what REEL 2 REEL ?

[robin watson]

Tim B.
If "analog warmth" means today simply "not digital" maybe that's gonna lead to confusion.
The standard analog tape machine test, subjectively anyway, was and is listening to source and then tape interchangeably, and listening for a difference. At best, there is no appreciable difference.
The same test we should apply to digital. Whether analog tape or digital, a recording that is practically indistinguishable from the source, is not "cold" but faithful. In the same way, a witness who faithfully tells the truth in court is not "cold" but honest. If we take it to its logical end, a liar is "warm" and an honest person is "cold": hardly the right way of putting it.

What's the difference between a faithful analog tape recording and a faithful digital recording? In practice, nothing. Both are faithful. If one is "cold" then so is the other.
If early digital recordings were harsh (compared to the source signal they were supposed to be capturing) then they were harsh BY THAT STANDARD.
But that's the point. The standard is the source signal, not the analog or digital recording of it.

I didnt say using analog tape compression was new. I said that NR meant you now didnt have to venture into saturation if you didnt want to. Nobody was forced not to distort. If tape distortion was the effect they wanted, producers could still do it as much as they ever did. An option is not a directive. It opens up possibilities. It doesnt decide for you.

"Analog warmth" was a production tool then and still is today. But its absence should not be called "digital coldness" any more than not overdriving the analog tape, then or now, results in a necessarily deficient recording.

If we are to say, and rightly, that analog tape when used transparently does not introduce the undesirable characteristics of digital recording, we should be fair and admit that when used transparently (How else can you use digital? Trying to get "warmth" by overdriving it sounds like a train wreck as Tim, you once rightly said. But then so does any analog amp sound, even in an analog tape machine, when clipped to a square wave.) digital equally avoids the weaknesses of analog tape recording.


I agree that tape saturation/compression/distortion is not the only element that separates analog tape from digital recording but I dare suggest it's usually the only useful analog tape advantage, unless we are to say that there are great practical uses for tape dropout, wow and flutter, phase non linearities and any other weaknesses of analog tape that the makers tried so hard to minimise or eliminate. and long before digital came along in a practical way.
For my money, tape saturation/distortion/compression is the only normally desirable analog tape characteristic.
THAT, I suspect, explains the position largely of analog tape recording in the world today, however we might lament that state of affairs, and however we might continue to use analog tape and machines for all sorts of good reasons, including still making excellent recordings, with or without the warmth.

Regards, Tim G

Maybe the difference between analog and digital is that the former is a 'better liar' ...

 

[cjacek]

Digital cannot map (or capture) the multitude of multidimensional objects that are present within our environment, whether heard or perceived. It is for that reason, at least my reasoning goes, that digital recordings don't sound quite "right". Digital setups can't capture the natural environment of space and sound as we know it. If you don't hear a difference between analog and digital then perhaps the Analog Only forum is not for you ? Just a thought.

 

[ofajen]

Generally good post, Tim G. But I might add that the term "Analog warmth" did not exist until the advent of digital recording.

Here's something a little different... in the latest TapeOp, they interview Aspen Pittman on Behind the Gear. He reiterates a point I had discussed with him about two years ago: He asserts that what people really object to about digital recording is what it reveals: the inaccurate dynamics of cheap op amp circuits. The euphonic colorations and compression artifacts of analog recording had hidden that weakness for some time following the transition from tube electronics to transistor electronics and ultimately to a profusion of opamp based electronics. The relatively accurate dynamic response of digital recordings laid this weakness bare and the return to using more tube based gear is well-advised, but not because it "adds coloration" but precisely because the coloration that it does add "doesn't matter so much" while the coloration that it doesn't add (inaccurate dynamics) "matters a lot".

Just thought I'd pass that along. Perhaps there is some truth in his idea...

Cheers,

Otto

 

[MCI2424]

This recalls to me a discussion in Analog Only a few weeks ago.
It seems popular to use analog tape these days not for its linearities but its non-linearities. There's a huge difference there.
NR systems like dolby and dbx were designed so that you didnt have to venture into the non-linear ( distorted) region of the analog tape when tracking. Tape distortion is desirable in certain cases but no serious engineer wanted to be lumbered with tape distortion on the original track(s) and have no option to get rid of it later on. You couldnt get rid of it later on.
Like reverb, once it's there, it's there for good.

That's why I am confused by people who stick with analog tape for tracking but cant seem to agree on the reason for doing so. Bounce seems to want tape as an fx and that's fine. But doing original tracking with tape is something else again. Do you use analog tape because of the distortion it adds (when you saturate it) or because of the distortion it mostly doesnt add (when you dont saturate it)? These two approaches are very different from each other.

You can use analog tape in a way that gives "analog warmth". But you can just as easily use it to not give "analog warmth" and to be as uncolored as possible. Tape is capable of both. There is nothing in analog tape that automatically gives you "that analog sound", as Ghost pointed out.
The strange thing is, since the mid 60's, NR systems allowed engineers more and more, to avoid the analog tape "sound", if they so chose, when using analog tape. And this was years before digital was a practical option.

It's good to know what you're doing and even better to know why you're doing it.
Tim G

I have been saying this forever. People just like buzzwords I guess. Tape saturation is distortion. Engineers try to *avoid* it all they can. Some use it for effect, like reverb, but you are right, once committed to tape, it can't be undone.

 

[MCI2424]

One can conclude so, but the conclusion depends on what one practices. People who one way or the other get involved in recording of sound practice different things and thus have different goals, different sets of criteria for and methods of judgement.



Neither are.
Neither tell "the truth" (assumingly there is such thing to begin with ). But they don't tell the truth differently.
"Digital" does not do it like a skillful politician, while "Analog" does not do it like a gifted novelist.
People (any fool is included ) don't hear that difference not necessarily due to their inability, but rather due to their carelessness ).

/respects

The only reason many love the sound of tape is because they grew up with that sound, and it is "right" to them.

The young kids doing it now are used to digital.

No argument. It is your opinion only. We all have opinions and all of them are right.

 

[Beck]

Here's something a little different... in the latest TapeOp, they interview Aspen Pittman on Behind the Gear. He reiterates a point I had discussed with him about two years ago: He asserts that what people really object to about digital recording is what it reveals: the inaccurate dynamics of cheap op amp circuits. The euphonic colorations and compression artifacts of analog recording had hidden that weakness for some time following the transition from tube electronics to transistor electronics and ultimately to a profusion of opamp based electronics. The relatively accurate dynamic response of digital recordings laid this weakness bare and the return to using more tube based gear is well-advised, but not because it "adds coloration" but precisely because the coloration that it does add "doesn't matter so much" while the coloration that it doesn't add (inaccurate dynamics) "matters a lot".

Just thought I'd pass that along. Perhaps there is some truth in his idea...

Cheers,

Otto

Well to be frank, that was the first argument I ever heard from digital apologists over 20 years ago to explain the widely reported harshness of digital. It has the feel of a technical argument, but it is all marketing.

This was possibly the very first marketing volley in the still continuing debate. The line was that digital was so perfect it revealed the flaws of analog circuitry, as well as the flaws of the musician, engineer producer, etc.

The implication was that we wouldn’t realize the full potential of digital until sometime in the future when we had better equipment that was worthy of digital. We’ve had decades now for this hypothesis to be proven. It still hasn’t materialized. In fact, the more digital replaced analog at every level the worse the product has become.

Now here is something really different by today’s convention:

Digital was and is vaporware. It was a promise… a prediction that to this day still has not occurred. The gap between digital sampling and digital recording has never been bridged. There is a huge difference between sampling a single waveform and a complex piece of music. So, in many ways we’re still waiting for liftoff.

In the meantime generations have become accustomed to the sound and even more so the convenience of a digital world. We use it best we can, but it is what it is. And it is useable, but only a shadow of what we expected. Its utility is much more than we ever dreamed, but sonically speaking… no, absolutely not!

The thing you will observe about digital from a marketing perspective is that the “Big breakthroughs” are just around the next corner… next week, next year, someday, whatever. I’m just amazed that digital “marketeers” have been using the same wordage for nearly three decades now without getting caught.

Tim

 

[Dr ZEE]

The line was that digital was so perfect it revealed the flaws of analog circuitry, as well as the flaws of the musician, engineer producer, etc.

huh! great.
Soooo? Let me try to apply my not so perfect logic here.
If that line was/is true, then: To make a recording "free of" the flaws of analog circuitry, as well as the flaws of the musician, engineer producer, etc. (or say: to veil (or bury) all that nasty stuff back again ) - all it takes is: replace the digital recording "system" with an analog one.
Easy, you see
...easy way out, back to light, that is:

 

[Beck]

huh! great.
Soooo? Let me try to apply my not so perfect logic here.
If that line was/is true, then: To make a recording "free of" the flaws of analog circuitry, as well as the flaws of the musician, engineer producer, etc. (or say: to veil (or bury) all that nasty stuff back again ) - all it takes is: replace the digital recording "system" with an analog one.
Easy, you see
...easy way out, back to light, that is:

Precisely!

After a while a guy has to stop believing we’re going to find WMDs in Iraq. If digital technology were a political hot button, 60-Minutes, 20/20, NPR, etc, would have exposed the industry’s dirty little secrets long ago in the early days.

This is understandable though, as excellence in music reproduction has never had mass appeal. And who would sponsor the program… Sony? Audiophiles have always been a fringe element, just as people that prefer a fine brandy to a $3.00 bottle of rotgut are in the minority.

 

[MCI2424]

jesus...
you people have much too much time to talk shit...I cant believe you're even trying to suggest you're rambling was in someway relevant to my question - of course you had to dismiss my query in order to do so, like a petty pedant is duty bound to do.

I wont even waste time addressing that last post,

thanks ghost FM, you're a worthy forum member. You answer queries, and dont engage in some ego-wank argue-for-the-sake-of-it BS

BYE BYE HOMERECORDING.COM

Here,here,you are wiser than your years.

 

[Reel Recording]

For most of the general public, its all gonna end up an mp3 , or on an ipod anyway, so does it really matter?

 

[Beck]

wow, thanks so much for the thoughtful replies people.

You're very welcome.

 

[MCI2424]

I am working on an indie album right now. A mid-level band from New York. I gave thenm some examples of my 100% digital 24 track songs and some 24 track 2" tape songs.

After looking at tape prices lurking around $600, they decided to go the digital route.

They really could not tell the difference since I mixed the songs up on a CD.

The "analog only" guy in the band (guitarist) had each song pegged on his list as to the real analog songs.

He got 20% right. Digital won out. Save $600.00

I can only stress over again, in the wars, cheap digital along with cheap pre-amps, mics etc. sound bad. Cheap analog along with the rest sounds bad too.

Great pre-amps, great mics and a great analog OR digital rig sounds very close except digital is more detailed with a better dynamic range and lower noise floor.

I do only use a hard disk 24 track recorder and shy away from ITB so I really have no idea if ITB sounds good or not. I mix on an analog console that is very low in noise and has very good pre-amps, EQs and mix busses.

 

[Beck]

For most of the general public, its all gonna end up an mp3 , or on an ipod anyway, so does it really matter?

What you start with makes all the difference in what you end up with.

Or I could be wrong and we should all just stop worrying about it and get one of these.

As you can see it has all the features of a quality recorder, including a high performance attached mic, a simple but effective front panel volume control, front firing speaker and the usual transport controls we're familiar with … Record, Duck, Rewind, Fast Forward, and Pause.

Ok, the duck is probably a music note, but I still say it looks like a duck.

 

[Beck]

Of course there is the broader question… does quality music even matter in today’s society? With people sleeping on sidewalks for a week just to buy a PS3, maybe not.

Hi-fi peaked in the 80’s. Technology has not given us better quality simply because time has passed. The masses don't require and therefore don't demand it.

Yet, my practice is still to produce music for the most discriminating, though there are fewer of them per capita than there were in time past.

 

[Good Friend]

fisher price

Hey I want one of those! You may not get laid carrying that around but you could at least hear how lame your song ideas and arrangements are on it.

 

[Beck]

Hey I want one of those! You may not get laid carrying that around but you could at least hear how lame your song ideas and arrangements are on it.

I think it's also full-track mono, which should be all the rave soon. Stock up now or be left out!

It's model FP3, which is very close to PS3 but cheaper.

 

[Dr ZEE]

in the wars!

A mid-level band ...

on a scale of whose levele meter?
arghhhhhhhhhhh , nevermind.
*********

After looking at tape prices lurking around $600, they decided to go the digital route.

I suppose, the digital route is cheaper on mci's price list that is. or is there some other point ot it?

They really could not tell the difference since I mixed the songs up on a CD.

That Sounds like a perfect client, then

He got 20% right. Digital won out. Save $600.00
.

That is a rather common situation. nothing unusual nor outstanding nor revealing. People hear/see/know no difference and save all the time.
**********
now for "conclusions":

cheap digital along with cheap pre-amps, mics etc. sound bad. Cheap analog along with the rest sounds bad too.
.

That one has no relationship to the "story of my client" above , but I'd say it has to be true: more expansive stuff better than less expansive stuff, not to say that it is the case all the time, but most of the time, I suppose. So?????!!!!!!! So what? What are we "stressing" here?

Great pre-amps, great mics and a great analog OR digital rig sounds very close ...

That depends on who is listening and how (circumstance - situation, demand, attention, focus, amount(lengths/time) of material etc) he/she listens.

...except digital is more detailed ...

that is a faulty cliche.

...except digital.. a better dynamic range .

For the application (music recording/production that is) - It depends. It's greater - Not better.

...except digital... lower noise floor.

Yes it is! Which makes digital recording a weapon of choce for recording The Silence.

/WAR!

 

[Good Friend]

digital/analog

A few years back i had a record of 12-13 songs that i dug quite a bit by some underground band. I loved the production and sound except for one song. 12 of the songs sounded like a nicely blended soup of audio. Everything sat nicely alongside each other. The 13th song always had a real sharp and obnoxious quality to it. It sounded like a bunch of mp3s pasted over each other. It didnt sound nearly as alive or as authentic as the other 12. And a few years later i found out that the 12 were recorded on a Tascam 80-8 and the 13th track was recorded digitally. Now i know there could be a million reasons why the digital one sounded like ass, but i dont feel like risking even a chance that my tunes will sound like that one did. I could never dig it even before i knew it was digital.

So take what you may from that.

 

[Dr ZEE]

It's model FP3...

hey! seventy freaking bucks!
and there all the ducks, cats, snakes and worms and what have you are on the backlit 1.4” LCD screen that uses icons to help kids recognize and choose their favorite songs and stories all by themselves
give your lil'girl a gift of technology.
pinky:

 

[cjacek]

I, frankly, shudder at the mere thought of capturing sounds as a series of non-linear, mathematically representated and approximated "snapshots" of the original. Doesn't sit well with me at all.