2inch Analog Recording VS Hardware Recording?

[Checkmate Muzik]

2inch Analog Recording VS Hardware Recording?

What do you engineers like more & why?

Whats the pros and cons? Does tape has a more warmer sound?

Is there a big difference in sound quality?

Does analog has a bigger sound? more control over bass? more punch?

I know tapes are expensive but i am willin to give it a shot. Engineers school me in please

[Mike Derrick]

All things being equal before hitting recording medium...

Yes, tape has a warmer sound.

Tape will give you added harmonic content and tape compression, which provides the warmth and bigger sound.

Yes drums and bass will have that added extra punch using analog tape.

"more control over bass..." <--- not sure what you mean by that.

All that said, some great sounds can also be achieved with Hardware recording, but make sure you are using the best possible audio to digital converters.

Regardless, just go make a great album with great performances.

~ mike

[Checkmate Muzik]

Originally Posted by Mike Derrick

All things being equal before hitting recording medium...

Yes, tape has a warmer sound.

Tape will give you added harmonic content and tape compression, which provides the percieved warmth and bigger sound.

Yes drums and bass will have that added extra punch using analog tape.

"more control over bass..." <--- not sure what you mean by that.

All that said, some great sounds can also be achieved with Hardware recording, but make sure you are using the best possible audio to digital converters.

Regardless, just go make a great album with great performances.

~ mike

"More control over bass", i basically meant the same thing; would it give it more punch to kick/snare/bass?, more control over EQ? better compression or better overall BIG sound? but u already answered that

Dre kicks, snares and the whole recording music has a very fuller feel. has a lot of meat. i was wondering it was achieved by recording on analog.

i plan to use Quantegy 499 tapes.

[Polyphony]

Originally Posted by Checkmate Muzik

"More control over bass", i basically meant the same thing; would it give it more punch to kick/snare/bass?, more control over EQ? better compression or better overall BIG sound? but u already answered that

Dre kicks, snares and the whole recording music has a very fuller feel. has a lot of meat. i was wondering it was achieved by recording on analog.

i plan to use Quantegy 499 tapes.

You could always just use half inch tape to print your 2track its cheaper and your still hitting tape.....2inch...hard to find and hella expensive....

[Musiclab]

Originally Posted by Checkmate Muzik

"More control over bass", i basically meant the same thing; would it give it more punch to kick/snare/bass?, more control over EQ? better compression or better overall BIG sound? but u already answered that

Dre kicks, snares and the whole recording music has a very fuller feel. has a lot of meat. i was wondering it was achieved by recording on analog.

i plan to use Quantegy 499 tapes.

try GP9 you can hit it a bit harder.

[cynic]

from what i've read (no i don't own one yet...****ing taxes) is skip the tape / reel 2 reel and snag a fatso............

that's what i plan to do at least.

[dtrax]

Originally Posted by Checkmate Muzik

2inch Analog Recording VS Hardware Recording?

What do you engineers like more & why?

Whats the pros and cons? Does tape has a more warmer sound?

Is there a big difference in sound quality?

Does analog has a bigger sound? more control over bass? more punch?

I know tapes are expensive but i am willin to give it a shot. Engineers school me in please

i prefer 2inch because it seperates the bedroom engineers from the real ones.

pros: the smell of tape. and it sounds pretty farkin' cool
cons: having to wait for tape to rewind (just kidding)

the difference in sound quality is proportional to cost/quality. an mbox doesn't hold a candle a studer A80, but a 16trk 1/2" doesn't sound nearly as good as PTHD.

i think 2" can be punchier due to saturation, something that is missing in digital. perhaps this can be taken as 'warmth', 'punch', etc... also, tape machines have their own frequency response, and compared to a digital system, it's hardly flat. recording at 15ips will give you an extra octave on the low end (compared to 30ips), but will 'warm up' your hi's (read: hi frequency loss).

if i were you i'd book a session at a studio that has a good 2" machine, track a song there, and see if you like the sound. our responses only represent what WE experience, not you.

[Polyphony]

the difference in sound quality is proportional to cost/quality. an mbox doesn't hold a candle a studer A80, but a 16trk 1/2" doesn't sound nearly as good as PTHD.

I have to disagree with you on this point....I've done AB tests and half inch sounds better sometimes depending on the song and yes sometime PTHD sounds better....it all depends on the over all harmonic tone of the song...however never done it with a 16track 1/2' only a 2 track...

[Checkmate Muzik]

Originally Posted by dtrax

i prefer 2inch because it seperates the bedroom engineers from the real ones.

pros: the smell of tape. and it sounds pretty farkin' cool
cons: having to wait for tape to rewind (just kidding)

the difference in sound quality is proportional to cost/quality. an mbox doesn't hold a candle a studer A80, but a 16trk 1/2" doesn't sound nearly as good as PTHD.

i think 2" can be punchier due to saturation, something that is missing in digital. perhaps this can be taken as 'warmth', 'punch', etc... also, tape machines have their own frequency response, and compared to a digital system, it's hardly flat. recording at 15ips will give you an extra octave on the low end (compared to 30ips), but will 'warm up' your hi's (read: hi frequency loss).

if i were you i'd book a session at a studio that has a good 2" machine, track a song there, and see if you like the sound. our responses only represent what WE experience, not you.

No doubt. The studio i go to gota Otari MTR-90II 2" 24 Track, looks pretty nice. I was just tryin to see how other engineers felt about it and if its worth to spend that extra money. I can go either way analog/digital. i guess i am gona have to try it out

[GL Respect Due]

In my opinion, recording on a properly maintained 1" or 2" machine beats to death any digital recording medium.. regardless of converters, software, plug-ins. It isn't a percieved warmth, it is warmer. It's rounder, it's less clinical, it's less definition, it's more forgiving, it's smoother, it's punchier. On the flips ide, if you want louder, clinical, overly defined, brighter, sharper, crisper, "perfection".. digital is where it's at. Or you can fuse them both, which is what I do. Digital editing, analog mixing/recording.

[Polyphony]

Originally Posted by GL Respect Due

In my opinion, recording on a properly maintained 1" or 2" machine beats to death any digital recording medium.. regardless of converters, software, plug-ins. It isn't a percieved warmth, it is warmer. It's rounder, it's less clinical, it's less definition, it's more forgiving, it's smoother, it's punchier. On the flips ide, if you want louder, clinical, overly defined, brighter, sharper, crisper, "perfection".. digital is where it's at. Or you can fuse them both, which is what I do. Digital editing, analog mixing/recording.

lol.....but who wants perfection...lol its music...

I agree tho I fuse them together aswell

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by Checkmate Muzik

2inch Analog Recording VS Hardware Recording?

What do you engineers like more & why?

Whats the pros and cons? Does tape has a more warmer sound?

Is there a big difference in sound quality?

Does analog has a bigger sound? more control over bass? more punch?

I know tapes are expensive but i am willin to give it a shot. Engineers school me in please

Its more than the questions above.


The so called "Big sound" really comes from the production and mixing engineer.


First of all not all tape machines are created equal.


If you layed the same drums down to a Studer,Otari and SONY MCI each one would sound different.


Some skew and handle the transients differently.


This is could be a good or bad thing depending on the machine.


Yeah it may beef it up(roll of the transients) but what if you need the snare to poke someone's eyes out?


Digital for all its flaws handles transients really well.


Also you can't just lay it down and expect it to sound magical.


You need the right weapons along the way to maximize the sound.


But in a different way than the way we track to digital today.


I do agree you must try it for yourself.

[dtrax]

Originally Posted by Polyphony

the difference in sound quality is proportional to cost/quality. an mbox doesn't hold a candle a studer A80, but a 16trk 1/2" doesn't sound nearly as good as PTHD.

I have to disagree with you on this point....I've done AB tests and half inch sounds better sometimes depending on the song and yes sometime PTHD sounds better....it all depends on the over all harmonic tone of the song...however never done it with a 16track 1/2' only a 2 track...

track width of an ATR affects the dynamic range, S/N ratio, and frequency response... which is why many prefer the sound of 2" 16trk over 2" 24trk.

1/2" 2trk is a wonderful thing

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by dtrax

1/2" 2trk is a wonderful thing

Not all the time.

For some songs 1/4" is prefered.


And it was the format that a lot of the best songs in history were done on.

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

You need the right weapons along the way to maximize the sound.


But in a different way than the way we track to digital today.

Thrill, please elaborate (though I have a theory about what you'll say, I'd like to hear it anyway)

I'm beginning to like digital a whole lot more. But also learning that I'll probably be collecting outboard till death

I'm beginning to track almost EXACTLY what I need from sounds during tracking instead of waiting. And I think it's been effective.

Also, I agree the myth of making stuff sound "big" has alot to do with the PRODUCTION/tracking/engineering

It's a matter of knowing/ hearing what you want and finding the chain of pieces that will make that happen. It's trial and error with some constant learning thrown in.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

Thrill, please elaborate (though I have a theory about what you'll say, I'd like to hear it anyway)

I'm beginning to like digital a whole lot more. But also learning that I'll probably be collecting outboard till death

I'm beginning to track almost EXACTLY what I need from sounds during tracking instead of waiting. And I think it's been effective.

Also, I agree the myth of making stuff sound "big" has alot to do with the PRODUCTION/tracking/engineering

It's a matter of knowing/ hearing what you want and finding the chain of pieces that will make that happen. It's trial and error with some constant learning thrown in.

Back in the day when we tracked keys to tape the biggest goal was preserving the tape so in the mixdown it wouldn't get worn down.


So in order to do so we processed the keys on their way to tape(well i did anyway) so when you played it back you wouldn't have to do as much(sound familiar) and wear the thing out.


This usually meant EQ, compression and gates if need be.


And not your run of the mill varieties.



We are talking Neve's,Pultecs,La2a's, the ususal suspects basically.


API's i would use if i had to bounce tracks down(drums for example).


Yes we were mixing while tracking.


I know a novel concept.


We had to though because alot of the keys didn't sound as good as they do today.

[Checkmate Muzik]

I was just thinkin about tracking it on 2inch and dumping everything into protools afterwards so you still have that tape sound.

is there such thing as top of the line analog recorders or they all pretty much good sony, otari, etc?

im well aware your music has to sound good before you track it and it has to be tracked well. i got all that taken cared off. im just curious to hear how different its gona sound and how much better its gona be vs digital

i noticed some engineers dont even like tapes cause they think its movin backwards and you gota move with times..

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by Checkmate Muzik

is there such thing as top of the line analog recorders or they all pretty much good sony, otari, etc?

Studers and Ampexes.


Next on the list would be Otari and Sony MCI.


And when you dump tape to ProTools it loses its "mojo" so that is another thing to deal with.

[Checkmate Muzik]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

And when you dump tape to ProTools it loses its "mojo" so that is another thing to deal with.

can you elaborate a little more?


also how many times you can record over the same song before thet tape starts losin its quality. 2 ,3, 4?

[Polyphony]

I was once told by an old and wise engineer that the more options you have the better.....in other words, if you can afford it, print thru apogee A/D, PTHD, 2', 1/2inch, and 1/4inch and so on ....all at the same time......that way you have multiple options when it comes to mastering......the problem with this thread is there is no definite answer some songs sound better through each and every option.....

its been said over and over....nothing beats doing a gazillion....that way you can form your own opinion
good luck,

[Polyphony]

Originally Posted by Checkmate Muzik

can you elaborate a little more?


also how many times you can record over the same song before thet tape starts losin its quality. 2 ,3, 4?

I've been on sessions where I couldn't telll you how many times we reprinted on the same tape.....thats how many times we did it.....did it lose quality probably but we where using it as an effect.....

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by Checkmate Muzik

can you elaborate a little more?

In the conversion from analog to digital the 3D dimensionality gets loss some how.


Its hard to describe but its easy to hear.


You go from...


to....


Sometimes its sucks, sometimes its ok and sometimes you don't have a choice.

Originally Posted by Checkmate Muzik

also how many times you can record over the same song before thet tape starts losin its quality. 2 ,3, 4?

It depends on a couple of things.


To me the magic number was always 4.

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

In the conversion from analog to digital the 3D dimensionality gets loss some how.

I always notice that, but I just don't know why though.

[Checkmate Muzik]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

In the conversion from analog to digital the 3D dimensionality gets loss some how.


Its hard to describe but its easy to hear.


You go from...


to....


Sometimes its sucks, sometimes its ok and sometimes you don't have a choice.




It depends on a couple of things.


To me the magic number was always 4.

hmmmmmm.. i am gona bring that up with my engineer, i didnt know about all that. thats how i was plannin on doing for editing purposes and just doin the beat on there. there is no way around it without havin to sacraficing the sound if i dump the files?? is it a drastic sound difference or is it minor?

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by Checkmate Muzik

is it a drastic sound difference or is it minor?

It depends who you ask.


To some its ok and to some its drastic.


But you will have to compromise either way.


The necessary conversion needed to retain as much of the dimensionality coming off tape is too expensive for even the bigger studios.


Most guys either work all the way off the tape or at some point decide that to focus on the fact that it doesn't sound the same playing back from PT won't help them work any faster.

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

Back in the day when we tracked keys to tape the biggest goal was preserving the tape so in the mixdown it wouldn't get worn down.


So in order to do so we processed the keys on their way to tape(well i did anyway) so when you played it back you wouldn't have to do as much(sound familiar) and wear the thing out.


This usually meant EQ, compression and gates if need be.


And not your run of the mill varieties.



We are talking Neve's,Pultecs,La2a's, the ususal suspects basically.


API's i would use if i had to bounce tracks down(drums for example).


Yes we were mixing while tracking.


I know a novel concept.


We had to though because alot of the keys didn't sound as good as they do today.

Sorry, Thrill now that I actually READ your first few posts, LOL I knew exactly what you meant. in terms of what's needed to make analog work. What I should have been asking is Aren't those same things needed to make digital work? Of course the settings would vary because with analog we had low end bump and hi freq roll off from the tape itself. And also we'd have to compensate some for tape hiss.

But with digital what are you doing differently when you track (was what I actually meant) I find that I miss the low bump/hi roll off and I end up compensating for it in the mix with filters(not so much the roll off though). Lately I've been just doing it during tracking instead of waiting. I figure if you are gonna make a record then you should make a record from the 1st time you press record.


What do you do differnt with digital?

[Midlandmorgan]

I hate asking this, as it is slightly OT, but...

There are conflicting stories (still) about the availablity of new tape in all sizes..some say Quantagy, et al are down for the final count, others say that quality tape is still being made in sufficient quantities to be considered a viable media...

So, which is it? Is there a readily available supply of 1", 2", and 1/4" tape out there or not? Seems that if the tape manufacturers have all but disappeared, this entire thread is moot.

[HDGuru]

2" sounds awesome but you really have to know what your doing, have a great 2" machine, and the front end to make it worth the effort. Dumping stuff to tape, then back to the DAW doesnt really give you the 2" sound, as much of that is derived from interplay / crosstalk between the tape tracks, the mixing console, and the outboard gear. Not really worth it in the end unless you have unlimited time. Expect to pay somewhere in the neighborhood of 350 bucks for 15 mins of 24 track tape.

[nukmusic]

Originally Posted by dtrax

i prefer 2inch because it seperates the bedroom engineers from the real ones.

Humm 'Ol really.......I knew some "Real Ones" that had analog decks, but couldn't correctly mix down a session with 3 audio tracks to save their life....LOL

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

What do you do different with digital?

best question of the century!! This should be a whole topic. I really think folks don't realize that some things has to be don't a little differently. But me myself wouldnt trade digital editing for analog sound...wish we could have both

Originally Posted by HDGuru

Expect to pay somewhere in the neighborhood of 350 bucks for 15 mins of 24 track tape.

...."Thoseee were the daysssss....and you know when you.."

[GL Respect Due]

I can only speak on 2" tape, but my understanding is that Quantegy has a German distibutor that is actively building different formats/sizes of tape. They quoted me $250 for a reel of 499. $195 for 456 (which I prefer to print to). I agree you can hit 499 hotter, but that doesn't always translate very well. I like the "softer" sound of the 456 tape. To answer your question though, tape isn't going anywhere. How can it? Don't belive that industry hype about digital taking over and being the wave of the future. Thats whats wrong with music, it's all about the bottomline now. Their sales pitch is always, "Keep cost down, digital recording is faster, spend less, get more". Or something like that. My man runs a Guitar Center in the Bay area. He told me they don't make much of any money off anything except software sales - which is why they push digital recording/software so hard on they're customers. Think about it, after the software interface is designed.. the only cost is updates on errors that users find and the CD/DVD + packaging costs. They're overhead is extremely low compared to hardware developers, and they're profits are like 500% higher. Likewise, the whole outboard trend is out of fuc-ing control too. You got cats damn near building consoles from the outside in. Like backwords. The plus side is lots of sound options, rather then being constricted to one desk. It's a preference thing, but I think the uniform sound of mixing an LP through one desk w/ minimal outboard yields the best results. Look at Willie Mitchell and the Al Green stuff. He used an MCI 428 desk, MCI JH16 2" machine, (2) Pultec EQP1A's, an LA2A, and a RCA DX77. More or less, that was his entire setup. To wrap this all up, 2" just has a vibe that can't be fronted on. All these 1's and 0's got the world going crazy. Take it back to the essence.