Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Fenris Wulf]

I was getting dry eyes, so I went to the drugstore and bought a bottle of artificial tears. It cost $20 for a half-ounce bottle. I asked the pharmacist, "Why is this stuff so expensive?" He said, "Do you know how hard it is to make a robot cry?"

[New Orleans Steve]

 

  The WEAKNESS of Analog IS the STRENGTH of Analog.

[fiasco ( P.M.DuMont )]

While I tend to stay away from these types of threads (they typically disintegrate into crap), I'm glad I decided to read this one.

The thing that got me interested in recording, and music production in general,
is that some albums I would listen to had a pronounced depth.
I've heard/read so many arguments as to why that is: room, mics, pres, reverb, EQ, early reflections, weed, convertors, clocks... on and on ad nauseum.

I think I am finally convinced, utterly, that this depth lies within the medium of the capture.

I believe that tape must capture something "around" the source that lends a particular realism or localization to a recording that digital capture cannot.
If this is the case, wouldn't that mean tape is actually more sensitive to the source than digital? Or just more natural? Or just plain ol' better?

I hear this depth on certain CD's, so I know digital storage, transfer, or delivery does not mean lifeless, but...

Can anyone point me to a song, CD, snippet that was recorded digitally that has unmistakable depth?

[Nicky D]

I think it is because the audio is fractured...maybe i'm crazy...but after getting into DSD briefly...all other digital audio sounds fractured to me...I don't know why...and I'm not sure I care to know why....DSD (5.6)..is the answer....will it happen in multitrickland?  good chance it won't.

[Silvertone]

Nicky D wrote on Thu, 27 January 2011 01:41

I think it is because the audio is fractured...maybe i'm crazy...but after getting into DSD briefly...all other digital audio sounds fractured to me...I don't know why...and I'm not sure I care to know why....DSD (5.6)..is the answer....will it happen in multitrickland?  good chance it won't.

Already has Nicky... Genex 10 years ago and Korg just came out at AES with their multitrack DSD system... so there is hope yet!

I keep stuff that I recorded on analog on the system all the time to show people what we gave up "depth" wise.  Everyone is amazed at how 3D analog can sound.  DSD is our only hope IMHO.

That said I have 4 different digital platforms here and while I can't say they all sound different (some actually do), I can tell you that material recorded on any of these systems will perfectly null against any of the other disc's I cut. So to me it's just the "coding" of the playback that sounds different.

[Fenris Wulf]

fiasco ( P.M.DuMont ) wrote on Wed, 26 January 2011 21:49

depth

It's pretty simple. Analog tape limits the peaks by as much as 20 dB. You don't see the peaks on the VU meters because they're too slow. This brings up the average level until the low-level details are well above the noise floor. This limiting is accomplished in a way that is subjectively more natural than digital processing. Track the same drum sound to tape and digital, digitize the tape and compare, and you'll see the giant spiky peaks on the direct-to-digital version. Input transformers and tubes also saturate, but not in the same way.

[Jim Williams]

fiasco ( P.M.DuMont ) wrote on Wed, 26 January 2011 13:49

Can anyone point me to a song, CD, snippet that was recorded digitally that has unmistakable depth?

Check out Todd Garfinkle's MA Records. His stuff is recorded using 2 B+K mics, great wire and preamps (usually mine) and has all the 3d you would ever want.

There is one track on "Further Attempts" that has the bass player bowing the bass legato style. With headphones and a great converter, you can hear the bass rocking fowards/backwards in your head.

I've not ever had that experience with an analog multi track recording, ever.

The question is this:

How many of you believe 2" analog tape will still be in production in 25 years?

Show of hands?

[Jay Kadis]

Several years ago I was evaluating monitors and was listening to the ADAM S3As for the first time.  I put on one of my band's self-produced/recorded CDs and was surprised to hear the drums recede behind the instruments and vocals come forward.  A sense of depth that others also noticed.  We were using a decent but standard CD player - possibly Denon.  The depth thing is not easy to explain, but I'm pretty sure imaging plays a role.

[Fenris Wulf]

Jim Williams wrote on Thu, 27 January 2011 18:37

How many of you believe 2" analog tape will still be in production in 25 years? Show of hands?

So I should abandon my strongly preferred and clearly superior working method, because tape MIGHT be unavailable in 25 years?

If the demand for tape drops to the point where even ATR gives up on making it, then by the same token, used tape will be cheap and plentiful for anyone who wants it. Once I've checked the date codes to eliminate "sticky shed" years, I would trust a gently used, decades-old reel of tape over any digital format.

If the predictions of the sour-grapes digital mavens come true and analog REALLY becomes extinct, I can always become an axe murderer.

That way, at least I'd feel good about my job.

[mattrussell]

Tidewater wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 12:19

I missed my point. You use the same techniques in digital and analog.. you turn the knobs until it sounds a certain way. That certain way may look different between formats, but you are still going to arrive in the same zipcode.. maybe you just shelf the highs a bit to compensate for the extended top end that never flattens.... that you wouldn't think about if you had never had analog ears, you'd just accept as what an eq curve looks like normally.. typically, rather.

as a general statement, i agree with this.  

[Nicky D]

Silvertone wrote on Thu, 27 January 2011 06:27

Nicky D wrote on Thu, 27 January 2011 01:41 I think it is because the audio is fractured...maybe i'm crazy...but after getting into DSD briefly...all other digital audio sounds fractured to me...I don't know why...and I'm not sure I care to know why....DSD (5.6)..is the answer....will it happen in multitrickland?  good chance it won't. Already has Nicky... Genex 10 years ago and Korg just came out at AES with their multitrack DSD system... so there is hope yet! I keep stuff that I recorded on analog on the system all the time to show people what we gave up "depth" wise.  Everyone is amazed at how 3D analog can sound.  DSD is our only hope IMHO. That said I have 4 different digital platforms here and while I can't say they all sound different (some actually do), I can tell you that material recorded on any of these systems will perfectly null against any of the other disc's I cut. So to me it's just the "coding" of the playback that sounds different.

yes of course...I meant something usable by today's standards of editing and plug in processing...which certainly isn't going away....interesting thought about coding of playback...that very well may be...makes me think about "software monitoring" on and off in Logic...which sound different..

[Bill Mueller]

Fenris Wulf wrote on Thu, 27 January 2011 12:27

fiasco ( P.M.DuMont ) wrote on Wed, 26 January 2011 21:49  depth It's pretty simple. Analog tape limits the peaks by as much as 20 dB. You don't see the peaks on the VU meters because they're too slow. This brings up the average level until the low-level details are well above the noise floor. This limiting is accomplished in a way that is subjectively more natural than digital processing. Track the same drum sound to tape and digital, digitize the tape and compare, and you'll see the giant spiky peaks on the direct-to-digital version. Input transformers and tubes also saturate, but not in the same way.

One of the first things GM taught me was to track drums at -20db to preserve the transients. We would sit in the control room and look at the scope before we had peak meters. So much for the theory that all analog clips transients.

Bill

[Bill Mueller]

Jim Williams wrote on Thu, 27 January 2011 13:37

fiasco ( P.M.DuMont ) wrote on Wed, 26 January 2011 13:49 Can anyone point me to a song, CD, snippet that was recorded digitally that has unmistakable depth? Check out Todd Garfinkle's MA Records. His stuff is recorded using 2 B+K mics, great wire and preamps (usually mine) and has all the 3d you would ever want. There is one track on "Further Attempts" that has the bass player bowing the bass legato style. With headphones and a great converter, you can hear the bass rocking fowards/backwards in your head. I've not ever had that experience with an analog multi track recording, ever. The question is this: How many of you believe 2" analog tape will still be in production in 25 years? Show of hands?

Jim,

+1.

I swear, when I talk to my studio friends who are not on this forum, NOBODY is using analog tape any more. The machines are not even sitting in the hall any more. They are gone.

I think every engineer who IS using analog tape is on this forum!  

And BTW. I love analog tape. I have a Studer B67 that I personally restored. I can lap heads myself and handle pretty much any maintenance tweak needed. But if you can't get a great sound with a DM2000 and a MX2424, you need more help than an A80 can give you.

Best regards,

Bill

[Nicky D]

Bill Mueller wrote on Thu, 27 January 2011 16:14

Fenris Wulf wrote on Thu, 27 January 2011 12:27 fiasco ( P.M.DuMont ) wrote on Wed, 26 January 2011 21:49  depth It's pretty simple. Analog tape limits the peaks by as much as 20 dB. You don't see the peaks on the VU meters because they're too slow. This brings up the average level until the low-level details are well above the noise floor. This limiting is accomplished in a way that is subjectively more natural than digital processing. Track the same drum sound to tape and digital, digitize the tape and compare, and you'll see the giant spiky peaks on the direct-to-digital version. Input transformers and tubes also saturate, but not in the same way. One of the first things GM taught me was to track drums at -20db to preserve the transients. We would sit in the control room and look at the scope before we had peak meters. So much for the theory that all analog clips transients. Bill

I'm not sure if you are disagreeing or agreeing with the quoted post, but in my very limited use of tape I've always felt that it exhibits limiting characteristics and not compression...and not when it's (obviously) saturating either.

[Bill Mueller]

Nicky D wrote on Thu, 27 January 2011 17:36

Bill Mueller wrote on Thu, 27 January 2011 16:14 Fenris Wulf wrote on Thu, 27 January 2011 12:27 fiasco ( P.M.DuMont ) wrote on Wed, 26 January 2011 21:49  depth It's pretty simple. Analog tape limits the peaks by as much as 20 dB. You don't see the peaks on the VU meters because they're too slow. This brings up the average level until the low-level details are well above the noise floor. This limiting is accomplished in a way that is subjectively more natural than digital processing. Track the same drum sound to tape and digital, digitize the tape and compare, and you'll see the giant spiky peaks on the direct-to-digital version. Input transformers and tubes also saturate, but not in the same way. One of the first things GM taught me was to track drums at -20db to preserve the transients. We would sit in the control room and look at the scope before we had peak meters. So much for the theory that all analog clips transients. Bill I'm not sure if you are disagreeing or agreeing with the quoted post, but in my very limited use of tape I've always felt that it exhibits limiting characteristics and not compression...and not when it's (obviously) saturating either.

Nicky,

A well set up Studer or Ampex tape machine running at 15 or 30 ips can capture transient information quite accurately, without limiting or compression. However, since the transients are sometimes 20db above the VU indications, if you want to capture transients as George always did, you should not record above -20db according to him.

(That is a very broad statement and can be contested in a variety of unique instances such as tape alignment levels, but it is fundamentally true)

The old wives tale that analog tape just automatically applies compression or limiting to anything applied to it is just that, an old wives tale.

Bill