if i had the option ,i would go back to tape.......
You're taking that position that pristine, high-fidelity is what is usually more appealing to listen to or the more optimal way to always record everything/anything.....which is totally not true for most listeners or for many people who do recording.
No, you are getting me totally wrong.
I never said that at all.
Firstly I was saying what *I* preferred, not what everyone likes, as I was answering the OP's question which was directed personally.
Some people like things clean and accurate, others prefer coloured and dirty - both methods have their place.
With classical music and much music recorded in a live acoustic, recording clean and accurate is normally the best way to go.
Where you are multi tracking in a studio (or a home recording space) you do what gets you the sound you want, as you are creating a product more than capturing a performance. It is in this area that many like the colour that analogue gives.
Saying "....which is totally not true for most listeners..." is not necessarily true - it all depends on the genre of music you are recording.
Though I did want to make the point that analogue recording on tape is a lot more complicated than the uninitiated tend to think it is and to be fully aware of what it involves.
Though I still thing there is something very beautiful about a tape recorder with 10½" NAB reels.
I said that *you're* taking the position.....I didn't say that you were speaking for everyone.
Thing is, with home recording and a lot of pro recording, I think it's safe to say most of it is about recording Rock/Pop/Metal/Hip-Hop/Rap/Country Pop music......and not really classical music with a duet on a Steinway and a Stradivarius in some concert hall.
So I think in most cases, people ARE going for a certain sound, as opposed to simply documenting the performance and looking for absolute gear transparency.
My main issue with your earlier comments was you suggesting that tape/analog recording was "horrible" and how you couldn't wait to get away from it. It implied that everyone should run away from tape/analog....which is SO not the case.
On the question of which is "better", that can be argued forever, but as I pointed out earlier....for most music genres and with most recording/mixing situations it's obvious that even the all-digital users are striving for that classic analog sound.
Most of what they use in their DAWs is emulating/modeling something *analog*....so you tell me what that means.
You seem to be taking the opposite view that analogue tape is the only way to go - which is just as wrong as what you are accusing me of saying.
I don't want to antagonise the analogue / digital debate as there are many pros and cons for both. .
requires more time and tape cost, so on a commercial level may not be the best option for a commercial enterprise , when things are budgeted and quoted and time frames are given. I prefer the sound of tape on vocals and guitars , but that is of little consequence to the bussiness owner or client who has to put out product potentially on a short timeframe that may have a limted life in broadcast.So then tell why.....don't leave it hanging.
I do not miss having to do a total recall of a mix in analog.
Yeah....it does require a LOT of notes (and pics of the settings)!
You're shooting film, right? Using a digital cam would be cheating.
I didn't catch that in John's comment at all. He was somewhat vehement in delivery, but I asked the question to each individual and each person can only answer for themselves. It's a bit like when Greg comes out with a statement like "Fleetwood Mac suck." That's how he feels. It doesn't mean they suck for or should suck for everyone.My main issue with your earlier comments was you suggesting that tape/analog recording was "horrible" and how you couldn't wait to get away from it. It implied that everyone should run away from tape/analog....which is SO not the case.
I refer once again to the obvious import of the OP and the phrase "Analog recorders." There are a variety of analog recorders. The what and wherefore isn't important. Each person has their own level. Therefore, their experience with whatever machine they've used will determine their answers ~ and thus far, they have.Otherwise, I agree with you about the more complicated aspect of tape/analog recording...and that was partly why I was saying people need to qualify what they mean when they say "I record to tape or in analog"
Unless everybody has exactly the same equipment, it's just not the same ! A more obvious statement could not be made.It's just not the same thing when you compare a 4-track cassette porta-studio to a really involved analog/tape studio....
If you have used an analogue recording machine that utilized tape, be it a 4 or 8 track cassette, betamax or VHS video, or 1⁄4", 1/2", 1" or 2" tape or whatever sizes they come in, then you have some perspective on what recording to tape means.and folks who simply used "something" analog at some point, don't necessarily have the right perspective on what "recording analog" or "recording to tape" really can mean or how it can sound
You might find this hard to believe, but there do exist people that haven't recorded on analog machines who nonetheless are interested in the history of recording and who are fairly aware of the analog v digital debate to some level. Their curiosity may well have been piqued at some point, if they've read any of the many debates/arguments/wars that exist on many a forum. Asking if those particular people would consider recording in analog will generate their thoughts on the matter if they have them. To say their responses would be meaningless is harsh, elitist and borderline snobby. Actually, I suspect it will simply bring about the feeling of "this is just some cosy club for exalted members who seem determined to make it clear I can have no part to play here."so asking them would they go back to it or asking newbie digital users who never did any kind of analog/tape recording....is not going to generate meaningful responses.
They don't really need to because the opening set of questions makes it clear for them. The question is not about mics or pre~amps or outboard equipment or effects or tube amps.At least, people should qualify what they mean when the say analog or tape recording.
You're shooting film, right? Using a digital cam would be cheating.
They don't really need to because the opening set of questions makes it clear for them. The question is not about mics or pre~amps or outboard equipment or effects or tube amps.
My studio is a hybrid analog/digital setup....so I can use a digital camera.
I do still have my old 35mm film camera....actually it's a good one, with all the lenses, etc.....but I haven't shot film in years, though I always loved the hardcopy picture quality. Nothing wrong withdigital cameras...but most people end up with all their picutres as files on some computer. Will they last for 50 years? Will people rememebr to save/copy them when they get new computers?
I still have some hardcopy picture albums, with photos of my great, great grandparents....and I wonder if they would still be there had they been digital images...?
Analog people just love to tell you how special they are and how much they spend, meanwhile they sound no better than anyone else. There's not one single solitary sonic or technical benefit or advantage with using tape. None. Zilch. Zero. Maybe back in the early days of digital, sure, but now? No.
It actually converts your voice to speaker bias voltage. If you are using microphones and an analog bus there is no cleaner way.
So much for analog is distortion BS.