Going Analog....Reel to Reel or ADAT?
- Thread starter sjaguar13
- Start date
Chris Shaeffer
Peavey ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
sjaguar13 said:
in this case, reel to reel.
ADAT is actually a DIGITAL recording system- it just records that digital data on a tape.
So if you're looking for an analog system, reel to reel is pretty much your only choise other than cassette....
Take care,
Chris
ADAT is an 8 track digital recorder that records onto SVHS tape.
ADAT is a purely digital method of transporting audio that does not go through Converters. ADAT is ideal for sending tracks to multi track recorders, digital mixers, and getting audio from high end multi channel mic preamps. You'll have to get an interface with an ADAT i/o, but if you plan on using an analog mixer you do not need ADAT i/o.
Link about analog
If you want an analog system, reel-to-reel is the way to go
ADAT is a purely digital method of transporting audio that does not go through Converters. ADAT is ideal for sending tracks to multi track recorders, digital mixers, and getting audio from high end multi channel mic preamps. You'll have to get an interface with an ADAT i/o, but if you plan on using an analog mixer you do not need ADAT i/o.
Link about analog
If you want an analog system, reel-to-reel is the way to go
Joel Hamilton
New member
bcains said:
This is absolutley all not true, except the part about ADAT being digital.
I was just talking about the amount of misinformation, presented as hard fact on messageboards. Why post at all if you dont know?
As was said above, ADAT is not the way to go these days: all the hassles of rewind/FF tape transports (p;oor ones at that), and NONE of the benefits of tape. In an ADAT, the chosen removable storage medium is magnetic, just like tape, just like your hard drive. Magnetic storage. The fact that adat has HUGE error rates, and the converters are marginal under the BEST circumstances.... Dont buy an ADAT. I still have two that I have had since the mid 90's, and they simply arent worth selling......
wow, sorry i read over my post and that was imensly wrong. What i was "trying" to say was it doesnt need to go through external A/D converters,
e.g The Alesis XT20, records eight tracks of true, linear 20-bit digital audio onto tape, without using external converters or multiplexers.
Sorry for my misleading post.
e.g The Alesis XT20, records eight tracks of true, linear 20-bit digital audio onto tape, without using external converters or multiplexers.
Sorry for my misleading post.
Chris Shaeffer
Peavey ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reel to reel deck -> mixer -> Computer -> Audio editor to trim the ends and fades, if needed-> CD
-C
-C
Put a hot-water bottle under the Q10 as you're recording the warm analog signal into the PC.
Seriously... what most people think of the "warmth of analog" is likely to be a little tape hiss and loss of high frequencies. Don't worry, you won't lose it.
The thing is - if you have REALLY good analog equipment, you won't have perceptible hiss. You also won't need to bother with digital.
Seriously... what most people think of the "warmth of analog" is likely to be a little tape hiss and loss of high frequencies. Don't worry, you won't lose it.
The thing is - if you have REALLY good analog equipment, you won't have perceptible hiss. You also won't need to bother with digital.
There is a certain "warmth" that people seem to agree is imparted by recording to a good analog machine. It is quite possible to record to analog tape and then transfer into the digital realm and retain a good amount of that "warmth". If you were to record to tape, and then use the aardvark to transfer tracks, they would retain a good portion of the analog quality that you had previously recorded. If however you were to record straight to the aardvark (without going through the tape machine) than the analog tape sound will never have been there so will never even be sent to the aardvark. This is a simple description of how the aardvark will be able to retain some the analog sound if integrated properly to a setup.
On point as well, the use of the term "ADAT" can be a little misleading. ADAT in and of itself would refer specifically to the Alesis branded machines and the term, if I remember right, is actually licensed to Alesis. ADAT optical is a common name used for TOSLINK optical interfacing that is capableof using 8 channels as opposed to just 2 channels of digital audio at up to 48khz.
As far as analog goes, there is a lot more to it's "coveted sound" than just hiss and loss of high frequencies. There is a certain amount and type of compresison that occurs when recording to tape machines. This effect can be extremely useful and can serve to radically change a sound by pegging a track pretty hard and letting the tape machine add more of its own sonic character. Tape can be used as a tool just as much as it can be a basic medium.
On point as well, the use of the term "ADAT" can be a little misleading. ADAT in and of itself would refer specifically to the Alesis branded machines and the term, if I remember right, is actually licensed to Alesis. ADAT optical is a common name used for TOSLINK optical interfacing that is capableof using 8 channels as opposed to just 2 channels of digital audio at up to 48khz.
As far as analog goes, there is a lot more to it's "coveted sound" than just hiss and loss of high frequencies. There is a certain amount and type of compresison that occurs when recording to tape machines. This effect can be extremely useful and can serve to radically change a sound by pegging a track pretty hard and letting the tape machine add more of its own sonic character. Tape can be used as a tool just as much as it can be a basic medium.
Chris Shaeffer
Peavey ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yup.
Analog changes the sound in its own, usually pleasant way. Digital doesn't make things UN-pleasant, it just doesn't give it the same sound that tape does.
So it you have a good sounding analog recording and good digital equipment, the digitial version should sound almost exactly the same as the analog mix.
You're still limited by the 16bit/44.1 CD format, but if you do it right (i.e. get your levels hot without clipping at all) you get good reproduction of your fat analog mix.
Enjoy!
Chris
Analog changes the sound in its own, usually pleasant way. Digital doesn't make things UN-pleasant, it just doesn't give it the same sound that tape does.
So it you have a good sounding analog recording and good digital equipment, the digitial version should sound almost exactly the same as the analog mix.
You're still limited by the 16bit/44.1 CD format, but if you do it right (i.e. get your levels hot without clipping at all) you get good reproduction of your fat analog mix.
Enjoy!
Chris
Light
New member
sjaguar13 said:
Well, unless youspent a lot more than I am betting you did, don't worry about it. Cheep analog sucks. Period. If it is a Tascam or a Fostex, sorry, but you wasted your money.
Here is the thing, digital sounds really good, and if you don't like your recordings on a digital format, an analog format is NOT going to fix it. Sure, I can get things I like from a Studer and a Neve, things I can't get with a Pro-tools rig. But given the fairly evident level of ignorence in your questions, you almost certainly can't. There is no insult intended here, it is simply that people have a great misconception about analog audio gear. It is not a magic bullet that will automatically make you an amazing engineer, it is simply another tool, and not one you need. Until you have the basic tools down, and from you questions it is clear you do not, don't worry about it.
Here it is, in simple terms: Great analog costs more than most peoples houses. Great digital does too. Adaquite analog costs more than most people's cars. Adaquate digital is cheep. Skill and practice matter more than gear, and they are free. Just keep doing the work.
Light
"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
Chris Shaeffer
Peavey ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, that was ceratinly en-light-ening. 
Apparently Boston and Kansas used sucky equipment for their first albums- from what I understand. They were both recorded on Tascams "small format" (i.e. 1/2") 8 tracks.
I agree, though- all the work and skill are needed BEFORE the signal hits either the tape or the convertors. And if you have that skill, then its doesn't much matter which one its hitting. Or how much it costs.
And that's why he didn't waste his money, more than likely- he has more variety of tools to practice with. How can that be a bad thing?
Skill snobbery is more acceptable than gear snobbery- though we're all certainly entitled to our opinions.
-C
Apparently Boston and Kansas used sucky equipment for their first albums- from what I understand. They were both recorded on Tascams "small format" (i.e. 1/2") 8 tracks.
I agree, though- all the work and skill are needed BEFORE the signal hits either the tape or the convertors. And if you have that skill, then its doesn't much matter which one its hitting. Or how much it costs.
And that's why he didn't waste his money, more than likely- he has more variety of tools to practice with. How can that be a bad thing?
Skill snobbery is more acceptable than gear snobbery- though we're all certainly entitled to our opinions.
-C
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Just when you think you've heard it all, another new age excuse for laziness gets a name.Chris Shaeffer said:
Light's post was both over the top and misplaced; I'm not going to pretend otherwise. And I'll even disagree with him on one point; "cheep [sic] analog" has a valid place in the overall toolset. Some very useful results can be had running some signal over half-inch and even quarter-inch tape. Don't expect a Tascam to sound like a Studer...or even a Studer/Revox for that matter. But a Tascam that sounds like a Tascam can indeed help an otherwise crappy digital mixdown. There's worse digital out there than the bad analog of a Tascam or a Fostex. Just ask anybody with a minidisc, digital tape or stock soundcard recording.
But "Skill snobbery" must have a definition beyond my comprension, because I haven't the slightest idea how anybody could justify slacking on skillset.
G.
Farview
Well-known member
Chris Shaeffer said:
The tascams that Light was probably referring to are the 16 track 1/2 machines. Yes, you can do fine stuff on them, but it is not what everyone (who knows the difference) is talking about when they refer to warm analog gear.
Anyway, the first Kansas album was dark and fuzzy sounding and if it wasn't for the Aphex exciter, the Boston album would have sounded even worse. These two albums are not the best examples of sonic excellence.
Chris Shaeffer
Peavey ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah- I just pulled "Skill Snobbery" out of the air. I thought it was funny. Read the post again- I'm not talking about being lazy.
-C
I am going to use my Adat's as door stops, and rocks to hold down tarps that might blow away in the wind. But God I loved those things back in the day. made some good recordings with them as well. The Fray - Vienna was recorded on 8 track about 2 years ago I think... Sounds good, but by todays standards, adats are a hassle, they need cleaning, they get errors all the time, sometimes the tapes don't work or get stretched, the a/d converters are from when dinosaurs roamed, they are heavy...
But they have lots of lights and meters which is cool.
But they have lots of lights and meters which is cool.