My reel to reel experience. Back to digital.

[Pinky]

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.

100%. I record to digital in the same way I did on analog. I hit record. Play the thing. I hit stop. I rarely comp past that unless it's to copy/paste for use later in the song. If a performance is meh, it gets re-recorded. It's not just the convenience, to mine and a couple million other recording artist's ears around the planet, it *sounds* better as well. I pity anyone who can't hear the difference. Seems as obvious to me as the sun shining.

I'm not surprised there's people who are sold on the grandeur of analog, I spent some time diving into audiophile BS a while ago and it seemed more like a club of contrarians and know-it-alls than a scientifically reasoned and ear trained group of savants. People who want to feel superior (aka 'terminally unique') will tend to gravitate toward fringe concepts. And there's not a damn thing you can tell them and you should just shut yer face.

 

[TalismanRich]

I think it's important to also note that different isn't the same as better. Recording a track two ways can yield a difference but the decision as to which is better can be a purely subjective argument. In most cases, the track that is most true to the original would be considered better. That may not be the case on a subjective level. Unfortunately, once the original floats off into the ether, you will never be able to compare the copy to the original. You need to depend on your memory, which can be enormously unreliable., or rely on your own prejudiced taste. I might say a track lacks sparkle, you might say the track is warm. They are both true, both valid. It's perspective.

You usually need some type of measurable criteria to make a judgement. An F1 or Indycar race driver can feel things that most people don't notice. They can feel a 1 degree change in a front wing, or a half pound change in tire pressure. However, even they can sometimes be fooled. I seen a driver tweaking the setup on a car, and came back saying that it really settled the car. It was much better. However, the measurable criteria showed that they were a half second slower per lap. Was it better? Over a 80 lap race, it means you're going to be 3/4 of a minute behind. On the other hand, if he is more comfortable, maybe he doesn't hit the wall. It's a judgment call, a trade off. But if you can make a change that settles the car AND makes it go a half second faster, then you have something truly better.

In my experience, digital recording has been more comfortable and faster.

 

[lonewhitefly]

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.

A medium being “just there to collect the sound” is an opinion I strongly disagree with … just as many would disagree that a guitar amp is “just there to amplify the sound”, and therefore the cleanest, most convenient, and least expensive option that accomplishes that task should win.

 

[lonewhitefly]

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 thing is you are saying literally the same thing that any most any modern digital recordist would say. It’s not news. All the points you made are standard boilerplate reasons why “digital is better”.

How about I reverse everything you said in favor of analog, and make a post in a standard digital recording forum about how digital sucks, and analog is much better, and here’s what I learned trying digital and how it failed miserably? What kind of responses do you think I would get?

 

[TalismanRich]

A medium being “just there to collect the sound” is an opinion I strongly disagree with … just as many would disagree that a guitar amp is “just there to amplify the sound”, and therefore the cleanest, most convenient, and least expensive option that accomplishes that task should win.

A guitar and amp are a musical instrument. Together they create the sound. Using a tape deck as an effect can be a valid use. But it's not how the system was designed to work.

I would then ask if you do any calibration on your equipment. That procedure was designed to minimize the inherent inaccuracies in tape, distortion, frequency response, S/N ratio. When the tape decks were designed, the manufacturers worked hard to try to maximize the accurate reproduction. They knew how parameter changes would affect the signal. If you DON'T want a deck to perform in an optimum manner, why bother with going through the process of cleaning, demagnetizing, calibrating levels and alignment, buying high quality tape. It sound counterproductive to me. Why not set up the tape deck to increase the distortion and compression, frequency roll-off, etc?

It's not boilerplate. By just about every measurable trait, digital exceeds tape. S/N, dynamic range, frequency response, distortion, crosstalk. That doesn't even take into account practical considerations like time and monetary investments.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

I will happily grant that objectively more accurate doesn't necessarily equate to subjectively better. Analog tape becomes part of the creative process (Edit: even when properly set up) in a way that is difficult or impossible to replicate with digital. It's a creative option that some people will want and some people won't. I prefer digital because I can get the results I want with it, and because it doesn't demand the investment and specialized kind of technical support I think doing analog properly requires.

 

[RFR]

I do hope some of you realize this IS the analog forum. You’re on our turf, baby.

Yet some of y’all act like your trying to start an analog versus digital war.

 

[rob aylestone]

As I started it, as somebody who tried it, believing that I would get back something I’d lost, but wasnt wearing rose tinted specs, my entire point is that I’ve really tried. I wanted to recover that so often talked about quality, sound, feel and vibe and failed. My experience means that I’m now left sadly convinced that I made a mistake. I spend nearly two grand chasing a rainbow. Sure, this is the analogue forum, but I’m an analogue owner. I’m not basing my comments on no experience, I’m simply saying that I now feel somehow cheated. The promised land is compromised and the negatives never spoken about. I should have known better. I believed the hype, and flowery imagery of the holy grail. I’m now a paid up member of the analogue club who has realised the positives were overplayed and negatives ignored. Surely in the forum analogue land it’s acceptable to relate negative stories? Maybe the only positive ones caused me to spend two grand and get worse quality? Perhaps the problem is that here, quality as a term, ignores the negatives, as if they’re just an unimportant symptom. Has any analogue promoter actually got ‘quality’ in any measurable sense? I’ve made a mistake, and I can live with it, and I’m even keeping the machines, but I’d be a fool to use them. Am I not allowed to say this, or must every post here say hallelujah analogue?

 

[RFR]

All I can say is sorry it didn’t work out for you, sorry for the disappointment, sorry for the cash outlay. (Keep in mind it can be recovered)

Just realize there may be people with not as good of an ear as you. There may be people that aren’t doing records, and maybe people that just flat out enjoy it.

And there are still pros (using the definition of doing it for a living) that like using it. And so do their clients.

I know you started the thread simply expressing your experiences which is fine, but it rapidly turned into an analog bashing thread. And I’m not the only one that got annoyed.

Anyway, probably till the end of time, so to speak, there’s going to be analog/digital debates. Whatcha gonna do. It is what it is.

Personally, I got nothing but respect for you and enjoy your input and wisdom you share here. And I enjoy your videos.

 

[lonewhitefly]

A guitar and amp are a musical instrument. Together they create the sound. Using a tape deck as an effect can be a valid use. But it's not how the system was designed to work.

I would then ask if you do any calibration on your equipment. That procedure was designed to minimize the inherent inaccuracies in tape, distortion, frequency response, S/N ratio. When the tape decks were designed, the manufacturers worked hard to try to maximize the accurate reproduction. They knew how parameter changes would affect the signal. If you DON'T want a deck to perform in an optimum manner, why bother with going through the process of cleaning, demagnetizing, calibrating levels and alignment, buying high quality tape. It sound counterproductive to me. Why not set up the tape deck to increase the distortion and compression, frequency roll-off, etc?

It's not boilerplate. By just about every measurable trait, digital exceeds tape. S/N, dynamic range, frequency response, distortion, crosstalk. That doesn't even take into account practical considerations like time and monetary investments.

1. I do not use tape as an “effect”. It’s a recording medium which sounds very different from digital.

2. Of course I want decks to perform as well as they can, and of course I like them calibrated. You can calibrate your deck however you want … different tape types behave differently on various decks, and there’s a compromise with a moving target. Overbias can be experimented with, etc.

3. Tape is more important to my type of recordings than any particular instrument or other gear.

 

[lonewhitefly]

As I started it, as somebody who tried it, believing that I would get back something I’d lost, but wasnt wearing rose tinted specs, my entire point is that I’ve really tried. I wanted to recover that so often talked about quality, sound, feel and vibe and failed. My experience means that I’m now left sadly convinced that I made a mistake. I spend nearly two grand chasing a rainbow. Sure, this is the analogue forum, but I’m an analogue owner. I’m not basing my comments on no experience, I’m simply saying that I now feel somehow cheated. The promised land is compromised and the negatives never spoken about. I should have known better. I believed the hype, and flowery imagery of the holy grail. I’m now a paid up member of the analogue club who has realised the positives were overplayed and negatives ignored. Surely in the forum analogue land it’s acceptable to relate negative stories? Maybe the only positive ones caused me to spend two grand and get worse quality? Perhaps the problem is that here, quality as a term, ignores the negatives, as if they’re just an unimportant symptom. Has any analogue promoter actually got ‘quality’ in any measurable sense? I’ve made a mistake, and I can live with it, and I’m even keeping the machines, but I’d be a fool to use them. Am I not allowed to say this, or must every post here say hallelujah analogue?

You’re free to post whatever you want, however you should expect some impassioned responses, considering the audience you are posting to.

Why is there such a focus on “measurable” quality? Quality is in the results. Which is subjective.

It’s odd to say the negatives are never spoken about. Read any forum with a “digital vs analog” debate to see everything you wrote above pointed out in agonizing detail over and over … about “the bad old days”.

What’s more, read through this forum about the various technical trials and tribulations people go through to keep this gear running. It’s not sugarcoated at all. The difference is those of us who prefer this method feel the trouble is worth it. I’ve gone through considerably more stress and strain 10 times over with analog gear over many years now than anything you posted above. The difference is my experience with anything digital was as you described analog — it just never sounded as good.

 

[RFR]

Why is there such a focus on “measurable” quality? Quality is in the results. Which is subjective.

In the late nineties I ran a 16 track ‘Demo studio’ . MSR 16 and a Tascam M520 desk and some what could be considered prosumer outboard gear.
I had a good room and a nice separate control room.

I was booked 7 days a week and recorded many bands. Even did a couple of commercial release records.

Many of these people went on to record in ‘real’ studios and put out CDs done in protools with ‘real producers’ and ‘real engineers’
Quite a few reached out to me saying the recordings we did back in the day were some of the best they did.

So I put the same studio back together and am transferring the original tracks to protools for prosperity.

Now I’m far from being a recording expert, but people I’ve worked with really like the work we did.

 

[rob aylestone]

That's because you did a good job, not because of the equipment.

On the quality front, what I hear is worse. What I see on the test gear is worse. My hearing is variable and subjective - test results aren't.

The return to analogue for me failed. I can't say more than that. The trouble is, I'm now doubting the whole thing more than I did before. I guess it's like you think you liked a certain food, when you were growing up, and now, with more experience of food in general, the old apple crumble just doesn't cut it any more. Cheers folk.

 

[ecc83]

This thread is doomed to be forever divided because there are two 'ideological' camps in it.



My interest in audio, reproduction and recording began over 60 years ago and sources such as the BBC and magazines such as The Gramaphone, Hi Fi News* and later Studio Sound imbued in mr the concept of 'fidelity' that is to say that we wanted to reproduce, as well as technology could do so, the original sound of the instruments and voices (the synth had yet to be invented!)




The early tape recorders were poorly things, at least the ones I could afford but even top range studio recorders were well below the dynamic range of all but the most feeble of musical events. They could not for instance capture the full range of a concert grand. Thus, the skill of the recording engineer was to be able to anticipate fff's and back the faders off then bring the level back for the quiet sections without it being obvious to the listener. That required someone not only of graduate electronics engineering grade but also a decent musician and PDGood sight reader.



“Pop/rock” music changed that a bit since it was mostly 'always loud' and if the tape added a bit of distortion “what the hell” it was going to be (badly) transferred and pressed to a 45 and played on some grotty one valved record player in a teenager's bedroom!



The 'classical' (and jazz, big band ) side of the record industry still strove for high quality sound and it is not at all surprising that they snapped up digital recording systems as soon as they became available.



A few decades ago the “Valve v Transistor” amplifier debate raged and despite the coming of amplifiers such as the Quad 303 and those from Cambridge Audio that were vastly better in every respect than valves it raved on. No more. Except in the very narrow field of guitar amps, no one questions the higher fidelity of state of art transistor amplifiers. I will bet even the most died in the wool 'analogist' here has solid state active monitors!



So I predict it will be with tape. The technical superiority of digital audio will slowly turn most people from tape, if only because the cost of archiving it is horrendous!



Last words (phew you say!) Yes, this is “the analogue” section but it is not a closed shop and I trust ALL sections of HR are open for frank and open debate?



Dave.

 

[Slouching Raymond]

This thread is doomed to be forever divided because there are two 'ideological' camps in it.

Good job we dont have guns here.

 

[lonewhitefly]

This thread is doomed to be forever divided because there are two 'ideological' camps in it.



My interest in audio, reproduction and recording began over 60 years ago and sources such as the BBC and magazines such as The Gramaphone, Hi Fi News* and later Studio Sound imbued in mr the concept of 'fidelity' that is to say that we wanted to reproduce, as well as technology could do so, the original sound of the instruments and voices (the synth had yet to be invented!)




The early tape recorders were poorly things, at least the ones I could afford but even top range studio recorders were well below the dynamic range of all but the most feeble of musical events. They could not for instance capture the full range of a concert grand. Thus, the skill of the recording engineer was to be able to anticipate fff's and back the faders off then bring the level back for the quiet sections without it being obvious to the listener. That required someone not only of graduate electronics engineering grade but also a decent musician and PDGood sight reader.



“Pop/rock” music changed that a bit since it was mostly 'always loud' and if the tape added a bit of distortion “what the hell” it was going to be (badly) transferred and pressed to a 45 and played on some grotty one valved record player in a teenager's bedroom!



The 'classical' (and jazz, big band ) side of the record industry still strove for high quality sound and it is not at all surprising that they snapped up digital recording systems as soon as they became available.



A few decades ago the “Valve v Transistor” amplifier debate raged and despite the coming of amplifiers such as the Quad 303 and those from Cambridge Audio that were vastly better in every respect than valves it raved on. No more. Except in the very narrow field of guitar amps, no one questions the higher fidelity of state of art transistor amplifiers. I will bet even the most died in the wool 'analogist' here has solid state active monitors!



So I predict it will be with tape. The technical superiority of digital audio will slowly turn most people from tape, if only because the cost of archiving it is horrendous!



Last words (phew you say!) Yes, this is “the analogue” section but it is not a closed shop and I trust ALL sections of HR are open for frank and open debate?



Dave.

Of course anyone can post whatever opinions they wish, again ... but: what is the purpose of posting this here? What "open debate" are you looking to have, and with whom? I trust you will find 95%+ agreement with your views in literally every part of every audio form across the entire internet.

Except by people like me in this one. Which, as far as I am aware, is the only Analog Recording forum on the internet.

So I would ask you: Why don't you go to a forum for ball-point pen enthusiasts and tell them how technically superior a cheap laptop printer is to the most expensive pen & ink?

 

[ecc83]

Of course anyone can post whatever opinions they wish, again ... but: what is the purpose of posting this here? What "open debate" are you looking to have, and with whom? I trust you will find 95%+ agreement with your views in literally every part of every audio form across the entire internet.

Except by people like me in this one. Which, as far as I am aware, is the only Analog Recording forum on the internet.

So I would ask you: Why don't you go to a forum for ball-point pen enthusiasts and tell them how technically superior a cheap laptop printer is to the most expensive pen & ink?

I would have thought posting the facts about tape recording was obvious? New people to home recording will surely read about tape and the 'benefits' its fans expound. You can buy an very decent interface for $50 and a set of headphones about the same and plug in your guitar and make recordings of a technical quality the Beatles could only have dreamed of. To do the same with tape would need at least five times that money and the results technically inferior and very costly in tape time. (my son told me he LOVED the hours he spent with the Teac but was constantly pissed off with the tape running out JUST as he'd nailed Angus Young's solo!)

A noob coming to HR will likely see "Analogue...." and think "Oooo! Let's have a look at that"

My statement that ALL parts of the forum should be open to all was simply that. There should be no censorship. You sir are perfectly entitled of course to wade into the Digital section and try to convince them of the errors of their ways.

Dave.

 

[Pinky]

Except by people like me in this one. Which, as far as I am aware, is the only Analog Recording forum on the internet.

There's a reason this is the case.

 

[TalismanRich]

Of course anyone can post whatever opinions they wish, again ... but: what is the purpose of posting this here? What "open debate" are you looking to have, and with whom? I trust you will find 95%+ agreement with your views in literally every part of every audio form across the entire internet.

Except by people like me in this one. Which, as far as I am aware, is the only Analog Recording forum on the internet.

So I would ask you: Why don't you go to a forum for ball-point pen enthusiasts and tell them how technically superior a cheap laptop printer is to the most expensive pen & ink?

None of this is meant as some affront to you or your use of tape. It's not meant as a personal attack on you. There are quite a few people here who have tape systems. Sweetbeats has been working on a somewhat rare Audio Technica recorder. I've been watching that thread, and find it fascinating to see how the unit is constructed, the complexity, and his struggles to find information. FlyingAce just built his studio around his MS16 and a Livetrak20.

A few months ago, I was working with an old Sony deck to recover some 65yr old tape recordings. Places like Welcome to '79 in Nashville still cater to tape enthusiasts wanting to record that way. Folks like Dave Grohl and Jack White still like tape.

This thread was about one person's experience (which many of us share) where going to tape didn't yield the hoped for results.

It's been said before in this thread and others... feel free to use what you want.

 

[ecc83]

None of this is meant as some affront to you or your use of tape. It's not meant as a personal attack on you. There are quite a few people here who have tape systems. Sweetbeats has been working on a somewhat rare Audio Technica recorder. I've been watching that thread, and find it fascinating to see how the unit is constructed, the complexity, and his struggles to find information. FlyingAce just built his studio around his MS16 and a Livetrak20.

A few months ago, I was working with an old Sony deck to recover some 65yr old tape recordings. Places like Welcome to '79 in Nashville still cater to tape enthusiasts wanting to record that way. Folks like Dave Grohl and Jack White still like tape.

This thread was about one person's experience (which many of us share) where going to tape didn't yield the hoped for results.

It's been said before in this thread and others... feel free to use what you want.

Thank you Rich, I maybe did not make it clear that I have nothing against people using tape for their own interests.

There is also a 'commercial' aspect to tape recording. Some studios I understand have clients that will use nothing else? Some client I hear insists studios run at 96kHz or even higher sample rates. The customer is always right.

Dave.