Will Analog Multitracks ever be made again?

[sweetbeats]

Why "steer an expectation" at all? It only throws into question the validity of the result, not to mention your own confidence in your product.

Good products sell themselves. Only the insecure person feels the need to manipulate peoples' responses.

Nah...you're totally missing the point and taking this out of context. All I'm saying is that there is such a difference between the straight digital source and the source looped through the tape deck to my ears, and others have the same experience. Its exciting. I'm not trying to "sell" it. Goodness. People with whom I share the A/B test are people that enjoy music...they aren't technicians...they wonder why I have the tape machines and I tell them to "check this out". I don't tell them which is which on playback. Its an informal blind test not for the purpose of forming a movement...I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek in my earlier post, but honestly I can't understand why every studio doesn't have a good halftrack for mastering. So anyway, if that is "steering" so be it. They know what their ears hear and nobody can take that away from them...I know what my ears hear and nobody can take that away from me. So any debate is really stupid because what it comes down to is you trying to tell me what my ears hear. Silly. If that makes me "insecure' about all this oh well. I really could care less, but it seems to me that by virtue of the fact that I'm a firm believer in analog tape as a professional recording medium in the face of the digital age and the fact that I don't care if others agree with me, that would make me a pretty secure person on this topic.

 

[Victory Pete]

Well my analog friends, it seems this is the end for me, I am shortly to be banned for criticizing the admin's decision to allow spam on our otherwise beautiful and perfect BBS. I hope you've enjoyed our discussions as much as I have. Good day to you all.

Bye!

VP

 

[Victory Pete]

It's almost like it can't ever be avoided. . . But anyway- -

New multi-track tape machines? - - I fear the days of robust and serious manufacturing have passed. (Along with healthy economies)

I'm always pleased when I see younger recordists showing an interest in tape, and I want to think that we who own and/or maintain the machines in circulation today continue to do so, because when they're gone, they're gone. . .

And really, the energy expelled in The Debate would be better used to educate the young in maintaining the machines, if you possess the knowledge and skill, or maybe promoting or supporting those who maintain analog machines professionally.

'Cause The Debate will rage on, and the digi-users will be constantly upgrading their gear, since THAT maunfacturing treadmill is alive and well, the path of upgrades and downloads, and version 2.0's. . .

I know very little, but I do know this- - - The global economy was much stronger when we built and used more hardware and less software. . . We built it with many human hands. We packaged it with more supplies. We shipped it in many more trucks, and boats, and trains. We moved it on many more forklifts. We sold it in many more stores. We employed many more people. People who aren't employed now. So I don't really know which sounds better, but I know that a hardware world sounds better to me.

Sad but true!

VP

 

[gecko zzed]

They know what their ears hear and nobody can take that away from them...I know what my ears hear and nobody can take that away from me.

The trouble is that knowing what your ears hear is not quite as straightforward as that. Your ears may be (all things being equal) neutral, but your brain isn't, and it will happily create stuff that isn't there (or take way stuff that is there).

My sister has speakers (all different) in every room of the house, all playing the same program. I listen to something in the living room for a while, go out to the kitchen to listen, and am appalled by how bad it sounds. Yet if I listen in there for a while and go back to the living room, the living room set of speakers now sounds awful. The brain is highly adept at compensating for variations in sound delivered by the ear.

Each recording I make (whether for me or someone else) is the best sounding I've ever done . . . yet I go back to earlier recordings (which I also thought the best), and wonder why on earth I was happy with that. But at the time I thought it was great . . . and it was . . . because my brain, not my ears, was telling me that it was.

Because the brain can be fooled so easily highlights the importance of double-blind tests. If a difference between digital and analog can't be determined through such a test, it means that the magical quality that analog has exists outside the acoustic domain . . . perhaps in the smell of tape, the spin of the reels or the click of solenoids.

 

[gecko zzed]

I know very little, but I do know this- - - The global economy was much stronger when we built and used more hardware and less software. . . We built it with many human hands. We packaged it with more supplies. We shipped it in many more trucks, and boats, and trains. We moved it on many more forklifts. We sold it in many more stores. We employed many more people. People who aren't employed now. So I don't really know which sounds better, but I know that a hardware world sounds better to me.

This is an interesting dimension you've added to this casserole of a debate, i.e. the social and industrial aspect of recording.

 

[Tim Gillett]

Nah...you're totally missing the point and taking this out of context. All I'm saying is that there is such a difference between the straight digital source and the source looped through the tape deck to my ears, and others have the same experience. Its exciting.

.................... I'm a firm believer in analog tape as a professional recording medium in the face of the digital age

You too are using analog tape as an effect. That's what most of the few people who still record to it these days use it for.

If it sounded the same as live there wouldnt be much point in using it would there? For these days it's very easy to get digital to sound the same as live. Analog tape at its best can sound pretty close to live.

I spent most of my working life servicing and modifying analog tape machines so that they sounded as close to live as possible, for that is what the manufacturers -at great expense - designed them to sound like, and that was what the customers demanded.

Nowadays more of the few analog tape machine customers I still get, want a deliberately distorted sound. How distorted? What sorts of distortion? Well it's their choice. They are paying. They are the end user, not me.

You are using analog tape in order to distort the live sound. That's fine if that's what you want. But if you want to use an audio recorder just to capture the live sound faithfully, without colouration, which was always the aim of the makers of quality analog tape machines, a digital recorder will do the job just fine.

I suspect the makers of quality analog tape machines didnt see their product as "a recorder plus an effects unit ", but these days that is how they are often used.

Others of my customers want a quality playback of existing archival tape recordings. The last thing they want is added distortion. This seems to be the only remaining area where analog tape machines are still used as they were originally intended, to reproduce the live sound as faithfully as possible.

Tim

 

[The Ghost of FM]

You too are using analog tape as an effect. That's what most of the few people who still record to it these days use it for.
Tim

I think what you're saying here is wrong and insulting.

Using an analog multi track is about a lot more then just its "effect". There's also the tactile user experience which gives a high degree of comfort, familiarity and reliability to working with this tool. And for many people who learned the art of audio recording on an analog machine, it it very much akin to having being raised to speak a certain language and becoming fluent in it and with it.

Your mindset seems to be one that dismisses and disregards all of those things and wishes only to look at statistics and market trends as the sole determining factor. Sort of like a metric system enthusiast who wants everyone to ignore and disregard the imperial measurement system that they grew up with and are used to.

I don't think anyone here appreciates or needs your digital sales pitch. Kindly move along.

Cheers!

 

[sweetbeats]

You too are using analog tape as an effect. That's what most of the few people who still record to it these days use it for.

If it sounded the same as live there wouldnt be much point in using it would there? For these days it's very easy to get digital to sound the same as live. Analog tape at its best can sound pretty close to live.

I spent most of my working life servicing and modifying analog tape machines so that they sounded as close to live as possible, for that is what the manufacturers -at great expense - designed them to sound like, and that was what the customers demanded.

Nowadays more of the few analog tape machine customers I still get, want a deliberately distorted sound. How distorted? What sorts of distortion? Well it's their choice. They are paying. They are the end user, not me.

You are using analog tape in order to distort the live sound. That's fine if that's what you want. But if you want to use an audio recorder just to capture the live sound faithfully, without colouration, which was always the aim of the makers of quality analog tape machines, a digital recorder will do the job just fine.

I suspect the makers of quality analog tape machines didnt see their product as "a recorder plus an effects unit ", but these days that is how they are often used.

Others of my customers want a quality playback of existing archival tape recordings. The last thing they want is added distortion. This seems to be the only remaining area where analog tape machines are still used as they were originally intended, to reproduce the live sound as faithfully as possible.

Tim

I understand what you are saying here, Tim, but I think you are incorrect about how and why I prefer tape. Yes, it is definitely being used like a plugin when I'm A/B'ing it, but that's only because I'm demonstrating its treatment of the digital source material.

And I'm not using the halftrack for slapback effects or for a deliberate "lo-fi" sound. And yet I ALSO am not seeking machines that were built in the era that really pushed input = output. It seems like this became an increasing demand from the mid 70's and forward as transformerless designs became more common-place? I'd be interested to read your perspective on that. But anyway, I like how the older discrete amplified transformer-coupled electronics sound. And, yeah, I probably like them because of non-linearities present in that path. But I see that as different than using the tape medium as an effect, and its certainly not crunch distortion or artifacts that are present with saturation that I'm hearing when A/B'ing playback...I'm not pushing the +9 tape that hard. I'm not going for "phat", but I'm not shying away from whatever personality the tape electronics and tape itself add to the sound and for me the characteristics of that sound involve a wider/deeper stereo image, more natural sibilants and a more present but not "louder" bottom end. And that's just with the A/B test. I'm not talking about the other parts of the process during tracking, overdubbing and mixing...nor the visceral elements of the process which I like too. You are absolutely correct that if I was going for input = output then I'd be using the most "transparent" mic pres I have and going straight to hard disk...and I do that too. But stuff just sounds better to analog for me.

But, Tim, I think you are trying to super-impose your experiences and world on to my comments and since our worlds are totally apples and oranges that super-imposition just doesn't make sense or fit.

I appreciate what you are saying, but I think you are making some assumptions about what I'm trying to say or what my motive is and I think you are off-track, and I'm totally fine with that, but that's how I see it.

And to gecko zzed, yep...my ears is my ears, and they'll be different from anybody else's along with how and what my brain does with those electrical signals and what it tells me its receiving. I think that's wonderful...its very non-linear. Keep in mind that at no point have I said analog is better ir more right for somebody else. I'm just talking about me and my ears and my gear.

 

[Tim Gillett]

Ghost,

Sweetbeats and I were discussing sonic issues only. You say "using and analog multitrack is about a lot more than just its (sonic) "effect" ". Well it can be for some. I quite agree that some people use analog tape for reasons other than sonic, or as well as sonic, and good luck to them, but we werent discussing those other reasons at this point.

I think Sweetbeats own reply to my post demonstrates that we are talking here about sonic issues at this point.

Regards Tim

 

[Tim Gillett]

I understand what you are saying here, Tim, but I think you are incorrect about how and why I prefer tape. Yes, it is definitely being used like a plugin when I'm A/B'ing it, but that's only because I'm demonstrating its treatment of the digital source material.

And I'm not using the halftrack for slapback effects or for a deliberate "lo-fi" sound. And yet I ALSO am not seeking machines that were built in the era that really pushed input = output. It seems like this became an increasing demand from the mid 70's and forward as transformerless designs became more common-place? I'd be interested to read your perspective on that. But anyway, I like how the older discrete amplified transformer-coupled electronics sound. And, yeah, I probably like them because of non-linearities present in that path. But I see that as different than using the tape medium as an effect, and its certainly not crunch distortion or artifacts that are present with saturation that I'm hearing when A/B'ing playback...I'm not pushing the +9 tape that hard. I'm not going for "phat", but I'm not shying away from whatever personality the tape electronics and tape itself add to the sound and for me the characteristics of that sound involve a wider/deeper stereo image, more natural sibilants and a more present but not "louder" bottom end. And that's just with the A/B test. I'm not talking about the other parts of the process during tracking, overdubbing and mixing...nor the visceral elements of the process which I like too. You are absolutely correct that if I was going for input = output then I'd be using the most "transparent" mic pres I have and going straight to hard disk...and I do that too. But stuff just sounds better to analog for me.

But, Tim, I think you are trying to super-impose your experiences and world on to my comments and since our worlds are totally apples and oranges that super-imposition just doesn't make sense or fit.

I appreciate what you are saying, but I think you are making some assumptions about what I'm trying to say or what my motive is and I think you are off-track, and I'm totally fine with that, but that's how I see it.

Sweebeats I understand that you arent going for heavy tape saturation or a deliberate "lo fi" sound. I didnt say that you were. But the difference is still only in degree. You prefer analog tape, and older transformer coupled designs, because to some degree or other it sonically alters the live input. You are using it as an effect. And good luck to you.

But understand that in these recent debates, in support of analog tape, the exact opposite proposition has been stated very forcefully. That analog tape sound is closer to the live input than a digital recording, the misleading catchphrase being "keeping it all in the analog domain" and that digital recordings result in "harsh cymbals". Both of these propositions are false as I'm sure you know.

I dont understand how on the one hand you seem to acknowledge that recording to digital will be closer to the live input, but on the other, recording to tape produces "more natural sibilants". What do you mean by more natural? Do you mean more pleasant to the ear?

Some vocalists are very sibilant. In times past, both in analog tape and digital recording, I have rolled off some of the highs from a very sibilant voice. It's not "natural' to that person's voice but it's generally more pleasant to the average listener.

I can think of an example of a vocalist who for me was annoyingly sibilant. Dinah Washington. She was mainly recorded in the 50's and early 60's I think. Perhaps the engineer at the time already attenuated some of her sibilants. If it had been me I might have cut them even more.

Generally speaking, pro reel to reel tape machines running at 15ips or more did not much alter sibilants unless you ran into saturation with the attendant compression. I guess that's why even back in the 60's Dinah Washington's sibilants on her recordings still sounded very prominent.

The bigger issue for engineers say back in the 50's and early 60's was noise and distortion building up over multiple tape generations. I read a piece on recording Frank Sinatra and the Capitol engineer said that on Sinatra's vocal track he always cut everything above 10khz so as to avoid distortion, not on the tracking tape but to avoid problems on subsequent generations.

As for "a wider, deeper stereo image", a well designed, properly aligned pro tape machine will do little or nothing to the stereo image. If it does noticeably widen it, there's something wrong with it. One of the standard alignment procedures in an analog tape machine is to make sure that it doesnt widen the stereo image, and that it is stereo/mono compatible.

Regards Tim

 

[sweetbeats]

Sweebeats I understand that you arent going for heavy tape saturation or a deliberate "lo fi" sound. I didnt say that you were. But the difference is still only in degree. You prefer analog tape, and older transformer coupled designs, because to some degree or other it sonically alters the live input. You are using it as an effect. And good luck to you.

If I'm using tape as an "effect" then I argue that the individual who is choosing a medium that is as close as possible to input = output is then using that as a "neutral effect".

I dont understand how on the one hand you seem to acknowledge that recording to digital will be closer to the live input, but on the other, recording to tape produces "more natural sibilants". What do you mean by more natural? Do you mean more pleasant to the ear?

My signal chain to digital is more neutral than my signal chain to tape, and my digital tracking system is more neutral than my tape tracking system, so yes...digital is more neutral or input is closer to output in my studio, but it seems like you are trying to take my experiences and my statements and convert them to generalities. What I'm saying applies to me and/or to people that have experienced my gear over the years. What I meant by "natural sibilants" is not more pleasing to the ear, more pleasing to my ear.

As for "a wider, deeper stereo image", a well designed, properly aligned pro tape machine will do little or nothing to the stereo image. If it does noticeably widen it, there's something wrong with it. One of the standard alignment procedures in an analog tape machine is to make sure that it doesnt widen the stereo image, and that it is stereo/mono compatible.

Well then I guess you wouldn't want to use my gear because it must be improperly designed or there's something wrong with it.

 

[miroslav]

As for "a wider, deeper stereo image", a well designed, properly aligned pro tape machine will do little or nothing to the stereo image. If it does noticeably widen it, there's something wrong with it. One of the standard alignment procedures in an analog tape machine is to make sure that it doesnt widen the stereo image, and that it is stereo/mono compatible.

My experience with that wasn't just about the "tape deck"...but running the mix OTB through an analog console with analog outboard VS doing it ITB.
Using the tape deck was just one component of that, but in combination, the OTB analog mix always sounds a bit wider/deeper (to sound cliché - "more 3D") than when I'm mixing/summing it in the DAW...and that's playing it back through the same monitor system.
I really don't need to look for fault or blame nor do I want to...I just prefer that sound, but I also love my DAW for a variety of other reasons.

 

[AtoDeficient]

This is an interesting dimension you've added to this casserole of a debate, i.e. the social and industrial aspect of recording.

Well, the economics of manufacturing were stated earlier. . . Profit margins, etc. . But the trickle-down effect of that profit affects us all. . . Have many people considered the physical volume of freight being moved today, as compared to when TV's came in a large SQUARE box, and when ipods were boom-boxes and turntables, and CD's were albums- - and with itunes today, there is NO physical product to ship at all. . . . Yes, emerging economies have increased the widespread use of the products, but what was once a tractor-trailer truck-load of hi-fi equipment, or recording gear, or TV's, etc. would fit in a Ford Ranger today. . A plus, if you're selling software - you have no transportation costs. A minus if you used to work in the transportation industry. .

The saving grace is that products today are being made so poorly that they have to be replaced far more often. . And that is where we, the owners of the tape machines are the "winners" (?) . . They're built to last, and they're worth fixing when necessary.

 

[gecko zzed]

Well, the economics of manufacturing were stated earlier. . . Profit margins, etc. . But the trickle-down effect of that profit affects us all. . . Have many people considered the physical volume of freight being moved today, as compared to when TV's came in a large SQUARE box, and when ipods were boom-boxes and turntables, and CD's were albums- - and with itunes today, there is NO physical product to ship at all. . . . Yes, emerging economies have increased the widespread use of the products, but what was once a tractor-trailer truck-load of hi-fi equipment, or recording gear, or TV's, etc. would fit in a Ford Ranger today. . A plus, if you're selling software - you have no transportation costs. A minus if you used to work in the transportation industry. .

The saving grace is that products today are being made so poorly that they have to be replaced far more often. . And that is where we, the owners of the tape machines are the "winners" (?) . . They're built to last, and they're worth fixing when necessary.

Agree that there are less than enjoyable consequences if you have lost jobs in manufacturing and transport industries. On the other hand, miniaturization means that those big square boxes . . . wooden cabinets, steel and glass . . . have been replaced by silicon and plastic, and can fit in the palm of a hand. This is a huge reduction in resources consumed . . . this means cheaper and more accessible goods, and has environmental benefits. I would not regard poorly made goods as a "saving grace".

 

[AtoDeficient]

I would not regard poorly made goods as a "saving grace".

You would if you owned a train.

 

[AtoDeficient]

You too are using analog tape as an effect.

I must be using that effect, too. . . But I don't know why this discussion often turns to what reproduces the live sound faithfully ? . . In my mind, ALL recording is an effect. . I may have mentioned before that as a listener, I do not want the drums to sound like I'm sitting in a room with a drummer. That usually sounds like crap. I don't want to sit in front of a screaming amplifier. That sounds like crap, too. . . Recording, mixing, mastering- - they are all effects. There are live albums, and studio albums, and I like both, but I like the live ones most often for the performance, not usually the recording. . .

My favorite recordings don't represent the bands live, and I wouldn't want them to. I love the "art" of studio recording. . My favorite recordings apparently represent bands recorded on distortion-inducing, lo-fi, $100,000 tape machines, and I love that crap.

 

[Tim Gillett]

My experience with that wasn't just about the "tape deck"...but running the mix OTB through an analog console with analog outboard VS doing it ITB.
Using the tape deck was just one component of that, but in combination, the OTB analog mix always sounds a bit wider/deeper (to sound cliché - "more 3D") than when I'm mixing/summing it in the DAW...and that's playing it back through the same monitor system.
I really don't need to look for fault or blame nor do I want to...I just prefer that sound, but I also love my DAW for a variety of other reasons.

Whethere it's a tape deck, a mixing console, or whatever, they're not supposed to widen the stereo image -or make any other change to the input - unless that is a creative decision you have made. In which case they are supposed to reproduce those creative decisions.
You only get stereo image changes because two amps are not identical in their behaviour, eg: different frequency response, different time delays etc.

It was well known by engineers that tape machines created phase changes between high and low frequencies within one mono track. But so long as the two channels in a stereo machine (or a stereo amp or stereo speakers) have the same phase delays as each other, the human ear doesnt notice it.

But take your gear that is widening the stereo image to a capable tech and he will tell you there's a fault in it somewhere. Identical amps are supposed to be identical in performance, or at least very closely matched. That has been the whole basis of stereo from its inception. Same with speakers and the whole two channel signal chain.

No gear, analog or digital, should be widening the stereo image unless it's specifically designed for that purpose in mind and the operator has full creative control over the effect.

Tim

 

[miroslav]

...this means cheaper and more accessible goods, and has environmental benefits.

Mmmmmm...maybe there is an environmental benefit of less resources being used to manufacture...but I think today's disposable instead of repairable mentality actually undermines the environment dramatically.

 

[miroslav]

Whethere it's a tape deck, a mixing console, or whatever, they're not supposed to widen the stereo image -or make any other change to the input - unless that is a creative decision you have made. In which case they are supposed to reproduce those creative decisions.
You only get stereo image changes because two amps are not identical in their behaviour, eg: different frequency response, different time delays etc.

It was well known by engineers that tape machines created phase changes between high and low frequencies within one mono track. But so long as the two channels in a stereo machine (or a stereo amp or stereo speakers) have the same phase delays as each other, the human ear doesnt notice it.

But take your gear that is widening the stereo image to a capable tech and he will tell you there's a fault in it somewhere. Identical amps are supposed to be identical in performance, or at least very closely matched. That has been the whole basis of stereo from its inception. Same with speakers and the whole two channel signal chain.

No gear, analog or digital, should be widening the stereo image unless it's specifically designed for that purpose in mind and the operator has full creative control over the effect.

Tim

You are making the assumption that it's all about some kind of fault with the equipment...which I find rather odd.
I mean...people are saying something sounds better to them, and you're postion is that there must be something wrong with their equipment...???

If anything, I would flip that coin and consider that something may be wrong with the OTHER equipment that is preventing something from sounding more 3-D, wider/bigger...etc.

But I don't want to kick the analog VS digital can yet again...I was simply making a comment about my own experience, though I find it somewhat amusing that often the pure digital lovers always say that "something must be wrong" if/when someone claims they prefer a non-digital setup, and that it's just not possible for digital to do anything bad/different to the sound, and they have the specs to prove it, and that analog does more to mess up the sound!!!

 

[AtoDeficient]

Mmmmmm...maybe there is an environmental benefit of less resources being used to manufacture...but I think today's disposable instead of repairable mentality actually undermines the environment dramatically.

Agreed. . Fortunately we recycle alot of steel and plastic, and make wood out of sawdust and glue. . .