M
mr. produca
New member
when jesus comes i will ask him what is better!!!!!!
Chris Shaeffer
Peavey ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Digital doesn't sound sterile and cold. Its just not as easy to get it to sound warm they way it is with tape. It can be quite a challenge to try and get digital to sound like tape, but that doesn't mean it sounds "sterile and cold."
Tape CHANGES the sound in different ways depending on how hard you hit the tape. It also adds noise in the form of tape hiss and the various noises added by the rest of the analog mixing chain (mixers, compressors, effects boxs, etc.)
Digital CHANGES the sound by digitizing it and adds noise in the form or quantization errors, but it changes the sound LESS than tape provided you are using good quality converters. We just like the way tape sounds for rock recordingings... and some people miss that sound when recording digital. You can ADD warmth and punch to digital tracks but you can't get rid of tape compression once you've recorded it.
I've read inteviews with old time engineers (the guys who recorded Led Zep, Van Halen, and the like) who were saying it was always a fight to get the tape to NOT change the sound...
And let's be real. How much recording experience do you have? Do you know enough about the process to make use of the advantages of either system? It takes a solid grounding in the basics (mic choice and placement, preamp choice, calibrating and setting levels, room treatment, positioning the source in the room, etc.) before anything you record will be high enough quality to make the choice between digital or analog a good one. Once you get to that point, you'll likely know enough about both systems to make a sound choice.
If you're not at that point, then it doesn't matter. Get what you WANT and what works with your budget. And don't regret it. It doesn't matter as much as the heat of the arguements can make it seem.
Tape CHANGES the sound in different ways depending on how hard you hit the tape. It also adds noise in the form of tape hiss and the various noises added by the rest of the analog mixing chain (mixers, compressors, effects boxs, etc.)
Digital CHANGES the sound by digitizing it and adds noise in the form or quantization errors, but it changes the sound LESS than tape provided you are using good quality converters. We just like the way tape sounds for rock recordingings... and some people miss that sound when recording digital. You can ADD warmth and punch to digital tracks but you can't get rid of tape compression once you've recorded it.
I've read inteviews with old time engineers (the guys who recorded Led Zep, Van Halen, and the like) who were saying it was always a fight to get the tape to NOT change the sound...
And let's be real. How much recording experience do you have? Do you know enough about the process to make use of the advantages of either system? It takes a solid grounding in the basics (mic choice and placement, preamp choice, calibrating and setting levels, room treatment, positioning the source in the room, etc.) before anything you record will be high enough quality to make the choice between digital or analog a good one. Once you get to that point, you'll likely know enough about both systems to make a sound choice.
If you're not at that point, then it doesn't matter. Get what you WANT and what works with your budget. And don't regret it. It doesn't matter as much as the heat of the arguements can make it seem.
M
mr. produca
New member
thanks for clearing that up. i guess i sound like a rookie pretending to know something about recording.i will sit back and let the pros handle this!!!!!
Seeker of Rock
Proud fucking American
mr. produca said:these are some strong pionts.it is very true,for a decent analogue setup you would have to shovel a sh!!!t load of money into it,those big, quality tape machines ive seen for $25000
but the sound!ooooh that qaulity sound that cant be duplicated!!!
and on the other hand you got digital that is fast and reliable,but then some complain the sound is sterile and cold.both good and bad points.seems imposible to pick one over the other.i guess im just repeating what so many others said
I was being facetious. Sorry. My point is that right now there is a virtual clearance sale on some decent analog gear because of the digital hype, so now is an absolute GREAT time to clean up on some great used analog deals. A lot of bang-for-the-buck out there. Not going to debate analog versus digital because it really is a matter of preference, and either or will do fine for you I'm sure. Like Chris Schaeffer said, don't regret it...as long as you buy decent stuff, either one will give you a decent sound. Personally I prefer analog tape to HD, but I don't do recording full-time and only record my own material. If I did it full-time, and was recording more than my own stuff, I would probably go digital merely for the editing capabilities. Do what is right for you, though.
B
Beck
Guest
mr. produca said:
"Some gifted individuals, much like their instrumental virtuoso counterparts, possess, through training, the ability to discern the most subtle change in the reproduction of sound, whether produced by an instrument or a sound-reproduction system. It is these individuals who are rejecting the digital recording medium and its in-home partner, the compact disc player, as an inferior sound source, regression in reproducing music, another example of a world of accepted mediocrity or of large corporations' marketing progress for progress's sake to finance ongoing digital research.
This is unfortunately a complicated and controversial topic, but those fortunate enough to be able to discern the differences continue to use analog recording tape to master music.
we do believe that pressing CDs from an analog master tape is going to produce as full, rich and sweet a recording as the digital playback medium will allow. This method of digital pressing from an analog master is championed by a great many labels around the world, small though they may be, whose primary objective is nothing less than the finest possible quality of music capturing and reproduction for their valued clients."
Ira Segal
Journal of The Audio Engineering Society (AES) - 1997
C
Cloneboy Studio
.
Beck said:
Isn't that an ad hominem argument?
Basically, if you choose digital you are NOT a gifted listener; but if you poo-poo digital you ARE? That's what is infered.
Sorry but that doesn't wash with me.
There are trade offs for both systems. Plus, to be honest, you can't even begin to compare digital versus analog sound quality unless you are talking about extremely expensive, well-maintained, expertly operated analog machines. An Otari MX5050 is definately "inferior" to a RME Hammerfall and PC running Cubase regarding end product. I know, I had an MX5050 "back in the day."
As far as I'm concerned give me ProTools HD and McDSP Analog Channel and I'm a very happy camper.
FALKEN
*************************
to answer the question on noise reduction, most 1/2" mixdown decks won't have any, but you don't need it. if you get a 1/2" 8-track, it may or may not have noise reduction. I use a 1/2" 16-track, and it has dolby C, and you need it, at least with standard tape. but you can't tell its there. I track with that and also with my PC.
the question I would ask to you is are you going to be recording yourself or other people?
what I mean to say is, if you are going to have people in there, and they're not top notch or anything, and you need to record the vocal like 5-20 times just to comp a good take, go for the PC system.
as for mixing down to an analogue deck, I've had some problems getting one that works properly. still working on it.
my other piece of advice would be to find out what the people you like use.
often with hip hop, the tracks come from vinyl, so there is already an analogue element in the sound, and tracked to digital sounds great. many hip hop home recorders use ADAT and a mackie, and mixdown to DAT. nowadays, you would probably want to skip the DAT and just mix down to your PC instead.
Also it is my understanding that early hip hop was tracked with AKAI's, which let you sequence samples and also record up to 2 full audio tracks, which were digital. I might be way off on that one.
the question I would ask to you is are you going to be recording yourself or other people?
what I mean to say is, if you are going to have people in there, and they're not top notch or anything, and you need to record the vocal like 5-20 times just to comp a good take, go for the PC system.
as for mixing down to an analogue deck, I've had some problems getting one that works properly. still working on it.
my other piece of advice would be to find out what the people you like use.
often with hip hop, the tracks come from vinyl, so there is already an analogue element in the sound, and tracked to digital sounds great. many hip hop home recorders use ADAT and a mackie, and mixdown to DAT. nowadays, you would probably want to skip the DAT and just mix down to your PC instead.
Also it is my understanding that early hip hop was tracked with AKAI's, which let you sequence samples and also record up to 2 full audio tracks, which were digital. I might be way off on that one.
thane1200
Medicated Member
mr. produca said:
The spinning of large reels puts you in higher state of creativity.
R
robin watson
New member
FALKEN said:
Now THAT'S what I call an answer to the original question.
A
acorec
Banned
I tried everything I could, but my tape machine only plays tape. CDs and Hard drives don't fit on the spindles. So, this is the reason that people use tape I guess.
A
acorec
Banned
Beck said:
Alright, I will use one of my best quotes:
"Oh boy, the ol' how do I make my recordings "warm" crap followed by "get a vintage "warmer" or a mix saturator", etc. etc. etc. First off we need an quantifiable operational definition of what "warm" means in order for us to understand what you desire. Terms like this get bandied about in my control room from day to day and I don't understand what the hell anyone is talking about. Do you mean tape saturation, harmonic distortion, head bump, tape at 15 ips vs. 30 ips. dolby SR vs. Dolby A or undecoded NR, A certain tape formulation, Ampeg vs. Studer (what Ampeg Model vs. What studer Model), etc. etc. etc. and this is only the recording medium as applied to analog and a small portion at that without any consideration for mics, pre's, mic placement, room acoustics, blah blah blah. No vintage "warmer" will give you the desired effect as most of these devices generate the type of "effect" that analog engineers try to eliminate in the first place! The amount of these artifacts present in a properly calibrated and aligned machine I submit are minimal and essentially inconsequential. I beleive your recordings as Dot put it actually don't sound "right" and your are mistaking this for it not sounding "warm" I beleive a generation has now grown up without actually ever using an analog machine a beleive the fault is their digital machine not sounding "analog" enough without actually having ever heard an entirely analog chain in a professional studio. I have made wonderful recordings in the digital medium which has vastly improved in the last several years and they sounded "right" Granted I have several decades of experience, wonderful converters, excellent mics and pre's, good sounding rooms and mixing down on my wonderful analog desk certainly helps matters. I certainly know if my 2" sounded like a vintage "warmer" I'd have it fixed. Please understand companies manufacturing "analogizing" products don't want you to know the truth: you need experience and knowledge, good room acoustics and good musicians in order to get good recordings. It's getting kind of "warm" in here, eh?"
Quoted from our dear sweetnubs
M
MCI2424
New member
Cloneboy Studio said:
A wise man, indeed.
Monkey Allen
Fork and spoon operator
Some bands are still keen to record on tape. I think the White Stripes recorded an album a couple of years ago all on tape.
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
Just to address the price of noise reduction:
Noise reduction has become dirt cheap these days, because the demand for it with digital systems is zero. Used NR units are very cheap these days, if that is a factor for you.
However, I think noise reduction units still have uses in the digital age, even though less vital perhaps than before. One thing I've noticed is that there is a certain harsh frequency range to sampled instruments, and this happens to be right around where the old tape hiss was. I've experimented with using single sided NR units on sampled instruments and have been surprised about how nice the results turned out. If you dial it in just a little bit the digital sampled instruments sound a lot less digital and a lot more analog.
A lot of the sound of what we associate with tape is Dolby A, B, and SR. The two went hand in hand.
Noise reduction has become dirt cheap these days, because the demand for it with digital systems is zero. Used NR units are very cheap these days, if that is a factor for you.
However, I think noise reduction units still have uses in the digital age, even though less vital perhaps than before. One thing I've noticed is that there is a certain harsh frequency range to sampled instruments, and this happens to be right around where the old tape hiss was. I've experimented with using single sided NR units on sampled instruments and have been surprised about how nice the results turned out. If you dial it in just a little bit the digital sampled instruments sound a lot less digital and a lot more analog.
A lot of the sound of what we associate with tape is Dolby A, B, and SR. The two went hand in hand.
C
corban
New member
Monkey Allen said:
Yeah, and it sounded like shit!
Stefan Elmblad
New member
Cloneboy Studio said:
I disagree totally. A good tape machine needs a lookup now and then, but compare that to the endless hassle with digital, where you need to update OS, your drives crash, you need to update software drivers which removes one bug and installs the next, you need to solve compability problems etc... all that is digital maintenance to me, and I think people are just so damn used to it never ending, that they don't even think about how much work they must do to keep their digital recording environment up and running.
A tape deck is many more times a more reliable medium, which needs LESS maintenance.
And it sounds better, period. Just compare the amount of digital plugins that tries to simulate analog sound, compared to how many sought-after boxes there are that makes analog sound cold and sterile, and you'll notice what the worlds preferred sound is all about.
Everyone should record on analog now and then, just so get a reminder of how beautiful and yummy all instruments record on it. It's easy to forget, and can be quite a shock.
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
Stefan Elmblad said:
The business about updating OS, bugs, drives crash, drivers crash, etc., that can be reduced to a level below the level of tape machine mantainence. The thing about tape machines is that you are dealing with mechanical parts that can go wrong, wear out, need adjustment, alignment, motors that can go bad. To keep a tape machine in *truly* tip-top operating condition is something that requires constant work and checking.
A digital system has far fewer moving parts and if set up properly can operate very reliably, with few of the problems you mention. Yes, it also requires mantainence, but a *lot* less of it.
Monkey Allen
Fork and spoon operator
corban said:Yeah, and it sounded like shit!
Did it really? I haven't even heard it, just read about it. I only really know their song about the doorbell
antispatula
Active member
why tape? Simple. Reel to reel recorders's sound still has not been able to be beaten.
Monkey Allen
Fork and spoon operator
Not to mention all the classic exponents and users of tape have split up or died and that they don't write stuff like they used to anymore