|
|
Post by drbill on Feb 20, 2024 9:08:15 GMT -6
I would love to hear a Bereich Density - Satin Shootout I love Density - but I don't think of it as a tape substitute at all. It's a biggerizer. I don't hear compression or smoothing of the HF as much as I hear saturation, coming quickly up on distortion if you don't watch it. A couple times this week I pulled up songs that had an old I/o setup on them , and one of my Density's accidentally ended up on the master bus unbeknownst to me. I felt like I was back in the old days - fighting LF oversaturation/distortion on my console cause it's being driven too hard. I was sitting there scratching my head for awhile. Haha... Anyway, Density is great. Density is not a tape substitute. (IMO) |
|
|
|
Post by doubledog on Feb 20, 2024 9:17:26 GMT -6
I have several of the tape plugins, but they really don't get much use from me for saturation duty. Sometimes I might use one to smooth out something that is a little spikey, but I certainly don't slather the whole mix with them. Sometimes I'll enable "Heat" in Pro Tools. It's not too bad. Other times, I'll insert the Slate VCC on all channels, or I also use the Sonimus Satson, Britson (now called N-Console), or A-Console on all channels. They are fairly lightweight and just give a bit of saturation, and sometimes make the whole mix a little bigger sounding. I also like the built-in filters (LPF, HPF) in the Sonimus channels. Just saves me from adding another plugin to do the same, cause I'm going to do it anyway. I typically disable any fake "noise" or crosstalk and stuff like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oneiro on Feb 21, 2024 0:32:16 GMT -6
The tape plugins are all fun effects, I use them frequently. None of them are close to even a B-tier machine. I like GhZ, Aberrant, UAD, Softube, Overloud - all for different functions. Whether it's another method of de-essing, filtering, saturation, etc.
I grew up with computers, have made music on computers since I was 7. I'm fine making music digitally - I do it all the time and I will work that way for anyone. I'd agree with anyone who says that there is a lot of music very ill-suited to analog recording.
And still...as it relates to younger people obsessed with this craft, I am mad at old timers who diminish tape machines from a sonic standpoint. I understand their frustrations came from the standpoint of linearity and maintenance, but that concern sort of obscures why anyone would use them today. Had I been able to hear what an Ampex, Otari, MCI or Studer did to a signal years ago, I would've moved into that methodology much faster. It was only after day in and day out being on a session with a critical ear, running the machine myself, then mixing the tracks, that the full picture of how past records sounded became clear to me. The final piece of the puzzle for me, alongside consoles.
More information / complexity does not always equate to utility. Sometimes, I don't care if I'm getting back exactly what I thought I put in. I think the stereotypes of tape's positive effects, especially with high bandwidth machines (827 at 30), are subtler than what some might expect, sure. But I do feel like tracks are more "sorted out" than if I record direct to digital, even with great conversion. Interpret that how you like - rolled off highs/lows, relaxed upper mids, satisfying low bump, whatever. I rarely send things through the machine and dislike what comes back. It sounds more credible and physically enjoyable to me. Moreover, I can pass something obnoxious, like an 808, FM synth or a subkick, into the machine, and what I get back is far friendlier in context. Maybe that's Stockholm Syndrome from years of hearing analog recordings, but whatever it is, it works for me (a 90s kid) and many people who were born after 2000.
The exacting nature of digital is great because it gets your recording chops up. But even with great converters, I still feel like the tape transfer is more alive most of the time. And I love messing with speeds, keeping some elements at 7 or 15 and others at 30, keeping some things digital for contrast. It's fun in a steampunk hipster sort of way precisely because you don't know what you're gonna get or you do something wild, like pushing a part of the spectrum far more than you think is rational, and having it all come back more exciting but controlled.
Like anything, it's all skill - you recognize the benefits of whatever's in the chain after you don't fuck up the other parts that came before.
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Feb 21, 2024 17:13:19 GMT -6
I know this is going to sound cliche', but if you've never been in a control room with an original, well preserved Ampex 102 mix played through a console, no one could understand the nuances. It's bone chilling; a real wow moment in my life. That said, the digital takes on these gets pretty darn close if you ask me. Close enough to not spend the dollars or the agony of real tape! Are ypu missing anything by not having a real tape machine? No. Think of the most exciting roller coaster you've ever ridden and ask yourself if you'd need to live on that thing everyday if you had to stand in line for 3 hours at a time to do it. Once in awhile it's ok, but these days, it's a novelty. YMMV.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Feb 21, 2024 17:58:08 GMT -6
The tape plugins are all fun effects, I use them frequently. None of them are close to even a B-tier machine. I like GhZ, Aberrant, UAD, Softube, Overloud - all for different functions. Whether it's another method of de-essing, filtering, saturation, etc. I grew up with computers, have made music on computers since I was 7. I'm fine making music digitally - I do it all the time and I will work that way for anyone. I'd agree with anyone who says that there is a lot of music very ill-suited to analog recording. And still...as it relates to younger people obsessed with this craft, I am mad at old timers who diminish tape machines from a sonic standpoint. I understand their frustrations came from the standpoint of linearity and maintenance, but that concern sort of obscures why anyone would use them today. Had I been able to hear what an Ampex, Otari, MCI or Studer did to a signal years ago, I would've moved into that methodology much faster. It was only after day in and day out being on a session with a critical ear, running the machine myself, then mixing the tracks, that the full picture of how past records sounded became clear to me. The final piece of the puzzle for me, alongside consoles. More information / complexity does not always equate to utility. Sometimes, I don't care if I'm getting back exactly what I thought I put in. I think the stereotypes of tape's positive effects, especially with high bandwidth machines (827 at 30), are subtler than what some might expect, sure. But I do feel like tracks are more "sorted out" than if I record direct to digital, even with great conversion. Interpret that how you like - rolled off highs/lows, relaxed upper mids, satisfying low bump, whatever. I rarely send things through the machine and dislike what comes back. It sounds more credible and physically enjoyable to me. Moreover, I can pass something obnoxious, like an 808, FM synth or a subkick, into the machine, and what I get back is far friendlier in context. Maybe that's Stockholm Syndrome from years of hearing analog recordings, but whatever it is, it works for me (a 90s kid) and many people who were born after 2000. The exacting nature of digital is great because it gets your recording chops up. But even with great converters, I still feel like the tape transfer is more alive most of the time. And I love messing with speeds, keeping some elements at 7 or 15 and others at 30, keeping some things digital for contrast. It's fun in a steampunk hipster sort of way precisely because you don't know what you're gonna get or you do something wild, like pushing a part of the spectrum far more than you think is rational, and having it all come back more exciting but controlled. Like anything, it's all skill - you recognize the benefits of whatever's in the chain after you don't fuck up the other parts that came before. Your recordings sound more alive because you probably have wow and flutter and your azimuth gets fucked from lo-fi settings. The tape plugins on lo-fi settings kick the shit out of real machines set to low tape speeds and cassette decks which require modern digital surgery to get salvageable recordings.
|
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Feb 21, 2024 21:13:08 GMT -6
I know this is going to sound cliche', but if you've never been in a control room with an original, well preserved Ampex 102 mix played through a console, no one could understand the nuances. It's bone chilling; a real wow moment in my life. That said, the digital takes on these gets pretty darn close if you ask me. Close enough to not spend the dollars or the agony of real tape! Are ypu missing anything by not having a real tape machine? No. Think of the most exciting roller coaster you've ever ridden and ask yourself if you'd need to live on that thing everyday if you had to stand in line for 3 hours at a time to do it. Once in awhile it's ok, but these days, it's a novelty. YMMV. David Grisman played me some Grisman/Garcia masters off his 102 that sounded freaking amazing. Humblingly good. And I’m not like, a Jerry guy, at all. |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Feb 21, 2024 21:44:38 GMT -6
I’m not a dead guy either, but I live in their old stomping ground.
This week I’ve been listening to Terrapin Station on Apple Music, thinking of this thread.. and it’s a decent example of one of those things we’d struggle to nail with plugins. The last track esp the mix of band and classical instruments. No drugs required, it’s audible lol
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Feb 21, 2024 22:01:06 GMT -6
I'm using a Zulu as the final stage of my mixbus chain. Can't really claim it sounds like tape, but it does pleasant things to transients and HF. It was close enough to my array of tape plugins that I had to do some careful blind ABing to decide if it was worth having in the analog chain. I blind tested myself against plugs a bunch of times over a couple weeks, just here and there with the same few level matched mix comparisons, and I chose Zulu more often than plugs, by a pretty good margin.
That's kind of irrelevant to this thread, but speaks to my main view on these things, which is that tape emulations (analog or DSP) are pretty cool. Not exactly like tape, but pretty cool.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,098 
|
Post by ericn on Feb 21, 2024 22:22:01 GMT -6
I had a fun little (giant) tape machine a few years ago. An Akai MG1212 - 12 tracks on 1/2" tape! It was super fun to play around with and I did some tracking on it. I even managed to figure out a way to slave my 828es to it - the plan was to be able to track drums to it while live tracking everything else to digital. But then the pandemic happened and I haven't tracked a full band since. I think it sounded pretty good for what it was, but I absolutely don't believe that it sounded better than well-recorded digital, and it's really easy to overdo levels when you're trying to get a good S/N ratio, especially on something like kick drum. Very easy to move from pleasant tape saturation to ugly distortion if you're not gain staging just right. And HISS is truly omnipresent even on something in very good condition. I bought it for $20 (!) and paid Dave Segimoto at VST something like $200 to get it working and sounding good, and I only lived 20 minutes away from the shop if I had any problems with it. But if I DID have any problems with it, I needed help to load it up (100 lbs), the tapes were in limited supply, and I was often spending time just cleaning it and demagnetizing everything, and while it was a fun novelty for a while, the juice was not worth the squeeze when it came down to it. So this is a long way of saying that even tape can't do the tape thing sometimes, because the "tape thing" depends on a ton of different factors, not the least of which is just a ton of upkeep and maintenance on a relatively self-contained little unit. I'm super glad I had the experience, though, because I no longer fetishize it and think I need it to make vibey recordings - I think all of the things my brain thought tape was a shortcut to achieving are also done with printing a finished sound to digital, which one could accomplish a lot of different ways, some cost-effective and some not. ONE really lovely piece of kismet was that I found a batch of like 20 tapes that were being sold by some dude in the valley whose brother had a demo studio back in the early 90s with one of these units. All of the tapes still had a couple of songs that had been recorded in the demo studio. I digitized them all for posterity's sake and uploaded a few of them to YouTube. I think this is my favorite: I don't know anything about the people who performed on those tapes or sessions but MAN what a fun thing to go through them all and be able to save them for future reference. It's not likely but if anybody who worked on those sessions was trying to find them these 30 years later, I got 'em. I think the majority would define the “ tape sound “ as 2in 24 track and either 1/4 or 1/2 in 1/2 track mix down deck. No offense but a 1/2in 12 track with special cartridges isn’t anywhere the sound of 2in, the Akai has a bit more track width than a cassette so no where near the headroom. You could never really align the thing because even if you could find a decent alignment tape, just like there cassette cousin’s because half the transport was in the cassette! I will say this granted I’m comparing analog to Digital here the AKAI had a transport that was far and away superior to the cheap POS sped up transports that JVC couldn’t give away, but sold in numbers to Alesis. Did a number of projects on the Akai, they sure didn’t sound like an MCI or Otari, kept a couple of owners stocked with tape for as long as we could, it was an interesting step up from a Tascam 424. |
|
|
|
Post by dok on Feb 21, 2024 22:23:34 GMT -6
Think of the most exciting roller coaster you've ever ridden and ask yourself if you'd need to live on that thing everyday if you had to stand in line for 3 hours at a time to do it. Once in awhile it's ok, but these days, it's a novelty. YMMV. Holy shit this is the best metaphor for tape I have ever read. Bravo. |
|
|
|
Post by dok on Feb 21, 2024 22:37:07 GMT -6
I think the majority would define the “ tape sound “ as 2in 24 track and either 1/4 or 1/2 in 1/2 track mix down deck. No offense but a 1/2in 12 track with special cartridges isn’t anywhere the sound of 2in, the Akai has a bit more track width than a cassette so no where near the headroom. You could never really align the thing because even if you could find a decent alignment tape, just like there cassette cousin’s because half the transport was in the cassette! I will say this granted I’m comparing analog to Digital here the AKAI had a transport that was far and away superior to the cheap POS sped up transports that JVC couldn’t give away, but sold in numbers to Alesis. Did a number of projects on the Akai, they sure didn’t sound like an MCI or Otari, kept a couple of owners stocked with tape for as long as we could, it was an interesting step up from a Tascam 424. No offense taken, but as I said I thought the machine sounded pretty good despite the limited headroom requiring extra care. And also there are people paying thousands of dollars for a Tascam 388 (which was the machine in the video OP was referring to) and several hundreds for Portastudios these days, so the "tape sound" to them is whatever they're getting out of those things. I'm 42 and many recording musicians my age and younger, unless they're funded by a label, would not have had a ton of opportunities or budget to hear their own music tracked from those machines you mentioned, hence the resurgent interest in things like the 388. But perhaps I should have clarified better that my point about the Akai was that it was merely a smaller version of all of the maintenance and expense and headaches of a 2" machine, and it wouldn't have been worth it even if it sounded 10x as good because it started to get in the way of actually making music. Cheers! |
|
|
|
Post by copperx on Feb 21, 2024 23:59:34 GMT -6
Besides the Zulu and Density, are there any hardware "plugins" that get close? What about the RND 500 series thingy? I've heard it sounds good, but does it sound a bit like tape?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on Feb 22, 2024 0:06:59 GMT -6
Besides the Zulu and Density, are there any hardware "plugins" that get close? What about the RND 500 series thingy? I've heard it sounds good, but does it sound a bit like tape? Personally, no I don't think so. Love my RND 542s across the master bus but it isn't tape. Nice saturation and great transformer tone. If tape is just saturation and a head bump then sure. Really nice processors built to very high quality. I like them for the master bus for their tone and heft but still not "the thing". I listened to some old mixdowns I printed to my Otari. I just haven't found anything that does the thing. Happy to run tracks through the 542s for you if you want. I think it would be worth zooming tracks across the net to a service that can run through a real machine. I did that with a Telefunken machine. Can be kind of cool unless you need to track to tape. |
|
|
|
Post by drumsound on Feb 22, 2024 0:13:21 GMT -6
I do like using PT HEAT 'inserted' PRE with the drive on the tape side. I didn't know when I first started using it that I was setting it to the 'tape side' but I was a sound I felt really comfortable with. Then I did some looking into it, and Dave Hill was the mind behind it, and in the AVID video where he explains it, there's an MIC JH24 autolocator over his shoulder. I had a JH24 for about 15 years. The sound of HEAT was/is familiar to me.
That said, I'm starting to mix an EP tomorrow and I'm pretty sure I'm going to mix it to my A80 1/4".
|
|
|
|
Post by lowlou on Feb 22, 2024 1:51:23 GMT -6
Besides the Zulu and Density, are there any hardware "plugins" that get close? What about the RND 500 series thingy? I've heard it sounds good, but does it sound a bit like tape? There is the Anamod ATS-1. www.anamodaudio.com/products/anamod-ats-1/I think a few RGO people have used it, maybe they'll chime in.  ---------------------------- ADT (from Germany, not the UK) have the TM233V module in their proprietary rack format. I wish there was some demos online for the thing, or people talking about it. Seems legit from the look of it, but "looks" don't say much about the gear sonics usually hehe. The feature set is the deepest I've seen on an analog tape emulator. www.adt-audio.com/ProAudio/ToolMod/Photos/TM233TapeSimulatorStereo_Top_v.html---------------------------- Soundsculptor have the super affordable TS500 tape emulation in rack 500 format. www.soundskulptor.com/fr/proddetail.php?prod=TS500---------------------------- HRK are farting a super affordable tape emulation module in rack 500 format (buy HRK if you like to see smoke come out of your lunchbox (true story, happened to me twice)). no link, HRK sucks IME. Horrible dude too. Flux him. But maybe, just maybe, his tape emulator sounds good. Sounds decent in the Youtube demos. ---------------------------- xxxxx Louis |
|
|
|
Post by bricejchandler on Feb 22, 2024 4:24:03 GMT -6
Besides the Zulu and Density, are there any hardware "plugins" that get close? What about the RND 500 series thingy? I've heard it sounds good, but does it sound a bit like tape? There is the Anamod ATS-1. www.anamodaudio.com/products/anamod-ats-1/I think a few RGO people have used it, maybe they'll chime in. ---------------------------- ADT (from Germany, not the UK) have the TM233V module in their proprietary rack format. I wish there was some demos online for the thing, or people talking about it. Seems legit from the look of it, but "looks" don't say much about the gear sonics usually hehe. The feature set is the deepest I've seen on an analog tape emulator. www.adt-audio.com/ProAudio/ToolMod/Photos/TM233TapeSimulatorStereo_Top_v.html---------------------------- Soundsculptor have the super affordable TS500 tape emulation in rack 500 format. www.soundskulptor.com/fr/proddetail.php?prod=TS500---------------------------- HRK are farting a super affordable tape emulation module in rack 500 format (buy HRK if you like to see smoke come out of your lunchbox (true story, happened to me twice)). no link, HRK sucks IME. Horrible dude too. Flux him. But maybe, just maybe, his tape emulator sounds good. Sounds decent in the Youtube demos. ---------------------------- xxxxx Louis Wow that ADT module is super crowded, I know their gear is supposed to sound incredible but every time I look at their gear and their site my eyes hurt. |
|
|
|
Post by lowlou on Feb 22, 2024 5:28:40 GMT -6
True, I never made sense of their website. I think it's the most confusing website I've ever seen. A maze !
The tape emulator also exists in a horizontal layout.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Feb 22, 2024 6:39:30 GMT -6
There are also a couple of Colour modules, that can be used in their 500 series. One is the TM79 and I forget the name of the other one.
I always had an interest in the TM79, I was thinking about wiring up 16 of them in a rack case, but never got around to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Feb 22, 2024 7:12:36 GMT -6
I think the majority would define the “ tape sound “ as 2in 24 track and either 1/4 or 1/2 in 1/2 track mix down deck. No offense but a 1/2in 12 track with special cartridges isn’t anywhere the sound of 2in, the Akai has a bit more track width than a cassette so no where near the headroom. You could never really align the thing because even if you could find a decent alignment tape, just like there cassette cousin’s because half the transport was in the cassette! I will say this granted I’m comparing analog to Digital here the AKAI had a transport that was far and away superior to the cheap POS sped up transports that JVC couldn’t give away, but sold in numbers to Alesis. Did a number of projects on the Akai, they sure didn’t sound like an MCI or Otari, kept a couple of owners stocked with tape for as long as we could, it was an interesting step up from a Tascam 424. No offense taken, but as I said I thought the machine sounded pretty good despite the limited headroom requiring extra care. And also there are people paying thousands of dollars for a Tascam 388 (which was the machine in the video OP was referring to) and several hundreds for Portastudios these days, so the "tape sound" to them is whatever they're getting out of those things. I'm 42 and many recording musicians my age and younger, unless they're funded by a label, would not have had a ton of opportunities or budget to hear their own music tracked from those machines you mentioned, hence the resurgent interest in things like the 388. But perhaps I should have clarified better that my point about the Akai was that it was merely a smaller version of all of the maintenance and expense and headaches of a 2" machine, and it wouldn't have been worth it even if it sounded 10x as good because it started to get in the way of actually making music. Cheers! the people buying tascam 388 or 688 for 3k all want to be cool but all of their tracks would sound better if they took that money and bought any multichannel interface and a couple of cool plugs and pedals. Any single one. Yeah the old Tascam might sound cooler than Behringer/Focusrite/Presonus/RME JRC4580 with counterfeit capacitor garbage because they designed the pre/line stages like distortion pedals but it’s still a trashy gritty, midrangey like a tube screamer sound. Then the tape fucks the recording with noise, the constantly modulated noise of dbx noise reduction, the always active vca compression and expansion, and the excessive high frequency dulling. You still need gates on every channel itb. If you don’t use the noise reduction, it’s borderline unusable. |
|
|
|
Post by Shadowk on Feb 22, 2024 7:56:35 GMT -6
I know this is going to sound cliche', but if you've never been in a control room with an original, well preserved Ampex 102 mix played through a console, no one could understand the nuances. It's bone chilling; a real wow moment in my life. That said, the digital takes on these gets pretty darn close if you ask me. Close enough to not spend the dollars or the agony of real tape! Are ypu missing anything by not having a real tape machine? No. Think of the most exciting roller coaster you've ever ridden and ask yourself if you'd need to live on that thing everyday if you had to stand in line for 3 hours at a time to do it. Once in awhile it's ok, but these days, it's a novelty. YMMV. Thing is tape can't create something that isn't there, what was bone chilling the first time I heard it was a band being tracked through a proper 64 channel console with nothing but sweet, sweet outboard. I can't explain it, the permutations of audio descriptions are a crap shoot but here goes. The lower end of a guitar had a resonant glassy thump that sounded ever so realistic and the reverberations felt like you were in an actual room.
Then it ended up in Pro Tools and I'm like, what's happened? Why does it sound so lame? Years later I bought a live mixer with effects built in, did a sing song through it which reminded me of those days just lesser quality, it's sort of what I'm trying to get back to even if nobody else will be able to hear it. I'm just going to put my flame suit on and hide in the corner after that  .. No, I'm not getting into nyquist or anything of the sort. Nope, nooo.. Take it as an "out there" opinion but I certainly get where CBCM is coming from even if it's not strictly tape related. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Feb 22, 2024 8:34:27 GMT -6
Don't necessarily want to be a downer, but having owned a tape machine for a few years now, I don't get the whole "tape thing". Honestly, a well-maintained tape machine should be really clean sounding.
I can push mine pretty hard and not get a whole lot of audible "tape-iness". The handful of stuff I've dubbed off the machine into digital has sounded really clean too.
|
|
|
|
Post by drumsound on Feb 22, 2024 8:44:18 GMT -6
There are also a couple of Colour modules, that can be used in their 500 series. One is the TM79 and I forget the name of the other one. I always had an interest in the TM79, I was thinking about wiring up 16 of them in a rack case, but never got around to it. Is that meant to sound like a 3M M79? I cut my teeth on an M79. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Feb 22, 2024 9:11:59 GMT -6
There are also a couple of Colour modules, that can be used in their 500 series. One is the TM79 and I forget the name of the other one. I always had an interest in the TM79, I was thinking about wiring up 16 of them in a rack case, but never got around to it. Is that meant to sound like a 3M M79? I cut my teeth on an M79. I can't find the article now, but it used to be available on the DIYRE site. Jens Jungkurth (Eisen Audio), the designer of the TM79 gave a great discussion on the thought process behind the TM79, and he mentioned it being inspired by the Cars first album, and Roy Thomas Baker's production style, among other things. I believe he mentions the 3M M79 in that article. Anyway, I respect the designs that Jens has done, and I liked the approach that he took with the TM79. It has a pre-emphasis/de-emphasis circuit built in, which I think plays an important role in that "tape" thing. Plus some transformers, etc. Given the price, you could put together 8 or 16 of these in a box for not that much money. Or just buy the Colour modules and host it all in a 500 rack, though that would increase the total cost by a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Feb 22, 2024 9:18:04 GMT -6
Don't necessarily want to be a downer, but having owned a tape machine for a few years now, I don't get the whole "tape thing". Honestly, a well-maintained tape machine should be really clean sounding. I can push mine pretty hard and not get a whole lot of audible "tape-iness". The handful of stuff I've dubbed off the machine into digital has sounded really clean too. there’s not much point other than some stunt setting for a fizzy high gain guitar ime. I can do that with a plug. The plugs don’t do the really disgusting repeated dub down stuff too. It’s just a poor storage and playback medium versus digital. Even the better plugs just make like 1% to .5% difference. U-he satin or chow tape set cleanly on two bus barely change anything. Just soften things up and add some phase scrambling when I don’t want a lot of volume modulation from a compressor and want a little bit of a haze over crap but id rather put it directly on the crap tracks. |
|
|
|
Post by jaba on Feb 22, 2024 9:18:08 GMT -6
Having done countless sessions on both tape (MCI JH16) and DAWs, I eventually felt what most people thought of as the "sound of tape" was in large part things other than the tape.
I still love doing a session on 2", but some of my favorite aspects of it are not even the sound - working with limited tracks, lack of monitor, little ear breaks as you rewind, etc.
I do think it sounds great though. It's far from essential but the sound of beds coming off 16-track 2" through a console has become a bit of a reference point for me.
|
|
.. No, I'm not getting into nyquist or anything of the sort. Nope, nooo.. Take it as an "out there" opinion but I certainly get where CBCM is coming from even if it's not strictly tape related.
