Lately, I have been trying to learn more about tape. I grew up listening to albums tracked to tape, but have only worked professionally in the DAW environment.
There is a craze with tape plugins in the last several years - including Universal Audios Officially endorsed Studer A800 mkIII plugin , as well as u-he Satin and Slate's Virtual Tape Machines.
I happen to own these, and enjoy using them on a case by case basis, as they all have their own "flavor".
In a nutshell, to my ears, the Studer has a fairly subtle and transparent sound - but is fully tweakable. You can go from "almost no effect" to hissy, driven tape sounds.
Slate is less tweak-able by far, and has a slightly less subtle sound. Its a very pleasing one - big, wide and fat on the 456 emulation. A bit forward and sometimes a tad too sharp on its GP9 setting.
Satin is a good sounding plugin that I put in between UAD's Studer and Slates VTM. Its tweakable, much like UAD but with less tape formulas - and has a fatter default sound, more like Slate's VTM.
My feeling on this is that these companies probably very accurately modeled these machines. Each machine sounds different, and whomever sets the machine up and maintains it also plays a role.
I would like to know more about harmonics in tape. I've taken some screenshots of my plugins with sine wave testing.
Interestingly - Satin and VTM both show the strong 3rd harmonic - while the UAD Studer shows strong multiple harmonics - many more than the other emulations. At least, at its default tape settings for 456 at 15IPS. I was able to push the bias level from its default 10.18 volts to 11.87 - which is an interesting spot apparently, as most of the harmonics, except the third, mainly, all but disappear. They quickly return on either side of this voltage. The sound is bassier and more compressed to my ears with the higher bias - along with a loss of highs.
I tend to shy away from the 456 on the Studer, because so much odd order harmonics tend to show up too easily, which doesn't seem realistic. Has anyone shot a sine wave through tape and looked at it on an oscope? Obviously, someone has - I am curious if the Studer is really correct in it's modeling.
What are everyones thoughts here on tape and its emulations? Close enough? Nailed it? Not necessary?
Here are the pics. 
Comments
What makes analog hardware units unique is the natural wear the
What makes analog hardware units unique is the natural wear the get over the years. Some parts are not really affected, like resistor, transistors. But others, like capacitor, tubes, tape heads etc, will make the unit sound different from any other units of the same make after a while. So an emulation could be a perfect match of one unit or the average of a few unit but something emulations won't do is wear in a natural way.
If you use a tube plug in, it will sound the same everytime you use it and the sound won't change by the time it's used in the performance. Start a tube preamp, its sound will change dramaticly in the first 15mins and then small changes will happen depending on how long and how hard you drive it. Those suttle changes are those that can't really be replicated. My 2 x LA-610 certainly have the same kind of vibes but they don't sound exactly the same. Actually they even don't have the same output level at different stages. In a near future, I hope to get the budget to change the tubes of both unit it hope to get their sound to be closer for better stereo recordings.
So in the end, I'm with Donny. We know emulations aren't exaclty the same, but if they sounds right for the song, why not using them ? ;)
I failed to get a job after graduating at the BBC, many years ag
I failed to get a job after graduating at the BBC, many years ago, because unknown to me, the interviewer was the Head of Engineering, covering for a sick colleague - and I attempted to blag my lack of understanding of what bias current did. Too late, for my own benefit I looked into it, and then on my own reel-to-reels with my favourite tape (Scotch something - I can't remember!) found all the setup tweaks that made it sound the 'best' whatever 'best' really was. For me, the move to digital was really positive. My real hate was hiss and noise. I had a problem with cassettes because the hiss annoyed me, but the brighter top end of Chrome tape meant I recorded with the higher bias current settings and then turned off Dolby for replay - and the extra brightness was something I liked a lot, and I could put up with the trade off hiss. Going to DAT as my first digital format (ignoring the short time on Sony F1-Beta) was for me great - I liked the clean sound, the clarity and the lack of artefacts. My friends moaning about the lack of warmth meant little to me - and I suspect this is why I've never liked tube mics, tube compressors and tube guitar amps. Somehow, I found a few tape simulation plug-ins on my system - I guess they must have come with something I use, and while they do seem to sound like my memory suggest, I hate these too!
For me, these good old days are thankfully behind me! I suspect I'm probably in the minority but my goal is to sound as it is now, and not recreate the sound of the past, because I really don't like how it sounded then. I remember the first Phillips branded CD player with one CD - Dire Straits we used as a demo. I thought wow! Looking at all the first digital products, they were a bit harsh on the ears, and that was a bit unpleasant but the differences we now talk about are so small compared with the huge ones of years ago. Chasing my tail for small returns doesn't seem productive. Today the track I've been producing uses lots of orchestral samples, and I'm spending far more time on tiny performance edits than tonal ones. By accident I used the wrong (as in not my favourite reverb plugin) and in the context of the whole piece, I really cannot tell. Sonically, in isolation, the reverb is just a bit gritty and not quite real on the bigger room settings - but in the mix, it's not an issue at all.
Maybe I should try a tape emulator and see if it makes a difference?
That's what I do in my tiny studio. I use "emulation" plugins
That's what I do in my tiny studio. I use "emulation" plugins as "sound changer" tools. My "Vintage Desk" plugin may or may not sound like a vintage desk; I wouldn't know; but I like what it does on certain things like acoustic guitars and backing vocals.
So in my studio, I run some things through old gear, new gear, and some gear not invented yet. It's an engineer's wet dream to run vocals through a Neve console and the drums through some LA2As and the guitars through some APIs and the piano through an old "whatchamacallit" and the reverb is a 1620's-era cathedral.
Now, if they only sounded as good as the brochure said they would... :)
Think of them as sonic changers, regardless of what they are mea
Think of them as sonic changers, regardless of what they are meant or intended to do. It's just another pallet of colors from which you can choose to sculpt sound.
Personally, I think there are some plugs that sound pretty close to that which they are meant to emulate... but even then, I still approach them individually - and always within the context of the song.
This is true - it's all about the purpose we use it for. I just
This is true - it's all about the purpose we use it for. I just find it kind of interesting that the UAD version has such pronounced harmonics at moderate input levels... maybe on purpose so the plugin wouldnt sound as neutral is it really does???
Interesting responses. I would hate the noise of analog if I couldn't escape it. Sometimes I love how clean and noise-free digital is. Some days I cant even stand the self noise of a microphone. But on some material, when it comes time to mix, a little noise, albeit nearly undetectable, serves some purpose. The goo of a tape plugin and harmonics serve a purpose.
achase4u, post: 427668, member: 37933 wrote: interesting that th
achase4u, post: 427668, member: 37933 wrote: interesting that the UAD version has such pronounced harmonics at moderate input levels
If I would buy something that emulates a unit that I never tried I guess I'd like it to do an obvious difference to the sound I pass through it. I guess that's the kind of philosophy UAD aim for. If an untrained ear can't feel the difference, they would loose a lot of business.
The only thing I would like them to do is to add a blend knob to most of the plugin they do... So if I decide I don't want them to be that obvious I woun't have to do parallele processing ;)
pcrecord, post: 427670, member: 46460 wrote: If I would buy some
pcrecord, post: 427670, member: 46460 wrote: If I would buy something that emulates a unit that I never tried I guess I'd like it to do an obvious difference to the sound I pass through it. I guess that's the kind of philosophy UAD aim for. If an untrained ear can't feel the difference, they would loose a lot of business.
I agree. This is kind of what I was thinking - that if the harmonics are indeed boosted beyond what was actually measured, it was because they wanted a more obvious effect for people to go "ohhh" over. Even with the harmonics, its a subtle effect. I just wish it drove like tape normally would.
As a Reaper user, I have a blend knob for all plugin instances. So I guess I never considered this...
I think it's important to note that the differences between the
I think it's important to note that the differences between the digital emulations and the various "virtual settings" included are likely to be more "dramatic" than the differences between the real hardware they are meant to emulate, for the simple fact that very few people want to buy a plug and hear very little difference. If they can't hear obvious differences, they feel as if they spent money for nothing. They want a "wow" factor, even if that factor is somewhat fictitious.
The sonic differences between various real machines and tape wasn't always all that dramatic.
Could I tell the sonic differences between 499 on a Revox B77 and a reel of 456 on a Studer? Or a reel of Agfa on an Otari versus a reel of 499 on a Tascam? Maybe, but probably not. If they were all maintained well, biased and aligned, probaby I wouldn't be able to hear much of a difference. And, I say that as having worked with tape for a long time.
I'm not saying that there weren't differences, but I don't believe that they were as dramatic as some of these digital emulations make them out to be.
Tape machines weren't intentionally used for getting a "certain sound", at least not to the degree that other available hardware was. I won't go so far to say that they didn't have their own "character" - because all tape had character to one degree or another. Sometimes it was pleasing, other times not so much.
In the end, it was all about getting the best balancing of frequencies/bias, overcoming inherent noise with sufficient signal to mask the built-in inadequacies and limitations, finding "that" sweet spot for the tape you were using, and getting the best and most accurate reproduction of the master mix coming off the console as you could.
It would never sound post-repro head exactly like it did when you were monitoring post console/pre-deck. And then, by the time safety copies were run off, duplicates were made, and then mastered and transferred to vinyl or tape for consumers, it was quite a bit different sounding than what the engineers originally heard coming off the desk through their monitors. But, that's the way it was done at that time, and it was accepted as such.
There's nothing wrong with using these emulations as long as you keep your expectations reasonable, and if you don't always expect them to react and sound like the real thing(s)... because truthfully, if they were based exactly on the real thing, I'm not sure that the average plug-in consumer would be all that impressed. ;)
IMHO of course.
Some of us may find some plugin to exagerate how a real unit wou
Some of us may find some plugin to exagerate how a real unit would sound but if I was recording with a Behringer C1 and an audio Buddy, I might just need that extra not so subtle effect. ;)
Everything we do depends on the source, how it's recorded and the sound we are looking for !!
pcrecord, post: 427692, member: 46460 wrote: Some of us may find
pcrecord, post: 427692, member: 46460 wrote: Some of us may find some plugin to exagerate how a real unit would sound but if I was recording with a Behringer C1 and an audio Buddy, I might just need that extra not so subtle effect.
Oh, don't get me wrong, pal - I couldn't agree more.
I was just mentioning that with some of these emulation processors, the color/character/tonality has been intentionally hyped, because after all, no one wants to buy a plug where you really can't hear any difference when you use it. Of course, the experience level of the listener comes into play, too - generally, people who are newer to the craft aren't able to hear subtle sonic changes as well as those who have been doing it for awhile.
Slate Digital has taken a little bit of heat with their VCC processor, because the differences are considered to be too subtle by those who's ears aren't maybe as experienced and as tuned-in to sonic nuances, as more experienced listeners are, and those inexperienced listeners who have purchased it were expecting big, dramatic differences, and they are disappointed when the processors don't give them that huge change in sonics.... but, that's really not what those emulations were intended to provide.
The differences are subtle, but again, different enough so that they can make a big difference in the bigger picture of the mix.
I think that it's the subtle sonic changes that seem to make the biggest differences once you step back and listen to them within the context of the mix.
But it goes the other way, too. Recently I inserted a VCC channel strip, (RCA Tube Setting) on a bass guitar track, and it sounded really good when I was in the beginning stages of the song, where it was just drums, acoustic guitar and bass. But, after adding more tracks - piano, synth, electric guitar and vox, I started to notice a subtle - but apparent - low end "looseness" that was going on. I searched around a bit, and finally, I found that it was the VCC on the bass track that was adding the lack of definition.
I switched the setting to an SSL G Series strip instead, tweaked the levels a bit, and the low end tightened up instantly.
So, while these processors can often be pleasing in a subtle way, they can also be subtly problematic, too. ;)
DonnyThompson, post: 427695, member: 46114 wrote: Oh, don't get
DonnyThompson, post: 427695, member: 46114 wrote: Oh, don't get me wrong, pal - I couldn't agree more.
I was just mentioning that with some of these emulation processors, the color/character/tonality has been intentionally hyped, because after all, no one wants to buy a plug where you really can't hear any difference when you use it. Of course, the experience level of the listener comes into play, too - generally, people who are newer to the craft aren't able to hear subtle sonic changes as well as those who have been doing it for awhile.
Exactly ! And I was just saying that even with trained ears, if a friend sends me a cheap/thin recording, those hyped effects may just be what I need ! ;)
I guess we both agree that what ever we do depends on what we are given to.
Donny - that pretty much sums it up, I think. It's amazing how
Donny - that pretty much sums it up, I think. It's amazing how different the sound would be after the tape aged and copied were made etc.
I think what bothers me is that UAD went as far as to get the Harmon-Studer stamp of approval, and tout the 12 months of research modeling every part of the signal path - then to just mess up the harmonics(if they are, that is - maybe the tape they tested really did do that... but I really doubt it) Many times it's just too much for my ears. Then they charge $300 bucks for it...
I love Slate VCC - as well as Sonimus Britson. Those are great plugs, that do just the right amount of subtle for your mix. It's the little things that add up. Even a really clean, well calibrated Studer a800 would make part of the sound in the end, combined with outboard gear and a console - all those little things make up the sound of albums like the ones from Sound City.
I like Slate VTM for allot of tape needs. I feel like it does do a little bit much in the EQ side of things, but I'd take that over too much saturation. I can push the needle and it responds as one would think.
I think Tape saturation can be emulated more effectively than Re
I think Tape saturation can be emulated more effectively than Real tape but I don't think tube harmonics vs their emulation is as realistic. Tubes are moving and grooving all the time. Plug-in are constant or programmed to react (cause and effect) so I think there is something quite unique when a source hits a tube before the ADC as opposed to "emulating" what ever the so called tube emulation effect is programmed to do ITB.
To my ears, a "programed to ride the waves" does something un-tubely that is the furthest away from a tube ever is. I think tube harmonic emulators fall into the same category as wave riders, and wave riders are wiser used on a mono wave. They are transient shifters/ imaging destroyers.
I think whatever works for us, is all that matters. From a destructive pov, I think there is a imaging trade off that happens with some plug-ins that should never be used as a stereo effect, these are one of them. They do more bad than good. All effects in a mono app are useful. Thats the beauty of mixing. A little of this, a little of that. :)
I wish plug-in media would stop marketing them tube emulation.
audiokid, post: 427699, member: 1 wrote: I wish plug-in media wo
audiokid, post: 427699, member: 1 wrote: I wish plug-in media would stop marketing them tube emulation.
There are some I find to be useful, but more-so as a kind of "bit destroyer" effect than an actual tube emulation. Even Samplitude's stock "Tube Stage" plug seems to act more like a bit destroyer (of sorts, in a more controlled and less dramatic way than a typical bit destroyer acts) than it does with the harmonic edge and break-up of an actual tube amp.
But - I do think that pre and post gain modeling has gotten much better than it used to be. I wouldn't go so far as to say that they've nailed it 100% yet, but with current technology heading in the direction that it is, I certainly wouldn't rule it out as an eventual.
There are a lot of very cool things happening out there these days, some things still in development - for example, with "virtual" acoustical "tuning" technology, where modeling technology is used to correct the speakers to compensate for acoustic issues in a faulty room, instead of the other way around, where we've been correcting the room. And, the better that the developers get with one type of modeling, the better they will eventually get with other types of modeling as well.
So, just as I can say that there's the very real possibility that modeling technology will be able to accurately adjust your monitoring to simulate actual room correction, I can also say that I believe that there's certainly the possibility that with the same modeling technology, developers can eventually achieve accuracy in gain modeling as well, and be able to accurately emulate Tube, FET, Opto/Vari-Mu gain reduction, along with accurate gain staging and sonics from different preamps and EQ's such as 1073's, SSL G and E's, Harrisons and many others.
Think about just how far we've come - in what really amounts to a very short amount of time in the grand scheme of things - in less than 30 years, we've come from home studios, tape-based 4 and 8 track studios, to the the birth of midi, to full blown, limitless multi track audio and midi production, with tools available to us now - tools and technology that we often now take for granted - that we couldn't have even dreamed of just ten short years ago.
So - while gain and tube modeling may not be there at 100% yet - maybe not right now... with modern modeling technology growing as fast as it is, and with new doors of related technology opening every day, I don't believe that we should say "never gonna happen"... because it's not impossible to think that it could happen eventually.... and in this modern age, "eventually" doesn't necessarily mean 10 years down the road anymore, or even 3 or 4 years into the future ... "eventually" could mean in as little as a year from now, or even just 6 months from now... or for that matter ... even next week. ;)
FWIW
d.
The tube like plugin that I think of as nearly authentic but ver
The tube like plugin that I think of as nearly authentic but very usefull is Fabfilter Saturn. You can go from gentle to full saturation, it is actually a multiband saturator, so you can affect just the part of the signal you want and it as a usefull EQ as well.. Very well thought !
Also the presets are great exemples which is not the case of many plugins.
Isn't it funny that things that were just 'how it was' are now t
Isn't it funny that things that were just 'how it was' are now thought of as desirable? When we used tape machines, they were a real pain - all that cleaning, aligning, and tweaking to get the best out of them, and preventing the myriad of problems that could creep in if you didn't look after them. We had preamps that would hiss if you had the 'average' ones, and eq that often sounded harsh when you tried to add too much boost, and very thin if you did too much cut. Back then, we all wanted the nicest sounding one, with the minimum of artefacts. Now all the products are so good, we're getting excited adding back in processing that makes it sound better. What a mad place the world has become.
paulears, post: 427938, member: 47782 wrote: Isn't it funny that
paulears, post: 427938, member: 47782 wrote: Isn't it funny that things that were just 'how it was' are now thought of as desirable? When we used tape machines, they were a real pain - all that cleaning, aligning, and tweaking to get the best out of them, and preventing the myriad of problems that could creep in if you didn't look after them. We had preamps that would hiss if you had the 'average' ones, and eq that often sounded harsh when you tried to add too much boost, and very thin if you did too much cut. Back then, we all wanted the nicest sounding one, with the minimum of artefacts. Now all the products are so good, we're getting excited adding back in processing that makes it sound better. What a mad place the world has become.
first, the obvious. if digital recording is so wonderful, why all the analog emulation plugs? why are DAW manufactures striving to make DAWs that behave more analog-ish? funny, you don't see analog manufactures busting a nut to make products that sound more "digital" .... lol.
i never had issues with quality analog tape, consoles or outboard.
noise? that's what automation, mutes, faders and gates are for!.
the pre amps and eq on my JH600 never sounded bad ... the problems most attribute to analog recording are really more operator error compounded by cheap -10 unbalanced prosumer equipment.
it's not as if there are no issues with keeping computers running. it's a real pain all the cleaning dust out of the case, installing drivers, uninstalling drivers you don't need anymore, optimizing, "tweaking to get the best out of them" .... many speak as if computers are a panacea of good audio and simplicity when the reality is exactly opposite. my analog recordings never sounded as bad as the itb stuff i get from computers. even old stereo cassette and cassette 4 track stuff sounds better to me. and that's just the tip of the iceberg. i could go on and on re; what's wrong with digital .... the best thing about digital audio? it sucks! especially itb. i would be very happy with digital if it really did sound better, but it doesn't.
the simplicity of analog is that it's mechanical ... you don't have to be a math or computer wiz to work on them. with analog, even at the electronic level it is a matter of pulling the bad part and mechanically replacing it. no poking around staring a screen, at little numbers and letters, dealing with component and software compatibility. no dealing with video cards ... (wtf do we need a video card for? it's audio!) even with individual components on a DAW there are compatibility problems and added software functions that make the recording process kludgy.
SANS console, (itb) .... wouldn't it be nice to route a source to the track and then pull the track up in the DAW and monitor it without having to go into a separate interface software mixer ? .... and then in playback you can listen to the same mix from the same source without it sounding different?
wouldn't it be nice to be able to print compression or effects and build the mix (with compression, gates, effects patched in through the patch bay) while you track without leaping through a sh*tload of hoops and dealing with latency? that's how it used to be done.
i was able to do killer 4 song demos for $300 in 6 hours. if i tried to do that on DAW it would take at least twice as long ... more convenient my ass.
i love analog and i miss it dearly. i like cleaning tape decks. i enjoy aligning them. it's a kick messing with bias to get different things out of tape ... and i love the challenges presented by analog that only inventive recordists could solve that now can be accomplished by a key stroke. what's special about that? last i hate that digital has changed the game that the cost of tape has quadrupled. i don't care about the competition of a thousand little snots trying to get the same business i am going for. if 2" analog tape still cost me $85 a reel, i could kick ass on them. they wouldn't know what hit them. but at $400 a reel .... i just can't convince a client it's worth it, no matter how much better it sounds.
you can still buy analog gear new or used, at reasonable cost. it's the price of the medium that is preventive.
i think analog sounds better and was so much cooler to work with and be around. i would much rather be pulling and replacing the channel strip of a great sounding console that went down in the middle of a session than dealing with a fuc#ing computer that sounds like sh*t and keeps crashing. O/S configuration, component compatibility ad nausium and when you finally do get it running smoothly has to be upgraded or replaced in order to keep up with compatibility with the rest of the world. then it starts all over. and it still sounds like sh*t! talk about a money pit! a JH24 made 30 years ago still works. you can't say that about any computer that is ten years old .... analog is plug and play .... what could be simpler?
Kurt - no offence taken (the forum sent me the first version, by
Kurt - no offence taken (the forum sent me the first version, by the way)
I guess I do have a very unusual take on how things progressed from when I started, and I can only assume the planet I'm on is isolated from the one others occupy - that's fine.
Lots of gain without hiss was a big problem for me when I first started out because much of what I did was fairly distant miking - theatre stuff has always been something I've been involved with, and despite having what was considered nice equipment back then, it really wasn't quiet. Some was even American - taking an output from a Shure vocal master mixer, that cost a lot back then, with the talent around 3 feet away was unpleasant. I can't remember the number, but I had a 4 channel Shure mic mixer with rotary controls, and back then this was pretty nice stuff, but again, although it sounded good, it wasn't quiet. In the 80s, it got a bit better, but the BBC kit was much better than I had myself. The first quiet mixer I had was a four channel Lamb Lab mixer that I used with a Ferrograph Series 7. I had a soft spot for these, but they were easy to align with the test tape and the test set I had back then. I never had an STC 4038, but I had a pair of 4033s, and they were really low output, and I had nothing that was quiet enough to get good recordings from them. The Ferrograph was then replaced with a Super 7 and then with a really bizarre looking Technics, which over here had a very short, but impressive track record with it's specification. My multitracks were Teacs, after a brief spell with Brennell which was the most unreliable beast I ever used.
Getting decent level into these was essential or the noise built up fast - bouncing down tracks was NOT transparent after the second generation, so planning was critical - crosstalk was not brilliant either.
I have to assume the American equipment was superior to our at the same time period, because many of us over here even modified our R-Rs to allow Dolby noise reduction at 15IPS, which by the terms of the Dolby agreement was banned. In the studio at work, we spent far too long aligning the damn things with the noise reduction systems to get rid of hiss that really annoyed everyone.
I'm truly surprised to find you never had noise issues, in the seventies we certainly did, and hitting the levels above the manual's recommendations was essential. I personally never liked the tape compression that resulted, although I happily concur vast numbers did. I always had the problem of less noise vs too much compression, and I disliked both!
Kurt - did you spend lots of your time trying different tape types and tweaking the alignment? I certainly did, and once I found the least annoying alignment, I used it pretty much to the exclusion of everything else.
Once digital recorders arrived (and my first proper one was the add on to the portable Sony Betmax recorder - the F1) I loved it - noise way down, and that great open sound with no compression. I was very pleased. So Betamax to DAT, CDs and then solid state recording with Soundscape on computer, with multitrack via ADAT on the way.
I like that sound so much, this is why I can't settle myself with processing to recreate the very issues I hated back then.
We probably do live on different planets, Kurt, and that's fine with me. So I understand why you think I'm ignorant, I really do. It's simply that we like different things. I like digital, I love the cleanliness the expanded dynamics and lack of noise, not just hiss. I can't imagine wanting to bring back the squashed slightly warmer sound that I had to have in days of old, just to get rid of tape hiss.
Treat me like one of those weird people who don't go with trends, and like what they like. You like one thing, I like another. Like the 4 track and stereo cassette stuff. I simply hate that sound - so much so that the Tascam 112 cassette machine I have in the rack isn't even connected to the patchbay, as every time I have uncovered an old cassette, the sound was just horrible. I certainly don't think computers are perfect, for the same reasons as you mentioned in V1, but my memory of old expensive analog kit is that it was just as much trouble. Drive belts, head pads, magnetised heads, dropouts, failed splices.
Were Revox recorders popular in the US? They were very popular here, but I only had one for a short time - I just preferred Ferrograph because they were properly British. My dad had series 5 machines, so I kind of followed on.
I'm happy to be unusual, but I just like clean and unprocessed as a first choice. Dirtying it up and processing is something I do if it's necessary, and appropriate. Luckily for me, in my work, it's rare!
It's not a problem, Kurt - I do understand my viewpoint is not a
It's not a problem, Kurt - I do understand my viewpoint is not aligned with contemporary opinion (I heard that on an election programme on TV this week!)
I'm just not good at change, or going with the flow. Although Donny did manage to change my mind on one thing, a few weeks ago!
paulears, post: 427944, member: 47782 wrote: Kurt - no offence t
paulears, post: 427944, member: 47782 wrote: Kurt - no offence taken (the forum sent me the first version, by the way)
I guess I do have a very unusual take on how things progressed from when I started, and I can only assume the planet I'm on is isolated from the one others occupy - that's fine.
Lots of gain without hiss was a big problem for me when I first started out because much of what I did was fairly distant miking - theatre stuff has always been something I've been involved with, and despite having what was considered nice equipment back then, it really wasn't quiet. Some was even American - taking an output from a Shure vocal master mixer, that cost a lot back then, with the talent around 3 feet away was unpleasant. I can't remember the number, but I had a 4 channel Shure mic mixer with rotary controls, and back then this was pretty nice stuff, but again, although it sounded good, it wasn't quiet. In the 80s, it got a bit better, but the BBC kit was much better than I had myself. The first quiet mixer I had was a four channel Lamb Lab mixer that I used with a Ferrograph Series 7. I had a soft spot for these, but they were easy to align with the test tape and the test set I had back then. I never had an STC 4038, but I had a pair of 4033s, and they were really low output, and I had nothing that was quiet enough to get good recordings from them. The Ferrograph was then replaced with a Super 7 and then with a really bizarre looking Technics, which over here had a very short, but impressive track record with it's specification. My multitracks were Teacs, after a brief spell with Brennell which was the most unreliable beast I ever used.
Getting decent level into these was essential or the noise built up fast - bouncing down tracks was NOT transparent after the second generation, so planning was critical - crosstalk was not brilliant either.
I have to assume the American equipment was superior to our at the same time period, because many of us over here even modified our R-Rs to allow Dolby noise reduction at 15IPS, which by the terms of the Dolby agreement was banned. In the studio at work, we spent far too long aligning the damn things with the noise reduction systems to get rid of hiss that really annoyed everyone.
I'm truly surprised to find you never had noise issues, in the seventies we certainly did, and hitting the levels above the manual's recommendations was essential. I personally never liked the tape compression that resulted, although I happily concur vast numbers did. I always had the problem of less noise vs too much compression, and I disliked both!
Kurt - did you spend lots of your time trying different tape types and tweaking the alignment? I certainly did, and once I found the least annoying alignment, I used it pretty much to the exclusion of everything else.
Once digital recorders arrived (and my first proper one was the add on to the portable Sony Betmax recorder - the F1) I loved it - noise way down, and that great open sound with no compression. I was very pleased. So Betamax to DAT, CDs and then solid state recording with Soundscape on computer, with multitrack via ADAT on the way.
I like that sound so much, this is why I can't settle myself with processing to recreate the very issues I hated back then.
We probably do live on different planets, Kurt, and that's fine with me. So I understand why you think I'm ignorant, I really do. It's simply that we like different things. I like digital, I love the cleanliness the expanded dynamics and lack of noise, not just hiss. I can't imagine wanting to bring back the squashed slightly warmer sound that I had to have in days of old, just to get rid of tape hiss.
Treat me like one of those weird people who don't go with trends, and like what they like. You like one thing, I like another. Like the 4 track and stereo cassette stuff. I simply hate that sound - so much so that the Tascam 112 cassette machine I have in the rack isn't even connected to the patchbay, as every time I have uncovered an old cassette, the sound was just horrible. I certainly don't think computers are perfect, for the same reasons as you mentioned in V1, but my memory of old expensive analog kit is that it was just as much trouble. Drive belts, head pads, magnetised heads, dropouts, failed splices.
Were Revox recorders popular in the US? They were very popular here, but I only had one for a short time - I just preferred Ferrograph because they were properly British. My dad had series 5 machines, so I kind of followed on.
I'm happy to be unusual, but I just like clean and unprocessed as a first choice. Dirtying it up and processing is something I do if it's necessary, and appropriate. Luckily for me, in my work, it's rare!
ok i'll respond. again sorry for the insulting tone i took.
i began recording on open reel prosumer stuff when i was a kid. mostly live stuff. a buddy bought a Sony machine that did sound on sound. two bounces at most ... and mono. and yes it was noisy. i checked on your Ferrograph and it appears to be the equivalent of the Sony we used. cassettes came next and yes the Dolby B did help .. still noisy.
i still have one of those Shure mixer pre amps .... and yes they are noisy too. and they really don't sound that good. a friend had a Vocal Master and while it was ok for the day i would have never thought of it as good front end to record with.
and while i was rude in my response my take was pretty close. all of that gear you are slamming is prosumer stuff. Even the Shure mic mixer. that stuff was ok for PA but it was never intended for serious recording. they did use those things on the pa at Woodstock and so i suppose it can be argued they have been used in pro settings. but still they are not very quiet. yes we had Revox machines here too. mostly 1/4 track jobs that ran at 7.5 ... 60dB S/N at best and unbalanced inznouts.
all of this gear is specd out at 55 to 60 S/N at best. add to that the unbalanced mics, connecting cable and and recorders, it's no wonder you had problems with noise and maintenance. but the issue i have and why i responded so inappropriately is i am so tired of people painting analog as noisy and troublesome when all they have experienced in analog was cheap prosumer equipment. there's a huge difference between an Ampex, 3M, MCI, Studer / AEG on your side and a prosumer Sony, Ferrograph or Revox. even the TASCAM stuff is pretty noisy when used without DBX.
something like an API, Neve, MCI or other console built for studio use would be much quieter than anything available to consumers then. while a Teac 2A or M1 might have a S/N of 65dB at best, a good console will show a S/N of 90dB or better ...
PRO recorders have at least 5 dB better signal to noise (without N/R). consider, 3 dB is equivalent to a perceived doubling of level and that's a lot ... it means the pro decks are perceived as almost twice as quiet ... add to that +4 to +10 levels, quiter consoles, balanced cable runs, as well as gear designed to stand up to the rigours of studio use. there's no comparing the two ... please take this into account when you slam analog. i just don't think you have ever experienced the good stuff first hand.
Oh my... Kurt Foster, post: 427940, member: 7836 wrote: Paul, no
Oh my...
Kurt Foster, post: 427940, member: 7836 wrote: Paul,
no offence (i say this with love) intended, sometimes i read your posts and i wonder which planet you are from. there is so much bs in your last post i don't know where to start. i am willing to attribute it to ignorance however .... o_Oi am forced to assume is you have never worked with quality analog tape and consoles or if you did, you didn't know what you were doing with them. i never had issues with noise ... and the pre amps and eq on my JH600 never sounded bad ... the problems most attribute to analog recording are really more operator error than real issues with the equipment.
personally i have more problems and issues keeping computers running. it's a real pain all the cleaning, optimizing, "tweaking to get the best out of them" .... you speak as if computers are a panacea of good audio and simplicity when the reality is exactly opposite. my analog recordings never sounded as bad as the stuff i get from computers. even old stereo cassette and cassette 4 track stuff sounds better to me. and that's just the tip of the iceberg. i could go on and on re; what's wrong with digital .... the best thing about digital audio? it sucks!
the simplicity of analog is that it's mechanical ... you don't have to be a math wiz to work on them. i love analog and i miss it dearly. i like cleaning tape decks. i enjoy aligning them. it's a kick messing with bias to get different things out of tape ... and i love the challenges presented by analog that only inventive recordists could solve that now can be acomplishe by a key stroke. what's special about that?
i think analog sounds better and was so much cooler to work with and be around. i would much rather be pulling and replacing the channel strip of a great sounding console that went down in the middle of a session that dealing with a fuc#ing computer that sounds like sh*t and keeps crashing. O/S and configurations and component compatibility ad end um and when you finally do get it running smoothly has to be upgraded or replaced in order to keep up with compatibility with the rest of the world . talk about money pits! a JH24 made 30 years ago still works. you can't say that about any computer that is ten years old .... analog is plug and play .... what could be simpler?
Holy cow! I'm with Paul on a lot of stuff. I say this with love as well, so please don't take this as an attack but ...
I happen to think this tape emulation thing is nonsense but I do know I can get a tapeish compression using good compressors. An API 2500 is a great piece of hardware for tracking or hybrid mixing drums. That's my tape emulator. :cool:
IMHO, it is operator error if you can't get a DAW to do everything tape does, smoother, faster, cheaper including the smearing effect of tape compression.
If we are talking about DAW vs Tape... No disrespect but from all your comments on digital audio over the years, the one area that stands out to be obvious, you've never had a DAW system that works .:love:
It appears you've made your mind up before you even spend a dime on a good computer, let alone a good interface and DAW platform built to pro audio standards.
If you don't have that, you can't even begin to record acoustic music with a smile. I'm guessing you are stumbling and running into endless latency, buffering and sonically terrible results. If you actually build a hybrid system that cost in same neighborhood as your past tracking system today, it would kick the shit right out of that.
But, if its a personal love and memory you miss most... , I agree , it was a good time in history.
:)
audiokid, post: 427948, member: 1 wrote: Oh my... Holy cow! I'
audiokid, post: 427948, member: 1 wrote: Oh my...
Holy cow! I'm with Paul on a lot of stuff. I say this with love as well, so please don't take this as an attack but ...
I happen to think this tape emulation thing is nonsense but I do know I can get a tapeish compression using good compressors. An API 2500 is a great piece of hardware for tracking or hybrid mixing drums. That's my tape emulator. :cool:
IMHO, it is operator error if you can't get a DAW to do everything tape does, smoother, faster, cheaper including the smearing effect of tape compression.
If we are talking about DAW vs Tape... No disrespect but from all your comments on digital audio over the years, the one area that stands out to be obvious, you've never had a DAW system that works .:love:
It appears you've made your mind up before you even spend a dime on a good computer, let alone a good interface and DAW platform built to pro audio standards.
If you don't have that, you can't even begin to record acoustic music with a smile. I'm guessing you are stumbling and running into endless latency, buffering and sonically terrible results. If you actually build a hybrid system that cost in same neighborhood as your past tracking system today, it would kick the S#$% right out of that.
But, if its a personal love and memory you miss most... , I agree , it was a good time in history.
:)
i agree that tape emulation and saturation is pure marketing. i would never use them . actually, yes i have had a DAW that worked, and it's a door stop now. i have a new one now, i just haven't had the energy to get going on it. sorry getting old and been not too well. as far as converters i agree some great ones would be good but i know it's not the conversion that is the issue because if it were, why do all the mixes i did with ADATS and my JH600 sound good? same cheap Alesis / Cirrus converters .... no that's not it. it's lousy mixing facility. and you still don't address the things i mentioned in my previous post ... on setting up monitor mixes being able to mix while tracking with effects and compression without latency? the only way to do that is to have a console and use the DAW as a glorified recorder and editing system. in that light, digital is good. but again, my main point was a lot of people who slam analog never really lived with the pro stuff.
Gotcha - but we have a different take (or maybe that was had a
Gotcha - but we have a different take (or maybe that was had a different take). The BBC and other professional establishments here were quite happy with these, especially the Pro version of the Revox, and the BBC were Ferrograph for years and years, hence why I bought one. Studer multitracks popped up, as did MCIs in a few places I worked at. Neves, Tridents and the other really 'posh' kit was something us theatre bods rarely came across - our console of quality was the Cadac - which was at that time the only one sonically ahead.
Those 4ch Shure mixers were sometimes even cascaded and used for large mic counts.
The only pro recorders that I came across that had better noise figures were the half inch ones - but I never even pressed play on one. I don't think they'd invented the term prosumer back then - consumer kit of the day was very different, wasn't it. You are quite right on the noise performance of the half track machines. I looked them up and at 15IPS, the Studer has much better s/n, but the very similar transport mechanism means wow and flutter were very similar. The Studer 810 at 15IPS is 10dB better in it's noise figure. That is a surprise - I really didn't think it was that good. Pretty impressive for the era.
Words - eat, but that's good to learn new info. P
paulears, post: 427950, member: 47782 wrote: Gotcha - but we hav
paulears, post: 427950, member: 47782 wrote: Gotcha - but we have a different take (or maybe that was had a different take). The BBC and other professional establishments here were quite happy with these, especially the Pro version of the Revox, and the BBC were Ferrograph for years and years, hence why I bought one. Studer multitracks popped up, as did MCIs in a few places I worked at. Neves, Tridents and the other really 'posh' kit was something us theatre bods rarely came across - our console of quality was the Cadac - which was at that time the only one sonically ahead.
Those 4ch Shure mixers were sometimes even cascaded and used for large mic counts.
The only pro recorders that I came across that had better noise figures were the half inch ones - but I never even pressed play on one. I don't think they'd invented the term prosumer back then - consumer kit of the day was very different, wasn't it. You are quite right on the noise performance of the half track machines. I looked them up and at 15IPS, the Studer has much better s/n, but the very similar transport mechanism means wow and flutter were very similar. The Studer 810 at 15IPS is 10dB better in it's noise figure. That is a surprise - I really didn't think it was that good. Pretty impressive for the era.
Words - eat, but that's good to learn new info. P
yeah prosumer, didn't they used to call it semi pro? a pro Revox would = Studer. same manufacturer. i don't know for sure but i would bet the Ferrographs the BBC used weren't the same as the ones you had access to ... most likely bigger tape, bigger motors, bigger flywheels ... better wow and flutter. the CADECs are great consoles ... that's real stuff there.
i think you missed something when you said, "The only pro recorders that I came across that had better noise figures were the half inch ones ..." i think those were 1/2 track not 1/2 inch. a 1/4" MCI JH 110B 1/2 track has a 64 db unweighted 70dB weighted s/n @ 15 ips and better @ 30.
Re: the ferrographs - no the Beeb used them from the very early
Re: the ferrographs - no the Beeb used them from the very early series machines. Once they got to the 7 series, the revoxes and the pro conversion versions were very popular. Not sure if you ever got those your side - basically the A77, but with a new flat front panel where the reels sat, that made lacing up easier and quicker. This version was similar looking to the Studers. Half track, quarter inch was pretty much broadcast standard. Same in theatre. The UK designed and built Brennell machines did good work in the smaller studios, and you fixed them with a hammer - well, they felt that was the way to repair them. In the 60s and 70s, the notion of a German recorder still didn't sit comfortably. I've been digging back through old stuff and it reminded me that Otari were quite big here in the multi-tracks.
I did miss something - memory told me one thing and then I found a spec sheet and discovered the significant difference in noise figure son the ½" machines.
Ferrograph lost the plot when they brought out the Super 7 series - they were nice machines but a bit unreliable. The Series 7 had a better reputation but wasn't perfect. It did not have a rewind/wind position - but just one setting, wind - and then a knob that adjusted the wind speed from full reverse to full forward which was pretty handing for finding stuff, as the tape was gently lifted off the heads in that position so you got near wear free scrubbing. Most people took the head cover off because they had pressure pads. They could, like the other Ferrographs take 8" reels - not 10 ½" reels - they came in in the Super 7 series. They went through a few models after this series, but they soon vanished. The BBC rather liked the series 6 machines, which had a rather unsymmetrical layout and they were in many studios and cubicles. Sorry - I've drifted into a bit of nostalgia and run off topic.
were the Ferrographs balance in and outs? the difference between
were the Ferrographs balance in and outs? the difference between -20 / -10 unbalance and +4 /+10 balance can be significant.
i found [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.morphet…"]this[/]="http://www.morphet…"]this[/] -10 / not balanced. how did BBC deal with that?
i'm gussing they used the Ferrographs for remote stuff. i found
i'm gussing they used the Ferrographs for remote stuff. i found this on BBC recorders at Wikipedia
Tape recording at the BBC
The [="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC"]BBC[/]="http://en.wikipedia…"]BBC[/] acquired some Magnetophone machines in 1946 on an experimental basis, and these were used in the early stages of the new Third Programme to record and play back performances of operas from Germany (live relays being problematic because of the unreliability of the landlines in the immediate post-war period).
[[url=http://="http://en.wikipedia…"] 
[/]="http://en.wikipedia…"] [/]
EMI BTR2 machines in a BBC recording room, 12 November 1961.
These machines were used until 1952, though most of the work continued to be done using the established media; but from 1948 a new British model became available from EMI: the BTR1. Though in many ways clumsy, its quality was good, and as it wasn't possible to obtain any more Magnetophones it was an obvious choice.
In 1963 [="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles"]The Beatles[/]="http://en.wikipedia…"]The Beatles[/] were allowed to enhance their recordings at the BBC by overdubbing. The BBC didn't have any multi track tapes. They would copy them onto another tape.
In the early 1950s the EMI BTR 2 became available (right); a much improved machine and generally liked. It became the standard in recording channels (rooms) for many years, and was in use until the end of the 1960s.
[[url=http://="http://en.wikipedia…"] 
[/]="http://en.wikipedia…"] [/]
Early model Studer professional tape recorder, 1969
The machines were responsive, could run up to speed quite quickly, had light-touch operating buttons, forward-facing heads (The BTR 1s had rear-facing heads which made editing difficult), and were quick and easy to do the finest editing on.
The tape speed was eventually standardized at 15 ips for almost all work at Broadcasting House, and at 15 ips for music and 7½ ips for speech at Bush House. Broadcasting House also used the EMI TR90 and a Philips machine which was lightweight but very easy and quick to use: Bush House used several Leevers-Rich models.
The Studer range of machines had become pretty well the studio recording industry standard by the 1970s, and gradually these replaced the ageing BTR2s in recording rooms and studios. By the mid-2000s tape was pretty well out of use and had been replaced by digital playout[="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tape_recorder#cite_note-14"][14][/]="http://en.wikipedia…"][14][/] systems.[[url=http://="http://en.wikipedia…"][15][/]="http://en.wikipedia…"][15][/]
Kurt Foster, post: 427949, member: 7836 wrote: i agree that tape
Kurt Foster, post: 427949, member: 7836 wrote: i agree that tape emulation and saturation is pure marketing. i would never use them . actually, yes i have had a DAW that worked, and it's a door stop now. i have a new one now, i just haven't had the energy to get going on it. sorry getting old and been not too well. as far as converters i agree some great ones would be good but i know it's not the conversion that is the issue because if it were, why do all the mixes i did with ADATS and my JH600 sound good? same cheap Alesis / Cirrus converters .... no that's not it. it's lousy mixing facility. and you still don't address the things i mentioned in my previous post ... on setting up monitor mixes being able to mix while tracking with effects and compression without latency? the only way to do that is to have a console and use the DAW as a glorified recorder and editing system. in that light, digital is good. but again, my main point was a lot of people who slam analog never really lived with the pro stuff.
I never experience dismay like you talk about. Digital audio is nothing but awesome to me. But, it didn't get up to par until 2006 / and when I dropped FW and went to a serious PCIe interface. The game changed then. Also, I use a hybrid monitoring system which is essential. Until you use the essentials, you really are only half way there.
But, you could simply use a console, and just save to the DAW. Whats the big deal there.? Thats super easy and you should never have an issue.
I would stay clear of a laptop as well. Thats pretty restricting for acoustic tracking once you start demanding more. .Its all in the interface.
If I was you, I'd get a StudioLive AI, use capture and you are golden. That alone will sound better than anything from the 70's.
Capture software is exactly what you need. Its like HD direct to tape tracking.
If you need some valve or tranny vibe, use your little passive box in the loop. Done.
the day will never come that i will invest more than a couple gr
the day will never come that i will invest more than a couple grand in recording gear. ther's just no chance of recoup. i seriously doubt that the PreSonus converters are any better than the ones i have now. FWIW the Cirrus converters in the Alesis stuff get pretty good reviews. at least as good as PreSonus. that's why i choose them an imo laptops are where it's headed. PCI is done soon ... Thunderbolt is the next protocol .... MADI in the big rooms .... actually iPads and iPods are what they want to move into. smaller, not larger.
did you see what Fab was recording to in that video you posted? a laptop. in the studio
Kurt Foster, post: 427960, member: 7836 wrote: i seriously doubt
Kurt Foster, post: 427960, member: 7836 wrote: i seriously doubt that the PreSonus converters are any better than the ones i have now.
I wouldn't know, but I do know, capture is like Radar on cruise control. From the sounds of it, it sounds like you've had poor experience with whatever you used or are using. If you wouldn't spend more than a few hundred bucks for a recording system, you can get a used SL/ capture system for pretty cheap, that works great on PC laptops!
The laptop I have now, ran 24 tracks for 6 hours during the test of Studiolive. After they were done, I bought that same laptop :)
Kurt Foster, post: 427960, member: 7836 wrote: that's why i choose them an imo laptops are where it's headed. PCI is done soon
As demands increase (especially acoustic tracking), there will always be room for better tracking rigs that required the interface closer to the port bus (is that what you call it?), running as independently possible from your other ports. The problem with laptops is its all crammed together and the PSU aren't that great either.
MADI is excellent for small or large session with laptops. But I am always sweating on a laptop apposed to a desktop.
I've tried them all (FW, USB, Madi, AES, ADAT), and have an arsenal of converters, PCIe is superior. Once you use that, I bet your opinions would change a lot on digital audio.
Thunderbolt looks promising.
I think tape machines are fun and have their place, just like an
I think tape machines are fun and have their place, just like any other effect. If you want that sound that's how t get it. I like cheap tascam 4 tracks. They are fun once in a while, or for the right vibe.
The tape emulations I've used vary from suck to nice 'exciter' style enhancement. I don't belive that they perform or sound like tape but one is linear one is not, very different approaches to storing energy. I think you guys Kurt Foster audiokid , should give some of these things a chance if you haven't, not as tape plug-insat all, just as kinda one button maybe maybe not type plugins. The tape part is mostly hype, but I have found some of them useful particularly the Steven slate tape stuff, on some things. But we all like what we like.
Kurt Foster, post: 427940, member: 7836 wrote: you can still buy
Kurt Foster, post: 427940, member: 7836 wrote: you can still buy analog gear new or used, at reasonable cost. it's the price of the medium that is preventive.
Pound for pound, dollar to dollar, analog is far more expensive than digital is, at least to do it right. Consoles, Tape Decks, Racks of OB gear, not to mention the equipment maintenance, cabling, bays, and as you mentioned - the medium itself - adds up to quite a bit more money than digital does. In this day and age, I don't believe you could really ever recoup your investment, because the rate you would have to charge to do so to pay for that gear would be considered far too expensive by the majority of the available clientele.
Sure, in 1977, you could charge $100 per hour, all day long - and get it, too - without argument. Because it was an expensive investment, there wasn't a "studio" on every block in every town like there is now - there were a limited number of studios, and if you wanted to record professionally, you really didn't have much choice but to pay the rate.
I'm not defending digital, nor am I slamming analog. But it was never "cheap" to set up a quality analog recording rig- or to keep it running at its optimum - and considering that some of that gear is now considered "collectible", especially certain OB pieces, the prices aren't what would be considered "affordable" - by any means - to a home based studio, or, for that matter, even to a mid- level pro project studio.
I'm not talking about Behringer or Tascam gear here... I'm talking about pro gear; Console w/ automation, Tape machines, LA2's, 1176's, EQ's, Gates, Preamps, Verbs/Delays, PB's ( and all the cable to connect it all) - in this age, it wouldn't be out of line to consider a figure of $40 - 60k minimum to set up a hi quality, pro spec, analog recording room.
Even some of the big rooms - famous rooms - have shut the lights off and closed their doors in the last decade, because business has dwindled to such an extreme.
Anyone who builds a pro analog studio these days should do so for one reason only, and that's for personal reasons. Call it an indulgence of sorts... because you're not going to make your investment back.
Do it for yourself, because you like it, because it's what you want. But don't expect to compete as a business.
Going into an investment like that with the goal of being successful as a business is, well, there's no need to be harsh about it. We can be polite and just say that as a goal, it's "naive". ;)
you won't hear me disagree Donny. i accept the writing on the wa
you won't hear me disagree Donny. i accept the writing on the wall. i switched from analog to digital in 2001. a lot of folks misunderstand me. i'm not saying we should all dump out DAWs and go get an AMPEX and an API! ... lol.
BUT!!! let's tell it like it is .... let's not make the mistake of even thinking a Fostex /Tascam or the like mixer is going to hold a candle to a LF console for a myriad of reasons. so i do get going a bit when someone paints all analog with the same brush as semipro /prosumer/consumer equipment.
typically a TASCAM deck is rated at something like + or - 3 dB and s/n of 60dB (weighted)while an AMPEX or MCI is rated at +1 -3 and a s/n of 70dB (weighted)! that's a huge difference. the mixers are worse some having more than 40dB more noise and hardly any headroom. ... no one ever gets it until they get a chance to put in some time on a large format console. at that point it's "ohhh .... i get it!"
a lot of people are going for the hype hook line and sinker. YES digital can be more convenient. YES digital is easier to edit and copy. YES! digital allows manufacturers to shrink the form factor and double capability every year and bring an affordable product to the masses ... but it (DAW summing) doesn't sound as good. it may spec out better but the reality at least for me is what digital spits out is different than analog and simply falls short of the satisfying listening experiences i remember with analog mixing. again i don't advocate going back in time ... i'm not a Luddite. but let's say what's what.
Kurt Foster, post: 427968, member: 7836 wrote: it may spec out b
Kurt Foster, post: 427968, member: 7836 wrote: it may spec out better but the reality at least for me is what digital spits out is different than analog and simply falls short of the satisfying listening experiences i remember with analog mixing. again i don't advocate going back in time ...
I understand what you are saying. But before you make your final decision, I think you should check this out - http://recording.org/threads/a-very-interesting-read-on-mastering.58552/ and in particular, check out the second post, and the first YouTube vid for The Carpenters, Re-Mastered from the original tapes.
The fidelity on this absolutely blew me away. All the original warmth of the analog release, but with the compression that was applied to it - when it was first released on CD - relieved and eased back, to the point of gaining back almost 10 db of dynamic range.
In fact, here...I'll save you the step...
Check this out:
[GALLERY=media, 407]Carpenters - The Singles 1969 1973 [2013 Platinum SHM-CD Remaster] [Full Album] - YouTube by audiokid posted Apr 13, 2015 at 4:45 PM[/GALLERY]
And I still think you should read the entire article, BTW. ;)
http://recording.org/threads/a-very-interesting-read-on-mastering.58552/
Info: The tracks were transferred from the original analog mult
Info:
The tracks were transferred from the original analog multi track master, transferred in stems and converted to digital; then remixed, remastered.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that digital can sound good. It's not the medium that sounds bad... it's what you do with it that determines its fidelity.
By removing the bulk of the compression/limiting that was added when it was first released on CD back in the 80's, and by using better conversion, they were able to get back almost 10db of dynamic range.
And just to be clear, what you heard on the video above was not "hi res" 32 bit, or 24, or, even 20. It's a 16 bit file, mastered for CD Release. And by the time it hit the youtube vid above, it's been even further knocked down in resolution, yet it still sounds fantastic. All the warmth and silk, and no "brittle" or "harsh" frequencies, no weird phasing anomalies. (Listen to it on your studio monitors or through really nice HP's ;) )
If it sounds this good on Youtube, can you imagine how good the original remastered digital version sounds before it was released on youtube?? ;)
I'm still tossed on it. There's no doubt that these major plug
I'm still tossed on it. There's no doubt that these major plug manufacturers have vastly improved their plugs from a modeling approach, and many new plugs have certainly come close in many ways.
I'm not sure I would go so far to say that anyone has "nailed" it yet, though.
My thought with plug ins, is that I use them for a particular purpose, and that purpose isn't always to go after the result in a way expecting 100 % emulation accuracy of an original piece.
Clear as mud, right? LOL... yeah. I know. Okay...hmmm... how do I explain this....
Put it this way:
When I use a T-Racks LA2, it's not necessarily because I'm expecting an exact replication of a Teletronix original piece of hardware - but more because I like the result of what the plug can do.
It may not be an exact replica, but that doesn't mean that I don't like what it does.
I look at the Slate stuff the same way. I have the VCC, and while I wouldn't go so far as to say that their channel or 2-bus plug sounds exactly like a Neve, SSL or API console strip or bus, that doesn't mean that I don't like the results.
Also, there could be the argument that even with the real hardware, that from model to model, each sounded a bit different. You could have two real 1176's side by side and each would have its own individual sonic character... I believe that tape machines are similar - varying biases, alignments, tapes, etc., along with whatever other small differences each machine would have, means that two Studer B77's, side by side, might have different sonic characteristics.
So... taking this into account, how do you model that?
Well, you can't really, unless you were going to make each single plug you made slightly different from another -- LOL - so they get as close as they can with what they have.
If it were me, I'd start looking at these plugs for what they actually do as opposed to what they are supposed to do. If you drop pre-concieved expectations, and just listen to them for how they sound, it makes things a bit easier when choosing which plug you think is best for a particular application at hand.
IMHO of course.
d.