Would you do analog recording ?

[Greg_L]

If you bought a bunch of blank tape, stored it for a decade or two, then started selling it in small batches at inflated prices, tape is worth quite a lot!

Good point. I'd give that one pro and two cons. It's obviously a pro for the seller. No problem there. One con for the buyer for it being expensive, another con because the buyer is literally getting conned.

 

[Farview]

If you bought a bunch of blank tape, stored it for a decade or two, then started selling it in small batches at inflated prices, tape is worth quite a lot!

Unless you bought 456 in the eighties. Then you would be left with worthless giant plastic discs.

 

[ladewd]

I had an analog multitrack which I sold about 5 years ago. There is no way I would want it back. I can align and repair my own decks. I worked at MCI and Sony, manufacturing and later servicing analog and digital tape machines, so that's not my issue. Tape is too expensive, analog tape has wow and flutter, hiss, modulation noise and it wears out rather quickly. Most digital machines are still 16 bit, with the exception of a few. I'll stick with file based audio with a nice analog front end.

 

[miroslav]

So let me see if I got this straight:

So far pretty much everyone objectively agrees that some of the cons for recording to tape are that it's expensive, time consuming, it takes up a lot of space, relatively inflexible, limiting track count, destructive regarding re-dos/punch-ins, and noisy.

And the very subjective pros for tape are that a few people just like "that sound" and maybe it's "fun". As a side benefit tape people can ride a high horse.

Still pounding that drum.
OK...we can beat on it some more (for fun)....next Saturday's Newsletter is just 5 days away!


Yup....tape decks ain't for everyone...they certainly do require a different approach than digital file-based recording...and yeah the better decks tend to be rather large things that use a good deal of power and generate some heat (though not much different than some computer towers). With 2" tape, you typically get 24-tracks, though there's some 32-track decks, they are not really "noisy" (I've seen computer towers that make more noise), but there is a little tape hiss at very low levels, most of it totally masked by the music, since most decent decks have good S/N ratios. Yeah, you have to calibrate and maintain the buggers, they will go out after a time of use, and that process alone will scare off about 95% of the people here....it's time consuming, you need all kinds of test/measurement equipment, and the skill and patience to do it.
So I agree....in many regards digital beats tape hands-down for most folks....but then, I said early on that digital's biggest draw was and is --- price and convenience.

Now all that aside.....there is "that sound" as mentioned above.
Yup....as stated earlier, nothing sounds like audio recorded to tape. Nope....those "emulations" don't quite do it, same as amp sims don't quite do it.
If you have a bunch of albums that you find yourself really liking from over the last 60 years...and it turns out they were tracked to tape, as many, many were....well, then that's how you get that same sound (all other things being equal).

I know the cons listed above are legitimate concerns and issues for a lot of folks...so talking about who here would use tape recording was/is a moot point from the start, since tape decks are NOT "freely available" as Grim proposed, and what is out there, is used, and requires that much more care and love to repair/rebuild/overhaul as needed, and then maintain in a world of diminishing parts and service....so of course, not many folks would bite that bullet here from a real-world scenario.
But...since Grim started this thread as some kind of "what if" fantasy lane trip....let's play it from that angle then.

What if there was a freely available pro studio full of everything...including a soup-to-nuts analog rig, complete with tape decks, console and outboard gear....and also a Pro Tools rig (or whatever DAW you prefer)...and you had to option to choose one or the other to record/mix your album with...and the staff would take care of all the technical stuff.
All you had to do was choose....tape/analog/OTB....or....digital/ITB.



Asking a bunch of home-rec guys about tape decks, is pretty pointless for the most part, when many of them are struggling with a basic DAW "studio" setup. So most views are biased going in.
Take away the mechanics and the cost and complexity of owning and maintaining something more than a.......computer.....and just focus on the sound and the audio and the music, and I bet people's views would be revised somewhat.

Now....none of that ^^^^^ will ever happen. No one will provide that soup-to-nuts studio for free, so most home-rec guys will be happy to accept their fate, and stick to their computers (nothing wrong with that).
IOW, it's easy for the majority here to NOT choose tape.
Ask this same question in different circles, and you might find that many already ARE using tape to track to, and always have been....right alongside their DAWs.

 

[Greg_L]

I'm not beating any drum. You bitched and moaned that I wasn't on topic enough for you, a topic that you desperately want to "discuss". Well miro, now I am on topic and discussing, and you're still gonna whine about it?

Be careful what you wish for.

So taking that phone book sized post into consideration, my point totally still stands. The only possible "advantage", if you can even call it that, with tape is maybe that "sound", if that's what you're after, and fun, for some people? Okay, I'll go along with that. Forget your ridiculous implication that no one knows what they're talking about. I'll pretend like that didn't happen. And I'll throw out my assertion that tape people are just high-horse riding mindless dinosaur audio snobs. Comment rescinded. One problem though: earlier you mentioned that "homogenized digital sound" whatever that means. Isn't that exactly what you're getting with tape? The homogenized "tape sound"? The "warm" saturated rolled-off-high-end tape sound? I mean, that really is the whole point of tape, right? The "tape sound". So okay, both mediums allegedly have their tell-tale sounds, according to you. So that takes sound right off the table. Some people don't want that homogenized tape sound and prefer the true clarity of digital. Some people want the tape sound. Fine. So sound is a total wash. Sound is subjective and not applicable since it cancels itself out compared to the cold hard facts of cost, ease of use, etc. So with sound cancelled out, what are you left with as far as tape goes? Fun. That's it. You have fun with it, and I won't deny you of that. Fun is important. I get it. I could easily use drum programs and samples for my drum tracks, but hot damn, playing and recording real drums is just way more fun. So I'm with you 100% on fun.

 

[JHTorch]

I have recorded analog in the past (though at the time, primarily at another studio, not my own) and would certainly add it to my current setup, money and space permitting. However , at most, I would track to analog and then transfer and work in the DAW for most purposes.

Analog tape, particularly when compared to the 16-bit days of ADATs, DA-88, etc., does impart a pleasing sound when using well calibrated quality pro gear. However, the romanticism sounding the "good old days" of analog is overblown. I do not miss the gear limitations ("I only have 2 stereo compressors and one tube EQ!"); patch bays; tape costs (reel of 2" tape -- 20 minutes, $300); rewind times; track bouncing; the hiss, etc. of the "good old days." Laying down tracks back then took a lot more time, money and effort.

In my view, a well-executed 24-bit recording and mix using quality converters and judicial use of plug-ins can rival the best analog records.

 

[Farview]

I agree that there were hindreds of great soundingalbums donr on tape. I suppose that if you want that sound you need to use tape. However, I really don't want to produce anything that sounds like it's from twenty, thirty or forty years afo.
Even when doing something 'retro', I would still go for a modern take on the sound and not actually try to sound like an old Zeppelin album. ( which sound really thincompared to anything modern).

 

[BroKen_H]

I agree that there were hindreds of great soundingalbums donr on tape. I suppose that if you want that sound you need to use tape. However, I really don't want to produce anything that sounds like it's from twenty, thirty or forty years afo.
Even when doing something 'retro', I would still go for a modern take on the sound and not actually try to sound like an old Zeppelin album. ( which sound really thincompared to anything modern).

Here, Here! Someone buy Farview a pint of his favorite!

 

[grimtraveller]

But...since Grim started this thread as some kind of "what if" fantasy lane trip....

It was more a case of inviting us to consider a question using our imagination to get us to a real answer if there was one.

What if there was a freely available pro studio full of everything...including a soup-to-nuts analog rig, complete with tape decks, console and outboard gear....and also a Pro Tools rig (or whatever DAW you prefer)...and you had to option to choose one or the other to record/mix your album with...and the staff would take care of all the technical stuff.
All you had to do was choose....tape/analog/OTB....or....digital/ITB.

I did actually consider framing the questions that way but decided against it because while the thrust of the scenario behind the questions may have been hypothetical, it was important to maintain more than a semblance of reality. Part and parcel of recording are all the extra curricular activities that surround it, setting up, maintaining, listening, working things out etc.
But it's important to stress that these were real questions to real people. Some people might consider trying their hand with tape machines of any description. Some that already had the experience might feel like going back to it.
As for all the mitigation that was raised in terms of maintainance, space, tape cost etc, even though I may have been a low rent irrelevant portastudio user not even worthy of being compared to lowly consumer grade budget reel to reels, nonetheless, over two decades I had to regularly maintain my machine, get it serviced and perform certain tasks and buy tapes and log and store and cock a doodle doo. None of that was a pain in the patootie, it was part and parcel in the same way that having a car isn't just about driving it {oil, water, bulbs, fuses, windscreen wipers etc} or if one has kids, you gotta change nappies, feed them, play with them when you're sometimes tired etc. I'm not denigrating those aspects that various people raised, just that for me, they were neither pluses nor minuses.
They just "were."

However, I really don't want to produce anything that sounds like it's from twenty, thirty or forty years ago.

Sometimes people post in asking how to achieve this and that sound from this band and that era and I started a thread the other week asking people if they'd ever achieved "that sound" and the responses were quite illuminating.
I realized a long time ago that my tracking and mixing is sufficiently lame to actually sound era~less. Or rather, I just do it as it sounds and as my imagination runs at that moment and God be with you !

 

[Farview]

What I have found is when people tell you they want so and so's sound. they really don't want the actual sound as much as they want the feel or impact of the other person's sound. This is mainly because everything has to have context. John Bonham's drum sound would sound like crap on a sevendust album. But it is a real possibility to make the drums on that album have the same impact on that album as Bonham did on the zeppelin album.

 

[Greg_L]

What I have found is when people tell you they want so and so's sound. they really don't want the actual sound as much as they want the feel or impact of the other person's sound. This is mainly because everything has to have context. John Bonham's drum sound would sound like crap on a sevendust album. But it is a real possibility to make the drums on that album have the same impact on that album as Bonham did on the zeppelin album.

Don't you know that anything modern is crap, and anything 40 years old is awesome?

 

[bongoboy]

Don't you know that anything modern is crap, and anything 40 years old is awesome?

And how old are you?

 

[Greg_L]

And how old are you?

Old enough to use sarcasm, but not so old to not get it.

 

[grimtraveller]

And how old are you?

I would say old enough to know that sarcasm isn't the lowest form of wit* when used skilfully.






*What did Oscar Wilde know ?

 

[Farview]

Don't you know that anything modern is crap, and anything 40 years old is awesome?

Of course, but my clients don't know that and I don't want to tell them, otherwise I'd have to go back to using tape. (shudder)

 

[miroslav]

So taking that phone book sized post into consideration, my point totally still stands. The only possible "advantage", if you can even call it that, with tape is maybe that "sound", if that's what you're after, and fun, for some people?

All your other "assertions" and little digs aside.....yeah, it's about ^^^^^ that.

However, I really don't want to produce anything that sounds like it's from twenty, thirty or forty years afo.

Mmmmm....there are a LOT of studios that still track to tape....TODAY....not just 20-30-40 years ago.

....it was important to maintain more than a semblance of reality.

WTF is the "reality" when most of the negatives here stem from cost and inconvenience!
I mean....you are asking on a home-rec forum about something that;
1.) costs a lot, even today, and way more than most home-rec guys want to spend on just the recording medium, and
2.) is much more involved than the computer crowd wants to embrace.

So right from the gitgo....you've made it almost impossible for the the majority here to "realistically" say yes to tape. It was rigged from the start....not that you did it on purpose.

If you look at the scenario I suggested....where the money and the inconvenience is removed....and it just comes down to a choice between tape/analog/OTB or digital/ITB.....I'm confident most here would JUMP at the opportunity to record their album with tape/analog/OTB.

It wouldn't even be close!

So then yeah...it's about "that sound".
Some people don't care for it, and that's fine....but when you consider that many do, and the many who have used tape, and still use tape....the ONLY way anyone can really know if they prefer it not, is to actually go and use it. Most here will never do that, but they will continue to be against tape.
I mean....some of us will use a specific mic over 20 others...why.....because it has "that sound".

The problem for most people here trying to make any kind of choice...is that it's primarily driven by money and convenience....and if they can't get around that, then "that sound" becomes whatever they have and can use conveniently, and they learn to be happy with that....which is fine.
The other reality, that most DAW plugs/apps are trying to emulate TAPE and ANALOG....speaks volumes for a strong desire to get "that sound". You can find a lot of nice "sounds" using all kinds of tools...so you don't *need* tape just to record music.....but it has a unique ability to favor a lot of the audio that is recorded to it for typical Rock/Pop music, and it works just as well today, as it did 20-30-40 years ago.
It's no surprise so many new acts ARE going back to tape....because they realize there's something there that they're not getting with a DAW for what sound they are after.

 

[miroslav]

Of course, but my clients don't know that and I don't want to tell them, otherwise I'd have to go back to using tape. (shudder)

Yeah....just tell them it's "great"....that's what they pay you for.

 

[Greg_L]

Miro, stick to the facts and not just personal bias and speculation.

But since speculation is all you have, I'll play that way too. As for new acts using tape, I speculate that it's not many, and it's nothing more than a modern retro trend and/or a marketing tool. Kids today wear buddy holly glasses and are buying up rotary phones. Retro has always been cool, no matter what era you're in. LPs are slowly coming back, not because they sound great, because they're cool again. I mentioned Dave Grohl earlier making a big deal about recording to tape in his "garage", and people ate that stupid shit up.....while listening digitally through tiny earbuds. It's a scam. I think so anyway.

Tape does not sound better or worse than digital. They can both be good or bad depending on who's running things.

 

[XploZiveToyz]

I'd speculate that 99.9% percent of people couldn't tell the difference.

 

[Greg_L]

I'd speculate that 99.9% percent of people couldn't tell the difference.

I agree with that speculation.