|
Post by chazman on Jul 18, 2017 10:48:51 GMT -6
OK, so mixing a new project and want to hit my 1/4" Otari MX5050 BIII as it definitely add something I like sonically. Should I: Mix to tape and then back into computer to master as individual files- Mix and master on computer and then bounce to tape and back into the computer
Any advice, thoughts, etc would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,933
|
Post by ericn on Jul 18, 2017 11:20:18 GMT -6
Try mixing to tape first. You have the most control of how your hitting tape.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Jul 18, 2017 11:25:43 GMT -6
OK, so mixing a new project and want to hit my 1/4" Otari MX5050 BIII as it definitely add something I like sonically. Should I: Mix to tape and then back into computer to master as individual files- Mix and master on computer and then bounce to tape and back into the computer
Any advice, thoughts, etc would be greatly appreciated.
Mastering should be the final process in the chain. I might add we don't do our own mastering. Sending off mixes to be mastered only to get them back and then mess with them further by running them through another process no matter how much 'mojo' it may impart doesn't make any sense to me at all. For instance the mastering engineer feels the low end is a bit too heavy and tweaks the low end based upon the original mix. You get it back run it through the Otari and the head bump effect thickens up the low end again. You just potentially undid what the mastering engineer fixed.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jul 18, 2017 11:44:14 GMT -6
Of the times my clients have gone for the thing of dumping digital to tape at mastering and mastering off the tape (not since 20 bit days), only on a punk rock project can I say it added anything without doing harm to the mixes. You really need to mix to tape to be able to make changes based on what it does on playback.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2017 14:46:04 GMT -6
Whichever sounds best/whether or not your mastering engineer has a "better" tape machine than you!
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jul 18, 2017 15:02:17 GMT -6
OK, so mixing a new project and want to hit my 1/4" Otari MX5050 BIII as it definitely add something I like sonically. Should I: Mix to tape and then back into computer to master as individual files- Mix and master on computer and then bounce to tape and back into the computer
Any advice, thoughts, etc would be greatly appreciated.
Mastering is the last step in the process. That's why it's mastering. If you want a tape master use a mastering service that can provide you with one.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,933
|
Post by ericn on Jul 18, 2017 16:48:30 GMT -6
One of the biggest problems with tape simulators of all types is even if they nail the sound of a tape machine, they don't sound "like tape" because they don't force us to work like we do with real tape! So a transfer or using tape as an effects machine just won't get you there!
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jul 18, 2017 19:25:09 GMT -6
One of the biggest problems with tape simulators of all types is even if they nail the sound of a tape machine, they don't sound "like tape" because they don't force us to work like we do with real tape! So a transfer or using tape as an effects machine just won't get you there! And none of the sofware sims come close, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jul 19, 2017 8:38:48 GMT -6
FWIW I just mixed a record where I printed mixes straight off the console with no tape AND printed to tape.
I brought both to Pete Lyman at Infrasonic and asked him to decide which sounded better.
He chose tape.
I used NOS GP9 and an ampex 440b
I would have been happy using either. They had subtle differences which were easily apparent in an a/b. No tape felt a bit wider and had more extended bottom/sub info.
Tape felt a little more saturated/compressed in the 1k to 4k area with the sub roll off and a little pleasant smear or softening up top. What you'd expect I guess. The Subtle compression added something sweet to the drums and vocals.
Pete made his decision in about 15 seconds.
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Jul 19, 2017 16:26:00 GMT -6
I know Mike Wells will do layback mastering as an add on using his Aria/ATR 102. I imagine he requests a relatively clean 2 buss in that instance, have not done it. I have mastered with him with my mixes on 1/4" tape, and his machine does sound really great.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jul 19, 2017 16:46:08 GMT -6
What's best, of course, is tracking to tape - that's where you get the most benefit because for some reason tracking to digital first takes "something" out of it that you can't get back by going to tape later. Next is mixing to tape. Again, mixing to digital first and then dumping to tape doesn't do the same thing.
The thing is that most young guys who didn't grow up with it don't get is that tape is a medium, not an effect. You can't just stick it on as an afterthought and expect it to do the same thing.
It's kinda like photography. You can't do a film copy of a digital photograph and have it come out looking like it was shot on film in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jul 23, 2017 17:35:07 GMT -6
What's best, of course, is tracking to tape - that's where you get the most benefit because for some reason tracking to digital first takes "something" out of it that you can't get back by going to tape later. Next is mixing to tape. Again, mixing to digital first and then dumping to tape doesn't do the same thing. The thing is that most young guys who didn't grow up with it don't get is that tape is a medium, not an effect. You can't just stick it on as an afterthought and expect it to do the same thing. It's kinda like photography. You can't do a film copy of a digital photograph and have it come out looking like it was shot on film in the first place. While tracking to tape is great, I would argue with the idea that tape isn't an effect. It's absolutely become an effect and not much more. As a medium it is totally valueless to me. As an effect is the only way I use it. Why on earth would I use it as a medium only? The "effect" of using it is the only good thing about it. As a medium, tape is just completely obsolete. As an effect it's great. Thus...the tape sim craze. Plug in sellers keep making them because people keep buying them. People keep buying them because the effect sounds good...not for data storage. You may be slightly off the mark on this one John. Or maybe I'm nit picking semantics, which my wife would tell you I love to do.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,933
|
Post by ericn on Jul 23, 2017 18:48:04 GMT -6
What's best, of course, is tracking to tape - that's where you get the most benefit because for some reason tracking to digital first takes "something" out of it that you can't get back by going to tape later. Next is mixing to tape. Again, mixing to digital first and then dumping to tape doesn't do the same thing. The thing is that most young guys who didn't grow up with it don't get is that tape is a medium, not an effect. You can't just stick it on as an afterthought and expect it to do the same thing. It's kinda like photography. You can't do a film copy of a digital photograph and have it come out looking like it was shot on film in the first place. While tracking to tape is great, I would argue with the idea that tape isn't an effect. It's absolutely become an effect and not much more. As a medium it is totally valueless to me. As an effect is the only way I use it. Why on earth would I use it as a medium only? The "effect" of using it is the only good thing about it. As a medium, tape is just completely obsolete. As an effect it's great. Thus...the tape sim craze. Plug in sellers keep making them because people keep buying them. People keep buying them because the effect sounds good...not for data storage. You may be slightly off the mark on this one John. Or maybe I'm nit picking semantics, which my wife would tell you I love to do. I think a bit of this is generational, those of us who came up when digital recording was in its very infancy and there were no digital multitracks have a completely different view of how you work with tape!
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Jul 23, 2017 19:48:03 GMT -6
What's best, of course, is tracking to tape - that's where you get the most benefit because for some reason tracking to digital first takes "something" out of it that you can't get back by going to tape later. Next is mixing to tape. Again, mixing to digital first and then dumping to tape doesn't do the same thing. The thing is that most young guys who didn't grow up with it don't get is that tape is a medium, not an effect. You can't just stick it on as an afterthought and expect it to do the same thing. It's kinda like photography. You can't do a film copy of a digital photograph and have it come out looking like it was shot on film in the first place. While tracking to tape is great, I would argue with the idea that tape isn't an effect. It's absolutely become an effect and not much more. As a medium it is totally valueless to me. As an effect is the only way I use it. Why on earth would I use it as a medium only? The "effect" of using it is the only good thing about it. As a medium, tape is just completely obsolete. As an effect it's great. Thus...the tape sim craze. Plug in sellers keep making them because people keep buying them. People keep buying them because the effect sounds good...not for data storage. You may be slightly off the mark on this one John. Or maybe I'm nit picking semantics, which my wife would tell you I love to do. Its a decade ago I owned my M 15 A ..... I did learn in the digital world to not believe everything which they say in marketing. In other words. I dont care if Slates VTM sounds tapish... What I know by VTM is: It bends off transients. It can make the low end round and big. It pushes the lower midrange. It ads some 3 D nes to the source. With this its just another tool to me....
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jul 23, 2017 20:39:02 GMT -6
While tracking to tape is great, I would argue with the idea that tape isn't an effect. It's absolutely become an effect and not much more. As a medium it is totally valueless to me. As an effect is the only way I use it. Why on earth would I use it as a medium only? The "effect" of using it is the only good thing about it. As a medium, tape is just completely obsolete. As an effect it's great. Thus...the tape sim craze. Plug in sellers keep making them because people keep buying them. People keep buying them because the effect sounds good...not for data storage. You may be slightly off the mark on this one John. Or maybe I'm nit picking semantics, which my wife would tell you I love to do. I think a bit of this is generational, those of us who came up when digital recording was in its very infancy and there were no digital multitracks have a completely different view of how you work with tape! Agreed Eric. I totally understand that. I'm on the cusp age wise. Tape is a medium that has an effect. So...back then it just HAD an effect. Now it IS an effect.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jul 23, 2017 22:40:29 GMT -6
What's best, of course, is tracking to tape - that's where you get the most benefit because for some reason tracking to digital first takes "something" out of it that you can't get back by going to tape later. Next is mixing to tape. Again, mixing to digital first and then dumping to tape doesn't do the same thing. The thing is that most young guys who didn't grow up with it don't get is that tape is a medium, not an effect. You can't just stick it on as an afterthought and expect it to do the same thing. It's kinda like photography. You can't do a film copy of a digital photograph and have it come out looking like it was shot on film in the first place. While tracking to tape is great, I would argue with the idea that tape isn't an effect. It's absolutely become an effect and not much more. As a medium it is totally valueless to me. As an effect is the only way I use it. Why on earth would I use it as a medium only? The "effect" of using it is the only good thing about it. As a medium, tape is just completely obsolete. As an effect it's great. Thus...the tape sim craze. Plug in sellers keep making them because people keep buying them. People keep buying them because the effect sounds good...not for data storage. You may be slightly off the mark on this one John. Or maybe I'm nit picking semantics, which my wife would tell you I love to do. <chuckle> Without realizing it, you just put your finger on the primary reason that nearly all young guys using tape, and even worse all those godawful overblown tape sim plugins fail to achieve their goals, assuming that the goal is to evoke the feeling that people talk about getting from favorite analog recordings. They treat it as an effect and it's not, it's a medium. When you work in a tape based studio it isn't just about the sound of the tape in the machine. The reality of working with tape infuses everything. Gain structure, workflow, you have to be conscious of physical limitations and plan how you approach the production accordingly. You have to make decisions. It's a medium, and quite an immersive one to work in. BTW, the reason people keep buying that stuff is because all the gear pimps tell them they have to have it.
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jul 24, 2017 0:18:52 GMT -6
While tracking to tape is great, I would argue with the idea that tape isn't an effect. It's absolutely become an effect and not much more. As a medium it is totally valueless to me. As an effect is the only way I use it. Why on earth would I use it as a medium only? The "effect" of using it is the only good thing about it. As a medium, tape is just completely obsolete. As an effect it's great. Thus...the tape sim craze. Plug in sellers keep making them because people keep buying them. People keep buying them because the effect sounds good...not for data storage. You may be slightly off the mark on this one John. Or maybe I'm nit picking semantics, which my wife would tell you I love to do. <chuckle> Without realizing it, you just put your finger on the primary reason that nearly all young guys using tape, and even worse all those godawful overblown tape sim plugins fail to achieve their goals, assuming that the goal is to evoke the feeling that people talk about getting from favorite analog recordings. They treat it as an effect and it's not, it's a medium. When you work in a tape based studio it isn't just about the sound of the tape in the machine. The reality of working with tape infuses everything. Gain structure, workflow, you have to be conscious of physical limitations and plan how you approach the production accordingly. You have to make decisions. It's a medium, and quite an immersive one to work in. BTW, the reason people keep buying that stuff is because all the gear pimps tell them they have to have it. You have to do all that stuff no matter how you're recording. You just do it a little differently with tape. Without realizing it you just put your finger on the reason the tape myth persists...it's not that hard to do well. It's not trigonometry or playing piano or pedal steel and there isn't some hidden cabalistic masonic code to doing it well. You just practice and study and pester the old guys to teach you. I'd say that, in fact, It's easy to do. Any dummy willing to put in the time and effort can learn it. And I would STRONGLY disagree that nearly all the young guys using tape are failing to meet their goals. That's just not true at all. I'm a young guy using tape and I'm booked til next year. My records are immersive and challenging and cool as hell. Goals achieved. I mean, it's just gain staging and learning VU meters and a few other really simple techniques and concepts. Then it's about practice. Turn things down a little...not rocket science. VU ballistics...stare at anything long enough and you'll get a feel for what it's telling you. A little extra forethought and planning is NOT beyond the grasp of the young. I mean cmon John...you gotta concede on this one. You CAN use tape as an effect and nothing more once you learn how to use tape. Come on... Just say it...it CAN be done😉
|
|
|
Post by jin167 on Jul 24, 2017 1:45:09 GMT -6
immersive as in obsolete and a PITA to use? Yeah, sure.
Try working in a modern music production environment with tape as your only transfer medium and see how that works out.
I agree with Mr. Shain that tape is an inferior transfer medium compared to other options that are available to us in the year 2017.
Does that mean that tape sound is bad?
Nope.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Jul 24, 2017 9:58:10 GMT -6
There are other options in 2017 to get a similar sound... not the same - but close enough. If people tell me it was on tape and I lsiten to it I sometimes get the feeling that psychology (the belive that it must sound better) palys a big role as well.
Happy mixing with what ever you use.
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Jul 24, 2017 11:38:54 GMT -6
In a thread somewhere, long ago, William Wittman described his one mic pre philosophy (and I'm paraphrasing) as reducing contrast from channel to channel. Same thing goes for using a console at mix, or tracking to tape. Each stage either reduces contrast or, to put it another way, adds cohesion. Two side of the same coin.
I think a lot of my musician friends/clients, when they talk about the sound of tape, are really talking about the sound of records made with transformer balanced consoles and tape. So when, for instance, I record them in a Wally Heider room using almost all Neve flavors, it already "sounds like a record" to them. Can't get that in a converted garage with a Tascam 80-8, not that it can't sound cool.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jul 24, 2017 13:43:25 GMT -6
<chuckle> Without realizing it, you just put your finger on the primary reason that nearly all young guys using tape, and even worse all those godawful overblown tape sim plugins fail to achieve their goals, assuming that the goal is to evoke the feeling that people talk about getting from favorite analog recordings. They treat it as an effect and it's not, it's a medium. When you work in a tape based studio it isn't just about the sound of the tape in the machine. The reality of working with tape infuses everything. Gain structure, workflow, you have to be conscious of physical limitations and plan how you approach the production accordingly. You have to make decisions. It's a medium, and quite an immersive one to work in. BTW, the reason people keep buying that stuff is because all the gear pimps tell them they have to have it. You have to do all that stuff no matter how you're recording. You just do it a little differently with tape. Without realizing it you just put your finger on the reason the tape myth persists...it's not that hard to do well. It's not trigonometry or playing piano or pedal steel and there isn't some hidden cabalistic masonic code to doing it well. You just practice and study and pester the old guys to teach you. I'd say that, in fact, It's easy to do. Any dummy willing to put in the time and effort can learn it. And I would STRONGLY disagree that nearly all the young guys using tape are failing to meet their goals. That's just not true at all. I'm a young guy using tape and I'm booked til next year. My records are immersive and challenging and cool as hell. Goals achieved. I mean, it's just gain staging and learning VU meters and a few other really simple techniques and concepts. Then it's about practice. Turn things down a little...not rocket science. VU ballistics...stare at anything long enough and you'll get a feel for what it's telling you. A little extra forethought and planning is NOT beyond the grasp of the young. I mean cmon John...you gotta concede on this one. You CAN use tape as an effect and nothing more once you learn how to use tape. Come on... Just say it...it CAN be done😉 That's like saying you can use traditional chemical photography as an effect. Or oil paint. Sure, you can DO it - but it's really missing the point. Smearing a few strokes of oil pant on, lets' say, oh, an ink jet print on 'artist quality" canvas, is not gong to evoke the same sort of feeling that you get from The Mona Lisa, Water Lilies, or Guernica. It's going to be "Oh, the artist tarted up his (gallery quiality) ink jet print with a bit of oil. I guess he's trying to make it look like a real painting." So maybe if communicates the idea that the artist was thinking, but it doesn't really have the ontended effect, at least not to people familiar with the real thing. BTW, when you say that you "use tape" are you talking about using a real tape machine? And if so, where do you use it in the process? If it's not a real machine, what is it? I find some of the hardware devices, like the Zulu (which I have not had an opportunity to check out in person) to be a very interesting idea if used properly. In other words, track into the device before any digital conversion. But that requires having a channel of hardware for each channel you're tracking, so a lot of people won't make the investment. Most of the software sims seem to me to be largely missing the point, at least in terms of how they present using tape to the public. The result is that an awful lot of young, aspiring recordists think that what makes tape cool are in fact malfunctions that no self-respecting engineer would tolerate. (I run into this all the time at The Purple Joint.) Noise, wow, flutter, stuff like that. I'd like to see some company do a tape sim that just concentates on emulating the behavior of tape with the heads, with the usual alignment controls, without any of that fake hiss, background noise, and mechanical instability, because those are things that should not exist in a well maintained, professional quality machine. Giving the user controls for dialing that stuff in communicates the wrong idea. And they all seem to be somewhat heavy-handed in what they do. As far as meeting goals is concerned - if the goal is to evoke the feeling of a traditional tape based recording, I would definitely say that at least most of them miss it. That's because they're missing the point. They believe (because that's the way "tape sound" has been widely promoted to them) that it's about artifacts. They think tape needs to be noisy and have poor pitch stability. If my tape machine were to start audibly doing those things I'd be shooting an email off to my tape tech immediately. (I own a 24 track Studer A800 MKIII), or calling him if I was in the middle of a time-critical project. The real benefit of tape is much more subtle than that. It makes stuff sit together better, it de-emphasizes certain aspects of my voice I don't like, and it seems to reduce the need for excessive processing in some ways. It just makes things easier in a musical sense (while being a royal PITA physically.) It also shapes the workflow in ways I find beneficial. OTOH, if their goal is to make their recording sound like it's being played back on a half broken home machine of mediocre quality, maybe it's a success - but why would anybody want that? BTW,I'm beginning to suspect that we're maybe not talking about the same bunch of "young guys". The ones I'm talking about don't hang here. Concerning VU ballistics - once things are set up, machine aligned, gain structure set, I rarely if ever look at the meters unless something is going audibly wrong. Ears, not eyes. And yes, it's easy to do. It's not rocket surgery. And no, it's not an effect. Is water an "effect" to a fish? It's a medium. Many artists in various fields work employing different mediums, depending on the project and intent. Audio is no different, or shouldn't be. Choosing your medium is part of the choices you make for a given project. That doesn't make the medium an "effect". It's something that works on a different level from effects, something lower, more basic, intrinsic to the project.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jul 24, 2017 13:56:16 GMT -6
immersive as in obsolete and a PITA to use? Yeah, sure. Try working in a modern music production environment with tape as your only transfer medium and see how that works out. I agree with Mr. Shain that tape is an inferior transfer medium compared to other options that are available to us in the year 2017. Does that mean that tape sound is bad? Nope. Yeah, yeah, yeah, oil paint is an "obsolete" medium as well. It's difficult to work with, messy, takes forever to dry, some of the pigments are quite poisonous, blah, blah, blah. Totally inferior - everybody should use acrylics, they're a lot more modern. Funny thing - lots of artists still paint in oils. (And for some reason an oil painting will often fetch a better price in the gallery than something in another medium from the same artist.) That's because the word "obsolete" is a REALLY STUPID concept when applied to art. And yeah, it's a royal PITA in some ways. However, just speaking for me, I find working on a DAW to be an entire level of magnitute GREATER PITA than using tape, outboard, and a real console. For me, the main problem with tape is that it's really expensive these days.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jul 24, 2017 14:06:18 GMT -6
In a thread somewhere, long ago, William Wittman described his one mic pre philosophy (and I'm paraphrasing) as reducing contrast from channel to channel. Same thing goes for using a console at mix, or tracking to tape. Each stage either reduces contrast or, to put it another way, adds cohesion. Two side of the same coin. I think a lot of my musician friends/clients, when they talk about the sound of tape, are really talking about the sound of records made with transform balanced consoles and tape. So when, for instance, I record them in a Wally Heider room using almost all Neve flavors, it already "sounds like a record" to them. Can't get that in a converted garage with a Tascam 80-8, not that it can't sound cool. Sure you can get it in a converted garage. All you need is a Studer (or Ampex) and a rack of API (or Neve, if you will) pre's. I'm a big fan of William's. I've learned a lot of stuff from him that caused me to rethink things that I'd believed in for years, always for the better. Learning his approach to recording drums was a revelation, just for one example. I'd always wondered why using conventional close micing techniques on the kit always left me dissatisfied. Another big one was getting me to think about the off-axis response of microphones.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jul 24, 2017 15:09:59 GMT -6
My experience with laying a digital mix back to tape is 50/50 while tracking to tape with most of the processing almost always sounds better.
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jul 24, 2017 22:22:41 GMT -6
You have to do all that stuff no matter how you're recording. You just do it a little differently with tape. Without realizing it you just put your finger on the reason the tape myth persists...it's not that hard to do well. It's not trigonometry or playing piano or pedal steel and there isn't some hidden cabalistic masonic code to doing it well. You just practice and study and pester the old guys to teach you. I'd say that, in fact, It's easy to do. Any dummy willing to put in the time and effort can learn it. And I would STRONGLY disagree that nearly all the young guys using tape are failing to meet their goals. That's just not true at all. I'm a young guy using tape and I'm booked til next year. My records are immersive and challenging and cool as hell. Goals achieved. I mean, it's just gain staging and learning VU meters and a few other really simple techniques and concepts. Then it's about practice. Turn things down a little...not rocket science. VU ballistics...stare at anything long enough and you'll get a feel for what it's telling you. A little extra forethought and planning is NOT beyond the grasp of the young. I mean cmon John...you gotta concede on this one. You CAN use tape as an effect and nothing more once you learn how to use tape. Come on... Just say it...it CAN be done😉 That's like saying you can use traditional chemical photography as an effect. Or oil paint. Sure, you can DO it - but it's really missing the point. Smearing a few strokes of oil pant on, lets' say, oh, an ink jet print on 'artist quality" canvas, is not gong to evoke the same sort of feeling that you get from The Mona Lisa, Water Lilies, or Guernica. It's going to be "Oh, the artist tarted up his (gallery quiality) ink jet print with a bit of oil. I guess he's trying to make it look like a real painting." So maybe if communicates the idea that the artist was thinking, but it doesn't really have the ontended effect, at least not to people familiar with the real thing. BTW, when you say that you "use tape" are you talking about using a real tape machine? And if so, where do you use it in the process? If it's not a real machine, what is it? I find some of the hardware devices, like the Zulu (which I have not had an opportunity to check out in person) to be a very interesting idea if used properly. In other words, track into the device before any digital conversion. But that requires having a channel of hardware for each channel you're tracking, so a lot of people won't make the investment. Most of the software sims seem to me to be largely missing the point, at least in terms of how they present using tape to the public. The result is that an awful lot of young, aspiring recordists think that what makes tape cool are in fact malfunctions that no self-respecting engineer would tolerate. (I run into this all the time at The Purple Joint.) Noise, wow, flutter, stuff like that. I'd like to see some company do a tape sim that just concentates on emulating the behavior of tape with the heads, with the usual alignment controls, without any of that fake hiss, background noise, and mechanical instability, because those are things that should not exist in a well maintained, professional quality machine. Giving the user controls for dialing that stuff in communicates the wrong idea. And they all seem to be somewhat heavy-handed in what they do. As far as meeting goals is concerned - if the goal is to evoke the feeling of a traditional tape based recording, I would definitely say that at least most of them miss it. That's because they're missing the point. They believe (because that's the way "tape sound" has been widely promoted to them) that it's about artifacts. They think tape needs to be noisy and have poor pitch stability. If my tape machine were to start audibly doing those things I'd be shooting an email off to my tape tech immediately. (I own a 24 track Studer A800 MKIII), or calling him if I was in the middle of a time-critical project. The real benefit of tape is much more subtle than that. It makes stuff sit together better, it de-emphasizes certain aspects of my voice I don't like, and it seems to reduce the need for excessive processing in some ways. It just makes things easier in a musical sense (while being a royal PITA physically.) It also shapes the workflow in ways I find beneficial. OTOH, if their goal is to make their recording sound like it's being played back on a half broken home machine of mediocre quality, maybe it's a success - but why would anybody want that? BTW,I'm beginning to suspect that we're maybe not talking about the same bunch of "young guys". The ones I'm talking about don't hang here. Concerning VU ballistics - once things are set up, machine aligned, gain structure set, I rarely if ever look at the meters unless something is going audibly wrong. Ears, not eyes. And yes, it's easy to do. It's not rocket surgery. And no, it's not an effect. Is water an "effect" to a fish? It's a medium. Many artists in various fields work employing different mediums, depending on the project and intent. Audio is no different, or shouldn't be. Choosing your medium is part of the choices you make for a given project. That doesn't make the medium an "effect". It's something that works on a different level from effects, something lower, more basic, intrinsic to the project. I can't believe I'm sucked in to this. The film analogy is totally misused. People shoot on film for effect every single day here in LA. People combine film with digital tech every single day. After they develop the film they scan it in to a computer and manipulate it digitally. Jeez. My dad is a cinematographer. My mom is a fine art photographer. I worked for Alan Daviau for years. They all shoot film, develop chemically and dump to digital. They oversee the process carefully, because they're good artists but they don't get all spun out about the immersive process of "film" photography. They just get about their business of making art. Just like I and tons of other people do with tape. They do it for the effect. Just like I do. They don't give a shit about process. They care about result. People have mixed oil and acrylic paint for decades. They just aren't good analogies. I have 3 machines. An mm1000, an mm1200 and a 440b. If you don't look at the vus on a 440b it will destroy you. There's just no possible way you have heard MOST of what young people are doing with tape. Just totally not true. Impossible. I would wager you don't listen to much music made by young people. I could be wrong but I doubt it. This argument is a classic troll. You're wrong on this one John. I know you have a lot of knowledge...way more than me. I try not to enter the threads you argue in and I'm kicking myself for entering this one. But your self certainty doesn't make you right. In this case, in fact, you are wrong. So dead wrong that I can't believe I am engaging. You got me...that's for sure. I USE TAPE AS AN EFFECT. I do it well. Some of my records give listeners the feeling that you get from older records. Some don't...on purpose. Even some of the ones I've used tape on don't give you that old record feeling...because I don't want them to. They just have some cool transient shaping and some of the subtle eq characteristics of tape...effects. You're trolling John. I ain't mad but you're busted.
|
|