Would you do analog recording ?

[John Willett]

Yeah, that it is "horrible". You are the first person I have ever seen post something that damning of analog tape. Probably suitable for a discussion, but in a newbie forum? Really?

Well, I did have about 15 years or so recording *only* on analogue tape, before the digital era, and I'm not looking through rose coloured spectacles.

When digital came along it took away all of the problems and distortions of analogue in one go.

Yes - it did have problems of its own and several ways of doing things had to be re-learned.

But if you like recording to tape, fine - you use what gives the results you want.

But many people who have never really used tape properly do not realise all the shortcomings and problems - and the very high running costs of buying tape.

But I do feel a bit like a Manchester City fan in in Manchester United end.

 

[grimtraveller]

it pains me to agree with Grim

Monty Yo ho ho !

It's OK, I'll be gentle.......

 

[gecko zzed]

I guess the term "blanket statement" has no meaning...and the errors of making them are irrelevant in an open discussion?



I said I get John....once he stepped back and qualified his point of view.
Initially he was making a blanket statement.

Actually, if you go back to John's first post in this thread, you will see that it wasn't a blanket statement. He gave plenty of reasons, and his "horrible stuff" remark was a summary of his post, not a blanket statement standing unqualified.

Absolutely NOT !

I switched to digital recording in 1983 and would never want to go back to the horrible days of analogue tape with all the distortion is has - wow and flutter, modulation noise, hiss, noise build-up every time you copy, lack of top end, bias noise, print through, tape stretch, etc., etc., etc...

And this does not include all the regular maintenance required - setting bias, azimuth, Dolby level, head cleaning, demagnetisation, etc., etc., etc...

A piano never really sounds like a piano on analogue tape, it does on digital.

BUT - digital recording does show up deficiencies in microphones, and other equipment and technique that can be hidden by recording on analogue tape - so you have to take care...

I would never want to record on analogue tape again - horrible stuff.

That being said, throughout HR there are numerous instances of people making blanket statements: Springstein sucks, hip hop sucks, mainstream music sucks, Beiber sucks, Behringer sucks, Myley sucks and so on. Those statements are not particularly helpful to any discussion, but so what? People are not required to validate their opinions, and their blanket statements do not prevent anyone else contributing something more enlightening.

 

[Greg_L]

It's OK, I'll be gentle.......

I'll give you credit for one thing - while the subject matter of your mindless vapid general opinion trolling question threads really does stink, the behavior and obvious hidden motives of the participants can be entertaining. You bring out the worst in everyone. Kudos!

 

[miroslav]

Actually, if you go back to John's first post in this thread, you will see that it wasn't a blanket statement. He gave plenty of reasons, and his "horrible stuff" remark was a summary of his post, not a blanket statement standing unqualified.

When you consider the countless great sounding albums over the many years that have been recorded to tape with splendid results...the quote of John's post that you provided....is a blanket statement.
It implies that all/any tape recording is "horrible"....he doesn't state his specific use and situation until after that...and then he even admits "horrible" was not the best choice of words.

 

[miroslav]

...the behavior and obvious hidden motives of the participants can be entertaining. You bring out the worst in everyone. Kudos!

Yes....it certainly can be entertaining!

For someone who thinks this thread is "stupid"...who doesn't want to explain where his tape-hating view actually comes from, rather just preferring to knock something because it's easier to do that....who then turns it into a more personal argument with name-calling included....
...you sure are spending an awful amount of time in this tread for some reason....???


Yeah, right!

 

[Greg_L]

When you consider the countless great sounding albums over the many years that have been recorded to tape with splendid results...the quote of John's post that you provided....is a blanket statement.
It implies that all/any tape recording is "horrible"....he doesn't state his specific use and situation until after that...and then he even admits "horrible" was not the best choice of words.

What about the countless shitty albums recorded to tape?

 

[Greg_L]

Yes....it certainly can be entertaining!

For someone who thinks this thread is "stupid"...who doesn't want to explain where his tape-hating view actually comes from, rather just preferring to knock something because it's easier to do that....who then turns it into a more personal argument with name-calling included....
...you sure are spending an awful amount of time in this tread for some reason....???


Yeah, right!

You really won't and/or are incapable of separating the different dimensions of this thread.

I never cared one lick about the tape vs digital side of this thread. I said my piece and that's it. I don't have to or want to explain it any further because it really does not matter. Unlike you, I know that my opinion is just an opinion and it means nothing outside of my own two ears. And where did I call you names?

I was just talking with you, genuinely trying to understand your position, and you started spiraling out of control. I didn't intend for it to go that way, but with you, I guess it can't not go that way because everything is a challenge and a fight with you. I know this, but I'll be damned if I didn't try anyway to give you the benefit of the doubt. I really was just trying to see where you were actually coming from and why you'd care what anyone thinks when you are not open to considering a differing opinion anyway.

 

[gecko zzed]

When you consider the countless great sounding albums over the many years that have been recorded to tape with splendid results...the quote of John's post that you provided....is a blanket statement.
It implies that all/any tape recording is "horrible"....he doesn't state his specific use and situation until after that...and then he even admits "horrible" was not the best choice of words.

The context of John's post was predominantly on the process, and not on the results. To conclude that John's dislike of the process is a blanket condemnation of the quality of tape recordings is a substantial leap. I think it is more your inference rather than John's implication.

 

[miroslav]

I was just talking with you, genuinely trying to understand your position....

I think I've clearly given my position and provided plenty of reasons why.
Something you exclude yourself from doing by simply saying something like "I don't care about any of this crap"...
....and then you proceed to badger everyone that does!

The context of John's post was predominantly on the process, and not on the results. To conclude that John's dislike of the process is a blanket condemnation of the quality of tape recordings is a substantial leap. I think it is more your inference rather than John's implication.

You can split it with a razor and say it wasn't a blanket statement...but the process = results or directly affects them, and that was what John was saying. That tape gave horrible results.

The fact that he then pulled back on the "horrible"....means he felt it was too broad a statement.
I said that he's entitled to think that way for his specifc situation, but when you just toss it out and make it seem that it's an absolute...other people will misread it and run with that same thought, never ever having experienced it for themselves...and end up with the classic "Internet learned" views.

 

[Greg_L]

I think I've clearly given my position and provided plenty of reasons why.
Something you exclude yourself from doing by simply saying something like "I don't care about any of this crap"...
....and then you proceed to badger everyone that does!

Once again, you misunderstand what I'm talking about. I don't care about your position regarding tape vs digital. I haven't argued any of your opinions on the subject, have I? I was trying to understand your position in regards to demanding that everyone explain themselves. I don't see why you'd care. If you took that as badgering, I do apologize. Maybe that's why you took it personally, but again, that was not my intention.

This is what I know: you won't be swayed or have your mind changed by anyone or anything, and I don't have a problem with that, I admire that in a person, so this is why I don't see why you'd care why anyone thinks the way they do.

This is what I suspect: You want people to explain themselves so you can try to pick apart any opinion they have with your own personal opinions. Am I wrong?

 

[miroslav]

What about the countless shitty albums recorded to tape?

Unless you can prove they were shitty because of the tape...that has no bearing here.
I bet all the albums you loved and listened to and were influenced by as a teenager....and many that you still love...
....were all recorded on tape, probably with all analog gear, and then mixdown to tape.

That's the point I was making about John's initial "tape is horrible" comment.....that there are just way too may great sounding albums that were recorded to tape, for him to toss out broad statements about tape recording.

This is what I know: you won't be swayed or have your mind changed by anyone or anything, and I don't have a problem with that, I admire that in a person, so this is why I don't see why you'd care why anyone thinks the way they do.

I think Grim summed it up already.....it's about the discussion.
It's not about just trying to make someone change their views....though it happens sometimes, and I've changed my views about some things over the years.

So there's nothing wrong with understanding/knowing why someone has the opinion that they do.
Just like you want know where I'm coming from.

This is what I suspect: You want people to explain themselves so you can try to pick apart any opinion they have with your own personal opinions. Am I wrong?

Actually....you are the one that absolutely revels in picking things apart. That's what you like to do....you openly pride yourself about that.
You often don't take a lot of interest in the on-topic of most threads (like this one)....instead you like to take shots at the people who ARE involved, and their reasons for being involved, in the on-topic discussion.
You think most threads are stupid....and then you make endless posts trying to prove it....you want to change people's minds.
Why not just stay out of them if they are that stupid to you...?

In every one of Grims recent threads that you thought were stupid (proably all of them)....you spent a lot of time making posts in them, trying to prove they were.
I mean....why bother if you really don't care...?
Let the participants have their discussions.........

 

[bongoboy]

 

[jigfresh]

In every one of Grims recent threads that you thought were stupid (proably all of them)....you spent a lot of time making posts in them, trying to prove they were.
I mean....why bother if you really don't care...?
Let the participants have their discussions.........

+1

Why waste your time?

 

[Greg_L]

Unless you can prove they were shitty because of the tape...that has no bearing here.

You can't prove an album is good because of tape, so that argument has no bearing here.

I bet all the albums you loved and listened to and were influenced by as a teenager....and many that you still love...
....were all recorded on tape, probably with all analog gear, and then mixdown to tape.

That's very true. I also love tons of stuff done straight digital. I honestly couldn't care less either way. Most of the obviously tape stuff I listen to is not very good quality, but I like the music, and that's all that matters to me.

That's the point I was making about John's initial "tape is horrible" comment.....that there are just way too may great sounding albums that were recorded to tape, for him to toss out broad statements about tape recording.

Because you jumped to a conclusion without even considering that he was just talking about himself for him. That's how I took it anyway. I didn't think "he's so wrong because good albums have been made on tape!" That's not even a valid response to what he said.

I think Grim summed it up already.....it's about the discussion.
It's not about just trying to make someone change their views....though it happens sometimes, and I've changed my views about some things over the years. So there's nothing wrong with understanding/knowing why someone has the opinion that they do.
Just like you want know where I'm coming from.

If you say so. That's fine with me. I just know your act, just like you will claim to know mine. In this case, I was being genuine with you.

Actually....you are the one that absolutely revels in picking things apart. That's what you like to do....you openly pride yourself about that.
You often don't take a lot of interest in the on-topic of most threads (like this one)....instead you like to take shots at the people who ARE involved, and their reasons for being involved, in the on-topic discussion.

I'm not taking shots at you or picking things apart. I sometimes like to look past the obvious bloviating going on between the internet pros and get into agendas and motives. That's where the real truth lives.

You think most threads are stupid....and then you make endless posts trying to prove it....you want to change people's minds.
Why not just stay out of them if they are that stupid to you...?In every one of Grims recent threads that you thought were stupid (proably all of them)....you spent a lot of time making posts in them, trying to prove they were.
I mean....why bother if you really don't care...?
Let the participants have their discussions........

I post in lots of stupid threads. I don't have to prove or try to prove that i think they're stupid. Again, we go back to opinions. I can have one without having to explain myself. You don't have to agree with it, or even acknowledge it, and that's fine because I don't care if you do. I can still have one though. Why do you post in the stupid threads, besides the obvious reasons of browbeating and soapboxing your way into everyone's hearts and minds? You always try to deflect and spin things back at me, or anyone else that points out your shenanigans. For like the ten millionth time, my initial questions to you in this thread were genuine and with all due respect. You don't wanna take it that way, that's fine. You immediately went on the defensive, and that's understandable considering our history. But still, I was being for real. I'm actually not trying to change your or anyone else's mind about anything.

But now you got what you really want. Happy?

 

[Greg_L]

+1

Why waste your time?

Why waste yours? Have you met miroslav? This is what he does. And to save some time, I'll tell you what he's gonna say next: this is what Greg does too! He always takes what I say and spins it back at me. We've been to this rodeo a million times.

 

[miroslav]

You can't prove an album is good because of tape, so that argument has no bearing here.

.............

I didn't think "he's so wrong because good albums have been made on tape!" That's not even a valid response to what he said.

I never said an album was good because of tape.
Point was...countless albums sound great in spite of being recorded to tape....which makes John's statement that tape is horrible, inaccurate.
Yes, I know he was just talking from his own experience....but the way he stated it, it was a rather broad statement about tape, and one that people without any tape use experience would misunderstand....that's why I pointed out that there nothing wrong with using tape, and the countless great sounding albums recorded to tape, prove it.

But now you got what you really want. Happy?

I'm not sure what you think I "got" or that I should be "happy" about...?
I really wanted in this thread was to talk about tape/analog recording, and to better understand why some people have the positive or negative views about it. That's why Grim started the thread.

You just want to turn this into some you/me personal argument about "why" I want to better understand where people are coming from with their opinons....???
Huh???

You know what they say about opinions......everybody has one.
When someone can't/won't explain an opinion that they openly give on a forum...well, there's probably not much there then.

 

[Farview]

OK....then let's keep the fun going!



I get John's point of view when it's specific, not global --- classical music recording prefers gear transparency/neutrality, and there is no desire for tape "color/saturation/etc"....not to mention the need to record long pieces that go well beyond the 30 minutes you might get out of a tape reel, and/or have to splice between two decks...etc.
I get Jay's point of view --- low budget clients have no real desire for the added cost of tape.
I get gecko's point of view --- limited budget client recording has a need for efficiency and simplicity.

What I don't get are the more extreme/direct objections from people: 1.) who have never recorded to any tape.... or 2.) who have at best, used some porta-studio tape rig 20 years ago and are basing their entire tape experience on that... or 3.) who still like to use a lot of analog gear (with all it's imperfections), but have some non-specific issue with tape.

Let's go back to Grim's OP, and his scenario - "...analog recorders if they were freely available?"....
...though now I'm not sure if Grim just means "plentiful, readily available".... or "free".

If we assume for a moment that he means "free", and we take the up-front cost of a serious 2" 24-track tape deck out of the equation...for those of you who fall into 1.), 2.) and 3.)...what exactly are your objections then to tape recording...?
"Too complicated to use"...."no place to put a 2" deck in my bedroom"...."don't want buy the expensive reels of tape"..."I'm not good with electronic test/maintenance gear"....what is it?

Let's make it even more "FREE"...you get the 2" deck, tons of free reels, and a free tech to do the calibration and maintenance.....so what is it about tape that is "bad"....?

Like I said earlier....without the majority of folks qualifying their perspectives and their existing hands-on experience with tape recording (or lack of), there's little to be gleaned from their pro/con answers.
Some have given specifics, and those answers provide room for discussion....others just do the yes/no thing with vague alluding to why.

Also....since we've gotten very specific talking about *recorders* and not analog recording as a whole.....you do have the ability to *record* to tape at mixdown too. People still do that using a DAW up front, then OTB and record to a 2-track.
Is that part of this "tape recorder* discussion or just the front-end multi-track stage?
One more reason why I was looking at the whole "analog recording" process rather than just one piece of equipment.

I still wouldnt use tape for four reasons

1. Linear format means too much rewind, fast forward and multiple deck synch time
2. lack of undo function
3. Limited track count
4. Tape doesnt give you back what you give it.

 

[miroslav]

And to save some time, I'll tell you what he's gonna say next: this is what Greg does too!

I don't have to...you're doing a great job!

Rewind the thread and tell me where it became this BS about you/me and tell me who who started it.....?
Prior to that, the discussion was about tape/analog recording.

Your MO is to disrupt on-topic threads when YOU think they are stupid, becuase get great amusement from that, and you openly have admit that many times.
It's all about you getting a rise out of someone...then badgering them for 20 more posts when they respond.

 

[miroslav]

I still wouldnt use tape for four reasons

1. Linear format means too much rewind, fast forward and multiple deck synch time
2. lack of undo function
3. Limited track count
4. Tape doesnt give you back what you give it.

I won't disagree with 1-3....though I don't mind the rewind, and the limited track count is pretty much where I end up anyway...tape or DAW. I think the most I ever hit was about 32 tracks....but I understand that with clients, and many takes....tape may not be the best choice. It requires a bit more tracking discipline and pre-production.

On #4, I think like any other piece of analog equipment, tape has it's flavor, if that's what you mean.
Once you are aware of it (just like being aware of digital's stark reality)...you adjust for it and move on.
I record to tape, listen to the playback, adjust as needed, and then the playback gives me what I want.