Is there life after digital?

M

Mercuri

New member
Question for those experienced in the issue...

I'm sorry but doing straight digital and mixing in the box will never sound quite like hitting 2" tape and blending it all together in an SSL board...

Now for those of us with no hope of financially appropriating such niceities but still possessing the burning desire to get that sound we all know and have come to love so much -

What happens when you record in digital (high sampling/bit rate) on really high quality equipment with the right technique, go to a pro studio, transfer EVERY TRACK to 2" tape and allow analog distortion where you need it, and then mix direct from the tape? Will this get you that analog warmth? In my mind I'm wondering if it doesn't matter if it hits the tape then goes digital, or if it hits digital and then goes to tape? Anyone had any pro experience with this method?
 
Actually is usually goes the other way. Track to 2" and then sometimes bounced to a digital editor for mixing.

I understand your question though. Someone here will pipe up about the effects of bouncing digital-analog-digital.
 
I can't see where there would be much benefit from transfering every individual track over to tape. Why not keep the tracks digital, but send them to an external analog mixer for the final mixdown and then just capture the 2 track final mix on tape?
 
Well, the point is to get that smoothed-over sound only tracking to analog tape can provide. It's to impart "true" analog warmth. I'd keep it all digital but it ends up sounding a little cold.

Wondering if going off digital to tape is actually just as good as going tape to digital.

One way requires source to tape to digital to analog mixer to digital again. 3 DAC/ADC conversions.

The other way goes source to digital to tape to analog mixer to digital again. 3 DAC/ADC conversions.

Is one actually better than the other? Because if not, I can salvage all my digital mixes by going to a pro studio for mixing and make them sound like they were all tracked in analog. :D

Chibi - this way I can control individual track tape saturation and the like. Though what you say does make sense.
 
Mercuri said:
Well, the point is to get that smoothed-over sound only tracking to analog tape can provide. It's to impart "true" analog warmth. I'd keep it all digital but it ends up sounding a little cold.
Click to expand...

It's interesting that good digital can copy and reproduce the effects of analog tape, but not the other way around, more or less. One medium comes out looking potentially the more neutral of the two.
wayne
 
It can work either way but if you want the true 'tape' sound then you need to track to tape. If you track to digital then transfer to tape you've captured a different type of sound then if you tracked to tape first. Once you hit the digital convertors you've lost the pure analog signal so the tape needs to be first if you're really anal about the whole thing.
 
Well... Assuming your DAC's and ADC's are almost perfect and capture an exact copy of the electrical waveform - why should it matter if it hits analog before or after? Either way the tape is being fed an almost exact replica of the sound. I can understand it would be a *little* different, but not dramatically so?

Bah, no way to get "true" tape sound if you're even gonna go digital. ;) I wanna edit the crud out of my mixes but have it sound analog at the same time. :D
 
I read an interview once with Rick Rubin . . . can't remember where . . . anyway, he mentioned that he likes to do just what you're talking about with drums, at times.

Basically tracks them digitally, but sometimes if he "can't stand" the sound of it, he'll run it out to 2" and then back untill he can "stand it" again. :D

Must have been a good article -- I remember it pretty well after reading it at least a few years ago.

Anyway, I've always thought the whole analog being warmer/smoother thing was more psychosomatic than anything else. Oh well, I guess if our brains think it sounds better, then it really does, then doesn't it?
 
I feel you have to look at the benifits and drawbacks of each...

If you need the saturation available in analogue you have to be willing to deal with line noise and the fact there's no "undo" button...

add digital and it's inherent blocky sine wave but no line noise for effects...

So if you put an assload of effects on a track analoge mixs can get pretty noisy.

It has to be converted to 16bit 44.1 khz to go on CD... then compressed in mastering... and compressed really hard in broadcast...and some stations broadcast MP3's instead of PCM's and if you're lucky the listener has a reasonably balanced sterio...

I feel adding any more steps would only lead to degrade the final product.
 
chessrock said:
I read an interview once with Rick Rubin . . . can't remember where . . . anyway, he mentioned that he likes to do just what you're talking about with drums, at times.

Basically tracks them digitally, but sometimes if he "can't stand" the sound of it, he'll run it out to 2" and then back untill he can "stand it" again. :D ....
Click to expand...

Ah,yes. Re-amping.:D
 
I think it would be easier to start out in analog if that's the sound you want.

Such a commotion just to get that 2" sound. Or 1" or 1/2" for that matter.

I know 1/2" doesn't sound anything close to two inch 30IPS, but I like what I record and I've heard what comes out of my computer after the bounce. I don't care much for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top