Do you miss tape?

[Silver Sonya]

Interestingly, your work was what got me interested in tape in the first place. I love that you have embraced digital --- it shows how practical and adaptible you are --- but I have to wonder if you miss tape.

I once read an article that said you and Froom used BASF/Emtec 900 and that got me hooked on it. Now I learn that you have embraced the DAW world. I have as well, but I still use tape sometimes for its ability to absorb and tame sharp transient sounds.

Do you feel that tape played a substantial role in the textures of recordings like Lisa Germano "Slide" (brilliant!), "Brutal Youth," "Kiko," "99.9F" "El Oso"?

To my ears, it would be difficult to arrive at such elegantly saturated results without tape. I'm not saying impossible, just difficult.

But maybe I've over-estimated it or over-romanticized it? This is always possible.

Lemme know. Thanks!

-- Chad

[tchadb]

Originally Posted by Silver Sonya

Interestingly, your work was what got me interested in tape in the first place. I love that you have embraced digital --- it shows how practical and adaptible you are --- but I have to wonder if you miss tape.

I once read an article that said you and Froom used BASF/Emtec 900 and that got me hooked on it. Now I learn that you have embraced the DAW world. I have as well, but I still use tape sometimes for its ability to absorb and tame sharp transient sounds.

Do you feel that tape played a substantial role in the textures of recordings like Lisa Germano "Slide" (brilliant!), "Brilliant Youth," "Kiko," "99.9F" "El Oso"?

To my ears, it would be difficult to arrive at such elegantly saturated results without tape. I'm not saying impossible, just difficult.

But maybe I've over-estimated it or over-romanticized it? This is always possible.

Lemme know. Thanks!

-- Chad

I like tape OK but it's been a love hate thing. Mixes always come back a little different and sometimes that's good, but more often than not, it wasn't.
Yes, those records would sound very different. PT's back then didn't sound as it does now so I'm glad tape was there.
But I doubt it would make a significant difference emotionally which is what I'm most concerned with.
If tape is a magic ingredient of great mixes then we're all screwed because it's dodgy now and won't be around later.
Move on. Learn how to get great new sounds in the great new world.

[recall]

amen!

[*CISKO*]

"Learn how to get great new sounds in the great new world." Tchad Blake

AAAAAMEEEEN!! Brotha!

[Pierrele breton]

Whooo I like that!

Hello Tchad, I saw you 2 weeks ago in your studio (the french man).
What is the name of the American group you was working on, 2 weeks ago? Songs like CIA, Irak...
Could you tell us about your future projects, please?

[tchadb]

Originally Posted by mpr3

take this with a grain of devil's advocacy, but the following is very true for me and has been proven many times over:

when comparing very nice converters to a very nice tape machine that is properly setup, my shoulder muscles are often more relaxed on the tape playback (especially true for drums and certain guitar tones). relaxed shoulders can affect your emotional response when listening, so there is still some deeper sense in using tape over digital for now.

Stop comparing. Does the shoulder thing happen when you're listening to music somewhere and don't know how it was recorded? That's all I care about.
If that (shoulder twitch) happened to me I'd be screaming for tape.

[tchadb]

Originally Posted by Pierrele breton

Whooo I like that!

Hello Tchad, I saw you 2 weeks ago in your studio (the french man).
What is the name of the American group you was working on, 2 weeks ago? Songs like CIA, Irak...
Could you tell us about your future projects, please?

So you got home OK. Good.
That was State Radio, out this summer. Working with Foy Vance, Jack Rubinacci, and Conil.
Just finished Crowded House and Suzanne Vega.

[BrianK]

Hey Tchad - Brian Kehew here. I have to disagree and voice an opinion. The emotional content doesn't happen so much for me on most digi formats. I'd say it can, but it's way more effort and conscious direction.

Why? Things maintain their high end - and I noticed yours and everyone else's records have more extreme treble content than those of the records he cited above in the first post. I don't mean "bright", I just mean that the individual tracks ALL speak with full clarity. I think the content/quality of HF stuff makes the ears strain to listen to ALL that is happening.

That's great if you have a simple source; piano/vocal. But with layered, complex mixes, your ear hears too much information to have emotional impact - it's more analytical. As Bob Dylan said when someone presented him with a mix - "I don't want to hear EVERYTHING, I just want them to hear the song".

Subjective, yes, and I think means more about the working METHOD more than sound quality even, but all are factors when choosing any recording format. ANd I concistently have people visit my studio and say "That sounds amazing" when simply hearing tracks played off tape, it moves them emotionally.

[tchadb]

Originally Posted by BrianK

Hey Tchad - Brian Kehew here. I have to disagree and voice an opinion. The emotional content doesn't happen so much for me on most digi formats. I'd say it can, but it's way more effort and conscious direction.

Why? Things maintain their high end - and I noticed yours and everyone else's records have more extreme treble content than those of the records he cited above in the first post. I don't mean "bright", I just mean that the individual tracks ALL speak with full clarity. I think the content/quality of HF stuff makes the ears strain to listen to ALL that is happening.

That's great if you have a simple source; piano/vocal. But with layered, complex mixes, your ear hears too much information to have emotional impact - it's more analytical. As Bob Dylan said when someone presented him with a mix - "I don't want to hear EVERYTHING, I just want them to hear the song".

Subjective, yes, and I think means more about the working METHOD more than sound quality even, but all are factors when choosing any recording format. ANd I concistently have people visit my studio and say "That sounds amazing" when simply hearing tracks played off tape, it moves them emotionally.

OK. What can I say.
People visit my studio and say the same thing and there's no tape in sight.
Bottom line, I don't hear what you're talking about.
Some people hear perfect pitch to the point that when a cymbal is played and it's not in tune it detracts from the music and can render it unlistenable.
Not to me.
Maybe you and many others have the sonic equivalent of this. You really hear the bits or, lack of, or whatever.
I don't.
That's all I'm saying.
When I listen to music that effects me emotionally I just don't believe there's a few more ounces of emotion I would get if only it had been recorded and mixed to tape.
I agree with Dylan in that instance but there's no reason you can't cloud things up in digital. If there's too much isn't it usually easier to get rid of than to add?
I've recorded lots of varied music live, in the field, where I literally sit in the middle of the performers. Sounds great to me. I don't seem to have a problem with the high end there and it can be very high and loud. Is it going to be more emotional or better off tape, because of the tape?
I don't know. I do know it will be different.
You guys decide if it's better or worse. Let me know when you have the hard, cold facts. I'm absolutely willing to be wrong.
In the meantime, I'm not going to tune cymbals and I'm forging ahead with digital. It's only going to get better, but it won't if no one uses it now.

[Joemamma]

Originally Posted by Silver Sonya

Now I learn that you have embraced the DAW world. I have as well, but I still use tape sometimes for its ability to absorb and tame sharp transient sounds.

To my ears, it would be difficult to arrive at such elegantly saturated results without tape. I'm not saying impossible, just difficult.

This is also my idea of tape. Or this is what I hear when using tape...
I hear the taming of sharp transient sounds, or a roundness to the sound. I hear a natural kind of compression. I hear depth, texture, and warmness.
And to be honest, I like all these qualities!

It is probably possible to imitate all these things with plug-ins and whatnot. But I'd rather have the real thing than an imitation! Plus it saves time for me! But whatever floats your boat!

[tchadb]

Originally Posted by Joemamma

This is also my idea of tape. Or this is what I hear when using tape...
I hear the taming of sharp transient sounds, or a roundness to the sound. I hear a natural kind of compression. I hear depth, texture, and warmness.
And to be honest, I like all these qualities!

It is probably possible to imitate all these things with plug-ins and whatnot. But I'd rather have the real thing than an imitation! Plus it saves time for me! But whatever floats your boat!

I hear that roundness as well. And sometimes it works. But if I'm already as round as I want to be do I need to be rounder?
I don't want to rely on it. I never felt I could anyway.
Please understand I'm not dissing tape, tape is wonderful. Sometimes it floats my boat, it's just not a requirement, for me.

[MHB850]

Originally Posted by tchad blake

OK. What can I say.
People visit my studio and say the same thing and there's no tape in sight.
Bottom line, I don't hear what you're talking about.
Some people hear perfect pitch to the point that when a cymbal is played and it's not in tune it detracts from the music and can render it unlistenable.
Not to me.
Maybe you and many others have the sonic equivalent of this. You really hear the bits or, lack of, or whatever.
I don't.
That's all I'm saying.
When I listen to music that effects me emotionally I just don't believe there's a few more ounces of emotion I would get if only it had been recorded and mixed to tape.
In the meantime, I'm not going to tune cymbals and I'm forging ahead with digital. It's only going to get better, but it won't if no one uses it now.

I agree with Tchad. First all tape quality(of what there is left to offer) isn't what it used to because they can't afford proper QC and cutting blades are sharpened only half as often. And then there is the problem of sound deterioration over a period of a couple weeks from print through and other issues related to a lack of QC. For me, having grown up on tape, I no longer assume mixing to 1/2" is a guaranteed glue factor. Sometimes the tape doesn't have the top end I like or the bottom end is muddy so I'll mix the album straight to digital. Other times tape enhances what i'm doing, but I can probably get the same result by adjusting a few things on the desk.

There is only one company..maybe two, that have taken over for the deceased. How long they will survive depends on how many thousands of rolls of tape they can keep selling. Since many of us generation tape babies no longer depend on that medium for mixdown and even less for recording, I'd say the likelihood of these companies being around in five years is...not great.

I can get an amazing sound by using a great converter and i'm no longer concerned about keeping my levels safe for tape. I can bring up my levels to the sweetspot of a dig converter. I think Tchad would agree that if you can really hear the difference between tape and digital, it's probably operator error. I can make a mix sound warm and fat as if it were recorded off the greatest recording heads and tape without the mix even sniffing a studer. Anyway, the way our records are mastered these days...why bother, but that's another story.

michael brauer

[tchadb]

Originally Posted by MHB850

I agree with Tchad. First all tape quality(of what there is left to offer) isn't what it used to because they can't afford proper QC and cutting blades are sharpened only half as often. And then there is the problem of sound deterioration over a period of a couple weeks from print through and other issues related to a lack of QC. For me, having grown up on tape, I no longer assume mixing to 1/2" is a guaranteed glue factor. Sometimes the tape doesn't have the top end I like or the bottom end is muddy so I'll mix the album straight to digital. Other times tape enhances what i'm doing, but I can probably get the same result by adjusting a few things on the desk.

There is only one company..maybe two, that have taken over for the deceased. How long they will survive depends on how many thousands of rolls of tape they can keep selling. Since many of us generation tape babies no longer depend on that medium for mixdown and even less for recording, I'd say the likelihood of these companies being around in five years is...not great.

I can get an amazing sound by using a great converter and i'm no longer concerned about keeping my levels safe for tape. I can bring up my levels to the sweetspot of a dig converter. I think Tchad would agree that if you can really hear the difference between tape and digital, it's probably operator error. I can make a mix sound warm and fat as if it were recorded off the greatest recording heads and tape without the mix even sniffing a studer. Anyway, the way our records are mastered these days...why bother, but that's another story.

michael brauer

Good on ya Michael. I forgot to mention the shorterm degradation.
THX

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by tchad blake

I hear that roundness as well ... But if I'm already as round as I want to be do I need to be rounder?

I assume that you get a lot of the "round" vibe in the tracking stage as many of us try to do with tubes, transformers, ribbon mics, Fatso's, Crane Song tape emulation, etc.

How do you handle tracks that you weren't involved in the recording of which haven't had the initial transients smoothed over well enough? It seems to me that this is the most difficult element of mixing digitally--the initial transient of percussive sounds. Tape used to take care of that automatically. Many of us didn't even know it was doing it and took it for granted until it was gone. It took me a long time to figure out why I couldn't get things to sound right when the studio I was working at replaced the tape machine with Adats, crappy converters aside.

I know that PT users have McDSP AC1/AC2, DUY Tape, Phoenix, Massey Tape Head, etc. which seem to help in this area. I'm locked out from those plugs due to working on Cubase. I like the Fatso for this and I use the tape emulation from a Crane Song Spider which helps a bit. Sony Inflator seems somewhat similar to Crane Song tape. Sony Transmod can be helpful sometimes as is the transient shaper plug which comes with Cubase 4. Those can help to knock off that initial transient which ends up accentuated even worse after all the requisite compression.

I'm always looking for a other options for how to handle this situation when mixing in the box though.

Thanks so much for sharing your expertise, Tchad.

Having you explain your way of working with drum tracks has helped me to rethink how to handle another common (for me) situation--mixing close miced drums with no room mics.

[davidwilson]

Hi Tchad
I greatly apreciate your outspoken words in this issue. The below statement from Michael I think also explains what some people are hearing.

Originally Posted by MHB850

I think Tchad would agree that if you can really hear the difference between tape and digital, it's probably operator error.

michael brauer

As I am somebody with no emotional connection with using tape (only having done so breifly while learning the trade) I cannot understand how recording everything through a giant unmaintained noisy compressor can be of any advantage. Don't we have the tools/ability to get what we want now during mixdown.

I don't think I have ever heard anyone say "I don't like that song, It sounds like it was recorded straight to digital".

Pleeeease give me a break.

I do understand however what has been refered to as sharp transient sounds but I do feel this can be tamed sufficantly in the mix.

It's refreshing having both Tchad and Michael who are both doing great work at the moment being prepared to voice what many others working professionally in this field will not because it ain't cool.

Much respect guys

[Russell Elevado]

Originally Posted by MHB850

I agree with Tchad. First all tape quality(of what there is left to offer) isn't what it used to because they can't afford proper QC and cutting blades are sharpened only half as often. And then there is the problem of sound deterioration over a period of a couple weeks from print through and other issues related to a lack of QC. For me, having grown up on tape, I no longer assume mixing to 1/2" is a guaranteed glue factor. Sometimes the tape doesn't have the top end I like or the bottom end is muddy so I'll mix the album straight to digital. Other times tape enhances what i'm doing, but I can probably get the same result by adjusting a few things on the desk.

There is only one company..maybe two, that have taken over for the deceased. How long they will survive depends on how many thousands of rolls of tape they can keep selling. Since many of us generation tape babies no longer depend on that medium for mixdown and even less for recording, I'd say the likelihood of these companies being around in five years is...not great.
I can get an amazing sound by using a great converter and i'm no longer concerned about keeping my levels safe for tape. I can bring up my levels to the sweetspot of a dig converter. I think Tchad would agree that if you can really hear the difference between tape and digital, it's probably operator error. I can make a mix sound warm and fat as if it were recorded off the greatest recording heads and tape without the mix even sniffing a studer. Anyway, the way our records are mastered these days...why bother, but that's another story.
michael brauer

hello michael and tchad,

i'm usually mastering from 1/2" and i'll edit the tape when i can. and i print my mixes off the repro head to an outboard A/D convertor then D/D into pro tools at the same time. more and more people are getting used to changing things after the mix is done. eg: using the master instrumental and a capella mixes together to change the vocal levels in a few spots or overdubs over the main mix. so some of my mixes end up being a pro tools master.

---what sampling rates do you guys use for your mixes?

cheers

[tchadb]

Originally Posted by Russell Elevado

hello michael and tchad,

i'm usually mastering from 1/2" and i'll edit the tape when i can. and i print my mixes off the repro head to an outboard A/D convertor then D/D into pro tools at the same time. more and more people are getting used to changing things after the mix is done. eg: using the master instrumental and a capella mixes together to change the vocal levels in a few spots or overdubs over the main mix. so some of my mixes end up being a pro tools master.

---what sampling rates do you guys use for your mixes?

cheers

Tell me about it. These days it's not finished until the shrinkwrap is on.
When I was mixing to SADiE (for most of the '90s) it was 24/44.1 because the crunching down from higher rates for ref CD's didn't sound good to me. It's much better now so I go with what I'm given in PT's for the most part. Usually 24/48, although Paul Simon/Suprise was recorded and mixed 24/44.1. Sounded good to me but you're talking to someone who thinks 16 bit sounds fine.

[brethes]

Originally Posted by tchad blake

Tell me about it. These days it's not finished until the shrinkwrap is on.
When I was mixing to SADiE (for most of the '90s) it was 24/44.1 because the crunching down from higher rates for ref CD's didn't sound good to me. It's much better now so I go with what I'm given in PT's for the most part. Usually 24/48, although Paul Simon/Suprise was recorded and mixed 24/44.1. Sounded good to me but you're talking to someone who thinks 16 bit sounds fine.

Hi Tchad,
Totally agree with you about the love/hate relationship with tape. After 20 years of working with tape and mixing through a desk, I now do (and have done for the past 4 years) all my work In The Box. At first it seemed a little harder (tape is SO much more forgiving for recording). Pro Tools HD, better converters and all the new generation of plug-ins helped the transition. The only thing I miss about tape is the smell of a new 2" reel in the morning. Certainly don't miss (in random order):having to line up & demagnetize a machine periodically (quite a pain on a Studer A80!), the tape hiss, the gradual loss of top end going through long project, the tracks limitation, waiting for two machines to sync up, the weight of a 2" reel, the shedding and sticky tape syndrome of older tapes...
The limitations of tape are what people seem to miss with digital, but it just means working with a different approach or frame of mind. One of the common error with digital is that the higher the sample rate, the better it will sound, leading to material with too much top end information. It is very easy to apply Low-pass filters and EQs to filter what is often unnecessary high frequency information, the same way as low end should be filtered on many instruments to achieve clarity and good separation.
The tape saturation effect if required is very easy to achieve with a selection of plug-ins (Duy tape, Cranesong Phoenix, the new Digi Tape..) The great advantage (and disadvantage!) of digital is that it doesn't impose a sound of its own and that its possibilities are endless.
As I work as well as a mastering engineer I know what can be done to achieve the "analog" sound with digital mixes, and while this could often be easily done by printing the mix through our superb Ampex ATR 102 half inch, I always end up doing this inside Pro Tools with the advantage of more choices, flexibility and the huge bonus of total recall if tweaks are required.
..But then, I am not one of those people who miss vinyl and argue about the superiority of Vinyl pressing over CD pressing.
Long live Digital (in the right hands!)

Thanks Tchad for giving us one of the most balanced opinion in this forum!

[tchadb]

Originally Posted by brethes@mac.com

Hi Tchad,
Totally agree with you about the love/hate relationship with tape. After 20 years of working with tape and mixing through a desk, I now do (and have done for the past 4 years) all my work In The Box. At first it seemed a little harder (tape is SO much more forgiving for recording). Pro Tools HD, better converters and all the new generation of plug-ins helped the transition. The only thing I miss about tape is the smell of a new 2" reel in the morning. Certainly don't miss (in random order):having to line up & demagnetize a machine periodically (quite a pain on a Studer A80!), the tape hiss, the gradual loss of top end going through long project, the tracks limitation, waiting for two machines to sync up, the weight of a 2" reel, the shedding and sticky tape syndrome of older tapes...
The limitations of tape are what people seem to miss with digital, but it just means working with a different approach or frame of mind. One of the common error with digital is that the higher the sample rate, the better it will sound, leading to material with too much top end information. It is very easy to apply Low-pass filters and EQs to filter what is often unnecessary high frequency information, the same way as low end should be filtered on many instruments to achieve clarity and good separation.
The tape saturation effect if required is very easy to achieve with a selection of plug-ins (Duy tape, Cranesong Phoenix, the new Digi Tape..) The great advantage (and disadvantage!) of digital is that it doesn't impose a sound of its own and that its possibilities are endless.
As I work as well as a mastering engineer I know what can be done to achieve the "analog" sound with digital mixes, and while this could often be easily done by printing the mix through our superb Ampex ATR 102 half inch, I always end up doing this inside Pro Tools with the advantage of more choices, flexibility and the huge bonus of total recall if tweaks are required.
..But then, I am not one of those people who miss vinyl and argue about the superiority of Vinyl pressing over CD pressing.
Long live Digital (in the right hands!)

Thanks Tchad for giving us one of the most balanced opinion in this forum!

Well put. THX for that.

[MHB850]

Originally Posted by Russell Elevado

hello michael and tchad,

i'm usually mastering from 1/2" and i'll edit the tape when i can. and i print my mixes off the repro head to an outboard A/D convertor then D/D into pro tools at the same time. more and more people are getting used to changing things after the mix is done. eg: using the master instrumental and a capella mixes together to change the vocal levels in a few spots or overdubs over the main mix. so some of my mixes end up being a pro tools master.

---what sampling rates do you guys use for your mixes?

cheers

i always go to 88.2 24 bit. it's makes it easier for the mastering engineer to knock it down to 44.1

[paterno]

Originally Posted by MHB850

i always go to 88.2 24 bit. it's makes it easier for the mastering engineer to knock it down to 44.1

Hello Michael --

If I'm not mistaken, sample rate converters these days upsample the source audio by a large factor and then downsample to the target rate. I'm not sure that the 'easier to knock down' logic still applies anymore. Good question for Mr Ludwig, I suppose.

For me, I always mix back into the ProTools session at the same sample rate of the session. If I have a choice , mixing off tape or to another digital format, I use 88.2/24 as well for the masters. For some reason, I like the sound a bit better than 96K. Wish I could explain why...

Cheers,
John

[zboy2854]

Tchad, Michael Brauer and Russell in the same thread...

Too...much...talent...thread...about to...explode...

[Mike Caffrey]

As far as I know, there is indisputable scientific proof that there is a difference in brain chemsitry when listening to music with the frequencies above 20k present.

I don't know that there's any proof or has even been an effort at evaluating whether those differences are significant, but a gogle search for "oohashi" will turn up fMRIs with distinctively different blood flow in the thalamus.

In an era where we are as highly aware of the effects of brain chemistry on our expereince of daily life, it's ironic that there's no real examination of the differences that Dr Oohashi has shown.


Not directly related, but certainly interesting for everyone here is a book called This IS Your Brain On Music, by Daniel Levitan.

[max cooper]

Someone sent that to me too.

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548

[MHB850]

Originally Posted by paterno

Hello Michael --

If I'm not mistaken, sample rate converters these days upsample the source audio by a large factor and then downsample to the target rate. I'm not sure that the 'easier to knock down' logic still applies anymore. Good question for Mr Ludwig, I suppose.

Cheers,
John

Hi john,

Good idea, so i did. Here is Bob's response:

Hi Michael,
Here is a reply you can post:
I favor using 88.2kHz for digital sources used for mastering compact discs and iTunes files.
I of course favor using 96kHz or 48kHz as a source for any video work or DVD-Video.

Below is pasted a quote from “the man” Daniel Weiss, co-creator of the world’s first sample rate converter made when he worked for Studer. You can see from his reply that IF you have a really good SFC there ultimately isn’t too much difference between 88.2k Hz to 44.1 kHz vs. 96k Hz to 44.1 kHz. See the link below it to “infinite wave” for real world 96k – 44.1k examples of different manufacturers SFCs. The results show that it is NOT so easy to get the good results going 96-44 as you can get from a 2:1 downsample of 88.2 kHz to 44.1 kHz. Ultimately it boils down to what sounds good. I had a client who ultimately preferred the ProTools “Tweakhead” SFC (not so hot as you can see below) to a much better SFC because they preferred the smear. You have to listen to every step to be sure it is as good as it can be, or at least sounds best to you for the job.

Dan Lavry from Lavry Engineering (dB Technologies) says for best sound, do SF conversions that are far apart in two stages.
He says to go from 96 kHz to 48 kHz as a 2:1 downsample and then go from 48 kHz to 44.1 kHz.

I agree, I’ve gotten the best results using cascaded dCS SFConverters from the UK which allow the user to choose the steepness of the aliasing filter from textbook sharp to fairly relaxed with up to 4 different filters depending on the conversion.
dCS "World Leaders in Digital Audio Conversion Technology"
Good luck!
Bob


(From Daniel Weiss interview in Gearslutz 2006

What is the best sample rate for recording?

I guess you are alluding to the 48 kHz vs. 96 kHz discussion from earlier. Many would say that it is easier to scale down from 88.2 kHz to 44.1 kHz than from 96 kHz to 44.1 kHz. It does take more effort to scale down from 96 kHz to 44.1 kHz; as bigger filters are needed.
*A sample rate converter is basically a low-pass filter, with the respective management of the coefficient of the filter(digital filters).*
When converting from 88.2 kHz to 44.1 kHz, one must use a low-pass filter that separates at 22.05 kHz. When converting from 96 kHz to 44.1 kHz, there are more filter coefficients, and, as a result, more memory is required. That is a disadvantage, but not a huge one in and of itself. The conversion from 96 kHz to 44.1 kHz can absolutely be as good as one that converts from 88.2 to 44.1 kHz. A bit more resources are required, but in these days, that is no problem.

There can be sound differences among various converters, depending on the sampling rate used, because, as stated before, the sample rate is converted at the input, by the implementation of filters. These filters vary from brand to brand. With the various filters come artifacts, and different sound results.

SRC Comparisons
******************************************************************************************
The dCS 974 DDC (Digital to Digital Converter) is a very high performance and versatile unit designed for recording and mastering studios, where conversion between a wide range of digital audio formats and interfaces is required.

[tchadb]

Originally Posted by MHB850

Hi john,

Good idea, so i did. Here is Bob's response:

Hi Michael,
Here is a reply you can post:
I favor using 88.2kHz for digital sources used for mastering compact discs and iTunes files.
I of course favor using 96kHz or 48kHz as a source for any video work or DVD-Video.

Below is pasted a quote from “the man” Daniel Weiss, co-creator of the world’s first sample rate converter made when he worked for Studer. You can see from his reply that IF you have a really good SFC there ultimately isn’t too much difference between 88.2k Hz to 44.1 kHz vs. 96k Hz to 44.1 kHz. See the link below it to “infinite wave” for real world 96k – 44.1k examples of different manufacturers SFCs. The results show that it is NOT so easy to get the good results going 96-44 as you can get from a 2:1 downsample of 88.2 kHz to 44.1 kHz. Ultimately it boils down to what sounds good. I had a client who ultimately preferred the ProTools “Tweakhead” SFC (not so hot as you can see below) to a much better SFC because they preferred the smear. You have to listen to every step to be sure it is as good as it can be, or at least sounds best to you for the job.

Dan Lavry from Lavry Engineering (dB Technologies) says for best sound, do SF conversions that are far apart in two stages.
He says to go from 96 kHz to 48 kHz as a 2:1 downsample and then go from 48 kHz to 44.1 kHz.

I agree, I’ve gotten the best results using cascaded dCS SFConverters from the UK which allow the user to choose the steepness of the aliasing filter from textbook sharp to fairly relaxed with up to 4 different filters depending on the conversion.
dCS "World Leaders in Digital Audio Conversion Technology"
Good luck!
Bob


(From Daniel Weiss interview in Gearslutz 2006

What is the best sample rate for recording?

I guess you are alluding to the 48 kHz vs. 96 kHz discussion from earlier. Many would say that it is easier to scale down from 88.2 kHz to 44.1 kHz than from 96 kHz to 44.1 kHz. It does take more effort to scale down from 96 kHz to 44.1 kHz; as bigger filters are needed.
*A sample rate converter is basically a low-pass filter, with the respective management of the coefficient of the filter(digital filters).*
When converting from 88.2 kHz to 44.1 kHz, one must use a low-pass filter that separates at 22.05 kHz. When converting from 96 kHz to 44.1 kHz, there are more filter coefficients, and, as a result, more memory is required. That is a disadvantage, but not a huge one in and of itself. The conversion from 96 kHz to 44.1 kHz can absolutely be as good as one that converts from 88.2 to 44.1 kHz. A bit more resources are required, but in these days, that is no problem.

There can be sound differences among various converters, depending on the sampling rate used, because, as stated before, the sample rate is converted at the input, by the implementation of filters. These filters vary from brand to brand. With the various filters come artifacts, and different sound results.

SRC Comparisons
******************************************************************************************
The dCS 974 DDC (Digital to Digital Converter) is a very high performance and versatile unit designed for recording and mastering studios, where conversion between a wide range of digital audio formats and interfaces is required.

That's great info I'm sure but I just did some various conversions as stated within a stock PT's rig and really tried to hear the difference. At moments, sitting right in front of the speakers, I could, but still couldn't decide which was better/worse.
I listened to some mixes I did years ago to SADiE at 16 bit 44.1 and they don't sound worse to me now I've heard 24/96.
All that said, I'm glad there's people out there really into this stuff. It means I don't have to worry about it, until I hear it.

[paterno]

thanks for the research Michael! I sit corrected...

Will you be at Tape Op this year? I'll introduce myself if you are...

Cheers,
John

[brethes]

Originally Posted by tchad blake

That's great info I'm sure but I just did some various conversions as stated within a stock PT's rig and really tried to hear the difference. At moments, sitting right in front of the speakers, I could, but still couldn't decide which was better/worse.
I listened to some mixes I did years ago to SADiE at 16 bit 44.1 and they don't sound worse to me now I've heard 24/96.
All that said, I'm glad there's people out there really into this stuff. It means I don't have to worry about it, until I hear it.

Yes indeed! Life is too short to spend hours trying to decide which conversion sounds best as it is all subjective. We're talking about music here, and distortion in various guises (tape, tube, overloading pre-amps & effects) is part of the sound we've grown to like since the early days of recording.
I do find also slightly ironical that most projects that I get in 88,2/96Khz for mastering come from inexperienced bands who seem to care more about sampling rates than how in tune the vocals are or how squashed the mixes already are before they are sent for mastering.

[tchadb]

Originally Posted by Brendan

I assume that you get a lot of the "round" vibe in the tracking stage as many of us try to do with tubes, transformers, ribbon mics, Fatso's, Crane Song tape emulation, etc.

How do you handle tracks that you weren't involved in the recording of which haven't had the initial transients smoothed over well enough? It seems to me that this is the most difficult element of mixing digitally--the initial transient of percussive sounds. Tape used to take care of that automatically. Many of us didn't even know it was doing it and took it for granted until it was gone. It took me a long time to figure out why I couldn't get things to sound right when the studio I was working at replaced the tape machine with Adats, crappy converters aside.

I know that PT users have McDSP AC1/AC2, DUY Tape, Phoenix, Massey Tape Head, etc. which seem to help in this area. I'm locked out from those plugs due to working on Cubase. I like the Fatso for this and I use the tape emulation from a Crane Song Spider which helps a bit. Sony Inflator seems somewhat similar to Crane Song tape. Sony Transmod can be helpful sometimes as is the transient shaper plug which comes with Cubase 4. Those can help to knock off that initial transient which ends up accentuated even worse after all the requisite compression.

I'm always looking for a other options for how to handle this situation when mixing in the box though.

Thanks so much for sharing your expertise, Tchad.

Having you explain your way of working with drum tracks has helped me to rethink how to handle another common (for me) situation--mixing close miced drums with no room mics.

Cool.
I'm not sure what it is precisely. It must be a combination of compression and eq which I use without discretion. I've started using McDSP Analog Channel, Massey Tape Head and Phoenix which are all great for different reasons. I just keep chosing one until it works for me.