why do people use tape???
- Thread starter mr. produca
- Start date
In response to the White Stripes 'review' if you will.... I'm not so sure the choice of lo-fi was for 'artistic pride'... or just good 'ol plain 'market research'.
Trouble shooting the 'which is better - analog vs. digital' tends to be real tricky. For most modern day basic recordings, the digital systems offer a very wide range of possibilities.... at a very acceptable loss of quality.
I look at in terms of digital cameras, vs. standard cameras. With digital, the camera 're-creates' the image by plugging colors into holes. ie-pixels. Kinda like that toy we all had as kids... where you fit the different sized shapes into different spots on a ball. The trade off here is getting a 'blocky' picture. Granted, you can spend more and more money on a better digital camera to recieve a better result, but in the end... pro's would probably pick out a digital picture a mile away. (hmmm.. spending more money..... sounds familiar
)
On the other side, we have the standard camera. There are no processors, special wiring, or anything real fancy. The picture is created by chemical reaction..... a very 'fluid' reproduction, if you will.
I think this is somewhat the same difference in analog vs. digital. And i'm sure you could match analog with a digital set up.... but at this point in time, would cost a boat load of money.
Trouble shooting the 'which is better - analog vs. digital' tends to be real tricky. For most modern day basic recordings, the digital systems offer a very wide range of possibilities.... at a very acceptable loss of quality.
I look at in terms of digital cameras, vs. standard cameras. With digital, the camera 're-creates' the image by plugging colors into holes. ie-pixels. Kinda like that toy we all had as kids... where you fit the different sized shapes into different spots on a ball. The trade off here is getting a 'blocky' picture. Granted, you can spend more and more money on a better digital camera to recieve a better result, but in the end... pro's would probably pick out a digital picture a mile away. (hmmm.. spending more money..... sounds familiar
)On the other side, we have the standard camera. There are no processors, special wiring, or anything real fancy. The picture is created by chemical reaction..... a very 'fluid' reproduction, if you will.
I think this is somewhat the same difference in analog vs. digital. And i'm sure you could match analog with a digital set up.... but at this point in time, would cost a boat load of money.
I'm not sure it's a valid parallel, actually. With digital cameras you have to pay a good deal more to get an entry level camera that will give comparable quality. So if you have a little money to spend, you'll probably get a better analog camera for your money. With recording gear, you can get better entry level digital gear, for the same amount of money, and the only time you start seeing the superiority of analog is in the higher price ranges.
Just my thoughts.
Just my thoughts.
In relation to dollars, you are correct. Mainly because, i 'think', the digital camera has to have a screen... which is a considerable cost, dollar for dollar. However, if you take the screen out of the picture.... plus all the features that involve the screen.... then we may see the relationship even out.
But aside from the dollars (assuming we be anal about it).... i'm just comparing the overall differences in how each device comes up with it's finished product.
But aside from the dollars (assuming we be anal about it).... i'm just comparing the overall differences in how each device comes up with it's finished product.
Photography is another of my hobbies I really can't afford....LOL The digitals just haven't quite caught up with the film cameras in their capability for accurate detailed reproduction- I forget the actual megapixel comparisons, but you have to get a digital above 10 megapixels or so (not an exact quotable number- but it's way up there somewhere) in order to get the capability to make larger prints. It also depends on the film speed and a few other variables- so in many ways it is a good parallel, but kind of in reverse....to get the nicer result with the digital you have to spend more than the 'old school' cameras. (the analog parallels, if you will) A lot of the 'artistry' has been turned into image software manipulation rather than really understanding the medium and how it works in relation to how light interacts with it. This is not to say one is preferable to the other necessarily- it's like comparing apples and oranges. You could probably take an apple and add flavorings until it tastes like an orange, but it would still crunch rather than squish....Know what I mean?? It depends on the individual and what the individual is after. A lot like the running argument of solid state vs. vacuum tube, or even perhaps like trying to compare recording mediums. I personally prefer a more hands on and personal approach to photography, and the challenge of 'outsmarting' the element into creating an interesting look unlike anyone else can. (both a GOOD and a BAD thing....Ha!!) So I guess I like analog for recording and digital for storing/reproducing the results....PERSONAL TASTE really has a lot to do with it!corban said:
Pink Floyd used BOTH on the album with the song 'Learning to Fly' (forget the name of the whole record right now....uh....I'll be 43 next week- Can you tell?? LOL) and I like the way the mixture of the two sounds....Check it out!
Light
New member
Tape sounds DIFFERENT from digital. Better or worse, that is in the eye of the beholder, though I sure like tape. But tape, by it's nature, compresses the sound. As the guys from Steely Dan say, it's like having 24 compressors on your sound. For some things, that's good. For others it is not.
Tape also has a very different frequency response, sounding "warmer" and "fatter." Great for heavier rock sounds. Great for anything, really, but some people do prefer the sound of digital. Nothing wrong with that, of course, it takes all kinds. I particularly like high speed tape (30 ips) for jazz stuff. It just kind of gels everything together very nicely.
But tape is hidiously expensive, particularly after Quantagy closed the factory last year. Now, tape is being made again, and I believe I have heard that Quantagy is making tape again in their factory, but far less of it than before, and the price of tape is very high. Additionally, the maintanence for tape is very time consuming and financially draining.
Light
"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
Tape also has a very different frequency response, sounding "warmer" and "fatter." Great for heavier rock sounds. Great for anything, really, but some people do prefer the sound of digital. Nothing wrong with that, of course, it takes all kinds. I particularly like high speed tape (30 ips) for jazz stuff. It just kind of gels everything together very nicely.
But tape is hidiously expensive, particularly after Quantagy closed the factory last year. Now, tape is being made again, and I believe I have heard that Quantagy is making tape again in their factory, but far less of it than before, and the price of tape is very high. Additionally, the maintanence for tape is very time consuming and financially draining.
Light
"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
Dags
New member
[0.02c hitting the table]
Given how [comparably] inexpensive good quality digital recording options are, why the need to go back to tape? From what I can gather (this may have been covered - I haven't read through all the posts first) the media itself is fairly expensive and will obviously deteriorate fast if not kept under certain optimal storage conditions.
I would have thought the maintenance on the devices themselves, ensuring that the tape tracks at the correct speed with the required amount of tension across the heads and everything would be an ongoing nightmare!
The only sound reinforcement benefit I can think of of using tape nowdays for your average semi-pro studio is the ability to record really hot without creating horrible distortion - especially if you're recording a loud punk or grunge band. The magnetic tape just gets fully saturated and can't possibly hold any more sound, so it kind of naturally acts as a limiter of sorts.
I'm not speaking through experience with analogue tape, by the way, so I undoubtedly don't know what I'm missing in terms of what tape can offer in terms of warmth and ease of use. I do occasionally use a DAT machine to record my finished mixes onto, but that's only as another alternative to CD (in case there's been a problem with the burn)
I'm thinking purely along the lines of whether or not you'll still be able to get replacement parts in the next 5/10/15 years. Need a new HD, go and buy one off the shelf for $80. Need to replace the tape heads, hmmm.......??
Editing on tape (as has been documented through decades of use) would also be fairly difficult compared to the cut & paste simplicity of the digital world, unless you intend to fly everything into a computer to mix the song, in which case, aren't you then just using the tape as an effect?
Rather expensive effect, eh?
Anyway, just thought I'd throw my thoughts into the mix.
Whatever you decide to do, I hope it works out!
Dags
Given how [comparably] inexpensive good quality digital recording options are, why the need to go back to tape? From what I can gather (this may have been covered - I haven't read through all the posts first) the media itself is fairly expensive and will obviously deteriorate fast if not kept under certain optimal storage conditions.
I would have thought the maintenance on the devices themselves, ensuring that the tape tracks at the correct speed with the required amount of tension across the heads and everything would be an ongoing nightmare!
The only sound reinforcement benefit I can think of of using tape nowdays for your average semi-pro studio is the ability to record really hot without creating horrible distortion - especially if you're recording a loud punk or grunge band. The magnetic tape just gets fully saturated and can't possibly hold any more sound, so it kind of naturally acts as a limiter of sorts.
I'm not speaking through experience with analogue tape, by the way, so I undoubtedly don't know what I'm missing in terms of what tape can offer in terms of warmth and ease of use. I do occasionally use a DAT machine to record my finished mixes onto, but that's only as another alternative to CD (in case there's been a problem with the burn)
I'm thinking purely along the lines of whether or not you'll still be able to get replacement parts in the next 5/10/15 years. Need a new HD, go and buy one off the shelf for $80. Need to replace the tape heads, hmmm.......??
Editing on tape (as has been documented through decades of use) would also be fairly difficult compared to the cut & paste simplicity of the digital world, unless you intend to fly everything into a computer to mix the song, in which case, aren't you then just using the tape as an effect?
Rather expensive effect, eh?
Anyway, just thought I'd throw my thoughts into the mix.
Whatever you decide to do, I hope it works out!
Dags
Light
New member
Dags said:
Well, yes and no. It is true that you want to store it under proper conditions, but that is not that difficult. You just need it in a cool dry place. And the fact of the matter is, tape is MUCH more forgiving to storage issues than hard drives. Don't think so? How many people do YOU know who have had catastrophic hard drive failure? There isn't really any good way to store digital data long term yet, and when a digital file get corupted, it is lost. CDs/DVDs degrade with time. Hard drives, well, we all know what they are like. With analog tape, when it starts to wear all that happens is you lose some high end. Maybe. There are some VERY capable engineers (Steve Albini) who would argue even this point, to some degree or another.
And for the final nail in the coffin of the "2 inch is delicate" argument, the people who were most concerned about Quatagy going tits up was NASA. NASA backs up ALL of its digital data on 2 inch analog audio tape, because nothing is a stable and reliable over the long term. And when NASA says long term, they mean decades to centuries.
But analog tape is sure expensive.
Light
"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
Stefan Elmblad
New member
SonicAlbert said:
I cannot even begin to explain how much I disagree. Highquality reel-to-reel machines is very reliable, and those who believes different are the ones who never used it, or believed the ads when digital came to this world. Before I switched to digital (cause of tape costs), I recorded for over 20 years on reel-to-reel, with only 1 moving part malfunctioning, which cost me 10 USD to fix.
You are welcome to come back to this thread in 20 years, and tell me how your current computer is still doing a great performance and running like new.
You have to put down hours and hours of software reinstalling and updating, just to make sure it still works, and even if you do, it's obsolete in 5 years.
Stefan Elmblad said:
The digital era is here. Is here to stay, pereiod. Like it or not, today's music buisiness dictates digital recording. Digital recording sounds just as good as analog. The two can be argued but ut comes down to peresonal preference. The facts are that in context with todsy's music environment, digital is the only way to go. I can make an album with as many rock stars all over the world by simply sending the digital tracks right now, and have them in China in 1 min or less. Try shipping your 2" reel all over the world. People download their music at any computer wprldwide. Anyone can be a rock star with digital editing. There is nothing you can't do with digital. Today's digital engineers can make a total monkey out of the best analog guys faster, and costing less $$$ *in today's music environment*.
So, argue until the cows come home. The record labels drive the industry, they see that digital is the answer (to them) and they demand Pro-Tools period. You have no pro-tools, you have very little buisiness. The Steve Albini's of the world will have to retire someday and with them all the analog machines. I see all this analog vs. digital arguing as total silliness. Digital wins out today *there is no argument here*. Music sales come from downloading in the digital format period. You can argue that analog is better *to you* and that would be *your opinion* but ask the millions who listen to their music off of iPods, CD players etc. and the majority will say the sound is just fine.
HangDawg
bUnGhOlIo
Stefan Elmblad said:
My first computer, a Gateway PII 400 is 10 years old an still running fine. Haven't replaced a thing on it.
Why are you reinstalling an updating so often? If my DAW works today, and it does, 5 years from now it will still work without any updates. And technically, I could save an image of the drive and if it fails, get right back to where I was in a couple hours. Maybe you should learn how to take care of your PC and you won't have so many problems.
The 'millions who listen' don't necessarily know anything about good sound quality or even good music....otherwise they wouldn't listen to most of the crap that gets sold nowadays! I personally don't believe in editing as the be all end all to sounding good, either. Sit down and practice or step aside and make room for some actual artists- not 'mincemeat mixers'. (I'm not speaking to MCI2424 directly, incidentally- if it makes anyone nervous then you know who I'm talking about apparently....) Be honest with yourself at least- get a job somewhere else and stop flooding the market with useless junk! Talent isn't dead- just obfuscated by the flood of extraneous BS. That doesn't make it right! It just means that when the Steve Albinis or whomever retire, then a significant period of history and true natural talent will be lost forever, sadly.
If there's nothing that can't be done with digital, then why don't they make it sound a little more natural? I think that's all anyone is really saying- and the reason analog keeps on going.
Just because a car is new doesn't make it more interesting or valuable than a classic-
If there's nothing that can't be done with digital, then why don't they make it sound a little more natural? I think that's all anyone is really saying- and the reason analog keeps on going.
Just because a car is new doesn't make it more interesting or valuable than a classic-
homestudioguy
Well-known member
Why use tape?
Have you ever tried to wrap a Christmas gift with hay-bale twine?
What would we call Duct Tape without tape? Duct Drive?
Imagine trying to attach your 36 channel snake to the stage with Duct Drive!
How about Tapeworm? Discworm?
Have you ever tried to wrap a Christmas gift with hay-bale twine?
What would we call Duct Tape without tape? Duct Drive?
Imagine trying to attach your 36 channel snake to the stage with Duct Drive!
How about Tapeworm? Discworm?
Dr ZEE
Anti-Pro Circles Insider
...and The Industry relies on mass hysteria (or better, say: Mental Epidemy)MCI2424 said:
**********
The record labels drive the industry,...
... but they don't drive home recordists.
Home recording artists maybe are the LAST MEN standing.
So carry on! Don't get swept away by the mad epidemic killer-wave of ipodentery.
Ipodentery really is an infectious disorder of the lower intestinal tract, however the systemic intoxication causes severe brain damage, and verbal expressions like: "sound is just fine" or "wow! cool!", - are typical, among other symptoms
/respects
billyshuler
New member
Noise isn't as big of a problem as it used to be, you can get a good quality recording if you use noise reduction like dbx. Recording at 30ips will give you a better sound than 15ips. You will capture more sound to tape than you currently can with HD setups.
fraserhutch
Flypaper for freaks
Why do people use tape?
Cause staples are dangerous?
Cause staples are dangerous?