Quantcast
How many engineers would rather track to tape? - Page 3 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
How many engineers would rather track to tape?
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #61
Lives for gear
 
Batchainpuller78's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
It's all about marketing, remember VHS/Video2000/Betamax?
Betamax was the superior format but VHS got to the market better, and loads & loads of people bought a very ****ty format thinking it was the thing.

I agree with the above poster and said in many threads concerning tape it indeed ups the concentration of everybody involved, and generally leads to a more interesting product.

I love PT for doing bands that can't play to well or POP-music or modern day digital music.
but any music rooted in old style music only sounds right (to my ears) when it's performed well to tape.
It always seems more soothing and less boring.
this does not mean there are unbelievable things done with the computer these days in studio's and soundscaping and designing got to a whole new level.
Yet they somehow don't feel as real? like watching a Hollywood picture with too much computer generated imagery.

Nobody any questions about how virtual life has become already with our beloved PC's?
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #62
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor999 ➡️
So get it through your thick skulls:

TAPE DOES NOT SOUND "BETTER" IT SOUNDS "DIFFERENT" WHICH IS PLEASING TO MANY PEOPLE BUT NOT ALL PEOPLE.
I've never met anybody who tracks to tape and digital regularly that doesn't think tape sounds better, unless they have some sort of agenda.

Maybe my skull is thick, but my ears are clean as a whistle.

But to be open minded, what exactly do you think the sound differences are between tape and conversion?
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #63
Lives for gear
 
china jam's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelAngelo ➡️
Hey China

So you want to pick on Vernier, maybe you should clean the wax out of your ears. Let me put it to you this way. EVERYBODY agrees analog sounds better, but most cannot affort it! As a matter of fact, if PT's was totally analog and provided all the features of its digital platform, EVERYONE would perfer it.... Don't bash the source>>>> Your not expercienced enough...
I DIDN'T ONCE STATE THAT I HAD A PREFERENCE!!!

I'm not bashing the source.

I'm not lacking in experience.

Waxy ears or not - I still make and buy new music. I'm guessing many members of the board do the same.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #64
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
not gonna buy a new computer every 5 years!

My G5 is a 4 year old paper weight and i didn't want to buy a new so...Just got a MTR90 MKII. life is good. i record indie, punk, and rock n' roll thats what most of those dudes want. it sounds different, it sounds better.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #65
Gear Guru
 
Musiclab's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor999 ➡️
Whats with the assumption of his experience? You have no idea who he/she is.



So get it through your thick skulls:

TAPE DOES NOT SOUND "BETTER" IT SOUNDS "DIFFERENT" WHICH IS PLEASING TO MANY PEOPLE BUT NOT ALL PEOPLE.

I personally do not like it for a great many things.
thats why being anonymous is bull****, you have an opinion man up.
My thick skull and my over 20 years experience has a different opinion than yours, to me tape sounds better and is a better form of storage, and I haven't had horrible maintenance experiences and although there are many great things about using a daw, probably the biggest advantage is it's cheaper and allows many more people to play this game.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #66
Lives for gear
 
DJamesGoody's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by kats ➡️
I've never met anybody who tracks to tape and digital regularly that doesn't think tape sounds better, unless they have some sort of agenda.

Maybe my skull is thick, but my ears are clean as a whistle.

But to be open minded, what exactly do you think the sound differences are between tape and conversion?
Consider me your first then. You've met your first person that does both regularly and doesn't feel that tape sounds "better". This of course, is based on the presumption that one is using "state of the art" analog and digital equipment. Any other argument is a strawman........

What are the differences? Any scientific explanation by me will likely not suffice. But, I can tell you what I hear, which is simple.

Analog tape offers me low frequency rolloff from around 40hz, and top end softening from around 12k-15k. It also offers me some level saturation, which affects my midrange in varying degrees. It also gives me more self noise. With these attributes, I can decide to utilize them, or I can decide that they adversely affect my desired end result.

Digital audio offers me a less altered response curve. It also provides me with far less self noise, which I generally prefer. But conversion filtering can many times alter the high frequency harmonic content, which can be undesirable. Some people talk about lack of depth, but that is an arguable point, one which I believe is typically misdirected, and misinformed.

To the degree that I like a softer top end, and some saturation on transient energy, I prefer tape. But I don't prefer tape when I print my bass and kick drum, and lose some articulation and clarity as a result of saturation or rolloff. Since I like to record dynamically, tape can also be a noise liability when I need to print something at a softer than normal level. However, I can also lessen my required steps by using tape, if I need a bit of transient saturation and subtle changes in EQ on a track or a mix.

My point is that these are both uniquely qualified recording mediums, with a unique set of attributes that make either applicable to different situations. The same could not be said 5 years ago, for sure. I'll easily admit that.

But, as of the current state of both mediums, I will end up with my desired result no matter the medium, simply because I refuse to be saddled with dogma, and instead, I choose to utilize each medium as I see fit, understanding and working within its limitations and strengths. Anything less is foolish, arrogant, and completely contrary to the art and craft of being a recording engineer.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #67
Lives for gear
 
Mike Brown's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by kats ➡️
I've never met anybody who tracks to tape and digital regularly that doesn't think tape sounds better, unless they have some sort of agenda.

Maybe my skull is thick, but my ears are clean as a whistle.

But to be open minded, what exactly do you think the sound differences are between tape and conversion?
No agenda here. I'm not trying to sell you anything.

I just couldn't care less about what I record to when it comes to tracking. Its not like the recording police are going to break down my door for using the wrong medium.

If I am doing a grungy rock record I am going to use tape because its going to help me shape my sound towards the direction I want it to go.

If I am doing a synth pop/pop punk etc I am not going to use tape because its not going to help me in ways that will please me.

I mostly work on a pair of meticulously maintained Studer A827's which, as you know, can be calibrated to be ruler flat and even then the sonic characteristics it imparts can sometimes NOT be constructive to the final "sound" i am going for.

I don't even really care about the calibrating/workflow stuff... tape sessions have a much less frantic pace usually which can in some circumstances result in more relaxed better performances (not all artists like to work that way though).

If you feel that tape provides you qualities that will benefit every recording you do then by all means go nuts!

I am just tired of the dishonest discussion coming from both sides that one or the other "is scientifically better PERIOD".

How can anyone come anywhere CLOSE to saying that when working in such a subjective field?

Its disingenuous to some of the younger engineers around here who may not be as experienced in tape (or have even SEEN a reel to reel).

.... as if tape would fix their ****ty mic positions.....
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #68
Lives for gear
 
Mike Brown's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musiclab ➡️
thats why being anonymous is bull****, you have an opinion man up.
My thick skull and my over 20 years experience has a different opinion than yours, to me tape sounds better and is a better form of storage, and I haven't had horrible maintenance experiences and although there are many great things about using a daw, probably the biggest advantage is it's cheaper and allows many more people to play this game.
Wait....

So do you not understand that we are in agreement?

I am not trying to tell you digital is better than tape.

I am not trying to sell you my new A/D converter which sounds just like a MCI machine.

It is your opinion that tape sounds better and is a better form of storage.

thumbsupthumbsupthumbsup AWESOME!!! thumbsupthumbsupthumbsup

I have a different opinion!
AND THAT'S OKAY!


Come to minneapolis or ill hit you up next time when I'm in NYC and we'll have a beer or two....


I am just tired of the "scientific fact that x sounds better than y".
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #69
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvoc3000 ➡️
Yes. Get over it.
Chuckle. Enjoy your librarian's granny tits then. Best of luck with it.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #70
Lives for gear
 
Batchainpuller78's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
So the good guy know when to use the tools they need to achieve the sound they need?
I use PT and Tape as well but for my own subjective opinion, I do like tapeprojects more.
Also in recorded music history my preference of sound & music are mostly from 1950's up until somewhere mid seventies so that might have something to do with it.

The discussions are endless, but I also pointed out somewhere in some of the recent discussion the guys using DAW having nothing to fear, their platform is prolly still in kiddyshoes and you got company's and people working hard all over the world to cater to your digital needs and wants.
The people recording analog don't have Studer, Ampex, 3m, Sony, Otari, Tascam & all the others around for supplying them with tools or spare parts & for a few scary months even uncertainty about tape supply.
So i'm just happy when I see that there are still other users out there.

I also find it a pretty a-hole attitude to think that the computer is the thing making all previous ways obsolete.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #71
Gear Nut
 
pvoc3000's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by basho ➡️
Chuckle. Enjoy your librarian's granny tits then. Best of luck with it.
Hey I am not a librarian! I have record producer's granny tits thankyouverymuch. tutt

Quote:
If 1% of the world's population prefers eating **** to caviar, does that mean caviar is just "different" compared to ****? Does this mean an API is just "different" from a Wackie? Does this mean Denise Richards just looks "different" from your local 53 year old librarian?
If as much as 1% of the population prefers tape formats to digital ones I would be very surprised. I would guess that less than 1% has any opinion at all, while the remaining 99% are perfectly happy with their digital whatsits or are even unaware that there are alternatives. Therefore, according to your analogy.... heh

I happen to think that both formats sound great. A more apt analogy would be to ask if 1% of the population preferred Beluga caviar to Osetra caviar. You're arguing over f'ing caviar. Just eat what you like and keep the proselytizing to yourselves.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #72
Lives for gear
 
Knox's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
to quote your attempt at making a point . . . . I will quote 'you' back to you . . . . "deja vu" . . . . . btw . . isn't it "arrogant" to give a point blank declaration as to what is arrogant or even foolish to call someone else's reasons "foolish"? *smile*

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJGoody ➡️
Anything less is foolish, arrogant, and completely contrary to the art and craft of being a recording engineer.
Old 27th January 2009 | Show parent
  #73
Gear Head
 
CJdeVillar's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I'll tell ya. I made a lot more money tracking to tape, so for that yes. But in a practical sense no. Even if an artist wants it, they may have forgotten the limitations. If i'm tracking to tape and dumping to PT as a record filter all locked up to vid and code, sure. Staying on tape though is another matter. And no to that too, lol. Tape isn't all that anyway. It's only great if everybody involved is great.
Old 27th January 2009 | Show parent
  #74
Lives for gear
 
DJamesGoody's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knox ➡️
to quote your attempt at making a point . . . . I will quote 'you' back to you . . . . "deja vu" . . . . . btw . . isn't it "arrogant" to give a point blank declaration as to what is arrogant or even foolish to call someone else's reasons "foolish"? *smile*
Indeed! Fancy to see you here, my friend!! I think I've now typed the exact same thing three times in a couple weeks span!

At least I have a witness.
Old 27th January 2009 | Show parent
  #75
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor999 ➡️

I am just tired of the dishonest discussion coming from both sides that one or the other "is scientifically better PERIOD".

How can anyone come anywhere CLOSE to saying that when working in such a subjective field?
Same way I can say a U47 sounds better than a TLM103 even though a TLM 103 might spec out better. Science aside, I'm comfortable in saying something sounds better when the most experienced ears in the world are in agreement. If that wasn't the case I would simply say that I personally prefer ________ with the obligatory YMMV's IMO's etc etc.

Quote:
Digital audio offers me a less altered response curve. It also provides me with far less self noise, which I generally prefer. But conversion filtering can many times alter the high frequency harmonic content, which can be undesirable. Some people talk about lack of depth, but that is an arguable point, one which I believe is typically misdirected, and misinformed.
You see, my argument to this is that even the lousiest converter can be ruler flat in frequency response. So obviously there's more to the story isn't there. The way I see it, I can eq frequencies on a taped signal - but I cannot get rid of conversion artifacts without altering the sound in a much more significant way than a tape machine ever would. As far as your " lack of depth, but that is an arguable point, one which I believe is typically misdirected, and misinformed" comment - is not only ignoring the majorities experience, but contradicts the experience of the most celebrated engineers in the world.

Anyhow, for me the tape machine is a musical instrument in the same way a mic or console is. You can play it any way you like to best suit the program. We wouldn't dream of using measurement mics or consider IC preamps complimentary to the source, yet we glorify the converter for it's sterility? And even then I could live with sterility, but not at the expense of what conversion takes away.

The last word is for you guys, I'm quite content in my beliefs whether or not anyone else cares.
Old 27th January 2009 | Show parent
  #76
Lives for gear
 
BradM's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by kats ➡️
Anyhow, for me the tape machine is a musical instrument in the same way a mic or console is. You can play it any way you like to best suit the program. We wouldn't dream of using measurement mics or consider IC preamps complimentary to the source, yet we glorify the converter for it's sterility? And even then I could live with sterility, but not at the expense of what conversion takes away.
I don't mean to nitpick, but you are aware that many tape decks made from the late 70's onward are loaded with IC chips in the signal path right?

Brad
Old 27th January 2009 | Show parent
  #77
Lives for gear
 
DJamesGoody's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by kats ➡️
You see, my argument to this is that even the lousiest converter can be ruler flat in frequency response. So obviously there's more to the story isn't there.
Exactly. Which is why I go on to explain how sometimes I don't need those attributes, thus I choose another medium - namely, analog tape.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kats ➡️
The way I see it, I can eq frequencies on a taped signal - but I cannot get rid of conversion artifacts without altering the sound in a much more significant way than a tape machine ever would.
You also cannot "unsaturate" tape, or "denoise" a poorly recorded track without significant artifacts. There is science at work here as well,not simply conjecture - so to be fair, you must recognize that tape imparts its own artifacts.

Also, each speed and EQ curve has it's strengths and weaknesses, I'm sure you'd agree. I prefer CCIR when using ATR on a Studer A827. But, with certain formulas, I prefer NAB 30ips, not printed as hot, and underbiased a bit. Each has a potential advantage over the other, in any situation.

What is being discussed here is whether one prefers one set of artifacts to another. And my response is that I feel at this point in time, that if used properly, both mediums can be appropriate, sonically.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kats ➡️
As far as your " lack of depth, but that is an arguable point, one which I believe is typically misdirected, and misinformed" comment - is not only ignoring the majorities experience, but contradicts the experience of the most celebrated engineers in the world.
If I was ignoring it, I wouldn't have said that it's arguable. Furthermore, I think you're completely mistaken in making such a generalized statement. In fact, I think you'll find most "celebrated" engineers will readily tell you that they may [I]prefer[I] tape, but that they could also achieve the desired result using a digital medium, and much of it boils down to user skill.

5 years ago, I think you would've been correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kats ➡️
We wouldn't dream of using measurement mics or consider IC preamps complimentary to the source, yet we glorify the converter for it's sterility? And even then I could live with sterility, but not at the expense of what conversion takes away.
You see, complimentary is your chosen vernacular here, and that is exactly what I am talking about. Once you introduce an indicator of subjective opinion, the entire argument changes to personal opinion.

And to that point, I offer the simple idea that perhaps both can be usable, if set up and implemented properly.........just as we daily choose between different levels of "complimentary" when picking a microphone, we also are offered the ability to do that with our medium. Now that to me, is far more powerful than a stubborn unwillingness to see the situational advantages of a given format.
Old 27th January 2009
  #78
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
More than 3?
Old 27th January 2009 | Show parent
  #79
Lives for gear
 
DJamesGoody's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureLegends ➡️
More than 3?
I'm up to 4 now, I think. Maybe more. I'm done.
Old 27th January 2009 | Show parent
  #80
Lives for gear
 
maxpidge's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
never had to trash my preferences or reboot the studer...heh
Old 27th January 2009 | Show parent
  #81
Lives for gear
 
Mike Brown's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by kats ➡️
...saying something sounds better when the most experienced ears in the world are in agreement...

...not only ignoring the majorities experience, but contradicts the experience of the most celebrated engineers in the world....


I'm quite content in my beliefs whether or not anyone else cares.
I chuckled a bit at this...

Anyways, here is my point:

I know PLENTY of grammy award winning/nominated engineers with tons and tons of gold and platinum records around minneapolis which do not agree with you and regularly track through 192's and mix strictly ITB when they have the budgets, timeframes, and equipment availible to them to do completely analog records.

All I am saying is its ridiculous to try to generalize and say that "Oh all the top engineers say that tape is better and I agree so tape is better"... lots of people have varied tastes and a few have spoken up on this thread.


I think its awesome that you love tape enough to post about it so much....

But it is not a FACT that tape is better.

Tape works great on some things. Digital works great on some things. It takes the engineer to make that choice and make it work.

I think DJGoody put it best in his post.
Old 27th January 2009 | Show parent
  #82
Lives for gear
 
vernier's Avatar
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
There's nothing to debate. We like tape. It rules. It's king.




.
Old 27th January 2009 | Show parent
  #83
Lives for gear
 
T_R_S's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxpidge ➡️
never had to trash my preferences or reboot the studer...heh
But a brand new Mac Pro is less than a new set of heads. (A lots easier to install)
Do get me wrong I own a Studer but the maintaining it cost me a small fortune when I used it on daily basis.
Old 27th January 2009 | Show parent
  #84
JSG
Gear Maniac
 
JSG's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaneoconnor ➡️
screw tape. what is this? a nursing home?

How could all of you just skip over this very funny statement by "shaneoconner" and not respond. Am I the only slut wearing depends? Now, where's that nurse?
Old 27th January 2009 | Show parent
  #85
Lives for gear
 
headwerkn's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
tape. computers just don't replicate that click-clunk sound properly when going into record.
Old 27th January 2009 | Show parent
  #86
Here for the gear
 
Jo E's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Tape saturate in a way computers never will

Tape always.
It´s like a tube amp, more even harmonics appears after recording to tape it seems, a before harsh sound becomes softer and so on,
A computer brings nothing good to the sound exept editing, just makes it thinner.
Old 27th January 2009 | Show parent
  #87
Lives for gear
 
bcgood's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peacock ➡️
I prefer tape if possible but I am getting more tolerate to digital sound.

I do use Radar but I have never heard a digital system that can give the "depth of sound" that tape imparts.

Radar is good but placed head to head with my MCI machine there is no comparison. Tape is just better.
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #88
Lives for gear
 
Bob Ross's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipass ➡️
-No Tape rewinding smoother work flow
Arguably it's exactly the opposite: I've experienced plenty of sessions where the only thing that kept people focussed and the momentum rolling (no pun intended) was that 40 second respite after every pass. It may depend on the genre you're recording too; something about the pacing of an analog session seems very conducive to rock'n'roll. But not so much to dog food commercials. If I recorded 100% jingles there wouldn't be any debate.


Quote:
Originally Posted by abtech ➡️
Editing in digital wouldn't be necessary if the players actually had the song down before they walked in the door.

Heh... I LOL'd.
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #89
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad McGowan ➡️
I don't mean to nitpick, but you are aware that many tape decks made from the late 70's onward are loaded with IC chips in the signal path right?

Brad

Since your nitpicking, you should know that there is a difference between amplifying mic levels and line levels. Nothing against IC's per se - depends on the use and implementation (SSL g-Comp for eg) I was just making an analogy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor999 ➡️
I chuckled a bit at this...

Anyways, here is my point:

I know PLENTY of grammy award winning/nominated engineers with tons and tons of gold and platinum records around minneapolis which do not agree with you and regularly track through 192's and mix strictly ITB when they have the budgets, timeframes, and equipment availible to them to do completely analog records.
Name them.

And there are plenty of reasons to prefer digital over tape besides sound. But just because you prefer digital doesn't mean you think it sounds better. I can give you a huge list of engineers that think tape sounds better but prefer to use digital.

But the original question is who prefers to track to tape. I do, because it sounds better. More often then not though, it ends up in PT.
Old 28th January 2009
  #90
Lives for gear
 
soupking's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackened ➡️
In a perfect world, with no limitations, and expense not being a factor, how many engineers would rather track to tape? Let's say you had the chance to produce your favorite artist. You are recording at a studio with an endless array of gear. What reasons would you give that artist for tracking to tape? Or would you opt to go digital and why? This is primarily the analog versus digital debate all over again, but i'm trying to see if attitudes are changing and why.

Best,

Blackie
I hate to say it, but...

To be or not to be, that is the question;
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune

Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing, end them. To die, to sleep;


The scene is about as long as this thread, and I'm sure you're familiar with the saying just like this argument even though you can still read it 100 times a different way. Yes, you still get something out of it, but...there you are.

The objective truth is too vast. There are simply too many options. The more options in terms of time and money will largely determine every single response regardless of taste.

Vacation is an expensive hassle, but if we were all rich, we would record everywhere possible and own and record on everything we could get our hands on.

...Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pitch[1] and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.[2]


Whatever the hell that means.

Music is like money and time, use it or lose it.
Within that axiom lies your answer.

Peace,
-soupking
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 55 views: 31866
Avatar for IM WHO YOU THINK
IM WHO YOU THINK 13th October 2020
replies: 15929 views: 1532163
Avatar for Ragan
Ragan 11th January 2019
replies: 1296 views: 181074
Avatar for heraldo_jones
heraldo_jones 1st February 2016
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump