Okay I have defected!! I want a reel to reel!!

F

Frusciante_Fan

New member
Let me start out by saying that I studied the (cheap) digital market cards for under $500 for about a year before almost buying one. I first bought Mic , then Pre Amp, and then heard alot of recordings done on these magic cards Echo audio and Midi-Man pushes on the market. I WAS not impressed!!

Then I heard a little akai 4 track reel to reel and it was heaven!
But I was also confused, because I didnt know if it was just me? Is my ears off? why is everyone talking about digital so much when this tape machine sounds like the original source? So my journey continued...

So then I auditioned and heard many .wav clips of cards and converters above $1000. Then it sounded better. After that I heard a mytek and apogee clocked through a aardsync. It sounded awesome. Finally what I heard go in, is what I heard come out. And then somthing dawned on me what the guy that owned it said. "It sounds more like analoge". After I heard that I added up the price:

a/d apogee/mytek------around $1000
D/a benchmark/mytek----around $1000
wordclock aardsync-----around $1500

add it up and its $3500.00 just to get it to sound like a 1/2 1/4 tape machine for around $500 on Ebay. And thats just 2 channels

Now I dont mean to start the analoge vs digital debut. Because for major studios it would be crazy expensive to go back to analoge. And lets face it daw software is just AWESOME. So since I only record two tracks at a time, I am thinking of getting a 2 or 4 track 1/2 or 1/4 inch reel to reel. And just going to the local major studio and get him to convert it to digital on his myteks and benchmarks, for a small fee, and then take the files home to edit them and mix in my daw?

OR should I just get a 8 track to leave plenty of room for more tracks and overdubes if/when I need them, and just send the analog reels off straight to the mastering house and let him do the conversion??

So do you guys think this is a stupid idea? Good Idea? or is the sound of digital driving me crazy and im just going way left field on this?????
 
I am a small-time analog recorder. I too have looked into going digital for upgrading from my current 4 track cassette-based studio, and cannot justify the expense needed to get that analog sound digitally.

As for modern digital recording – the quality is there. With 48kHz sampling and 24-bit resolution you can do very well. I have great success at 48kHz with my iMac soundcard’s 16-bit resolution when recording live (I don’t need all that much dynamic range) but it is rather limited when isolating acoustic instruments, etc. I definitely avoid recording at 44.1kHz sample rate because you can hear the Nyquist filters kick in on the high frequencies at that rate. This gets twice as bad when processed and edited and mastered at the lower frequency. (Note: all current commercial CDs are mastered at 44.1kHz and 16-bit depth.) My advice: always record at your best sample rate and resolution so you have less to lose when you bounce to disk.

The current industry standard is 96kHz sampling, with 192kHz already becoming available. They are designing new ADAT optical interfaces for 192kHz. The trouble with additional oversampling (higher sampling frequencies) is this – the technology is still the same – they use the same chips, because internally the electronics actually clock at 256kHz. So the only real difference is in the filtering, and the filters can be less complicated (i.e. cheaper!). Hence the push from the manufacturers – they can sell “faster = better” and sell for more when it actually costs less to design and build.

Digital music is fine if you are rich– the delivery system is all that sucks. But it will improve with DVD and other formats. In the meantime, poor guys like me will go analog.

If I were in your shoes, I'd go with the 8 track.
 
I recommend you get an 8-tack and a good 2-track mastering deck. You can do it all yourself the way you want it, and then send the master in.

The 2-track mastering deck could be analog or not. You could mix the 8-track directly to a stand-alone CD burner (through a mixer of course).

By the way, there are few major studios that don't still have reel-to-reel tape machines. They use digital and analog to their advantage. Many studios use an analog 2-track to mix down to for the positive effect of tape. Many producers insist on recording drum tracks to tape. It's really a mixed bag right now.

Whether you build your basic tracks on analog or mix down to analog you will see some benefit from that medium on your work.

You're not imagining the unpleasantness of digital. Plenty of people hear it. A lot of consumers have never heard anything else, so they have nothing else to compare against the abrasive sound. Because some people can't hear doesn't prove it's not there. It only proves they can't hear.

I don't consider analog tape as "vintage." Like a lot of long-time analog users I see it as just a way to record. I think it's superior in many regards.

Tim
:cool:
 
It's true that analog really is getting cheap now. You can get the "just under pro" machines for next to nothing. While the pro-stuff still cost silly money, of course.

Running costs are typically higher though, so doing it only to save money is probably not useful. But what you also do get is the immediacy of the format. Instead of mousing around, you have loats and loads of knobs. Instead of searching through settings in obscure dialogboxes, you press buttons and connect wires.

It is, at least to me, just so much easier and much more painless.

We have had a coupld of discussions on why analog sounds "better" here, and mu personal theory is that through the 50 years of tape recording, engineers has learnt to make circuits that are not without compromises, but have compromises that sound *good*. Therefore, you get a subtle color to your sound that makes your recording sound more cohesive.

To me, there is also therefore the added bonus of easier mixing and arrangement. You don't have to tweak as much. Making a wall of sound is much easier, because the analog will muddle it up into a wall, where digital will keep every sound separate, so to speak. :)

Just my 2 centimes of flamewar fuel. ;)
 
Beck said:
You're not imagining the unpleasantness of digital. Plenty of people hear it.
Click to expand...
In low-end , stock, cheapie A/D converters, sure - it IS unpleasant.

You are, however, imagining things if you're hearing digital unpleasantness in high-quality digital converters.

High-end digital does very well........
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
In low-end , stock, cheapie A/D converters, sure - it IS unpleasant.

You are, however, imagining things if you're hearing digital unpleasantness in high-quality digital converters.

High-end digital does very well........
Click to expand...

For the most part, depending on which converters. Not all high end is created equal. Digidesign proved that :)

But the sound of digital whether high end or not is still unpleasing to certain ears. The cost of high end analog has dropped recently but looks as if it might rebound.
Locally there have been 2" 16 tracks machines for under 5 grand since October 2003. It would be hard to find a digital converter that could compete with a properly maintained 2" machine running 16 tracks. Some people like the sound of digital because they do. Recently AES released a paper to show 192 Khz sampling rate is excessive and that the "apparent" increase in pleasantness could be attributed to distortion. If you were to ask me, our ears tend to like certain types of distortion better than others. Which is why some people still like the old blackfaces. All converters make some sort of compromise and all of them generate a certain amount of distortion in filtering just like the analog machines, but the trick is to find what color and level of distortion is acceptable is an individual quest. I hate that fact that regardless what you have you will eventually start nulling the deficiencies of whatever you have. If you start on something of poor quality, everything else will sound better as you climb the ladder. But if somewhere you get to hear a world class facility to give you a baseline that different, your idea of quality changes.
For instance, as an intern and assistant I got to work on API boards, 2" machines and really good mic lockers. When I decided to go it alone in the garage and started collecting gear within my budget I went through gear shock. But Ive acclimated since and I don't hear things that originally bothered me. I have been reluctant to spend alot of money on pre's, eq's and other gear because my console is my weak spot and chokes everything, like I was using mp3's as tracks.

Its not that we imagine things, its more like our ears just filter distortion differently. Its really true that you get what you pay for, its good that high end analog id dropping not because of sound quality, but because of cost and schedule.

SoMm
 
And it costs a lot more too.








Hence its unsuitability for the average home recording enthusiast; who has little chance of recouping the initial investment.
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
In low-end , stock, cheapie A/D converters, sure - it IS unpleasant.

You are, however, imagining things if you're hearing digital unpleasantness in high-quality digital converters.

High-end digital does very well........
Click to expand...

No Blue Bear, I hear the difference in the finished consumer CDs of the last ten years or so. I heard it before I became an advocate for analog, not the other way 'round.

To me, a lot of music started getting just plain hard to listen to. I didn't know why then, but now I do. It didn't start when CD started replacing cassette and LP, because for the most part studios where still laying tracks with analog. It started when everything went digital from basic tracks on.

I'm a musician first and digital doesn't work for me. And from what I hear in the music world today it doesn't work for a lot of other people, whether they know it or not.

The idea that people would spontaneously start imagining "objectionable qualities" in digital recording on the scale that it has occurred is silly. We hear it.

People like me that have been recording for twenty plus years have heard it from the beginning. Others that have been recording just as long or longer don't hear it. I'm not sure why. I do know my hearing tests exceptionally well. I don't know about anyone else.

There is something there, and in my opinion it has changed popular music. I think I will eventually put up a website with my thoughts on the subject rather than just keep repeating them here.

In short I believe the harshness of mid to high frequencies produced by digital recording has played a large role in the rise of rap/hip-hop and the death of rock. Today's bass-heavy sounds have evolved to compensate for an almost subliminal "pain" produced by digitally recorded music. The bass masks the painful frequencies. Ok, it could be from some dumbing down of the general IQ... something in the water perhaps, but the current music scene sucks.

:cool:
 
Beck said:
No Blue Bear, I hear the difference in the finished consumer CDs of the last ten years or so. I heard it before I became an advocate for analog, not the other way 'round.

To me, a lot of music started getting just plain hard to listen to. I didn't know why then, but now I do. It didn't start when CD started replacing cassette and LP, because for the most part studios where still laying tracks with analog. It started when everything went digital from basic tracks on.
Click to expand...
I'm betting the harshness you're attributing to "digital" has more to due with the increased overuse of extreme limiting than any genuine problem with digital recording...

But that's simply MY opinion... YMMV!
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
I'm betting the harshness you're attributing to "digital" has more to due with the increased overuse of extreme limiting than any genuine problem with digital recording...

But that's simply MY opinion... YMMV!
Click to expand...

That actually makes some sense and is certainly part of the problem. The way people became accustomed to using compression and limiting translates differently to digital than it does tape. Not to mention, the widespread use of digital compressor/limiters and digital everything else. And of course the need to limit because of digital's zero headroom.

A lot of it really comes down to perception and preference. One can't say, "It's not hot in here" just because they're comfortable, when everyone else is sweatin' bullets.

Digital is definitely a different animal, but seeing how there is now a new generation of engineers that have known nothing but digital, we can't just attribute the problems to a learning curve.

:cool:
 
tjohnston said:
I saw some nice 2 track machines on ebay a the other day . The Otari mx5050 went for 50 bucks. It cost about 4 grand new.
Click to expand...

WHAT! OK, I have no use for a 2-track, but if you want one, it doesn't get much better than that. Well, I guess the Studer 807?

For 50 bucks... It's just silly.
 
I will say ,from an engineering standpoint, that the analog machines that are for sale today are going to die someday. Beyond repair. Analog machines cost mucho $$$ to make. If they were still being made today, a good deck like the Fostex E-16 or the Tascam MSR-16 would cost way over $10,000. Digital has only just begun in engineering history. Analog decks had over 50 years of evolution to reach the sound that the most modern ones have. Digital is like 10 years in the making. I say with confidence that in another 10 years, the digital multi-track recorders will trounce the analog machines easily. If you look at the highest end digital rig, bar none, it still costs way less than a new 2" machine. Digital will only get better. The real problem is the god damn CD. No matter what you record on, the CD is the end of the road. CD is what kills the sound. We are all stuck with the lousy sound of the CD format. Analog vs Digital as a tracking medium is a moot point. It is the mixdown to the CD format that leads to all these problems. I have both a Fostex E-16 and a Fostex D2424LV. No one I record with has ever said a single word about the difference in the sound. They don't even realize that I am recording on the Fostex D2424LV. I also just don't hear any difference between my analog and digital recordings.
 
A couple of years ago I got a two inch Telefunken M15A 16 track for free! Plus a Studer B67 1/4" 2 track also for free, both in good working condition.

Both machines had been collecting dust for many years in a studio that does sound for movies.

Weird huh?

There must be many of those machines in dark dusty corners, waiting for a second life.
 
Wouldn't surprise me. Once we got a bas + BIG bass amp + a keyboard + a leslie amp + a guitar and I think a guitar amp + a small mixer + amp + speakers + some mics. For free. Because it had been in a basement for ten years. All good stuff. Well, OK, the keyboard was crappy. But everything else where fine. Excellent bass amp, nice leslie.
 
Re: Analog vs Digital in a home studio:

I was recording on Pro Tools since about 1995. In the last year everytime I would record more than 3 or 4 tracks the computer crashed. Very frustrating. I couldn't get anything done. I was so pissed at this computer that I decided to look for an analog reel to reel.

After searching on the internet for about 6 months I got an Otari MX5050 MKIII 1/2 inch 8 track on ebay for $700.
I was lucky that whoever had it before me took good care of it and used it some but not too much.

When it arrives I plug it into the mackie 2408 and just check each channel with a kick drum from an alesis D4.
Right away before I even put any thing to tape I could tell that it was going to be good. The signal sounds really good just going through the machine. I guess it has to do with the preamps and circuitry onboard.
It is in excellent condition and all parts work.

So I spent 2 days to record a song with sequenced drum parts from the D4, electric guitar and bass.
Mixed it to my old session 8 system 882 i/o running on a old Mac Quadra computer and burned a CD.

When I listened to the CD and compared it to previous CD's from the Pro Tools, there was a huge difference.

It sounded better. Even other people who listened to it could tell there was something different.

Now I am a happy camper because I know that when I go to record something I know that the recorder is going to work.

Plus it is fun to use and easier to record with.

Sure I could do a lot of fancy tricks with the pro tools, but the tape is so much better for me because now I'm just thinking about the music.


Re: Analog vs Digital in a commercial studio:

Back in 1993 My band recorded a 3 song demo in a studio in Miami.
2 inch tape machine and automated mixer.

Then in 1995 recorded a 10 song in the same studio using 3 ADAT Blackfaces.
For that project we had to rent some very nice focusrite EQ's and bass maximizers for mix down to get a warm enough sound.

When listening to the two cd's I notice that the drums, guitar and bass on the analog one sounded better.

But we were able to do more production work on the ADAT one because a lot of it was done at our producers house at a lower cost.

In the end though I'm sticking with Analog because that better suits my needs. Others may have different needs.
 
It's true, it's all true.

I don't have the luxury of setting up me ATR60 right now but I can't wait.
I wonder how many people are purists VS hybrid users. What I mean is I always thought it would be fine to mix the 16 track analog recorder straight to my DAW. I would even record music (for high track count songs) to reel and mix that to digital for vocal overdubs if necessary. I have a cool little 2 track reel machine now so I have the option but what's the general consensus on when to go to digital?

Do you:

1. Record on reels, mix to reels and go to digital just to burn/master
2. Record on reels and mix to digital
3. Record partly in analog and edit or dub in digital
4. Record in any other weird combination

How do you finally give in and go to digital? Do you go only reel to pro mastering house or do you mix straight to cassette and never go digital?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top