|
Post by notneeson on Feb 22, 2024 9:21:03 GMT -6
My friend plays in a 90s/early 00s band that fizzled out and then blew up with Gen Z and got invited to play a bunch of festivals etc.
Their most popular song has millions of streams and was clearly cut on some kind of consumer grade four or eight track, likely cassette rather than open reel based on the sound.
Thing is, that’s part of what I think young kids were responding to: it’s nostalgia for a time they never knew first hand. That crappy fidelity with its not so subtle warble is a “new” sound to them.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Feb 22, 2024 9:29:33 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. I love the TM79. The other one is the 15ips. I’ve got a pair of each and use them all the time.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Feb 22, 2024 9:44:03 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Feb 22, 2024 9:44:07 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. I love the TM79. The other one is the 15ips. I’ve got a pair of each and use them all the time. 15ips. That's the one. How do those two compare? I was always primarily interested in the TM79, and was gonna build a bunch to put in a box, but then the Bereich Density came along, and I just went that way instead.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Feb 22, 2024 9:47:19 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. I think there is more than just a little bit of truth there jaba..... ^^^^^. The "sound of tape" is a culmination of many things including the esthetic of music at that time, arrangements, studio bleed, musicians playing together in the same room at the same time, and not least - the consoles of the time.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Feb 22, 2024 9:48:58 GMT -6
I love the TM79. The other one is the 15ips. I’ve got a pair of each and use them all the time. 15ips. That's the one. How do those two compare? I was always primarily interested in the TM79, and was gonna build a bunch to put in a box, but then the Bereich Density came along, and I just went that way instead. Density is significantly better than any of the colour modules IMO. I love it in the right situations. I don't think of it as "tape" though. Personally I hated the 15IPS modules, but I know there are folks that love it. I've been using the above mentioned Tape•79 since around NAMM. It's not super "obvious" like density is - kind of like real tape itself, but in a lot of situations it's lending itself to be very useful in digitally based problems that I've had a hard time with. Most notably for me - making spike-y acoustic guitar fills sit down into a track politely where no compressors or limiters (hardware and software) could, and also that elusive "getting the bottom end SOLID - not big, but tight - like tape used to do. That's always been an elusive one for me. Still experimenting there. Brad has gone all out on this one... Oh, and for those who just want to blow stuff up, it can do that too. LOL. But that is not my idea of what "tape" sounds like.
|
|
|
Post by jaba on Feb 22, 2024 9:59:17 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. I think there is more than just a little bit of truth there jaba ..... ^^^^^. The "sound of tape" is a culmination of many things including the esthetic of music at that time, arrangements, studio bleed, musicians playing together in the same room at the same time, and not least - the consoles of the time. Yeah, bleed is a big one. Nothing else achieves the "glue" that it does.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Feb 22, 2024 10:58:15 GMT -6
My friend plays in a 90s/early 00s band that fizzled out and then blew up with Gen Z and got invited to play a bunch of festivals etc. Their most popular song has millions of streams and was clearly cut on some kind of consumer grade four or eight track, likely cassette rather than open reel based on the sound. Thing is, that’s part of what I think young kids were responding to: it’s nostalgia for a time they never knew first hand. That crappy fidelity with its not so subtle warble is a “new” sound to them. Yeah but that's probably all they had and it's still a real artist playing in a real room. There's 90s nostalgia run amok now and it's really funny because the music in the 90s worship is just not there at all usually.
When you hear stuff like Godflesh Streetcleaner (done in real studios) versus Pure (done on a 688), the tascam one just sounds like crap in comparison and you just have to imagine how good it could've sounded in your head. Saying that, Pure is very hifi compared to a lot of current digital stuff.
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Feb 22, 2024 12:03:08 GMT -6
My friend plays in a 90s/early 00s band that fizzled out and then blew up with Gen Z and got invited to play a bunch of festivals etc. Their most popular song has millions of streams and was clearly cut on some kind of consumer grade four or eight track, likely cassette rather than open reel based on the sound. Thing is, that’s part of what I think young kids were responding to: it’s nostalgia for a time they never knew first hand. That crappy fidelity with its not so subtle warble is a “new” sound to them. Yeah but that's probably all they had and it's still a real artist playing in a real room. There's 90s nostalgia run amok now and it's really funny because the music in the 90s worship is just not there at all usually.
When you hear stuff like Godflesh Streetcleaner (done in real studios) versus Pure (done on a 688), the tascam one just sounds like crap in comparison and you just have to imagine how good it could've sounded in your head. Saying that, Pure is very hifi compared to a lot of current digital stuff.
Oh for sure, I was more or less part of the same broader scene as those guys and we all had humble options. There were a few DIY studios you could book and a kid who went to Stanford who would sneak bands he liked into the studio at CCRMA.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Feb 22, 2024 12:03:50 GMT -6
15ips. That's the one. How do those two compare? I was always primarily interested in the TM79, and was gonna build a bunch to put in a box, but then the Bereich Density came along, and I just went that way instead. Density is significantly better than any of the colour modules IMO. I love it in the right situations. I don't think of it as "tape" though. Personally I hated the 15IPS modules, but I know there are folks that love it. I've been using the above mentioned Tape•79 since around NAMM. It's not super "obvious" like density is - kind of like real tape itself, but in a lot of situations it's lending itself to be very useful in digitally based problems that I've had a hard time with. Most notably for me - making spike-y acoustic guitar fills sit down into a track politely where no compressors or limiters (hardware and software) could, and also that elusive "getting the bottom end SOLID - not big, but tight - like tape used to do. That's always been an elusive one for me. Still experimenting there. Brad has gone all out on this one... Oh, and for those who just want to blow stuff up, it can do that too. LOL. But that is not my idea of what "tape" sounds like. I quite liked the sound of the TM79 clips I've heard. Otherwise I'm not really in the market for any other Colour modules (or what basically is a Colour module, in the case of your product). I have 12 channels of Density, and that's probably enough anyway. If I ever get anything else, it'd be four channels worth of either the TM79 or the RND 542, or maybe two more stereo Densitys.
|
|
|
Post by deaconblues on Feb 23, 2024 9:35:35 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. ---------------------------- I've only had limited experience with analog tape, but it left a big sonic imprint on my brain. I have a fully loaded Anamod ATS-1 and really love it. It can do the "tape effect" well, but I tend to use it more subtly on everything while tracking. That usually means I continue to use it subtly on the mix bus. It works wonders on guitars, drum machines, and synths and makes mixing easier. One known design flaw: the "hiss" chip has been replaced twice and went bad within a week the third time. If I need hiss or wow or flutter for effect, I usually turn to the Neold Warble plugin. The additional filters on that one with adjustable slope/resonance sound great even if you've got everything set to clean. If I'm playing on the modular synth, I'll use the Rossum Assimil8or sampler and play back the track or stems and add my own LFOs for subtle pitch modulation (different bpm synced divisions of wow and flutter can get pretty cool results). You usually get some free hiss when moving things to Eurorack, or if I need more I just patch and mix in some analog noise.
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Feb 24, 2024 9:31:59 GMT -6
I recently saw a video by Rhett Shull where he an RJ Ronquillio are talking tape decks (one specifically in that video) and it got me to wondering if plugins can adequately cover the "tape" thing or if there is simply no substitute for what the analog world can do. Digital modeling, etc. has come a long way and I'm a bit of an old soul, love tubes, analog, etc., but the reality is I can't afford a tape deck (nor can I justify it) right now. But never hurts to wonder, eh? As always, appreciate your thoughts. This is another area plugins fall over. When the medium is totally different. Tape is so far removed from digital it can't be emulated because the whole point about tape is it's an entirely different recording medium. imho emulating it entirely misses the point of using it. Tape isn't a saturator, it's not EQ, it's not a compressor - it's a highly unique recording medium. It might have some of those properties as a function of being what it is (rust stuck on plastic passing over a magnetic thing) but that's where any comparison ends. Tape is unique - it's tape. If you want to record to tape - record to tape. That's my view anyone :-)
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Feb 24, 2024 9:56:04 GMT -6
That's why I only use Scotch Tape. Smoother. Chris
|
|
|
Post by andersmv on Feb 24, 2024 10:13:32 GMT -6
I wish I still had the sessions somewhere... When I was working at a recording school years ago, the CLASP guys came in and gave a whole spiel and sold them on the system for the room with the massive SSL console and studer tape machine. Once it was all installed (this was early on, but there was a magical dance you had to do in a certain order after sacrificing a born again virgin to the gods of misery to get CLASP to work right every time), I went in with a few people and recorded a whole song to the Studer at 30 IPS. We were also able to record in tandem strait to digital at the same time, so we had all the tape tracks as well as the digital tracks. Rushed through a song, did a quick mix on the console that was a bit over the top on purpose, and went back and forth a few times between digital and tape. It was an extremely small difference, the ever so slight noise floor on the tape tracks was always a give away. The techs there kept that studer in great shape, and 30 IPS might as well been digital most of the time.
A few months later we tried the same thing at 15 IPS, much more noticeable. At that point, you would need to make very different mix decisions track to track. The settings that worked mixing the digital tracks did not work as well when switching to tape. Especially on drums, it would have been much harder to get the digital tracks to compress and EQ the same way as the tape tracks were reacting. I don't even mean that from a "the tape sounded better" perspective, it was just different enough to where you would have to process them different to get similar results.
There's plenty of sessions where I stack the tape emulation plugins with my UA Apollo setup. I've got a bunch of cleaner presets on the UAD Studer plugin that I throw on during tracking destructively. Come mix time, I'll throw the UAD Ampex over the master bus and add some tapey/harmonic stuff to individual tracks. There's some tape plugins like the Waves J37 that I love because of how extreme they can be. I'm almost always running shakers and tambourines through the J37 really hard because I like the distortion and slight high end roll off. The UAD plugins, at least in my opinion, are more "realistic" as far as my experience has been working with tape. I like the subtle results from stacking it in a clean way throughout the process. I thought the UAD Studer Plugin sounded eerily close to the Studer machine I worked on, and I did quite a few tests out of curiosity. We also had an ATR machine in another room, and quite honestly I never got along with that machine very well. I also didn't find the UAD version to sound very close to the real one, but ended up preferring what the UAD plugin did by a long shot. Who knows what variables contributed to all of that, there could have been issues with that machine (which I doubt given who was maintaining it) or it could be as simple as my specific opinion and preferences. Who knows....
I don't think there's any point in trying to figure out what plugins are the closest to the real thing. I've been lucky enough to work a fair amount on nicer machines over the years, but I'm nowhere close to being an expert on this stuff. I've just had enough experiences to where I felt like I formed some valid opinions as far as how I want to work and what I liked and didn't like about "tape world". We all have some sort of convoluted idea in our head of what tape is. That can be anywhere from growing up around it and working on it daily from the start of your career, to just being a fan of music that tends to be recorded that way and having a very nostalgic and visceral connection to the process and the sound of those eras. Neither of those experiences should be more or less valid than the other any more than I like vanilla ice cream more than chocolate. The tape era has been over for a while and has become more or less a color box. You can use it however you want, and what you "think" tape is or isn't doesn't have to align to anyone elses views. I've gotten into the Coil preamps the last few months and fallen in love with the CA-70. To me, running mics through that preamp is pretty much what I've always wanted from the "tape" sound in my head. I almost bought a nice tape machine a couple of times last year, but after using the Coils and being able to run line level stuff through them quiet easily, I had to be honest with myself... I don't think there's a tape machine out there that would do what I want it to do any better than a pair of CA-70's.
That's ended up being the ultimate "tape" thing for me, and I'm really happy with the results. It's obviously not tape, and probably doesn't sound anything like any tape machine out there, but I don't care. Neither should you, which I guess is what I'm trying to say. "Tape" can be whatever you want it to be now, because it was never universal to begin with. It was just a necessity to work around, and as much as people complained about it over the years, it turns out it wasn't all that bad and "perfection" was a little too boring for most people. Humans are destructive by nature, so I'm not at all surprise we all ended up wanting to mangle our audio when it started sounding too good.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Feb 24, 2024 11:38:37 GMT -6
The above experience does not surprise me.
FYI - for those of us who grew up going to multiple different studios with multiple different tape machines and formats - we can safely say - TAPE is not a singular sound. Studer IS close to digital. Although superior in their handling and mechanical aspects, Studer was NEVER my choice.
Ampex and MCI were the kings of what people refer to as "tape sound", but mechanically were not as solid as Studer. IMO of course. 15 IPS mores than 30 IPS. And then you get into tape formulations, and how you bias and calibrate the machines.
Now....drop into 1" and 1/2" multitrack formats, and you again seriously degrade the "tape sound".
For those buying a 1/4" Foster 8 track to get "tape sound"......
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on Feb 24, 2024 12:02:03 GMT -6
The above experience does not surprise me. FYI - for those of us who grew up going to multiple different studios with multiple different tape machines and formats - we can safely say - TAPE is not a singular sound. Studer IS close to digital. Although superior in their handling and mechanical aspects, Studer was NEVER my choice. Ampex and MCI were the kings of what people refer to as "tape sound", but mechanically were not as solid as Studer. IMO of course. 15 IPS mores than 30 IPS. And then you get into tape formulations, and how you bias and calibrate the machines. Now....drop into 1" and 1/2" multitrack formats, and you again seriously degrade the "tape sound". For those buying a 1/4" Foster 8 track to get "tape sound"...... Definitely. Reminds me of the folks who ask me for a set of pickups that get the "1956" Strat sound. I mean, yea there was probably a little different thing going on in general that year, but every single set and guitar was different. There isn't really a definitive sound.
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Feb 24, 2024 12:17:12 GMT -6
15ips generally. Yep. That's my personal lean. Especially on Funky stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Feb 24, 2024 12:36:28 GMT -6
The above experience does not surprise me. FYI - for those of us who grew up going to multiple different studios with multiple different tape machines and formats - we can safely say - TAPE is not a singular sound. Studer IS close to digital. Although superior in their handling and mechanical aspects, Studer was NEVER my choice. Ampex and MCI were the kings of what people refer to as "tape sound", but mechanically were not as solid as Studer. IMO of course. 15 IPS mores than 30 IPS. And then you get into tape formulations, and how you bias and calibrate the machines. Now....drop into 1" and 1/2" multitrack formats, and you again seriously degrade the "tape sound". For those buying a 1/4" Foster 8 track to get "tape sound"...... also for everyone using tape or cassette decks to get "the tape sound" all sorts of bad shit can happen. I did a record with noise reduction off on a tascam 4 track porta studio. Yeah it had more detail than the dulling effect of dbx nr but the noise had me using gates and expanders on every channel. A band I talk to and have helped out tried some stunt alignments on a 4 track TEAC R2R recently and yeah it let them use some fizzy shit on the test recordings but it also added a ton of murk that needed drastic eq afterwards. It was some Behringer level murk and maybe had only a slightly better midrange than going through Behringer circuitry when it was overeqed. And if you take any multitrack recorder and set it to a low ips or some stupid alignment, all sorts of horrible things can happen. for the cost of it, you might as well buy some not particularly hifi but solid multichannel converter like a Ferrorish or SPL Madison, which is still made and better than the prosumer interfaces but won't be clear like an apogee or a lynx or something.
Then again a lot of what people are seeking is something to hide something and the better option is to get nothing to hide in the first place but hey we have the defenders of clone gear, emulation plugs, also arguing that junky or hohum circuitry is perfectly fine. Recording with cleaner mics, cleaner pres, and cleaner converters just means you don't have to hide as much and something like tape or an 1176 will just get in the way.
that being said I'm using 7.5 ips plugs on di guitars right now. lets me use idiotic pedal and distortion plug settings and just guillotine the high end right off. then satin on two bus sort of just sits them back in a way reverb doesn't and the drum recording went through a bunch of 1176 clones already so it's already distorted and fucked and the tape plugs pretty much just change the tone a little bit in a way that's not beneficial but not detrimental. do the special effects goodhertz, neold, and softube plugs sound like tape? not at all really. do I care? No. Does Satin sound like tape? Almost but I don't care. Do you know what really sounds like a shitty two track recorder? Chow Tape. Like the kind you might see at Goodwill or a pawn shop pre tape plugin, hipster craze. Also even the tape plugs create more work to bring the sound back to life and not just dull it. You'll have to eq it more to exploit their benefits on distorted guitar, shit drum samples, and vsti synth crap. Otherwise they just crap up the sound.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Feb 24, 2024 12:48:28 GMT -6
Oh and I love what the Fuse TCS-68 Tascam 688 channel strip can do but you'll need multiple instances to get the signal path in it correct and before you slap on the tape, you'll have to eq it in an idiotic way just to get the tape to do what you want it to do. The midrange of the pre/line stage on it is not as distorted cool as a real 688 MIDISTUDIO or the earlier PORTA STUDIOS but the tape kicks the shit out of most of the Maxwell Type II cassettes leaving "Japan" now (I bet most of their tape stock comes from some third world country and it's just assembled in Japan) or what National Audio Company makes: UNUSABLE DRECK.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on Feb 24, 2024 17:43:26 GMT -6
Oh and I love what the Fuse TCS-68 Tascam 688 channel strip can do but you'll need multiple instances to get the signal path in it correct and before you slap on the tape, you'll have to eq it in an idiotic way just to get the tape to do what you want it to do. The midrange of the pre/line stage on it is not as distorted cool as a real 688 MIDISTUDIO or the earlier PORTA STUDIOS but the tape kicks the shit out of most of the Maxwell Type II cassettes leaving "Japan" now (I bet most of their tape stock comes from some third world country and it's just assembled in Japan) or what National Audio Company makes: UNUSABLE DRECK. I totally love the sound of the Fuse plug. I've used it several times and it sounds so good to me when I want that type of smoothing.
|
|
|
Post by dok on Feb 24, 2024 18:20:27 GMT -6
I'm glad this thread came up when it did, as I just came across an ad locally for a Tascam 80-8 + DX-8 + Model 3 all for less than a grand. If I hadn't already gotten it out of my system I'd be on my way to pick it up.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Feb 24, 2024 19:07:00 GMT -6
I'm glad this thread came up when it did, as I just came across an ad locally for a Tascam 80-8 + DX-8 + Model 3 all for less than a grand. If I hadn't already gotten it out of my system I'd be on my way to pick it up. Whew!!! You dodged the bullet!!!
|
|
|
Post by dok on Feb 24, 2024 19:36:11 GMT -6
I'm glad this thread came up when it did, as I just came across an ad locally for a Tascam 80-8 + DX-8 + Model 3 all for less than a grand. If I hadn't already gotten it out of my system I'd be on my way to pick it up. Whew!!! You dodged the bullet!!! The Oxide Bullet
|
|
|
Post by theshea on Feb 25, 2024 1:52:06 GMT -6
i use tape plugins as an effect, thats what they are to me.
softube tape: if i want to tame transients and soften highs a bit i use model a/15“. if i want to blow up a mix/drumgroup i use model b/30“.
i am gonna re-install reelbus tapeplugin again as it is very flexible and i once tried to match it to my TEAC A-3300SX tapemachine. i got 90% close which is fine. but no it does not sound like real tape.
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Feb 25, 2024 3:08:15 GMT -6
I wish I still had the sessions somewhere... When I was working at a recording school years ago, the CLASP guys came in and gave a whole spiel and sold them on the system for the room with the massive SSL console and studer tape machine. Once it was all installed (this was early on, but there was a magical dance you had to do in a certain order after sacrificing a born again virgin to the gods of misery to get CLASP to work right every time), I went in with a few people and recorded a whole song to the Studer at 30 IPS. We were also able to record in tandem strait to digital at the same time, so we had all the tape tracks as well as the digital tracks. Rushed through a song, did a quick mix on the console that was a bit over the top on purpose, and went back and forth a few times between digital and tape. It was an extremely small difference, the ever so slight noise floor on the tape tracks was always a give away. The techs there kept that studer in great shape, and 30 IPS might as well been digital most of the time. A few months later we tried the same thing at 15 IPS, much more noticeable. At that point, you would need to make very different mix decisions track to track. The settings that worked mixing the digital tracks did not work as well when switching to tape. Especially on drums, it would have been much harder to get the digital tracks to compress and EQ the same way as the tape tracks were reacting. I don't even mean that from a "the tape sounded better" perspective, it was just different enough to where you would have to process them different to get similar results. There's plenty of sessions where I stack the tape emulation plugins with my UA Apollo setup. I've got a bunch of cleaner presets on the UAD Studer plugin that I throw on during tracking destructively. Come mix time, I'll throw the UAD Ampex over the master bus and add some tapey/harmonic stuff to individual tracks. There's some tape plugins like the Waves J37 that I love because of how extreme they can be. I'm almost always running shakers and tambourines through the J37 really hard because I like the distortion and slight high end roll off. The UAD plugins, at least in my opinion, are more "realistic" as far as my experience has been working with tape. I like the subtle results from stacking it in a clean way throughout the process. I thought the UAD Studer Plugin sounded eerily close to the Studer machine I worked on, and I did quite a few tests out of curiosity. We also had an ATR machine in another room, and quite honestly I never got along with that machine very well. I also didn't find the UAD version to sound very close to the real one, but ended up preferring what the UAD plugin did by a long shot. Who knows what variables contributed to all of that, there could have been issues with that machine (which I doubt given who was maintaining it) or it could be as simple as my specific opinion and preferences. Who knows.... I don't think there's any point in trying to figure out what plugins are the closest to the real thing. I've been lucky enough to work a fair amount on nicer machines over the years, but I'm nowhere close to being an expert on this stuff. I've just had enough experiences to where I felt like I formed some valid opinions as far as how I want to work and what I liked and didn't like about "tape world". We all have some sort of convoluted idea in our head of what tape is. That can be anywhere from growing up around it and working on it daily from the start of your career, to just being a fan of music that tends to be recorded that way and having a very nostalgic and visceral connection to the process and the sound of those eras. Neither of those experiences should be more or less valid than the other any more than I like vanilla ice cream more than chocolate. The tape era has been over for a while and has become more or less a color box. You can use it however you want, and what you "think" tape is or isn't doesn't have to align to anyone elses views. I've gotten into the Coil preamps the last few months and fallen in love with the CA-70. To me, running mics through that preamp is pretty much what I've always wanted from the "tape" sound in my head. I almost bought a nice tape machine a couple of times last year, but after using the Coils and being able to run line level stuff through them quiet easily, I had to be honest with myself... I don't think there's a tape machine out there that would do what I want it to do any better than a pair of CA-70's. That's ended up being the ultimate "tape" thing for me, and I'm really happy with the results. It's obviously not tape, and probably doesn't sound anything like any tape machine out there, but I don't care. Neither should you, which I guess is what I'm trying to say. "Tape" can be whatever you want it to be now, because it was never universal to begin with. It was just a necessity to work around, and as much as people complained about it over the years, it turns out it wasn't all that bad and "perfection" was a little too boring for most people. Humans are destructive by nature, so I'm not at all surprise we all ended up wanting to mangle our audio when it started sounding too good. I produced and tracked a bunch of stuff back nearly 30 years ago with drums, bass and guitar on 16 track 2” (my favourite tape format) the sound was beyond glorious. Way superior to digital - different sonic world. But those days have passed - it is what it is. Not all progress is progress.
|
|