producerkid
New member
Those who run multi-format facilities or have a DAW and a great tape deck, lend me your ears.....literally.
Find a purely digital sound from a purely digital source (like a purely synthesized sound or even using an electronica track ripped at a high sampling rate from a cd that you know was completely sequenced/recorded on a DAW without any other D/A conversion). Record that digitally (s/pdif) or import it into your DAW on a stereo track of its own.
Now take the same source or track and record it to tape (fresh if possible). After its been recorded to tape, record it into your DAW on its own track side-by-side with the purely digital track.
Now, record a stringed instrument of some sort (prefferably a cello or violin) to tape, and then record that performance from tape into your DAW on a new track side-by-side with the other synth/electronic tracks. Now record the same string performance (as close as you can get it with as close to the same mic proximity as you can get with the same signal chain) directly to your DAW, again side by side with the other tracks.
Throughout this entire process, keep your sources as dry as possible with no additional processing whatsoever. Also, get your signal-to-tape as hot as possible without saturation and use no noise reduction.
Balance the track volumes between the two electronic sources so that they are apparently the same. Do the same with the string performance tracks.
Heres the real kicker....
Get in front of your monitors or in a great set of headphones, clear your head, and get the volume to a substantial level. A/B the electronic tracks as seamlessly as possible and note the differences unforgivingly. Do the same with the string performances.
What I believe will happen:
1) The electronic track that was recorded to tape before digital will be missing transients and depth, or "realism" (lol) that the completely digital track retains. It will sound smeared and unbelieveable. You won't want to keep listening to it or at least won't be taken aback by it.
2) The string performance that was recorded to tape will sound as it should, albeit a bit noisier. It will sound like an instrument. The digital recording will have a very artificial "buzziness" to it. Dare i say choppiness? hehheh.
FINAL SUMMATION?: none
Well, in a way. Ever notice that old electronic music recorded and delivered on analog medium (listen to an old Kraftwerk album for example) sounds like shit? It might be "cool" but it sounds like shit. lol. Alot of old rock recordings tracked on analog will still sound like shit until you turn up the volume on a good stereo. These recordings were meant to be played loud with lots of fidelity to boot. The old component systems of the late 70's/80's (tube or solid state) which were replaced by the smaller, modular systems of today(Aiwa, Sony, JVC, you name it) will make you hear music in a different light. Old rock and classical recordings will come alive and sound as if they are "in your head", and modern recordings will be near-unlistenable past a certain volume threshold which you can find quickly. Especially modern rock recordings. It's because most good systems from that era could re-create sounds beyond the threshold of active human hearing. The mini-systems of today are laughable at best for critical listening and its that reason that alot of modern recordings are being forced into "ugliness" to be accepted and to come across well by todays standards. And I'll be my own advocate. Alot of modern rock recordings sound kickass to me. Ultra-compressed drum and bass sounds sound fucking AWESOME if they are done the right way. However, shitty recordings that are over-compressed to conform to the "small stereo" standard just piss me off and sound like garbage.
All I am saying is that whether or not something should be tracked analog or digital depends on the source, not necassarily the style of music. If the source is purely synthesized or artificial and the intention is NOT to sound at all organic, it's generally going to sound better from the source if it's recorded digital. Same applies with analog for an organic source. Now don't confuse organic for analog. An analog synth from the 80's will still sound like a generally "digital" instrument. That's because it is an artificially created, synthesized sound. If you record an analog synth to digital it will still sound focused and articulate. If you record it to tape it might not sound like shit, but it will sound un-naturally organic or "non-realistic", lol.
So, really, it's all about how you plan on things coming across in the end result. I'm not saying by any means that it is not possible to make something organic sound great in digital by any means or vice-versa for something un-organic on tape. However, it's not true-to-life by default, so it is going to take alot more attention to detail and alot more skill as well as unnecassary processing to make the same source sound accurate on the "wrong" medium.
There is a confusing stipulation. Why does something organic that was tracked analog and then transferred to digital still sound better or "different" (i.e. drums) than it would had it been tracked straight to a DAW? Well my belief is that it is because the recorded source from analog being transferred to digital stream is now asymmetrical to the digital stream. The bits being chopped up during the transfer don't conflict with the original signal because it has been given a chance to develop before being resampled. The digital transfer doesnt within itself sound better or different, but is more of an illusion. Digital is digital. If you are converting a track from tape to a digital format, the signal is still being resampled. However, the signal being first recorded on tape will still give the effect of being more true-to-life because it was captured first without interruption or "sampling". Of course the results will vary because every tape machine has its own response curve, but an audio workstation will always have a flat response within itself (not including mics, preamps, etc).
So ultimately, "true-to-life" is really bullshit. lol. If anything, digital recording is more generally true-to-life. However, it is the illusion of choice that matters the most. Even the best tape machine will alter the recorded source to it's own spec. But the point is that this is something you either desire or you don't. Either way, tape is still not chopping up your source into fine pieces and re-assembling them. It's just that for some sources the "tape effect" is deffinately desirable and will allow for much more realism in the final product. But again, for some music, "realism" isnt important and can sometimes hurt the final product and forcably make it "unrealistic". Electronica music is not organic or realistic by any means, so recording it to tape is probly not going to yield something thats ultra-dimensional. At best, it will still sound cool but it will not sound impressive and be even less 3D unless you REALLY work on it but then you are just aggrivating something that would have been fine on disk and risking the overall fidelity.
Tape and tape recorders react like the human ear and each tape machine is subject to having its own character just like every persons set of ears. This is why some people choose certain tape decks over others and the same reason why people choose certain producers and engineers over others. It's the way they "hear" things.
Even tape decks with a "flat" response (any late Studer) are usually preffered for organic recordings over digital because the result is still every bit as organic as the real thing. Organic sounds are NOT numbers and switches.
Take from this what you will, I am not going to dictate the way someone should or shouldn't make a record. There is no "good" way to make a record, but there are better ones.
Also, as a sidenote, ever wonder why recording more than one mic on a source makes that source sound fuller ESPECIALLY in digital? Conflicting, or "out of sync" samples between the two tracks channels cause the signal to blend better within itself because there are no "pieces" missing due to the capturing of the source in two different instances of time.
Hehheh. I'm not an expert but I definately know what my ears tell me and don't ignore ANYTHING.
~the kid
Find a purely digital sound from a purely digital source (like a purely synthesized sound or even using an electronica track ripped at a high sampling rate from a cd that you know was completely sequenced/recorded on a DAW without any other D/A conversion). Record that digitally (s/pdif) or import it into your DAW on a stereo track of its own.
Now take the same source or track and record it to tape (fresh if possible). After its been recorded to tape, record it into your DAW on its own track side-by-side with the purely digital track.
Now, record a stringed instrument of some sort (prefferably a cello or violin) to tape, and then record that performance from tape into your DAW on a new track side-by-side with the other synth/electronic tracks. Now record the same string performance (as close as you can get it with as close to the same mic proximity as you can get with the same signal chain) directly to your DAW, again side by side with the other tracks.
Throughout this entire process, keep your sources as dry as possible with no additional processing whatsoever. Also, get your signal-to-tape as hot as possible without saturation and use no noise reduction.
Balance the track volumes between the two electronic sources so that they are apparently the same. Do the same with the string performance tracks.
Heres the real kicker....
Get in front of your monitors or in a great set of headphones, clear your head, and get the volume to a substantial level. A/B the electronic tracks as seamlessly as possible and note the differences unforgivingly. Do the same with the string performances.
What I believe will happen:
1) The electronic track that was recorded to tape before digital will be missing transients and depth, or "realism" (lol) that the completely digital track retains. It will sound smeared and unbelieveable. You won't want to keep listening to it or at least won't be taken aback by it.
2) The string performance that was recorded to tape will sound as it should, albeit a bit noisier. It will sound like an instrument. The digital recording will have a very artificial "buzziness" to it. Dare i say choppiness? hehheh.
FINAL SUMMATION?: none
Well, in a way. Ever notice that old electronic music recorded and delivered on analog medium (listen to an old Kraftwerk album for example) sounds like shit? It might be "cool" but it sounds like shit. lol. Alot of old rock recordings tracked on analog will still sound like shit until you turn up the volume on a good stereo. These recordings were meant to be played loud with lots of fidelity to boot. The old component systems of the late 70's/80's (tube or solid state) which were replaced by the smaller, modular systems of today(Aiwa, Sony, JVC, you name it) will make you hear music in a different light. Old rock and classical recordings will come alive and sound as if they are "in your head", and modern recordings will be near-unlistenable past a certain volume threshold which you can find quickly. Especially modern rock recordings. It's because most good systems from that era could re-create sounds beyond the threshold of active human hearing. The mini-systems of today are laughable at best for critical listening and its that reason that alot of modern recordings are being forced into "ugliness" to be accepted and to come across well by todays standards. And I'll be my own advocate. Alot of modern rock recordings sound kickass to me. Ultra-compressed drum and bass sounds sound fucking AWESOME if they are done the right way. However, shitty recordings that are over-compressed to conform to the "small stereo" standard just piss me off and sound like garbage.
All I am saying is that whether or not something should be tracked analog or digital depends on the source, not necassarily the style of music. If the source is purely synthesized or artificial and the intention is NOT to sound at all organic, it's generally going to sound better from the source if it's recorded digital. Same applies with analog for an organic source. Now don't confuse organic for analog. An analog synth from the 80's will still sound like a generally "digital" instrument. That's because it is an artificially created, synthesized sound. If you record an analog synth to digital it will still sound focused and articulate. If you record it to tape it might not sound like shit, but it will sound un-naturally organic or "non-realistic", lol.
So, really, it's all about how you plan on things coming across in the end result. I'm not saying by any means that it is not possible to make something organic sound great in digital by any means or vice-versa for something un-organic on tape. However, it's not true-to-life by default, so it is going to take alot more attention to detail and alot more skill as well as unnecassary processing to make the same source sound accurate on the "wrong" medium.
There is a confusing stipulation. Why does something organic that was tracked analog and then transferred to digital still sound better or "different" (i.e. drums) than it would had it been tracked straight to a DAW? Well my belief is that it is because the recorded source from analog being transferred to digital stream is now asymmetrical to the digital stream. The bits being chopped up during the transfer don't conflict with the original signal because it has been given a chance to develop before being resampled. The digital transfer doesnt within itself sound better or different, but is more of an illusion. Digital is digital. If you are converting a track from tape to a digital format, the signal is still being resampled. However, the signal being first recorded on tape will still give the effect of being more true-to-life because it was captured first without interruption or "sampling". Of course the results will vary because every tape machine has its own response curve, but an audio workstation will always have a flat response within itself (not including mics, preamps, etc).
So ultimately, "true-to-life" is really bullshit. lol. If anything, digital recording is more generally true-to-life. However, it is the illusion of choice that matters the most. Even the best tape machine will alter the recorded source to it's own spec. But the point is that this is something you either desire or you don't. Either way, tape is still not chopping up your source into fine pieces and re-assembling them. It's just that for some sources the "tape effect" is deffinately desirable and will allow for much more realism in the final product. But again, for some music, "realism" isnt important and can sometimes hurt the final product and forcably make it "unrealistic". Electronica music is not organic or realistic by any means, so recording it to tape is probly not going to yield something thats ultra-dimensional. At best, it will still sound cool but it will not sound impressive and be even less 3D unless you REALLY work on it but then you are just aggrivating something that would have been fine on disk and risking the overall fidelity.
Tape and tape recorders react like the human ear and each tape machine is subject to having its own character just like every persons set of ears. This is why some people choose certain tape decks over others and the same reason why people choose certain producers and engineers over others. It's the way they "hear" things.
Even tape decks with a "flat" response (any late Studer) are usually preffered for organic recordings over digital because the result is still every bit as organic as the real thing. Organic sounds are NOT numbers and switches.
Take from this what you will, I am not going to dictate the way someone should or shouldn't make a record. There is no "good" way to make a record, but there are better ones.
Also, as a sidenote, ever wonder why recording more than one mic on a source makes that source sound fuller ESPECIALLY in digital? Conflicting, or "out of sync" samples between the two tracks channels cause the signal to blend better within itself because there are no "pieces" missing due to the capturing of the source in two different instances of time.
Hehheh. I'm not an expert but I definately know what my ears tell me and don't ignore ANYTHING.
~the kid
Last edited:
Digital and analog both have their strengths and weaknesses. It would be expensive and time consuming, but if studios utilized both formats to create an album, it would be an excellent sound to the ears. They would have to find a method that worked for them that would enable them to mix down the analog and digital at the same time, without running the tape through a DAW or a dozen or so pieces of equipment with D/A converters to deteriorate the original analog signal. I don't see that happening and this "analog vs digital" debate will rage on until either A) us fans of analog finally all die off, or B) the end of time.
However, I’ve found that tape helps soften harsh digital signals… for example, from digital 80’s synths (many of which I still own) and digital drum machines of any vintage. Well, tape helps temper transients in general from any instrument, acoustic or synthesized, digital or analog. That’s one reason why I prefer it. 
). I’ll find it around here sometime. I use the term, “Better than live” in describing what analog tape can do for music. I prefer it to fidelity in many cases. 