Would you do analog recording ?

[Greg_L]

The only thing cool about how inconsistent Marshalls were when I was playing them was, if you took your time and played every single one in a 50 mile radius, you could have the best sounding one in the area and everyone else had to have the leftovers.

But I was shocked when I was trying out brand new JCM800's and they all sounded completely different. They all sounded like Marshalls, but there was a huge swing in tone and distortion.

I eventually settled on one, which was awesome. I got rid of it when I got the Laney endorsement.

The late 70s/very early 80s was a transitional period for Marshall. They had contracts with suppliers expire and they used all sorts of different components and tube models. You can have two 1977 JMP MkIIs only a few serial numbers apart and they will not only sound different, they'll even look different. Even little things like switches, head cabs, and logos were not consistent in those days.

 

[miroslav]

I don't think anyone disagrees that tape decks and DAWs both have pros/cons....but I don't think this thread was or is about making a choice between them....about picking one or the other.....
...it's just asked if you would do analog, which to me means you can do both. No one is saying give up the DAW for tape, or vice versa.

That's why I've been running with the hybrid setup for years now.

 

[Greg_L]

So wtf are we doing here then? Pretty much everyone that wanted to gave their answers. Close this stupid bitch down.

 

[Chili]

I gave the best answer on page one and this thing is still going....

But I ain't closing it down.

 

[Bobbsy]

We've got to argue for 4 more days to get the number one spot on the newsletter.

Or is it time for some off topic stupidity?

How many analogue recorders does it take to change a light bulb?

Two. One to stretch up and change the bulb and the other to say "Wow!" then flutter off.

I'll get my coat.

 

[miroslav]

We've got to argue for 4 more days to get the number one spot on the newsletter.

This is like trying to see how far we can still go after the fuel tank needle is on "E".......

 

[Greg_L]

We've got to argue for 4 more days to get the number one spot on the newsletter.

Or is it time for some off topic stupidity?

How many analogue recorders does it take to change a light bulb?

Two. One to stretch up and change the bulb and the other to say "Wow!" then flutter off.

I'll get my coat.

Lol. Right, the newsletter. That's Grim's real goal with these threads. He asks these vague open-ended questions because he wants every spot in the newsletter.

 

[miroslav]

Maybe he's getting a kick-back from Chater for the generated site hits....

 

[John Willett]

I tried to keep actual sound out of it. Sound is subjective, therefore not a factor in my comparison. I tried to keep my list of tape drawbacks specific to other areas that are definitely a disadvantage compared to recording into a DAW.

But actual sound is why some people *like* tape.

Now, I can understand liking what tape compression does to the sound and some of the other effects.

But even very good machines suffered from wow and flutter - a pianist friend of mine said he never heard a piano sound like a piano on any tape recorder, because of the tape fluctuations.

It will show up on some instruments more than others, of course, and it can be inaudible on some music.

Print-through *is* a problem and is more apparent when you record "hot" - which is why I suggested recording to digital immediately off the replay head, so you get all the positive benefits you want from tape and avoid the negative ones like print-through.

I have heard print-through many times and I used high quality matt-backed tape (matt is better for print-through than shiny-back) and high quality recorders.

 

[Greg_L]

But actual sound is why some people *like* tape.

Totally, and that's why for me personally I'm not using it as a pro or con. Especially when someone like miro comes along dogging on digital for sounding "homogenized" while praising tape for being the same way. As silly and hypocritical as that stance is, it's his stance based on his sound preference and not really open for debate IMO. Sound opinions are subjective and therefore meaningless to me. I agree with most of what you say, and I totally dig the way you're saying it, but for me I gotta draw the line when someone leaves objectivity and focuses on the subjective. The preference for "tape sound" is subjective to me, and not worth arguing about. The rest of your gripes against tape are legitimate concerns as far as I'm concerned. Not that my opinion matters, I'm just saying.

 

[miroslav]

Well.....if we are not going to discuss tape sound as the real reason for using tape.....what's the point then?

You don't want take out the shit from the equation that is unreachable for most folks here (cost and complexity)....
...but now you want to take out the only thing that anyone really cares about when they talk about recording to tape....how it sounds.
Huh????


AFA the "homogenized" aspect of digital....you were eager to take that view when the talk was about digital amp sims....now you want to ignore it or flip it around...???
Tape has nothing in common with a mathematically derived homogenized sound...nothing.
Digital sims that emulate tape may have it because they too are math-based....but real tape doesn't.
It's actually very "organic" sounding, as was discussed earlier with Jay.

 

[Greg_L]

Lol!!!! Dude!!! Don't get mad because your own words can easily be used against you. You said it. I didn't make it up. YOU SAID IT! You complained about the "homogenized sound of digital" but then you just love the homogenized sound of tape. You complain that digital makes everything have some tell-tale sound, which is exactly the same principle you love about tape. That's not a knock on you, it just takes that part of your argument out of the equation because you contradict yourself and show your personal preference and bias in statements like that. And I'm not suggesting that you're wrong for thinking that. Just don't use that bullet because it's a dud. You can't complain about something being homogenized when the very thing you love is all about homogenization. I mean, you can complain, but it's empty. You still keep wanting to change or make up rules this conversation as you go along.

I agree with you wholeheartedly about amp sims, and we've discussed it at great length and in total agreement in the past, but amp sims are different than what we're/I'm talking about here. You know they are, you're just reaching like hell for any damn safety rope you can find. Amp sims do impart their own midrangey buzzy "homogenized" sound most of the time. They can make everything sound the same regardless of guitar, pickups, strings, whatever. That's not digital's fault on the whole. That's not the interface or DAW's fault. That's not a computer's fault. That's the fault of the analog man writing the program. That's the amp sims fault. A good sim package can also fool anyone in the right hands, including you, and me. But really, to totally disintegrate another one of your misguided claims, a real amp recorded into a DAW doesn't sound like a sim or have that "homogenized digital" sound. Why not? If digital makes everything sound "homogenized" why don't real amps, or real drums, or real bass, or real vocals recorded into a DAW, why don't they all sound "homogenized" if digital does that to everything?

Furthermore, I'm not hating on the sound of tape! Just because I don't kneel at the tape alter like some sycophant doesn't mean that I hate it. I'm not anti-tape sound. I just don't care about it one way or the other and won't be told that it's somehow better or that I'm secretly foaming at the mouth to use tape. That's all very retarded.

 

[miroslav]

I'm not mad about anything....just trying do understand why you are doing 1+1=3...?



Tape has nothing in common with math-based coded emulations.
Where are you coming up wih this "it's the same principal"...?
It's not.
Tape has NOTHING in common with digital algorithms.

What...?...just 'cuz it suits your argument to say it's the same.

I just don't care about it one way or the other and won't be told that it's somehow better or that I'm secretly foaming at the mouth to use tape. That's all very retarded.

Still making up your own arguments....then arguing against them as though I said it.

Never said it was "better" than anything.
Never said you were foaming at the mouth over using it.....though maybe just foaming about this debate.
And for someone who doesn't care one way or the other....you sure could have fooled me looking at this thread and how much effort you've spent trying to knock it all down!

 

[Farview]

I'm not mad about anything....just trying do understand why you are doing 1+1=3...?



Tape has nothing in common with math-based coded emulations.
Where are you coming up wih this "it's the same principal"...?
It's not.
Tape has NOTHING in common with digital algorithms.

What...?...just 'cuz it suits your argument to say it's the same.

He is saying that they are both homogenized sounds, just different ones.

 

[Greg_L]

Your own words dude. You said it. Twist it, deny it, flap in the breeze all you want. You said it. Everything I've thrown in your face is your own hypocrisy.

 

[Greg_L]

He is saying that they are both homogenized sounds, just different ones.

Yes, exactly. Miro hates "homogenized" sounds in digital, which is actually far less "homogenized" by default than his beloved tape.

Maybe if we keep repeating what he said himself, he'll understand one of these days.

 

[Greg_L]

Still making up your own arguments....then arguing against them as though I said it.

Never said it was "better" than anything.
Never said you were foaming at the mouth over using it.....though maybe just foaming about this debate.
And for someone who doesn't care one way or the other....you sure could have fooled me looking at this thread and how much effort you've spent trying to knock it all down!

Lol. Nice edit. More contradiction and hypocrisy. Lookie here.....You're doing EXACTLY what you got on your soapbox and accused me of doing. You're ignoring the topical points and focusing on me. You've ignored the points that I and others have brought up and are now only focusing on me. You wanted on topic discussion from me, now you got it, it's blowing up in your face, and you're running ragged. But you just can't bow out! No way! Not last-word miro! Too funny.

This will be AWESOME for the silly newsletter.

 

[miroslav]

He is saying that they are both homogenized sounds, just different ones.

If tape is "inconsistent" (by your definition)....how can it also be "homogonized"...???

Thing is...it's not. There is a natural randomness that isn't dictated by any mathematical formula.
Greg can keep going on and on and on if it amuses him....but just because he's decided to try and flip it around back at me....it just doesn't make it so.

Also...to back up the bus a bit.....the context of what we (yes, Greg and I) have alway agreed on about digital "homogenized" sound, has mostly to do with how digital plugs try to *emulate* tube and tape distortion and saturation. It was never about digital in general.
Where the plugs fall short is in their emulation, which has to be coded, and it's not naturally "inconsistent" of a random "organic" like behavior...which is what tubes and tape do.
Greg has agreed about the tubes, but of course, he needs to keep this argument going, so he's chosen to disagree about tape.
You can't have it both ways, Greg.


The other thing that seems to have run away in this thread the last few pages....is this notion that this is about "tape VS digital".
This is about tape OR digital and tape + digital and not about some competition...though I know it plays better for some people if they can turn it into a competition.

For me, it's not some life altering choice between one or the other like some folks are painting all this drama about tape VS digital.
I use both (for like the 100th time). I know why and when I use tape, and I know why and when I use digital...it's tape + digital for me. Has been for like....20+ years now.

The only real problem I had with this thread was some broad comments about how "horrible" tape is, and about how all this noise/hiss and wow & flutter makes audio sound bad....blah, blah, blah....which just ain't so.
I'll be happy to post up some clips of tracks done to tape, and you can listen to the sustained notes of a piano or bass as they tail off into complete silence...there is no noise, no hiss and no wow & flutter.
With a good caliber deck that is set up well, and with good quality tape properly recorded, there is nothing significant to mention....never mind all the doom-n-gloom about how bad tape sounds.

You're ignoring the topical points ...

When you invent things that don't exist, just becuase you need something to argue with....when you say I said things that I never really said....
...I'm not sure what "topical points" you're making.
Everything else that you said that has some basis in reality....I've answered like 20 times already.

Stop making shit up.

 

[Greg_L]

If tape is "inconsistent" (by your definition)....how can it also be "homogonized"...???

Tape sound. The "tape sound" is a homogenized sound, your own little term you apply to everything you don't like about digital. Flavor, color, or whatever cliche you wanna call it. That little fingerprint recording to tape leaves on everything - homogenized. You said it about digital, it is more so with tape. I don't know why you keep changing things around and back pedaling away from it. I'm not making it up, for the third or fourth time now, you said it. We have agreed on certain plug ins and amp sims in the past. We still agree on that. Again, for the umpteenth time though, that's not what I'm talking about. You avoided my questions before, so I'm not gonna repeat them. You obviously don't have an answer that doesn't make you look bad.

As far as it being a competition, YOU made it that way when you started demanding people explain themselves to your satisfaction. That one guy said he thinks tape is horrible. Oh the fucking horror! Why can't you just let him think that? You took it as a personal attack and went all miroslav on everything.

You are the one side stepping and sliding around to save your own ass. You are the one that keeps altering and tweaking your ramblings just save face. You're being a hypocrite, overly sensitive, and you contradict yourself repeatedly. Jeez dude. This is bad, even for you.

 

[miroslav]

Tape sound. The "tape sound" is a homogenized sound, your own little term you apply to everything you don't like about digital.

Wrong again...and as I already said....the term "homogenized" was referring to plug-in distortion emulations....and not "everything I don't like about digital".
Why do you keep inventing things …?


Sorry....but you're really reaching now.
"Tape"...is not a plug-in that a million people can install on a million computers, and have that plug-in behave the EXACT same way on everyone's machine because the algorithm is always the same.
Do you get that?
I know you're trying to make some direct comparison....but it's really apples and oranges...and you're coming up with pineapples.

You keep talking about tape like it's just *one* thing, one variable.
I recall you mentioned that you've "recorded to tape"....though I'm not sure what that really means in your case, so I'm not sure how deep you got into it or how much you understand about tape formulations, and machine calibration and biasing options that can be used for every given tape formulation.
I would think if you did understand that stuff well enough, you wouldn't keep saying tape sound is "homogonized".

Let's break it down:

1.)There are a bunch of different tape formulations. Each type can used in a variety of different ways, depending on how you set up a given tape deck for a given formulation.

2.)Then you have all kinds of different tape decks, and each one of them has it's own electronic personality, and most of the more "pro" decks can be set up a bunch of different ways, and many of the pro-sumer decks can too...heck, even some porta-studio cassette machines allow for bias choices and different tape types.

3.)Then you have the audio input signals, and depending on what they are and at what level you are recording them at, both the tape deck and the tape will behave differently...and they will also will behave differently for each and every different tape formulation and for each and every different tape/deck setup.

4.)Add to all that the fact that audio signals and electronics and magnetic fields DON'T always behave identically every time you record and every second that you record.

5.) On top of all of that...as Jay and I discussed....there are minor tape inconstancies that introduce yet more variables at the electromagnetic level.

So there are a LOT of variables, and how they interact creates yet another bunch of real-time changing variables, combined with the source variables.

There is nothing "homogenized" about any of that....but I'm sure that won't stop you from still saying it.....