Pseudo (but easy) ADT theory, anyone tried this?

[miroslav]

Well...what you seem to be talking about is more along the lines of personal preferences and how people work with audio, and not so much about soany absolute proof that digital technology has gotten worse.

I think you're straddling chairs a bit when you say plugs suck because of the 0s & 1s getting crunched, but then hardware digital processing is great, yet it to is simply crunchng 0s & 1s.

I'm not sure what "classic" rack hardware you have in your studio...?....I can't recall you mentioning anything specific, though I do know you use Layla24 converters, like me...but I can't see how you would have any EMI or REDD or NEVE or the original ADT tape decks etc, etc, in your studio in order to compare them against their plugin emulations.
I mean....if you have all that gear....c'mon now, stop holding out, we would love to hear about it seeing how we are all stilol analog/tape nuts around here.

That aside....AFA all the plugs are concerned that I'm talking about, I'm not all that interested how much they are 1:1 identical to the hardware they are modelled after....I'm just saying they sound really good, they do what they claim to do.
If you take most of the Brainworx plugs I was talking about...while they may(?) have modelled some of them after some hardware gear, they never claimg that or try to advertise as such.....they just make really good sounding and exceptionally functional digital plugs.

Oh...and I am currently NOT mixing ITB....I only said that based on the current DAW/plug quality that I've beene seeing and using....the potential for one day doing the mixes ITB exists. I mix OTB from the DAW, but I do a lot of "pre-processing" or "spot processing" in the DAW, so I don't have to work my analog outboard as hard, and to overcome my outboard limitations. I mean....I only have so much outboard gear.

I don't see that I would lose anything going ITB mixing at this point, and most likely I could gain by having way more quality FX/processing at my disposal than what I have or could have in analog hardware (unless I hit the lottery).
Heck...my TASCAM 3500 is going on 25 years old....it's not (and never was) what I would call a hgh-end console, which is why I feel that to upgarde my analog side of things AFA mixing, a better quality console would be needed.
I've heard how something like a Neve console sounds, not that I see a Neve in my future (unless I hit the lottery)...and just like worse/better quality plugs and digital....the same exists in the anlog world.
Just 'cuz it's "analog" doesn't mean it's always better, and the point about middlin' digital still being better than cheap analog...is very real. I've seen that first hand, which is why I'm seeing things as I am now about the future mixng options.

I'm still looking for that used console "find" that will let me really improve things without breaking the bank....but I haven't found it yet for how much I'm willing to spend at this time. Even a used, but higher-end console will be at least $7k-$15k these days...anything less and I'm back with the TASCAM M3500 quality.

 

[altruistica]

I hear you Beck,

Bear with me......last year (Oct 2013) I started on a 5:2 diet. You eat normally for five days of the week and 'fast' on two other days (the days being your choice). On fasting days you consume no more than 600 calories.
I started out at 14st (I'm 5' 9''). My BMI (body mass index) was 28.8. I was clinically overweight. After a year I'm now 11st, with a BMI of around 23.5 (healthy, although I want to lose another 1/2 stone).

What the hell has this to do with recording?

Everything.....it's to do with perception.

You see, when I was growing up (I'm 51) I was one of the fattest kids in my school......although I was only slightly overweight it never stopped me getting into the football or rugby teams (so I must have had some agility). I don't know off the top of my head what percentage of the UK population was clinically overweight or obese, but back in the 70s & 80s we used to see TV reports of Americans and were amazed at the size of some of them. We'd never seen people so fat before.
Go down any UK high street these days and the position is reversed. You'd be lucky in seeing 100 people, more than 10 that were thin. As I've lost weight, it's like a veil has been removed from my eyes and I'm seeing 'fat' people everywhere......because they're really there.
Other evidence of this can be seen in TV ads. Again, when I was growing up, you never saw a fat person on TV ads......now they're the norm because they are the norm

I think the situation is completely analogous to the audio quality we now take for granted. It sounds 'plastic' but so does everything else so we don't notice it.....until we put on an old recording.

Just my thoughts...

Al

 

[miroslav]

...it's to do with perception.

True....which is why so much of this stuff is so subjective, and there's no actual proof/examples.


I do think that a lot of the "seasond" analog users have rather "set" views about non-analog stuff.....period.
With the digitla crowd, so many of them are young peopoe who never really worked in an all analog environment, so their views one-sided.

I'm no spring chicken...so I've done the analog thing for years, wasted a couple playing with MIDI, and then saw the the digital audio revolution kick in, and was using a DAW since back in the early 90s...when there was a lot of truth still to digitla audio sounding nasty.

It's one thing to comment on what others are doing and their results VS what you do and your results. While you can subjectively say that "todays" music sounds bad thanks to digital audio, and "yesterday's" musc sound good thanks to analog audio....I don't see it that clear cut or black-n-white.
Poibt being....there is music being done today in the digital domain that sounds quite good, and there was analog music in the past that sounded like crap. The generic, broadstroke, very myopic and "pry it from my cold, dead hands" views.....help nothing.
You have to try new stuff and work with it...find the sweet spot, dial it in, same as with any analog piece of rack gear.
No one has to if they simply refuse to....but honeslty, there are new tools that open up your possiblities dramatically, and the quality of the digital tools has improved....and it's really down to how one uses them...not how someone else abuses them.

AFA analog and tape....it's still alive and well, and as I've learned, can live together with digital audio for a very "best of both" worlds hybrid apprach.
Of course, for people who simply stick to close-minded beliefs on either side....only one will do.....

 

[Beck]

Well...what you seem to be talking about is more along the lines of personal preferences and how people work with audio, and not so much about soany absolute proof that digital technology has gotten worse.

I don't know that we can definitively prove or disprove on quality issues, so it does ultimately come down to taste. However, we can see over the last 30 years how digital has gone from a simple medium AKA "sampling" and from there ultimately became the way everything is done... what we now call ITB. In the early years and for many years when digital tape started replacing analog tape we still processed the signal the same... through analog and digital outboard gear. That's historical record. We can see how the beginnings of digital evolved to what we have now. Whether we call that good or bad is up to the individual.

I think you're straddling chairs a bit when you say plugs suck because of the 0s & 1s getting crunched, but then hardware digital processing is great, yet it to is simply crunchng 0s & 1s.

No not at all, but I see where I can clarify this for better understanding. Firstly some hardware digital processing I will never use, such as compression for example. But anything delay-based such as chorusing, reverberation, echo and other more complex spacial treatment still leaves the dry signal alone. The dry original signal either passes through the digital device and the ratio of wet to dry is adjustable by a knob on the device, or the dry signal is tapped and sent out of a console effect send to the processing device. This is "blending" because the dry signal bypasses the effect. No matter how wet or dry the blend you still have unadulterated original audio. Analog and digital effects are ideal when working this way.

But that's not the case when working ITB or using plugs. You're working with a digital file that is completely altered by the crunching of 1's and 0's as effects are added. This is Digital 101, so I know I'm not telling you anything you don't know about what goes on when working ITB. That should clarify what I was referring to in my previous post.

I'm not sure what "classic" rack hardware you have in your studio...?....I can't recall you mentioning anything specific, though I do know you use Layla24 converters, like me...but I can't see how you would have any EMI or REDD or NEVE or the original ADT tape decks etc, etc, in your studio in order to compare them against their plugin emulations. I mean....if you have all that gear....c'mon now, stop holding out, we would love to hear about it seeing how we are all still analog/tape nuts around here.

Haha, yeah I think it's about time I used the "About Me" bio feature in my profile so I don't have to keep repeating this stuff. I started in TV audio/video as an apprentice when I was 18. I'm now 50. In between 18 and 50 I worked in a couple great commercial studios and ultimately went freelancing on my own. I have owned some nice gear and still have a lot of vintage stuff, but I have used and have access to gear I could never afford, but I know it inside and out nonetheless. I can compare many plugs out there to the original hardware. I have access to a lot of gear I don't own. I've worked with a lot of gear I will never own. I can tell you when a plug is just pure bullshit in many cases.

I'm on the other side of the inexpensive analog vs inexpensive or even somewhat expensive digital argument. One thing I got very good at early on was sniffing out very good but inexpensive analog gear because I had so much access to the good stuff for comparison. I've talked about that here over the years and I still say good analog is pretty straightforward and easier to do well at low cost than digital interfaces. It's not that difficult to build a great console and many of the best were custom jobs. It's not that difficult to build good open-reel analog multitracks either.

People still have so many misconceptions in the area of pro vs semi-pro I don't think the home recording community as a whole will ever get it. I get it. I know what those terms really mean. Simply put it has less to do with sound quality and everything to do with build quality for the rigors of a 24/7 commercial studio. A Tascam deck can sound every bit as good as a Studer, but the Tascam deck will physically wear out sooner and may lack certain features that a commercial studio needs. That's the difference between pro and semi-pro. Nothing more; nothing less.

I'm not a big Neve fan either. Anything, analog or digital can be over-hyped. IMO Neve is just a buzzword that makes people sound literate. I've worked with better boards by Studiomaster and even Tascam. Analog is easy to work with for me. I'm an engineer in the classic sense. There's not much in my studio that I haven't modified to make better. If a manufacturer cuts corners to bring a more affordable product to market I can uncut those corners in most cases and make that piece of gear perform better and add features that aren't on the original. That's just another thing I enjoy about analog.

Oh... and about those Echo Laylas you and I both use. I use them because I haven't found anything better. That's 1999 technology, but they still perform better, at least to my liking than anything out there now. Not getting rid of those anytime soon. I've modified digital gear as well. I've moded Both my Lexicon LXP-15II and my Alesis MIDIVerb II. Were they fine without the mods? Sure, but I like to tinker with stuff.

 

[Beck]

I hear you Beck...

I think the situation is completely analogous to the audio quality we now take for granted. It sounds 'plastic' but so does everything else so we don't notice it.....until we put on an old recording.

Just my thoughts...

Al

Good analogy. Took me a while to see where you were going, but you brought it all together nicely and made a valid point about society in general. It is helpful to look at other seemingly unrelated issues to shed light on topics like this where we easily get tunnel vision.

 

[miroslav]

Oh... and about those Echo Laylas you and I both use. I use them because I haven't found anything better. That's 1999 technology, but they still perform better, at least to my liking than anything out there now. Not getting rid of those anytime soon.

I'm building my 3rd DAW computer around my 3 Layla24 boxes. It's hard going top better/faster computers and still finding enough PCI slots to accommodate 3 Layla24 cards. Most of the newer computers might still give you one, and the rest PCIe...but just when I thought I was on one of the last computer models that had the 3 PCI slots....I found something much newer than my current computer, so I'm now getting it set up.
I'll be able to run Win 7 64bit on it, and it's got a Core 2 Extreme quad 3.0Ghs processor...so plenty of CPU power. I've dropped 8GB of RAM into it, and I could go up to 16GB if needed. Also picked up the 4 Western Digital VelociRaptor 10k RPM SATA drives, which are very high-speed enterprise level drives, 300GB each, so I'm expecting this will be a real serious DAW upgrade when I'm done. I'll be running the DAW (Samplitude ProX) at 64bit and all 64 bit plugs....which is going to enhance their quality even more.

I'm really loving the tape front end and the DAW back end setup....which is why I saying that with this DAW system, there's a good possibility for doing the mixes ITB, but of course, I'm still able to do them OTB too, thanks to the 3 Layla24 boxes which give me 24 D/A channels coming out of the DAW.
So even with the OTB mix, I'm still doing a decent amount of plug processing, which has only improved my options, and helped my analog outboard setup, so I don't need to save everything for it....I can take a lot of the processing load off the outboard, and pick-n-choose what I want to process ITB and what to save for OTB.
I'm really loving the options and versatility of the hybrid analog/digital approach.

 

[altruistica]

Hey Miroslav,

You're right I think about using the various tools we have, be they digital or analogue. You only have to listen to some material from the 70s (Carpenters, Cat Stevens) to here some real recording quality as opposed to something like some of the pop acts (I'm sure some of those awful Bay City Rollers' records fit the bill here). Having said that, when I first heard KT Tunstall's latest Invisble Empires album, it struck me first how easy it was to listen to......it drew you into the sound. I can't remember the last time an album did that.

Al

 

[mixsit]

I don't know that we can definitively prove or disprove on quality issues, so it does ultimately come down to taste. However, we can see over the last 30 years how digital has gone from a simple medium AKA "sampling" and from there ultimately became the way everything is done... what we now call ITB. In the early years and for many years when digital tape started replacing analog tape we still processed the signal the same... through analog and digital outboard gear. That's historical record. We can see how the beginnings of digital evolved to what we have now. Whether we call that good or bad is up to the individual.



No not at all, but I see where I can clarify this for better understanding. Firstly some hardware digital processing I will never use, such as compression for example. But anything delay-based such as chorusing, reverberation, echo and other more complex spacial treatment still leaves the dry signal alone. The dry original signal either passes through the digital device and the ratio of wet to dry is adjustable by a knob on the device, or the dry signal is tapped and sent out of a console effect send to the processing device. This is "blending" because the dry signal bypasses the effect. No matter how wet or dry the blend you still have unadulterated original audio. Analog and digital effects are ideal when working this way.

But that's not the case when working ITB or using plugs. You're working with a digital file that is completely altered by the crunching of 1's and 0's as effects are added. This is Digital 101, so I know I'm not telling you anything you don't know about what goes on when working ITB. That should clarify what I was referring to in my previous post.



Haha, yeah I think it's about time I used the "About Me" bio feature in my profile so I don't have to keep repeating this stuff. I started in TV audio/video as an apprentice when I was 18. I'm now 50. In between 18 and 50 I worked in a couple great commercial studios and ultimately went freelancing on my own. I have owned some nice gear and still have a lot of vintage stuff, but I have used and have access to gear I could never afford, but I know it inside and out nonetheless. I can compare many plugs out there to the original hardware. I have access to a lot of gear I don't own. I've worked with a lot of gear I will never own. I can tell you when a plug is just pure bullshit in many cases.

I'm on the other side of the inexpensive analog vs inexpensive or even somewhat expensive digital argument. One thing I got very good at early on was sniffing out very good but inexpensive analog gear because I had so much access to the good stuff for comparison. I've talked about that here over the years and I still say good analog is pretty straightforward and easier to do well at low cost than digital interfaces. It's not that difficult to build a great console and many of the best were custom jobs. It's not that difficult to build good open-reel analog multitracks either.

People still have so many misconceptions in the area of pro vs semi-pro I don't think the home recording community as a whole will ever get it. I get it. I know what those terms really mean. Simply put it has less to do with sound quality and everything to do with build quality for the rigors of a 24/7 commercial studio. A Tascam deck can sound every bit as good as a Studer, but the Tascam deck will physically wear out sooner and may lack certain features that a commercial studio needs. That's the difference between pro and semi-pro. Nothing more; nothing less.

I'm not a big Neve fan either. Anything, analog or digital can be over-hyped. IMO Neve is just a buzzword that makes people sound literate. I've worked with better boards by Studiomaster and even Tascam. Analog is easy to work with for me. I'm an engineer in the classic sense. There's not much in my studio that I haven't modified to make better. If a manufacturer cuts corners to bring a more affordable product to market I can uncut those corners in most cases and make that piece of gear perform better and add features that aren't on the original. That's just another thing I enjoy about analog.

Oh... and about those Echo Laylas you and I both use. I use them because I haven't found anything better. That's 1999 technology, but they still perform better, at least to my liking than anything out there now. Not getting rid of those anytime soon. I've modified digital gear as well. I've moded Both my Lexicon LXP-15II and my Alesis MIDIVerb II. Were they fine without the mods? Sure, but I like to tinker with stuff.

Amazing stuff, and thanks for, well exposing us (me anyway) to this perspective you've laid out for us here.

 

[miroslav]

Hey Miroslav,

You're right I think about using the various tools we have, be they digital or analogue. You only have to listen to some material from the 70s (Carpenters, Cat Stevens) to here some real recording quality as opposed to something like some of the pop acts (I'm sure some of those awful Bay City Rollers' records fit the bill here). Having said that, when I first heard KT Tunstall's latest Invisble Empires album, it struck me first how easy it was to listen to......it drew you into the sound. I can't remember the last time an album did that.

Al

I grew up on that music from the '70s, and spent many a day as a young kid sitting next to the jukebox in my family's restaurant listening to all kinds of music that was played on there. It was full of music even stuff going back to the late '50s, and the '60s....just like today we can still hear a lot of stuff from the 90s etc.....so my perspectives range pretty wide, and I know full well how things sounded then and now.

I think many perspectives about music "quality" are tainted by people's personal tastes. I for one don't much care for a lot of the R&B flavors of today, and prefer much more the R&B of the '60s & '70s....but AFA audio quality, which is what we are really talking about here, not tastes...there's some extremely well done audio today, and there always has been, no matter the decade.
There always have been people that could transcend the tools of the day...IOW, they didn't let the tools dictate the final quality of their audio product....so this notion that it was only really good "back in the day" is more of a myth than a truth.

Don't get me wrong...I still enjoy the "differences" that come from tracking to tape...but when I transfer to my DAW and continue working there, honestly....I'm just NOT seeing any mangling of audio by the current digital tools...
...unless of course I choose to (or accidentally) mangle it myself.

I think it's somewhat self-serving to the absolute fanatics on either side to just claim their stuff is somehow "better" sonically. I don't much buy into the digital camp saying that because digital is more transparent or accurate or whatever...that somehow it's more "hi-fi"....or that using tape automatically imparts some audio quality improvements, no matter what. None of that defines what is considered "good" audio quality.
I see guys here who think that their cassette deck is somehow going to give them "THAT" beautiful sound quality just because it's "analog"....and/or who think that if they use a DAW it will ruin all their sound.

When you listen to your Carpenters or Cat Stevens....are you simply clinging to nostalgic moments of days gone by, or are you really comparing audio quality to some of the well done stuff of today...?
I'll toss an early Led Zep or Cream album on the stereo...and I can say with conviction that there's nothing like that today, nothing that "good"...but that's not talking about the pure audio quality....that's more to do with stuff we grew up with, and styles we still prefer over some of the current music.

Again....people have mangled audio even back in the analog days, it's not only a digital phenomenon....and likewise you CAN do really good audio with both sets of tools, depending on what you use and more importantly, how you use the tools.

I guess what I've really been getting at throughout this thread is that tools are tools...and combining some of the analog flavors with the precision and extended functionality of the digital options....IMO, they outweigh either singular approach.
People should step out and not be so set in their perspectives...

 

[altruistica]

When you listen to your Carpenters or Cat Stevens....are you simply clinging to nostalgic moments of days gone by, or are you really comparing audio quality to some of the well done stuff of today...?

When I was young, I couldn't stand either of them......I was into the new wave artists like The Clash, The Jam, later The Police. It's only with age and an understanding of composition and producing that I can now appreciate the skills involved (arranging, playing and production) that I hear in The Carpenters or Cat Stevens.

Al

 

[Jonk]

Maybe you could talk a bit about when you were making Mellow Gold? That was a rad record. Sounds like some tape on that one. . . .

mwahah.
I kid.

I don't think we're at the point where we can adequately compare the mediums to really get a standard for approaching why one medium is more desirable than the other. Maybe we'll know a lot more at some point.
There are specs, and for many years clarity was king when the lack of clarity was always a battle to overcome. But now we know there is a lot more to it than just accurately capturing a wave form in full frequency clarity. Folks who love tape and records are obviously on to something else as far as what matters, though don't ask them to explain it. There are a number of things, like perceived width and depth, but these require the consciousness to such a degree that it's pretty hard to make any sort of objective conclusions. It's voodoo, but I think the most obvious difference that I'm personally perceiving is the depth of the sound stage. Analog sounds deeper. Doesn't matter if it's a record or tape or even cassette as far as I'm concerned. Digital seems to remove depth to a certain extent, which is a super bummer. Because there is some link (again in my subjective personal opinion) between emotion and depth of the sound stage. So I suppose I'm concluding even though it's in the realm of voodoo that digital doesn't give back enough of the emotion that goes down during the take. There sure are some converters though that can get pretty close to capturing most of it. I have a Radar II (an older, but very quality set of converters. I like how they sound, as digital goes, and making backups of tape and adding tracks has proved enormously useful, but I still hear something missing)

What I find maybe even more interesting, is I've noticed that I can get the depth back after transferring a digital file back to tape. I don't know how much it comes back, but I'd have to say, enough to hear. So, maybe it would be more accurate to say, that digital obscures depth, like it's hiding somewhere. Or that the tape hiss has the impression of filling in the missing material between the zeroes and ones and is fooling the ear into thinking the depth is back.

Anyway, just my subjective opinion, mixed with a bunch of speculation, but you guys are talking about plugins anyway, so . . . a little meandering off topic.

As far as the method for doing ADT mentioned earlier in the thread, I wonder if some folks are missing the point of what ADT really was or is or should be.

To really do it right, you have to have variations in tape speed making the double land both before and after the original track. What pdmillar describes in that video is a really good way of doing it, because it utilized the speed fluctuations of two different tape decks. I can see how it would probably sound pretty good to do a reverse delay, then turn the tape right side again (and delay the now preceeding delayed track the same amount) to end up with a double that is right on top of the original but with the slight variations that the ONE tape machine produced, but it's not going to be as much variation as flying it out to another tape machine while executing the exact same procedure. This will sound more like a real double because of the slight variations in speed between the two machines.

 

[miroslav]

It's only with age and an understanding of composition and producing that I can now appreciate the skills involved (arranging, playing and production) that I hear in The Carpenters or Cat Stevens.

And that's fine....they certainly had plenty of talent, but that's go nothing to do with analog VS digital....and that was my point. We always tend to think of music as good/bad primarily based on our tastes of the day.

 

[miroslav]

Maybe you could talk a bit about when you were making Mellow Gold? That was a rad record. Sounds like some tape on that one. . . .

mwahah.
I kid.

Well that does bring to light the fact that a lot of music today *by it's style and intent* is rather edgy and in your face...which may not appeal to old-school guys. I can onlly listen to some stuff...but a lot of it is just too much edge-n-boom in your face.
That's what I was saying...we can't mix up the quality of digital audio technology with how people choose to use/abuse it.

What I find maybe even more interesting, is I've noticed that I can get the depth back after transferring a digital file back to tape. I don't know how much it comes back, but I'd have to say, enough to hear. So, maybe it would be more accurate to say, that digital obscures depth, like it's hiding somewhere. Or that the tape hiss has the impression of filling in the missing material between the zeroes and ones and is fooling the ear into thinking the depth is back.

I don't disagree. I just recently made similar comments about sampled drums that I brought out to tape, and they sounded better off the tape than from the original samples...but that's not about some magic tape property....it's probably more about the mild harmonic distortion and compression that causes the sound to feel more 3D or as you said, have more depth.

As far as the method for doing ADT mentioned earlier in the thread, I wonder if some folks are missing the point of what ADT really was or is or should be.

To really do it right, you have to have variations in tape speed making the double land both before and after the original track. What pdmillar describes in that video is a really good way of doing it, because it utilized the speed fluctuations of two different tape decks. I can see how it would probably sound pretty good to do a reverse delay, then turn the tape right side again (and delay the now preceeding delayed track the same amount) to end up with a double that is right on top of the original but with the slight variations that the ONE tape machine produced, but it's not going to be as much variation as flying it out to another tape machine while executing the exact same procedure. This will sound more like a real double because of the slight variations in speed between the two machines.

Yeah, that covers it...and to bring this thread back to the OP...I was simply saying that the new Waves Abbey Road ADT plug really nails that as it was originally used in the Abbey Road Studios.
So the point being that digital done well can work with analog and also enhance certain aspects of the production.

 

[pdmillar]

To really do it right, you have to have variations in tape speed making the double land both before and after the original track. What pdmillar describes in that video is a really good way of doing it, because it utilized the speed fluctuations of two different tape decks. I can see how it would probably sound pretty good to do a reverse delay, then turn the tape right side again (and delay the now preceeding delayed track the same amount) to end up with a double that is right on top of the original but with the slight variations that the ONE tape machine produced, but it's not going to be as much variation as flying it out to another tape machine while executing the exact same procedure. This will sound more like a real double because of the slight variations in speed between the two machines.

I don't think variations in the tape speed (i.e. the intrinsic level of flutter from a given transport) have much to do with the classic ADT/flange sound - a lot of people throw those words around, but a properly operating analog recorder has extremely good timebase stability. If it didn't, you'd hear very obvious wow/flutter on any sustained tones you recorded.

(I've heard about some instances, though, where adhesive tape or something like that was applied to the capstan to deliberately induce flutter - some of the organ sounds on the "White Album" certainly sound like this to me)

What really makes the "magic" happen (not that there's any such thing as magic) is the pseudo-random effect of a human manipulating the speed of the delayed signal - you could fake it in a DAW if you didn't get too carried away dragging automation curves around. I won't let an LFO anywhere near my doubling delays!

 

[7upPartridge]

To really do it right, you have to have variations in tape speed making the double land both before and after the original track. What pdmillar describes in that video is a really good way of doing it, because it utilized the speed fluctuations of two different tape decks. I can see how it would probably sound pretty good to do a reverse delay, then turn the tape right side again (and delay the now preceeding delayed track the same amount) to end up with a double that is right on top of the original but with the slight variations that the ONE tape machine produced, but it's not going to be as much variation as flying it out to another tape machine while executing the exact same procedure. This will sound more like a real double because of the slight variations in speed between the two machines.

Just to come back to this, I don't think I've had much luck explaining the key element of this experiment. While I'm laying down the reverse-echo-that-will-eventually-be-a-preceeding-echo, I'm varispeeding the playback machine. The echo machine is producing a constant echo of "n" miliseconds. So with the playback tape at half speed, I'm laying down an echo of n*2 miliseconds. As I varispeed up to double speed on the playback machine, I'm laying down an echo of n/2 miliseconds. What I'm actually doing are much smaller variations, but this makes the echo track 'inconsistent' upon playback, in fact if I do extreme speed changes really quickly, you can clearly hear the pitch bend on the echo track...that pitch bend, even when subtle, is the echo track 'moving' between delay times (as you hear the pitch speed up for a split second, the delay time has now shortened...when you hear a word stretch out & slow down, the echo time has increased). All of this means when you lay it back on top of the original (I actually do the re-delay-of-the-preceeding-echo while running at a fast speed so it doesn't sit right on top, but slightly past the original) the inconsistencies make it more interesting than a straight copy. I really should post some examples but I'm not quite sure how to...

As for the analog vs digital debate, I'm totally sitting that one out. I don't use computers because I don't wanna. Everyone else should do whatever they want.

 

[miroslav]

I don't think I've had much luck explaining the key element of this experiment....

That may be....or at least in my case, I'm just not understanding you.

The part that I'm not clear on, and that I've asked about a couple of times, is....are the echo and original track on the same machine as the "reverse" track you are varispeeding....?

I can see how you get the echo track ahead of the original...and I can see how varispeeding would cause fluctuations....BUT...the same varispeed action is simultaneously affecting the echo/original by the same amount if everything is on the same machine. Just not seeing how all this is working on the same machine...if that be the case.
To make it work....to get close to the classic ADT sound....you need two machines to start off.

I'm sure you can get some form of FX doing it all with one deck...but it's not the ADT you're aiming for.

You don't have to use a computer to record, but you're obviously using a computer right now....so check out the Waves videos that describe the ADT process, if you haven't already.

 

[7upPartridge]

the same varispeed action is simultaneously affecting the echo/original by the same amount if everything is on the same machine. Just not seeing how all this is working on the same machine...if that be the case.

Well, there are two machines in the sense that one machine is producing the echo, and the other is doing playback and recording. I'm not varispeeding the echo machine, rather I'm varispeeding how the playback/record machine records that echo. The echo is constant, but the speed at which I'm recording it is changing. Varispeeding the playback/record machine has no effect on the echo machine's output, but it effects how that echo is laid onto the playback tape in relation to the original track. At slower playback speeds, the echo being recorded will be closer to the original track...and faster playback speeds the echo being recorded will be further from the original track, because the echo time never changes, but the speed of recording does. literally at different recording speeds, more or less tape passes the heads during the fixed echo time.

There is limited pitch variation (so yeah, not true ADT) but there is time variation, which produces some flange/phasing like effects that are also commonly heard with ADT, and there's also a bit of pitch varation as the echo machine picks up the varispeed & echoes it.

Imagine listening to the recorded echo track soloed, if it was the phrase "I am the echo, goo goo ga joob!". If the word 'echo' in that phrase plays chipmunky, the rest of the phrase is now closer to the original track...it has moved closer, and the chipmunking of that word was literally the sound of the echo time decreasing. Doing that back and forth while recording produces an echo track that moves forward & backward in relation to the original vocal.

If you understand that an echo is tighter when recorded at low speed, and longer when recorded at high speed. Just imagine doing both live. Start playback at a slow speed and record a tighter echo, then bring the varispeed up and you are recording a longer echo...repeat, repeat. That's as plain as I think I can explain it. I think the key point here is that I'm not doing any of this manipulation during playback (like you would with ADT), I'm doing it as I lay the preceeding echo onto the tape.

At any rate, I just hope my feeble attempts at explaining this may help someone else succesfully use this process. I'm loving it & will probably proceed to use it somewhere on everything I record forever.

 

[miroslav]

Well, there are two machines in the sense that one machine is producing the echo.[/QUOTE

That's what wasn't clear when you said in your OP:

My plan is: Throw my tape on backwards, record a tape echo to an empty track. Flip the tape back over. Now I have an 'echo' that preceeds the original signal.

That sure sseemd like echo was going on the same tape, same machine as the original...which is why I say then that even if you variseepd while recording the echo, the source would also be getting the same varispeed.

So then you are now saying it's TWO totally different decks....right?

I think the key point here is that I'm not doing any of this manipulation during playback (like you would with ADT), I'm doing it as I lay the preceeding echo onto the tape.

Yeah...I got that.
So then, you don't really hear the effect of happening between the original and the echo while it's happening....right.....you only heart it after the fact....right?