Less is best... I find there is to many distractions within a DAW and tend to keep things simple and clean. Like Bat if I want distortion on a guitar I record it that way. 

Danny Danzi
 The more I learn....the less I use.

Whoo Hoo! That is good news!
 
For me it has become, the less I earn, the less I use :)
 
I was worried I was missing out on the really good stuff...

One of the things about tape (and console) emulation that seems rarely considered or discussed is that through the entire history of tape recorders for hi-fi/professional/studio use the designers were constantly trying to come up with better designs, better tapes and better techniques.

"Better" meaning tape recording would have wider frequency and dynamic response, less flutter, less hiss, less compression, less saturation, less print-through and crosstalk etc. And that was what the studio market in particular wanted in new recording machines.

In those terms digital recording is unbeatable.

The downside of digital recording is that humans often prefer a subtly different and "distorted" sound of the kind hardware produces as a by-product of it working at all.

As for tape emulators I personally think they are best handled as if you were actually recording to tape at the time that emulated tale machine was in use. Which means keeping track levels low enough not to risk overloading the "tape", and high enough not to get lost in the background noise. The effect of the tape emulation should be almost un-noticable on individual tracks and busses, it's only when multiple tracks are playing back that the effect should make a noticeable difference.

Of course, if you want to use tape emulation to have clearly audible effects for "artistic" purposes, feel free to do so. But if you want the kind of sound pre-digital recordings had, then engineer them like a pre-digital engineer. Which means less is better than more as far as recording chain emulation is concerned.

And as Danny says, after a certain point digital emulations of distortion also sound less appealing, less organic and less musical than analogue hardware circuit created distortion. I've tried pretty much every software guitar rig emulator and I still keep coming back to amps and Sansamps and things like Fuzz Faces because they sound and react differently to the supposed emulations.

What was not so great about the whole tape thing in the past is that everything had to go to tape and everything ended up with that sound.  Which can be fine of course but today we have much better options.  And the main one being we can now effect only part of a mix and that is where using things like this can be great.  Just create a buss and send stuff there that you want to have this effect on and apply it there instead of all over everything.  That sort of defeats the purpose actually.
 
It is a bit like if you have everything in your mix sounding trebly and toppy then what actually happens is nothing in the end is trebly or toppy.  Nothing stands out because everything is toppy.  (and you also end up with a horribly toppy mix which many do!)  What can really work great in a mix is that most tracks have a warm smooth sound and you only make a few things trebly or toppy.  Then it is like looking into the night sky and seeing most stars at a lower level of brightness but only a few are really bright and they tend to stand out.  (You actually only need extended high end on very few parts!)
 
You can apply that to tape emulation too.  Just use it sparingly here and there over just one or two parts and then you stand a much better chance of hearing it.  I have a Revox B77 half track high speed mastering machine and to be honest not many tape emulators sound as good really.  I still find it is better to just send that track or buss over to it and back.  (but even so that is a hassle)  But I am sure there are some really great emulators around but then they might cost more too.
 
I am in the Danny and Bats camp too on this.  Switch it all off and revel in how clear and fantastic your mix actually suddenly sounds.  Who says analog tape recording is the becnchmark.  It might not be actually.  Get back to making the composition, the playing, a fabulous live sound and the capturing really good.  Then you may loose interest in tape emulators.  They may not be important.  Having said that though sometimes some tape saturation can be just the ticket on some parts. But you don't have to do it over the whole mix though.

interesting read, and no mention of u-he satin, dunno if any of you demo'd it :)
 

I like to replace compressors with Tape sims sometimes if the comp seems too much or if the drums sound like they have too much high end. (Toontrack products all seem to bright to me for example), but I have found a good thing to do before mixing is to turn everything off (Eq's, comps and reverbs) and just listen to it for a while. I tend to mix as I go...so having this new clear picture is always eye (or ear) opening.
Of course...Danny, Jeff, Bat and Bitflipper far exceed my talent.

I've been using the Waves Kramer Tape running in a parallel bus when finalizing a mix. Very low and blended into the master. It's a nice touch and running parallel doesn't affect the mix space. Would I miss it if I didn't have it? Not likely, but I like it in very small doses.
 
Regards,
Dan
 
 

Dan, that's an interesting approach and one I'd like to play with.
 
I am DEFINITELY convinced not to use these things everywhere as just a matter of course. In fact, I already sold my Slate VTM and I'm selling the VCC on KVR right now. I really appreciate everyone sharing their thoughts here - veyr good stuff! This dialog has been very different from the hype found everywhere else.
 
If you're interested, you can hear the final song (without all those saturators) here: https://soundcloud.com/jamesfoxall/ultraviolet
 
Special thanks to Danny for all of his help! :)

tlw
One of the things about tape (and console) emulation that seems rarely considered or discussed is that through the entire history of tape recorders for hi-fi/professional/studio use the designers were constantly trying to come up with better designs, better tapes and better techniques.

"Better" meaning tape recording would have wider frequency and dynamic response, less flutter, less hiss, less compression, less saturation, less print-through and crosstalk etc. And that was what the studio market in particular wanted in new recording machines.

In those terms digital recording is unbeatable.

The downside of digital recording is that humans often prefer a subtly different and "distorted" sound of the kind hardware produces as a by-product of it working at all.

As for tape emulators I personally think they are best handled as if you were actually recording to tape at the time that emulated tale machine was in use. Which means keeping track levels low enough not to risk overloading the "tape", and high enough not to get lost in the background noise. The effect of the tape emulation should be almost un-noticable on individual tracks and busses, it's only when multiple tracks are playing back that the effect should make a noticeable difference.

Of course, if you want to use tape emulation to have clearly audible effects for "artistic" purposes, feel free to do so. But if you want the kind of sound pre-digital recordings had, then engineer them like a pre-digital engineer. Which means less is better than more as far as recording chain emulation is concerned.

And as Danny says, after a certain point digital emulations of distortion also sound less appealing, less organic and less musical than analogue hardware circuit created distortion. I've tried pretty much every software guitar rig emulator and I still keep coming back to amps and Sansamps and things like Fuzz Faces because they sound and react differently to the supposed emulations.

Great post, tlw! It's amazing how people think digital is the enemy when in all actuality analog was the one that colored everything. It's funny....I have a few older dudes that are learning Sonar and "the new way to record" with me that are die-hard tape/analog guys. They absolutely hate digital and keep on blaming it for their sounds falling short. What they are learning is....digital is unforgiving when it captures something that isn't such a good sound. Analog and tape machines warmed up sounds that were a bit brittle and the saturation compressed things in a good way.
 
Even there, a weak sound is a weak sound...even in the tape domain. If anything, the guys are learning to be a bit more careful in how they mic up as well as the instrument sounds they select. This also saves them from working so hard trying to make something work in the mix....which the 4 of them have admitted to over the years. These days I don't spend more than a half hour trying to make a sound work. If it fails, I re-track or sample something. That said I've been lucky as I've not had a 30 minute failure episode in quite a few years. LOL! (Thank God!)
 
Clint: You should be able to get away with low passing the Toontrack stuff. All their cymbals are a little hissy to my ears. Just create a template where all the drums come in on virtual tracks (stereo if it's easier) and low pass the OH track. Just be careful not to warm it up too much or it will effect the entire kit. Hats you can low pass also...they hiss like a snake most times. LOL!
 
Though I follow you with the tape thing over the compressor on drums, you definitely want the RIGHT compressor before you make the call to use a tape sim....in MY opinion of course. You'll be better off with a comp than a tape sim adding dullness and drive to your drums....then again, if you want that sound....there is nothing wrong with it. Sometimes drums sound good with a bit o' grit...but me....I like things clean these days. My whole analog life was dull and sort of missing that "smile" in clarity that digital gives me. Don't get me wrong, that's not totally the tape's fault....it's mine as 75% of it was engineer error on my part. Knowing what I know now.....I should fire up my old 2 inch tape....haha...uggh, just the thought of that makes me cringe....and smelling the rubber conditioner and metal cleaner in my mind makes me wanna hang myself. :-Þ
 
Fog: Never heard of that one...will check it out...then again, the UAD Studer is so amazing, I probably wouldn't get anything else right now and it's rare for me to use the Studer. When I do though, it's close enough to tape for me.
 
Jeff: You know, some people just like the tape sound better. I remember when CD's first came out. I hated them....I mean really hated them. I didn't get a CD player for 5 years after they came out because I just couldn't like it no matter how hard I tried. But....they didn't have the converters we have now...and everyone was a bit too happy with the high end they could gain. Once I warmed up to the digital sound, nothing I had compared. I listen to an album (all my albums are like mint) and it just seems so lifeless like when I recorded and mixed on tape. The energy just seems to be lacking to me....which is why it makes me wonder why anyone would even want to simulate it or go back? It's just so limited compared to what we can do now. I'm trying to talk James out of even using these things. LOL!! But hey, look at Dan up there....that's a good method to try that I didn't think of using...and he's a pretty darned good engineer. Good tip Dan!
 
James: You're welcome....you did the work brother and we made a great team! :)
 
-Danny

This thread does make me wonder how many of you have tried Harrison Mixbus? It of course has console emulation and tape saturation. You can choose to not use the tape saturation.
I haven't done much but play around with it, but it does seem to have a very nice sound. I don't ever use the console emulation in Sonar.
I've always thought Harrison would be good to have, but I have only kept my Sonar stuff so far.