Will Analog Multitracks ever be made again?

[AtoDeficient]

. . I find it somewhat amusing that often the pure digital lovers always say that "something must be wrong" if/when someone claims they prefer a non-digital setup, and that it's just not possible for digital to do anything bad/different to the sound, and they have the specs to prove it, and that analog does more to mess up the sound!!!

Yes, it is quite amusing. . . and FWIW, I don't like seafood, therefore I don't go to seafood forums and tell people they have inferior taste. . . That would just be silly.

 

[SteveM]

I three

 

[Blue Jinn]

Putting green bell peppers on a pizza is doing so for an effect of bitter greenness. The pizza should have bread, sauce, cheese, and meat.

 

[sweetbeats]

I don't like green peppers on my pizza, so green peppers are wrong.

 

[Tim Gillett]

You are making the assumption that it's all about some kind of fault with the equipment...which I find rather odd.
I mean...people are saying something sounds better to them, and you're postion is that there must be something wrong with their equipment...???

If anything, I would flip that coin and consider that something may be wrong with the OTHER equipment that is preventing something from sounding more 3-D, wider/bigger...etc.

But I don't want to kick the analog VS digital can yet again...I was simply making a comment about my own experience, though I find it somewhat amusing that often the pure digital lovers always say that "something must be wrong" if/when someone claims they prefer a non-digital setup, and that it's just not possible for digital to do anything bad/different to the sound, and they have the specs to prove it, and that analog does more to mess up the sound!!!

If this was 1960, before digital audio had even been developed, a good engineer would have given you exactly the same advice as I have now, 50 years later. You would have listened to him then and thanked him. Why do you question the same standard advice now?

BTW it has nothing to do with an analog vs digital debate. It's how a stereo recorder is designed to work, in fact the complete recording and playback chain including speakers.

If you dont believe me read up the appropriate audio engineering text books. Anything from the mid 50's onwards when stereo began being widely used would be suitable. The whole issue of stereo image is well understood now as stereo has been with us for a long time.

Take a practical example. Let's say you want to place a vocal in dead centre of the stereo stage, a common practice. Your recorder/signal chain widens it - whether you like it or not- so that the vocalist now seems to have a mouth 4 feet wide. Is that an improvement?

Tim

 

[miroslav]

I think you're missing my point...you continue to talk about gear that is not functioning correctly, which is not the case in my situation.
I'm talking about a basic listening experience, and no, I'm NOT talking about a skewed, faulty images...rather just one that is more 3-D and more "organic", where the digital one may be more "neutral" or more "accurate", but it also sounds a bit sterile and confined.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but you seem to be convinced that analog just can't possible ever sound better than digital...?...and that's fine if you are, it's your ears and your experience, but I think you need to also accept that for many people, it does. You also should accept that it may be exactly all those "bad" qualities of analog, those things that DO color and change the sound in some way that are exactly what some people perceive as "better" and/or more pleasant sounding.
I can appreciate that some folks want the more neutral & accurate approach...but neutral & accurate doesn't always = better sounding.

Why do so many digital processes attempt to mimic some analog process?
Why is that such a major selling point of so many digital apps?
Why do most pros admit that all those emulations of classic analog gear may sound really good, but still are not the same as the analog devices and most would prefer to use the analog devices if they had both them and the emulations sitting side-by-side?
Is all that analog gear "broken" or faulty...?

 

[Victory Pete]

I must be using that effect, too. . . But I don't know why this discussion often turns to what reproduces the live sound faithfully ? . . In my mind, ALL recording is an effect. . I may have mentioned before that as a listener, I do not want the drums to sound like I'm sitting in a room with a drummer. That usually sounds like crap. I don't want to sit in front of a screaming amplifier. That sounds like crap, too. . . Recording, mixing, mastering- - they are all effects. There are live albums, and studio albums, and I like both, but I like the live ones most often for the performance, not usually the recording. . .

My favorite recordings don't represent the bands live, and I wouldn't want them to. I love the "art" of studio recording. . My favorite recordings apparently represent bands recorded on distortion-inducing, lo-fi, $100,000 tape machines, and I love that crap.

My thoughts exactly! "Dark Side Of The Moon" comes to mind.

VP

 

[Victory Pete]

Whethere it's a tape deck, a mixing console, or whatever, they're not supposed to widen the stereo image -or make any other change to the input - unless that is a creative decision you have made. In which case they are supposed to reproduce those creative decisions.
You only get stereo image changes because two amps are not identical in their behaviour, eg: different frequency response, different time delays etc.

It was well known by engineers that tape machines created phase changes between high and low frequencies within one mono track. But so long as the two channels in a stereo machine (or a stereo amp or stereo speakers) have the same phase delays as each other, the human ear doesnt notice it.

But take your gear that is widening the stereo image to a capable tech and he will tell you there's a fault in it somewhere. Identical amps are supposed to be identical in performance, or at least very closely matched. That has been the whole basis of stereo from its inception. Same with speakers and the whole two channel signal chain.

No gear, analog or digital, should be widening the stereo image unless it's specifically designed for that purpose in mind and the operator has full creative control over the effect.

Tim

Should Vacuum Tube Guitar Amps have no distortion?

VP

 

[Tim Gillett]

I think you're missing my point...you continue to talk about gear that is not functioning correctly, which is not the case in my situation.
I'm talking about a basic listening experience, and no, I'm NOT talking about a skewed, faulty images...rather just one that is more 3-D and more "organic", where the digital one may be more "neutral" or more "accurate", but it also sounds a bit sterile and confined.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but you seem to be convinced that analog just can't possible ever sound better than digital...?...and that's fine if you are, it's your ears and your experience, but I think you need to also accept that for many people, it does. You also should accept that it may be exactly all those "bad" qualities of analog, those things that DO color and change the sound in some way that are exactly what some people perceive as "better" and/or more pleasant sounding.
I can appreciate that some folks want the more neutral & accurate approach...but neutral & accurate doesn't always = better sounding.

Why do so many digital processes attempt to mimic some analog process?
Why is that such a major selling point of so many digital apps?
Why do most pros admit that all those emulations of classic analog gear may sound really good, but still are not the same as the analog devices and most would prefer to use the analog devices if they had both them and the emulations sitting side-by-side?
Is all that analog gear "broken" or faulty...?

Of course certain analog effects can sound better than without them. Much better. Hendrix's wailing guitar through his deliberately overdriven Marshall valve amp is an example. Countless guitarists have emulated that famous sound. Some of the tape saturated drum tracks on Motown records -though I personally think the guy pushed it too hard into distortion at times.

You said, "I can appreciate that some folks want the more neutral & accurate approach...but neutral & accurate doesn't always = better sounding."

I quite agree. Always did.

You also said," Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but you seem to be convinced that analog just can't possible ever sound better than digital...?..."

Yes you are reading me wrong, badly wrong. You have no idea.

Regards Tim

 

[Tim Gillett]

Should Vacuum Tube Guitar Amps have no distortion?

VP

No, not when you dont want distortion but yes, lots of it, when you do want distortion.

But what does that have to do with stereo image? The last time I checked guitarists amps were usually mono.

Tim

 

[Victory Pete]

If this was 1960, before digital audio had even been developed, a good engineer would have given you exactly the same advice as I have now, 50 years later. You would have listened to him then and thanked him. Why do you question the same standard advice now?
Tim

Maybe because we dont believe it?

VP

 

[Victory Pete]

No, not when you dont want distortion but yes, lots of it, when you do want distortion.

But what does that have to do with stereo image? The last time I checked guitarists amps were usually mono.

Tim

Assume nothing, I have been stereo for years!.

VP

 

[Tim Gillett]

And Les Paul did it before probably you and I were born.

 

[gecko zzed]

Ever since the days of Edison's wax recordings, there have been technological changes to the recording process, all with the aim of increasing fidelity, i.e. reducing noise and distortion, and working towards reproducing as accurately as possible the original source.

With each advance in fidelity, there are associated artefacts; for example, the limited frequency range of early microphones, the wow and flutter of early turn tables, the hiss of early tape and so on. It just so happens that some people have developed a liking for some of those artefacts. I have heard recordings where vinyl and stylus noises have been deliberately introduced. I note the fondness that some people have for 'tape saturation'.

Though I personally don't share these preferences, I can understand them. I can't remember whether I have mentioned this in another thread (forgive me if I have), but I have a fondness for steam locos. I like the visceral strength they have, I admire their mechanical engineering and I have no great fondness for the functional industrialism of diesel, nor for the 'sterility' of electric locos. I recognise, though, that my liking for steam is a romantic idea that, for the most part, is trumped by the efficiency and power of diesel or electricity.

Asking whether tape machines will continue to be built is like asking whether steam engines will still be built. I recognise that there is a niche market for both. In some places in the world, steam is still used as a principal form of motive power. But in the main, the emphasis is on preservation or restoration, and steam is used nowadays mostly for its romantic, rather than practical, qualities.

I am quite happy for people to prefer tape. It is a preference,after all, and no-one can deny someone else's preference. (I'm sure I've written this before.)

But preference is not a synonym for fact, nor for fidelity.

 

[AtoDeficient]

But preference is not a synonym for fact, nor for fidelity.

That is true. . . But I suppose in my case, I don't want perfect fidelity. To me, that would equal sitting in a lawn chair on a driveway listening to a live band in a garage. . . It's a true fidelity situation, but certainly not my preference. .

A recording itself is a performance and an art. If the use of tape creates a desired effect, then fact or fidelity mean less than nothing. I don't know why fidelity keeps creeping into these discussions, as if the goal of recording a song were on a par with a perfect mathematical solution to a problem. . . Recording to tape is apparently conceived as some to be a problem or a weakness or a romance, but it's art. . . And there really is no right or wrong. .

Tape hit it's zenith when the other kind of recording hit the market, and cost vs. profit changed the game. That didn't make tape recording worse. It didn't automatically make the users of tape turn into romantic old geezers pining for a lost medium. . .Tape was, and is, a viable recording medium, and seems to be making a comeback, as the price of the used machines has made them available to almost anyone who wants one instead of just the pros or the wealthy. . .

And so now, thanks to the other kind of recording, the game has changed the cost of recording to tape with a multi-track machine on the consumer level, and there will probably be MORE people recording to tape than even a few years ago. Certainly there will be more people using bigger tape machines - I myself am one - since the bigger machines were better built, better maintained, offer a usable track count, etc . . .

I expect the MSR-24 I just bought to be worth much more than I paid for it, but it isn't for sale, 'cause I just love they way it smells when it's warmed up, and I love the way the reels go 'round and 'round, and I love how it looks in my studio. . . I think I may be in love. . .

 

[miroslav]

You also said," Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but you seem to be convinced that analog just can't possible ever sound better than digital...?..."

Yes you are reading me wrong, badly wrong. You have no idea.

Well then excuse me for misunderstanding you, but then what IS your contention here? What point are you trying to make?

You really do seem to be generally pro digital no matter what....which I said is OK, but it's simply your view.
I made comments about how something sounds to me when comparing my analog to digital...and your reply is that the analog must be broken....?
It just sounds to me like you are of the belief that analog can't ever beat out digital for sound quality.

 

[miroslav]

Asking whether tape machines will continue to be built is like asking whether steam engines will still be built.

I do agree.
It's surprising that in this poll almost 50% of the voters actually DO think analog tape machines will be made again.

I am quite happy for people to prefer tape. It is a preference,after all, and no-one can deny someone else's preference. (I'm sure I've written this before.)

But preference is not a synonym for fact, nor for fidelity.

And this may be the gray area of the whole analog (or tape) VS digital debate.

Is the argument about fidelity, purity, accuracy...measured specs...
...or is it about the sound reaching a listener's ears and how it is perceived?
Those are two different things.

I can agree that something may be more accurate and more perfect in its spec, and still say that I think something else is *better*.
A classic comparison that is somewhat similar to this analog/digital debate is analog film VS digital video. The latter is certainly more perfect with regards to the image capture, but many still prefer the "softness" of film for a lot of things.
It's the whole impressionism debate all over again.

 

[Victory Pete]

That is true. . . But I suppose in my case, I don't want perfect fidelity. To me, that would equal sitting in a lawn chair on a driveway listening to a live band in a garage. . . It's a true fidelity situation, but certainly not my preference. .

A recording itself is a performance and an art. If the use of tape creates a desired effect, then fact or fidelity mean less than nothing. I don't know why fidelity keeps creeping into these discussions, as if the goal of recording a song were on a par with a perfect mathematical solution to a problem. . . Recording to tape is apparently conceived as some to be a problem or a weakness or a romance, but it's art. . . And there really is no right or wrong. .

Tape hit it's zenith when the other kind of recording hit the market, and cost vs. profit changed the game. That didn't make tape recording worse. It didn't automatically make the users of tape turn into romantic old geezers pining for a lost medium. . .Tape was, and is, a viable recording medium, and seems to be making a comeback, as the price of the used machines has made them available to almost anyone who wants one instead of just the pros or the wealthy. . .

And so now, thanks to the other kind of recording, the game has changed the cost of recording to tape with a multi-track machine on the consumer level, and there will probably be MORE people recording to tape than even a few years ago. Certainly there will be more people using bigger tape machines - I myself am one - since the bigger machines were better built, better maintained, offer a usable track count, etc . . .

I expect the MSR-24 I just bought to be worth much more than I paid for it, but it isn't for sale, 'cause I just love they way it smells when it's warmed up, and I love the way the reels go 'round and 'round, and I love how it looks in my studio. . . I think I may be in love. . .

I have a "Harem" of Tascams, MSR-24, MS-16, multiple TSR-8's, 2 42's, 42B, BR-20, 424MKIII, 2 122 MKIII's, 103, 112MKII and it is definitely a "Sordid Love Affair"!

VP

 

[AtoDeficient]

Is the argument about fidelity, purity, accuracy...measured specs...
...or is it about the sound reaching a listener's ears and how it is perceived?
Those are two different things.

I'm getting the impression from those who prefer the other kind of recording- - Those who use what I'll call the "fidelity argument" - - that striving for perfection in fidelity can't be argued with, and therefore their side must be right, (arguing fidelity loads the deck in their favor, so to speak) and those who aren't seeking that purity must be wrong. . . or misguided and need to be educated. . .

While I no doubt lack an audio education, I know what I like in art. . . I know it when I hear it.

 

[AtoDeficient]

I have a "Harem" of Tascams, MSR-24, MS-16, multiple TSR-8's, 2 42's, 42B, BR-20, 424MKIII, 2 122 MKIII's, 103, 112MKII and it is definitely a "Sordid Love Affair"!

VP

You, my friend, are in heat. . . Obsessed. . . A stalker of analog. . . If I lived in your neighborhood I would want you to have to list your name and address publically, and never let you near my equipment ! !