R/E/P Community

R/E/P => R/E/P Archives => j. hall => Topic started by: lek on February 05, 2006, 11:59:15 pm

Title: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: lek on February 05, 2006, 11:59:15 pm
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 Smile

Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: RMoore on February 06, 2006, 06:20:09 am
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 Smile




I experience the same when I copy tracks from analog to the DAW - the difference is huge especially with bass and drums , its so sad but what can you do other than grin and bear it or get a 2',

And anyway like you say the end result for most listeners will be a CD or MP3 puke chunk.

How I've mainly been working the last 2 yrs or so is build up tracks on an MCI 8 trk (mainly the bass & drums) , transfer that to Logic, keep working with overdubs etc, then for mixdown send stems out to the 8 trk and mix from that,

FWIW - I do have an MM1200 2' I picked up cheep but haven't installed it yet due to some logistical issues which are just about solved actually,







Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: Han S. on February 06, 2006, 09:49:46 am
Track to 2", mix to the ATR and make it a nice SACD?
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: Teddy G. on February 06, 2006, 01:06:14 pm
I am old enough to have lived through several changes in technology. Best thing? Embrace the new, work to make it better, live with it.

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?

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
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: pg666 on February 06, 2006, 01:30:47 pm
(removed, because i didn't read the first post close enough)
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: Bluehorn on February 07, 2006, 02:31:54 am
I hope this is not OT. Though I embrace digital technology, I still track to tape. My latest project was recorded at Ocean Way on their tweaked Stevens 2" recorder. I needed to get the tracks to my MX2424 so I took the tapes to DMT(Botnick's place) in Burbank and transfered through the best Benchmard AD convertors they had. They now have the Pacific Microsonics HDCD Model two's. I am quite happy with the result in that I was able to preserve the "analog" vibe whilst editing and mixing in the digital world. I might try tracking to high-end digital someday,but for now this is the best for me.
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: vernier on February 07, 2006, 02:40:11 am
I used to use 2", but 1" is enough, better even.
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: lek on February 07, 2006, 07:51:14 am
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

perhaps absolutely right in a business sense...
but as an artist I am a perfectionist. Perhaps I am recording this for my own ears and not for someone elses, and will suffer as a result (in a business sense)...Though once again I must remind myself my likelihood for enjoying something I've created is not necessarily linked to its recorded quality (I will repeat this inside as a mantra until either enlightenment is attained or I dissipate into a millions binary molecules)
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: John Ivan on February 07, 2006, 12:17:54 pm
What I've decided to do is record to the format that I like the sound of the best. Some years back, I picked up 3 DA-88's and a DAW for editing. This was when I was open for Business and recording other people. I am now recording mostly my own stuff. I love tape and always have so I'm going back to tape. I'm hoping this summer is good enough to pick up a 2" 16.

I get fine results from the rig I have {I guess} but hey, record to what you like. Why not.... I hear a huge difference. Maybe because all the audio I heard up close when I was young came off a Tape machine. Who knows... I just like it.

Buy Tape. It sounds good.

Ivan.............................................
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: Red Tape on February 10, 2006, 05:01:47 am
Hey, I'm operating at the low-end of the market (heh), but what I do is run through a Studer A80 1" and straight off the repro head into a Digi 002 (quite the quality mismatch,eh?). This way I'm getting tape sound into the 01010 world, but avoiding tape wear and a lot of tape winding. I tend to reuse tape a little this way too.
I'm thinking I'll start to mix back through the Studer at some point, and obviously I'd love to have a 2-track, but I wonder how much point there is, since the places that can master from 1/4" or 1/2" in Ireland are rare, and tend to be more expensive than what most of my clients want to pay.
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: ericswan on February 11, 2006, 12:18:50 am
Teddy G wrote:

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?


I will argue that the quality upstream will still be apparent downstream. What looks better on a digital TV or even a video display on a cell phone, a beautifully filmed Hitchcock or David Lean movie or The Phantom Menace? I can still distinguish a superior recording even played back on a crappy mp3 player or even on music on hold. Not everyone may care but I believe most people do respond to higher quality, even if only on an unconscious level.

I try and track as much stuff to tape as I can and then transfer to digital for the ease of editing etc. I believe getting it as good as possible at the source is still important.
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: dodlum on February 11, 2006, 03:55:32 am
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
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: SuperBurtM on February 11, 2006, 07:06:13 am
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 Smile





I'd say save yourself the headache and just trk to digi and be done with it.
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: lek on February 11, 2006, 11:19:55 am
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.

Perhaps...
After this album, I thought I'd go all analog - real console, 2" machine, mix to 1/4".

But a bit apprehensive - there doesn't seem to be too many top technicians in the NYC area (I've contacted a few who specialize in particular machines), most are pretty far away, and charge a lot per hour, including some serious driving time to get to my studio (if they even would do that).

I far prefer the sound of tape, but I guess the current state of the industry/times isn't exactly conducive to a feeling of support - be it parts or service. Wish I could afford a new a827.
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: lek on February 11, 2006, 11:29:24 am
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

Yes, your nice simple thread makes me think, might as well just take the leap and hope for the best - I'll probably regret it if I don't.

Unfortunately, it doesn't just boil down to which one I prefer the sound of - I am concerned about support as well as how much money it will take to get a well working machine AND console
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: Werewolf10 on February 11, 2006, 01:26:19 pm
Ya know I look at this thread and then all the other threads like this on the internet, and then I wonder, why the hell isn't there a company out there thats jumping on this market?  I mean I understand an A/D converter chip is much more cost effective in certain areas, But im sure there has to be an innovative company out there that can find a way to mass produce a new generation of Reel to Reels.  Like a stripped down version that is small and light wieght that use good quality recording heads.  NO preamps, just high quality durable plastic and light wieght aluminium.  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.  Im sure RCA could find a way to manufacture a high quality stripped down Reel to Reel using old technology from studer heads and combining it with modern electronics to make the price be as cheap as a $300 sound card or 16 track for the price of a $1000 A/D converter.  Maybe even have a sort of auto-aligning system.

Can you imagine the marketing campaign?  It would turn the soundcard market on its head.  The fact that all this cheap ass tube equipment has been successfull, proves that R to R will be big sellers. The Market is here, why the hell isn't there anyone jumping on this??


I got an Idea!  Lets all start a massive campaign to gather signatures from all over the net.  Lets go to every recording forum and everyone we know and get up thousands of signatures and submit it to new companies so maybe they can see the demand for it.

Ok Ok I'm a dreamer, but I would be willing to try.
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: SirDonut on February 11, 2006, 11:00:30 pm
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.


I appreciate the sentiment and the idea but a transfer to a VCR generally looks like shite. I would say the videocassette compared to a good DVD is generally about as good as an cassette compared to an SACD.
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: Bobro on February 13, 2006, 05:54:38 am
Recording to tape then going to digital isn't useless at all.

Tape captures information in a stochastic manner, and that in my opinion is a fundamentally elegant aproach to "you are thereness" because the level of reality we live at, and our perceptions, are also stochastic in nature. Even an 40 year old mono Dictaphone has that particular kind of eerie presence- digital captures reality from a different angle, also can be cool IMO but not the same, no way. Writing to a fine cloud of  particles or clocked sampling, how could it possibly be the same?

Of course if the actual purpose of going to digital is to edit, effect, and sample-replace the hell out it, it doesn't matter if you record direct to a pizza crust because the end result is so different from the original and you might as well just synthesize everything at that point, hehe.

-Bobro

Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: ted nightshade on February 15, 2006, 06:05:27 pm
I had the same problem with the HEDD converters. Then I sprung for the SLAM!, and honestly it sounds a hell of a lot like it did on tape. Not the same, but translation is a lot more straightforward and emotionally and groovaciously effective.

for straight to 2 track stuff I prefer straight to SLAM! to straight to tape. I did a whole session where I split everything after the mic pre, straight to SLAM! and straight to ATR 1" 2 track. I very, very much preferred straight to SLAM!.

But I'm really nuts about dimension and dynamics and not very many people seem to value those things these days.

Anyway there is some really good digital but accept no substitute, whether or not Dave Hill signed the front panel.
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: Ryan Leigh Patterson on February 16, 2006, 02:49:03 am
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) Cool 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?  




Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: Irie Penguin on February 16, 2006, 11:49:56 am
A while back when exchanging MP3s with a collaborator I was super disappointed with mix-in-progress that I was going to e-mail. Compressed files sound like asss I'm sure most of you will agree but the files are generally lesser representations of the original.

Anyhoo - it got me wondering how good MP3s (now MP4s) could sound if mixed and mastered to the medium.

Accept the limited (in the traditional sense) imaging, the skewed tonal response and the tricks the psychoacoustic algorithms are likely to play - could some compelling productions be crafted?

There are the virtues, lest we forget, of low noise, no wow and flutter, and extended bass response.

Could the right music (possibly with special arrangements by savvy musicians), combined with the proper choice of mics and recording chain elements further combined with mixing sensitive to the medium, and finally, the application of specialized mastering approaches be something groovy?

To restate the question; could great music be made that stands up as (fine or popular) art in this medium?

I'll be starting a project soon and I'll try to get the artist enthusiastic about trying something a little different and allowing a couple MP3 iPod remixes included on the release.

Bill

P.S. I'll keep the 24 bit mixes for my archives and possible for SACD (or DVD-A) release at a later time. (if the music buying public cares!)
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: wwittman on February 16, 2006, 01:24:48 pm
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) Cool 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?  







this is all more or less true...

but, so what?

All of us are HERE, discussing recording becasue we CARE about sound quality and because it's our belief or experience that others do as well.

If the answer is always going to be "it doesn;t matter if you have a great song that rocks" then we can close up the board, the studios, and everything else.

it DOES matter beyond that, although that has to come FIRST.

but this week there will be another song that rocks just as much as yours and is just as deep and important and emotional as yours and just as clever and well thought out and pithy as yours and just as ctahcy and hooky and unforgettable as yours... but it will be recorded better and SOUND more accessible or heavier or cooler or whatever.
and the guy with the 99 cents is only going to download ONE of them on iTunes.. yours or the better sounding one?

Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: Ryan Leigh Patterson on February 16, 2006, 01:47:05 pm
I totally agree... do the best you can with the best stuff possible....

I'm somewhat of a gearslut myself, so I understand...

Just thought the thread needed an interjection
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: rankus on February 17, 2006, 06:43:11 pm


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....
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: Guest on February 17, 2006, 07:38:33 pm
This is one of the dilemmas I am working through now.  I record to tape, and for mixdown I can mix to tape or into my PC.  if I mix to tape I can then transfer to PC.  My current converters pass the audio through to the outputs as you are mixing, so when you play back the file, it is the same exact volume, etc as when you were recording it.  When playing back the recorded file, it is obvious to everyone in the room that something was just "lost".  So I was looking at upgrading to something like an older Apogee or a Mytek.  Any comments or sugesstions would be greatly appreciated.  
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: bobkatz on February 18, 2006, 09:58:55 am
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....



Try some great converters on ANY decent DAW. Nuendo's engine is the same as Cubase's... shouldn't sound any different if the same converters are used.

BK
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: Guest on February 18, 2006, 11:21:36 am
Wow!!!

Bob,  I was always wondering this...

Are all windows audio software the same engine?  Just a set of windows libraries or something?  Is the only difference in the user interface and available options?  Because I've also heard that certain software packages have "improved" their engine over differnet revisions...is this simply how the software handles the audio and not how it is recorded and stored?  I would imagine that any piece of software would put the same ones and zeroes to the hard disk as they come off the converter?  Is this right?  
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: bobkatz on February 18, 2006, 09:01:26 pm
stellar wrote on Sat, 18 February 2006 11:21

Wow!!!

Bob,  I was always wondering this...

Are all windows audio software the same engine?  




Oh, no... not at all. I was simply saying that Cubase and Nuendo have the same underlying audio engine.

And whether that produces the same output to the hard disc as what comes in the converter, it's VERY important that be true if the DAW is set to unity gain, pans left and right and no equalization or other processing. But if you change any of that, then the "engine" comes into play and that could, conceivably sound different from DAW to DAW.

BK
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: Werewolf10 on February 18, 2006, 10:21:53 pm
I totally agree.  I started with Cubase and switched around to differant software through the years.  I have found that for "Windows" the only audio engine I like is "Samplitude". And for "Mac", Logic sounds good too..

Most are subtle differances but for "me" In my humble opinion, Samplitude is a "big" differance.  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.
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: Guest on February 19, 2006, 10:32:26 am
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.


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?  
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: benn on February 19, 2006, 03:37:11 pm
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?  


Some DAWs including cubase use UV-22.
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: rjd2 on February 23, 2006, 10:55:08 am
can i propose an exercise that could be interesting/helpful to some of us?

record a small passage direct to both formats, daw and analog tape. could be very short-2, 4 bars.. now, convert each to the other. put them out to the same common format, mp3?(i know you guys dont care for mp3, but if they both go to the same crappy conversion, its still a controlled experiment).

now, post them up-blind. and lets see if we can tell which is which, or, more importantly, what the differences are.

if this seems futile, consider what this info may provide to people that only use a digital, or only use analog formats. personally, this could help me decide whether i should take on a tape machine as a signal processing piece/workhorse, or whether dumping to tape after editing in protools would make any difference, sonically. just a thought.....
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: Teddy G. on March 04, 2006, 03:23:39 am
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.
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: Bob Olhsson on March 04, 2006, 09:36:40 am
wwittman wrote on Thu, 16 February 2006 12:24

...yours or the better sounding one?
Forget downloads, a lone music reviewer who loves the songs and loves the sound of your cd on his $30,000. hi fi system could easily make the difference between a top ten single and 1000 pressings sitting in the garage.

Anyone who thinks sound quality doesn't count big-time is seriously deluding themselves.
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: maxdimario on March 04, 2006, 12:18:42 pm
Define recording quality!

What is quality?

s/n ratio makes a big difference?

THD makes a big difference?

To me the big difference is in the medium's capacity to carry FEEL!
Where does feel come from? ... I have my ideas...

ANYWAY just the other day I finally got myself to start building a phono preamp using ONE amazing german pentode with an anode inductor and a passive EQ curve.
When I put some good VINYL  through it I can hear the INTENTION of the music, not only  good sound.

this is evident on those records that were recorded on all analog, and had little generation losses.
I can hear the musician's thoughts... and whether people are conscious of it or not, powerful performances communicate through feel, not 'sound'
Again, it's not as misterious as it seems.
you can predict what kind of medium will lose on feel, and what other kind will preserve it.

I find that if I record to tape the DEPTH of the perfomance is noticeably preserved (the intention is clearer).
this makes the subtle stuff more compelling and groovy... and easy to understand.
...for instance I was listening to an unknown singer-songwriter on a PATHE record (new never played) and although I really don't understand French, I found myself 'learning' as I was listening because it seemed as if she (the singer) was singing TO ME... more or less.

this wasn't happening with my old pre... so sound Quality can make the listener more EMOTIONALLY INVOLVED! which is what you want to do when you try and break an artist ...right?

once you pass into digital, there is an immedate loss...slight maybe but there.
but tape adds distortion artifacts that help the ear 'identify' what was there in the first place.
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: lucey on March 04, 2006, 07:48:27 pm
Han S. wrote on Mon, 06 February 2006 09:49

Track to 2", mix to the ATR and make it a nice SACD?


nice
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: vernier on March 04, 2006, 10:36:27 pm
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,

All-analog recordings hold-up extremely well when ending up on CD. And when mastered well, they can sound great.
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: Werewolf10 on March 04, 2006, 11:06:29 pm
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.




Yea know,  Teddy G.  

        I suspect that your post would make much more sense If you wasn't trying to be [Mr. Funnyman/Condescending Asshole].  I am not impressed by your cheeseball 70's "oh um geee" humor.  
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: wwittman on March 05, 2006, 01:20:03 am
Quote:

Anyway, even 30 years ago, only the fewest of the few used 2" tape


That's just not true.

Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: John Ivan on March 05, 2006, 01:31:41 am
Teedy,
There are tape machines all over the damn place and tape is not hard to get.There are enough machines laying around in varying conditions to keep those who want to use them happening for a long time.

Some of use {I'm in my early 40's} like how it sounds. You can like or not like what ever you want too.

I don't get, at all, the point your making. We already know that one can choose either tape or digital. We already know that one has been around longer too.

Are you saying that we want to use tape to be "hip" or what? Do you not believe folks who say, like me,, " Properly done tape sounds better to me than any digital device I have ever heard." ???

I don't understand why you feel "there's a bunch of stuff I need to tell you about tape". A whole bunch of us already understand the implications of using tape. I think it's fine that you've decided that tape is "OLD" or it sounds no better or what ever.

But please understand. Some of us are trying to make records that WE like the sound of. We think that if we do our best work, others may like it too.. I've made records I'm happy with on digital. These records, in my opinion would sound better had they been done on a tape machine.

Tape is under $200.00 per reel {for now} and 15 ips is fine with me.

There was no lesson  in your post.

"let me tell you punks the truth about tape" ?? Really now.. Do tell.

 Ivan........................................................ ............................
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: scottoliphant on March 05, 2006, 10:48:15 am
teddy g? what was that about? must have been close to bedtime.  Smile
Quote:

THERE AIN'T NO TAPE MACHINES AND THERE AIN'T NO TAPE.
umm, maybe in PA? maybe this will give you bad dreams: I'm one of the younger guys, 28, and i record to tape. MOST of the people I know record to tape. I know a 24 year old guy who just outfitted his studio with a 2" after starting with digital. Why do people insist on trying to convert folks from tape to digital? I don't often hear the argument coming the other way around with such fervor. Why do people fall in love with and drive old classic cars? New ones run better (arguably) and are more fuel efficient.
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: Jean Taxis on March 05, 2006, 03:53:20 pm
I suppose Teddy never would work with an U67, for example ? This tube-thing is so old fashioned, old technology...

I just don't understand how recording with such dogma.

In my opinion, in a studio, for each project, there are some esthetic/colors of sound that we would like to hear, depending on our taste and musical style. Not on the engineer's age.

We can choose our "tools" to reach it. It can be a 40 years old mic, a 20 years old tape analog, a 2 years old monitoring system, a new digital effect...SO WHAT ?

Jean
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: Apemandan on March 26, 2006, 08:17:34 am
Buy a A-80 1" 8-track!!

I am starting an album in a few weeks which may interest.  We are tracking the live band to Studer A820 2" 24-track through an MCI 500 (which would be enough for me!) in a great studio called Rockfiled in Wales, UK.  
My client then wants to dub and mix digitally.  We are transferring to PT HD  via apogee converters at 96kHz and working at that rate right through to mix down.  I use a great sample rate conversion box made by Weiss Gambit which takes the audio down to 44.1, but (somehow) retains alot of the extra information captured at 96k.  I have experimented alot in this area and this is the best sounding way I have found to work digitally.  
On most projects, If I can, I usually slave Protools to the tape machine and try to keep as much on analogue as possible.

cheers, Dan. Very Happy
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: Apemandan on March 26, 2006, 08:29:55 am
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.



Teddy, have you been drinking again??!!

There are loads of tape machines out there if you look around..

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  
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: John Ivan on March 26, 2006, 04:27:32 pm
Dan,You lucky Bastard!! That's a "Machine room"!!

Yikes!  Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: Apemandan on March 26, 2006, 07:18:54 pm
Yo damn right John!!  Thanks..

Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: Johnny B on March 26, 2006, 10:34:37 pm
Emmm, looks like Teddy does mostly Voice Over Work. Sometimes the people who do VO work are funny, often, they are not.

But doing VO work may tend to shade one's opinion because, perhaps, the critical listening skills developed by tape operators, engineers with real talent, and seasoned musicians may not be present.

Under the circumstances, one may not want to get excited in any way by these kinds of people's purely personal opinions.

OK, so he does not like tape, who cares?

Those who love the sound of analogue and prefer it to the cold, lifeless, dead-sounding, and sterile "zeros and ones" that digital mangles with truncation, "anomalies" and which subjects the entire digital process to numerous math errors, and for the time-being, simply does not measure up to world class analogue sound, need not waste their time explaining why the sound of analogue is so clearly superior to someone who has been brainwashed by digital marketing hype.  
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: Jean Taxis on March 27, 2006, 04:20:16 am
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  



What a nice place !
By the way, about Emtec 900 vs GP9, which one did you prefer ?

Jean
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: Apemandan on March 27, 2006, 08:42:51 am
Jean Taxis wrote on Mon, 27 March 2006 10:20

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  



What a nice place !
By the way, about Emtec 900 vs GP9, which one did you prefer ?

Jean



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.   Razz
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: fadeout on March 27, 2006, 10:13:27 am
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.   Razz


I have a reel of 900 2" threaded up for today's session right now. And I'm down to my last half a dozen reels of 900 for mixdown, which will be used up in the near future.

In terms of 900 vs GP9, I guess it's personal preference, but I liked the Emtec/BASF stuff because I thought it sounded better (duh!) than the GP9, handled better, and was more consistent and reliable. Trying to describe differences in sound is tough, but I find 900 to have, sonically, some of the attributes that I like about 456, but it's quieter/ higher output, and I have not personally experienced shedding or slitting problems. GP9 is a heavier tape, and although it IS good, there's just something I can't quite put my finger on about the sound that I'm not crazy about. But, that could be because I have not spent enough time playing with different alignments/biasing. It's certainly not bad. Just different.

I've been using some brand new Quantegy 456 recently and have had no quality problems thus far, and I like the sound of that too, but I do find it a bit noisier in practice.

Some good news is that I just heard from the US sales director of RMGI who told me that the first shipment of SM911 1/4" is on the way to the US. This will be followed by 468 and then 900, and it sounds like their target for 2" shipment is early June. It sounds like they have gone to a lot of trouble to meet or exceed the quality of the old Emtec products. So a bit more of a wait, but it seems hopeful.

And ATR Magnetics are working on a new line of tape also, which I expect will be worth the wait.

Basically you just have to experiment and listen and make your own decisions.
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: Jean Taxis on March 27, 2006, 10:28:03 am
[quote
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.   Razz [/quote]

I used Maxima 900 a lot, from 1997 to 2003, (15 ips/Dolby SR)
I really loved it, clear & musical, IMO sounding close to 3M 996.
Since then, I have been often using GP9 on stereo 1/2", and found need to reach eq adjustment's compromise a bit different to be happy.
But I unfortunately use analog. multitracks very rarely (cost for clients!)? so I miss comparisons on multitracks... Razz
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: Apemandan on March 27, 2006, 03:37:26 pm
 [/quote]


Some good news is that I just heard from the US sales director of RMGI who told me that the first shipment of SM911 1/4" is on the way to the US. This will be followed by 468 and then 900, and it sounds like their target for 2" shipment is early June. It sounds like they have gone to a lot of trouble to meet or exceed the quality of the old Emtec products. So a bit more of a wait, but it seems hopeful.


[/quote]


Can't wait to try the RMGI 900, i've just emailed their main office in the Netherlands to try and find out when it is available in the UK.  It would be great to try on my next project.

Shocked
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: Apemandan on March 27, 2006, 03:44:10 pm
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.
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: Jean Taxis on March 28, 2006, 07:22:16 am
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.



Dan, I 100 % agree !..  running @15ips/SR sounds great!  and the cost is not so high, specially for
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: Timeline on March 29, 2006, 02:30:09 pm
Wow!

Been reading all of this and I have to say after 38 years of recording, the last 5 of them doing digital on every conceivable system,, that doing Analog 16 track on specific machines like MM1000,1100 and some tweaked 1200's blows the pants off most digital IOs in the business with the exception of a boat load of UA 2192's.

If any of you ever get a chance to put a 24 channel a/b switch in play with your favorite IOs please, by all means do it during a playback. Un F___ing believable loss of clarity on most. That includes ProTools.

After doing the test myself, I bought a 24 track and a 16 track MM1200 and two sets of 16 track heads. Unfortunatly they are still sitting damn it and I have plenty of 456 and 499 2" tape too. oh and an oven.. Smile

The Digital IO manufacturers owe us more than cheap 50 cent differential chips on the front end and that's about all I have to say on the matter.
Title: Re: recording on tape, transfer to digital useless?
Post by: John Noll on April 17, 2006, 12:03:03 am
I think the BASF/EMTEC 900 was the best sounding "modern" high output tape formulation. It also seemed to have very precise tolerances and passed through the transport very smoothly. Looking forward to having it available again.

We use a lot of 2" 499 and 900 house tape then transfer it over to Radar. And the Radar sounds pretty damn good for digital.