munmun
Max Output Level: -64 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1319
- Joined: 2005/02/10 21:04:27
- Location: Toronto, Canada
- Status: offline
|
droddey
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5147
- Joined: 2007/02/09 03:44:49
- Location: Mountain View, CA
- Status: offline
Re:Tape versus digital
2013/01/26 17:18:32
(permalink)
Of course for a real comparison for most of the people who will read it, it would have required skipping the nice console for the digital side of it, since most folks aren't getting the benefits of one of those either in their digital setups.
|
michaelhanson
Max Output Level: -40 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3529
- Joined: 2008/10/31 15:19:56
- Location: Mesquite, Texas
- Status: offline
Re:Tape versus digital
2013/01/26 19:24:01
(permalink)
Or a room as nice as Ocean Way.
|
batsbrew
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10037
- Joined: 2007/06/07 16:02:32
- Location: SL,UT
- Status: offline
Re:Tape versus digital
2013/01/26 20:20:47
(permalink)
yea, it aint' apples and oranges
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
Re:Tape versus digital
2013/01/27 17:33:21
(permalink)
Are we really supposed to listen to streaming mp3s and appreciate the difference? They should have 24/96 downloads if they want to make the article worth taking the time to read. I gave up half way through. I thought the U47 Fet on the stand up bass sounded fantastic... a darn good player with an ideal capture chain. Yikes! best regards, mike
|
batsbrew
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10037
- Joined: 2007/06/07 16:02:32
- Location: SL,UT
- Status: offline
Re:Tape versus digital
2013/01/31 18:17:42
(permalink)
so basically, he said it was only worth it to hit tape for the drums and the bass, and on that matter, the same could be had digitally 'with a little bit of processing'.
|
timidi
Max Output Level: -21 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5449
- Joined: 2006/04/11 12:55:15
- Location: SE Florida
- Status: offline
Re:Tape versus digital
2013/01/31 18:26:37
(permalink)
I think the reason I like tape is because it sounds so bad. Really.
|
bapu
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 86000
- Joined: 2006/11/25 21:23:28
- Location: Thousand Oaks, CA
- Status: offline
Re:Tape versus digital
2013/01/31 19:02:25
(permalink)
batsbrew so basically, he said it was only worth it to hit tape for the drums and the bass, and on that matter, the same could be had digitally 'with a little bit of processing'. I seem to recall reading or hearing "back in the early day of digital recording" that Quicy Jones would record all of MJs drums to tape, transfer them once to digital, use the digital for tracking and pre-mixing, then an only then would he sync up the tape to digital for final mix so as to keep the tape pristine (no constant rewinds and playing to wear down the signal). Probably a lie but it sounds good, roight? (see what I did there?)
|
Jeff Evans
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5139
- Joined: 2009/04/13 18:20:16
- Location: Ballarat, Australia
- Status: offline
Re:Tape versus digital
2013/01/31 20:55:54
(permalink)
Actually bapu I think I might have read that they cloned the 24 track with the drums on it after doing all the drums to another 24 track in sync and put the first fresh original one away. Then they did all the overdubbing and stuff and for the mix they may have synced up the original 24 track with the pristine drums on it and ran that into the mixing console along with the overdubs from the other tape which would have had more of a workout. The drums tended to suffer first though with repeated shuffling around of the transport. The other stuff survived much better. I think too with Fleetwood Mac 'Rumours' at one point the multi was really starting to show signs of wear and they had to clone it onto a new tape before finishing the overdubs. You do not need tape machines now to get that sound. I have still got them here so I know how they sound. (I only have them because I still have a huge analog tape library I have to transfer to digital yet!) There are some fantastic plugs out there that can do that. I have got some plugs that are very very similar to the machines I have and they sound stellar. What I like is that you can now selectively put the tape sound just here and there on tracks or the odd buss, not everything as you were forced to do earlier. From that standpoint alone digital is far superior. Same thing applies to console emulation. It has reached new levels now too. Don't put it on everything though, that is silly because then you don't have any digital sound left do you! Some things just sound better digitally. Drums actually being one of them. Who says analog is the perfect sound and the level to achieve. Put digital in its place and make that the reference instead. Listen to it, get used to the sound and learn to love it. Then you start to see analog in a different light instead of this revered thing to look up to. You start to hear how inferior analog can sound in some situations.
Specs i5-2500K 3.5 Ghz - 8 Gb RAM - Win 7 64 bit - ATI Radeon HD6900 Series - RME PCI HDSP9632 - Steinberg Midex 8 Midi interface - Faderport 8- Studio One V4 - iMac 2.5Ghz Core i5 - Sierra 10.12.6 - Focusrite Clarett thunderbolt interface Poor minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas -Eleanor Roosevelt
|
Danny Danzi
Moderator
- Total Posts : 5810
- Joined: 2006/10/05 13:42:39
- Location: DanziLand, NJ
- Status: offline
Re:Tape versus digital
2013/02/01 02:50:42
(permalink)
Some things just sound better digitally. Drums actually being one of them. Who says analog is the perfect sound and the level to achieve. Put digital in its place and make that the reference instead. Listen to it, get used to the sound and learn to love it. Then you start to see analog in a different light instead of this revered thing to look up to. You start to hear how inferior analog can sound in some situations. Man Jeff, what a huge, impressively true statement! I can't agree more with what you said there. What's even more impressive is, you and I were both raised on tape, yet feel the same way about this digital stuff. The only thing I can say I like tape for is guitar sounds. I find that if I use my 24 track 2 inch machines via SMPTE and print guitars, the difference is I don't have to low pass as much and get a little tape saturation. Though that's cool to have, it's not something I need for every guitar I print. I'm really starting to like the digital sizzle as long as it doesn't cut like a razor. For drums...man, snares and cymbals have never sounded better than in the digital realm. Bass guitar...same thing...all the mud is gone. I guess my whole problem with analog and tape is, it just doesn't sound as exciting to me. I like the additional top end we get with digital as well as the sub lows that would normally sound bad on tape. Sub lows + tape saturation = mud in my realm and a very un-exciting piece. Granted, when controlled analog can be really cool too...I just don't see a need for it nor is it a necessity in my world. The greatest day of my recording life (other than when I learned how to mix lol) was when my good friend Mike Pincosi demanded I stop using my tape machine and start using Sonar due to all the power and automation I could have. I said "Fine, you teach me how to use it and I'll try it" and he did. I don't miss a single thing with tape. Especially now that I have that Studer tape sim from UAD....it's so spot on to what tape does and you have full control over how it can sound with bias and tape brand etc. As for console emulation, I'm still not sold on it other than the Waves stuff. However, the Waves CE's are a bit too dramatic. The channels they offer sometimes sound so different, if I had a NEVE or and SSL with that much of a difference in channel sounds, I'd get it repaired. So I'm still not buying into any of these things. Most of them add sizzle and drive more so than actual character. Rest assured, if you went through a real NEVE or an SSL without using anything on the channel other than a little pre to get to the right signal to push to disc, I'd be willing to bet you'd not even hear a difference. I hold true to my original statements about CE's...all CE's are hype and a total waste of time to me. They do absolutely nothing to enhance tone and are the furthest from what a real console sounds like. -Danny
post edited by Danny Danzi - 2013/02/01 02:52:15
My Site Fractal Audio Endorsed Artist & Beta Tester
|
Guitarhacker
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 24398
- Joined: 2007/12/07 12:51:18
- Location: NC
- Status: offline
Re:Tape versus digital
2013/02/01 08:47:49
(permalink)
I was not into recording with tape. I did have a Teac 4 track reel to reel and a Porta-One back in the day, and I did a few demo's in tape based studios before DAW's. I still have the 1/2" maters around here somewhere.... All my experience with tape is very limited but I do remember how much of a pain it was working with it. Trying to get punches in the right place. And splicing tape..... what a PITA. I love digital...and the features and the ease with which we can do things now that just a few years back were the domain of the engineers in the "big studios" exclusively. I recall a review of a CD release in Guitar Player Magazine. The CD was the TRIO. Linda Ronstadt, Emmy Lou Harris, and Dolly Parton along with the best acoustic pickers from Nashville. The review simply stated, said that "this project was the reason they invented the medium of the CD and digital recording" the nuances and quality of the vocals and the instruments were simply amazing.
My website & music: www.herbhartley.com MC4/5/6/X1e.c, on a Custom DAW Focusrite Firewire Saffire Interface BMI/NSAI "Just as the blade chooses the warrior, so too, the song chooses the writer "
|
batsbrew
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10037
- Joined: 2007/06/07 16:02:32
- Location: SL,UT
- Status: offline
Re:Tape versus digital
2013/02/01 11:25:07
(permalink)
had a mix..... spent weeks tracking it, multiple sessions, multiple players.... fostex 16 track reel to reel.... sounded good.... someone backed into the tape machine while it was running during final mix, made the tape eat itself. crinkled the tape, made an obvious 'divot' in the playback... i hate tape. always have.
|
Jeff Evans
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5139
- Joined: 2009/04/13 18:20:16
- Location: Ballarat, Australia
- Status: offline
Re:Tape versus digital
2013/02/01 15:30:48
(permalink)
Thanks Danny. Yeah I have grown up with tape and although it is possible to get the tape machines very flat they still exhibited some sonic changes. Like the bass end often adding to the deeper notes and the transient response not being perfect either. I think a lot of it comes from playing drums and recording engineering. I would go out and do gigs hearing my Sonor kit which out of interest has a high transient attack to the sound anyway, above normal for drums. Then after recording them I would be not completely happy with the snap on the drum sound. That was all around the late 70's and 80's for me. I do agree about guitars too. A fair while ago I had a mastering job that had some very jangly guitars in the mix and I found the only way was to transfer it to tape and back to digital. I found the tape soothed the guitar sound nicely. (and add a bit of bottom end weight too which suited this mix perfectly, it needed it) But the tape plugs can do the same thing now without all the fuss of tape machines etc..I have got a mastering job on right now where the client wants a Led Zeppelin final mix type sound. He has mentioned tape sims so I might be using those in this one. And on the subject of console emulation at the TAFE we have an SSL AWS 948 mixing console (hey its only $99,999 now at Sweetwater!) and that is a fine representation of a very high end analog console. When you compare monitoring direct out of the HD interfaces compared to the same tracks going through the SSL channel strips there is no magic sauce there. Even with all the EQ's and stuff switched in what you hear is a very close representation of the sound coming straight out of Pro Tools. The Mic Pres are sweet though and make all our mics sound much better! And batsbrew I feel for you! I think the worse thing is you have worked with a multitrack for days and during a high (and I mean fast people!) speed spooling operation something very bad goes wrong and you just see this mess turning very pear shaped and tape just flying up everywhere being ripped to shreds and people ducking while tape reels fly around the room because someone did not lock a reel down properly. But hey you know you can erase everything you have done in the digital world in a microsecond and even without anything obvious that something terrible has just happened. Isn't that a lovely feeling. But the tape going across the room is pretty awful too. Tape has got its issues too. Hiss being one of them and spending lots of time with Mr Dolby's stuff, crosstalk. Great, you can't record next to that track! Cutting tape, I do love that too. But you know I am reading the book 'Lennon' by Tim Riley (and loving it too, I highly recommend this book) I am amazed at the stuff George Martin was doing with tape even before the Beatles with radio plays and comedy stuff and all. Very creative. Analog mixers and tape machines also created the template for the wonderful technology we have today. And herb I have still got my 1/2 " machine and would be happy to transfer the tapes for you. I have even built the special oven for doing the baking if it needs it. I have got DBX and Dolby C noise reduction systems for that machine too. It is a beautiful Tascam 58 with a nice gentle pro transport. (I promise to keep your beloved masters in one piece!)
post edited by Jeff Evans - 2013/02/01 16:18:23
Specs i5-2500K 3.5 Ghz - 8 Gb RAM - Win 7 64 bit - ATI Radeon HD6900 Series - RME PCI HDSP9632 - Steinberg Midex 8 Midi interface - Faderport 8- Studio One V4 - iMac 2.5Ghz Core i5 - Sierra 10.12.6 - Focusrite Clarett thunderbolt interface Poor minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas -Eleanor Roosevelt
|
droddey
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5147
- Joined: 2007/02/09 03:44:49
- Location: Mountain View, CA
- Status: offline
Re:Tape versus digital
2013/02/01 16:23:10
(permalink)
I basically have come to take the position that Jack White does, that it's NOT SUPPOSED to be easy. It shouldn't be easy to do punch ins. It shouldn't be easy to tune and comp and time and quantize and sample replace. It's only because digital allows those things easily that they have become more important than actual skill these days for most people. The more primitive tools of the past forced people to generally consider actually becoming good players and actually playing it right as the first line of attack, whereas these days I wonder if it's even above third on the list. I think that the limitations of reproduction of analog gear is a good thing really. It's like film vs. video. Video looks vastly more realistic, but who wants to go to the movies and see that? People have spent lots of bucks creating digital cameras which don't look like video, because there's no romance in video. The same issues apply in music. There's just not as much romance in digital, so people jump through hoops to try to get some back in. Not that I think that tape is coming back by any means. It's clearly an economic impossibility at that point. But it seems like half the effort of developers in the plugin world is to hide the lack of romance in digital. Now if they could just put as much effort into making the tools extremely hard to use for tuning, timing, comping, quantizing, and replacing, we might see a resurgance of respect for actual musical skill. A return to live performance as a requirement for being (or trying to become) a professional musician would help in that respect as well, since 90% of the apparently perfect music out there would get their makers laughed off the stage if they had to actually perform it probably. That would provide a strong filtering mechanism, which the music world needs desparately these days.
|
Jeff Evans
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5139
- Joined: 2009/04/13 18:20:16
- Location: Ballarat, Australia
- Status: offline
Re:Tape versus digital
2013/02/01 16:54:48
(permalink)
That is a good point Dean and I agree with it in many ways. I have not been talking about the music or performance so much as the medium itself. But there is no reason why you cannot use the same mentality with a great sounding digital system. Just record tracks, leave out the click, don't edit, don't use many plugins at all and restrict how many tracks you actually work with. It is as easy as that. But of course that is hard too. Why have so many tools and techniques available to you but restrict yourself in terms of how you use them. You don't have to work in analog though to be like this, you can do it in digital. Work in digital, change your approach. There is a good argument for it in that it forces you to bring out the best with what you are working with at the time. But you don't have to go too far the other way either. There is a balance in between. People like Danny Danzi are using modern recording technologies but still getting great performances, great sounds leaving the amps etc and things before even getting to the DAW. But then going a little further inside the technology making the music more interesting and exciting and I try to work that way too. A great band playing a great tune or arrangement is a delightful thing for sure. Synthesisers (and sounds) are something you can have too many of for sure and many people around here have far too many and are still buying more. I had very limited synth resources when I first started out. (3 things, one drum machine, one monophonic instrument (Korg modular though!) and one Oberheim polyphonic beast. I craved to have a room full of instruments like the famous synth composers. I did not but learned how to make the ones I had do everything and more that is for sure. And also combined with a handful of effects like spring reverbs, flangers and phasers, Leslie speakers, Space Echo to be able to disguise the sounds of those synths even further and make them sound like I had many more. And of course tons of multi tracking and bouncing to get a simple monophonic instrument to end up creating a dense complex texture. Those were the days! But even with synths we have got modern VST's now that are just out of this world and can do stuff the old analog beasts could not even contemplate.
post edited by Jeff Evans - 2013/02/01 17:15:35
Specs i5-2500K 3.5 Ghz - 8 Gb RAM - Win 7 64 bit - ATI Radeon HD6900 Series - RME PCI HDSP9632 - Steinberg Midex 8 Midi interface - Faderport 8- Studio One V4 - iMac 2.5Ghz Core i5 - Sierra 10.12.6 - Focusrite Clarett thunderbolt interface Poor minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas -Eleanor Roosevelt
|
michaelhanson
Max Output Level: -40 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3529
- Joined: 2008/10/31 15:19:56
- Location: Mesquite, Texas
- Status: offline
Re:Tape versus digital
2013/02/01 16:55:33
(permalink)
Too funny, I am reading the same book Jeff. Interesting discussion going on here.
|
batsbrew
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10037
- Joined: 2007/06/07 16:02:32
- Location: SL,UT
- Status: offline
Re:Tape versus digital
2013/02/01 17:31:19
(permalink)
i use the digital medium (sonar) just like i did the tape machine. i don't edit stuff, i just hit record, get a capture, if it passes muster, i move on, and if it sucks (more times than not) i punch in a new pass, and never ever keep the old stuff. LOL but, the way you use the media aside, i find the digital media much more powerful in every respect, and much easier to manipulate the SOUND, so if i want something deadly precise i can get it, and if i want something to sound vintagey, i can get that TOO
|
foxwolfen
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 8256
- Joined: 2008/03/29 23:41:47
- Status: offline
Re:Tape versus digital
2013/02/02 19:15:28
(permalink)
There is no denying from the samples the differences in warmth and clarity between the two. What a person prefers is really irrelevant today as we have the option of both. A good engineer should not be concerned about analogue or digital, but about good sound however it is achieved.
A scientist knows more & more about less & less till he knows everything about nothing, while a philosopher knows less & less about more & more till he knows nothing about everything. Composers Forum
|
sharke
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 13933
- Joined: 2012/08/03 00:13:00
- Location: NYC
- Status: offline
Re:Tape versus digital
2013/02/07 17:40:24
(permalink)
I'd love to know what Zappa would have done with a modern DAW. That man was a genius when it came to splicing tape. The thing about Zappa was, it wasn't just that he was a great composer, but he was also a great "organizer." He said so in his book, "Just give me some stuff, and I'll organize it for you." I think in that respect, he would have loved a program like Sonar.
JamesWindows 10, Sonar SPlat (64-bit), Intel i7-4930K, 32GB RAM, RME Babyface, AKAI MPK Mini, Roland A-800 Pro, Focusrite VRM Box, Komplete 10 Ultimate, 2012 American Telecaster!
|
Bristol_Jonesey
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 16775
- Joined: 2007/10/08 15:41:17
- Location: Bristol, UK
- Status: offline
Re:Tape versus digital
2013/02/08 05:10:46
(permalink)
Zappa was always an innovator and lived at the cutting edge of technology throughout his illustrious career. The way he embraced Synclavier technology is surely as good a pointer as any that he would have also embraced a modern DAW. He would have loved it
CbB, Platinum, 64 bit throughoutCustom built i7 3930, 32Gb RAM, 2 x 1Tb Internal HDD, 1 x 1TB system SSD (Win 7), 1 x 500Gb system SSD (Win 10), 2 x 1Tb External HDD's, Dual boot Win 7 & Win 10 64 Bit, Saffire Pro 26, ISA One, Adam P11A,
|
droddey
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5147
- Joined: 2007/02/09 03:44:49
- Location: Mountain View, CA
- Status: offline
Re:Tape versus digital
2013/02/08 17:20:55
(permalink)
There's nothing wrong with being experimental and playing around with tools. It's always been done. A problem today is how many people are putting out music that is *apparently* reasonably organic, when it fact it is a petroleum product, and not being honest about it. And of course the other problem today is how many people are putting out stuff far beyond what they can actually perform, but presenting it as something they performed. If someone puts out clearly electronic or experimental music, then that's fine. There's nothing wrong with it, and I like a lot of it.
|
AT
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10654
- Joined: 2004/01/09 10:42:46
- Location: TeXaS
- Status: offline
Re:Tape versus digital
2013/02/08 21:20:59
(permalink)
Funny Droddey. I have a friend who is playing live w/ Chrysta Bell. david lynch (the film maker) wrote/performed/produced the music for her. My buddy had the job of making the studio stuff translate to a real, live band. Drove him crazy, but he got 'er done. Which is good, he gets to tour all over Europe etc. I love a lot of things about digital - I couldn't do the kind of music I do w/o a lot of DAW tricks. But I love the sound of analog on most things. Digital synths sound more real. everything sounds ... thicker. @ @
https://soundcloud.com/a-pleasure-dome http://www.bnoir-film.com/ there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
|