|
Post by drbill on Jan 20, 2017 13:22:50 GMT -6
Who? The hockey player? The venture capitalist? OH, the gear hacker. He may make a bunch of cool stuff for the lower budget studio set but I'm sorry, I'll take the consensus of real pro recording engineers Haha! Pretty funny stuff. I know brad. I know his work. I know his heart and intent. I know his gear aspirations. You are completely off base. You might THINK you're making a point, but the reality of the situation is that you're dead wrong about Brad. Now, all that said, I tend to agree with you regarding the "order" of tape to digital vs. digital to tape to digital, but that doesn't make your comments any less lame. Good luck with that Studer.
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Jan 20, 2017 14:47:40 GMT -6
I think it is svart IF you like the sound of tape machines and do good work with them. I agree with others on this thread that your work and the records that come out of the studio are your best promotional tools. I don't think the machines themselves will attract enough business to justify the cost and effort. If you use them to make spectacular recordings and potential clients HAVE to have your sound, then yes. It'll be a viable element of your promotion because you'll be providing a unique sound and recording experience. But you don't need tape to do that. I really just want you to get in to tape machines cause you're smart and you'll figure out some cool s**t...and teach it to me. That's kind of my point, I don't know if a tape machine would pay for itself in any reasonable amount of time, thus my original question. I'm not rich, but investing in a tape machine would be a long term investment that I don't need paid back in a year.. I could weather a few years of using it sporadically to pay for it. I'm 100% sure I could adapt to the process, but I'm not so sure about the clients. I'd personally LOVE to get into tape, and then turn around and offer it at a reasonable price to the kids who'd otherwise never have any experience with it. However, that's the part of me that's still a musician and gear lover talking. The businessman in me worries that I'd spend a lot and get little in return since young bands these days are so used to the cut/paste lifestyle that it has just become the norm. I just feel a change in media options might make people look this way. Everyone has some kind of digital interface, and for most bands these days, they have no understanding of the differences between preamps, converters, etc. They just know that some marketing slogan somewhere says that they can get "professional quality" from some 199$ recording kit at GC, and that I charge a lot more for one song than they could spend on that setup.. But tape.. that's something they can't get at GC! The interest in an old and "magical" medium could mean a lot to some people. I still don't know though. I think (and I havent used tape since 1993) that you are on the right track with your thinking. I would say, get one... fix it up, you certainly have the skill set, and lets face it.. you will enjoy it and have fun.. and mod it and build things for it..and just generally enjoy yourself. Then you will find sonically, it will do things you really like.. and you will use it just for that. It will also be something, that may impress clients...and if no one else is doing it, and doing it well around you.. its a differential... Whats the worst that happens.... you do some money, and have some fun. Lifes too short... we do this because we LOVE to do it... shit, we spend (well I do) tens of hours a week just reading and talking about gear 8) cheers Wiz
|
|
|
Post by scumbum on Jan 20, 2017 18:02:46 GMT -6
I think it is svart IF you like the sound of tape machines and do good work with them. I agree with others on this thread that your work and the records that come out of the studio are your best promotional tools. I don't think the machines themselves will attract enough business to justify the cost and effort. If you use them to make spectacular recordings and potential clients HAVE to have your sound, then yes. It'll be a viable element of your promotion because you'll be providing a unique sound and recording experience. But you don't need tape to do that. I really just want you to get in to tape machines cause you're smart and you'll figure out some cool s**t...and teach it to me. That's kind of my point, I don't know if a tape machine would pay for itself in any reasonable amount of time, thus my original question. I'm not rich, but investing in a tape machine would be a long term investment that I don't need paid back in a year.. I could weather a few years of using it sporadically to pay for it. I'm 100% sure I could adapt to the process, but I'm not so sure about the clients. I'd personally LOVE to get into tape, and then turn around and offer it at a reasonable price to the kids who'd otherwise never have any experience with it. However, that's the part of me that's still a musician and gear lover talking. The businessman in me worries that I'd spend a lot and get little in return since young bands these days are so used to the cut/paste lifestyle that it has just become the norm. I just feel a change in media options might make people look this way. Everyone has some kind of digital interface, and for most bands these days, they have no understanding of the differences between preamps, converters, etc. They just know that some marketing slogan somewhere says that they can get "professional quality" from some 199$ recording kit at GC, and that I charge a lot more for one song than they could spend on that setup.. But tape.. that's something they can't get at GC! The interest in an old and "magical" medium could mean a lot to some people. I still don't know though. If you decide to do it maybe go with MCI . Back in Black was recorded with MCI gear , talk about bragging points for your setup . Not sure if Steve still does it but for a flat fee $200 you get unlimited phone/email tech support for MCI tape decks and consoles from him . That sure would help with learning how to work on your tape machine . www.blevinsaudio.net/otherservices.htmlAt one time I almost went all analog , I had an opportunity to buy my brother in laws MCI tape machine and console . He knew NOTHING about recording or electronics . But he was in a rock band and Back in Black was recorded on MCI so he bought MCI gear . He never learned how to do anything with the gear and offered it to me to buy . I had a Pro Tools setup at the time and the thought of all the work maintaining it and learning how to use it was too much for me so I passed on buying it . It sat in my garage for months and I'd sit out there dreaming of it all working and me using it . Heres some pictures , www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/394294-mci-jh-16-jh-416-console-help.html
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jan 20, 2017 22:27:59 GMT -6
Okay, let's just think for a moment. When you say the Beatles were forced to make decisions and then react to those while creating, well, how many takes do you think they did? A lot more than your typical digital session. I read an interview back in the foggy past where John Lennon was defending Phil Spector's production of "Let It Be", where he mentioned that Phil waded through over one hundred hours worth of tape to come up with forty or so minutes. So the idea that they made snap decisions and then rolled on is just nonsense. Four track recording, but how many tape machines are in play? As for engineers claiming that the order of transfer as it pertains to the effect of oxide compression is discernibly different if you go to analog first, and then digital, I I bet the difference is negligible. If you take a program material, e.g., and run it into your typical pro-sumer set-up choosing which is the clone even with an analog conversion on the way in is not readily apparent. Since so many people are enamored with analog summing and inserts which are basically putting the audio through the same process, and claim negligible or inaudible differences, why is this particular order different? I am calling bull droppings on it, without some actual data. And yes, I have done just a wee bit of recording to pro formats and know this, you can talk yourself into anything. You think your voice sounds bad on one format over another, that is more than likely preconceived notions affecting your opinion. The placebo effect is verifiable, do you think it is any different on something like audio perception, as opposed to actual disease abatement? Here is something I think, I like the Beatles, but their recordings sound not so good anymore. Sorry, I wish it weren't true, they are the shot across the bow and the impetus for so much of what we take for granted, but that doesn't change all the fog and swampy vague imaging. Or is that analog magic? ? hahahaha I dunno about the "oxide compression" thing. I'm much more inclined to belive that digital loses something rather that tape adding something - not to say that tape might not but I don't think it's what I'm hearing. It's like what my dad used to say about carpentry - "You can always take more off but you can never add it back on." Audio's the same way. What's being lost I can't say, but I hear something. Can't quite put my finger on it but it's there...
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jan 20, 2017 22:46:15 GMT -6
Who? The hockey player? The venture capitalist? OH, the gear hacker. He may make a bunch of cool stuff for the lower budget studio set but I'm sorry, I'll take the consensus of real pro recording engineers Haha! Pretty funny stuff. I know brad. I know his work. I know his heart and intent. I know his gear aspirations. You are completely off base. You might THINK you're making a point, but the reality of the situation is that you're dead wrong about Brad. Now, all that said, I tend to agree with you regarding the "order" of tape to digital vs. digital to tape to digital, but that doesn't make your comments any less lame. Good luck with that Studer. I really didn't mean to knock Brad at all, I was just being a bit of a smartass after googling and finding mostly references to athletes, bankers, lawyers, etc. It was more a response to somebody justifying an opinion on something that I seriously doubt he has any experience with at all, using a reference to an alleged 10 year old quote (and we all remember the analog/digital arguments back then) that he "thinks" somebody made. I wasn't intending to make a point about Brad at all - it was a point about the author of the post I was responding to. The comment about Brad being a "gear hacker*" was not intended as being derogatory to Brad, just pointing out that that's not an area of audio he's known for - like consulting a brain surgeon about a heart bypass. Owning the Studer is like owning an Alfa Romeo. Luck is a good thing to have.... * - I've done a bit of "gear hacking" myself, back when I was actively working as a tech.
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jan 20, 2017 23:08:06 GMT -6
I think it is svart IF you like the sound of tape machines and do good work with them. I agree with others on this thread that your work and the records that come out of the studio are your best promotional tools. I don't think the machines themselves will attract enough business to justify the cost and effort. If you use them to make spectacular recordings and potential clients HAVE to have your sound, then yes. It'll be a viable element of your promotion because you'll be providing a unique sound and recording experience. But you don't need tape to do that. I really just want you to get in to tape machines cause you're smart and you'll figure out some cool s**t...and teach it to me. That's kind of my point, I don't know if a tape machine would pay for itself in any reasonable amount of time, thus my original question. I'm not rich, but investing in a tape machine would be a long term investment that I don't need paid back in a year.. I could weather a few years of using it sporadically to pay for it. I'm 100% sure I could adapt to the process, but I'm not so sure about the clients. I'd personally LOVE to get into tape, and then turn around and offer it at a reasonable price to the kids who'd otherwise never have any experience with it. However, that's the part of me that's still a musician and gear lover talking. The businessman in me worries that I'd spend a lot and get little in return since young bands these days are so used to the cut/paste lifestyle that it has just become the norm. I just feel a change in media options might make people look this way. Everyone has some kind of digital interface, and for most bands these days, they have no understanding of the differences between preamps, converters, etc. They just know that some marketing slogan somewhere says that they can get "professional quality" from some 199$ recording kit at GC, and that I charge a lot more for one song than they could spend on that setup.. But tape.. that's something they can't get at GC! The interest in an old and "magical" medium could mean a lot to some people. I still don't know though. Do it!!!!
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jan 20, 2017 23:26:28 GMT -6
Brad McGowan tested all this around 10 years ago . Hopefully he can chime in on this thread . But his conclusion after testing was that it didn't matter in what part of the chain tape was used . You could hit tape before or after digital and it got him the same results . Who? The hockey player? The venture capitalist? OH, the gear hacker. He may make a bunch of cool stuff for the lower budget studio set but I'm sorry, I'll take the consensus of real pro recording engineers over even a well liked gear hacker any day. And nearly all the engineers I'm in contact with who use both tape and digital on a regular basis agree - tape into digital works a HELL of a lot better than digital into tape. Of course if you have a product line that includes devices that are alleged to make digital recordings sound "tape-like" you might understandably have a different viewpoint. The results are NOT the same. The difference is obvious to anyone who has actually used the gear. How much recording to professional format tape have you done? In my own case, recording my voice directly to digital brings out aspects of my voice that I really, really don't like, aspects that are exteremely difficult if not impossible to deal with via processing. Recording to my Studer A-800 tape machine through the exact same input chain yeilds a much better result in which the aspects I dislike are minimized with the residual being much more easily dealt with. Rerecording the digital recording over to tape does not yeild the same result. Neither mixing down to digital nor transferring from tape to digital brings out the undesirable sonic artifacts after the initial recording was made to tape.. Note that I'm NOT talking about "saturation", distortion, noise, or any of that crap that the Purple amateurs are always going on about. I'm talking about recording to a machine with the rep of being the best sounding, cleasnest analog tape machine ever made (although a definite PITA to maintain.) Brad McGowan rules I challenge the assertion that the 800 is the best sounding tape machine ever made. I don't think it makes top 5. Cleanest maybe. Best transport? Sure. Smoothest to operate? Yes. Incredible feat of modern manufacturing. Best sounding? No way.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jan 21, 2017 0:23:58 GMT -6
Who? The hockey player? The venture capitalist? OH, the gear hacker. He may make a bunch of cool stuff for the lower budget studio set but I'm sorry, I'll take the consensus of real pro recording engineers over even a well liked gear hacker any day. And nearly all the engineers I'm in contact with who use both tape and digital on a regular basis agree - tape into digital works a HELL of a lot better than digital into tape. Of course if you have a product line that includes devices that are alleged to make digital recordings sound "tape-like" you might understandably have a different viewpoint. The results are NOT the same. The difference is obvious to anyone who has actually used the gear. How much recording to professional format tape have you done? In my own case, recording my voice directly to digital brings out aspects of my voice that I really, really don't like, aspects that are exteremely difficult if not impossible to deal with via processing. Recording to my Studer A-800 tape machine through the exact same input chain yeilds a much better result in which the aspects I dislike are minimized with the residual being much more easily dealt with. Rerecording the digital recording over to tape does not yeild the same result. Neither mixing down to digital nor transferring from tape to digital brings out the undesirable sonic artifacts after the initial recording was made to tape.. Note that I'm NOT talking about "saturation", distortion, noise, or any of that crap that the Purple amateurs are always going on about. I'm talking about recording to a machine with the rep of being the best sounding, cleasnest analog tape machine ever made (although a definite PITA to maintain.) Brad McGowan rules I challenge the assertion that the 800 is the best sounding tape machine ever made. I don't think it makes top 5. Cleanest maybe. Best transport? Sure. Smoothest to operate? Yes. Incredible feat of modern manufacturing. Best sounding? No way. Well, that's a matter of taste, innit? There are Ampex fans, there are 3M fans, there are Stephens fans, there are even MCI and Otari fans..... Best transport? Are you sure you're not confusing it with the 827? Most Studer aficionados give the 827 top marks for transport and the A800 MKIII top marks for sound quality. It's certainly not the smoothest to operate.
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jan 21, 2017 1:22:33 GMT -6
Brad McGowan rules I challenge the assertion that the 800 is the best sounding tape machine ever made. I don't think it makes top 5. Cleanest maybe. Best transport? Sure. Smoothest to operate? Yes. Incredible feat of modern manufacturing. Best sounding? No way. Well, that's a matter of taste, innit? There are Ampex fans, there are 3M fans, there are Stephens fans, there are even MCI and Otari fans..... Best transport? Are you sure you're not confusing it with the 827? Most Studer aficionados give the 827 top marks for transport and the A800 MKIII top marks for sound quality. It's certainly not the smoothest to operate. Absolutely yes, matter of taste. Not a studer guy, forgive my mistake...most tape machine transports are like a rolls royce compared to the dump trucks and rickshaws I drive.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 21, 2017 11:22:26 GMT -6
Brad McGowan tested all this around 10 years ago . Hopefully he can chime in on this thread . But his conclusion after testing was that it didn't matter in what part of the chain tape was used . You could hit tape before or after digital and it got him the same results . Who? The hockey player? The venture capitalist? OH, the gear hacker. He may make a bunch of cool stuff for the lower budget studio set but I'm sorry, I'll take the consensus of real pro recording engineers over even a well liked gear hacker any day. And nearly all the engineers I'm in contact with who use both tape and digital on a regular basis agree - tape into digital works a HELL of a lot better than digital into tape. Of course if you have a product line that includes devices that are alleged to make digital recordings sound "tape-like" you might understandably have a different viewpoint. The results are NOT the same. The difference is obvious to anyone who has actually used the gear. How much recording to professional format tape have you done? In my own case, recording my voice directly to digital brings out aspects of my voice that I really, really don't like, aspects that are exteremely difficult if not impossible to deal with via processing. Recording to my Studer A-800 tape machine through the exact same input chain yeilds a much better result in which the aspects I dislike are minimized with the residual being much more easily dealt with. Rerecording the digital recording over to tape does not yeild the same result. Neither mixing down to digital nor transferring from tape to digital brings out the undesirable sonic artifacts after the initial recording was made to tape.. Note that I'm NOT talking about "saturation", distortion, noise, or any of that crap that the Purple amateurs are always going on about. I'm talking about recording to a machine with the rep of being the best sounding, cleasnest analog tape machine ever made (although a definite PITA to maintain.) OK - this was just brought to my attention. Not cool to attack people like that. You have been warned.
|
|
|
Post by BradM on Jan 21, 2017 12:26:03 GMT -6
Hey guys! johneppstein illacov wiz This is a really interesting topic so thanks for pulling me in. I did some digging and found some of previous writings on the matter. It's be a while so I had to refresh my memory what I had said. Many times our impressions and thoughts evolve and change over time regarding gear, workflow, etc. On this topic, I still feel the same way I did then: www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/385928-record-straight-tape-vs-protools-then-tape.htmlThere was some testing I did on page 8 of that thread. I doubt the links to whatever soundclips I posted still work, but my commentary might be interesting. I haven't read it all yet. If I may quote myself: " I've done some tests...not exactly scientific but what I found is that the conversion degrades the tracks. What I did is track a band to 1" 8-track and then transfer all the tracks to the computer at various sample rates. I then did an analog mix of the music straight from the tape (tape > mixer > A/D at 88.2k). Using the same settings on the console I re-ran the mix using the digital transfers of the tracks at the various sample rates. So basically the DAW acted as the source for the multitrack material. Each track was output of the computer on a separate D/A channel into the mixing console. The summed mix was then captured back into the computer. So the only difference between these mixes and the original all-analog mix was the introduction of an additional A/D and D/A converson. What I subjectively discovered was that the most audible degradation occurs at 44.1k and 48k (I'm using Mytek 8x192 by the way). Transfers done at 88.2k and 96k seemed much more transparent to me and it was much more difficult to tell the difference between the mix off the tape deck. By "degradation" I mean the sound lost depth, impact, mojo, etc. It just started to suck in general. To be honest I had no idea I would hear such an obvious difference.
You are specifically asking about the other way....recording to digital and dumping to analog. I have yet to do those tests, but from my experience doing what you are describing I feel that the degradation is even more significant. I think it also has to do with how you react to and interract sounds that are captured digitally versus on tape. In other words you will process sounds and place mics slightly differently when you hit A/D conversion than if you hit tape first. Again I have no scientific basis for this...it's just my own thoughts based on first hand experience. For some reason my results transferring digitall captured tracks to tape as an afterthought never came out as good as capturing the source to tape in the first place. I would love to study this further to better understand what's going on.
My advice is capture to tape first then transfer to digital, but only do so at high sample rates." Now having said that I've also come to the conclusion (and probably mentioned it in that old thread) that workflow trumps all at the end of the day for most folks. I personally hear a difference and have a preference, which I think aligns with John's preferences, but I think whichever order suits your music-making approach is definitely going to yield better music. Workflow should never be discounted. For the record, I think I actually may have the same amount (or more) experience with my Studer, MCI, and Otari tape decks and using them with a DAW, that do with designing and "hacking" gear. It's all part of the same passion and journey for me. If I get new business cards made up I may have to change my title to "gear hacker". It kind of has a nice ring. Thanks, John! Brad
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jan 21, 2017 13:00:54 GMT -6
Hey guys! johneppstein illacov wiz This is a really interesting topic so thanks for pulling me in. I did some digging and found some of previous writings on the matter. It's be a while so I had to refresh my memory what I had said. Many times our impressions and thoughts evolve and change over time regarding gear, workflow, etc. On this topic, I still feel the same way I did then: www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/385928-record-straight-tape-vs-protools-then-tape.htmlThere was some testing I did on page 8 of that thread. I doubt the links to whatever soundclips I posted still work, but my commentary might be interesting. I haven't read it all yet. If I may quote myself: " I've done some tests...not exactly scientific but what I found is that the conversion degrades the tracks. What I did is track a band to 1" 8-track and then transfer all the tracks to the computer at various sample rates. I then did an analog mix of the music straight from the tape (tape > mixer > A/D at 88.2k). Using the same settings on the console I re-ran the mix using the digital transfers of the tracks at the various sample rates. So basically the DAW acted as the source for the multitrack material. Each track was output of the computer on a separate D/A channel into the mixing console. The summed mix was then captured back into the computer. So the only difference between these mixes and the original all-analog mix was the introduction of an additional A/D and D/A converson. What I subjectively discovered was that the most audible degradation occurs at 44.1k and 48k (I'm using Mytek 8x192 by the way). Transfers done at 88.2k and 96k seemed much more transparent to me and it was much more difficult to tell the difference between the mix off the tape deck. By "degradation" I mean the sound lost depth, impact, mojo, etc. It just started to suck in general. To be honest I had no idea I would hear such an obvious difference.
You are specifically asking about the other way....recording to digital and dumping to analog. I have yet to do those tests, but from my experience doing what you are describing I feel that the degradation is even more significant. I think it also has to do with how you react to and interract sounds that are captured digitally versus on tape. In other words you will process sounds and place mics slightly differently when you hit A/D conversion than if you hit tape first. Again I have no scientific basis for this...it's just my own thoughts based on first hand experience. For some reason my results transferring digitall captured tracks to tape as an afterthought never came out as good as capturing the source to tape in the first place. I would love to study this further to better understand what's going on.
My advice is capture to tape first then transfer to digital, but only do so at high sample rates." Now having said that I've also come to the conclusion (and probably mentioned it in that old thread) that workflow trumps all at the end of the day for most folks. I personally hear a difference and have a preference, which I think aligns with John's preferences, but I think whichever order suits your music-making approach is definitely going to yield better music. Workflow should never be discounted. For the record, I think I actually may have the same amount (or more) experience with my Studer, MCI, and Otari tape decks and using them with a DAW, that do with designing and "hacking" gear. It's all part of the same passion and journey for me. If I get new business cards made up I may have to change my title to "gear hacker". It kind of has a nice ring. Thanks, John! Brad Hi Brad! Thanks for clearing that up. As I understand it on one read through you're essentially agreeing with my assertion that digital tends to "lose something" and that your feeling, without having completed a full investigation, is that there is a difference between going tape>digital and going digital>tape? I really should have known better than to take somebody else's word for it - that's why they don't admit hearsay in court. And yes, workflow is extremely important - in my case working with a DAW tends to drive me up a tree - I hate mice and the menus they build nests in! I understand that youngsters who have grown up using computers all their lives (and have little of no experience with a real console) don't feel that way, but I'm an old fart who started out doing sound when a good PA system was a Bogen Challanger... And FWIW my use of the word "hacker" was intended in the old, original sense of the word as "problem solver", not the "modern", sensationalized way that it's become perverted by the popular press. -John-
|
|
|
Post by BradM on Jan 21, 2017 13:06:16 GMT -6
Hi Brad! Thanks for clearing that up. As I understand it on one read through you're essentially agreeing with my assertion that digital tends to "lose something" and that your feeling, without having completed a full investigation, is that there is a difference between going tape>digital and going digital>tape? I really should have known better than to take somebody else's word for it - that's why they don't admit hearsay in court. And yes, workflow is extremely important - in my case working with a DAW tends to drive me up a tree - I hate mice and the menus they build nests in! I understand that youngsters who have grown up using computers all their lives (and have little of no experience with a real console) don't feel that way, but I'm an old fart who started out doing sound when a good PA system was a Bogen Challanger... And FWIW my use of the word "hacker" was intended in the old, original sense of the word as "problem solver", not the "modern", sensationalized way that it's become perverted by the popular press. -John- Hi John! It's my pleasure. I initially I made some hypothesis and later followed it up with a very thorough investigation, which played out on the purple site complete with sound clips. I totally agree that the conversion loses something. Ever since then I've strongly believed that the very first A/D conversion is the most important one you can make and that successive round trips are practically negligible in terms of degradation in comparison. I also ended up learning that I prefer the sound of my Radar Classic converters at 48k to the sound of my Mytek at 96k when doing tape transfers. Go figure. I'm not that old, but I tend to have less fun working with a DAW than with my tape decks. Although when fire shoots out of the deck and it stops working...well that's kind of a bummer. Radar might be best of both worlds for me. I didn't take offense to the term "hacker". So no harm done, my friend. Brad
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jan 21, 2017 13:22:29 GMT -6
Well, that's a matter of taste, innit? There are Ampex fans, there are 3M fans, there are Stephens fans, there are even MCI and Otari fans..... Best transport? Are you sure you're not confusing it with the 827? Most Studer aficionados give the 827 top marks for transport and the A800 MKIII top marks for sound quality. It's certainly not the smoothest to operate. Absolutely yes, matter of taste. Not a studer guy, forgive my mistake...most tape machine transports are like a rolls royce compared to the dump trucks and rickshaws I drive. There seems to be somthing of a dichotomy these days between (mostly younger) guys who regard tape as an effect/signal processor and those (call them traditionalists) who regard tape as a medium. The divide has been exacerbated considerably by the gear press and plugin manufactures who are always going on about tape compression, distortion, noise and flutter, recording real hot, etc, etc. I don't buy into that way of thinking - if your tape machine has significant noise, flutter, or distortion it needs service. I don't think that consumer, semi-pro, or cassette machines have "great character" - that's not what I look for in tape. I don't record extra hot - we usually try to keep the needles out of the red most of the time. That's why I like the Studer. It's not an "effect". To me it's a bit like the difference between painting in oils or watercolors - great paintings have been done in both mediums, but oil has a certain richness to it that watercolor (or even acrylic) lacks. Same thing with tape.
|
|
|
Post by scumbum on Jan 21, 2017 16:11:39 GMT -6
Hey guys! johneppstein illacov wiz This is a really interesting topic so thanks for pulling me in. I did some digging and found some of previous writings on the matter. It's be a while so I had to refresh my memory what I had said. Many times our impressions and thoughts evolve and change over time regarding gear, workflow, etc. On this topic, I still feel the same way I did then: www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/385928-record-straight-tape-vs-protools-then-tape.htmlThere was some testing I did on page 8 of that thread. I doubt the links to whatever soundclips I posted still work, but my commentary might be interesting. I haven't read it all yet. If I may quote myself: " I've done some tests...not exactly scientific but what I found is that the conversion degrades the tracks. What I did is track a band to 1" 8-track and then transfer all the tracks to the computer at various sample rates. I then did an analog mix of the music straight from the tape (tape > mixer > A/D at 88.2k). Using the same settings on the console I re-ran the mix using the digital transfers of the tracks at the various sample rates. So basically the DAW acted as the source for the multitrack material. Each track was output of the computer on a separate D/A channel into the mixing console. The summed mix was then captured back into the computer. So the only difference between these mixes and the original all-analog mix was the introduction of an additional A/D and D/A converson. What I subjectively discovered was that the most audible degradation occurs at 44.1k and 48k (I'm using Mytek 8x192 by the way). Transfers done at 88.2k and 96k seemed much more transparent to me and it was much more difficult to tell the difference between the mix off the tape deck. By "degradation" I mean the sound lost depth, impact, mojo, etc. It just started to suck in general. To be honest I had no idea I would hear such an obvious difference.
You are specifically asking about the other way....recording to digital and dumping to analog. I have yet to do those tests, but from my experience doing what you are describing I feel that the degradation is even more significant. I think it also has to do with how you react to and interract sounds that are captured digitally versus on tape. In other words you will process sounds and place mics slightly differently when you hit A/D conversion than if you hit tape first. Again I have no scientific basis for this...it's just my own thoughts based on first hand experience. For some reason my results transferring digitall captured tracks to tape as an afterthought never came out as good as capturing the source to tape in the first place. I would love to study this further to better understand what's going on.
My advice is capture to tape first then transfer to digital, but only do so at high sample rates." Now having said that I've also come to the conclusion (and probably mentioned it in that old thread) that workflow trumps all at the end of the day for most folks. I personally hear a difference and have a preference, which I think aligns with John's preferences, but I think whichever order suits your music-making approach is definitely going to yield better music. Workflow should never be discounted. For the record, I think I actually may have the same amount (or more) experience with my Studer, MCI, and Otari tape decks and using them with a DAW, that do with designing and "hacking" gear. It's all part of the same passion and journey for me. If I get new business cards made up I may have to change my title to "gear hacker". It kind of has a nice ring. Thanks, John! Brad Thanks for joining the discussion and posting a link to that thread . I'd have to re-read the whole thread its been awhile . While doing all the transfers at high sample rates brought you to conclusion that hitting tape first sounded better , at lower sample rates 48K , 44.1K ...you didn't get the same results ? Correct ? Hey illacov , you were in that thread too , heres an exchange you and Brad had , "illacov Whatever difference it makes to track to tape first so far is truly lost on me because I've done my own A/B tests and really the only thing that changes in each situation is hitting tape first or second. You still have to hit those converters, so really there's only that IMHO slight deviation from the original sound that any AD converter is going to impart when it captures audio and that slight deviation IMHO that the DA converter is going to impart when it reproduces audio. Either way you look at it, you still hit tape. To say that you really didn't because you didn't hit it first, well who would be able to tell? So far I really can't Ive tried it in my mixing room, my friends room on NS10s. Ive even tried it in my car and the monitor room with 13 different pairs of monitors in GC and the difference was not BOOM!! For the most part I think that hitting tape at either point still gets the job done and wouldn't open the door for "It would have been so much better if you had hit tape first," especially if you take the raw source tracks from digital (like I do) and have them hit tape like you would during tracking to tape either naked or with some slight compression to get a good Signal to Noise ratio. Yes you have to rely on your converters to do their job well but it still pays in spades, in effect negating your losses." "Brad I kind of have to agree with you...at least as long as we're talking about Mytek converters running at 96kHz. Lesser converters running at 44.1kHz might be a different story. Having done all these tests I'm now a big fan of the higher sample rates when having to work with digital. While I think I might be able to pick out subtle differences between the Tape first tracks versus the Bounce tracks, I'm not sure it really matters in the heat of battle. My mix clips that I downsampled to 44.1k kind of demonstrate that the differences diminish as you decrease the resolution of the audio. Just the fact that you hit tape at all seems to have a bigger and more important impact to the sound. I think for most people it might come down to a preferred workflow, and since that's where the discussion has turned in the last page or so, it seems we might have some evidence of that. So my personal take on it is: I hear a difference, but it's too small to care. Anyone else have an opinion on the matter?" So sample rate plays a HUGE part if hitting tape first really matters . And also what sample rate the audio is played back from . I talked to you brad , it was either PM or Email , but now I remember we were discussing this and the conclusion was if its gonna be played back at 44.1 or MP3 , hitting tape first didn't really matter . At 192K it mattered but at the low sample rates it didn't matter . Is that still your guys same thoughts even today ?
|
|
|
Post by illacov on Jan 21, 2017 19:03:58 GMT -6
Hey guys! johneppstein illacov wiz This is a really interesting topic so thanks for pulling me in. I did some digging and found some of previous writings on the matter. It's be a while so I had to refresh my memory what I had said. Many times our impressions and thoughts evolve and change over time regarding gear, workflow, etc. On this topic, I still feel the same way I did then: www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/385928-record-straight-tape-vs-protools-then-tape.htmlThere was some testing I did on page 8 of that thread. I doubt the links to whatever soundclips I posted still work, but my commentary might be interesting. I haven't read it all yet. If I may quote myself: " I've done some tests...not exactly scientific but what I found is that the conversion degrades the tracks. What I did is track a band to 1" 8-track and then transfer all the tracks to the computer at various sample rates. I then did an analog mix of the music straight from the tape (tape > mixer > A/D at 88.2k). Using the same settings on the console I re-ran the mix using the digital transfers of the tracks at the various sample rates. So basically the DAW acted as the source for the multitrack material. Each track was output of the computer on a separate D/A channel into the mixing console. The summed mix was then captured back into the computer. So the only difference between these mixes and the original all-analog mix was the introduction of an additional A/D and D/A converson. What I subjectively discovered was that the most audible degradation occurs at 44.1k and 48k (I'm using Mytek 8x192 by the way). Transfers done at 88.2k and 96k seemed much more transparent to me and it was much more difficult to tell the difference between the mix off the tape deck. By "degradation" I mean the sound lost depth, impact, mojo, etc. It just started to suck in general. To be honest I had no idea I would hear such an obvious difference.
You are specifically asking about the other way....recording to digital and dumping to analog. I have yet to do those tests, but from my experience doing what you are describing I feel that the degradation is even more significant. I think it also has to do with how you react to and interract sounds that are captured digitally versus on tape. In other words you will process sounds and place mics slightly differently when you hit A/D conversion than if you hit tape first. Again I have no scientific basis for this...it's just my own thoughts based on first hand experience. For some reason my results transferring digitall captured tracks to tape as an afterthought never came out as good as capturing the source to tape in the first place. I would love to study this further to better understand what's going on.
My advice is capture to tape first then transfer to digital, but only do so at high sample rates." Now having said that I've also come to the conclusion (and probably mentioned it in that old thread) that workflow trumps all at the end of the day for most folks. I personally hear a difference and have a preference, which I think aligns with John's preferences, but I think whichever order suits your music-making approach is definitely going to yield better music. Workflow should never be discounted. For the record, I think I actually may have the same amount (or more) experience with my Studer, MCI, and Otari tape decks and using them with a DAW, that do with designing and "hacking" gear. It's all part of the same passion and journey for me. If I get new business cards made up I may have to change my title to "gear hacker". It kind of has a nice ring. Thanks, John! Brad Thanks for joining the discussion and posting a link to that thread . I'd have to re-read the whole thread its been awhile . While doing all the transfers at high sample rates brought you to conclusion that hitting tape first sounded better , at lower sample rates 48K , 44.1K ...you didn't get the same results ? Correct ? Hey illacov , you were in that thread too , heres an exchange you and Brad had , "illacov Whatever difference it makes to track to tape first so far is truly lost on me because I've done my own A/B tests and really the only thing that changes in each situation is hitting tape first or second. You still have to hit those converters, so really there's only that IMHO slight deviation from the original sound that any AD converter is going to impart when it captures audio and that slight deviation IMHO that the DA converter is going to impart when it reproduces audio. Either way you look at it, you still hit tape. To say that you really didn't because you didn't hit it first, well who would be able to tell? So far I really can't Ive tried it in my mixing room, my friends room on NS10s. Ive even tried it in my car and the monitor room with 13 different pairs of monitors in GC and the difference was not BOOM!! For the most part I think that hitting tape at either point still gets the job done and wouldn't open the door for "It would have been so much better if you had hit tape first," especially if you take the raw source tracks from digital (like I do) and have them hit tape like you would during tracking to tape either naked or with some slight compression to get a good Signal to Noise ratio. Yes you have to rely on your converters to do their job well but it still pays in spades, in effect negating your losses." "Brad I kind of have to agree with you...at least as long as we're talking about Mytek converters running at 96kHz. Lesser converters running at 44.1kHz might be a different story. Having done all these tests I'm now a big fan of the higher sample rates when having to work with digital. While I think I might be able to pick out subtle differences between the Tape first tracks versus the Bounce tracks, I'm not sure it really matters in the heat of battle. My mix clips that I downsampled to 44.1k kind of demonstrate that the differences diminish as you decrease the resolution of the audio. Just the fact that you hit tape at all seems to have a bigger and more important impact to the sound. I think for most people it might come down to a preferred workflow, and since that's where the discussion has turned in the last page or so, it seems we might have some evidence of that. So my personal take on it is: I hear a difference, but it's too small to care. Anyone else have an opinion on the matter?" So sample rate plays a HUGE part if hitting tape first really matters . And also what sample rate the audio is played back from . I talked to you brad , it was either PM or Email , but now I remember we were discussing this and the conclusion was if its gonna be played back at 44.1 or MP3 , hitting tape first didn't really matter . At 192K it mattered but at the low sample rates it didn't matter . Is that still your guys same thoughts even today ? To quote Marvel comics, I got better. LOL. Tape first then to digital is far more beneficial if youre trying to get as much mojo as you can before the conversion strikes. You do realize how old that thread is right? I got better converters, better chances and opportunities to develop better methods and really learn what I hated about digital and what I loved about analog in the context of digital recording. So years later SLAP! This is me slapping the 2008/2009 version of me. You fool! All mojo before conversion is ideal. The samplerate and the converter design will totally impact the outcomes. Converters that work best at 96 may not sound as good at 44.1 etc..ymmv Thanks -L.
|
|
|
Post by scumbum on Jan 21, 2017 19:36:32 GMT -6
To quote Marvel comics, I got better. LOL. Tape first then to digital is far more beneficial if youre trying to get as much mojo as you can before the conversion strikes. You do realize how old that thread is right? I got better converters, better chances and opportunities to develop better methods and really learn what I hated about digital and what I loved about analog in the context of digital recording. So years later SLAP! This is me slapping the 2008/2009 version of me. You fool! All mojo before conversion is ideal. The samplerate and the converter design will totally impact the outcomes. Converters that work best at 96 may not sound as good at 44.1 etc..ymmv Thanks -L. Oh man I totally understand . I usually cringe when I have to read old posts of mine . Usually I try not to read them , haha . Its like listening to old music you made way back , sometimes its good , but usually if I re-did that song today it would be WAY better , much better performance , much better mix . We all get better with time ....hopefully ! I'm sure Brad has changed his view as well . I remember talking with Brad back then , hearing the audio samples and the conclusion of the final delivery is gonna be consumer 44.1 or MP3 and no one in that thread was hearing a big difference at lower sample rates , so then getting tape in the chain some where is all that matters . But with 192 it was a different story , but very few consumers listen at high sample rates .
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 21, 2017 20:03:48 GMT -6
Sometimes I think about some of the gear I've tried in the distant past and think, "damn, I didn't know my ass from a hole in the wall back then..." What was the line in Glengary Glen Ross? "Always be closing..." I guess we should "always be learning..."
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jan 21, 2017 20:27:57 GMT -6
Sometimes I think about some of the gear I've tried in the distant past and think, "damn, I didn't know my ass from a hole in the wall back then..." What was the line in Glengary Glen Ross? "Always be closing..." I guess we should "always be learning..." You said it!
|
|
|
Post by jjinvegas on Jan 22, 2017 21:24:24 GMT -6
Well, it appears that the original premise I offered, about how with the easy alignment of takes on the DAW one could use a half track or full track quarter inch machine and get some kind of oxide mojo seems like a do-able thing. Because that was the really the underpinning of the discussion, whether there was a need to have two-inch expense if all you really wished was to get some of that analog distortion going. Because INHO the things that benefit from tape are bass guitar due to the roll-off, which made most console manufacturers decide there was no real need for HPF even on pretty spendy consoles. And drum tracks, except for Overheads, got some brickwall even if unintended due to slow ballistic meters. The other elephant in the room with the two inch thing is that so many of those machines were not stellar in the erase department, they were designed before 256/456 formulations allowed a hotter recording level. that is why you used to be able to buy one-pass tape at a pretty good discount, We have all grown accustomed to a far lower overall noise floor that used to mask ghosts and cross-talk when you had 16 or 24 channels of tape hiss disguising it. And then a whole range of very cool sounding machines come into play without worry about so many channels of maintenance and/or rehab/repair. Scully 280 machines havw a very sweet character, the Ampex 300 series tube machines have a very recognizable warmth, JH 110, and my personal favorite due to the transformers and FETs, 3M. Very few of us have Svart's electronic knowledge, so babysitting 16 channels of Austin Healy might give us remorse, two channels is less stressful....cheers....
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jan 22, 2017 23:49:19 GMT -6
I'm just gonna throw this in... I tracked a record at Welcome to 1979 a few weeks ago on the MCI gear using GP9. I'm mixing it at my place on the 440B using RMGI SM468. S**t man...it's gooey as hell. That 468 is nice sounding tape. I'm capturing "no tape" mixes as well, kinda just for this thread. I'll post up some A/B stuff for you guys soon. illacov you'll probably dig this 468. It's fat. In my opinion it's crushing the ATR. At least for my set of preferences. The 468 is sounding so sweet on top now that I have the bias where I like it. Took a few tweaks to get it right but it's nice now. I'm sensitive to high end and mix a bit dark usually so it's important to me that the tape isn't hard or glassy. As far as the noise part of the discussion, I gave up worrying about it when I started to use some vintage gear. It's a losing battle for me. Not rich enough or a good enough tech to keep everything quiet. Once I stepped back I realized I didn't actually mind it. Only time noise is a problem for me is if I don't hit the tape hard enough...which has happened a few times. Gets pretty hissy. Always learning
|
|
|
Post by jjinvegas on Jan 23, 2017 2:36:59 GMT -6
I'm just gonna throw this in... I tracked a record at Welcome to 1979 a few weeks ago on the MCI gear using GP9. I'm mixing it at my place on the 440B using RMGI SM468. S**t man...it's gooey as hell. That 468 is nice sounding tape. I'm capturing "no tape" mixes as well, kinda just for this thread. I'll post up some A/B stuff for you guys soon. I wonder if that is the same formulation as the AGFA 468, I had heard that one of the new tape sources had taken over the AGFA plant. Probably it is, the media houses all used it, the rock places used AFGA 469 as it set up the same as 456. If memory serves, they were underbiasing it, at least cmpared to the 469, they swore by it because it was less noisy., and as they weren't all deaf from Marshalls they were very concerned with intelligibility issues on top with a lot of spoken word oriented ads and such. I am also trying to get darker sonically, (and I guess Spiritually...smile) for this LP I am doing with Bobby Jones, a very interesting blues singer who took Junior Wells' place in the Aces back in Chicago's heyday. So he had Buddy guy as his guitarist, and Muddy Waters as his taskmaster. I am writing the songs, being the band, and recording as well. So it is down to me yo not mess it up, Bobby is mid-70s and this may be his last LP and I want to suggest his pedigree without actually aping it too much. He is a total pro when it comes time to do a take, we both admire the Sinatra idea, sing it once or twice, and make it count. I was just trial mixing a song to see where we are at, and there is some discipline involved trying to resist brightness...... not there yet, but closer, maybe. Love the playing bit, and the writing, the mixing aspect is a bit of a challenge....ideas? clyp.it/n2sgthar
|
|
|
Post by illacov on Jan 23, 2017 9:09:57 GMT -6
I'm just gonna throw this in... I tracked a record at Welcome to 1979 a few weeks ago on the MCI gear using GP9. I'm mixing it at my place on the 440B using RMGI SM468. S**t man...it's gooey as hell. That 468 is nice sounding tape. I'm capturing "no tape" mixes as well, kinda just for this thread. I'll post up some A/B stuff for you guys soon. illacov you'll probably dig this 468. It's fat. In my opinion it's crushing the ATR. At least for my set of preferences. The 468 is sounding so sweet on top now that I have the bias where I like it. Took a few tweaks to get it right but it's nice now. I'm sensitive to high end and mix a bit dark usually so it's important to me that the tape isn't hard or glassy. As far as the noise part of the discussion, I gave up worrying about it when I started to use some vintage gear. It's a losing battle for me. Not rich enough or a good enough tech to keep everything quiet. Once I stepped back I realized I didn't actually mind it. Only time noise is a problem for me is if I don't hit the tape hard enough...which has happened a few times. Gets pretty hissy. Always learning I dig it man! Be glad to pit Zulu against it. See what the magic setting is. Gotta upload some clips from last go round still Thanks -L
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jan 23, 2017 10:14:16 GMT -6
jjinvegas I believe it's based on the basf formula. It's very reactive to bias and responds to a hot print. I quite like it
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,182
|
Post by ericn on Jan 23, 2017 10:22:19 GMT -6
I'm just gonna throw this in... I tracked a record at Welcome to 1979 a few weeks ago on the MCI gear using GP9. I'm mixing it at my place on the 440B using RMGI SM468. S**t man...it's gooey as hell. That 468 is nice sounding tape. I'm capturing "no tape" mixes as well, kinda just for this thread. I'll post up some A/B stuff for you guys soon. I wonder if that is the same formulation as the AGFA 468, I had heard that one of the new tape sources had taken over the AGFA plant. Probably it is, the media houses all used it, the rock places used AFGA 469 as it set up the same as 456. If memory serves, they were underbiasing it, at least cmpared to the 469, they swore by it because it was less noisy., and as they weren't all deaf from Marshalls they were very concerned with intelligibility issues on top with a lot of spoken word oriented ads and such. I am also trying to get darker sonically, (and I guess Spiritually...smile) for this LP I am doing with Bobby Jones, a very interesting blues singer who took Junior Wells' place in the Aces back in Chicago's heyday. So he had Buddy guy as his guitarist, and Muddy Waters as his taskmaster. I am writing the songs, being the band, and recording as well. So it is down to me yo not mess it up, Bobby is mid-70s and this may be his last LP and I want to suggest his pedigree without actually aping it too much. He is a total pro when it comes time to do a take, we both admire the Sinatra idea, sing it once or twice, and make it count. I was just trial mixing a song to see where we are at, and there is some discipline involved trying to resist brightness...... not there yet, but closer, maybe. Love the playing bit, and the writing, the mixing aspect is a bit of a challenge....ideas? clyp.it/n2sgtharYup modern version of ye old AGFA.
|
|