Would you do analog recording ?

[grimtraveller]

So right from the gitgo....you've made it almost impossible for the the majority here to "realistically" say yes to tape.

The only way to honestly find that out was to put it to people, which I did. At no point have I had any control over what anyone would say.
I think that in this particular instance, you've not really given people the credit for being able to think this through and reach conclusions. But we've all had to start from somewhere.

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!

I wouldn't make that claim because I simply don't know.

This wasn't some experiment in which I already had a conclusion and wanted justification from my friends in cyberspace. I am genuinely interested in knowing what people think so that I don't have to go through life assuming what they think. I'd rather they tell me. Even where I have definite thoughts on a matter, like in the "is it possible to reach a point where you feel you can learn nothing new about songwriting" thread, I'm not trying to convince anyone that they should think it but I was interested in what people felt and why. And I'll still stand behind my view that by deleting the posts of the troll who assumed many aliases, the thread was wrecked because even though he was vehemently against me to the point of insulting me and calling me names, he made some good points which went directly against what I thought. Maybe I'm daft, but that's how I am because I like discussion and debate. If all I want is agreement, I'll talk to myself. I have nothing to lose by someone else holding an opposing view to mine. And I have nothing to gain by it either.

Most here will never do that, but they will continue to be against tape.

In this thread, has there really been a large section of people that have only ever recorded digitally, sorry on DAWs {}, that have come out actually against tape ? The only one is Jigfresh. Acidrock made an nebulous statement about not wanting to read 16 pages and rewind tape but I don't know whether he's recorded to tape before.
Aside from those two, there's been an interesting mixed bag of some {like DM60} who'd like to use tape and former tape users that would go back and use it and former tape users that never would and DAW users that would consider it but would remain within the digital sphere ~ but made it very clear {eg Seafroggys and JG96} that they had the utmost respect for analog tape recording.
So actually, according to the actual evidence presented, nothing, whether deliberately or otherwise, was rigged or prevented people from answering the questions any which way.
What has come over has been a stimulating trawl through the analog/digital debate from a slightly different angle of approach without being bogged down in high tech spec'n'statistics that few understand, {for the most part} flaming and insults or terms like "warmth" and "cold" {those words have been used but we've not gotten bogged down in them}.
I've enjoyed it.

 

[grimtraveller]

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

I think that this is true. And not only does it depend on who is running things, I think it depends on the machines too. My 12 track Akai sounds very different from my 8 track Zoom MRS 8. In the lowly portastudio world, my Fostex X~15 had a different sound to my Tascam 488.

 

[miroslav]

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

......

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

Find in this thread a single post where I said tape sounds *better* (or worse) than digital...?
Why do you keep trying to debate from that angle?

I think I've said a few times it sounds "different", and that is why I use it.
I also use digital.
There is NO personal bias in any of that.
I've used both and I continue to use both. My views are based on real-world, hands-on experiences. I think if anyone is biased, it would those people who never used tape (or digital), but then make definitive judgments about it.

I do agree that tape and digital can be both good and bad, depending on a lot of other variable...that aside, for better or worse tape has "that sound"....some people like it, some don't.
My only real chuckle here has been what I keep repeating....the majority of DAW plugs/apps are trying to emulate tape and analog...and the sounds of that gear that were prevalent 20-30-40-50-60 years ago.
So any jokes or negative comments about those "retro" sounds are at the expense of the person making them, if they use those DAW plugs/apps in their "digital" world.

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

I think much of that has to do with what I said in the last paragraph.
People are working very hard to make things sound...like tape/analog sounds....and I'll admit that many of the better emulations, while not 100% identical, do get you well into the ballpark....so the digital "sound" that most people are listening to, is an emulation of tape/analog.

The fact that some folks still like to get those sounds from the real thing....should not be a reason for anyone to mock and attack, since the DAW guys are trying for the same thing....they're just using the next best thing...emulations.

 

[miroslav]

So actually, according to the actual evidence presented, nothing, whether deliberately or otherwise, was rigged or prevented people from answering the questions any which way.

I assign no blame......just pointing that it wasn't a level playing field going in.

Basically, you're asking a lot of folks to choose between something they don't have and most likely will not ever have or ever use....VS...something they already have, and use every day.
(The few that have use/used both, not included).

So then the choices involved three separate considerations...and in this order.
1.) Money
2.) Convenience
3.) "That Sound"

Knowing how the first two items are a major elephant in the room for most people....even though they were only lightly touched upon here, and the majority of the discussion focused on #3....items 1 & 2 still had the most influence on most people.

That's why I would love to see a show of hands for some sort of free studio time scenario...with the choices between tape/analog/OTB and digital/ITB.
Then at least we would be focusing just on the audio aspect...and not people's budgets and desire for convenience.

 

[Greg_L]

Find in this thread a single post where I said tape sounds *better* (or worse) than digital...?
Why do you keep trying to debate from that angle?

Perhaps I got that from you going on and on about how great those old albums sound. I agree that some of them do sound great. I don't attribute that to tape. I attribute that to good songs played by good bands. If you could time machine those fuckers into today, they could lay down equally awesome shit into a DAW.

I think I've said a few times it sounds "different", and that is why I use it.
I also use digital.
There is NO personal bias in any of that.
I've used both and I continue to use both. My views are based on real-world, hands-on experiences. I think if anyone is biased, it would those people who never used tape (or digital), but then make definitive judgments about it.

And who was that? Just skimming back, it appears to me that the people that have admitted to never using tape openly stated how they'd like to give it a try. So where's the ignorance based bias? I have recorded to tape, you have, so have lots of others with opinions in here.

I do agree that tape and digital can be both good and bad, depending on a lot of other variable...that aside, for better or worse tape has "that sound"....some people like it, some don't.

Yes, tape does have that sound. That homogenized tape sound. This is where I think you're being a little hypocritical. You dogged on digital for having a homogenized sound, but you're okay with a homogenized sound when it's related to tape. Fow what it's worth, probably nothing, it's super cool with me that you feel that way about tape. I just don't see why having it's own inherent "sound" is a bad thing for digital or a good thing for tape.

My only real chuckle here has been what I keep repeating....the majority of DAW plugs/apps are trying to emulate tape and analog...and the sounds of that gear that were prevalent 20-30-40-50-60 years ago.
So any jokes or negative comments about those "retro" sounds are at the expense of the person making them, if they use those DAW plugs/apps in their "digital" world.

I mostly agree with that. It's silly to dog on tape if one's using a bunch of analog sim plug-ins. But it's only silly to dog on the sound of tape when using analog sim plug-ins. Tape is still fair game for being more expensive, time consuming, more difficult, taking up more space, destructive, limiting, having finite usefulness, etc.

I think much of that has to do with what I said in the last paragraph.
People are working very hard to make things sound...like tape/analog sounds....and I'll admit that many of the better emulations, while not 100% identical, do get you well into the ballpark....so the digital "sound" that most people are listening to, is an emulation of tape/analog.

The fact that some folks still like to get those sounds from the real thing....should not be a reason for anyone to mock and attack, since the DAW guys are trying for the same thing....they're just using the next best thing...emulations.

No one is mocking or attacking. I don't think anyone attacked the sound of tape or anyone for using tape. At worst, people said it's not for them and/or that they prefer the truer uncolored clarity of digital. From my perspective, the drawbacks of tape are very real, factual, tangible, indisputable. Everything I've said against tape, you've agreed with. I don't think I've bashed the "tape sound" at all.

 

[Greg_L]

That's why I would love to see a show of hands for some sort of free studio time scenario...with the choices between tape/analog/OTB and digital/ITB.
Then at least we would be focusing just on the audio aspect...and not people's budgets and desire for convenience.

You're moving the goalposts. Why should cost and convenience be discounted? Those are very real, real-world concerns. This is home recording, not Radio City Music Hall. That's like saying "you can't buy a Ferrari or even afford to insure one, but wouldn't you like to drive one for a day if you never have before"? Totally silly. Of course everyone would like to give one a free spin. And I'm not equating a Ferrari to tape like tape is bad ass or anything, I'm only using it because it's relatively rare and generally unobtainable for most people - like tape. If you had a little band and some record company said "we're gonna put you in an all analog studio for a week free of charge" no one is gonna turn it down. It's free studio time. They'd take it if it were all DAW too.

If you gave me your full analog setup, I'd use it until you took it back, and never think of it again. My music would sound no better or worse. Would it be fun? Maybe for a little while. I already gave you the fun part. I don't doubt it would be fun. Would I sound better or worse? Nope. I'd sound the same, at a much slower pace.

 

[miroslav]

Yes, tape does have that sound. That homogenized tape sound. This is where I think you're being a little hypocritical. You dogged on digital for having a homogenized sound, but you're okay with a homogenized sound when it's related to tape. Fow what it's worth, probably nothing, it's super cool with me that you feel that way about tape. I just don't see why having it's own inherent "sound" is a bad thing for digital or a good thing for tape.

I don't want to get into a "yes it does"..."no it doesn't" thing with you....but we've talked about amps and amp sims, and how the amps have a more "organic" sound, whereas the sims have that homogenized sound because they use mathematical formulas to create the simulation, and the formulas stay the same for a given plug.

With tape...there is the same "organic" quality to it like with real amps. It's not tied to a coded math formula to create its sound.

You're moving the goalposts. Why should cost and convenience be discounted? Those are very real, real-world concerns. This is home recording, not Radio City Music Hall. That's like saying "you can't buy a Ferrari or even afford to insure one, but wouldn't you like to drive one for a day if you never have before"? Totally silly.

Nope...I'm not moving the goalposts, and you just argued MY point for me.
Because tape use has a higher cost and inconvenience associated with it....it immediately biases people against it.

What's the point of asking people if they would "do Ferrari"....if going in most can't even consider it.
That's why I said this thread didn't start off on a level playing field.
It's the same stupid comparisons people try to make between a $5k hardware compressor and a $50 plug-in of a compressor.
Most wouldn't even consider the former just on price alone....so why bother trying to compare or even ask people if they would ever consider owning/using one?

That's why you need to breakdown this discussion into three separate categories....or level the playing field if you want to talk just about "that sound".

 

[Greg_L]

I don't want to get into a "yes it does"..."no it doesn't" thing with you....but we've talked about amps and amp sims, and how the amps have a more "organic" sound, whereas the sims have that homogenized sound because they use mathematical formulas to create the simulation, and the formulas stay the same for a given plug.

With tape...there is the same "organic" quality to it like with real amps. It's not tied to a coded math formula to create its sound.

I agree about the sims thing, but dumping data into a DAW isn't the same as using math to create a sound. An amp sim vs real amp is not the same as tape coloration vs digital clarity. Recording to digital isn't turning your sound into another sound. It's just storing data. Take the mic and preamp out of the equation because you need those for either scenario...do you not agree that digital is a pretty clean and clear representation of what you put into it? When done properly of course. You might like the tape sound, and that's fine, but tape does alter the sound, and in that way it's actually more like an amp sim than digital is!

Nope...I'm not moving the goalposts, and you just argued MY point for me.
Because tape use has a higher cost and inconvenience associated with it....it immediately biases people against it.

What's the point of asking people if they would "do Ferrari"....if going in most can't even consider it.

You're completely wrong or you missed the point. The Ferrari/tape being generally unobtainable doesn't bias anyone against it, quite the opposite, who doesn't like Ferraris? And I said straight up that most people would go for it.....but I think it would be more for the fun/novelty factor and not because they'd seriously consider buying one.

That's why I said this thread didn't start off on a level playing field.

No, it did. It might be a stupid thread, but it started very "level" and everyone took it that way but you. You're wanting to add all these rules and stipulations to the "debate" because your reel is out of tape. Sorry, bad pun.

It's the same stupid comparisons people try to make between a $5k hardware compressor and a $50 plug-in of a compressor.
Most wouldn't even consider the former just on price alone....so why bother trying to compare or even ask people if they would ever consider owning/using one?

That's why you need to breakdown this discussion into three separate categories....or level the playing field if you want to talk just about "that sound".

Now you're really moving the goalposts. Didn't you previously go on and on about wanting "discussion" and now you're all "why even ask?"

"That sound" might be your most important criteria for tape, and that's cool, but it's not everyone's. And it's a hindrance for some people. Or maybe someone does want that sound, but the many many very real drawbacks to using tape machines and related equipment overshadow any benefit of "tape sound". So in a way, I'll agree with you on one huge point - this whole discussion is friggin stupid and pointless.

 

[Farview]

I don't want to get into a "yes it does"..."no it doesn't" thing with you....but we've talked about amps and amp sims, and how the amps have a more "organic" sound, whereas the sims have that homogenized sound because they use mathematical formulas to create the simulation, and the formulas stay the same for a given plug.

With tape...there is the same "organic" quality to it like with real amps. It's not tied to a coded math formula to create its sound.

The word for that is "inconsistent".

That's another thing that bugs me about (some) analog gear. It doesn't necessarily sound the same from one minute to the next. Turn on a Marshall, paly it and record it. Leave it on for 3 hours, record the same thing and compare the two. It will sound different. Same goes with tube mics. Same goes with tape from different batches.

At least the emulations are consistent.

I don't like doing the same thing over and over and getting different results.

 

[Bobbsy]

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

I agree with this speculation too--especially if that 99.9% of people are listening to 128kbps MP3 copies through cheap earbuds.

 

[miroslav]

The word for that is "inconsistent".

That's another thing that bugs me about (some) analog gear. It doesn't necessarily sound the same from one minute to the next. Turn on a Marshall, paly it and record it. Leave it on for 3 hours, record the same thing and compare the two. It will sound different. Same goes with tube mics. Same goes with tape from different batches.

At least the emulations are consistent.

I don't like doing the same thing over and over and getting different results.

Don't get into anything negative about Marshalls.....we'll be here forever!



That's a glass is half full/half empty thing I guess....about pros/cons of absoloute consistancy.

I love tubes and tube amps with all their "inconsistancy"...which is why I also like tape and why it is very much like a tube amp, IMO.
To me though....it's not inconsistency in some bad way, like "Oh man it sounded so great before, now it totally blows"....
...rather it's more like the inconstancy we experience with anything that is alive, anything natural in real life....hence my use of the term "organic" as a way of describing tube amps and tape recording, and a lot of other analog gear....VS... "homogonized" to describe that digital consistancy.

I just don't see surgical precision, efficiency and clone-like repeatability that big a selling point when it comes to recording music, but I do see where it has its uses.
Sure....when I'm cutting a guitar track or whatever, I'll do all my takes in one session when possible only because of potential comping needs, and knowing that tubes and electronics and instruments all have their "moods", so if the vibe is right, I keep rolling with it.
That said....tomorrow when I turn on the same amp, or my tape deck...my brain/ears don't remember EXACTLY how it sounded yesterday, and really, whatever difference there were, they are quite minor and they don't pose any problem, and frankly, I enjoy the occasional "surprise" that audio gear can sometimes provide...like how a guitar feels different from one day to the next....or anything else for that matter. Even so, I've done sessions that span several days, even weeks, and it's never been an issue matching the sound well enough for the recording.
Only thing that ever really pisses me off is the damn piano when it goes out a bit with any change in temp and humidity, because it's sometimes a PITA to re-tune it...but it sounds better than my digital pianos, when I want "that sound" from the real thing.

Of course, that's all from the artistic perspective. If you just need to have the recall and the absolute repeatability to meet client demands, well, that's a different consideration. That is a digital strong point, like the price and the convenience.
The power of digital editing is often clouded by the bells-n-whistles of all the plug-in emulations....but the editing is where the juice is really at.

 

[miroslav]

I agree with this speculation too--especially if that 99.9% of people are listening to 128kbps MP3 copies through cheap earbuds.

Well...that's another discussion!
You can take two of anything that are the best of the best, no matter what they be.....completely mangle them into a pile of crap, and of course, no one will tell the difference or care about it...though that's not a reason to ignore the up-front choices and their quality.
Maybe we should start talking about Pono again in this thread!!!

Seriously though...recording isn't always about the lowest common denominator, and even if no one else on the planet is going to give the end product its fair shake....I think most musicians/engineers will still want to put their best effort forward and not play to that lowest common denominator.

Regardless if anyone ever listens to anything I post....I will never post 128kbs MP3 files.
I draw the line at 192kps or higher.

 

[miroslav]

So in a way, I'll agree with you on one huge point - this whole discussion is friggin stupid and pointless.

Let's not hurt Grim's feelings....


I said early on that little would be gleaned from this thread....and the manner in which it was set up/presented for consideration, but there's no perfect way to present a thread when it's about a "choice" and discussion....there will always be the secondary debate about "why" a given choice is made, which I prefer over a straight poll....so at least some of the discussion was interesting and fun, even if it ends up with no real answers or changes anyone's mind (which I knew it wouldn't).

 

[rayc]

Crikey, it's inevitable that when the score turns against him the sad little boy will want to end the game prematurely and decide to take someone else's ball home with him.
Maybe a session of kicking a tin can along the road, hands in pockets whilst whistling, (nice bit of alliteration?), the theme from Mayberry RFD or My Three Sons will heal the hurt.

 

[Greg_L]

Don't get into anything negative about Marshalls.....we'll be here forever!

I will miroslav the shit out of this thread if yall start bashing my Marshalls!

 

[Farview]

The only thing cool about how inconsistent Marshalls were when I was playing them was, if you took your time and played every single one in a 50 mile radius, you could have the best sounding one in the area and everyone else had to have the leftovers.

But I was shocked when I was trying out brand new JCM800's and they all sounded completely different. They all sounded like Marshalls, but there was a huge swing in tone and distortion.

I eventually settled on one, which was awesome. I got rid of it when I got the Laney endorsement.

 

[John Willett]

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.

You forgot: tape stretch, wow, flutter, modulation noise and print-through which are the more serious "cons", all of which distort the sound - your list of "cons" were very minor inconveniences that do not change the sound at all.

 

[Bobbsy]

To be fair, pro grade gear didn't suffer from enough wow, flutter or modulation noise to matter (for example we could sync a 16 track Ampex 2 inch to VTRs using time code and the sync wouldn't drift) and the issues of tape stretch and print through tend not to be an issue until tapes are stored a while and get old. I wonder how many HDDs or USB thumb drives will last as long as tape in a temperature and humidity controlled environment?

Mind you, all bets are off if we talk about a multitrack cassette based system.

Don't get me wrong. I'd have to be dragged kicking and screaming to go back to tape-based systems but I think you hurt the argument with your overly negative opinion.

 

[miroslav]

To be fair, pro grade gear didn't suffer from enough wow, flutter or modulation noise to matter (for example we could sync a 16 track Ampex 2 inch to VTRs using time code and the sync wouldn't drift) and the issues of tape stretch and print through tend not to be an issue until tapes are stored a while and get old. I wonder how many HDDs or USB thumb drives will last as long as tape in a temperature and humidity controlled environment?

Thanks Bobbsy for that reality check.

I was getting ready to put up a piece of tape recorded music so we can all listen to the "tape hiss, wow & flutter and noise"...

And yeah...I agree about the cassette systems.

 

[Greg_L]

You forgot: tape stretch, wow, flutter, modulation noise and print-through which are the more serious "cons", all of which distort the sound - your list of "cons" were very minor inconveniences that do not change the sound at all.

I tried to keep actual sound out of it. Sound is subjective, therefore not a factor in my comparison. I tried to keep my list of tape drawbacks specific to other areas that are definitely a disadvantage compared to recording into a DAW.