Quantcast
How many engineers would rather track to tape? - Page 4 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
How many engineers would rather track to tape?
Old 29th January 2009 | Show parent
  #91
Lives for gear
 
DJamesGoody's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by kats ➑️
And there are plenty of reasons to prefer digital over tape besides sound.
This statement, at its core, means that we are now at a point where sound difference is subjective, therefore we can move beyond that argument, in the pursuit of other goals. This was the overwhelming objective of all the "pro-digital" posts, in my estimation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kats ➑️
But just because you prefer digital doesn't mean you think it sounds better.
Exactly. Nobody here has maintained that digital sounds better.
Old 29th January 2009 | Show parent
  #92
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
I like the sound of digital tape.
Old 29th January 2009 | Show parent
  #93
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJGoody ➑️
This statement, at its core, means that we are now at a point where sound difference is subjective, therefore we can move beyond that argument, in the pursuit of other goals. This was the overwhelming objective of all the "pro-digital" posts, in my estimation.
Not really. The overwhelming objective of all the "pro-digital" posts, as I see it, is to trumpet digi's "transparency" as an OBJECTIVE "better" over analog's supposed "flawed" and "inferior" performance as a recording medium, citing coloration, "euphonic" characteristics etc etc as undesirables that can be "digitally modelled" to one's anal retentive exact specifications later on (Though I have yet to see or hear even one convincing example of this?).

The so-called "pro-tape" brigade, on the other hand, posits that maybe one should just use what sounds RIGHT for the source in the first place. Why choose a dynamic over a condenser, or vice versa, if it is obviously not the right tool on a particular source in a particular circumstance? It is this attitude that just puzzles the heck outta me, to be honest.

Quote:
Exactly. Nobody here has maintained that digital sounds better.
Well they are wrong. Digital sounds better for some things. I cannot do shampoo commercials without it. Or sound-design dog food logos as effectively on analog. And no, I'm not being sarcastic.
Old 29th January 2009 | Show parent
  #94
Lives for gear
 
illacov's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
If money was no object...

Then I would track to digital with the most transparent AD/DA converters in the biz, do all my edits in the DAW and then dump to multitrack tape and then dump back to digital.


This way I do lose the mojo that actually tracking to tape provides, however with those great converters they should be so close to the live source that it would be damn near the same.

As it stands I'm in the middle of getting a Tascam 38, having one of the gurus in Upstate NY service it for me and will be using it like an effects unit, since I have more than 8 tracks of stuff that I'd like to put on tape.

I'll have my fresh reel of RMGI SM468/SM911 recording and just capture my sends off the repro head. My DAW does automatic latency compensation so no worries.

Move onto the next 8 tracks and call it a year.


At the moment, my AD/DA are probably pretty good for 1995s standards lol and I could care less since, I'm going lofi on this project so the low end/mid grade equipment might actually help in the long run.

But I see no reason why a person doing modern music couldn't dump to tape.

As quantized, beat stretched, drumagogged and melodyned as most rock, pop and hip hop music is. You can't honestly expect anyone to believe in holistic recording!

Once you guys get your drummer quantized then at least try dumping the drums to tape on a well calibrated machine, cheat as much as possible. If you have a nice deck then its inline pres will be pretty slutty. That will help to warm up your audio significantly in addition to the tape saturation and compression.


BTW I have a 20 year old deck that runs like a champ. Maintenance??

Are you serious? Do you guys own cars? That's maintenance. especially the American ones or the foreign ones we bought because we wanted quality. OUCH!

Peace
Illumination
Old 29th January 2009 | Show parent
  #95
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJGoody ➑️
This statement, at its core, means that we are now at a point where sound difference is subjective, therefore we can move beyond that argument, in the pursuit of other goals. This was the overwhelming objective of all the "pro-digital" posts, in my estimation.
If you say so...
Old 29th January 2009 | Show parent
  #96
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
I personally find recording to tape easier. I did my first all tape session about 2 years ago and the session went so much more smoothly than it ever has for me with digital sessions. If I wanted to check the levels, I just turned my head slightly and looked at all the meters on the 16 track going. And if they hit the red now and then, it didn't really matter, I didn't have to look at horrible clipped waveforms. I know for many people that this is not the case and digital will in most cases be easier but for me, just hitting record and then punching in tracks easily at will always works better for me. But then again, I'm an analogue boy in a digital world.
Old 29th January 2009 | Show parent
  #97
Lives for gear
 
soundbarnfool's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I just like tape better. It sounds like tape.

Inglewood SoundBarn
Old 29th January 2009 | Show parent
  #98
Gear Nut
 
pvoc3000's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by basho ➑️
Not really. The overwhelming objective of all the "pro-digital" posts, as I see it, is to trumpet digi's "transparency" as an OBJECTIVE "better" over analog's supposed "flawed" and "inferior" performance as a recording medium, citing coloration, "euphonic" characteristics etc etc as undesirables that can be "digitally modelled" to one's anal retentive exact specifications later on (Though I have yet to see or hear even one convincing example of this?).

The so-called "pro-tape" brigade, on the other hand, posits that maybe one should just use what sounds RIGHT for the source in the first place. Why choose a dynamic over a condenser, or vice versa, if it is obviously not the right tool on a particular source in a particular circumstance? It is this attitude that just puzzles the heck outta me, to be honest.
I'm not sure what message board you've been reading, but it is definitely NOT Gearslutz. On these boards, it is pretty much the opposite of what you claim.

As an example, you only need to look at this thread. Here, the posters who prefer tape to digital had these things to say about their format of choice:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Musiclab
yep I would. reasons 1. It sounds Better
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcm
If sound was the primary concern I would absolutely track to tape
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtr917punk
tape is awesome. huge difference in quality and head room
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsvisser
There is something magical with the sound
Quote:
Originally Posted by dualflip
i always find myself in between this two choices: sound quality VS fast workflow.. so, if what im tracking deserves tape (most will know what i mean by that) ill go for it
Quote:
Originally Posted by picksail
I do however love the sound of tape.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordan
Tape is more pleasing to my ears.
Quote:
Originally Posted by abtech
I work with tape 100% of the time and it always sounds just like it was meant to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjogo
Tape is still far better quality to my ears
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLO-MAN
superior sound quality is NOT one of digital's advantages over tape. Never will be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjmnash
tape isn't necessarily the big factor of what i like about the sound - it's that converters sound bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelAngelo
EVERYBODY agrees analog sounds better
Quote:
Originally Posted by Batchainpull78
It always seems more soothing and less boring.
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by vernier
There's nothing to debate. We like tape. It rules. It's king.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo E
A computer brings nothing good to the sound exept editing, just makes it thinner
Whereas the posters who prefer to track digitally had these things to say:

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Suitcase
digital. Why? It's way faster, it sounds the way I put it down
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipass
-Flat frequency response vs limited frequency response with tape
-more dynamic range before you need compression.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicpope
I'm not ashamed to admit that I like the sound of digital recording better than analog recording.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor99
TAPE DOES NOT SOUND "BETTER" IT SOUNDS "DIFFERENT" WHICH IS PLEASING TO MANY PEOPLE BUT NOT ALL PEOPLE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJGoody
My point is that these are both uniquely qualified recording mediums, with a unique set of attributes that make either applicable to different situations.
This thread is a fairly typical example of what transpires every time this ridiculous topic comes up. Its always the same: the overwhelming majority of all the pro-tape posts claim that tape's artifacts sound universally better than digital's transparency, while the pro-digital posts usually say neither format sounds better than the other, that they are just different.
Old 29th January 2009 | Show parent
  #99
Gear Nut
 
FlatBeat's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
tape drums, digital the rest of the way.
Old 29th January 2009 | Show parent
  #100
Gear Head
 
CJdeVillar's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
pvoc3000^
Nice post. And a great point that sometimes the pos/neg difference is just cuz they're different to so many sensibilities and comfort zones.

And to tag on if I may. In the reverse of simplistic popular convention, I've heard plenty of gorgeous sounding warm and articulate music made ITB. Conversely, I have heard plenty of cold and brittle soul-less drivel made entirely in the analog domain. Chops are the biggest difference.

Ends justify the means in our game.
Old 29th January 2009 | Show parent
  #101
Gear Maniac
 
NickHiebert's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
The general consensus is that tape sounds optimal whereas digital is more forgiving and versatile. I think the only reason a debate even exists is because digital audio technology perhaps has not advanced to the point where it is comparable to analog audio, but that's not to say that digital is worse - perhaps immature.

A good example of this is in the movie-making industry, for years practical model-making was the norm and was accepted to be the best form of model-making even when digital model making existed. But now there is such little difference between the practical models and the digital models in motion pictures that a lot of studios are shutting down their practical model-making departments.

But then people say "well if you're just trying to mimic what analog does anyway, why not just use analog?", well, the practicality is one reason. The fact that multiple takes with tape costs money, and multiple play-backs can damage your recordings, whereas with digital it doesn't - I don't think anyone can argue that digital work-flow isn't faster, cheaper, and less destructive than analog.

To me, it's the level of advancement, digital still has a long way to go.
Old 29th January 2009 | Show parent
  #102
Gear Guru
 
Sqye's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvoc3000 ➑️
I'm not sure what message board you've been reading, but it is definitely NOT Gearslutz. On these boards, it is pretty much the opposite of what you claim.

As an example, you only need to look at this thread. Here, the posters who prefer tape to digital had these things to say about their format of choice:

Whereas the posters who prefer to track digitally had these things to say:

This thread is a fairly typical example of what transpires every time this ridiculous topic comes up. Its always the same: the overwhelming majority of all the pro-tape posts claim that tape's artifacts sound universally better than digital's transparency, while the pro-digital posts usually say neither format sounds better than the other, that they are just different.
.

thx 4 the recap...

saved me reading the same old thread and argument - for the 800 millionth time...
...(anyone want fries or popcorn - with their same old argument..?)


moral of the story,

"The Ultimate Rule ought to be: 'If it sounds good to you, it's bitchin';
if it sounds bad to you, it's ****ty'."

(Zappa on music


cheers, lads.

.
Old 29th January 2009 | Show parent
  #103
Lives for gear
 
picksail's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
pvoc3000, my post was taken out of context.
Too much of generalization and not relevant to the topic.

Never said I preferred tape to digital. Just said I liked it.
I haven't personally used tape since maybe 1994.
Old 29th January 2009 | Show parent
  #104
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvoc3000 ➑️
all the pro-tape posts claim that tape's artifacts sound universally better than digital's transparency .
Digital's transparency? Is that supposed to be a joke?

Let me tell you why most tape users get excited in these threads. It's not because they need to evangelize, or even care what people record with. It's the complete BS surrounding the negatives of the format that is keeping this ridiculous topic alive (over and over and over).

I mean if I have to hear one more time about tape saturation and the loss of transients (like recording +9/185 @ 15ips is some kind of standard), or how much maintenance/money it costs to run a deck, or how digital is truer to the source than tape, and all the other nonsense, I think my head will explode.

Now if you think "tape heads" are being defensive - look at this thread. It's titled "How many engineers would rather track to tape?" NOT how many wouldn't...

But what happens? The agendas begin.
Old 29th January 2009 | Show parent
  #105
Lives for gear
 
DJamesGoody's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by kats ➑️
Digital's transparency? Is that supposed to be a joke?

Let me tell you why most tape users get excited in these threads. It's not because they need to evangelize, or even care what people record with. It's the complete BS surrounding the negatives of the format that is keeping this ridiculous topic alive (over and over and over).

I mean if I have to hear one more time about tape saturation and the loss of transients (like recording +9/185 @ 15ips is some kind of standard), or how much maintenance/money it costs to run a deck, or how digital is truer to the source than tape, and all the other nonsense, I think my head will explode.

Now if you think "tape heads" are being defensive - look at this thread. It's titled "How many engineers would rather track to tape?" NOT how many wouldn't...

But what happens? The agendas begin.

Whatever you say, mate.
Old 30th January 2009 | Show parent
  #106
Gear Guru
 
Musiclab's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by MixShmix ➑️
I like the sound of digital tape.
What do you know? Who do you think you are, Bob Clearmountain?
Old 30th January 2009 | Show parent
  #107
Gear Maniac
 
PraiseStudios's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musiclab ➑️
What do you know? Who do you think you are, Bob Clearmountain?
Depending on artist and budget.
Old 31st January 2009 | Show parent
  #108
Lives for gear
 
cjogo's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
prefer tape ---but can not find clients who could afford such luxury --switched to Roland DAWS --from the analog days......
Old 31st January 2009 | Show parent
  #109
Gear Maniac
 
NickHiebert's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I think a problem is that some people feel that the analog sound is a standard for which digital has to work towards - this is silly. Being true-to-life is a standard that neither medium meets but should be sought after; as close and as accurate as it can possibly be. I think digital has more room for advancement in this case.
Old 31st January 2009 | Show parent
  #110
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvoc3000 ➑️
I'm not sure what message board you've been reading, but it is definitely NOT Gearslutz. On these boards, it is pretty much the opposite of what you claim.

This thread is a fairly typical example of what transpires every time this ridiculous topic comes up. Its always the same: the overwhelming majority of all the pro-tape posts claim that tape's artifacts sound universally better than digital's transparency, while the pro-digital posts usually say neither format sounds better than the other, that they are just different.
Uh, aren't you the guy that said this on another thread:

Quote:
I for one don't use tape for tracking because it sucks.
Chuckle. Kinda defeats your previous post don't it.
Old 31st January 2009 | Show parent
  #111
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Tracked to AEG-24" for years.

Cool for rock, indie and so on.

Not so cool for classic, VoiceOvers et al.

Best thing is that musicians just have 23 tracks available. They focus better that way.

Most people seem to just repeat what they heard somewhere.

Maintenance? Tape machines need little maintenance in my opinion.
BUT: They can be buggy, too. Ever had a rewinding-out-of-nowhere-tapedeck because of a flawed synchronizer?

As a storage medium, tape used to be better, IMHO.
But recently, with the advent of affordable multi-TB RAID-NAS-systems, digital won that match, something I was waiting for since my pro-IT-days.

Finally, something quite important for me: Tape is an environmental nightmare.
But then, I'm german.. :-)
Old 31st January 2009
  #112
Lives for gear
 
skiltrip's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
First off, I mostly use my studio as studio for myself and my own music.

And, I would switch to tape in a heartbeat.

1 main reason is almost psychological. It would get me to perform better, and not get obsessed with playing parts over and over and over. The DAW gives you the freedom to do this stuff, but sometimes you lose some fire and magic in the pursuit of perfection.
Old 31st January 2009 | Show parent
  #113
Gear Nut
 
pvoc3000's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by basho ➑️
Uh, aren't you the guy that said this on another thread:

Chuckle. Kinda defeats your previous post don't it.
You'd need a lot more people on these boards that think like me to "defeat" my previous post, Chuckles, but sadly I am very much in the minority here.
Old 31st January 2009 | Show parent
  #114
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvoc3000 ➑️
You'd need a lot more people on these boards that think like me to "defeat" my previous post, Chuckles, but sadly I am very much in the minority here.
Chuckle. A perfect example of the kind of "pro-digital" apologist who can't tell his arse from his elbow then? Nice work. Best of luck with it.
Old 31st January 2009 | Show parent
  #115
Gear Nut
 
pvoc3000's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by basho ➑️
Chuckle. A perfect example of the kind of "pro-digital" apologist who can't tell his arse from his elbow then? Nice work. Best of luck with it.
And there it is... your fallback argument: "Pro-digital" people can't tell their arse from their elbows.

For all the chuckling you do you still seem like such an angry dude.
Old 31st January 2009 | Show parent
  #116
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvoc3000 ➑️
And there it is... your fallback argument: "Pro-digital" people can't tell their arse from their elbows.

For all the chuckling you do you still seem like such an angry dude.
Nah. Just sayin YOU can't tell your arse from your elbow. Don't assume to speak on the behalf of people with a bit more sense and intelligence than you, thanks. thumbsup
Old 31st January 2009 | Show parent
  #117
Gear Maniac
 
NickHiebert's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I love the analog digital debate
Old 1st February 2009 | Show parent
  #118
Gear Nut
 
pvoc3000's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by basho ➑️
Nah. Just sayin YOU can't tell your arse from your elbow. Don't assume to speak on the behalf of people with a bit more sense and intelligence than you, thanks. thumbsup
Oh I don't. Nor do I make assumptions about the skill or intelligence of anyone on these boards based strictly on what recording format they prefer.

It's a big world out there, Basho, and not everyone is going to share your reverence for certain things. That doesn't make them idiots.
Old 1st February 2009 | Show parent
  #119
Lives for gear
 
Batchainpuller78's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickHiebert ➑️
I love the analog digital debate
Old 1st February 2009 | Show parent
  #120
Lives for gear
 
doubledecker's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Are we talking about having an assistant to do all the nasty stuff like aligning and cleaning the heads?
Because if we are, put me down for recording to 2 inch/Dolby SR anytime.
And then transfer to digital.
Thanks a lot
πŸ“ Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 295 views: 74377
Avatar for anguswoodhead
anguswoodhead 26th March 2013
replies: 15929 views: 1533483
Avatar for Ragan
Ragan 11th January 2019
replies: 1296 views: 181886
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