tascam 388 vs korg d1600mk

[zorf]

Ouch, don't flame me. I'm considering go'in analog. Here's my question. Without starting a religious war, and taking into consideration which part of the forum i'm posting this, which
sounds "better"? Keep in mind, all of my favorite music was recorded in the 1950's and 60's. I just started using my korg
and (ducking under the desk here) i think it sounds pretty good.
Is the "warmth" of analog just a byproduct of mild compression
and gentle rolling off of high frequencies, or is there really a
qualitative difference? Is a prosumer analog deck going to sound a little boxy compared to my korg? Are we just seduced by nostalgic placebo effect when watching those vu meters?
I have to say, i love the simplicity of r2r. I record in real time playing real instruments and don't need non linear editing, software instruments, or sequencing.
thanks for your (i hope) helpful feedback

[Beck]

If you’re happy with your Korg D1600, I wouldn’t trouble yourself. That is, if it sounds good to you, us talking about it isn’t going to change what you hear. The wording of your post reveals that you’ve already heard everything anyone might say here.

[zorf]

Hi,
I wasn't looking for anybody to talk me into anything nessariliy, i prefer
the work flow of r2r. I guess i was looking for some perspectives.
if we presume that the consensus around this section of the forum is that analog is great, is it because of unexamined beliefs, mytholigy and nostalgia,
or is there actually something tangeable about mag tape? Is that something besides just low fidelity? I don't have an analog deck or i would just do a side by side myself.
i saw someone on this site describe prosumer decks from the 80's as having a "plasticy"
sound. I had to laugh seeing the red, orange, and grey plastic mini knobs of
my youth pass before my eyes.
I might just pick one up then. i suppose i could always sell it if i don't pay too much.
thanks

[SteveMac]

Originally Posted by zorf

Hi,
I wasn't looking for anybody to talk me into anything nessariliy, i prefer
the work flow of r2r. I guess i was looking for some perspectives.
if we presume that the consensus around this section of the forum is that analog is great, is it because of unexamined beliefs, mytholigy and nostalgia,
or is there actually something tangeable about mag tape? Is that something besides just low fidelity? I don't have an analog deck or i would just do a side by side myself.
i saw someone on this site describe prosumer decks from the 80's as having a "plasticy"
sound. I had to laugh seeing the red, orange, and grey plastic mini knobs of
my youth pass before my eyes.
I might just pick one up then. i suppose i could always sell it if i don't pay too much.
thanks

Definately pick one up and try it out. Thats the only way you'll for yourself. Most of us are here because we did the digital thing and didn't like it or prefer the analog sound. For me it is the roll off of the high end and the unique "blending" quality that analog has amongst other things. I saw superman the other night and the shearing digital sound pretty much stripped the skin off my eardrums. Not to mention it was about 10 times louder than it had to be. But, anyway, as far as the "plasticy" sound of prosumer analog, I think its a pretty lame generalized statement.

[Beck]

Originally Posted by zorf

...is it because of unexamined beliefs, mytholigy and nostalgia?

Yes, to some people that is why they use what they use, digital or analog. Unexamined beliefs and mythology... hmmm, that's how I describe the digital revolution. These kinds of revolutions are born in pep rallies, not professional caucuses. At the hobbyist level the digital recording revolution is blood brother to the personal computer revolution. Never in the history of music recording have so many known so little about what they’re doing.

It's a familiar misconception to see analog fans as holdovers from the past, when in fact we’re a diverse group with a wide range of experience, and prefer analog for various reasons. Many of us know as much or more about digital and recording in general than anyone on any other forum.

I can’t speak for everyone, but as for me I’ve been recording for over 25 years and went through the digital revolution when it was “The thing.” What you see in forums like this is part of an analog renaissance that began about ten years ago in professional circles in response to deficiencies of digital recording technology. Speaking of nostalgia, from my perspective digital is just so 90’s.

Judging from the wordage of your questions (which are themselves statements) I would say understanding the full extent to which analog has regained favor in modern recording would be too much to take all at once.

[zorf]

Great!
Thanks for the replies. I'm intetrested in how you all got interested in analog,
and if you guys are using it for older styles or contempory stuff too.
Thanks Steve,
I know what you mean about the movie experience. It can be
painful. Sometimes wonder if people aren't just deaf anymore.
I've been lurking in this section for a while. I was wondering if you guys are all delusional or if you're on to something.
I'll probably pick up an old deck and mess around and if i can hear the ju-ju.

[hungovermorning]

Until you plug a mixer into both a soundcard and a reel to reel with the exact same mic set up and levels, you won't get it. I wouldn't have believed it without doing it. That, and mixing and tracking on tape is so much less like a jackhammer, that familiar hiss helps.
Oh, and reel to reel is definitely not low fidelity. It's some of the highest on the planet, 15 inches per second is a ton of information being encoded. Low fidelity is a portable cassette deck and two $30 dynamic mics in a room, not that that's always a bad thing either.

[zorf]

Cool!

Don't get me wrong, i love lo=fi stuff too. Of course i would probably start with
a 1/4 inch 8 track, so it would be less than the ultimate analog rig.

I was wondering. have you guys filled up 8 tracks then dumped to a daw,
and added a couple of tracks, then mixed in the box? And if so,
didi the tracks that were recorded into the daw sound different than the analog tracks side by side?

thanks again for your comments

[Beck]

Originally Posted by zorf

I was wondering if you guys are all delusional or if you're on to something.

We have both here, and even people that are both on to something and delusional at the same time. Hey, we’re artists … and even worse, we’re musicians.

[cjacek]

Originally Posted by zorf

I was wondering if you guys are all delusional or if you're on to something.

I think we're all delusional.

[Beck]

I am so scared! I don't know what's out there.

[cjacek]

AHHHHHH!!!

[Beck]

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek!

[cjacek]

Ok, now that's even scarier, Tim! You win!

[superbeatballer]

"Pro" tools.........EEEEEEEEEkk!!!!!!AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!

[FALKEN]

theoretically your korg is better. it has more dynamic range and less noise. practically, your korg is better, because it's not 20 years old and doens't have any moving parts that will fail. unless you are paranoid delusional like the rest of us I would just stick with your korg. if you want, you can set it up to have an identical "workflow" to a r2r.

[Herm]

FALKEN No moving parts to fail. Hardrive, Cd burner
Unless they make these bullet proof these days I dont think the parts failure thing should be that big of an issue.
Some day when these fail
try to find the correct ones that will work in his unit that will get along with the software in the Korg.

Prediction, someday recorders like Korg and the rest of the all in one units will be sitting in garage sales for 5.00 bucks just like some reel to reels do.

[FALKEN]

ok I agree with you on that point. but you know what I mean. Its sure is a lot of hassle. for someone like you or me it is worth it. for someone who thinks their korg sounds good...they should probably just stick with that, no?

[zorf]

hi guys,
. I'm not planning on using the korg for 20 years. i'm sure cds will be obsolete in 20 years anyhow.
But back to my first post;is it just the sonic signiture of mag tape people like, and couldn't you just roll off the highs, lightly compress, and add some even order harmonics to get the same sound? Or is it something else?
Is it the blurring or softening of the audio image that's pleasing or does newer music just take advantage of the additional clarity to add too many instruments, compress too much, and mix too bright to cut through the radio airwaves. (add damaged ears) of the great unlerned? if i mix my korg down onto a r2r (reglueing?), how will that differ sonicly from mixing a 388 onto a cd? I do have an old r2r
stereo deck (it even has tubes inside). I'm wondering if there isn't an imperceptable cyclic wave from the rthym of the tape passing over the heads thats pleasing somehow.

I think i'll just get a 388 and see if i can here any difference.

[FALKEN]

are you currently using an outboard mixer?

often this can make an even bigger differnece than tape vs. digits.

[zorf]

no, using the korg pre's. sometimes an artmp or my old tape deck as a front end. Shinybox 23L and B1.
I actually like to record each track in mono, then pan each mono track during mixdown.
I got rid of my old mackie.
I was following a 388 on ebay today. Was at $200 and then jumped the last 5 minutes to almost $600. Ouch. The person who bought it has never bought anything on ebay according to their profile.
Are you suggesting a half inch with mixer combo then, falken?

[cjacek]

Originally Posted by SteveMac

I saw superman the other night and the shearing digital sound pretty much stripped the skin off my eardrums. Not to mention it was about 10 times louder than it had to be.

I can relate. That's why I tend to prefer staying home and watching Turner Classic Movies. Is it me or do these decades old films sound and look much better than todays cra.... I mean stuff ?