After seven years of DAW, I will NEVER abandon tape again.

[miroslav]

Compared to analog yes, there is definitely less of a sonic 'footprint' but to say that the digital medium is transparent at normal usage is just not true.

This is easily argued with the fact that if today's digital recording was 100% transparent then why would there be high end digital converters claiming greater transparency over budget converters?

Mmm...the high-end converters are talking about greater dynamic range...but they still don't color the sound...and if you're talking about higher sampling rates, they simply capture ultra-high frequencies, but again, it's not coloring what they do capture in any particular way.

It's like the difference between clear glass and colored glass.
Digital being the clear glass...and analog tape the colored.
If you take a bigger clear glass container or a smaller one, it changes what how much you can capture, but it adds no color of its own...unlike analog tape always adding some of it's color.

You can split hairs on that analogy...but digital is way closer to being just a transparent medium compared to tape.

 

[ecc83]

Mmm...the high-end converters are talking about greater dynamic range...but they still don't color the sound...and if you're talking about higher sampling rates, they simply capture ultra-high frequencies, but again, it's not coloring what they do capture in any particular way.

It's like the difference between clear glass and colored glass.
Digital being the clear glass...and analog tape the colored.
If you take a bigger clear glass container or a smaller one, it changes what how much you can capture, but it adds no color of its own...unlike analog tape always adding some of it's color.

You can split hairs on that analogy...but digital is way closer to being just a transparent medium compared to tape.

AND if I might poke my low end hooter in here? To HEAR a difference between a $3000 per ch converter and a $300 (even $50?) converter you would, I think need to audition on some VERY high end monitors, $5000+ the pair? The monitors would need to be in a very well treated room.
Then the source of the music would also have to be of the very finest, not yer $200 catalogue acoustic with 4 yr old strings played by a first years student!

Such high end gear is made because 'professional' gear should always be a cut above that of the herd's, like me. Home tapists ran 7.5ips and on a Revox A77 that was better than FM stereo and black disc. Pros of course run 15ips both for the extra dBs and ease of editing which home bods rarely did.

If you have a Once in a Century gathering at the RAH AND furtfinger conducting his last performance of Tittlefart's Remembrance of a Lovely Dog. (a commission like most that will NEVER be heard again!) it makes sense to capture the event using THE best technology available.

Dave.

 

[TalismanRich]

I would love to see a simple comparison....

Take a high quality master tape, transfer it to digital at something like 192/24 and compare the two directly. Speakers, headphones, use all available means to hear a difference.

Now take a completely digital recording and transfer it to tape. Again compare the two.

I'm guessing that the first scenario will be harder to reliably distinguish between the two.

I don't have access to any high grade tape equipment anymore so I can't do the comparison. I have done it with vinyl albums, and there was no difference between the digital copy and the original disc. I love my albums, but they don't compare to my humble digital gear in terms of fidelity..

Using tape to give saturation, compression or warmth is the same to me as using an EQ or compressor. Maybe I'm old school, but at one point the goal was to get fidelity of a performance, not to create a performance ITB. It was about capturing violins, drums, guitars, flutes, etc faithfully. There has been a fundamental change in the music being created. People are creating music that never happened in real space, in real time. Great, if that's your goal, use whatever you want.

But for me, to simply damn digital recording as the equivalent of "the great Satan" is simply stupid.


Now, where is my aluminum foil lined golf hat? I need to keep the powers that be from reading my thoughts while I'm playing my round this morning!

 

[ecc83]

Don't know about that Rich but there was(is?) a technique that lets you separate out the distortion signal from the original after it has passed through a device. ,Mostly used to test power amplifiers where the very best ones just produce a mild 'twittering' many dBs below the wanted signal but, applied to best tape recording of the day the distortion component was said to be a harsh, buzzy mess!

But! As this thread has said many times "If'n that floats yer boat.....?"

Dave.

 

[miroslav]

I would love to see a simple comparison....

Take a high quality master tape, transfer it to digital at something like 192/24 and compare the two directly. Speakers, headphones, use all available means to hear a difference.

Now take a completely digital recording and transfer it to tape. Again compare the two.

OK...but what are you looking to compare...difference in the sonic flavor...fidelity...?

I think it would be more interesting to simultaneously track to tape and digital...rather than bouncing one to the other.
IOW...if you track to tape and bounce to digital...you are importing the tape flavor into digital...so what's the comparison...?...how well it transferred...?

I think there were some session experiments done in high-end studios...although not an easy task to accomplish AND to keep all things generally "equal".
A full tracking and mixing session simultaneously to tape, using all analog FX processing and mixing through an analog console...vs....going to digital will all plugins simulating the same analog gear.

THAT would be the comparison to do.

 

[TalismanRich]

If I put A onto B and cannot tell a difference, the B is transparent relative to A. If I put A onto B and can tell a difference, the B is not transparent. Ideally, this would be a double blind test, and should be very easy to accomplish if you have both mediums.

You an use as many criteria as you like, frequency response, noise, harshness, imaging, distortion. If you can hear a difference, then its WRONG, pure and simple.

I'm strictly talking fidelity to the original signal here, The problem with putting the same signal to both is that you then cannot judge which is more faithful to the "source" because the source is by nature, transient. Someone will still try to play the card that A sounds "better" or "worse" than B, which is purely a subjective evaluation. I'm talking a true source here, like a guitar > Mic > Preamp > 2 recorders. You can never go back and do a direct comparison to the starting point. You'll have to resort to memory, which is by nature, variable and subject to bias.

 

[snow lizard]

Mmm...the high-end converters are talking about greater dynamic range...but they still don't color the sound...and if you're talking about higher sampling rates, they simply capture ultra-high frequencies, but again, it's not coloring what they do capture in any particular way.

Greater dynamic range? 16 bit range gets close to the thermal limit. In a more practical sense, it gets close to or sometimes exceeds the noise floor of the analog gear around it (consoles, amps etc...) although as humans we can sometimes hear things down to around -20dB inside the noise floor. 24 bit exceeds the thermal limit, so for any practical reason to do with hearing, we're never going to get beyond 120 dB range.

As for sample rates, extensive tests have shown that young girls can sometimes hear up to 19 kHz. Looking at things like Neve consoles or AC bias for tape machines we know that there are electrical or magnetic phenomena with ultrasonic frequencies that can have an effect on what we can hear, but what we end up hearing is still under 20k. Often the most significant conclusion to ultrasonic listening tests is that the tweeters blew up.

A common thing that comes up is the idea that analog sounds bigger, or more 3D, less fatiguing. It's truly amazing to think of how capable the ear and brain are at the perception of spatial information, whether we realize it or not. The discoveries made in this area seem counterintuitive at times, and it's been somewhat of a controversy. There's also the idea that a solid digital chain with converters and DSP designed to handle things properly just don't have these problems, and it happened a long time before we had the computer processing power of today. Any product we can have, digital or analog, is a series of compromises from the engineering side of things. It's difficult for me to accept that anything digital is transparent. Bitcrushers, for example. Compared to analog, maybe it's easier to have a digital system that's flat from DC to daylight, but that's not the only parameter. Analog often seems to be better at imaging, but converters and DSP that bring the A game might close that gap a little.

I often miss the days when everything was analog. Carefully extracting 320 ft. of corrugated tape from a cassette player was a lot of fun. My brother had a Rush album that has this vocal line, "The focus is sharp in the city" that would skip and come out like "The focus is sh/ity".

 

[miroslav]

A common thing that comes up is the idea that analog sounds bigger, or more 3D, less fatiguing.

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


It's difficult for me to accept that anything digital is transparent.

I've not done extensive, scientific, double-blind testing...but it's something I did notice between the DAW and the console stereo images...it did seam to open up more when in the analog domain. When I firs noticed, I thought I was just imagining, and I really wasn't trying to prove anything...it was more of a curiosity...and I could definitely hear a difference.
The one counter-argument I got from someone was that if I was hearing as more open, 3D image with the console...something must be out of spec in the console.

AFA the transparent thing...it might be more accurate to say digital is a more transparent medium than most tape scenarios...but if you go to the very high-end decks, and set them up for the best transparent recording, rather than for any saturation/compression purposes...tape can get pretty darn as transparent as digital, with equally good frequency response and dynamic range...though that kind of tape recording rig tends to be well out of most budgets.

I think though, these days...too many folks view tape recording as simply an effect you apply to the audio, so they are not looking for tape recording purity and super high fidelity...and I think they also miss out on that quality range that falls in-between that full-tilt "hot" recording and super clean recording.
What I mean is...just like a good guitar amp that has great cleans...but if you push it real hard, it goes into glorious distortion...there is also that range where the sound is mostly clean but with that hint of "hair" and harmonics, and those sweet spots are where a lot of the analog magic really sits.
Of course...you have to leave room in your mixes for that stuff to come through. If you slather on other processing, and/or over produce the tracks...it gets lost.

 

[snow lizard]

The one counter-argument I got from someone was that if I was hearing as more open, 3D image with the console...something must be out of spec in the console.

Yeah.

It's good to stay objective about it. There's been a lot of debate and controversy between theoreticians and other people working in the industry. You might be able to hear something weird and reliably demonstrate it. Others have, and it turns into a 100 page debate on the internet about what you can and can't hear, even though to anyone that has, there's no debate at all.

Honestly I can't take sides in any kind of digital vs. analog debate. They both have their strengths and shortcomings.

There's still a lot of confusion over basic DSP principles. Marketing doesn't help. Oddly enough, there's a strange tendancy to come up with digital signal processors and name them after classic vintage analog gear. There's nothing wrong with having a compressor or something that can behave similar to an opto or vari-mu or whatever, but can you really model every capacitor, every tube, every op amp and build the same circuit in a digital enviornment and have it be reactive and interactive to impedance loading the same as it would in the analog world? Seems like a lot of work. Or some strange obsession with chasing the past.

Then you might RTFM and it tells you to run 16 bit levels as hot as you can before clipping for the best resolution. How the hell did that ever make it into a product manual? It's a bad idea for gain staging and that's just not how resolution works. It's a total myth. It doesn't help anyone.

There's good digital stuff out there. Is it the same as analog? No, and if you're talking about high end analog there's some seriously cool stuff out there. There's also crappy stuff on both sides. Digital can be great too, but it doesn't deserve a blank cheque.

 

[snow lizard]

The one counter-argument I got from someone was that if I was hearing as more open, 3D image with the console...something must be out of spec in the console.

Sorry, I totally missed what you were trying to say here.

Yeah, that console's hooped. I might be able to help you dispose of it. How much would it cost to ship to the left coast?

 

[miroslav]

Honestly I can't take sides in any kind of digital vs. analog debate. They both have their strengths and shortcomings.

That's my feeling as well.
I know I've been kinda talking pro analog here...but not from the perspective that analog is 100% better.
There are good and bad points with both...so my feeling is to tap into the good of both...go hybrid.

What I get a little bugged about, is when people try to say that the choice to use analog is entirely about subjective preference...which kinda implies that there isn't both a good and bad side to digital and analog...and that you gain nothing from using one for some things and the other for the rest...other than some personal satisfaction.

My point is that digital can NOT do everything analog does, exactly the same way...and analog can NOT do everything digital does exactly the same way.
Maybe for some folks the choices are rooted entirely in vague subjective preferences...and we all do that to some degree with some choices...
...but IMO, sometimes the preferences are rooted to some of those specific good aspects of analog or digital. IOW, the choices are more objective.

 

[grimtraveller]

Out of all the negatives aspects of cell phone usage...the one that I think is the worst, is how much it has elevated social rudeness.

But that's not really to do with cell phones or even their usage as much as it is to do with people. I have a friend who used to say much of the time "any excuse for a party !" I think new technology {ie, post 2000} has been utilized as an excuse by many people to unleash the shit that's in them and hang everyone else. But people did things like that before, smoking on buses and trains {of which I was guilty up to 1984}, ruffling coats and chairs when entering a meeting late, blasting boom boxes in the park etc.

So preference doesn't need to always be based on science for anyone to decide which choice is better.

I don't think preference ever needs to be based on science for someone to decide which is better. The key here is in that term "better." Is it being used objectively or subjectively ? Quite often science is brought into the equation in an attempt to demonstrate that the thing one is championing is objectively better. And that's what really starts so many of these internet arguments that go on for years and show no signs of abating. By trying to parade one's choice as objectively better, there is an unsaid but much louder implication that other items/pieces of equipment are inferior. It actually happens on both sides of many arguments.

I know you want more than just someone's preference to be convinced that A is better than B...but if 100 people prefer A and one person prefers B...
...does it really matter if analytically/scientifically it can't be proven than A is better than B...?

Only if the 100 people are insistent that A is objectively better rather than just admit that it's their preference and they find it better. I mean, were Black Sabbath "better" than Budgie ? One made it, one didn't. One was hugely popular, one wasn't. One is endlessly written about and recognized as innovators, the other isn't.
If one goes through the archives of this forum, there are thousands of threads in which one sees this "my****** is better than your******" viewpoint whether it be a recording medium, instrument, technique or whatever with so much technoweight behind it to justify the position but actually a lot less actual subjective championing of one's preference of their chosen medium, equipment, technique etc. For me, RFR summed it up when he said

I like working with tape. Don't need any reasons, justifications, tech specs or anything. I just like it. If you like working in a certain medium, creation is more of a joy.
That’s good enough

I found the OP to pretty much be the opposite to that.

Analog tape is a medium, but it most definitely imparts something to the audio...used in a specific "range", what it imparts has generally been a favorable preference to most people using it...likewise, so does a lot of quality analog gear. It has a technical use, but it simultaneously acts like audio spice

I absolutely agree with that. It's therefore not objectively "better" any more than the digital medium is objectively better. They're different and we know why we like those differences.

Now...do you like your stew flavored with some appropriate spice...or just plain boiled meat and veggies?
Which is "better" to you?

It's funny you should say that because I like both. For decades, I've had this long running argument with friends about seasoning meat or fish. I would happily chuck a piece of lamb or kangaroo or mackerel or salmon or whatever in the oven and when ready, eat it just like that, no spices or seasoning and some would say "how can you eat that tasteless shit without seasoning ?" and I would say that actually, the meat/fish has got its own flavour and sometimes by spicing it up all it tastes of is the spice. Same with veg. It depends on the veg but there are lots of vegetables that I can cook as is and eat without adding spices, onions, garlics, peppers, plantains, yams, sweet potatoes, ginger, potatoes, mushroom etc.
Equally, I'll sometimes cook with all those and spices and mixed herbs and honey and various wines. I like a varied palette !

 

[grimtraveller]

What I get a little bugged about, is when people try to say that the choice to use analog is entirely about subjective preference...which kinda implies that there isn't both a good and bad side to digital and analog...

Not in the slightest particular. Of course there's a good and bad side to both. That's why you've gone hybrid and some remain within one medium. Those that have stayed within one medium have weighed up why they are within that medium and ultimately prefer what it gives within their particular situation. And those that go the hybrid route do likewise.

and that you gain nothing from using one for some things and the other for the rest...other than some personal satisfaction.

I dislike virtual bass, both acoustic and electric. I dislike virtual guitars, both electric and acoustic. I dislike virtual congas. I daresay that there are songs out there with those instruments virtually that I think the world of. But I dislike using them and don't. It's not for any objective reason otherwise I'd never like them in any song. It's a subjective thing.
But I wouldn't rule out using them. Even if it was only once. That once that I used whichever it was would be the best way to go for the particular application it was being used for. With a digital medium, you can do all kinds of things. You can do most of them in analog too, just that it takes far longer.
I'm au fait with the idea that different mediums can be used for different tasks. But it's still one's preference to go that way if that is what they so choose. Some people quite like cutting tape and have been doing it so long that it's no big deal. They won't make mistakes. It scares the life out of me so I treasure the 'undo' function. But that's a preference, not an acknowledgement that it's an objectively better way to go.

 

[miroslav]

Not in the slightest particular. Of course there's a good and bad side to both. That's why you've gone hybrid and some remain within one medium. Those that have stayed within one medium have weighed up why they are within that medium and ultimately prefer what it gives within their particular situation. And those that go the hybrid route do likewise.

I think that even saying a choice is purely a matter of preference, implies that for the person making the choice, there is a consideration of what is "better".
You don't need to run scientific analysis and double-blind studies for everything in order to come to some conclusion of what is better and in what context.

These days, there is endless data from which to pull a variety of information in that decision making process, and it may even be a lot of subjective information. If a majority of peers feels A is better than B (for whatever reasons), but you say B is equally good because it's all just subjective preference...well...that's a self-serving denial of hands-on reality...and no, you don't need empirical data to see that.

I just don't buy the argument that unless you have scientific tests to prove otherwise...then the assumption is, it's all equal, and just a matter of preference...and frankly, I see that with a lot of the choices people make in the home rec world. They experience something within the limitations of their situation...and become convinced that it's on par with things they have never had or used before.
I do feel that digital has left many people eagerly believing that it can provide them with the same experience that before was only possible in major studio environments...and that with software, everything can be had and overcome...but many of those home rec people are making those assumptions purely on preferences driven by their own environments. So those "preferences" are often faulty, IMO...which brings us back to, what is really "better".

 

[TalismanRich]

For a lot of us, the cost is a definitely consideration. The simple cost of tape can be enormous. ATR has a 10" pancake of 1/2" 2500 ft for $77. That will do 33 minutes of recording at 15ips. You need to mix down a master, which will cost another $45 for the master 1/4" pancake.

I recorded a 4 hour jam session, 8 channels, on a single SD card ($6). To do the same recording and mix down on tape would have cost over $900 in tape cost alone (33mins/pancake x 8). If I do digital mastering, it saves me $360. For the price of the 1/2" tape alone, I could have bought Scarlett 18i20, or a basic laptop and a Tascam 16x08, a Zoom R24 or Tascam DP24.

I remember reading about the recording of Woodstock. They had to be very cognizant of who they recorded because they had limited amounts of tape and film. They cleaned out quite a few places of film stock. Today, they probably wouldn't have missed a second of the performances. Buy a stack of hard drives in caddies, and you're good to go for 3 days/24 hours /24 tracks / 192K/24bit. Add another stack for the video performances.

But none of this is relevant to what you want to use. I've used both, and prefer digital. You can use tape. As long as we get what we want, its all good.

 

[miroslav]

For a lot of us, the cost is a definitely consideration.

Of course it is...and that's my point...some people develop their preferences entirely based on their budgets, and not on actual comparisons and usage of a wide variety of audio gear.

Analog recording certainly is not for everyone...besides cost, it has other demands in a few areas...many which are bypassed with the use of digital recording.

Is that why you prefer digital...because it's too costly to have a robust analog studio...?
Budget certainly is a valid reason...but it would also then be a specific reason.

I know it's not possible for everyone to try all kinds of gear, for a good amount of time, in order to gain true hands-on experience with all of it, and then make choices based on their developed preference from actual usage...but then, I find it curious that some people who have had limited experience with a lot of audio gear, are able to offer views on what they think is better...and to have actual preferences.
I mean...if their gear usage was/is limited...how can they have "preferences"...?

I would venture to guess that 80% of the home rec guys who primarily use digital...have never used any serious analog gear, including full-tilt tape decks.
Yet a good number seem to have strong opinions about it.

I always like to offer a simple perspective, and question.
If money wasn't the issue...how many people would still prefer to work entirely ITB with digital...vs...having access to a room full of quality analog gear...?

 

[TalismanRich]

It was the early 70s, when I first heard a pro studio with a serious board and 4 tracks, it was obviously the best I had ever heard. I don't even remember what their equipment was. I worked in a campus radio station that had their Ampex and Magnacord decks. The massive Ampex tape decks were great. So I knew what good tape sounded like.

For me, I never got the result I wanted with tape. Splicing tape was a PITA, enough so, that I avoided it completely. Bouncing tracks always made things noisy which bothered me. The cost did grow to the point where is was untenable for anything above a basic Tascam 1/2" setup. My bassist friend sunk a bunch of cash into his 80-8 with DBX and a model 5 board. For a home recordist, that was about as much as we could go. It worked, and gave good results.

After a couple of years, my friend cleared out his studio gear, I had gotten married and started a family and gave up on the music stuff for about 20 years.

When I started playing around again and bought a Yamaha AW16G, it was an "ah HA!" moment. It was so easy to get results that rivaled anything I had ever experienced from any studio setup I had heard. It was quiet, clear, and worked like a tape deck without having to thread reels.

There's a studio locally that has a full ProTools setup alongside a 24 Track A80 setup. Maybe someday when Covid is gone, I'll go down and check the place out. But for now I'm still firmly in the digital camp.

 

[TalismanRich]

Just for grins, I have a photo of the first tape deck I ever used.



When my dad passed a few years back, I got his box of tape reels, along with this Wilcox Gay Recordio. I haven't had the nerve to plug it in, seeing how its now about 60+ years old. I'm sure the caps are completely dried out. The ceramic mic didn't work. Popped it open and the crystal element had turned completely to powder. Apparently it was a salt crystal mic.

I still have a Sony stereo deck in a box in the basement. I need to check that out to see if any of dad's tapes have any good stuff on them.

 

[TalismanRich]

OK...but what are you looking to compare...difference in the sonic flavor...fidelity...?

I think it would be more interesting to simultaneously track to tape and digital...rather than bouncing one to the other.
IOW...if you track to tape and bounce to digital...you are importing the tape flavor into digital...so what's the comparison...?...how well it transferred...?

I think there were some session experiments done in high-end studios...although not an easy task to accomplish AND to keep all things generally "equal".
A full tracking and mixing session simultaneously to tape, using all analog FX processing and mixing through an analog console...vs....going to digital will all plugins simulating the same analog gear.

THAT would be the comparison to do.

I happened to run across this comparison tonight. Its basically what you mention, but with a twist. They recorded onto an A800, and at 96k/24b, then added in the digital processed thru UA's Studer plugin. So you have 3 files to compare of different recordings. Universal Audio Studer A800 | Media

 

[miroslav]

I'm at a disadvantage at this time (well, for the last year now), in that my olds studio is gone, and all the gear is just piled up in the new studio, yet to be set up and all kinds of other work to be done...so doing any critical listening is on hold, and will be for some time.
I don't want to bother listening on my laptop or the small USB speaker bar I have plugged into to.

I did read through the SOS article...and it appears all he was doing was a review of the UAD STUDE A800 tape compression plugin.
His only comments were to say that the plugin did a decent job of creating more cohesiveness...etc...etc.
So I don't see it as the same thing I was talking about, that you quoted.
I actually believe that someone did a more straightforward recording comparison of analog vs digital...doing them simultaneously....but it was awhile ago, I don't even remember who/where...or if was a suggestion or something that was actually done.

I think it would be hard to do it...and at the same time keep everything equal. I mean...throughout the tracking, and also the mixing...etc.
I feel that it would be to easy to introduce inequalities in the setups...and then that would create enough variations to not have a purely scientific/analytic comparison.

TBH...it doesn't really matter. I'm convinced that many people who are well in the know, are also convinced that the hybrid approach provides the best options, and at the same time removes the need to have any analog vs. digital arguments...though I think there can always be individualized comparisons and debates, like the thing with the Studer plugin vs. a real Studer...or any other analog hardware vs. its plugin emulation.

Often...the differences are going to be quite subtle...and for some, too subtle to matter...but there are also people and recording situations that find the subtleness enough to matter...not to mention, every recording situation is different without even talking about the gear, so it's a case-by-case basis.
In the end...more options and the choices coming from both analog and digital can only be a good thing...as much as one can manage to have.

I certainly don't subscribe to placing limitations on options, as much as I understand how they can influence what we do and how we do it....not that I think we need 1000 ways to do any one thing, and that we must explore all 1000 ways before making decisions. Each production should have some of both, at the right moments.