After seven years of DAW, I will NEVER abandon tape again.

A

AnalogApples

Member
I bought an adequate digital recording setup about 15 years ago. I chose this because there was no debating: digital sounds excellent, it’s virtually maintenance free, and it’s easier to learn. I was 23 years old.

For many years I recorded noise free, crystal clear, songs into my computer. Then, for variety, I bought a Tascam 38-8. The high end was less clear, it was faulty, and limiting with only 8 tracks and 35 minutes of record time.

But it gave an intangible energy to the recordings. Listening to music recorded directly to this tape machine seemed to nourish my mind, like food. In contrast, the digital recordings seemed to tire my mind and emotions.

On the tape company ATR’s website they explain that analog tape has theoretically exponentially higher resolution than digital. I swear I can hear the passion of an artist recorded on tape.

I still have not seen a digital photo that has good depth of field realism. I believe computers belong in laboratories, not in the hands of artists.
 
Come to Jesus, wayward brother. :D

No need to now abandon digital...it has its good points too.
The folks who never abandoned analog, but instead brought digital into the fold...found the best of both worlds.

Amen.
 
I want to buy a reel to reel again. I know I want one, I really do, but I also know that my evaluation of its sound will be based on the heart not the ears. A bit like lust and affairs. They're understandable, and always destructive but something makes people do them. Analogue Audio is like lust. It exists, it's something quite impossible to explain, probably pointless yet somehow it has something. Thousands can't be wrong, but who Knows?
 
I actually got a bit of a chuckle when I read about tape's "65,000.000 magnetic particles per second" as the reason tape is so much better. Yeah, but how many of those 65M particles are randomly flipped (aka noise), and how many are actively flipped (signal). It all reeks of a bit of technobabble and marketing spin.

If tape were perfect, Ray Dolby and DBX wouldn't have created all those add-ons to actually make multitrack tape usable.

Maybe I should start a topic of "I will never abandon digital again". ;) But, then I wouldn't be able to play any of my old records!


What's a body to do?


FWIW, I've never found the setting on any of my equipment labeled "passion". Maybe I need a new microphone to capture that.
 
rob aylestone said:
I want to buy a reel to reel again. I know I want one, I really do, but I also know that my evaluation of its sound will be based on the heart not the ears. A bit like lust and affairs. They're understandable, and always destructive but something makes people do them. Analogue Audio is like lust. It exists, it's something quite impossible to explain, probably pointless yet somehow it has something. Thousands can't be wrong, but who Knows?
Click to expand...

Quit trying to resist. You know you want to. Just do it!
Besides it’s the one ‘affair’ that won’t lead to divorce. :)
 
It's inevitable - all it will take is one to appear on ebay. I even know what it will be. A Ferrograph 722HD or a super 7. I had both and regret selling them, and they're tough beasts and fairly easy to keep going. If one appears I shall have a real problem.
 
TalismanRich said:
If tape were perfect, Ray Dolby and DBX wouldn't have created all those add-ons to actually make multitrack tape usable.
Click to expand...

Mmm...not sure what you mean...?
I don't use Dolby or DBX, and my tape tracks are very usable...and actually, surprisingly quiet/clean AFA any tape noise...and I'm only working at 15ips.
I've listened to the dead air between audio on tracks that I transferred to my DAW...and it's almost at the level of digital black, but the real point is, that the S/N quite good without NR, and whatever tape hiss is there, is pretty much irrelevant....especially for R&R. :D
If I switch the machine to 30ips, there is even better S/N, but I prefer the sound of 15ips...so I don't get why you think tape is not useable without NR...?

AFA the resolution thing, even though it's somewhat of an apples-n-oranges thing...yes, analog tape has pretty much infinite "resolution" compared to digital's finite resolutions...but there's more to recording than just comparing numbers and specs.

The one thing that I always notice that even to this day, digital is always attempting to replicate a lot of analog processes...be it tape saturation or vacuum tube compression...so just having higher dynamic range or better frequency response specs, which digital has...doesn't really tell the whole story if you start comparing analog to digital to come up with any answers as to which is "better". :)

I think the use of both formats in a hybrid setup yields the most technical and quality options...though in my own usage, I find that going with analog at the front-end, digital in the middle, and then back to analog at the back-end...yields the best overall results, though that final back-end (mastering) can again be some combination of analog and digital for the most flexibility and/or desired results.

Here's a great article on buying used tape machines for anyone looking to get into that for the first time, or as a return.

Buying A Used Tape Machine

And for anyone who just wants to get deep into the whole "analog warmth" stuff...here's another article that tries to define that "thing" that makes analog so appealing...still to this day.

Analogue Warmth
 
rob aylestone said:
I want to buy a reel to reel again. I know I want one, I really do, but I also know that my evaluation of its sound will be based on the heart not the ears. A bit like lust and affairs. They're understandable, and always destructive but something makes people do them. Analogue Audio is like lust. It exists, it's something quite impossible to explain, probably pointless yet somehow it has something. Thousands can't be wrong, but who Knows?
Click to expand...

It's nice to romanticize things but at the end of the day, it's about the sound YOU prefer. A lot of people prefer the sound of tape because that's what they grew up with or that's the medium that a lot of their favorite songs were recorded to so the sound is familiar to them and if you record digital, you might find the music you record lacking the sonic signature of tape that your favorite recorded music has.

The other part is also how you prefer to work, recording to tape and recording to a computer are quite different processes. I prefer not using a mouse but having more tactile knobs and things to tinker with. Of course that comes with the annoyance of having to maintain a lot of outboard equipment equipment (usually old), keep repairing things that go bad, have a million cables everywhere and you need a lot more space to accommodate all the equipment.
 
miroslav said:
I think the use of both formats in a hybrid setup yields the most technical and quality options...though in my own usage, I find that going with analog at the front-end, digital in the middle, and then back to analog at the back-end...yields the best overall results, though that final back-end (mastering) can again be some combination of analog and digital for the most flexibility and/or desired results.
[/url]
Click to expand...

Exactly what I do as well and agree, best results.

But really, the "best of both works" hybrid setup is just both of the worlds combined (all the good and all the bad), twice as many things to go wrong and you still have the tape machine maintenance, maintaining all the hardware and keeping it up to spec, still having cables everywhere, more degradation of the sound from AD/DA conversions, computer software updates and your shiny new digital gear/software becoming obsolete after 5 years :drunk:

That said, almost every analog recording setup in the 21st century will actually be a hybrid setup.
 
I wasn't the one who decided that Dolby A or DBX was necessary for tape recording. All the pro studios who installed noise reduction systems apparently felt it was necessary. Its been a long time since I played with tape, but even back in the 70s, I never felt that the Ampex decks I worked with gave the same degree of "black" that you get from digital. Nor did the Tascam decks. It was clearly evident to me when I put in the paper leader tape between tracks of a master tape. As soon as you hit that section it when dead silent. Once the magnetic tape hit the head, the noise level jumped. Maybe I was just unduly sensitive to it, but it was always there and it always bothered me.

Trying to emulate things like tape saturation or tube compression is, in my opinion, more of an "artistic" aspect. If you TRULY want fidelity to the original signal, adding saturation distortion (and it IS distortion) is not improving fidelity. If you feel it makes the sound pleasing, that's perfectly fine. Having a tube compress is not fidelity to the original signal. If might give you a sound you prefer, but it is reducing the original dynamic range.

I'm not saying digital is perfect, but overall, I think it has gotten closer to the original source in terms of dynamics and frequency response. Some other aspects are tougher to nail down, primarily soundstage and "imaging". I don't have any way to measure it, but I do feel there is a difference between when I listen to a mix at 96K and 24 bits and when I render it to 44.1/16. Its more of the space around the instruments. That's even with my old ears, and the tinnitus and loss of high frequencies that I have to deal with. But this is all my opinion. You're welcome to feel differently, no problem. In the end, all I REALLY want to do is listen to (and maybe even play) some good music.
 
"Resolution" is a dirty word when applies to digital audio. The 'unit' is the bit and each one gives you 6dB or thereabouts. So, 16 bits gives you a 96dB noise floor and 24 bits 144dB. Only the very best mic pres are good enough for use at 16 bits and NOTHING analogue is good enough at 24!

Yes, a good tape machine with a top HO/LN tape* at peak condition will give a basic S/N of >70dB (ref THREE percent THD mind!) and there are few situations where noise would be a problem. Where it became a problem was in multitrack and track bouncing as noise adds up.

The 'classical' recording world used Dolby A because tape is still well short of the dynamic range of a full orchestra although the best producers did not make use of the full 10dB of Dolby NR but instead dropped peak levels to keep THD below 1%.

Yes, a good 15ips machine will be flat to past 30kHz (but the bass end is wobbly!) but IF there was any better "resolution" compared to digital. at even 16 bits, you could never hear it under the muck!

I am not 'Anti-tape' and the very best luck to those that keep it going. I have done it (in a very limited way 'semi-pro' machines like Ferrographs and Teac A3440) but now cannot be doing with the hassle!

*but 'print' could be a problem.

Dave.
 
Chilljam said:
That said, almost every analog recording setup in the 21st century will actually be a hybrid setup.
Click to expand...

Yeah...I see that more and more...people bringing analog hardware into their previously all ITB work...and some even trying out tape or returning to it to augment their ITB rigs.
It's not about choosing one or the other...I think people are simply realizing that you can expand your work options and production palette.


TalismanRich said:
I wasn't the one who decided that Dolby A or DBX was necessary for tape recording. All the pro studios who installed noise reduction systems apparently felt it was necessary. Its been a long time since I played with tape, but even back in the 70s, I never felt that the Ampex decks I worked with gave the same degree of "black" that you get from digital. Nor did the Tascam decks. It was clearly evident to me when I put in the paper leader tape between tracks of a master tape. As soon as you hit that section it when dead silent. Once the magnetic tape hit the head, the noise level jumped. Maybe I was just unduly sensitive to it, but it was always there and it always bothered me.

Trying to emulate things like tape saturation or tube compression is, in my opinion, more of an "artistic" aspect. If you TRULY want fidelity to the original signal, adding saturation distortion (and it IS distortion) is not improving fidelity. If you feel it makes the sound pleasing, that's perfectly fine. Having a tube compress is not fidelity to the original signal. If might give you a sound you prefer, but it is reducing the original dynamic range.

I'm not saying digital is perfect, but overall, I think it has gotten closer to the original source in terms of dynamics and frequency response. Some other aspects are tougher to nail down, primarily soundstage and "imaging". I don't have any way to measure it, but I do feel there is a difference between when I listen to a mix at 96K and 24 bits and when I render it to 44.1/16. Its more of the space around the instruments. That's even with my old ears, and the tinnitus and loss of high frequencies that I have to deal with. But this is all my opinion. You're welcome to feel differently, no problem. In the end, all I REALLY want to do is listen to (and maybe even play) some good music.
Click to expand...

I understand you didn't decide the use of NR...:)...I just thought that your comment about it being needed to make tape useful wasn't totally accurate.

Sure, if you go back to some of the older pro decks, or the newer pro-sumer, small format decks...NR might be necessary to "clean up" the tape.
I do know that many of the later pro format decks, while maybe having NR onboard or as an add-on...were also used without NR by many people...and I think that certainly depended on a few factors...the tape used, the calibration of the decks, the speed, and the music style. So like, if you're tracking a jazz quartet, you may want ultimate tape fidelity...higher speed, not recording super hot and saturating the tape, and maybe also NR...but same deck used for Rock session, the speed might be halved, the tape hit real hard, and NR turned off.

My only point was that NR isn't always necessary, and tape recording is still very useable without it.

Interestingly...since you mentioned Ampex...the Ampex ATR 102 in either 1/4" or 1/2" is considered "THE" stereo mixdown tape machine...and it has no NR.

I agree with you that with digital, there was in "some cases" a subtle difference heard between 24/96 vs. 16/44.1...but again, I think the usage is the key as to how important that difference is. With pristine live recordings...classical, jazz or certain specialized music styles...keeping things at the highest quality levels makes a difference if you are after the best fidelity...but with Rock/Pop/Country (classic, alt, indie, etc)...it's less about absolute fidelity, and it's more about the total vibe...which is why I think a lot of digital work utilizes analog sims/plugs, because analog definitely has "vibe", and it's varies with different analog hardware and/or the tape deck or the tape that is used....so it's like having quite a large spice rack to flavor your music with.
Digital on it's own really has zero vibe...which is sometimes what you may want...but I don't think that's what most people are after, judging by the amount of FX/processing that gets used with most ITB productions.
 
I suspect that there is indeed a nostalgia thing going on but for a totally different reason I wonder if hearing has much to do with it? Sitting next to my son in my studio it was sobering doing a frequency sweep. My hearing starts to drop at 13.5K and is gone by 14.5K his goes up to just over 17k initially I was quite shocked but then realised that the top note on a piano is just above 4K, so it's first harmonic is 8k. It's the octave above that where mine dies, so realistically it's really is high. We get used to that wash of high harmonics but what are they for in music? If you slice off the content below say 10k and listen to what remains what is it? Sizzle from decent cymbals, and fuzz from synths, but why do we like it? It's also full of that nasty hiss stuff on certain sources. What is it up there that is somehow attractive? Do musical folk hear something joe public doesn't? I remember 70s classic his sales talk. "What's that hissy sound?" That, Sir, is treble! Loads of people back then just didn't like treble and would push the Dolby B button to dull it down on material recorded without Dolby! Is my desire for the reel to reel based on pleasant memories or science. Worse still is what I'd play. Tales of Mystery and Imagination and Money for Nothing spring to mind and maybe Time? The first recording I made that made some money was Dr Banana's Mirage, and I wonder if that master tape if I still had it, would be a disappointment? Very likely, I think.
 
TBH...I don't even concern myself with how high up I can still hear or not...I find that it's not as critical BECAUSE it's mostly about high-harmonics, and if you have the tonal balance right in the lower hearing range...that stuff way up there tends to fall into place, and I'm sure some teenage girls and a few golden ear types can actually hear it...and I bet the teenage girls don't even focus on it...they're more into the beat and the lyrics. :D

Look at the number of audio pros who are past their late '40s...many in the '50s and '60s+...can they REALLY hear stuff in the upper frequencies that the rest of us who are at those same ages can't...?

I doubt it. :)

AFA nostalgia...yeah, I guess some folks may be turning back to tape for that...it reminds them of their younger days! :p
For me...tape has always been there...I never walked away from it. I've always tracked to tape...and improving the quality of my tape decks as I've gone along.

I don't have any desire to use the same tape decks I used back in the early days...not for nostalgia or any other reason.
Right now I have a pretty solid tape deck setup for my multitrack and mixdown decks...and if I ever get around to overhauling the 1/4" Ampex ATR 102 I acquired for free...:cool:...3 years ago...:facepalm:...(OK, I've been kinda sidetracked and busy the last couple of years)...it might become my "new" mixdown deck, though my Otari MX5050 BIII is a pretty good quality deck...their last/best version of the 5050 series.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top