lek wrote on Mon, 06 February 2006 05:59 |
the deal - I have a cranesong spider, I've been recording my drummer two ways - letting all 8 channels go to digital separately, and at the same time submixing them to two tracks to the ATR-102 (staying in the analog domain, never converted- yes the spider sums in the analog domain). I then bounce the two tape tracks to digital - through the cranesong spider converters. The two track tape bounced to digital sounds better than the 8 individual digital tracks (though with some eq, I must admit I got the digi tracks to sound pretty good, had used a little David Hill tape on the kick, snare, great river eq as well). ---- Then - I listened back to the tape machine straight through to the monitors, no conversion. Shit! It IS LEAGUES beyond what it sounds like when it's transferred to digital. I went back and listened to an acoustic guitar part I did the same thing with - tracked to tape, bounced to digital. NOT EVEN CLOSE - it sounded so beautiful directly from the tape... ---- BUT it kills me that eventually it will be on a cd or mp3, so what the fuck is the point and should I just record everything digitally (through the spider, which does truly does sound great - well at least when not comparing to tape), then mix down to the atr 102? I do realize a certain characteristic and magic of the tape does transfer through to the digital realm, however it's just not the same. I tried it at 96k as well, still not even close... --- after listening to tracks directly from tape, i want to buy a 2"...but...the pains, the hassles, being a one man studio...aaagh!! --- the only solution - track to 2", mix to my atr102, press to vinyl? (let's see how many customers I get, and who will have a serious stereo system where they will enjoy it!) p.s. the killer - I actually still get into certain songs I did 10 years ago on an adat more than now, in fact my old tascam 4 track has some great stuff from 13 years ago... so it's only the song that counts right |
Teddy G. wrote on Mon, 06 February 2006 13:06 |
If you have a market for your "better" quality output and customers who agree and are willing to pay the high price of it's use, go to it! By same token, you could buy, carefully restore and "rent" fine, old automobiles, too! Though NOT often at the airport, to some guy just trying to get to his next business appointment... Use 2" tape for tracking, film for photos, manual typewriters - even quill and ink bottle, for your writing, whatever... Just don't get lost in some sort of "saving" of old, formerly "mass" technology, no matter how good it may have been, at the expense of your "only needs to be" output. Always be better than you have to be, not neccessarily as good as you might be...... TG |
Quote: |
If nothing else, console yourself by considering the marketplace. Who will benefit by your use of tape? Is the average .mp3 player going to "show" the difference? Is the average .mp3 "playee" going to care? When I "digitize" my 4x5 film, sted of just doing a digital snap and send a pic out in an email, who will know? Who will care? If I re-cap my tube radio and get it back up to specs, otherwise, what will I listen to on it that will reflect the possible better quality? Talk shows? Satellite broadcasts of "oldies"? Hip-hop? Rap, even live broadcasts -- all of it broadcast in nothing close to even "CD" quality - often not even "good" .mp3 quality? |
lek wrote on Sun, 05 February 2006 20:59 |
the deal - I have a cranesong spider, I've been recording my drummer two ways - letting all 8 channels go to digital separately, and at the same time submixing them to two tracks to the ATR-102 (staying in the analog domain, never converted- yes the spider sums in the analog domain). I then bounce the two tape tracks to digital - through the cranesong spider converters. The two track tape bounced to digital sounds better than the 8 individual digital tracks (though with some eq, I must admit I got the digi tracks to sound pretty good, had used a little David Hill tape on the kick, snare, great river eq as well). ---- Then - I listened back to the tape machine straight through to the monitors, no conversion. Shit! It IS LEAGUES beyond what it sounds like when it's transferred to digital. I went back and listened to an acoustic guitar part I did the same thing with - tracked to tape, bounced to digital. NOT EVEN CLOSE - it sounded so beautiful directly from the tape... ---- BUT it kills me that eventually it will be on a cd or mp3, so what the fuck is the point and should I just record everything digitally (through the spider, which does truly does sound great - well at least when not comparing to tape), then mix down to the atr 102? I do realize a certain characteristic and magic of the tape does transfer through to the digital realm, however it's just not the same. I tried it at 96k as well, still not even close... --- after listening to tracks directly from tape, i want to buy a 2"...but...the pains, the hassles, being a one man studio...aaagh!! --- the only solution - track to 2", mix to my atr102, press to vinyl? (let's see how many customers I get, and who will have a serious stereo system where they will enjoy it!) p.s. the killer - I actually still get into certain songs I did 10 years ago on an adat more than now, in fact my old tascam 4 track has some great stuff from 13 years ago... so it's only the song that counts right |
SuperBurtM wrote on Sat, 11 February 2006 07:06 |
I'd say save yourself the headache and just trk to digi and be done with it. |
dodlum wrote on Sat, 11 February 2006 03:55 |
Oh the many thread titles for the tape versus digital debate... Honest to god.. does it not simply boil down to using the one you prefer the sound of? There are so many advocates of both, the only thing it proves is that there is a sonic difference between them - use the one that sounds best to you. I prefer coffee to tea hence I drink more coffee.. David |
Werewolf10 wrote on Sat, 11 February 2006 18:26 |
I mean, just look at VCR's. RCA and JVC seem to have found a way to make two reels turn using 1/2 inch analog tape with heads that are fairly accurate. |
Ryan Leigh Patterson wrote on Thu, 16 February 2006 02:49 |
Why audio engineers need to stop debating the merits of analog vs digital and why it doesn't matter, at all, ever.... 1. Live music sounds better than recorded music...... Go see your local symphony in their concert hall, frequently, they sound really f##$in good, almost all the time, especially if you live in a big city. 2. Musicans that can play well, sound better than crappy musicians, even after they've been Tool'd n Tune'd. But my little cousin swears that Shania Twain is the best singer in the world.... 3. Most people can't tell a 128K MP3 from 24/96, let alone CD audio.... and they listen to music on $4 pos ear buds thown in with their iPod 4. If a song rocks, it could have been recorded on that little brown Fisher-Price cassette recorder you used to play the read along story book cassettes when you were 3... 5. Most of our girl friends can barley pick out the snare drum from the rhythm guitar (although mine has now been trained to even pick out a Wulitzer from a Rhodes) Do you think they really give a S*&T that you tracked it "analog", now imagine if she wasn't your girlfriend. She's more impressed with who you tracked than what you tracked. Just make sure to keep all girlfriends away from drummers, and all drummers away from girlfriend.... 6. Most people think their $30 sattelite with a sub speakers for their computer are "hi fi", and wow those iPod docking stations, what amazing sound, and I personally love to listen to music in my car on the highway and with all the road noise and traffic I find I can really focus on the finer elements in the music. 7. When a DJ plays your track (usually an mp3 thess days) on the radio or in a club, the sound will be even, further "degraded", but suprisingly, this "ultra degraded" track, will have the most impact.... 8. Why pay for music when I can download it for free? |
rankus wrote on Fri, 17 February 2006 18:43 |
If your existing DAW does not sound "analog enough" try Nuendo.... Not that it sounds like analog, but it sounds more like anny than others.... |
stellar wrote on Sat, 18 February 2006 11:21 |
Wow!!! Bob, I was always wondering this... Are all windows audio software the same engine? |
Werewolf10 wrote on Sun, 19 February 2006 03:21 |
It also has Pow-R dither, which at first I did'nt really think mattered, but the more I work with UV-22 and others, I am starting to notice a diffrence when it comes to my car mixes. |
stellar wrote on Sun, 19 February 2006 07:32 |
werewolf10, do you think UV-22 is necessary to make a solid 'car mix'? Or can you get by with software? Do you actually run the audio back through your apogee in order to get the UV-22 dithering down to 16-bit? |
wwittman wrote on Thu, 16 February 2006 12:24 |
...yours or the better sounding one? |
Han S. wrote on Mon, 06 February 2006 09:49 |
Track to 2", mix to the ATR and make it a nice SACD? |
Quote: |
I listened back to the tape machine straight through to the monitors, no conversion. Shit! It IS LEAGUES beyond what it sounds like when it's transferred to digital. I went back and listened to an acoustic guitar part I did the same thing with - tracked to tape, bounced to digital. NOT EVEN CLOSE - it sounded so beautiful directly from the tape... ---- BUT it kills me that eventually it will be on a cd or mp3, |
Teddy G. wrote on Sat, 04 March 2006 00:23 |
Sort've like there was no music made after the Beatles, or whatever... Anyway, let me chat with the youngsters for a minute, ey..? Kids, listen - settle down, calm yourselves... Uh! Shush! OK. Tonight, before bed, Goodnight... sleep tight... whichever... Goodnight... I love you, too... No, no .mp3 players tonight, too late. Goodnight..."What? What? hahahaha... Goodnight... Lights out... Yes, I love you too. |
Quote: |
Anyway, even 30 years ago, only the fewest of the few used 2" tape |
Quote: |
THERE AIN'T NO TAPE MACHINES AND THERE AIN'T NO TAPE. |
Teddy G. wrote on Sat, 04 March 2006 08:23 |
Now that the topic has dithered down to dithering(Which is as it should be...), and it is late, I did want to say a few more words about "tape". Seems us old guys have some of the young folks almost convinced that "tape" is "the way to go"! And 2" tape the ONLY REEL way to go!!! Sort've like there was no music made after the Beatles, or whatever... Anyway, let me chat with the youngsters for a minute, ey..? Kids, listen - settle down, calm yourselves... Uh! Shush! OK. Tonight, before bed, let's talk about "tape" being "better", as opposed to doing your recording with your computer. I'm sorry, but, well, I'm not really sorry, I wouldn't trade my PC for all the old, rusty, 2" tape machines left in the world. Anyway, the "tape thing", even if, somehow, it was better..? I'm afraid, is ... well... OK, here it is. Cover up... The 2" tape point is moot. The tape, period, point, is moot. Moot? Ahhh... doesn't matter. LOOK AROUND KIDS, CHECK YOUR MAGAZINES, LOOK THROUGH YOUR CATALOGS, GO ON THE INTERNET, ASK YOUR BROTHER WHO WORKS AT THE BEST BUY -- THERE AIN'T NO TAPE MACHINES AND THERE AIN'T NO TAPE. I KNOW you've heard alot about this and... but... no. No. ...Even assuming you DID have a tape machine(You might find one at a flea market, when we make you go along?) AND some tape(Maybe a couple of old "falling apart boxes" of Scotch Highlander will come with it? ...Um... just a mid-range brand of tape. Not exactly Grand Master, ha. No, nothing to do with sorcery, or the wizard-kid, dear, just marketing.)... Anyway, there is no one around to fix the machines anymore, dears. Yes, I've told you before, in the old days there were people who fixed things. Everything didn't just get thrown away when it broke - uh-huh! Believe it or not! Anyhow. All the old engineers are living in Florida, and ah, well, most of them don't really want to play with this old stuff anymore - they all have computers, or they have, sadly, ah... um... died. Even if you read an old book on how to maintain such machines, yourself, there are no parts available for them. So, no more tape - Story over. Goodnight..! More..? You need more?? OK, it's getting awfully late, and your Mom'll be mad if I keep you up, but... OK. A little more about "tape". Even 30 years ago(Yeah, when your Mom was your age!). Anyway, even 30 years ago, only the fewest of the few used 2" tape(Yeah, like the Stones! Yes, Mr. Jagger really did look old during the football game, didn't he, sweety. Well, he is old! Ha, Ha... Yes, maybe he lives in Florida? Oh, you guys...). Anyway, yes, only people like the Rolling Stones, recorded on 2" tape, running at 30ips, of course(Otherwise why bother?). 30 ips? Ahh, really fast! No, Mr. Jagger didn't record really fast - well, sometimes - no, the tape went round and round really fast... Honestly honey, some of this stuff is gonna' be hard to explain and we don't have much... Yes, OK, on with the story. ANY-way! The tape, alone, even 30 years ago, cost a couple of hundred bucks a reel!!! Yes! As much as your brothers, stupid, sneakers! And "A REEL" lasted only 15 minutes at 30ips! AND, the folks that DID use it USED A REEL ONCE!!! RIGHT! "The best" people used a reel of recording tape only ONCE! Yep, just like if your brother wore his sneakers ONCE, then threw 'em in the closet, never to be worn again! Well... running recording tape "past" the heads on a tape machine is exactly like "riding the brakes" while driving your car(Like when we're following your Grandma, in her car, when she's driving down the street? Ya'know how her bright red tail lights always seem to be on? Yep. And Grandpa has to pay out alot of cash to keep ... well... let's move-on, dears... Anyway, the tape recording process, itself, quickly ruins "the best" of recording tape - and, unfortunately, "the best" recording tape was last made in the 1970's. Yes, the whole thing does sound stupid, ha, ha, but, it's the best they could do at the time. Of course the studios, in which these machines appeared, were "the best", too!!! We're talking here, kids, 30 years ago, a MILLION DOLLAR FACILITY!!! A million dollars may not sound like much, today, but, in the 1970's it was alot of money. Of course, to do less -- a 1/4" 4 track format, or a 1/2 inch 8 track format, or even a 1" 16 track format wasn't considered "the best"(Though a 1" 8 track format was "pretty spiffy"! hehhehheh...), today though, the little church on the corner uses 56 tracks for it's hour-per-week service, so, what good would an 8 track tape recorder be today..? Ah, well... Oh yes, later on, after the demise of the tape machine, one brave and wise company did come up with a pretty neat-o method of trying to "replicate" the "sound of tape", while still using the "new-fangled" computer. Uh-huh! Sort've like trying to make your Toyota Camry "sound" like a Ford Model A. The Model A? It was a really old, difficult to maintain, very innefficient car - that for years after they were gone, "the old folks" would still claim it "was the best car ever!" - and, ya'know, they may have been right, but, YOU have to live NOW, NOT like grandma and grandpa did. This is as it should be. Anyway, this company gathered up as many of the best old tape machines they could find(Or at least they gathered up the best machines they could find that were also, conveniently, the highest selling brand, at the time, in the US, where this company was..IS!). Anyway, they reasoned(May not have been "their" idea, actually, but, hey...) that if one recorded using the computer, mixed all the tracks down to just two(For stereo), than sort've "ran it over here to the corner", via cable, to where the old(Now beautifuly remanufactuered!) tape machine was, and ran the sound through the machine(A 1/2" 2-track, by the way! Didn't see many - if any - of these babies in the old days! Was no need for them then.), actually going to the extra step of recording, AGAIN, TO TAPE, THEN, believe it or not(!), they then play this tape back-INTO the computer! And, kids, there are people who say that this makes "the sound" just like it used to be, when the old guys were just kids, like you are now. Wonderful, huh? ...Yes, alright... complete crapola, hahaha - you got me! Ha, Ha, Ha...ahhh, you guys are smart... But, we all had a good laugh, huh! Sort've like putting an old Holley 4-barrel carburator on your Mom's Camry, ON PURPOSE, huh? HA, HA, HA..! What's a carb--- well, ehhh... forget that one... Anyway, lots of people with more money than, ahh, shall we say... time left on earth? - yes, I mean they're old, bought into this and so did some of the young people! Does your Grandpa have a corvette? Does he ever drive it over 55? Does he drive it at all? Ha Ha... Ah, old people... they are a scream... IS tape better? Who knows, who cares? Even if it was, there ain't no more tape... Goodnight... sleep tight... No, tommorow night we'll talk about tubes - right "valves", heh, heh... very good! - valves... oh, yes... or film cameras... whichever... Goodnight... I love you, too... No, no .mp3 players tonight, too late. Goodnight... No, I'm going down to try to figure out how to fix Grandpa's turntable, you know he still has hundreds of records. Yes, dear, they do sound bad, yeek! But, ya'know, Grandpa doesn't hear that well anymore anyway... "What? What? hahahaha... Goodnight... Lights out... Yes, I love you too. |
Apemandan wrote on Sun, 26 March 2006 15:29 |
.. and tape is still being manufactured, Quantegy are very much in business and making some great tape..GP9 being my fave. There is rumour that Emtec 900 is about to go into production again which is GREAT sounding tape. Have a look at some of the machines we have collected in the past 4 years or so, for not as much money as you may think.. http://www.apestudios.com/html/machine_room.html most have come from online auction, but there are plenty of dealers out there.. cheers, Dan |
Jean Taxis wrote on Mon, 27 March 2006 10:20 | ||
What a nice place ! By the way, about Emtec 900 vs GP9, which one did you prefer ? Jean |
Apemandan wrote on Mon, 27 March 2006 08:42 |
To be honest, i've only ever used emtec once or twice. I am only 30, and the studios where i served my time used ampex/quantegy. I remember it sounding great though and can't wait for it to be re-issued. Has anybody else used Emtec in years past?? Dan. |
Apemandan wrote on Mon, 27 March 2006 22:44 |
Jean, Its such a shame! Obviously some clients just can't afford tape and would rather go digital, but if you run at 15ips (which sounds so much better) than it is not that costly, even if recording an album. |