compasspnt wrote on Mon, 07 February 2005 07:23 |
BUT...what to do in future? |
Linear wrote on Sun, 06 February 2005 23:25 | ||
When I speak to other engineers/studio owners here, they all tell me that 'no-one records to tape' however when I speak to bands, they tell me how they 'prefer recording to tape' and, if the price is right, will choose tape everytime. So it leaves me wondering if it's actually the studios and engineers that prefer recording to digital? Who decides? |
compasspnt wrote on Sun, 06 February 2005 21:23 |
In the multitrack world, I will run the tracks that I deem need the "treatment" into, and back out of, an analogue machine, recorded back into Protools through the HQ converter. Then they will have to be time-shifted back into sync. This is basically just relegating tape to the world of outboard gear, I guess. Terry |
compasspnt wrote on Sun, 06 February 2005 20:23 |
So, what does everyone think? Any better plans out there? Terry |
bblackwood wrote on Mon, 07 February 2005 01:28 |
Alan, do they have software to 'treat' PCM? I just mastered a project from 1/4", 15 ips, Dolby SR AGFA (!!!) this week and it sounded unbelievable right off tape. If there is anything that can approximate what happened on this tape, I'll buy it without a moment's notice. But as good as the tape sim in the HEDD-192 is, it juts isn't the same thing... |
compasspnt wrote on Sun, 06 February 2005 15:23 |
So, what does everyone think? Any better plans out there? Any late word about new tape? Will tape just fade away? |
wwittman wrote on Mon, 07 February 2005 23:37 |
But I have yet to see anyone pick the digital in these comparisons, blind. |
wwittman wrote on Wed, 09 February 2005 03:35 |
I'm also saying that in that A-B-C the analogue always sounds MORE like direct desk out than the digital... not that the analogue IMPROVES the desk out,,, it just loses less. Doesn;t matter to me what the genre of music is, i still don't want part of the sound going missing if I have a choice. Unless you're saying some genres are better off if they go missing! In which case, i;m with you. <g> |
compasspnt wrote on Wed, 09 February 2005 05:16 |
OK, points taken. Then if analogue indeed does retain more information than digital, is there any advantage to mixing (or any recording) first to analogue tape, then transferring through high-Q converters into digital, or will the information/quality gained by the analogue just "go away" on transfer, just as if it had never been? In other words, is analogue a desirable, non-losable "effect" that can be utilised? I maintain that it is. TM |
compasspnt wrote on Wed, 09 February 2005 10:28 |
What I find funny is when someone will tell me, as has happened a couple of times, how they loved a certain record I had done, and that it had that great vintage analogue sound, unlike today's digital. But I knew that recording was tracked on the 32 digital! Did digital tape sound better than digital hard disk? |
Quote: |
Do people often just base audio opinions on musical content, or on the vintage of a recording? |
ted nightshade wrote on Wed, 09 February 2005 10:48 |
Took me a long time to find digital I like, but I really do prefer the sound of a live band in a room to a couple mics to digital (SLAM!), than to ATR 1" 2 track. This with no processing whatsoever. The digital just sounds a whole lot more like being there- far more dynamic, for one thing. |
compasspnt wrote on Wed, 09 February 2005 09:28 |
... Did digital tape sound better than digital hard disk? Do people often just base audio opinions on musical content, or on the vintage of a recording?... |
wwittman wrote on Wed, 09 February 2005 13:55 |
Anyway, I'm much happier mixing to analogue and only doing the inevitable A-D at Sterling. Much LESS happy walking in there with it already digital. |
David Kulka wrote on Wed, 09 February 2005 14:30 |
"repro cannot sound truer than input". |
maxdimario wrote on Wed, 09 February 2005 14:23 | ||
I didn't say truer than input! I said that passing through analog can add intelligibility and smooth over a track in a way that the limits of digital are not so obvious. increased intelligibility denotes that the master has been processed, and therefore is less natural. digital can't reproduce the musical detail as well as big analog. truer to performance and feel=analog truer to overall sound balance and low noise =digital but analog masters are like photos on a hasselblad-sized camera -- detail to spare if you care to look. I'd like to check out the slam! converter. what is it that makes is special compared to the usual lot of converters? |
ted nightshade wrote on Thu, 10 February 2005 00:27 |
Anyhow, whatever it might be, the difference is enough, that in my SLAM! vs. ATR 1" 2 track comparisons (2 mics live to 2 tracks) I found that my conclusions were reversed from what you wrote above. truer to performance and feel=SLAM! truer to overall sound balance and low noise =well, the noise on that 1" 2 track is pretty negligible- both tape and SLAM! did very well here. But, the SLAM! is the first converter I've found that I would say this about. Mostly, I find great tape to be much better with perfomance and feel than "pretty good" digital. But I'm not talking about multitrack stuff. Haven't tried that with the SLAM! yet. I do find though, that multitrack is not very true to performance or feel- possibly one of it's greatest advantages! |
maxdimario wrote on Thu, 10 February 2005 04:02 |
what electronics were in the atr machine? |
ted nightshade wrote on Thu, 10 February 2005 17:23 | ||
That's a very relevant question. I've wondered if things might have come out differently with different tape machine electronics. These were the most expensive ones available, as far as I can tell- EAR/Tim Paravencini (sp?) custom tube electronics. I wonder what it would have been like with the Dave Hill electronics or the stock ones. |
maxdimario wrote on Thu, 10 February 2005 12:08 |
I am not familiar of the design philosophy behind the tape head amps by EAR, but they should be of a high enough quality to address the imaging issue... I am going to look into this further, it seems too good to be true, but maybe somebody got it right after all. gotta check that out. |
In other words, is analogue a desirable, non-losable "effect" that can be utilised?
slicraider wrote on Thu, 10 February 2005 23:05 |
In other words, is analogue a desirable, non-losable "effect" that can be utilised? I have to say yes. I have recently tracked straight to PT HD and all other times I have gone to 2" analog prior. Going to analog has always provided glue between all the recorded instruments which provided a much more musical sound. Listening to the tracks going straight to PT I can see where my energies will be spent during the mix. Rick Slater New York |
AlanS wrote on Thu, 10 February 2005 23:20 |
Not making a value judgment here - most of my favorite pop records have probably been tracked to analog tape, but the "glue" that is often spoken of is in reality is a euphonic side-effect of the loss that is incurred by the blurring of transients, "edges" that separate sounds if you will, caused by wow, flutter, and saturation. A/B'ing an acoustic recording done to analog and high-quality digital, you'll hear that the analog has the "glue" but the digital has the imaging and detail. The choice would have to be subjective. Then there is that love it or leave it analog tape head-bump thing that plumps up the bottom. |