|
Post by johneppstein on Sept 19, 2020 12:38:43 GMT -6
Agreed, I liked both just was pleasantly surprised at how much glue the real ampex imparted and this was while I was also using 2 ssl g clone comps. Yes! To me the "glue" is the most important thing about real tape and the thing that sims don't really get.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Sept 19, 2020 12:52:41 GMT -6
I also feel that the "sound of tape" could rightly be called the sound of analogue. When I went to tape, it was through a Trident board or an API or Neve board. The bass through a Trident board to a 2" 16 Tk was unbeatable. So the "tape sound" most people speak of is more likely the combination of analogue factors. The only way to properly compare tape sims is to have the same tape machine calibrated perfectly, then to the plug-in with the calibration matched as well as can be. The UAD ATR-102 has never left my 2 bus. I could do an album with nothing but that on the 2 bus and still get a great sound. But.. my ears were only fooled once by a tape sim, and that was UAD's Oxide. That was strange because I believe Oxide is jut a simplified version of one of their other tape sims. Even with Oxide, it never happened again. Listening back in a studio from a 24 tk machine to a recording done there on one of those boards was common then, but unforgettable now.
I understand doing some nostalgic gymnastics is good. But is not the goal to create something your ear likes in the end. I think its possible even pure ITB which is pain to do it this way....
I disagree, in that I have never heard a digital recording that "glues" like a record tracked to tape. It just doesn't. Part of this may be due to the quest for "separation" between parts in a modern recording, which to me is analagous to baking a cake where the taste of the individual ingredients overshadows the taste of the cake itself. I want to listen to the SONG, not the individual parts.
Interestingly enough, quite a few of the best engineers/producers I'm in contact with are also excellent chefs. I don't think this is accidental. (Since most of these guys are top commercial engineers they do not work exclusively to tape simply because in commercial production it's not financially practical these days. That doen't mean it's not something to strive for.)
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Sept 19, 2020 12:59:01 GMT -6
Yup. If you gotta do it, best to hit tape first, transfer to digital second. That's what we do here - track to tape, then dump it to digital for mixing. MUCH easier and faster. Mixing is still done analog, but the actual source for it is a digital transfer of the original.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Sept 19, 2020 13:21:52 GMT -6
The best of both worlds!
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Sept 19, 2020 13:26:00 GMT -6
I understand doing some nostalgic gymnastics is good. But is not the goal to create something your ear likes in the end. I think its possible even pure ITB which is pain to do it this way....
I disagree, in that I have never heard a digital recording that "glues" like a record tracked to tape. It just doesn't. Part of this may be due to the quest for "separation" between parts in a modern recording, which to me is analagous to baking a cake where the taste of the individual ingredients overshadows the taste of the cake itself. I want to listen to the SONG, not the individual parts.
Interestingly enough, quite a few of the best engineers/producers I'm in contact with are also excellent chefs. I don't think this is accidental. (Since most of these guys are top commercial engineers they do not work exclusively to tape simply because in commercial production it's not financially practical these days. That doen't mean it's not something to strive for.)
UR misunderstanding my opinion.
I meant we can create something we like without tape.
I don't doubt the fact that real tape sounds different...
I said this now several times...
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Sept 20, 2020 13:07:33 GMT -6
I disagree, in that I have never heard a digital recording that "glues" like a record tracked to tape. It just doesn't. Part of this may be due to the quest for "separation" between parts in a modern recording, which to me is analagous to baking a cake where the taste of the individual ingredients overshadows the taste of the cake itself. I want to listen to the SONG, not the individual parts.
Interestingly enough, quite a few of the best engineers/producers I'm in contact with are also excellent chefs. I don't think this is accidental. (Since most of these guys are top commercial engineers they do not work exclusively to tape simply because in commercial production it's not financially practical these days. That doen't mean it's not something to strive for.)
UR misunderstanding my opinion.
I meant we can create something we like without tape.
I don't doubt the fact that real tape sounds different...
I said this now several times...
Could be. Could also be that you're not entirely understanding me. I tend to dislike mixes where the individual elements distract from the music as a whole. The flow is important.
There are a few records where the recording sounds pretty bad to me, but the final effect is strangely great. The Misfits first (I think) album would be a good example - "Last Caress"... It's basically just a roar with little definition, but it's a GREAT roar!
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Sept 20, 2020 13:13:24 GMT -6
UR misunderstanding my opinion.
I meant we can create something we like without tape.
I don't doubt the fact that real tape sounds different...
I said this now several times...
Could be. Could also be that you're not entirely understanding me. I tend to dislike mixes where the individual elements distract from the music as a whole. The flue is important.
There are a few records where the recording sounds pretty bad to me, but the final effect is strangely great. The Misfits first (I think) album would be a good example - "Last Caress"... It's basically just a roar with little definition, but it's a GREAT roar!
Having two diffrent examples would enlighten the topic.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Sept 20, 2020 13:38:12 GMT -6
Could be. Could also be that you're not entirely understanding me. I tend to dislike mixes where the individual elements distract from the music as a whole. The flue is important.
There are a few records where the recording sounds pretty bad to me, but the final effect is strangely great. The Misfits first (I think) album would be a good example - "Last Caress"... It's basically just a roar with little definition, but it's a GREAT roar!
Having two diffrent examples would enlighten the topic. Werll, right now I'm not going to get into it that much and most are a good deal more subtle than The Misfits. I just use them because it's a record where the first time I heard it my reaction was "this is a really bad recording - I could do better in my sleep" which changed to "This recording is PERFECT - for the song!".
There are STACKS of older records that illustrate my point - you have to LISTEN to make out some of the parts. Many of The Beatles original mixes are like that. People are still arguing about "The Chord" in "Day in the Life".
It's a main reason the Giles Martin Beatle remixes are regarded as being so sucky, at least by upper tier pro engineers (or which I am NOT one, but I listen to them a lot at places like PRW.)
Music should be first about emotional effect. Often (usually?) when everything is so detailed that every track is individually clear it diminishes that impact.
I HATE most "modern pop" mixes - they don't glue.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Nov 18, 2021 16:45:40 GMT -6
Having two diffrent examples would enlighten the topic. Werll, right now I'm not going to get into it that much and most are a good deal more subtle than The Misfits. I just use them because it's a record where the first time I heard it my reaction was "this is a really bad recording - I could do better in my sleep" which changed to "This recording is PERFECT - for the song!".
There are STACKS of older records that illustrate my point - you have to LISTEN to make out some of the parts. Many of The Beatles original mixes are like that. People are still arguing about "The Chord" in "Day in the Life".
It's a main reason the Giles Martin Beatle remixes are regarded as being so sucky, at least by upper tier pro engineers (or which I am NOT one, but I listen to them a lot at places like PRW.)
Music should be first about emotional effect. Often (usually?) when everything is so detailed that every track is individually clear it diminishes that impact.
I HATE most "modern pop" mixes - they don't glue.
This is a really interesting topic. I was hearing some "big guy" Nashville mixes that caught my ear for having things BLENDED. Same with some Radiohead stuff. Do you think using dark-ish EQ's (filtering off high end?) on many tracks, and turning things way down in level just poking through, are good strategies?
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 18, 2021 17:18:20 GMT -6
I think that detail at the expense of cohesiveness is a mistake.
I used to hear many "audiophile" recording that were meticulous and beautifully recorded that left me marveling at the sound, but empty of feeling. It also depends on the taste and talent of the engineer or producer.
There were two mixes the Psychedelic Furs' "Until She Comes". One was by Stephen Street, the other by Hugh Padgham. The Street mix had much louder drums, and sounded like a monitor mix awaiting a final mix, the Padgham mix was magical. There was a small riff done on a keyboard that sounded like bagpipes in the distance. Padgham used that to create mood and mystery. You felt like you were inside Richard Butler's head.
The blending that happens in an analogue production is partly the gear, especially multi-track and 2 track tape, but it was also the sensitivity of great mixers and producers. Today's Pop/Hip Hop is often a contest to be as loud as possible yet making each part distinct. This approach wears your ears out but works well through supermarket speakers.
|
|
|
Post by craigmorris74 on Nov 18, 2021 17:19:46 GMT -6
Been a long time since I posted in this thread. I stopped reading when it turned into a d*** measuring contest and lost the point I was trying to investigate.
I've since tried the Soundskuptor TS-500 because I thought it was designed in a way that made the most sense (transformer balanced, inductors, emphasis/deemphasis stages, selectable head bumps). I hated it. It sounded like things were ran through a transient shaper with a setting that killed the sustain, and the head bump was way too aggressive.
I tried the Bart HRK ST596 and it sounded cool, but more as a harmonics generator than tape sim. I finally got a couple of their ST552 tape simulators, and they're pretty awesome. They give a great gluing effect, and tame extra high frequency garbage nicely.
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Nov 18, 2021 20:23:07 GMT -6
i can run these through acustica taupe over the weekend if it's of interest.
|
|
|
Post by craigmorris74 on Nov 18, 2021 21:07:53 GMT -6
i can run these through acustica taupe over the weekend if it's of interest. That would be cool!
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Nov 19, 2021 15:29:25 GMT -6
Could be. Could also be that you're not entirely understanding me. I tend to dislike mixes where the individual elements distract from the music as a whole. The flue is important.
There are a few records where the recording sounds pretty bad to me, but the final effect is strangely great. The Misfits first (I think) album would be a good example - "Last Caress"... It's basically just a roar with little definition, but it's a GREAT roar!
Having two diffrent examples would enlighten the topic. Who had the biggest hit with "Louie, Louie"? Was it the best sounding? Uh-uh... not even close. IIRC it was a 4 mic recording with the lead singer singing into a mic dangling from the ceiling, recorded in the back room studio of a local radio station.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Nov 19, 2021 15:32:05 GMT -6
Werll, right now I'm not going to get into it that much and most are a good deal more subtle than The Misfits. I just use them because it's a record where the first time I heard it my reaction was "this is a really bad recording - I could do better in my sleep" which changed to "This recording is PERFECT - for the song!".
There are STACKS of older records that illustrate my point - you have to LISTEN to make out some of the parts. Many of The Beatles original mixes are like that. People are still arguing about "The Chord" in "Day in the Life".
It's a main reason the Giles Martin Beatle remixes are regarded as being so sucky, at least by upper tier pro engineers (or which I am NOT one, but I listen to them a lot at places like PRW.)
Music should be first about emotional effect. Often (usually?) when everything is so detailed that every track is individually clear it diminishes that impact.
I HATE most "modern pop" mixes - they don't glue.
This is a really interesting topic. I was hearing some "big guy" Nashville mixes that caught my ear for having things BLENDED. Same with some Radiohead stuff. Do you think using dark-ish EQ's (filtering off high end?) on many tracks, and turning things way down in level just poking through, are good strategies? If depends on the ears and the heart. No rules.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Nov 19, 2021 15:35:11 GMT -6
i can run these through acustica taupe over the weekend if it's of interest. That would be cool! That has nothing to do with the subject. Sims like "Acoustica Taupe" have NOTHING to do with the sound from my Studer A800. Have you EVER used a real professional tape machine?
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Nov 19, 2021 15:39:37 GMT -6
I think that detail at the expense of cohesiveness is a mistake. I used to hear many "audiophile" recording that were meticulous and beautifully recorded that left me marveling at the sound, but empty of feeling. It also depends on the taste and talent of the engineer or producer. There were two mixes the Psychedelic Furs' "Until She Comes". One was by Stephen Street, the other by Hugh Padgham. The Street mix had much louder drums, and sounded like a monitor mix awaiting a final mix, the Padgham mix was magical. There was a small riff done on a keyboard that sounded like bagpipes in the distance. Padgham used that to create mood and mystery. You felt like you were inside Richard Butler's head. The blending that happens in an analogue production is partly the gear, especially multi-track and 2 track tape, but it was also the sensitivity of great mixers and producers. Today's Pop/Hip Hop is often a contest to be as loud as possible yet making each part distinct. This approach wears your ears out but works well through supermarket speakers. Supermarket audio makes me wanna barf!
|
|
|
Post by craigmorris74 on Nov 19, 2021 17:14:35 GMT -6
That has nothing to do with the subject. Sims like "Acoustica Taupe" have NOTHING to do with the sound from my Studer A800. Have you EVER used a real professional tape machine? Yes. Would you please read the first post of this thread. Because you every post in this thread you've made has NOTHING to do with that. On a side note, with all the "real", "professional" gear you have, I'd love you to link to an amazing recording that you've made recently.
|
|
|
Post by howie on Nov 19, 2021 18:12:41 GMT -6
Having two diffrent examples would enlighten the topic. Who had the biggest hit with "Louie, Louie"? Was it the best sounding? Uh-uh... not even close. IIRC it was a 4 mic recording with the lead singer singing into a mic dangling from the ceiling, recorded in the back room studio of a local radio station. Funny that you mention "Louie, Louie". I was just thinking of it a few days ago (while struggling with a song lyric) - old shambling, shaggy & 'meaningless' "Louie Louie" was a lot of fun back in the day.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Nov 19, 2021 18:13:35 GMT -6
That has nothing to do with the subject. Sims like "Acoustica Taupe" have NOTHING to do with the sound from my Studer A800. Have you EVER used a real professional tape machine? Yes. Would you please read the first post of this thread. Because you every post in this thread you've made has NOTHING to do with that. On a side note, with all the "real", "professional" gear you have, I'd love you to link to an amazing recording that you've made recently. Back atcha. Yes, I listened to part of your Bandcamp offering.
As far as me and "amazing" goes, "amazing" has mostly what to do with what you like. As far as your offering goes, it sounds to me a lot like '60s garage rock, which is a period I grew up in . The basic problem with it is that it'[s too damn CLEAN, and there is nothing digital that I know of (maybe someone else does, but I doubt it) that can get around that monstrous impediment. Yeah, you can saturater and distort till you're blue in the face but it doesn't sound RIGHT, you dig? There IS some current outboard I know about that might help, but it's all analog and pretty expensive. Some of it is produced by people here. It also doesn't really sound like a band playing together, and if that's the vibe you're going for there is onlt one way to get it.
Incidentally, the tape must be done FIRST. We have a hybrid setup, we record to tape and dump to digital for mixing (through a 32 track console.) Doing it the other way around gives you the effect of doing a tape recording of a digital source, like recording playback off a CD. Not the same thing.
BTW, the reason I don't offer any of my recent stuff is that thanks to the pandemic there isn't any. Still trying to get a new band together that's worth recording. (I'm not in an urban area anymore.) There are links to a couple things posted here, but you may not like them - I've done a lot off different thjings in my 71 years, but what I do now is pretty straight up country.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Nov 19, 2021 18:18:27 GMT -6
That has nothing to do with the subject. Sims like "Acoustica Taupe" have NOTHING to do with the sound from my Studer A800. Have you EVER used a real professional tape machine? Yes. Would you please read the first post of this thread. Because you every post in this thread you've made has NOTHING to do with that. On a side note, with all the "real", "professional" gear you have, I'd love you to link to an amazing recording that you've made recently. You're missing the point, which is that in my book everything that purports to be a "tape sim" is, in reality, a FARCE. Most don't even attempt to do a proper tape sound - it's too hard to do correctly and the actual, real effect is WAAYYY too subtle to sell well to the amateur recordists who make up the bulk of the buying public. And to do it right it must be applied WHILE TRACKING.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Nov 19, 2021 18:21:14 GMT -6
Who had the biggest hit with "Louie, Louie"? Was it the best sounding? Uh-uh... not even close. IIRC it was a 4 mic recording with the lead singer singing into a mic dangling from the ceiling, recorded in the back room studio of a local radio station. Funny that you mention "Louie, Louie". I was just thinking of it a few days ago (while struggling with a song lyric) - old shambling, shaggy & 'meaningless' "Louie Louie" was a lot of fun back in the day. Actually the sound on the original 'Louie, Louie" 45 rpm and the sound on the Misfits' "Last Caress" have a lot in common in some ways.
Actually, it was Mike Mitchell, the lead guitarist of The Kingsmen, who told me the secret of lead guitar. He said "What solo in Louie Louie? I play it different every night!" (This was back in the days when every band strove to play it just like the record.)
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Nov 19, 2021 18:30:06 GMT -6
That has nothing to do with the subject. Sims like "Acoustica Taupe" have NOTHING to do with the sound from my Studer A800. Have you EVER used a real professional tape machine? Yes. Would you please read the first post of this thread. Because you every post in this thread you've made has NOTHING to do with that. On a side note, with all the "real", "professional" gear you have, I'd love you to link to an amazing recording that you've made recently. Let's clear one thing up- in audio, "professional" is a class of gear. Professional class gear generally costs more, lasts MUCH longer and is generally found in professional grade studios (or the home studios of professional musicians.) There are other criteria, but I doubt you'd really understand or care much, although there are many others here who certainly do.
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Nov 19, 2021 19:04:19 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by craigmorris74 on Nov 19, 2021 19:36:10 GMT -6
Yes. Would you please read the first post of this thread. Because you every post in this thread you've made has NOTHING to do with that. On a side note, with all the "real", "professional" gear you have, I'd love you to link to an amazing recording that you've made recently. Let's clear one thing up- in audio, "professional" is a class of gear. Professional class gear generally costs more, lasts MUCH longer and is generally found in professional grade studios (or the home studios of professional musicians.) There are other criteria, but I doubt you'd really understand or care much, although there are many others here who certainly do. Let's clear one thing up. That bandcamp track was cut in 30 minutes, and uploaded, dig? I really don't care what you think of it. You still have never posted a link to one track you worked on. You could be a pretty cool guy if you'd just tell Skip Spence or SF punk stories, but you always come off as a sad troll. People that actually know something and have valuable life experience don't act like that. They're cool. You don't catch Terry Manning making posts like yours that have ruined the thread I started. Finally, if you want a get in a pissing contest over credits (a mark of a true professional) bring it on.
|
|