Would you do analog recording ?

[Greg_L]

I never said an album was good because of tape.
Point was...countless albums sound great in spite of being recorded to tape....which makes John's statement that tape is horrible, inaccurate.
Yes, I know he was just talking from his own experience....but the way he stated it, it was a rather broad statement about tape, and one that people without any tape use experience would misunderstand....that's why I pointed out that there nothing wrong with using tape, and the countless great sounding albums recorded to tape, prove it.

You knew what he was saying but argued it anyway? Lol. Okay then. He statement isn't inaccurate if that's how he feels. I disagree that people would misunderstand it. I don't put much faith in people, but they're not completely stupid when it comes to basic inference. Anyway, I would argue that those good albums would be good regardless of how it was recorded because the band was good. I'm sure you know of some music that you think is good even though the recordings aren't.

I'm not sure what you think I "got" or that I should be "happy" about...?
I really wanted in this thread was to talk about tape/analog recording, and to better understand why some people have the positive or negative views about it. That's why Grim started the thread.

You just want to turn this into some you/me personal argument about "why" I want to better understand where people are coming from with their opinons....???
Huh???

100% wrong. I didn't want to turn this into anything. It just ended up there as they always do because we are not capable of talking online without you getting defensive, and I again admit that is partly my own fault. I was genuinely curious as to why you were so adamant about people explaining themselves to you. I wasn't picking at you. I didn't try or want to dissect your points about tape recording. I wanted to know your motives. I don't think you wanted discussion, I think you wanted debate, and I'm just wondering why. Why am I wondering why? Because I know you like your tape and no one can say anything to change that or even make you think about it for a second. That would be like someone trying to convince me that I'm wrong for liking my Marshalls. It just aint gonna happen.

You know what they say about opinions......everybody has one.
When someone can't/won't explain an opinion that they openly give on a forum...well, there's probably not much there then.

And you might be right about that. Or maybe it just doesn't matter. But why does anyone have to pass your test?

 

[XploZiveToyz]

I once thought I was wrong about something, but turned out I was right.

 

[bongoboy]

I think it's time for a group hug.

 

[Greg_L]

I don't have to...you're doing a great job!

Rewind the thread and tell me where it became this BS about you/me and tell me who who started it.....?
Prior to that, the discussion was about tape/analog recording.

Who started it? I guess we're in the first grade now? Okay then, I would say that you started it when you started demanding people explain themselves. I'm not the only one to point out how uncool that is.

Your MO is to disrupt on-topic threads when YOU think they are stupid, becuase get great amusement from that, and you openly have admit that many times.
It's all about you getting a rise out of someone...then badgering them for 20 more posts when they respond.

Sometimes, yes. Not lately, and not here. I didn't disrupt anything until I *gasp* DARED ask the high and mighty miroslav to explain himself. I wasn't trying to disrupt, and I tried to be polite and careful with my wording as to not set you off, but you're miro, and I'm Greg, and it happened anyway.

 

[miroslav]

There's no "test"....it was/is a discussion, at least with everyone else here.

If you say you hate something, and you want everyone to know that....there's nothing odd about those people then asking "why"....but there is something odd about you then not wanting to tell.
IOW....why bother telling everyone you hate something if you can't say why.

It's obvious you don't see a reason to that....but I would say most people during the course of a discussion have little problem in explaining themselves when they intentionally take part in a discussion.

See....Jay and I are still having a "discussion"...he doesn't agree with me on some things and I with him on some.
We've explained our views clearly, and I know he's not going to run out and use tape again based on my views and explanations, and likewise I will not stop using tape based on his. However....we are still carrying on the discussion, and there's no animosity or attitudes between us.

 

[Greg_L]

There's no "test"....it was/is a discussion, at least with everyone else here.

If you say you hate something, and you want everyone to know that....there's nothing odd about those people then asking "why"....but there is something odd about you then not wanting to tell.
IOW....why bother telling everyone you hate something if you can't say why.

What if the person doesn't care to explain? What if the person doesn't care if anyone cares? Is that wrong? If you say "I hate XXXX" and I ask why, and you don't answer, I just move on. I don't give it a second thought. Is that weird? Maybe it is. Maybe I'm just super advanced.

It's obvious you don't see a reason to that....but I would say most people during the course of a discussion have little problem in explaining themselves when they intentionally take part in a discussion.

In real life, I'd agree with that. This isn't real life though. This is a message board where most people just pop in and out to drop a quip and move on.

See....Jay and I are still having a "discussion"...he doesn't agree with me on some things and I with him on some.
I know he's not going to run out and use tape again based on my views and explanations, and likewise I will not stop using tape based on his. However....we are still carrying on the discussion, and there's no animosity or attitudes between us.

That's true, for now, and I commend you for that. That's what you need. People that have little to no history with you. You can't have that same "discussion" with me or many others in here.

 

[Greg_L]

Anyway miro, I'm done with this unless you come back with something silly.


Check this out:


Common ground! This is my last piece of tape gear. I got it from my dad. I've been thinking about using it for vocals or guitars, but I don't know.

 

[miroslav]

What if the person doesn't care to explain?

Again...there was no "test". If someone doesn't want to explain, I can't make them....but then, their attempt at continuing the discussion becomes pointless....IMO.
WTF are we going to keep talking about if they won't go deeper and explain where they are coming from...?
My questions are for those that do...and some do, and those are the people that continue to be involved with the on-topic discussion.

You can't have that same "discussion" with me or many others in here.

No Greg...I can have a discussion with a lot of people here, and often do.
I've even had discussions with you, and I've seen at times when you've had real discussions with others....
....it just helps if everyone always agrees with you!

You often say you don't care what other's think....but man, I wouldn't get that from how you like to pick apart anyone that doesn't, and who chooses to hold their ground!

Common ground! This is my last piece of tape gear. I got it from my dad. I've been thinking about using it for vocals or guitars, but I don't know.

You might get hooked on using tape....

OK....should I also post some pics of my tape rig now, and we can hug?

 

[Greg_L]

....it just helps if everyone always agrees with you!

Don't act like that's some character flaw, because literally everyone is like that, including you. It's only human. And yeah, I am superhuman, but I still have some regular human traits.

 

[miroslav]

Don't act like that's some character flaw, because literally everyone is like that, including you. It's only human. And yeah, I am superhuman, but I still have some regular human traits.

OK...I'll agree with you.

Done!

 

[miroslav]

If you're really going to use that tape deck....use it like an external FX box, rather than recording "to it".
It will be easier since it'sonly a 2-track, and since you primarily track to DAW.

Basically...you're still recording to the DAW, but you run your desired audio into the tape, and pull it back off the tape playback, and record that to DAW in real time.
The only trick is setting up the monitoring so you can hear both DAW and tape signal.
The tape track will be off in the DAW by the amount of space between the REC and PB heads...and depending on the speed of the deck....but that's an absolute number you can calculate....then you just slide that track in the DAW to the right position.
How many heads are on that deck?

 

[Greg_L]

If you're really going to use that tape deck....use it like an external FX box, rather than recording "to it".
It will be easier since it'sonly a 2-track, and since you primarily track to DAW.

Basically...you're still recording to the DAW, but you run your desired audio into the tape, and pull it back off the tape playback, and record that to DAW in real time.
The only trick is setting up the monitoring so you can hear both DAW and tape signal.
The tape track will be off in the DAW by the amount of space between the REC and PB heads...and depending on the speed of the deck....but that's an absolute number you can calculate....then you just slide that track in the DAW to the right position.
How many heads are on that deck?

I don't know anything about it. All I've ever used it for was playback on old Beach Boys and other various oldies reel-to-reels my dad had.

If I were to ever "record" with it, it's gonna be just as you mentioned. Since I'd only use it for guitar or vocals, two tracks is more than enough since I never record guitars with more than two mics anyway. I don't need to monitor with it because I don't ever monitor what I'm tracking at that moment. I just listen to drums in the cans because the guitars or bass are stupid loud anyway. I record everything insanely loud. I don't monitor my vocals either. I just hear it in my head and sing along to the tracks already there. That's just the way I do it, and won't use this thing for anyone else. So I'd track to the tape and dump it into the DAW like you said. Then slide any timing issues to line up. But that's all a long ways off if it ever even happens at all. I'm not in any hurry to fuck with that ancient thing. In case you hadn't noticed, tape means nothing to me.

It might be fun to play with one day though. My previous experiences with tape were less than fun.

 

[Farview]

I won't disagree with 1-3....though I don't mind the rewind, and the limited track count is pretty much where I end up anyway...tape or DAW. I think the most I ever hit was about 32 tracks....but I understand that with clients, and many takes....tape may not be the best choice. It requires a bit more tracking discipline and pre-production.

Most of the time I'm hitting between 40 and 50 tracks at mixdown. Occasionally I get giant, epic things that are well over 100 tracks. Even if I had multiple instruments on the same tracks (guitar in the intro, lead in the verse, cello in the turn around, etc...), I would still be in the 75-80 track range with the big things and over 30 in the normal things.

On #4, I think like any other piece of analog equipment, tape has it's flavor, if that's what you mean.
Once you are aware of it (just like being aware of digital's stark reality)...you adjust for it and move on.
I record to tape, listen to the playback, adjust as needed, and then the playback gives me what I want.

I probably use more high end and low end than you. The low end doesn't bug me as much, but if I add too much high end on the way to tape, it's starts to saturate. If I wait until mixdown to add the highs, I bring up the tape hiss. It used to drive me insane. Add 15db of 8k shelf to a kick drum on the way in or the way out of a tape deck and you are asking for trouble.

I choose my color from the mics and preamps, I don't want to have to deal with a default color that will be on everything in the entire mix. I do understand that people like it. I don't mind it for certain things, but if you are recording to tape, you have no choice but to have that tape color on everything.

I thought of a 5th thing: punch in's. With a daw, you can edit the punch-in crossfade, you can punch in without losing what you are punching over. You can punch in a part 100 times, realize you will never get a better take than the one you had, and get it back.

Also, clients pay by the hour. On a big project, the rewind time and the reel changing time adds up. Even if I had a guy to do all that, the workflow is so much slower and there are so many restrictions that just don't exist with digital.

 

[gecko zzed]

You can split it with a razor and say it wasn't a blanket statement...but the process = results or directly affects them, and that was what John was saying. That tape gave horrible results.

If we are into using razors, then I think the sharp bit is embedded in "but the process = results or directly affects them" and "that tape gave horrible results".

I've read John's post as many times as you, and I can't see how you can conclude that John said tape gave horrible results. However, I can understand you feeling that that was what John was implying if you believe that the process directly affects the results. I don't think one necessarily follows from the other. For example, in the days before postcodes and barcode scanners, the mail managed to get through to everybody just fine. Prior to electrification, the Flying Scotsman used to deliver passengers from London to Edinborough safe and sound.

 

[Bobbsy]

Prior to electrification, the Flying Scotsman used to deliver passengers from London to Edinborough safe and sound.

It didn't just deliver them--generally the scheduled time with steam was slightly LESS than modern diesel electrics!

I think the word "horrible" was way too strong. Yes, even with noise reduction tape was noisier than most digital systems but I don't recall my favouite albums from the 60s and early 70s being marred by noise. Yes, tape introduces more artefacts than digital (particularly when at or near saturation) but, to many ears, these artefacts are actually a pleasing sound. For that matter, as some have noted, deliberately going into saturation is a "special effect" that many use.

Earlier on I said that, even give the choice, I'd still use digital over analogue. I stand by that. However, this decision has little or nothing to do with audio quality and a lot more to do with convenience and workflow. My "fond" memories of my analogue tape (and magstock) days are a love hate relationship. I wouldn't go back--but I don't call the stuff I did back then "horrible" either.

Maybe it was the 20 mile walk barefoot through the snow that caused me to get frustrated with analogue!

Let's do an "edit to add" and say that, while the above is about the recording process, the same can apply elsewhere. My mixer is now digital as are most of the ones in the theatre venues where I freelance. This move has nothing to do with sound quality--give me a Midas H3000 or even a good Soundcraft of A&H any time--and, again, everything to do with workflow. My personal mixer gives me up to 48 input channels and almost as many output channels in a 19 inch wide chassis. More important for theatre stuff, it gives me hundreds of scene recall presets and two or three racks worth of digital effects all built in. When producers consider the annual cost of every seat removed to make room for a mix position, a small footprint is seen to be worth thousands of dollars. This is not to say there's anything wrong with the sound on most digital mixers, just that the drive to move that direction was driven by workflow and economics, not audio quality.

 

[miroslav]

I probably use more high end and low end than you. The low end doesn't bug me as much, but if I add too much high end on the way to tape, it's starts to saturate. If I wait until mixdown to add the highs, I bring up the tape hiss. It used to drive me insane. Add 15db of 8k shelf to a kick drum on the way in or the way out of a tape deck and you are asking for trouble.

I don't get too nuts with high-end...I have this problem with it in my ears, and I'm often rolling it off.
15dB is a lot of HF boost.
AFA the low end....that I do like a good amount of.

I've not seen much saturation issue with either HF or LF on my tape deck...but there are several variables that could make the difference. I'm running 499 set for higher levels, so I have to really bury the needle to get to serious saturation.
I'm going to re-cal the deck soon, and I've been looking to "soften" it up some, as I would like a touch more saturation without having to run so hot.
I also want to re-cal my ears to the HF....it seems it's the current norm, to have things very edgy and bright, so when I put up my mix next to something current/commercial, it can be a bit dark.

If we are into using razors, then I think the sharp bit is embedded in "but the process = results or directly affects them" and "that tape gave horrible results".

I've read John's post as many times as you, and I can't see how you can conclude that John said tape gave horrible results. However, I can understand you feeling that that was what John was implying if you believe that the process directly affects the results.

I can't see how you can conclude anything but!

I switched to digital recording in 1983 and would never want to go back to the horrible days of analogue tape with all the distortion is has - wow and flutter, modulation noise, hiss, noise build-up every time you copy, lack of top end, bias noise, print through, tape stretch, etc., etc., etc...

.......

A piano never really sounds like a piano on analogue tape, it does on digital.

........

I would never want to record on analogue tape again - horrible stuff.

It sure seems like he has a problem with the results he gets from tape.
I can't see how he can complain that much about just the *tape* if he DIDN'T think it had any negative effect on his audio results!!!

Meh....it doesn't matter what we think he meant....'cuz I certainly got his negative perspective about tape that he intended to make...hence my objections.

 

[Farview]

I also want to re-cal my ears to the HF....it seems it's the current norm, to have things very edgy and bright, so when I put up my mix next to something current/commercial, it can be a bit dark.

I really don't get edgy. I really like to record darker tones and brighten them up in the mix. Guitar tones especially, much for the same reason I don't like adding too much highs on the way to tape. If you dial in a very bright guitar tone, the speaker breakup can get harsh and brittle because the speaker will saturate in the high end. If you dial in a darker guitar tone, the mids or lows are what distorts the speaker. Then, if you add a bunch of high shelf, you end up with a bright and smooth sound instead of a bright and harsh sound.

But that is way off topic. Sorry.

 

[miroslav]

If you dial in a darker guitar tone, the mids or lows are what distorts the speaker. Then, if you add a bunch of high shelf, you end up with a bright and smooth sound instead of a bright and harsh sound.

Yeah....that's pretty much how I do my guitar tones. They're always darker when I track, then I roll a little off the LF and adjust the HF to balance it out in the mix.
I too don't get the current obsession with real edgy tones...often boardering on the harsh.

 

[Greg_L]

So let me see if I got this straight:

So far pretty much everyone objectively agrees that some of the cons for recording to tape are that it's expensive, time consuming, it takes up a lot of space, relatively inflexible, limiting track count, destructive regarding re-dos/punch-ins, and noisy.

And the very subjective pros for tape are that a few people just like "that sound" and maybe it's "fun". As a side benefit tape people can ride a high horse.

Still not seeing where tape is worth a damn in today's world.

 

[Bobbsy]

If you bought a bunch of blank tape, stored it for a decade or two, then started selling it in small batches at inflated prices, tape is worth quite a lot!