Recording

  • Thread starter Thread starter g6120
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It's as if someone hit pause on the 'ole tape deck for one week.
 
TASCAM MAN said:
Analog has never been "distorted" - it's how its recorded that makes it "distorted" , nothing to do with the medium itself.
Click to expand...

Here you are wrong, I'm afraid - there are lots of distortions in analogue recording as I have mentioned in previous posts.

Just because you like what the distortion does, does not mean that it's not there.

I think you need to read up on analogue recording.
 
John Willett said:
Here you are wrong, I'm afraid - there are lots of distortions in analogue recording as I have mentioned in previous posts.

Just because you like what the distortion does, does not mean that it's not there.

I think you need to read up on analogue recording.
Click to expand...

Point is "distortion" (unless using distortion pedals, etc etc) is a bad word to me just as "sterile" is a bad word to you . Ive always got "clean" sounding recordings on all of my decks regardless what the specs say.Dont get tape hiss either unless the recording was made to low and someone boost the amp to loud which, power amps get the blame for tape hiss to often.Ok I admit that "specs" on analog gear gives small percentages of distortion but on the other hand there are a lot of other factors(even distortion)with digital gear (latency,bad error rates etc etc) and I can make analog "sound" as good as digital to my ears and most people couldn't tell the difference. I actually use some digital because the market got flooded with it since the early 90s. I am more hybrid (no computers) nowadays but still don't like it when tape recorders gets the blame for only "making distortion" or is used only to manipulate it to sound distorted. Now have your/ya'll lil fits over what I said, but I say this from the heart and my passion for analog tape recorders....
 
Can this thread be closed? Nothing to see here, move along please ....
 
Nooooooooo....don't close it!
Weekend's coming up.....this could be the only amusing bit of entertainment worth watching (unless there's a rerun of Groundhog Day). :D
 
miroslav said:
Nooooooooo....don't close it!
Weekend's coming up.....this could be the only amusing bit of entertainment worth watching (unless there's a rerun of Groundhog Day). :D
Click to expand...

No, don't close it.
If I could make two things mandatory on forums it would be that posters must show their location ( or at least country for money and mains supply). Anyone in very dire circumstances could appeal to a mod.

Secondly, posts would be locked only in the most rare of situations and warnings given beforehand. 3 strikes and you are locked?

Dave.
 
TASCAM MAN said:
Point is "distortion" (unless using distortion pedals, etc etc) is a bad word to me just as "sterile" is a bad word to you . Ive always got "clean" sounding recordings on all of my decks regardless what the specs say.Dont get tape hiss either unless the recording was made to low and someone boost the amp to loud which, power amps get the blame for tape hiss to often.Ok I admit that "specs" on analog gear gives small percentages of distortion but on the other hand there are a lot of other factors(even distortion)with digital gear (latency,bad error rates etc etc) and I can make analog "sound" as good as digital to my ears and most people couldn't tell the difference. I actually use some digital because the market got flooded with it since the early 90s. I am more hybrid (no computers) nowadays but still don't like it when tape recorders gets the blame for only "making distortion" or is used only to manipulate it to sound distorted. Now have your/ya'll lil fits over what I said, but I say this from the heart and my passion for analog tape recorders....
Click to expand...

Depends what you are recording. You could not capture the full dynamic range of the Moonlight Sonata with the best tape machine in the world and Dolby A .

You could do it easily with 24 bit digital, probably even 16bits?

Dave.
 
Hello friends... I'm newbie too. With out of any expiriance. Yes 45 years ago I did have cassette recorder but not for long, was a poor quality made in Poland and recording on Polish cassette was impossible. Sony was very expensive and difficult to buy in my old country. Now at age of 66 I try to learn my new hobby, and is not easy. My bigest problem is: if I learn something today, next day I dont remember what I learned a day ago. But I'm not giving up, perhaps some day I be able to record MIDI and Audio Tracks and perhaps this recording deserve to be call a music. Not just a noise.
 
Record every day & you won't have the time to forget as much.
 
TASCAM MAN said:
Point is "distortion" (unless using distortion pedals, etc etc) is a bad word to me just as "sterile" is a bad word to you . Ive always got "clean" sounding recordings on all of my decks regardless what the specs say.Dont get tape hiss either unless the recording was made to low and someone boost the amp to loud which, power amps get the blame for tape hiss to often.Ok I admit that "specs" on analog gear gives small percentages of distortion but on the other hand there are a lot of other factors(even distortion)with digital gear (latency,bad error rates etc etc) and I can make analog "sound" as good as digital to my ears and most people couldn't tell the difference. I actually use some digital because the market got flooded with it since the early 90s. I am more hybrid (no computers) nowadays but still don't like it when tape recorders gets the blame for only "making distortion" or is used only to manipulate it to sound distorted. Now have your/ya'll lil fits over what I said, but I say this from the heart and my passion for analog tape recorders....
Click to expand...

Distortion is a change from the original sound - and there were lots of changes in analogue tape recording - these all add up.

Digital has far far less - and "latency" is not a distortion at all, it's just delay and delay is not distortion.

Yes, digital adds a little noise, but at a far far lower level than analogue.

That's why several microphone manufacturers are now making digital microphones, to remove the distortion and problems in analogue pre-amplifiers and cables.

Having said this - it's the classical recordists who drive technology forward as they are striving to capture the performance with as little change as possible.

Analogue recording changes this far too much - as I said, distortion = changes.

But with modern rock, pop, etc., etc...., it's more of "making a product" and you will use what makes the best sound for you. There is nothing wrong in loving analogue tape recording if it gives you the sound you want - just don't say it's not distorted (ie: changes the sound) because these distortions are actually what you want.
 
John Willett said:
.... it's the classical recordists who drive technology forward as they are striving to capture the performance with as little change as possible.
Click to expand...

I agree that the classical side is always looking for purity of capture....but I wouldn't say that they are the main driving force of digital technology. I think they just picked up on that aspect of it...it came as a bonus for their needs.
It's the manufacturers who drive everything, looking for a cheaper way to build....and by high-end analog standards, manufacturing digital is REAL cheap!
Also, it's driven by the general buying public, who appreciates inexpensive convenience, compactness and dumbed-down operation over quality and complexity that is often also more expensive.

That said...I agree with you on all the analog points about distortion...but analog is often painted by the digital lovers as an "inferior" way to capture audio, which is SO not true, and I say that completely understanding why for some, purity of capture IS everything.
To me, the most amusing thing about many of the digital lovers/analog haters is their huge assortment of software that strives to model analog hardware. :)

But again....I'm with you on your points about analog adding more to the original sound than digital, in most cases.....just saying that, that alone, doesn't IMO lift digital to a higher ground as a recording format for everything (not counting the classical bunch).


"bump" ;)
 
miroslav said:
I agree that the classical side is always looking for purity of capture....but I wouldn't say that they are the main driving force of digital technology. I think they just picked up on that aspect of it...it came as a bonus for their needs.
It's the manufacturers who drive everything, looking for a cheaper way to build....and by high-end analog standards, manufacturing digital is REAL cheap!
Also, it's driven by the general buying public, who appreciates inexpensive convenience, compactness and dumbed-down operation over quality and complexity that is often also more expensive.

That said...I agree with you on all the analog points about distortion...but analog is often painted by the digital lovers as an "inferior" way to capture audio, which is SO not true, and I say that completely understanding why for some, purity of capture IS everything.
To me, the most amusing thing about many of the digital lovers/analog haters is their huge assortment of software that strives to model analog hardware. :)

But again....I'm with you on your points about analog adding more to the original sound than digital, in most cases.....just saying that, that alone, doesn't IMO lift digital to a higher ground as a recording format for everything (not counting the classical bunch).


"bump" ;)
Click to expand...

Actually - digital in the early days was a lot *more* expensive than analogue.

I went digital as soon as it became affordable - that was a Sony PDM-F1 and two SL-F1 Betamax transports. As I was working for a dealer at the time I got those at trade price - £3,000 back in 1983. That was about the equivalent of 3-months salary for me at the time, I think, and quite a bit more than a Revox B77 cost at the time.

Cheapness didn't come into it at all - it was all about striving for the highest quality possible.

As digital technology improved, yes, it did eventually become cheaper to manufacture than the equivalent analogue technology - but that did take quite a few years.

Personally I don't have any outboard gear or plug-ins that try to replicate the analogue sound as I use the best microphones I can in the best position I can put them to try and capture the performance as close as possible to what you would hear were you listening to it live.

Having said all that - I certainly don't put down people who love the analogue sound as it gives a colour to the sound that can be exactly what is needed with some types of music - and you use the tools that will best suit the music to give the best sound possible.

And some types of music really shine with what analogue recording offers.

I have nothing against analogue at all - I just object when people start saying it is not distorted and uncoloured when it so patently is.
 
Yeah., new technology is always expensive, initially, but even with those early days of digital, top analog gear was way more expensive....consoles that cost $150+ thousand.....tape decks that cost $80+ thousand....etc....
....so even then while under development., digital was going to be the more inexpensive direction, and why it was driven so hard.

If I recall...in those early days, AFA sonic quality....digital wasn't getting the praise it does now, but that too was understandable since the technology was still under development and needed to be refined. I mean, it wasn't all that "pure-n-pristine" when it first came on the scene....and for many years, 30ips high-end analog tape recording with Dolby SR was still better AFA sonics....but eventually the digital converters and hardware/software did get refined, and I think the final top quality level was reached only about 10-15 years ago on a general use scale (I'm not talking about what they had going in the development labs).

I really think the main reason people did jump on the digital wagon in those earlier years was for the audio manipulation...the editing/processing possibilites....that digital could do compared to analog tape, and the potential for more automation and storage/recall....and less expensive in the long run compared to analog gear and tape.

Like you with analog....I don't object to using digital (spent most of last night working in my DAW)....just saying that it's not so much the "pure-n-pristine" aspect of it that was/is ever the draw for me, which is why I do the hybrid analog/digital thing....and I think for a lot of folks too, although many of them are getting their "analog" from digital plugs modeled after analog gear (because it's less expensive than buying real analog gear). I'm sure there are guys like you who don't look for that sound....but you can't deny that the majority of software IS trying to model analog sounding hardware. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top