an actual comparison

[maerd]

Does anyone have recordings of the same track done through a 8-track cassette or reel-to-reel and then done straight digital all the way to hear the difference?

[FALKEN]

you know I thought about doing this with my patchbay...

but really...whats the point?

[jpmorris]

Originally Posted by maerd

Does anyone have recordings of the same track done through a 8-track cassette or reel-to-reel and then done straight digital all the way to hear the difference?

Not quite, but nearly. This is difficult to describe concisely.

I've been doing a kind of radio play thing, all-digital using Audacity. The music in the main battle scene is taken from a concept album based on the same story. In the 'radio' version, I took the bare output from my synthesizers (digitally) and tracked the voices on top with Audacity. In the album version, the synthesizers are done 7-track on a TSR-8, including the voices taken from the radio version (replacing my own pathetic attempts at playing two parts). Even the analogue version is mixed down to digital for now.. when I come to do the final version, that will go onto 2-track.

This is kind of pushing the boundaries of what you requested, but if you're interested I can put up the two files for your pleasure.

I also have two versions of a song by a band called 'SofaJunkie', who posted MP3s of their song 'Mr Right' mixed down to both tape and digital. I'm not sure if the links are still valid [just found them.. they're not]. I might be able to put them up for a bit although that is kind of naughty. Don't know what they tracked with.

[The Ghost of FM]

Originally Posted by maerd

Does anyone have recordings of the same track done through a 8-track cassette or reel-to-reel and then done straight digital all the way to hear the difference?

Your question is too open ended.

When you talk about reel to reel recordings versus straight to digital recordings, there are many different formats in each genre of format.

What is it you are trying to achieve, beyond another tired analog vs. digital debate?

Cheers!

[maerd]

jpmorris - I would definately be interested in hearing those mixes, thanks!
The Ghost of FM - Im not after a debate, jus wanna hear the difference.
any recording where someone can say that there is a reasonable difference between them

[jpmorris]

Originally Posted by maerd

jpmorris - I would definately be interested in hearing those mixes, thanks!
The Ghost of FM - Im not after a debate, jus wanna hear the difference.
any recording where someone can say that there is a reasonable difference between them

I've found the tape mix of Mr. Right:
http://www.sofajunkie.com/music/InProgress/mrright/
..they have removed the digital mix, though. I don't have time to put my copy up anywhere now, and I'm going away until Monday. I'll try to remember then. It takes a few listens but it is possible to pick out the differences.


As for my project, listening to it again, the differences between the two versions are vast, and there are lots of variables.. compression, mix, stereo enhancement, effects, different codecs, even! It's not worth even trying.
But if you are crazy enough to attempt it:

http://www.jpmorris.force9.co.uk/music/DvP2_9.wav.mp3 - Dan Vs Pegasus episode
http://www.jpmorris.force9.co.uk/mus...na/dmfa_3b.ogg - album version

You probably want to pay attention to the last 40 seconds of each track, since that is where they converge.

[FALKEN]

I have recorded practices of my band both digitally and to tape. I could send you mp3s if you want to hear.

[Dr ZEE]

I've done this stuff for my own experimentation.... recording some stuff at the same time from the same source to r-to-r tape (TEAC a-3340s 15ips, TEAC A-4300sx 7-1/2ips, tascam 32 15ips- that's all I've got here so far), to DAT machine Tascam DA-30mkII (done at 44.1 only), to CD-Recorder (Marantz CDR-620) and to AKAI DR4d HD-recorder.... (never done any specific comaring recording to include my computer interfaces thou..., nor any cassette recordings, I kind of did not care much about 'em), but I was after trying to compare various recorders I have at studio. This would be a long long blah blah to try to describe the differences... and yeah... words would not do a good job here..., but I can tell for sure that all the recorders DO sound different in some specific ways. My personal 'evaluation' had come to somewhat 'surprizing to myself' conclusion. Out of all my digital recorders the niciest/more musical and less harsh was AKAI DR4d HardDisc Recorder. The 'cleanest/crispiest' (if you wish to call it that way) - was Marantz CDR-620 CD-Recorder. The most pleasant to listen overal (whatever material I record, btw) actually was TEAC A-4300sx when recorded at 7-1/2 ips speed. It's just sounds the most RIGHT to my ear. Go figure. Tascam 32 at 15ips - sounds great too, but... for what ever reasons I kind of like the way TEAC-4300 sounds. Now there maybe llots of little reasons why.... and the analog machines I have may have issues etc.... I am not going even try to go through all the possible factors which may effect the result I've got.

Now.... here's the finest part of all this..... The result of all these test recordings are only useful for me and for me ONLY and only in my studio in connection with what ever I do or try to achieve with the gear I have. To 'publish' it and try to make some sort of conclusion or point would not be right thing to do nor a good idea, as I see it. Too many specifics involved really.

Now, about the 'idea' of converting all these recordings to mp3s and then post them for people to "hear" the "difference" HAH HAH,- this would be pretty dumb idea from the very beginning. The Digital recordings will only pass through data compression... ok, maybe not so bad, but still ... not what you have, and the details are very important here. The analog recordings will pass through what ever a/d converter you chose to use and then data compression - there you have something totally different. So what you (or people who are going to listen to the "results" of your experiment) get at the end (comming out of computer speakers , lol ) will have nothing to do with the "your experiment" .... 'dumb idea' that is, you see?

/respects

[Dr ZEE]

...yada yada...
actually what I need to say was:
To actually compare analog and digital recording you have to listen to actual analog recording and actual digital recording .... not mp3 files.

/respects

[mr.rich]

yeah there so many facets to this. i use priamrily tape and have to say tape sound will vary with sizes, speeds, inputs, bias, cleanliness, tension, pres.

and at the same time digital tone will vary alot with diff pres, bit rate, sample rate, a/ds, mixing in box or back through a bazillion diff boards. .

its almost impossible to a/b these mediums as they vary so damn much. the best thing you can do is get both and learn the abilties of both and how the should integrate. both can sound good and both can sound like crap. its up to your creativity and ears to hash out whats what.

personally i preffer to trak analog for the natural comp them dump to dig for edit and mute automation, then mix on an analog console for tactile hands on control. the digital/analog debate is over imo. its all about the ends and both can provide the means.

[FALKEN]

I disagree with a lot of this stuff. I think you would be able to tell a difference with mp3s. it might not tell the WHOLE story, granted. but, you would hear two recordings made with the same mics in the same room on the same song on two different mediums. they are both ending up on cd anyway. my mp3 converter is very good.

the biggest differences would result from different mic placements and also the digital recording was mixed ITB. oh..and I have 16 analog tracks and only 8 digital so that would also make a difference.

it might help someone who is interested.

[Muckelroy]

You know, eventually I wanted to set up a live recording rig that would feature a 1/4" half-track reel to reel, a CD recorder, and a hard disk recorder.

I thought it'd be schweet to split the stereo mix two ways -- one to the half-track, and one to the Hard disk recorder. The CD recorder would be hooked up to the output of the half-track, and the hard disk recorder would serve as a backup if the half-track and/or CD recorder should fail, or run out of tape, or whatnot in the middle of a song.

Monitor from the repro head, and send that to the CD recorder, to give a nice, phat sounding recording. I could manually split tracks on the CD recorder as I go, and put a new rell of tape on when it starts to run low. That way, I'd have the masters of the gig on tape, a hard-disk straight-through digital master as backup, and if all goes well, a terriffic sounding CD to hand to the artist at the end of the night.

Whattayathink? Overkill?

at any rate, that would be a great way to do a direct comparison of analog and digital, if I ever get around to it.

-callie-

[Dr ZEE]

Originally Posted by FALKEN

I disagree with a lot of this stuff. I think you would be able to tell a difference with mp3s. it might not tell the WHOLE story, granted. but, you would hear two recordings made with the same mics in the same room on the same song on two different mediums.

Yes... what ever difference will be 'the listener may hear it' ... That is not, that it is not going to tell the WHOLE story... but it will tell the WHOLE different story. Meaning that it will demonstrate the difference between two mp3s or two CDA(s) or what ever format you are going to demonstrate your 'result'... if the comared mp3s (or what ever format) tracks were produced in 'such and such' way, using sunch and such equipment.
If your objective is to compare difference between two (or more) recordings, made with specific recording machine(s) (regardles of what ever format the compared equipment/recording machines are )... you have to actually listen the result right on the spot - directly from playback/output of the compred machines plus the recording material must be comming from exact the same 'source' and pass through the same chain of involved equipment (i.e. mics, preamps, mixer etc) and when comparing you have to use exact the same amp/monitors.
If you 'convert your results (tracks, recorded on compared recording machines) into some different format (or re-record/process within the same format), then you lose way too much of important "information" and then if you listen 'converted material' and use it for evaluation, then your conclusion will be invalid in respect to your experiment's objective and your conclusion will be misleading. Unless your objective IS to compare the 'converted material' (i e mp3s or CD-tracks).... or , if there is no really any objective but you just want to compare something for what ever reason, then anything goes... , then record this on this and on that, convert to what ever, playback on what ever and compare the hell out of it ...and have fun Nothing wrong with having good time, as far as I can tell

/respects

[FALKEN]

well if anyone wants to listen I put some mp3's up last night. my new band is going to be called No Pronto and a club's booking agent asked for a website so I threw this up there:

www.yellowcakebread.com/nopronto

that was recorded live to my e-16, and I overdubbed the vocals. the recording was meant for a demo, so we got decent takes and used all 16 channels. I.e., 2 bass amps, both mic'd, 2 guitar mics, condensers on the overheads. I also used a pretty good preamp on vocals. I mixed it to my PC, and then sent it back through the rack for additional eq, compression and limiting.

here is the older recording:

www.yellowcakebread.com/demo

that was recorded using 8 tracks into the PC. we only had 1 bass amp, but I mic'd it and line'd it and that sounded really really good. I used ev-635a's on the overheads, and the vocals were line-out'd from the PA. I mixed it ITB and added some bus compression with the blockfish.

so yeah there are some serious differences in the two recordings. the analog recording had a better vocal channel, a bottom snare mic, 2 bass amps, a slightly different guitar amp, etc. etc.

but its still the same band in the same room with the same monitoring chain playing the same songs onto 2 different mediums.

you will NOT be able to tell which is 'better'. you WILL be able to tell that they are 'different'.

okay I'm off to build more tube traps...

[SteveMac]

I compared the recordings of "no time" (the best I could with this PC which buffers every 5 secs). The vocal and the snare do sound fatter on the analog recording and overall sounds a little more powerful. You can hear differences but it would be hard to say if the medium is the cause. Too many determining factors. What's cool is the digital recording doesn't sound clearer than the analog one. Good punk!

[Dr ZEE]

Originally Posted by FALKEN

well if anyone wants to listen I put some mp3's up last night. my new band is going to be called No Pronto and a club's booking agent asked for a website so I threw this up there:

www.yellowcakebread.com/nopronto

here is the older recording:

www.yellowcakebread.com/demo

that was recorded using 8 tracks into the PC. we only had 1 bass amp, but I mic'd it and line'd it and that sounded really really good. I used ev-635a's on the overheads, and the vocals were line-out'd from the PA. I mixed it ITB and added some bus compression with the blockfish.

so yeah there are some serious differences...

hmmm, Interesting , you would not even mention what audio-interface/soundcard/recording system does(did) your PC has(had) and was used to make the recording on your PC... (like it's some sort of minor not-so-important detail .. )

It is fine to present two different mixes in mp3-format and then describe the differences in how the mixes were recorded/produced. Two different mixes, that is ... that's what you compare. Then you can make some sort of conclusion, something like:
The differences were:
1. On the performance side - yada yada (since it was two different performances)
2. Gear used: list gear or note the different gear used
3. On production techniques side : make notes on differences (recording setting, mixing, mastering ...what ever applies)... list all the differences.

...which mix is better? ?

Originally Posted by FALKEN

you will NOT be able to tell which is 'better'.

I can tell which mix is better ('no time' track). Why not?
The 'newer mix' where you used e-16 and the rest - IS BETTER.
Why I am so sure? - I listened to it . - and that's what my personal conclusion is, when comparing two mixes.
But there's no way I can tell anything about comparing your e-16 machine and your PC-recording system (what ever it was/is).... based on listening to this two mixes. Can anybody?

/respects

[Dr ZEE]

Originally Posted by SteveMac

What's cool is the digital recording doesn't sound clearer than the analog one. Good punk!

Yeah, based on listening to these two mixes in mp3 format, I guess you can say so ..., that's why it may be very 'missleading'.... , see what I mean?, You did not actually listen to what ever was recorded to e-16 and to PC with what ever recording hardware. So, actually, it could be the case, that PC recordings were "sounding clearer" .... I am not saying that it was so, 'cos I have no way of knowing ... but it could be the case. And of course, we will never escape from 'not exactly knowing' what one may exactly mean when saying: "The Recording Is Super Clear".... for some people: if there's 'no background hiss' - then, that IS CLEAR recording, and there's nothing else to it ... hehe heh
'no hiss' - great recording, 'hiss' - bad recording, evaluation completed.... LOL

[FALKEN]

yes I spent a lot of time with the 2nd mix and ran it through a lot of el cheapo outboard hardware, like compressors and graphic eqs. the 1st mix was just for the drummer to learn the songs. half as many tracks. mixed in an evening. I have a layla24 since you were interested, and have always been super happy with echo.

obviously the 2nd batch is better, or I would have used the 1st batch for the demo. I mean't you wont be able to tell which medium is better becuase its not an actual comparison (like the thread title states).

one thing that is interesting to note is that both of these recordings when I made them, were my 'best recording so far'. most importantly, using both systems has really made my learning curve take off.

[analogelectric]

The closest I've come to doing a test "like" that is I had a band come in a few months ago and we recorded everything on the 2" 24 track, dumped the tracks in to the DAW, and mixed it inside the DAW. Then they had 2 bonus songs they wanted to do and I suggested, "since they might be throw-away tracks and I haven't tracked a full band via computer yet, so why don't we try and DAW it?"

So we did, (same mic setup and on the same day we tracked everything else), when we listened back I couldn't tell the difference other than the absence of minimal tape-hiss from the analog recording.

The band was super loud and distorted ala "Melvins" and mixing between the two formats was surprisingly similar, (regarding plug-ins and such).

I have noticed a difference when recording more mellow music, especially acoustic guitar. There was a quick session where the person wanted to go directly digital and I noticed there being a little too much clarity? Seemed a little thinner than pushing analog tape.

Other than that my friend that records his own stuff for fun and will come to me for advice started out on a cassette 4-track but recently purchased Logic for his G4. Everything he owns now is what he owned during his 4-tracking days (mics, guitars, drum machine, etc) so the only variable to him was Logic with more tracks (even though he still kept tracks to a minimum). The stuff he's played me recently sounds clearer and less muddy than previous work (he never got the hang of signal to noise floor ratio regarding analog tape). I can tell he took a lot of plugin liberty but that aside it went from muddy to all highs and lows sans mids.

Just my opinion,
-- Adam Lazlo

[Dr ZEE]

Originally Posted by analogelectric

The closest I've come to doing a test "like" that is I had a band come in a few months ago and we recorded everything on the 2" 24 track, ...

Which one? Make/model?

Originally Posted by analogelectric

.... dumped the tracks in to the DAW, and mixed it inside the DAW.
...

What DAW (hardware / A/D-inerface)?

Originally Posted by analogelectric

....my friend... started out on a cassette 4-track but recently purchased Logic for his G4. ....

Which 4-track cassette (make/model)?
And since neither Logic nor G4 are recording gear, then what exactly recording audio interface have your friend purchased and used with Logic on G4?

Originally Posted by analogelectric

.....
Just my opinion,
-- Adam Lazlo

If you'd answer the questions above, than at least it would be possible to know what exactly your openion is about

Originally Posted by analogelectric

....my friend that records his own stuff for fun and will come to me for advice ... ....

A wild thought: an advice could be - "Ask for advice some experienced guy in recording his own stuff for fun instead of a guy experienced in recording somebody else's stuff for cash".

/respects

[jpmorris]

I've now put up my copy of the Mr. Right digital mix. I'll ask the guy if he's willing to put the digital version back up on his site, but until then:

Tape mix:
http://www.sofajunkie.com/music/InPr.../mrright/2.mp3

Digital mix:
http://www.jpmorris.force9.co.uk/mus...ht_digital.mp3

[analogelectric]

Originally Posted by Dr ZEE

Which one? Make/model?

Otari MTR90-II

Originally Posted by Dr ZEE

What DAW (hardware / A/D-inerface)?

I run Steinberg Nuendo 2.2.b39, (2) Motu HD192 I/O's, G5 dual 2GHz.

Originally Posted by Dr ZEE

Which 4-track cassette (make/model)?
And since neither Logic nor G4 are recording gear, then what exactly recording audio interface have your friend purchased and used with Logic on G4?

TASCAM Portastudio 464. From what I gather is my friend is using the "mic in" on the G4's stock audio card of which I've been trying to convince him otherwise.

Not to harp on semantics but I consider audio software and the computer being used for audio as recording gear.

Originally Posted by Dr ZEE

If you'd answer the questions above, than at least it would be possible to know what exactly your openion is about

I was trying to convey that I was impressed with the results. Especially since I started analog and was wary of digital recording up until a year ago. Then the a/b tests I've done turned out positive.

Originally Posted by Dr ZEE

A wild thought: an advice could be - "Ask for advice some experienced guy in recording his own stuff for fun instead of a guy experienced in recording somebody else's stuff for cash".

So my opinion doesn't matter because I engineer for a living? Or am I just reading that wrong? I still record my own stuff for fun, my friend came to me for advice because he trusts my opinion, and he wanted to pick my brain a little. I don't understand how my advice would be destructive.

If I'm not welcome on this message board because I make a living recording, then so be it.

-- Adam Lazlo

[mr.rich]

i think lazlo would be the perfect choice to do the comparisons. hes got a good tape deck and a pc system of comparible quality. id say if he could post a couple mp3s on here of say a full drum set... kick, snare, toms, overhead, and hat (because i think hat sounds god awfull in pc alot of times) with his nice mic list through the neotek wed get a good a/b. if he was so kind as to send me the neotek id provide the mp3s myself .

[themaddog]

I recorded a friend last Saturday. He plays acoustic guitar and sings. I'd never recorded acoustic guitar before, so I figured I'd take a shotgun approach to trying to getting it right and save time.

I used a Tascam 2516 console, which was routed to a Tascam MSR-16 (with DBX), a 22-2 (no NR), and into my computer through a Delta 44. In summary: 4 tracks on the MSR-16, 4 on the Delta 44, and 2 mixed "live" to the 22-2. On the MSR-16 I used a special formulation of Emtec LPR 35, and on the 22-2 I used Quantegy 407, both machines at 15 ips. I recorded the Delta 44 at 24-bit, 96.6k. I used two condensers on the guitar, one at the sound hole, the other up above the guitarist's shoulder, angled in such a way to avoid phase cancelation (I checked everything in mono, no phase problems that I could hear). Aimed at the singer's mouth, but a couple feet back, I used a ribbon mic to capture the room and vocals. The last track was direct in from a pickup on his guitar that added a little more bass, but at the same time some more attack. He sang and played at the same time, live to both tape machines and computer. I recorded in this way because I try to be open-minded about how I record, and figured the thing that digital would be able to do best would be record pristinely clean, acoustic instruments. And, like I said, since I'd never recorded this type of music before, I was interested in seeing where it would go.

How anyone feels about the mic placement I used, the mics (which were cheap - Nady and Oktava), and my pre's is irrelevant: each recorder got the same treatment and the exact same take. The signal going into each recorder was strong, with the digital signal centered around -4. I kept the peaks on the tape machines as close to 0 as possible, and they barely went over at all. So, I used a strong, but typical signal into all of the recorders, for the best possible signal to noise on that particular medium.

The Tascam 22-2 had a great sound. A little bassier, but much fuller than all of the other mediums. The only downside, of course, was I have no real control over it unless I master it to another format, where I could fool with EQ, channel mixing, etc. There was barely any audible hiss, but I don't have any noise reduction for this recorder anyway.

The MSR-16 sounded really good, no hiss at all, very full sound. I wish I could have used a recorder more suited for this kind of music, like a TSR-8 or even a 22-4, but no big deal.

The Delta 44 sound OK, but, weak and tinny in comparison to the tape machines. But no hiss, right? He he he.

When I listened back to all of these, they were all "unmixed," with the same settings playing back as they went in. Now, of course I could mix the MSR-16 and Delta 44 tracks and make either of them sound "better," but I haven't yet. I'm open-minded, maybe I could make the Delta 44 end-mix sound better than the MSR-16 mix once I mix it down to computer, but I don't think I could, as I find it much easier to mix with analog. However, I don't doubt that a true engineering professional could take these digital tracks and make his or her end result sound a helluva lot better than the analog mix I could make, even using my cheap equipment. But, by the same token, I feel an analog professional could obtain an even better result than the digital.

I also let the perfomer hear the different takes (or rather, the same take done on different machines) and he agreed that the digital one was the worst. It wasn't that it was bad, it just couldn't hold up to the fullness of the analog versions. There was also not a huge difference between the MSR-16 and 22-2, but I personally liked the 22-2 sound best, probably for the more "raw" sound.

Now, of course my opinion is all well and good for whoever has reached this far down to the end of this post, but there's no way anyone could possibly hear these major differences unless they came to my basement... err, studio... But, I am a believer in the fact that analog tape can soften the blow to digital, and add pleasing effects like watching a film on DVD instead of VHS, rather than dumping right to digital. So, if anyone wanted me to convert these three mediums to MP3 for them to try and compare, I could for you. There might be somewhat of a difference, but the MP3 strips so much out of the life of the recording, that I'm not sure which will sound coming out on top.

If I have a request or two to do this I will, and would follow the same procedure on each take. I would not mix any of them, other than putting it to stereo from 4 tracks, but this would be without changing how the signal went in, just playing back at unity. After having a stereo mix of each, at as strong a digital signal I could put it to, I would normalize each to the same value (probably 95% to try to avoid further MP3 artifacts), then put them all to MP3. Then you all can decide, he he.

-MD

[Dr ZEE]

themaddog! That sounds like THE test .... , cool!

Originally Posted by themaddog

...but there's no way anyone could possibly hear these major differences unless they came to my basement... err, studio...

exactly! When running a recording equipment comparison test (and doing it as 'correctly'! as possible with equipment/set-up you have) this sort of conclusion comes out pretty much 'naturally' - you know right on the spot, that if you do any re-recording or converting to a different format or apply any extra factor which would affect the result, then the whole test becomes pretty much useless and may easily be misleading.
... not to mention that those major differences , that you are talking about are very open to subjective interpretations.

/respects