lonewhitefly
Active member
… for me, it’s impossible to make the kind of records I’m after digitally. So I continue to accept the flipside of the coin too.
My reel to reel experience. Back to digital.
- Thread starter rob aylestone
- Start date
I’ve heard a lot of pristine, perfect digital recordings. Flawless! But...........
The music that was so precisely captured, with perfect fidelity and in perfect time flat out sucked.
I’ve heard many tape recordings, that while they didn’t have the sonic purity of digital, they were brilliant. Think “Dark Side of the Moon” or Jimi’s “Electric Ladyland”. Or how about Deep Purple’s live album “Made in Japan”. (2 four track machines)
Could all those mentioned Artists do a better job with today’s equipment??
Maybe, but maybe not. What if the modern gear distracted them from the craft of music making and the focus went into being in perfect time, cutting and pasting things together, screwing around with different plug ins, making sure every note was perfect, pitch correction,etc.
I don’t think music is about perfection myself. It’s about conveying an emotion, a feeling, telling a story.
I think someone has to be as comfortable as possible with the gear being used to where the focus is not on the technical, but on the music being created.
Today I think there is more focus on technical perfection than the actual artistic creation.
So in closing, I believe whatever medium you’re the most comfortable with is the best one to use.
And to me, it seems some of the best music created was done in the tape era.
Just my humble opinion.
The music that was so precisely captured, with perfect fidelity and in perfect time flat out sucked.
I’ve heard many tape recordings, that while they didn’t have the sonic purity of digital, they were brilliant. Think “Dark Side of the Moon” or Jimi’s “Electric Ladyland”. Or how about Deep Purple’s live album “Made in Japan”. (2 four track machines)
Could all those mentioned Artists do a better job with today’s equipment??
Maybe, but maybe not. What if the modern gear distracted them from the craft of music making and the focus went into being in perfect time, cutting and pasting things together, screwing around with different plug ins, making sure every note was perfect, pitch correction,etc.
I don’t think music is about perfection myself. It’s about conveying an emotion, a feeling, telling a story.
I think someone has to be as comfortable as possible with the gear being used to where the focus is not on the technical, but on the music being created.
Today I think there is more focus on technical perfection than the actual artistic creation.
So in closing, I believe whatever medium you’re the most comfortable with is the best one to use.
And to me, it seems some of the best music created was done in the tape era.
Just my humble opinion.
rob aylestone
Moderator
Don’t mistake a great project for a project made great by technology. So often the artistes don’t believe they were perfect, hence why they get remixed to fix what they didn’t like. The albums like made in Japan and yellow brick road were great despite the technology, so when they get the chance to remaster them, they do it. From the Beatles onwards, people pushed and pushed, with the technology the barrier. Imagine the quandary of being in the studio and being told you can have X or Y but not both? Pink Floyd didnt stay with analogue. Nor did Alan Parsons. Did anybody see the sparkly brand new digital multitrack and say nah, we‘ll use the old one. The best music I agree was done in the analogue multitrack days, but not because of it.
TalismanRich
Well-known member
Mark Knopfler went digital with Brothers In Arms because he wanted the best quality sound he could get. At that time, it was the 24 track Sony at AIR studios. Dire Straits had already cut 4 albums via tape. Brothers was the first album to sell over a million copies in CD format. I have yet to hear anyone complain that it sounds like crap. Its a superb album.
Dark Side, Made In Japan, Electric Ladyland were all recorded on analog tape because that was the best available at the time. Digital was still 10+ years into the future. That's like saying that Robert Johnson preferred to record direct to a lacquer disk over using a multitrack tape. You can still record direct to disk, lots of albums were cut that way in the 80s just to avoid the problems introduced by tape.
Use whatever you want, but don't make the mistake of saying that techniques of the past are inherently better because something great was done that way. As Rob said, it was great in spite of the process, not because of it.
Dark Side, Made In Japan, Electric Ladyland were all recorded on analog tape because that was the best available at the time. Digital was still 10+ years into the future. That's like saying that Robert Johnson preferred to record direct to a lacquer disk over using a multitrack tape. You can still record direct to disk, lots of albums were cut that way in the 80s just to avoid the problems introduced by tape.
Use whatever you want, but don't make the mistake of saying that techniques of the past are inherently better because something great was done that way. As Rob said, it was great in spite of the process, not because of it.
bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
Having the option to edit to the grid, correct every pitch imperfection and squeeze the humanity out of a recording doesn't mean you have to do it.
rob aylestone
Moderator
When Cubase was at the Cubase lite stage, all the students I was teaching thought step input was the best way to get notes and drums in. While it worked for 90s synth pop, it robbed the life out of 'real' music, played by real people - and half of their exams became classical music - something most were unfamiliar with, along with jazz. When we bought an electronic drum kit the kids thought the drummers were crap because the notes on the grid were all off. They struggled with the notion that off-beat could be good. People still quantise the life out of the wrong type of music.
bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
A good chunk of this thread was dumping on digital, and for at least fairly good reason (that it enables overly perfect results).
I kind of like working with analog recordings, but old ones. There's a place for doing new work in analog, but I personally wouldn't bother unless I had access to very high grade gear and the technical support to keep it working optimally.
I kind of like working with analog recordings, but old ones. There's a place for doing new work in analog, but I personally wouldn't bother unless I had access to very high grade gear and the technical support to keep it working optimally.
I re-read the thread. I didn’t see a good chunk of the thread dumping on digital.
And for my own contribution, I wasn’t dumping on digital at all. I use it in addition to tape, and sometimes don’t use tape at all.
I was just trying to convey that the art of the music was more important than the capture method.
Regarding the bands who’s work I was fond of that recorded in the analog domain, I immediately got the response of how much better it would have been had it been recorded digitally. An attitude that he artists did the best they could with their limited resources.
I have original vinyl of all the albums and they all sound great to me.
Granted there’s plenty of stuff recoded 100% digital thats spectacular as well.
Here on this forum I Just sometimes feel like there’s anti- tape snobbery going on.
An elitism if you will. I’m sure it’s not intentional.
But on a more positive note;
Being a relative newcomer to digital recording (less than 10 years), I’ve found the digital crowd here to be very helpful in giving advice, tips and generally helping one figure stuff out. Thanks for that.
Last edited:
TalismanRich
Well-known member
RFR, I mostly agree with you.
I was using a reel to reel tape deck (mostly as a guitar amp) when I was 12 yrs old! I bought a 4 channel multitrack deck in '76. It's just that for my personal recording experience, I always found tape recording as a struggle. The sound quality was lacking, and there was no way that I could afford to buy full on pro level studio setup. So my personal recording journey became more sparse over the years. The price/performance ratio is even worse today. Tape alone goes for stupid money! I can't afford to spend my whole Social Security check on a case of 10 reels of tape that would give me maybe 3 hours of recording time.
Once I bought my first digital recorder in 2003, I started getting results I was more satisfied with. Yeah it's not necessarily radio material, but that's never been my goal. My workflow is for the most part linear, I don't obsess over making every note right on the grid. I like to track a guitar through the whole song. I sing a vocal over and over until I get it right, often times punching in a verse, just like you would do on a tape. When I do a solo, it's just arm a track and cut the solo (over and over and over again
). I don't sample or assemble things except with drum tracks, since I haven't had a drummer that I could call and say "Hey, come on over" for 10 years.
But snobbery goes both ways. Statements like "it’s impossible to make the kind of records I’m after digitally" is just as bad as saying all tape is total junk. Use whatever means you want.
For the most part, when I buy music, I don't even consider how it was created. It's the content that concerns me. If the music is good, that's what I want. A crappy song on digital or tape is still a crappy song!
Agreed, It's just that the vast majority of new music that I've gotten is digital. I did buy Joe Walsh's Analog Man, but I think he and Jeff Lynne really recorded it digital. Joe always did have a sense of humor.
For me, it's not elitism or snobbery. In the original post, Rob clearly talks about trying to go down the tape recording route again (a Revox isn't a cheap ass piece of junk) and in the end, he felt an old laptop and cheap Chinese interface sounded better than the Tascam / Revox. Rob has clearly been in this for a long time. It's his living!
I was using a reel to reel tape deck (mostly as a guitar amp) when I was 12 yrs old! I bought a 4 channel multitrack deck in '76. It's just that for my personal recording experience, I always found tape recording as a struggle. The sound quality was lacking, and there was no way that I could afford to buy full on pro level studio setup. So my personal recording journey became more sparse over the years. The price/performance ratio is even worse today. Tape alone goes for stupid money! I can't afford to spend my whole Social Security check on a case of 10 reels of tape that would give me maybe 3 hours of recording time.
Once I bought my first digital recorder in 2003, I started getting results I was more satisfied with. Yeah it's not necessarily radio material, but that's never been my goal. My workflow is for the most part linear, I don't obsess over making every note right on the grid. I like to track a guitar through the whole song. I sing a vocal over and over until I get it right, often times punching in a verse, just like you would do on a tape. When I do a solo, it's just arm a track and cut the solo (over and over and over again
). I don't sample or assemble things except with drum tracks, since I haven't had a drummer that I could call and say "Hey, come on over" for 10 years. But snobbery goes both ways. Statements like "it’s impossible to make the kind of records I’m after digitally" is just as bad as saying all tape is total junk. Use whatever means you want.
My apologies. I’m a bit grumpy.RFR, I mostly agree with you.
For the most part, when I buy music, I don't even consider how it was created. It's the content that concerns me. If the music is good, that's what I want. A crappy song on digital or tape is still a crappy song!
Agreed, It's just that the vast majority of new music that I've gotten is digital. I did buy Joe Walsh's Analog Man, but I think he and Jeff Lynne really recorded it digital. Joe always did have a sense of humor.
For me, it's not elitism or snobbery. In the original post, Rob clearly talks about trying to go down the tape recording route again (a Revox isn't a cheap ass piece of junk) and in the end, he felt an old laptop and cheap Chinese interface sounded better than the Tascam / Revox. Rob has clearly been in this for a long time. It's his living!
I was using a reel to reel tape deck (mostly as a guitar amp) when I was 12 yrs old! I bought a 4 channel multitrack deck in '76. It's just that for my personal recording experience, I always found tape recording as a struggle. The sound quality was lacking, and there was no way that I could afford to buy full on pro level studio setup. So my personal recording journey became more sparse over the years. The price/performance ratio is even worse today. Tape alone goes for stupid money! I can't afford to spend my whole Social Security check on a case of 10 reels of tape that would give me maybe 3 hours of recording time.
Once I bought my first digital recorder in 2003, I started getting results I was more satisfied with. Yeah it's not necessarily radio material, but that's never been my goal. My workflow is for the most part linear, I don't obsess over making every note right on the grid. I like to track a guitar through the whole song. I sing a vocal over and over until I get it right, often times punching in a verse, just like you would do on a tape. When I do a solo, it's just arm a track and cut the solo (over and over and over again
But snobbery goes both ways. Statements like "it’s impossible to make the kind of records I’m after digitally" is just as bad as saying all tape is total junk. Use whatever means you want.
Maybe I’ve been spending too much time over in prime time.
spantini
COO of me, inc.
lonewhitefly
Active member
My statement is a simple, factual statement regarding my own working methods. Would you call someone saying “it’s impossible for me to get the sounds I’m after without a Stratocaster … a Les Paul just can’t do it” snobbery?
rob aylestone
Moderator
I'm in the position of being able to record in any medium. I have nice mics and I'm spoilt for kit. I've read the pro analgue topics for years and decided to give it a blast. To get the two reel to reels I have, I bought 4. One failed in the sellers home, the other 'failed' after delivery when the noise sounded wrong and I discovered it was a 4 track and not the 2 track I had bought. I've refurbed a cassette deck, and pulled out a Soundcraft FX7 24input mixer (which actually works really well).
The only thing I am saying is that the analogue recordings I am able to make are compromised in almost every way.
Running costs
Maintenance
Noise and Distortion
Features
Ease of Use
Reliability
and lastly
Sound quality
They sound worse. No doubt whatsoever. Two AKG 414s on my piano sound better on a macbook with modest interface than they do going into the revox.
Mics - FX7 - Revox vs Mics - Chinese made £50 interface - Cubase on Macbook.
I have spent 30 years assessing 'quality' - by all the methods we have invented - ears, test gear, whatever and I have no doubts whatsoever that the revox or the interface into amp and speakers or headphones produces the best recording on digital. No doubt at alll. worse is that I really wanted analague to win. It isn't bad, but it's compromised so much. My bad playing is evident on both of course, but in pure quality of recording terms - the recording process can be heard on analogue. Hiss is there, plus piano long notes have a tiny warble. Digital doesn't hiss remotely the same and the sustained notes are purer, not warbly.
sad!
The only thing I am saying is that the analogue recordings I am able to make are compromised in almost every way.
Running costs
Maintenance
Noise and Distortion
Features
Ease of Use
Reliability
and lastly
Sound quality
They sound worse. No doubt whatsoever. Two AKG 414s on my piano sound better on a macbook with modest interface than they do going into the revox.
Mics - FX7 - Revox vs Mics - Chinese made £50 interface - Cubase on Macbook.
I have spent 30 years assessing 'quality' - by all the methods we have invented - ears, test gear, whatever and I have no doubts whatsoever that the revox or the interface into amp and speakers or headphones produces the best recording on digital. No doubt at alll. worse is that I really wanted analague to win. It isn't bad, but it's compromised so much. My bad playing is evident on both of course, but in pure quality of recording terms - the recording process can be heard on analogue. Hiss is there, plus piano long notes have a tiny warble. Digital doesn't hiss remotely the same and the sustained notes are purer, not warbly.
sad!
TalismanRich
Well-known member
Yeah, I would. There is no inherent work flow in a recording medium. It's just there to collect the sound. How you use the medium is a different issue.
&*%$! You Rob Alestone! I am trying to flog a Teac A3440 soon as I fix it (another thread)
But yes, you are right (and with the GREATEST repsect to James. Yes, an A77, better B77 in spanking nick will be very good indeed but...record 1kHz at 0 VU and look at the scrape flutter sidebands on an RTA, most DAWs have one but I use RightMark. I doubt they will be below 50dB ref 0VU. Do that in digital and they could be -80 or better. And don't try recording 10kHz at 0VU!)
I had a conversation with my son a few months ago when I had thought of selling the Teac because I thou8ght he might have some deep sentimental attachment? Not really, he told me that now he felt incredibly lucky to have had use of the machine for a couple of years. Not many teenagers had a really good semi-pro 4 track 15ips machine to eff about with!
Now however he feels even luckier to have his modest mic collection, a mixer and a MOTU M4..."Just SO easy and good to use dad!" He has said that he spent a lot of time trying to imitate the 'mojo' of the artists he loved, mainly the Beatles but has come to the conclusion that "THE SOUND" back then was the result of everything going on and not just the tape.
Re "mothballing" Rob? I suspect the 'bubble' will burst in not many years time and the machines become worth very little plus storing them unused will cause then to fail I think. Might be why my bias osc' don't go!
Dave.
But yes, you are right (and with the GREATEST repsect to James. Yes, an A77, better B77 in spanking nick will be very good indeed but...record 1kHz at 0 VU and look at the scrape flutter sidebands on an RTA, most DAWs have one but I use RightMark. I doubt they will be below 50dB ref 0VU. Do that in digital and they could be -80 or better. And don't try recording 10kHz at 0VU!)
I had a conversation with my son a few months ago when I had thought of selling the Teac because I thou8ght he might have some deep sentimental attachment? Not really, he told me that now he felt incredibly lucky to have had use of the machine for a couple of years. Not many teenagers had a really good semi-pro 4 track 15ips machine to eff about with!
Now however he feels even luckier to have his modest mic collection, a mixer and a MOTU M4..."Just SO easy and good to use dad!" He has said that he spent a lot of time trying to imitate the 'mojo' of the artists he loved, mainly the Beatles but has come to the conclusion that "THE SOUND" back then was the result of everything going on and not just the tape.
Re "mothballing" Rob? I suspect the 'bubble' will burst in not many years time and the machines become worth very little plus storing them unused will cause then to fail I think. Might be why my bias osc' don't go!
Dave.
TalismanRich
Well-known member
I recently watched a video where there was a direct comparison of drums on both 24 track and ProTools. When I listened to the digital vs tape, it was a minuscule difference but there was a slight edge taken off by the tape. . Now, I used to listen to our drummer, and the one thing that I always felt was that I lost the shimmer on cymbals and snap, especially on snare. That was a BAD thing. Mind you that at 70 yrs old, my hearing is toasted compared to when I was 25. I can only imagine how much I'm missing now.
All I hear from people is that tape compresses stuff and makes it fat and warm, and that's a GOOD THING! Sorry, but in my day, cutting off transients and top end were not the goal. So it's become a matter of perspective, and in an almost lemming like manner, they espouse the glories of tape. I think the problem is that people don't want the sound of drums, they want the sound of RECORDED drums.
That's like saying I don't want to see the Grand Canyon, I want to see a movie about the Grand Canyon. The experience isn't the same.
All I hear from people is that tape compresses stuff and makes it fat and warm, and that's a GOOD THING! Sorry, but in my day, cutting off transients and top end were not the goal. So it's become a matter of perspective, and in an almost lemming like manner, they espouse the glories of tape. I think the problem is that people don't want the sound of drums, they want the sound of RECORDED drums.
That's like saying I don't want to see the Grand Canyon, I want to see a movie about the Grand Canyon. The experience isn't the same.
Blue Jinn
Rider of the ARPocalypse
OT but the same thing happened to me, bought an Otari that was 1/4 track record (1/2 track playback) took me physically looking at the heads and the owners manual and scratching my head
Blue Jinn
Rider of the ARPocalypse
Two thoughts:
1. that video is then compressed down to some kind of mp3... so I'm wondering how it really sounded.
2. Yeah, tape sounds better, while I mostly listen to 320kbs mp3s in my car and rarely my mid 70s hi-fi at home....
That said, the small amount of stuff I've actually recorded, the ITB vs the Tape to FLAC to mp3 does sound slightly different.