X-26: Trauma, disease and aaarrrrggghhh

[billisa]

Let jump in sideways

...and I'm much, much more familiar with analogue. I already have too little time to record without having to get into new learning curves. But thanks for the suggestion. I have thought about it. Cheers.

Hi Trevor,

Let me just jump in here sideways... There's nothing wrong with what you like. Staying with it could be an issue in the long run as the cassette decreases in market-share. I wonder how much of your feelings are based in the new learning curve hassle...

There IS a learning curve, but it's not that bad, and I believe the time investment is well worth it. Digital's ease of editing, plus the ability to bounce tracks, adding more music without degradation, is a real plus. At this point, most mid-priced digital gear has at least 20bit convertors on board. To a huge extent, believe the final quality will be up to you, and the care you put into recording -- but that sounds like something you do already... Just some thoughts.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

Re: Let jump in sideways

At this point, most mid-priced digital gear has at least 20bit convertors on board.

That may be the case, but don't forget that a high-quality 16-bit converter WILL outperform a poorly-designed 20-bit converter.

(Translation - don't presume that word size is a good indicator of a converter's quality...)

 

[mixmkr]

If that is, in fact, his definition, then he has not heard quality digital recordings.

There is nothing inherently sterile about digital recording -- given converters of sufficient quality, it will capture the sound source very accurately -- such that, if it sounds sterile, then you'd have to look to the source, and not the recording format.

I am guessing, but I would say those definitions are in the ballpark with what he might have meant, wouldn't you think? Descriptive or not, people use those expressions all the time....even when tracking, mixing, etc... and I think that is the general "jist" of what they are trying to say. ...not to mention, the words ARE kinda trendy!


And...digital today is not like digital of the early years...like the converters on the 80's CD players and such. I think that is where digital really got its' "bad rap" and for many people has not fully recovered. ...or that "trend" in digital bashing has trickled down into the ranks over the years.

AND...my ancient 20 bit Laylas whip the B-geebbers outta a new 24 Soundblaster. But then, I'm not touting the Laylas as "the" digital solution, but they sound damn fine. A hell of a lot better than the narrow gauge analog formats...like 1" 16 track and on down.

 

[trevor machine]

Heres why digital is both sterile and inferior to tape. First though, note these crucial caveats - I'm talking about recording live indie/rock/crate-funky sounds on a shoestring, and not necessarily any other genre. Although I might want to include some types of alt. country too (but we can put that under indie for present purposes).

When I mic a drum-kit up and go to tape HOT HOT HOT, guess what I get? Right - a mess of noise that to my ear is a very cool representation of a live maniac doing damage to some metal, wood and plastic. Which incidentally I like - a lot. Even if that live maniac - bless his/her sticks - is quite pansy-handed about it all.

Do you know what I'd have to do replicate this kind of effect in the digital formats? Basically I'd have to drop serious coin on some Empirical Labs product - maybe a Fatso, but preferably a Distressor.

As far as I'm concerned there's absolutely no way to get that sound - that PHATT noise of tape battered unto death until saturated good'n'proper - on a digital multi-tracker. Unless you pay out for serious characterful compression.

All those aspects of tape that've been referred to as aberations - the wow, the flutter, the hiss, the crappiness - they're more than worth while enduring for that colourful and hugely exciting result produced by hitting the chrome HARD.

And yes, by comparison, digital is sterile. It is impotent. It is kind of dead.

On a more philosophical note, I can kind of imagine myself putting together an argument to the effect that digital is far more aberrant than analogue. After all, its silence is not natural. Life is full of background noise, accidentel sounds and aural artifacts. And thank god - the inverse would just be creepy. Like how I imagine deafness must be. Digital is deafness. Or at least, it is - in and of itself - an aberation.

Something like that anyway.

I dunno - I'm just riffing this crap. How'm I doing? Go for it. Like I said, I need to learn a much, much more.

 

[mixmkr]

I dunno - I'm just riffing this crap. How'm I doing? Go for it. Like I said, I need to learn a much, much more.

well....I was...but then I WASN'T really expecting you to use the word "PHATT" but then...as alluded earlier..it is kinda "trendy." I actually kinda got a chuckle out of it. Far out, man!!!

I'd say your ears are trashed if you think "slamming the chrome" is the way to get your drum sound... ...at least to the degree that you alluded too... But, to each his own. ...or your taste in drum sounds radically differs from most. I suppose that's what will make your music ....a...ah....original??

btw...it's rust, not chrome.

 

[billisa]

Re: Re: Let jump in sideways

That may be the case, but don't forget that a high-quality 16-bit converter WILL outperform a poorly-designed 20-bit converter.

(Translation - don't presume that word size is a good indicator of a converter's quality...)

Hey Blue,

I know NOTHING about the technical details of what makes a good/bad converter. I hear/read about Delta/Sigma; Sigma/Delta converters. What exactly does that mean? Good?bad? Nothing? Also, how does one find out exactly what type of converters are in a particular piece of gear? Thanks for your insight.

Bill Keane

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

Bill,

I am an engineer, not a converter designer - so the technical details of design comparisons between the various types is beyond my knowledge.

However, having heard (via A/B comparisons) the difference between acceptable converters and truly excellent converters, the differences are illuminating. I've used the stock converters on an Alesis Masterlink for years. The sound was quite good.

This year, I added Lucid AD9624/DA9624 converters to the studio's gear list and consequently, they replaced the converters in the 2-track.... comparing audio output directly from the Masterlink (via the stock converters) to the output of the DA9624 was staggering in how much more detailed and focused the sound became. The difference wasn't subtle by any stretch!! And the converters on-board the Masterlink aren't considered "poor"!!! But the considerably better Lucids made them sound like audio from a Soundblaster card...!

Incidently, I looked for any details of the converter design on either the Lucid or the Alesis site and could find nothing -- so my apologies for not being able to answer your question directly....

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

As far as I'm concerned there's absolutely no way to get that sound - that PHATT noise of tape battered unto death until saturated good'n'proper - on a digital multi-tracker. Unless you pay out for serious characterful compression.

And yes, by comparison, digital is sterile. It is impotent. It is kind of dead.

Well, here's where you and I disagree.... for one thing, cassette tape doesn't "saturate" the way you seem to think, the design limitations inherent in the narrow tape format preclude any serious "phattening", so you can throw that argument out the window right now. I guarantee you that if I split the same source to 2 budget multitrackers - one analog and one digital - you WILL NOT be able describe one as "phatt"er than the other. As a matter of fact, the extended clarity and imaging of the digital reproduction will sway you to choosing that format in contrast to the analog.

Secondly, you obviously have no experience with "good digital", so how can you even profess to describe digital recording with a blanket "sterile" statement???

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

Dumb question- how do you change the converters? Do you mean dump the digital recording to a computer with great sound card? Something like that?

Something like that!

IN using extrenal converters, you send your source to the A/D converter, which connects digitally to your recorder, then you take the recorder's digital outputs and send them to an external D/A converter for playback. This way, the A/D and/or D/A process isn't handled by the recorder, it's done before/after the recorder.

 

[cellardweller]

Blue bear- what kind of equipment do you use/have? I judge from all of your posts that you know your s**t, and I was curious as to any advice you may have for beginners as far as what to buy to get started for personal entertainment/eventual profit?

And, How DO you get a warm sound from digital, I haven't had much luck yet, but that seems par for course for me thus far.

 

[trevor machine]

mxmkr - rust is ferrous oxide, right? Is rust still the thing with chrome dioxide tapes? Well whatever - chemistry has never been my strong point.

Ok - I should try and respond to Blue Bear Sound's points, I suppose. Here's how I put digital up against tape in the past. Going from a Spirit Folio notepad into an Akai S2000 sampler, then using the same mics and mixer down to 2 tracks of tape on an X-26.

I guess I'm thinking the S2000 provided - if not 'good' - then adequate representation of the digital format. Still, if it's that obvious that I have no experience with which to gauge these things whaddo I know, right?

To my ears the drums tracked to tape had been squished, coloured, compressed etc. etc. Because I could saturate the tape with level at +9 and above.

The results won't, of course, be to everyone's taste. But for those who're into punked up, funked up or just characterful kit sounds tape is great. Much better than digital. Like I said though, if you're after tame, lifeless and - yes - sterile drum sounds digital is definitely the way to go. And more power to those folks if that's what they want.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

Blue bear- what kind of equipment do you use/have?

My studio site has my gear list, and a number of articles that may be of interest. By all means, check it out -- the gear list has links to most of the gear so you can see the details.

Equipment

Articles

And, How DO you get a warm sound from digital?

You send in a signal the way you want it to sound! Mic selection, mic pre selection, mic placement, the sound source itself, and the room itself all affect the results of the recording.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

Ok - I should try and respond to Blue Bear Sound's points, I suppose. Here's how I put digital up against tape in the past. Going from a Spirit Folio notepad into an Akai S2000 sampler, then using the same mics and mixer down to 2 tracks of tape on an X-26.

I guess I'm thinking the S2000 provided - if not 'good' - then adequate representation of the digital format. Still, if it's that obvious that I have no experience with which to gauge these things whaddo I know, right?

Nope - not the same thing at all -- as samplers go, the Akai is probably fine (it's a 16-bit unit, BTW), but it is not comparable to a the design of a multi-track recorder. I have an EMU ESI2000 sampler and while it works very well as a sampler, there is a marked difference in quality between it and my multitrack and 2-track recorders. So no -- they aren't useful for comparison purposes -- it's apples and oranges.

To my ears the drums tracked to tape had been squished, coloured, compressed etc. etc. Because I could saturate the tape with level at +9 and above.

The results won't, of course, be to everyone's taste. But for those who're into punked up, funked up or just characterful kit sounds tape is great. Much better than digital. Like I said though, if you're after tame, lifeless and - yes - sterile drum sounds digital is definitely the way to go. And more power to those folks if that's what they want.

Great -- so YOU like the sound of distortion on drums, and you equate THAT to being an "analog" sound, and fault digital for not providing that same "distortion".

Well... you and I are discussing sound quality on two different planes... the effect you want could be easily acheived by running a drumkit through a POD... what you attribute to being an analog characteristic is really not, and certainly the narrow band analog format already has serious sonic limitations built-in (relative to high-end analog), so you're talking apples and oranges here.

 

[trevor machine]

The POD is certainly an idea. I'm not sure those digital modelling things really cut it though. POD II for bass is great - Tweed Blues, full compression, back the drive right off, etc. But when I've put drums thru, I dunno - it really doesn't compare with going to cassette, IMO. But who knows - maybe digitally recorded drums would really sound great sent thru POD.

 

[billisa]

Vinyl and Brillo

Nope - not the same thing at all -- as samplers go, the Akai is probably fine (it's a 16-bit unit, BTW), but it is not comparable to a the design of a multi-track recorder. I have an EMU ESI2000 sampler and while it works very well as a sampler, there is a marked difference in quality between it and my multitrack and 2-track recorders. So no -- they aren't useful for comparison purposes -- it's apples and oranges.


Great -- so YOU like the sound of distortion on drums, and you equate THAT to being an "analog" sound, and fault digital for not providing that same "distortion".

Well... you and I are discussing sound quality on two different planes... the effect you want could be easily acheived by running a drumkit through a POD... what you attribute to being an analog characteristic is really not, and certainly the narrow band analog format already has serious sonic limitations built-in (relative to high-end analog), so you're talking apples and oranges here.

There's nothing like the vinyl edition of Sgt.Pepper after it's been scrubbed with a Brillo pad. Digital simply can't duplicate this...

 

[trevor machine]

Here's the bottom line for all those who prefer digital: To reproduce the compression created by tape - yes, even cassette - you would have to spend quite a bit of dough. You can chime in about crappy hiss this, wow 'n' flutter that, but at the end of the day, tape (in whatever format) has a great in-built compression factor that digtal simply does not (simply sticking the kit thru a POD will get nowhere near this in terms of compression, even if it could theoretically get close in terms of colouration).

Sure, plug-ins of various hue and colour COULD get pretty damn close. But remember - we're talking one-box multitrckers here. We're talking budget recording.

Also, it just so happens that the compression tape (inc. cassette) produces can easily make live drums sound much, much better. They're the facts. This isn't about subjectivity so much anymore.

But if you're NOT into catpuring exciting and expressively compressed, agressive rythmic sounds and - instead - want to use drum machines, digitally generated tones and are equally keen on cleanliness of sound then yeah - go digital all the way. Please. You will definitely have more chance of finding that latter kind of sound with a digital multi-tracker.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

Also, it just so happens that the compression tape (inc. cassette) produces can easily make live drums sound much, much better. They're the facts. This isn't about subjectivity so much anymore.

Not facts at all, simply your opinion - and I happen to disagree whole-heartedly with it....

And you certainly wouldn't get any buy-in to that opinion from any engineers I know, but that's fine, as long as what you're doing works for YOU, that's all that counts....

 

[HWB]

Hey BLUE BEAR, do you remember when the digital recording age started? For a while they were making recordings so totally digital they sucked all the good right out of them. Many of those recordings sounded like an am radio, no warmth, no character, just high endish and so clean it was not easy listenable. Its interesting that in recent years they are trying to get the analog and warm tube sound back. One reason I bought the VF160 is its supposed to be the warmest sounding digital made ( so I was told by several people in the industry.) I'd like to know your opinion on this.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

I haven't heard the VF160, but it is one of these "all-in-one", slightly higher-budget digital "portastudios", correct?

Bear in mind that these all-in-one units are going to have some serious design compromises to fit the features many users want at a lower price point (because let's face it, they aren't selling these units to studios - these things are strictly marketed to prosumers!)

So you're definitely not getting great converters, reasonable - maybe... and you're not going to have good pres -- again, usable - maybe, but not compared to more serious gear. Then you'll have the on-board DSP -- this is probably the best parts of the system unless they've screwed up the bit mathematics -- but then again, it's probably not using extended precision algorithms so the quality suffers compared to the equivalent DSP on bigger recording s/w pakcages such as Cubase SX or Nuendo.

The recording system itself will be good (becuase it's the converters that matter, not the recording media itself!)

So overall, you've got a lot of compromises in there that really don't allow it to equate with the more professional gear that's available. Given this, IMO, the direct answer to your question is no - I seriously doubt there's any difference between it and other comparable units at the converter level.

Doesn't mean you can't get good results with it though! It is miles above what anybody had at their disposal even a decade ago.

Even a lot of the budget gear is capable of so much more than people usually get out of it -- this is due entirely to the fact that people assume it's "all about gear" when in fact, it's "all about the recording skills." George Massenburg with a 4-track Portastudio will turn out a much better product than a rookie with a Neve console and 24-track 2" multitrack!

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

Hey BLUE BEAR, do you remember when the digital recording age started? For a while they were making recordings so totally digital they sucked all the good right out of them. Many of those recordings sounded like an am radio, no warmth, no character, just high endish and so clean it was not easy listenable.

Just a point -- this was due entirely to the poor design of those early converters, as well as pressing plants that were just getting their feet wet converting the analog catalogs to digital!