Quote:
Originally Posted by bcgood  That's funny because all of my sonically favorite albums are from tape. I seriously think that there is a big difference, analog is so much more organic and smooth. Of course there are bad analog recordings as well. But if your going for the very best sound then tape almost always wins with discerning listeners. I think eventually digtial technology and engineer's knowledge will get to the point that it can sound as good or better but I love listening to a CD, yes a CD that was originally recorded analog. Again take the same band U2 and listen to Joshua Tree, Unforgetable Fire etc and then listen to they're recently digitally recorded stuff, it's like night and day, the analog stuff sounds so much better. But digital is easier but easier doesn't produce a superior product and that sounds like what your going for.
Check out this link, this is the S-VHS deck that I have. What I do is record everything digitally then when I have the final vocal I solo it into this deck. Then I play it back into the digital domain. It always comes out sounding better aka: phatter, smoother, creamier... http://www.jvc.com/product.jsp?model...thId=49&page=2
bcgood  |
You may not like the music, but listen to either of James Taylor's most recent albums, Hourglass or October Road, and tell me that those don't sound just as creamy and smooth as tape. In the right hands and with top quality equipment,
digital is beautiful. There is absolutely nothing grainy or harsh about those two albums at all.
On the other hand, Harvest was mentioned as a great recording to tape. It's certainly a matter of taste of course, but I think that album is not well engineered at all.
Jim