2" vs Digital Audio Recording

[MLP75]

I once heard an engineer play me a 2" recording of Steely Dan and also of some Doobie Brothers. I later heard on the same system another recording from a group playing similar music. Although the bands were different and of course different caliber, I felt as though the 2" recordings seemed to be so much more full and vibrant. The digital audio, while crisp and clean was much more flat. I had heard many engineers discuss their personal preference for 2" although they never gave a solid reason why. Is there any truth to this or was it simply old school engineers reluctant to embrace the change coming? Thank you for any input.

 

[Farview]

Well, you can't really compare Steely Dan and Doobie Bros to some unnamed band that kind of plays the same sort of thing.

Those bands were recorded in really, really nice studios by some of the most famous producers and engineers on the planet. I really doubt that the only difference between the old and the new is tape vs. digital.

It's kind of like asking pie vs. cake. They both do the same thing (give you a sugar buzz and make you fat) and it's a matter of taste, price and availability which one you choose.

 

[The Cancers]

It's an objective fact that tape compresses and eqs input signals in very subtle and specific ways that digital doesn't.
They sound different.

Whether tape necessarily sounds better than digital is subjective.

 

[Absolutepower]

Its no secret that tape sounds way better than digital. I don't think that's subjective at all, the fact is that tape has many great qualities to it, while digital has many terrible and harsh qualities to it. Even if tape did nothing to the sound in terms of eq and compression, it would still be far superior to digital.
Tape is much more of a pain in the ass to work with, and expensive, and everyone listens to MP3s and CDs, for the past 20 years, so that would explain why the industry uses digital for the most part.

 

[The Cancers]

If tape did nothing to sound as far as eq and compression, how would it be superior to digital?
I'm assuming we're talking highest quality ideal versions of the two mediums.
Tape that was absolutely sonically transparent would be sonically indistinguishable from high quality digital.
Digital doesn't have many harsh and terrible qualities to it, cheap shit has many harsh and terrible qualities to it.

Cheap tape on a cheap tape recorder has many terrible and muddy qualities to it.
Tape objectively sounds different than digital.
There are elements of the way that tape affects sound that many people find pleasing.
But that doesn't mean it sounds better.

I'm not saying digital does sound better. I'm just saying it seems ridiculous to say that it's an objective fact that one sounds better than the other.
What's better? I bet we have different definitions - at least as relates to the way things sound.

 

[miroslav]

It sounds different...that's all...though IMO, the ideal process is to track to tape, dump to digital for editing/enhancing, mix out through analog and back to tape and then dump that back to digital again for final digital mastering.

During tracking...tape can do certain things to the sound that seems to make it pleasing, so tape does have a bit of an FX quality to it....whereas digital is just a capture medium and as long as it's good quality, it should not do anything to the sound on its own.

One thing about mixing down to tape, especially via analog, is that something happens with analog mixing and summing and recording to tape that seems to "bind" all those electrons in a good way, where as digital summing is simply a math process that combines all the numbers into one final number before it goes back to its electron/analog state.

You can do nice tracking and mixes in both mediums...but I would love to move up from my 16-track deck to a higher-end 24-track 2" deck. I’ve been hunting for one in my vicinity and in good condition for a good price for awhile now...and then I would be in heaven, though my DAW would still be used for the intermediate editing/comping/enhancing process as mentioned above.

 

[Racherik]

If tape did nothing to sound as far as eq and compression, how would it be superior to digital?
I'm assuming we're talking highest quality ideal versions of the two mediums.
Tape that was absolutely sonically transparent would be sonically indistinguishable from high quality digital.

This reminds me of my 2nd year of college in 1990 studying OP-AMPs. At the time I had a stoned lab partner working with me. We were working the math and testing the THD of an OP-AMP. I remember him saying, "Dude, I don't know why we gotta learn this, transistors suck at amplification." I remember being total confused by his remark. I thought to myself, "Is it possible mister stoner had some deep insight into the inner working of silicon?" When I told him that the math and testing showed the THD was good out to 3 decimal places, do you know his reply was?

"Dude I don't care what the math says. All I know is that when I play my guitar, tubes make better amplifiers. Transistors don't amplify signals good. That why you should never use transistors to amplify sound."

Racherik

 

[Chibi Nappa]

If tape did nothing to sound as far as eq and compression, how would it be superior to digital?
I'm assuming we're talking highest quality ideal versions of the two mediums.

This would only be true if digital also did nothing to the sound. But it does. And at the highest level, what tape does to the sound is better than what digital does to the sound.

Live through the PA > Tape > Digital

If you have an all-analog monitoring chain it is easy to test. Listen to a musician playing live through your (analog) mixing board. Then listen to that same musician playing live on a channel that has gone through your A/D converter. A/D conversion clearly does something.

The differences enter the nit-picky realm, but that is what we deal with anyway.

 

[The Cancers]

At the level of how the sound is recorded, I'm inclined to agree with you.
Digitizing sound means necessarily averaging a series of measurements.
That's something that doesn't happen when you hear sounds live (or when they are recorded to tape, for that matter).
However, I don't have access to the ridiculously high quality converters necessary to really give your experiment a fair go.
Racherik got the point I really wanted to make (at least I think so, unless I didn't get Racherik's point), which was basically that the statement "tape absolutely sounds better than digital" sounded a lot to me like a slight variation on the rampant toobophilia you see people spouting off with.
It's all really an argument of semantics and hypotheticals at this point, since even the highest quality tape isn't sonically transparent, but It really does seem to me that in blind tests of the highest quality digital conversion vs. the sound live from the board, there would be very few people who could tell the difference consistently.

Anyway, I'm with Miroslav, the ideal would be tracking to super-high quality tape, dumping through pristine converters into digital, then mixing back to tape.
However, unlike Miro, I'm unable to afford the tape, tape recorders and time (and patience) for upkeep that process requires.

I was, however, able to afford a pretty decent interface and computer, and I'm using it to make recordings that I'm pretty darn happy with.
If I'd spent the same amount on a hybrid system or even an all analog system, I don't think I'd be getting near the quality of recording I'm getting now.

 

[miroslav]

However, unlike Miro, I'm unable to afford the tape, tape recorders and time (and patience) for upkeep that process requires.

I said I'm looking for a 2" in good condition for a good price, but I don't have money to burn.
I've passed on quite a few that were in good condition, but just a bit too pricy and too far for pickup, and the crating/shipping made them even more costly.
The real secret to my "buying power" (what little I have)...is that I'm not financially burdened with the cost of supporting a family with lots of peripheral expenses. I don't live extravagantly, which leaves me extra cash to spend on my one luxury and my main pleasure...my studio.

But yeah...decent decks and tape cost still more than a DAW app, especially since most people already have a computer, and they just install the app and a USB/Firewire card...and they can record.

I don't mind the maintenance if the deck is in good condition to begin with, and if you are not going to use it in a 24/7 commercial studio...they don't need a lot of maintenance once you set them up...but yeah, still much more than anything you would do to maintain you computer.

 

[dintymoore]

I started out in a friend's Dad's studio around 1980. 80 ch Neve board, 24 track 2" MCI, EMT reverb and vintage Neumanns selected by Alan Sides. That sound is still what I want, and can't get. It sounded dead tight. Expensive sounding.

I have not as yet been able to accept the digital sound. I hate it. It sounds fuckin' horrible.

Here's what I notice: back "in the day" if there were timing clams, say the drummer's kick and the bass player hit a note not exactly together, you could live with it. On digital, everything has got to be perfect. The slightest timing errors scream to be repaired. I'm not sure why this is. Then when they are repaired it sounds sterile.

The sound is like paint with sand in it. There's grit in the air. Shards of glass. With analog tape it felt like swimming.

There's always constant "mini-hiccups" when I listen to digital. My ear is always reacting like "oh fuck! oh fuck!"... it's not right and I attribute it to digital being where cars were in 1910.

 

[The Cancers]

Miro, I'm lucky enough right now to be the same way.
I don't really have any particularly heavy financial burdens and I don't spend too much, so I'm able to afford to spend way more on the passion than my income would seem to indicate.
I just have a shit job.

And Dinty, I think our differences of opinion are probably going to come down to my lack of experience in a truly up-to-snuff all analog studio.
My ideal "sound in my head" that I strive toward is finished products that I've only ever heard on cds or as mp3s.
My setup seems capable of getting me to the sound in my head, given enough work and practice on my part.
But you started into this stuff before I was even born, in a recording environment that was apparently one of the really great ones.
On this, I'm gonna have to go ahead and defer to your experience.
If you hear it, it's there.

 

[Racherik]

Racherik got the point I really wanted to make (at least I think so, unless I didn't get Racherik's point), which was basically that the statement "tape absolutely sounds better than digital" sounded a lot to me like a slight variation on the rampant toobophilia you see people spouting off with.

Close. The point I was trying to make is that well built analog/digital transistor circuits are close to 100% perfect. The human ear isn't going to be able to tell the difference.

For example, the other day I wanted to listen to some of my dad's old vinyl LPs. I decided I'd record the album Jesus Christ Super Star into some WAV files to I could take them home and listen to them at my house.

Guess what? When I played back these "digital" files, the production still had that incredible "warm" analog sound.

At the time my stoned lab partner was telling me about how transistors wrecked sound, I wasn't a musician. All I knew was that on paper and in the lab transistors didn't distort unlike tubes. In a whole lot of applications you want a perfect amplified signal. TV, Radio, Radar, and Wireless ethernet are good examples. What I've learned since playing is that tubes & tape can do things to the signal that is desirable.

In my college years, I just didn't know that guitar players usually don't want perfect copies of their signal, that's why they use tube amps.

I'm with Miroslav, one of these days I'm also going to find me a tape machine just so a can track my recorded signal unfaithfully to get that "warm" sound.

Racherik

 

[Racherik]

I started out in a friend's Dad's studio around 1980. 80 ch Neve board, 24 track 2" MCI, EMT reverb and vintage Neumanns selected by Alan Sides. That sound is still what I want, and can't get. It sounded dead tight. Expensive sounding.

I have not as yet been able to accept the digital sound. I hate it. It sounds fuckin' horrible.

Do you feel this has to do some part of the signal getting lost when converting to digital? Or do you think it had more to do with color that was adding using the Neve Board & Tape?

I've just been working on recording ideas and scratch tracks at the moment. When I get ready to lay down my album, is when I'm going to try to get that warm vintage LP 70s-80s sound.

Racherik

 

[TeyshaBlue]

I doubt many could hear a quantitative difference (absent tape hiss) between a contemporary digital recording and a decent analog one.

I swam in the analog ocean for a couple of decades using everything from a workhorse Tascam 8-08 to a sweet MCI 2" 24 trk. I used to love walking into the control room, lights off, and hitting the master power bus then watch the room slowly come to life as the LED's and power lamps lit up while 1000 relays ticked over. It was very comforting....
Now, I boot my lappy, plug in to my interface and, sonically, there's not a lick of qualitative difference between what I was getting out of that Ghost/MCI combo vs what I'm using now (when I have a decent pre in the chain that is.)

This would only be true if digital also did nothing to the sound. But it does. And at the highest level, what tape does to the sound is better than what digital does to the sound.

I'm curious as to the metric you use to quantify "better". If it's a subjective metric, then positioning your statement as some kind of fact, is utter folly.

 

[PDP]

Rupert Neve said in an article (ten years old now) that tape was still better in his opinion because of the bass. They were testing: best tape to: best digital, by recording an acoustic bass and a cello. For whatever reason they felt the character 50hz - 2k was better in the tape.

I listened to a new Chaka Kahn song on digital, it sounds like shit compared to her older tape stuff, BUT I think whoever pointed out its about the time and money made a great point, I think the industry has changed, the producers from the days of tape and mamoth studios have either retired or thay just dont have the spotlight anymore. Its just my opinion but recently at a club I thought the 80s stuff was much better sounding, the all digital stuff is harsh(er) Thats just what I hear.

 

[TeyshaBlue]

Rupert Neve said in an article (ten years old now) that tape was still better in his opinion because of the bass. They were testing: best tape to: best digital, by recording an acoustic bass and a cello. For whatever reason they felt the character 50hz - 2k was better in the tape.

I listened to a new Chaka Kahn song on digital, it sounds like shit compared to her older tape stuff, BUT I think whoever pointed out its about the time and money made a great point, I think the industry has changed, the producers from the days of tape and mamoth studios have either retired or thay just dont have the spotlight anymore. Its just my opinion but recently at a club I thought the 80s stuff was much better sounding, the all digital stuff is harsh(er) Thats just what I hear.

You hit the nail right on the head.

 

[ofajen]

Anyway, I'm with Miroslav, the ideal would be tracking to super-high quality tape, dumping through pristine converters into digital, then mixing back to tape.
However, unlike Miro, I'm unable to afford the tape, tape recorders and time (and patience) for upkeep that process requires.

I was, however, able to afford a pretty decent interface and computer, and I'm using it to make recordings that I'm pretty darn happy with.
If I'd spent the same amount on a hybrid system or even an all analog system, I don't think I'd be getting near the quality of recording I'm getting now.

I'm not so sure. These days I'm tracking on a little Otari 8-track that sounds really quite surprisingly good, given that I'm used to 3M machines and still mix to one. I'm still probably going to pick up a Stephens 2" 16-track fairly soon, but the Otari I bought just as a backup/demo machine for $100 (plus another $100 or so for a new pinch roller) is pretty much getting the job done. No interface or computer purchase, though, in fairness, I did already have an appropriate calibration tape, some decent tape stock and other necessary service equipment on hand. BTW, my preferred practice is to stay in the analog world at least until the mixing is done.

Cheers,

Otto

 

[Chibi Nappa]

I'm curious as to the metric you use to quantify "better". If it's a subjective metric, then positioning your statement as some kind of fact, is utter folly.

It is my opinion that tape sounds better than digital. And that is all such a comparison could ever be.

But it is fact that the mere process of digitizing a sound changes it audibly from the live source running through the board. Like I said, the difference between live and digital is nit-picky (as is the difference between live and tape), but it is really not terribly difficult for any engineer to hear.

Therefore it cannot be said that what people like about tape is only due to pleasant distortion. The possibility is open that what people like about tape is that it doesn't do...whatever it is that digital does to alter the sound.

 

[miroslav]

I just have a shit job.

Been there about 15-20 years ago...but I've had a pretty good job the last 15 years, and without it I could never have as much studio gear as I've acquired in the last 10 years.
Yeah...part of it is hobby, just having the gear and trying to build up the studio to the highest level I can afford...and the other part is the passion/interest in writing/recording music.

I doubt many could hear a quantitative difference (absent tape hiss) between a contemporary digital recording and a decent analog one.

..........

I'm curious as to the metric you use to quantify "better". If it's a subjective metric, then positioning your statement as some kind of fact, is utter folly.

Agreed...if you put up some recording, it's not necessarily easy to say if it was done in analog or digital...but for me, I can hear something "different" between the two when I am actually recording/mixing stuff.
I've done stuff via tape and direct to DAW. It's not necessarily a question of anything really bad coming from the digital (if there was I wouldn't use my DAW for edits)....but when I'm working the final mix and I bring the tracks individually out of the DAW and through my console and then mix to tape....I dunno, there is this added depth and imaging that happens, and a certain upper-end smoothness with a somewhat fatter low-end, whereas when I am just monitoring the ITB mix, it does sound very clean, but also somewhat clinical and flat/2-dimensional.
I’m sure the upper-end smoothness can be the tape just rolling off the highs…but you know…IT WORKS! Just like there is this fatness that happens in the low end.

Is that all subjective opinion...?...absolutely...but then, I really don't see how anyone can scientifically/analytically measure music quality.
Yeah..OK...you can to the THD and the jitter and all that...but I mean, in the end it either sounds pleasing or not, and for some reason the analog/tape path just sounds a little more pleasing even if the digital version is more scientifically "pure".

Go figure..... *shurg*

That said...I'm going to still use digital becuase the editing/comping/fixing capabilites are unmatched by tape...and I think if you run a hybrid mix...it's the best of both worlds.