Tape Fucking Rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Thread starter Thread starter LocusLarsen
  • Start date Start date
Hawking, pro-studio's use 2" 16 or 24tr. Studers because it imparts a special sound, especially when driven hard and especially for rock drums/guitars.
I agree that digital stuff is more hassle-free, but you'll need to spend more than $3000 on digital gear, to get anywhere NEAR the sound of 2". (Think Radar Nyquist + TAC console or Ghost)
 
I don't dsipute the 'sound' that analog has or the fact that it's still in use today. But when almost all of the music produced today is listened to in the digital realm (i.e. CD's) then it's not really about the analog/digital debate. If you can hear that analog sound even when listening to a digitally encoded CD, obviously the CD is capable of reproducing that same sound.

I agree that my relatively cheap digital setup wouldn't pass muster in a pro studio. But the sound I get cost me at least 3 times as much in analog form. Not to mention the fact that I don't actually have to own an expensive reverb unit, or a super high priced compressor any more to get the same effect. Plug-ins are wonderful.

Analog has it's place, I just don't think it's in a home studio.
 
Locus we are all happy that you have found your swan song of recording media good for you :)

I'm just glad im not paying for the tapes!
 
Speeddemon said:
WHAT? And you say you're a genius?
I say you're a dumb ass that doesn't know 'honky midrange' from 'warm'. :p
Click to expand...

Well, for all sounds that doesn't have much bass, I do think 'Honky midrange' really is the same thing as 'nice and warm'. A lot of the warmness in analog gear comes from a nice slope in the high-end.

I haven't tried micking basses and kicks with an SM57, so I wouldn't really know about the honky-midrange. The SM57 still as a very good extra 'sound' to have together with the typically crisp sound of condensers.

I'm sure the MD421 has a similar effect but is otherwise superiour to an SM57. It's also 4 times as expensive.
 
Hawking said:
Put it in your CD player and listen very carefully. You can hear the subtle qualities of the tape coming through. The mellowness of the distortion.
Click to expand...

I can? Oh cool.
To be honest with you, I have absolutely no idea which of my CD's are recorded or mastered on tape, except for some classical stuff. And it does not have "mellow distortion" or "analog warmth". Those recordings are crisp and clear as a summer day on an icelandic Jökull. There's no distortion or tape saturation anywhere. :)

It's the quality of the equipment being used.
Click to expand...

Usually, it's actually the skill of the persons using the equipment that shines through more.

You say "Analog has that 'sound'". Well, I have plugins that can reproduce that "sound" without all the hiss, noise, lack of dynamic headroom
Click to expand...

Man, you are used to some crappy tape. :D
 
Used to have a Teac 3340, traded it for my electric guitar, and then went digital. Am having a much better time with my electric guitar!!

How can you not like digital, no wow, no flutter, and no hiss.

Why complain, just thank God, he likes being thanked!

GT
 
Hawking said:
I don't dsipute the 'sound' that analog has or the fact that it's still in use today. But when almost all of the music produced today is listened to in the digital realm (i.e. CD's) then it's not really about the analog/digital debate. If you can hear that analog sound even when listening to a digitally encoded CD, obviously the CD is capable of reproducing that same sound.
Click to expand...
It's capable of RE-PRODUCING that sound, yes, but PRODUCING, no! When you listen to a 80's rock or metal album, the drums usually sound HUGE. And why is that? (besides the obvious engineer's skills, mic selection and placement), because they recorded the drums on analog tape, and they recorded it HOT! Try that with your digital gear! "Oh but my digital Bimbo2000® can record at +8dBFS"... yeah right!

You're totally comparing apples with oranges here. Just because a CD can reproduce a tape-recording flawlessly, doesn't mean that a CD BY ITSELF has the same 'character' of analog tape.

I'm not trying to be an Analog's Advocate, I'm trying to clear up some GRAVE misconceptions.
I totally agree that hiss is almost gone, no more wow&flutter, very low maintenance (2nd to none)... but there's something magical about pushing PLAY on a big reel-to-reel. But no magic at pushing PLAY on your Yoko CD-200 yaddayadda. (Maybe if that cd-player would have VU-meters... ;) )


Hawking said:
Analog has it's place, I just don't think it's in a home studio.
Click to expand...
It sure has in mine. A mint and rare Philips N4522 2-track recorder. Works great, sounds great (hell, it even made mp3's (128kb) from a MiniDisc sound decent).
 
Perhaps I should say it doesn't belong in MY studio. For the dollar value, you simply can't beat digital. Cheap analog sounds cheap. Cheap digital sounds OK. If you look at the top of your screen, you'll notice the "Home Recording" logo. Tape isn't a viable option for the majority of home recording enthusiasts.

Engineering skills aside, digital is easier to get a good sound from (IMO). I'm glad that tape still lives on. I'm also glad the digital age is upon us. It offers the average Joe Schmoe (like myself) the ability to create decent sounding recordings for a fraction of the cost and a fraction of the time of its' analog cousin.

As far as a CD reproducing the sound of tape, it simply means that it's not about analog or digital. It has much more to do with the people behind the console and the techniques used. If the end product sounds the same, then the medium doesn't matter. I'm sure someone, somewhere has written a plugin that can simulate tape saturation. And if you're about to say it doesn't sound real, give it few years. Look how far digital effects have come in the past 10.
 
Hawking, I'd probably agree with most of your points,...

as the resulting sound one gets recorded is in a large part due to the skills and aims of the person working the controls, and not purely due to the medium.

I'll have to disagree with the statement that [para] 'analog doesn't belong in the home studio', which I think is laughable, at best. Maybe I'd say instead, that 'puter recording is just the johnny-come-lately to recording, and Johnny has a big headed attitude about his own superiority, which I think gives him a false sense of security.

Other than that, it's true that the "Analog vs Digital" debate is old, tried & true, and a bit tired & old, because pontificate as we may, or even talk with reason, but no one has ever changed his mind or recording platform due to one of these discussions,... i.e., there's no winner, and there's often no agreement whatsoever.

And Mixit-G, I'm sure that most of home recording is never destined to be commercial product, so the point is moot.

;)
 
Interesting thread, and here's the answer: use both formats.
Both have their advantages even though everything ends up
digital (on CD) eventually.

I'm getting some nice results, especially when recording warmer guitars, by recording them to tape and then transfering it to digital. All I need to worry about is the hiss, wow, and flutter, which are always a challenge when using tape.

No argument for me.

Best,
J.
 
c7sus said:
And bargain tape decks don't even begin to be worth the effort.
Click to expand...
Revox B77 2tr. Hi-Speed?
Otari MX5050BII/BIII?

both great decks that can be had for less than $300 in great condition. And you can master to them. And 1080m of 1/4" tape (on a 10,5") costs around $20.

Still Hawking, you haven't gotten my point;
yes CD is usually the final product (little people have a 1" 2tr. at home just for listening), but I'm saying that tape is usually used as an 'inter-medium' to give certain sources a certain (usually fat and warm) sound. No one in their right minds (in a big $$ studio) would record drums for a rock record to some 16bit/44.1kHz medium, and then send it again somewhere else.

As I see it, I'm gonna use tape in the future for tracking, and right after tracking, I'll dump the tracks to a digital recorder (now a Korg D16, in te future hopefully a Radar).
 
Interesting thread.

There are strong engineers like "Mixerman" where if they receive something done on a 16 bit ADAT, one of their first thoughts is to dump the tracks over to a 2" to smooth out the sound.

There are also pro engineers who track digitally then mix and/or master to 1/4" or 1/2" @ 30 ips because they think it helps "glue" things together. See www.johnvestman.com or www.digido.com for similar thinking.

There is also a world of difference in what's "best" vs. what's best for a given song.

Jimmy Miller used a cheap Phillips mono(!) cassette recorder for the lead guitar and some other instruments on The Stone's
"Street Fighting Man", then transferred them to wide gauge reel to reel to give a certain effect that couldn't be achieved going direct. (they wanted a non-"sterile" sound BTW)

A smart lead electric guitarist should have a Tascam 244 or 246 cassette porta in their rig, if only to use it as a special effect IMHO.
"Lo-fi digital" ala minidisc can also be used to mask room sound anomalies like too excessive reverb and/or ambient noise floor.

My point is using the "limitations" of a format can lead to greater creative results.

Chris

P.S. And without reel to reel, wouldn't you miss "phasing"
flanging, and of course running it backwards! :)
 
smart lead electric guitarist should have a Tascam 244 or 246 cassette porta in their rig, if only to use it as a special effect IMHO

Yes i agree to a degree, i have used a four track and then transferred to digital with great results.

But try tracking to digital and analog at the same time, the digital tracks slowly go out of time....or is it the analog?

Bit of an ass pain.
 
MiXit-G said:
But try tracking to digital and analog at the same time, the digital tracks slowly go out of time....or is it the analog?
Click to expand...


I was recording a EMU MP7 into my 1680. I tried laying down one track, then go back and do another track. One of them (1680 or EMU) wasn't keeping time right........damn snare was a whole measure off by the end of the song:rolleyes: They are both digital too. There was no midi sync, just start recording, then go back and dub by ear.
 
Tape offers a realm that digital can not.

Signals are laid onto the tape by magnetizing little particles called "domains". The higher the amplitude, the larger a number of particles become magnetized either North or South... in direct proportion to the signal as positive or negative at that point in time.

When you drive a tape to the max, all the domains are either magnetized North or South... and, in effect, you have a limiter. The tape can not hold more than 100% signal.

In the digital world, you create very unmusical clipping by exceeding its limit, therefore you must compress and limit in a different manner to ensure you don't exceed 0dB. The result is a different sound that many would argue lacks the "warmth" that tape offers.
 
When sync drifts, it's not an analog vs digital question anymore.

F/I, I have two digital Portastudios that I linked together with Midi Timecode, and guess what, they drifted out of sync with each other too. It wasn't an 'analog anomaly' causing the drift, sync just sucks. YMMV.;)
 
I wasn't using sync of any sort dont have a real need for it, lining up the tracks later in cubase is easy peasy but not when you've got analog tracks that cant keep time.

Strrrrreeeeecccccchhhhhh.

But i do agree that tape sounds great, altough i transferred some 24bit audio to PC today.....very nice.
 
James Taylor's HourGlass

James Taylor's Hourglass -- a great recording that was awarded a grammy for that reason -- was recorded in a summer home using 16bit digital. Amazing. And very encouraging.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top