card-carrying audio-bore…
For example, there is the role military significance played in the early development of both the wristwatch and recording technology. In the late 19th and early 20th century accurate timekeeping for the synchronization of military operations became more important and the then-prevalent pocket watches weren’t suitable for use on the battlefield, particularly on horseback. The early development of the tape recorder was dramatically improved by the use of biasing by Nazi Germany in World War 2 and was used to broadcast propaganda across timezones.
But the real striking parallel between the watch and the pro audio industries is the move from analogue to digital audio when compared to the move from mechanical to quartz watch movements. In 1969 Seiko first introduced a watch mechanism based on the oscillation of a quartz crystal. If you look into the development of the mechanical watch mechanism from its earliest beginnings to the golden age of mechanical watch building in the mid 20th century you have to admire the ingenuity and craftsmanship which goes into these objects. The same can be said of analogue recording technology, looking at the detail of a Studer tape machine or a 70s Neve console, they are remarkable examples of ingenious design and the kind of engineering which simply can’t be done cheaply.
Mechanical watches oscillate at a frequency around 5Hz and are accurate, in the very best cases, to within a handful of seconds a day. Even the earliest quartz mechanism oscillated at around 8kHz and was accurate to +/- 12 seconds per year. Today quartz watches oscillate at over 32kHz and are accurate to +/-5 seconds a year. The new technology is both orders of magnitude cheaper and orders of magnitude more accurate - sound familiar? It sounds a lot to me like the move from analogue to digital audio.
For different reasons both the technology behind the quartz revolution which decimated the Swiss Watch industry in the 70s and 80s and the digital audio revolution which did much the same to magnetic tape weren’t protected by patents, so multiple manufacturers were able to work on and develop the technology. The quartz mechanism was never patented and PCM was patented in 1937, so by the time it was a viable technology the patent had long expired.
Dedicated Hardware Becomes Unnecessary
Then there is software. I haven’t worn a watch since I was 15 but I’ve been happily carrying a time piece since the mid 90s, built into my phone. In the same way as the equivalent of ‘obsolete’ tape machines, analogue consoles, tube compressors and plate reverbs are all still around in virtual form, the equivalent of timepieces are more common than ever. When was the last time someone in the street asked you whether you had the time? And the real kicker for the mechanical watch industry is that that virtual timepiece, whether a phone app or a smart watch is better at telling the time than a mechanical watch often costing as much as a car, and sometimes costing as much as a house. Someone somewhere is thinking that that is ridiculous, sitting next to a two inch tape machine and an analogue console, while reading this on a laptop with a DAW installed on it. Are they ridiculous too? I’d say no.
So Why Do We Use ‘Inferior’ Technology?
Those analogue tools aren’t there because they are efficient, because they are the most accurate or because they are the best way to do the job. They are there because the person who chooses to use them does so because of how those tools make them feel. You can get the sound of any piece of analogue equipment from a virtual equivalent these days. Some will insist that isn’t the case and while differences might exist, in blind listening tests I’m confident a sample of trained listeners wouldn’t rate the real better than the virtual in a statistically significant manner (I’m ducking for cover as I write that but I still think it’s true). And in every practical way real analogue gear is worse than digital (other than resale value). However the difference is how these tools feel to use and how they influence the process of making recordings. The absence of option-paralysis induced by endless choices, the workflow which encourages commitment and decision making, the focus created by the occasion of a traditional studio recording session. All manner of changes, both big and small introduced to the process and also just the love of things for their own sake. As long as you can afford it then if you want to buy these things then that is up to you.
However ridiculous I think someone spending the equivalent of most people’s annual income on a luxury watch is, and I do think it’s ridiculous, I’m glad that these things still exist in the world outside of museums and that people still use them. If you haven’t seen the news that the EMI TG12345 console used to record the Beatles’ Abbey Road is being auctioned, I see it in a similar way. While it’s unlikely to have many records made on it in the future I’m glad it exists and is fully functioning. I’m sure many look at that with the same incredulity as I do a six figure watch!