Who here actually prefers digital?

[eligit]

while it is true that you will not sound like zeppelin just because you use tape.....i think it is equally fair to say that if nigel godrich had used digital for sea change and in rainbows...those albums would not have sounded as nice.

[Sigma]

Originally Posted by T_R_S

Analog only seem to be popular here in the virtual recording world.
Otherwise 2 inch Studer's would sell for more than they do.
My Studer sitting in my studio is worth nothing anymore ....
Not many people really care about analog recorders anymore especially when you tell the tape is going to cost $1500.00 (or more) for their project.
Keeping all those takes and splicing it all together, biasing tracks deferent, alignments mechanical and electrical, maintaining the machines, crosstalk on tracks, noise, unwanted distortion etc, etc.

I LIKE YOU!

[bunnerabb]

Originally Posted by Ben B

You really feel that way? You don't hear any tonal change or effect on transients when recording to 2"? I most definitely do. Perhaps we define "color" in different ways, but I struggle to see where you're coming from on this one.

A properly set up 2" machine will deliver what you put into it.

I have found that it's not so much that analogue adds something as digital leaves something out.

I can use either, but tape gives a depth of field that I cannot get in digital.

[Sigma]

Originally Posted by bunnerabb

A properly set up 2" machine will deliver what you put into it.

close but no cigar

[joelpatterson]

(And here I am feeling like an old-timer because I know what a BRC is!)

[bunnerabb]

Originally Posted by Sigma

close but no cigar

I assure you, quite a huge, f*ckoff, smooth, Cuban cigar.

You just dismissed me because I don't agree with you.

Meh... I can live with that.

[bionic brown]

Originally Posted by bunnerabb

A properly set up 2" machine will deliver what you put into it.

I have found that it's not so much that analogue adds something as digital leaves something out.

I can use either, but tape gives a depth of field that I cannot get in digital.

Can you explain depth of field? Why is it not something that's measured in specs? Like, when I go to buy a console, why does it not have a spec for depth of field? I'm not so much concentrating on specs, I'm more concentrating on something that is measurable.

Like this for instance:
Online Depth of Field Calculator

This is an online depth of field calculator. Could this be devised for audio?

[eligit]

^^

something that is measurable.....hmmm

i can usually measure the amount of time i can pleasurably listen to a given release.....and then count the number of times i listen to the album again.

strangely enough....it is always the albums recorded to tape that i listen to with the most pleasure and then listen to again.....and it is the modern clean digital albums that produce less audio pleasure and fewer repeat listens.

joke.

kinda.

[Sinewave]

Originally Posted by eligit

while it is true that you will not sound like zeppelin just because you use tape.....i think it is equally fair to say that if nigel godrich had used digital for sea change and in rainbows...those albums would not have sounded as nice.

Maybe so , but if you never knew that they were recorded using Analog tape would the music be any less great ? do you think that Dire straits would of sounded any better than they did for Brothers In Arms if they were recorded to tape .

[bunnerabb]

Originally Posted by bionic brown

Can you explain depth of field? Why is it not something that's measured in specs? Like, when I go to buy a console, why does it not have a spec for depth of field? I'm not so much concentrating on specs, I'm more concentrating on something that is measurable.

Beats me. It's something I can hear as the tracks begin stacking up.

It's just me using my ears.

I never learned to mix from specs and I can't really explain it as a piece of math.

All I know is I can do the same mix in the digital domain and then the analogue domain and get a much less 2D result OTB.

I ain't selling anything, just my take.

[mtstudios@charter]

There is a characteristic tape brings that can be forgiving to harsh transients, be it overhead, ld gtr or vocal. All in all, in a b tests I have found when recorded properly, digital to be my preferable choice. Although, I admit I do enjoy a 1/2 inch master.

Blue Thumb Productions-Audio Production Facilities

[eligit]

Originally Posted by Sinewave

Maybe so , but if you never knew that they were recorded using Analog tape would the music be any less great ? do you think that Dire straits would of sounded any better than they did for Brothers In Arms if they were recorded to tape .

it is a valid question.

i cannot honestly answer it.

it just seems to be a pattern.....when there is an album i really like the sound of....almost every single time it was recorded to tape.

i would have to go back and listen to brothers in arms to give an opinion on that one.

however here is a quote from knopfler himself...in 2005:

Knopfler....prefers to record with two 16-track head stacks on linked Studer 800s

[Sigma]

Originally Posted by bunnerabb

I assure you, quite a huge, f*ckoff, smooth, Cuban cigar.

You just dismissed me because I don't agree with you.

Meh... I can live with that.

no i dismiss you because i worked on meticulosly alingned and maintained machines.. tape has much more coloration than current high end digital technology

why were bass and kick generally recorded on track 1 or 24...

have a clue what asperity is and how it affects recordings?

go read some MRL reference PDF's and learn about azimuth "swing" and mechanical limitations

tape width variations between manufactures and head "burn in"?

the list can go on and on

[analogtodd]

Originally Posted by poncival

I am working on a prototype of an analog ipod:

The top one is the 30 GB model

The bottom one is the 60 GB

WHOAAA!!!
Can I get one in green?

[T_R_S]

Originally Posted by bunnerabb

A properly set up 2" machine will deliver what you put into it.

I have found that it's not so much that analogue adds something as digital leaves something out.

I can use either, but tape gives a depth of field that I cannot get in digital.

Do you own a 2 inch Machine?
How many years have you spent using analog?

[chet.d]

Originally Posted by eligit

while it is true that you will not sound like zeppelin just because you use tape.....i think it is equally fair to say that if nigel godrich had used digital for sea change and in rainbows...those albums would not have sounded as nice.

My bottom line - If I had the budget...I'd be damn pleased to work w/ the brilliant Nigel Godrich and record in a great studio w/ a great room, great gear, and manipulate in digital post analog, great mastering etc. ie; Ofcourse analog is an very valuable tool...It's part of the reason so much music... (especially from Nashville in the early 70's...3-4 trk 2 inch?) sounds sooo pleasing to me.

"If" I had the budget and the means I'd be calling Nigel... But I do not and will have to do the best I can w/ what I have. A few good pre's, mics, and decent converters into dig.

Ultimately,
I believe the songs, arrangements, room, players, mic position matter so much more. Ofcourse pretty much everyone already knows that. Still, in my "opinion" analog can be a very pleasing "part" of the picture. We make the best of what we got at that time.

[drBill]

Originally Posted by bionic brown

Like, when I go to buy a console, why does it not have a spec for depth of field?

Check the phase spec for a console. From any input to any output, how skewed is the phase by the time it exits the console. The best phase spec of any production console I know is the CAD Maxconn. A nightmare in many other ways, but the way it is designed, it passes audio very linearly (if that's the right word.). The next best phase spec I've seen is in the D&R series, because they phase correlated each individual circuit, then again as they assembled the signal path, checking and adjusting at each stage as opposed to designing the whole thing then trying to change out a few parts to improve the linearity of the design. (Fairly standard EE practice.) They ended up testing significantly better than the SSL/Neve desks of similar generations. Why? Because generally speaking, less and better designed electronics yeild a better phase spec. A better phase spec yeilds better width and depth of field. BUT, you have to balance that out with functionality (ie: more stuff) on a console. (SSL's and Neves have a buttload of circuits. Try pulling a module and taking a look.) Sorry this isn't more scientific, but it's the best I got. It's pretty freaking rare that any manufacturer will actually print a phase spec though....

[theblue1]

When I read people say that they think tape has less coloration than digital (mind you, I have no quarrel -- how could I? -- with people who say they simply prefer the sound of tape), I find myself wondering just how many of these folks frequently listen to real live acoustic instruments in performance -- besides, let's say, the occasional acoustic guitar -- outside the studio, without amplification of any kind?

How many have listened to a string quartet in a good room, lately? An orchestra? Or heard an all-acoustic jazz combo?

I really get the feeling that at least some folks are simply using the recordings they've grown up with as the sonic standard of reality... and by that measure, yeah, tape sounds the most like reality... a reality based on tape.

[littlenemo]

My feeling is you can acheive great sound easily with a 24 or 16 track 2" analog tape machine, even with the cheapest you can get on the used market like MCI or Otari.
It's very difficult to get great results with cheap converters, and good ones are VERY expensive (I mean apogee, mytek, lynx, etc...) plus you have to add the price of the computer, software, etc.
Of course, in the long run analog is expensive because of the tape costs. I don't think maintenance is more expensive with analog, because you often have trouble with computers and if you can't fix the problems yourself, computer techs charge as much as electronics techs and you get the same downtime.
For example a config with a Macpro and 16i/os of apogee converters with symphony interface and logic will get you in the $10k range to have a great sounding digital setup.
You can now buy a MCI JH16 16 track for around $3-4k in great condition or an Ampex mm1200 for 5-6k and you'll get a killer 16 track recorder. I don't know if it will sound better than the expensive digital setup, it's probably a matter of taste but it's cheaper...
I've never used RADAR, even if I heard a lot of good opinions, but they're not cheap either...
I'm just talking of the recording medium here because I really think summing ITB is not working as good as analog. - yet

[vernier]

It's not analog that's in question.

[eligit]

Originally Posted by chet.d

My bottom line - If I had the budget...I'd be damn pleased to work w/ the brilliant Nigel Godrich and record in a great studio w/ a great room, great gear, and manipulate in digital post analog, great mastering etc. ie; Ofcourse analog is an very valuable tool...It's part of the reason so much music... (especially from Nashville in the early 70's...3-4 trk 2 inch?) sounds sooo pleasing to me.

"If" I had the budget and the means I'd be calling Nigel... But I do not and will have to do the best I can w/ what I have. A few good pre's, mics, and decent converters into dig.

Ultimately,
I believe the songs, arrangements, room, players, mic position matter so much more. Ofcourse pretty much everyone already knows that. Still, in my "opinion" analog can be a very pleasing "part" of the picture. We make the best of what we got at that time.

sounds sensible......

the only reason to even discuss it here in a forum for recordists....is that majority of these crucial elements (songs, arrangements, players) are not really under your control.....unless you are only recording your own band or something.

[LewisWu]

Originally Posted by theblue1

a reality based on tape.

[bcgood]

The proof is in the pudding for me. As yet I still haven't heard ANY album that was digitally tracked that comes close to the sonic clarity and dimension of my favorite tape tracked albums. My ears don't lie! If you know of an album that was recorded all digital that you think sounds better than albums that where tracked on good old analogue tape, let me know, I'd love to hear it.

Peace and Dove

[Drumsound]

Originally Posted by theblue1

When I read people say that they think tape has less coloration than digital (mind you, I have no quarrel -- how could I? -- with people who say they simply prefer the sound of tape), I find myself wondering just how many of these folks frequently listen to real live acoustic instruments in performance -- besides, let's say, the occasional acoustic guitar -- outside the studio, without amplification of any kind?

How many have listened to a string quartet in a good room, lately? An orchestra? Or heard an all-acoustic jazz combo?

I really get the feeling that at least some folks are simply using the recordings they've grown up with as the sonic standard of reality... and by that measure, yeah, tape sounds the most like reality... a reality based on tape.

I actually have heard an orchestrs, a jazz group and an all acoustic ensemble live in the flesh recently. Generally speaking tough that's not what I work on in my professional life. I usually make rock records. I'm going for an emotional and artistic statement. Impressionism if you will. Reality is not often part of my goal. Larger than life, or sometime smaller, stranger and weirder are. Tape helps that emotional euphoria for the way I work. Though when I record digitally I try to impart those same things, but sometimes it takes more work.

I am working on a triditional Irish music record right now and I'm pretty much trying to represent the group as they sound in the room. I'm recording hi rez digital, but will mix to 1/4" analog at 30ips for that certain thing it will add. If the band's budget was bigger we might have recorded to 2" tape. I'm using a stereo pair in the room along with close mics and I believe that tape actally grabs ambience in a more pleasing way than digital does, but I'm still pretty happy going at 88.2 on the RADAR.

[initialsBB]

Originally Posted by bcgood

As yet I still haven't heard ANY album that was digitally tracked that comes close to the sonic clarity and dimension of my favorite tape tracked albums. My ears don't lie! If you know of an album that was recorded all digital that you think sounds better than albums that where tracked on good old analogue tape, let me know, I'd love to hear it.

So do your favorite tape tracked albums sound good on CD? Or do you have copies of the master tapes that you listen to? In other words is the tape simply adding something that still remains when the music is converted to digital? Or do you believe that digital is somehow taking something away that exists in the analog version. And if so, how exactly are you hearing the analog version? Vinyl?

[bionic brown]

Originally Posted by drBill

Check the phase spec for a console. From any input to any output, how skewed is the phase by the time it exits the console. The best phase spec of any production console I know is the CAD Maxconn. A nightmare in many other ways, but the way it is designed, it passes audio very linearly (if that's the right word.). The next best phase spec I've seen is in the D&R series, because they phase correlated each individual circuit, then again as they assembled the signal path, checking and adjusting at each stage as opposed to designing the whole thing then trying to change out a few parts to improve the linearity of the design. (Fairly standard EE practice.) They ended up testing significantly better than the SSL/Neve desks of similar generations. Why? Because generally speaking, less and better designed electronics yeild a better phase spec. A better phase spec yeilds better width and depth of field. BUT, you have to balance that out with functionality (ie: more stuff) on a console. (SSL's and Neves have a buttload of circuits. Try pulling a module and taking a look.) Sorry this isn't more scientific, but it's the best I got. It's pretty freaking rare that any manufacturer will actually print a phase spec though....

So are you saying that depth of field is directly related to phase? I've messed around with phase shifters in the digital domain, and they create a sense of depth, but I don't know if this is what people mean when they say "depth of field".

[Sinewave]

Originally Posted by initialsBB

So do your favorite tape tracked albums sound good on CD? Or do you have copies of the master tapes that you listen to? In other words is the tape simply adding something that still remains when the music is converted to digital? Or do you believe that digital is somehow taking something away that exists in the analog version. And if so, how exactly are you hearing the analog version? Vinyl?

This is a good question , with all the talk about what tape and analog gear imparts to the sound, in the end it all becomes digital , unless you're listening to it on vinyl .
So the question is will that width and depth and warmth and glue remain when it comes down to assembling the Music to CD ?

[GYang]

I prefer digital as starting point of getting great analogue mix out of the box.

[Koed]

I prefer analog as a great starting point of getting a great mix in the box.

[Cellotron]

In general I definitely prefer analog recordings for genres such as rock and soul - but for may other genres I find that digital recording offers some sonic differences that are often greatly preferable to my ear.

Someone earlier in this thread stated they had never heard digital recordings that equalled or surpassed analog ones - but I think for the following albums marked as "DDD" that to my ear feature truly excellent sonics I simply can not imagine how they possiblly could have been improved by analog recording:

* Richard Horowitz / Sussan Deyhim: Majoun
* Rabih Abou-Khalil: Yara
* Arvo Part: Litany
* Thomas Dimuzio: Slew
* Jordi Savall / Hesperion XXI: Orient-Occident

For Invert's (the alternative string quartet I play cello in) recent CD"The Strange Parade" if I had insisted we certainly could have included in the budget for some recording to tape - but since we knew ahead of time that to accomodate the way we found is best for us to work (mainly recording everything at the same time in the same room with no isolation between the instruments, and then editing together the best performances - sometimes on a phrase by phrase basis - out of multiple takes in order to create a final version) that we would have to transfer to digital anyway we went with tracking everything to 24bit-88.2kHz. We then did all mixing in-the-box using SAWStudio and then did a good amount of processing the two-track using analog processors at the mastering stage. While of couse in retrospect there are some small things I might change (including possibly initially tracking the drums we overdbubbed on for two tracks with tape and then transferring to digital - and using converters better than stock PT HD192's that were used on most of the tracks) ultimately I'm enormously proud of the sonic results on this CD and feel that it does further indicate that digital can be a viable format.

Best regards,
Steve Berson