jpmorris
Tape Wolf
I've now put up my copy of the Mr. Right digital mix. I'll ask the guy if he's willing to put the digital version back up on his site, but until then:
Tape mix:
Digital mix:
Tape mix:
Digital mix:
A
analogelectric
New member
Dr ZEE said:
Otari MTR90-II
Dr ZEE said:
I run Steinberg Nuendo 2.2.b39, (2) Motu HD192 I/O's, G5 dual 2GHz.
Dr ZEE said:
TASCAM Portastudio 464. From what I gather is my friend is using the "mic in" on the G4's stock audio card of which I've been trying to convince him otherwise.
Not to harp on semantics but I consider audio software and the computer being used for audio as recording gear.
Dr ZEE said:If you'd answer the questions above, than at least it would be possible to know what exactly your openion is about
I was trying to convey that I was impressed with the results. Especially since I started analog and was wary of digital recording up until a year ago. Then the a/b tests I've done turned out positive.
Dr ZEE said:A wild thought: an advice could be - "Ask for advice some experienced guy in recording his own stuff for fun instead of a guy experienced in recording somebody else's stuff for cash".
So my opinion doesn't matter because I engineer for a living? Or am I just reading that wrong? I still record my own stuff for fun, my friend came to me for advice because he trusts my opinion, and he wanted to pick my brain a little. I don't understand how my advice would be destructive.
If I'm not welcome on this message board because I make a living recording, then so be it.
-- Adam Lazlo
M
mr.rich
New member
i think lazlo would be the perfect choice to do the comparisons. hes got a good tape deck and a pc system of comparible quality. id say if he could post a couple mp3s on here of say a full drum set... kick, snare, toms, overhead, and hat (because i think hat sounds god awfull in pc alot of times) with his nice mic list through the neotek wed get a good a/b. if he was so kind as to send me the neotek id provide the mp3s myself 
.
.
T
themaddog
Rockin' & Rollin'
Comparisons
I recorded a friend last Saturday. He plays acoustic guitar and sings. I'd never recorded acoustic guitar before, so I figured I'd take a shotgun approach to trying to getting it right and save time.
I used a Tascam 2516 console, which was routed to a Tascam MSR-16 (with DBX), a 22-2 (no NR), and into my computer through a Delta 44. In summary: 4 tracks on the MSR-16, 4 on the Delta 44, and 2 mixed "live" to the 22-2. On the MSR-16 I used a special formulation of Emtec LPR 35, and on the 22-2 I used Quantegy 407, both machines at 15 ips. I recorded the Delta 44 at 24-bit, 96.6k. I used two condensers on the guitar, one at the sound hole, the other up above the guitarist's shoulder, angled in such a way to avoid phase cancelation (I checked everything in mono, no phase problems that I could hear). Aimed at the singer's mouth, but a couple feet back, I used a ribbon mic to capture the room and vocals. The last track was direct in from a pickup on his guitar that added a little more bass, but at the same time some more attack. He sang and played at the same time, live to both tape machines and computer. I recorded in this way because I try to be open-minded about how I record, and figured the thing that digital would be able to do best would be record pristinely clean, acoustic instruments. And, like I said, since I'd never recorded this type of music before, I was interested in seeing where it would go.
How anyone feels about the mic placement I used, the mics (which were cheap - Nady and Oktava), and my pre's is irrelevant: each recorder got the same treatment and the exact same take. The signal going into each recorder was strong, with the digital signal centered around -4. I kept the peaks on the tape machines as close to 0 as possible, and they barely went over at all. So, I used a strong, but typical signal into all of the recorders, for the best possible signal to noise on that particular medium.
The Tascam 22-2 had a great sound. A little bassier, but much fuller than all of the other mediums. The only downside, of course, was I have no real control over it unless I master it to another format, where I could fool with EQ, channel mixing, etc. There was barely any audible hiss, but I don't have any noise reduction for this recorder anyway.
The MSR-16 sounded really good, no hiss at all, very full sound. I wish I could have used a recorder more suited for this kind of music, like a TSR-8 or even a 22-4, but no big deal.
The Delta 44 sound OK, but, weak and tinny in comparison to the tape machines. But no hiss, right? He he he.
When I listened back to all of these, they were all "unmixed," with the same settings playing back as they went in. Now, of course I could mix the MSR-16 and Delta 44 tracks and make either of them sound "better," but I haven't yet. I'm open-minded, maybe I could make the Delta 44 end-mix sound better than the MSR-16 mix once I mix it down to computer, but I don't think I could, as I find it much easier to mix with analog. However, I don't doubt that a true engineering professional could take these digital tracks and make his or her end result sound a helluva lot better than the analog mix I could make, even using my cheap equipment. But, by the same token, I feel an analog professional could obtain an even better result than the digital.
I also let the perfomer hear the different takes (or rather, the same take done on different machines) and he agreed that the digital one was the worst. It wasn't that it was bad, it just couldn't hold up to the fullness of the analog versions. There was also not a huge difference between the MSR-16 and 22-2, but I personally liked the 22-2 sound best, probably for the more "raw" sound.
Now, of course my opinion is all well and good for whoever has reached this far down to the end of this post, but there's no way anyone could possibly hear these major differences unless they came to my basement... err, studio... But, I am a believer in the fact that analog tape can soften the blow to digital, and add pleasing effects like watching a film on DVD instead of VHS, rather than dumping right to digital. So, if anyone wanted me to convert these three mediums to MP3 for them to try and compare, I could for you. There might be somewhat of a difference, but the MP3 strips so much out of the life of the recording, that I'm not sure which will sound coming out on top.
If I have a request or two to do this I will, and would follow the same procedure on each take. I would not mix any of them, other than putting it to stereo from 4 tracks, but this would be without changing how the signal went in, just playing back at unity. After having a stereo mix of each, at as strong a digital signal I could put it to, I would normalize each to the same value (probably 95% to try to avoid further MP3 artifacts), then put them all to MP3. Then you all can decide, he he.
-MD
I recorded a friend last Saturday. He plays acoustic guitar and sings. I'd never recorded acoustic guitar before, so I figured I'd take a shotgun approach to trying to getting it right and save time.
I used a Tascam 2516 console, which was routed to a Tascam MSR-16 (with DBX), a 22-2 (no NR), and into my computer through a Delta 44. In summary: 4 tracks on the MSR-16, 4 on the Delta 44, and 2 mixed "live" to the 22-2. On the MSR-16 I used a special formulation of Emtec LPR 35, and on the 22-2 I used Quantegy 407, both machines at 15 ips. I recorded the Delta 44 at 24-bit, 96.6k. I used two condensers on the guitar, one at the sound hole, the other up above the guitarist's shoulder, angled in such a way to avoid phase cancelation (I checked everything in mono, no phase problems that I could hear). Aimed at the singer's mouth, but a couple feet back, I used a ribbon mic to capture the room and vocals. The last track was direct in from a pickup on his guitar that added a little more bass, but at the same time some more attack. He sang and played at the same time, live to both tape machines and computer. I recorded in this way because I try to be open-minded about how I record, and figured the thing that digital would be able to do best would be record pristinely clean, acoustic instruments. And, like I said, since I'd never recorded this type of music before, I was interested in seeing where it would go.
How anyone feels about the mic placement I used, the mics (which were cheap - Nady and Oktava), and my pre's is irrelevant: each recorder got the same treatment and the exact same take. The signal going into each recorder was strong, with the digital signal centered around -4. I kept the peaks on the tape machines as close to 0 as possible, and they barely went over at all. So, I used a strong, but typical signal into all of the recorders, for the best possible signal to noise on that particular medium.
The Tascam 22-2 had a great sound. A little bassier, but much fuller than all of the other mediums. The only downside, of course, was I have no real control over it unless I master it to another format, where I could fool with EQ, channel mixing, etc. There was barely any audible hiss, but I don't have any noise reduction for this recorder anyway.
The MSR-16 sounded really good, no hiss at all, very full sound. I wish I could have used a recorder more suited for this kind of music, like a TSR-8 or even a 22-4, but no big deal.
The Delta 44 sound OK, but, weak and tinny in comparison to the tape machines. But no hiss, right? He he he.
When I listened back to all of these, they were all "unmixed," with the same settings playing back as they went in. Now, of course I could mix the MSR-16 and Delta 44 tracks and make either of them sound "better," but I haven't yet. I'm open-minded, maybe I could make the Delta 44 end-mix sound better than the MSR-16 mix once I mix it down to computer, but I don't think I could, as I find it much easier to mix with analog. However, I don't doubt that a true engineering professional could take these digital tracks and make his or her end result sound a helluva lot better than the analog mix I could make, even using my cheap equipment. But, by the same token, I feel an analog professional could obtain an even better result than the digital.
I also let the perfomer hear the different takes (or rather, the same take done on different machines) and he agreed that the digital one was the worst. It wasn't that it was bad, it just couldn't hold up to the fullness of the analog versions. There was also not a huge difference between the MSR-16 and 22-2, but I personally liked the 22-2 sound best, probably for the more "raw" sound.
Now, of course my opinion is all well and good for whoever has reached this far down to the end of this post, but there's no way anyone could possibly hear these major differences unless they came to my basement... err, studio... But, I am a believer in the fact that analog tape can soften the blow to digital, and add pleasing effects like watching a film on DVD instead of VHS, rather than dumping right to digital. So, if anyone wanted me to convert these three mediums to MP3 for them to try and compare, I could for you. There might be somewhat of a difference, but the MP3 strips so much out of the life of the recording, that I'm not sure which will sound coming out on top.
If I have a request or two to do this I will, and would follow the same procedure on each take. I would not mix any of them, other than putting it to stereo from 4 tracks, but this would be without changing how the signal went in, just playing back at unity. After having a stereo mix of each, at as strong a digital signal I could put it to, I would normalize each to the same value (probably 95% to try to avoid further MP3 artifacts), then put them all to MP3. Then you all can decide, he he.
-MD
Dr ZEE
Anti-Pro Circles Insider
themaddog! That sounds like THE test .... , cool!
exactly! When running a recording equipment comparison test (and doing it as 'correctly'! as possible with equipment/set-up you have) this sort of conclusion comes out pretty much 'naturally' - you know right on the spot, that if you do any re-recording or converting to a different format or apply any extra factor which would affect the result, then the whole test becomes pretty much useless and may easily be misleading.
... not to mention that those major differences , that you are talking about are very open to subjective interpretations.
/respects
, cool!themaddog said:
exactly! When running a recording equipment comparison test (and doing it as 'correctly'! as possible with equipment/set-up you have) this sort of conclusion comes out pretty much 'naturally' - you know right on the spot, that if you do any re-recording or converting to a different format or apply any extra factor which would affect the result, then the whole test becomes pretty much useless and may easily be misleading.
... not to mention that those major differences
, that you are talking about are very open to subjective interpretations./respects
T
themaddog
Rockin' & Rollin'
One quick note
I completely forgot about having to dither everything to 16-bit first, before even going to MP3, so who knows what would happen to it next.
Tell you what, I'm changing my offer a little bit. If anyone wants to hear the difference and for me to post sound files, I'll do them all at 24-bit/96k, that way I don't have to mess with the dithering, keeping the number of digital processes to a minimum. That, and I'll only be able to provide maybe 10 seconds of each recording since the files would be huge. Although, I do have the server space...
-MD
I completely forgot about having to dither everything to 16-bit first, before even going to MP3, so who knows what would happen to it next.
Tell you what, I'm changing my offer a little bit. If anyone wants to hear the difference and for me to post sound files, I'll do them all at 24-bit/96k, that way I don't have to mess with the dithering, keeping the number of digital processes to a minimum. That, and I'll only be able to provide maybe 10 seconds of each recording since the files would be huge. Although, I do have the server space...
-MD