record straight to tape vs protools, then tape

[BLueROom]

Originally Posted by Brad McGowan

Hey Eric,

Can you be a little more descriptive what you mean by "snare top was slightly less smooth"? Does that mean you felt like it had more transients? Or that it sounded distorted in some way?

When you say "number one" you mean "MonoDrums-01"?

thanks,
Brad

yes, the monodrums 01

Yes, the transient was a little more present and maybe slightly harsher.

E.

[Brad McGowan]

As requested here are some ITB mixes of the clip. So the source of theses tracks was tape which was transferred to DAW (same as before). I then used the same balances as the previous clips and did an internal mixdown within the computer. I should note that Cubase uses 32-bit float math and I did not dither to 24-bit. For fun I'm also including a version that has a touch of EQ on the ribbon mic and the overall mix...the kick track and "door" track had their polarity flipped. It's always interesing how much a couple polarity flips can do for a sound.

It will be interesting to see if anyone thinks this ITB mix sounds similar to any of the three other clips I posted....or if anyone thinks it sounds better than all of the other tracks which exited and re-entered digital land. Effectively this ITB clip will reveal the combined coloration of my converters, cabling, patchbay, and console. Very interesting!

If you intend to line up the ITB clips alongside the other three you will need to adjust the ITB clip levels by -0.38 dB.

Brad

[illacov]

Originally Posted by Brad McGowan

As requested here are some ITB mixes of the clip. So the source of theses tracks was tape which was transferred to DAW (same as before). I then used the same balances as the previous clips and did an internal mixdown within the computer. I should note that Cubase uses 32-bit float math and I did not dither to 24-bit. For fun I'm also including a version that has a touch of EQ on the ribbon mic and the overall mix...the kick track and "door" track had their polarity flipped. It's always interesing how much a couple polarity flips can do for a sound.

It will be interesting to see if anyone thinks this ITB mix sounds similar to any of the three other clips I posted....or if anyone thinks it sounds better than all of the other tracks which exited and re-entered digital land. Effectively this ITB clip will reveal the combined coloration of my converters, cabling, patchbay, and console. Very interesting!

If you intend to line up the ITB clips alongside the other three you will need to adjust the ITB clip levels by -0.38 dB.

Brad

Ok I lost track of what this is all about (just kidding) but I like all 3 of the mono drums tracks compared to the ITB ones hands down.

The ITB ones sound flatter.

I took a listen in the car to the mono drums on my way to work with my subwoofer turned on and the monodrums 5 and monodrums 01 files have more energy in the lower octaves, aka my subwoofer actually responded on those foot presses for those two files whereas on the monodrums plain file, it didn't.

More fun!

Peace
Illumination

[Brad McGowan]

Originally Posted by illacov

I took a listen in the car to the mono drums on my way to work with my subwoofer turned on and the monodrums 5 and monodrums 01 files have more energy in the lower octaves, aka my subwoofer actually responded on those foot presses for those two files whereas on the monodrums plain file, it didn't.

So what do you think that means?

There is definitely something going on with the low end of the kick drum in "MonoDrums" compared to 01 and 05. I'm not sure what but I have some theories. I just ate some dinner and I can hear it really clearly right now. It almost sounds like the kick track is slightly louder in 01 and 05 or the phasing relationship is slightly different. Interesting....

Brad

[illacov]

Originally Posted by Brad McGowan

So what do you think that means?

There is definitely something going on with the low end of the kick drum in "MonoDrums" compared to 01 and 05. I'm not sure what but I have some theories. I just ate some dinner and I can hear it really clearly right now. It almost sounds like the kick track is slightly louder in 01 and 05 or the phasing relationship is slightly different. Interesting....

Brad

Well since I gave it some thought, in both situations we have an interesting conundrum.

Its either 1 of 2 scenarios actually.

1 - your ITB mixdown to 2 channels on your console and OTB mixdown on your console have much better bass response than your deck mixed on the console to digital.

2 - your OTB mixdown on your console to digital and your deck to the console to digital have better bass response than your ITB mixdown.

I'm leaning towards scenario 2.

I say scenario 1 is impossible because that would imply that your deck is reproducing frequencies you can't hear on your monitors until its recorded via your Myteks. That'd be a new one for me.

So now we again arrive at that infamous bus stop. Summing street at the corner of OTB.

Is it indeed possible that you can get different results on that modified console that are in some ways "better" or "different" than just mixing ITB?

While its too late to go back to that album you mentioned before, it does add that extra hint of "hmm" to the equation.

BTW not to get off topic but one of the things I'd like to point out that I've repeatedly mentioned OVER and OVER and OVER again regarding summing.

It ain't about small track counts, its about large track counts.

The snake oil lies in the low track count summing units bar none.

That whole business of 8 or 12 channels is ridiculous.

I can tell you that before I do full mixes ITB they sound great. Just drums and a sparse instrumental? Pure awesomeness. Try throwing 100 tracks of shit up. I don't mean like 100 tracks of sources, but with all the busses and auxes etc, stuff adds up and it starts to collapse.

I don't ever recall mixing in studios with just 8 channels but for arguments sake when people were mixing maybe 4 to 8 channels on a console they were also recording to, mixing from and to, and mastering from tape.

Brad if you had only 8 tracks of tape and the ability to bounce, you'd be one happy camper. As you mentioned before it sounds good before you touch it. Well that sort of eliminates a need for larger track counts doesn't it?

I can tell you that since I started dumping sessions to tape, I only throw compression on parallel busses and sometimes a snare, but I usually mix with alot of headroom so I just turn it up instead of compress it.

A guy with only 8 tracks in his DAW and no tape? I feel bad for him.

In my situation I learned about the high track numbers earlier on.

I did a whole album with 12 channels OTB and it was always alot of sub mixing in the DAW (screwed with the sound a bit)etc.. however the drums, bass and vocals were always on their own channel on my console and that made a definite positive difference but it affected the separation for everything else that I had to lump together in the DAW.

When I went 24 channels it was a completely different plateau.

Usually when you see guys doing 24 channels OTB or larger its on a console. Consider that a summing mixer with that many channels is usually a couple grand or more, alot of guys are gonna say its time to look at a console since it gives you more for the same price.

However, once I get things back up and running, Brad if you'd like to go a little bit more in depth here.

I'm willing to go a little more in depth as well.

I personally think a console or passive mixer coupled with the use of analog tape and hardware compression, EQ and reverb and of course a DAW with adequate conversion is Nirvana.

My internet connection is rather slow otherwise I'd be happy to throw a session up ya know 30 seconds multi tracked out .Nothing too long.

If you'd like to finish out that session you have up, keep it at like 45 seconds or less, bass and vocals, guitars etc..I'd like to see what happens when you fly everything out to your console that you can I know you only got 8 channels but maybe you got some cheats? Aux returns? Tape returns I don't recall everything your mixer can do.

and then I and others can do the same. I would love to see what different consoles/summing mixers result in. Especially for low freq content.

I still have my summing unit here awaiting to go to AZ to get some transformers and mods added, but I still have those Cinemags in there!

Whaddya think?


Peace
Illumination

[Brad McGowan]

Originally Posted by illacov

Well since I gave it some thought, in both situations we have an interesting conundrum.

Its either 1 of 2 scenarios actually.

1 - your ITB mixdown to 2 channels on your console and OTB mixdown on your console have much better bass response than your deck mixed on the console to digital.

2 - your OTB mixdown on your console to digital and your deck to the console to digital have better bass response than your ITB mixdown.

I'm leaning towards scenario 2.

I say scenario 1 is impossible because that would imply that your deck is reproducing frequencies you can't hear on your monitors until its recorded via your Myteks. That'd be a new one for me.

You said it...we do indeed have a conundrum.

Don't discount the impossible. Because here's the results:

MonoDrums = tape playback through console
MonoDrums-01 = DAW playback stemmed out to console
MonoDrums-05 = DAW summed mixed returned to console

We have Scenario 1! Perhaps "different" is a more appropriate word than "better" for the moment....

So for anyone hearing MonoDrums as sounding different, it definitely is. Clips 01 and 05 are virtually identical to my ears and null perfectly (well I would probably have to give it +70dB of gain to confirm this), thus indicating that the computer can sum equally well as the the console. When you throw the purely ITB mix into the comparison you can effectively hear what cables, converters, console, and patchbay are bringing to the party. I suspect that cables and consoles are the primary drivers in any coloration. As Mr. Krizman almost kind of said--you can hear more detail and clarity in top end of the pure ITB mix. Although it's entirely subjective whether one would like that more. I know I often do, hence my decision to obtain as transparent a console as I could. Based on all the tests I've done comparing Mogami cabling to high end stuff (another thread for another day), I'm inclined to say I'm hearing Mogami coloration in the top end...50 ft. or so of cable will often do that to you. But that's purely conjecture on my part. To my ears I hear increased depth (better perception of ambience) and microdynamic detail in the "MonoDrums" tape track. All the clips that were digitized before summing and summed in the box seem more dynamically homogenized and less deep. Perhaps that's why I perceive them as more forward and flatter sounding.

IMHO all the clips sound totally fine and honestly, when that caliber of subtlety becomes the focus it's really time to get on with making the music.

Here's an interesting thing that folks should check out. If you play 01 and MonoDrums simultaneously and flip the phase on one of those tracks you can actually hear the wow and flutter of my tape deck--there is a very audible phasing as the tape speed varies over the the length of the clip. It's a cool way to hear the effect of wow and flutter.

Back to this conundrum we have. There is a big difference in the low end betwen the tape-sourced track and all the others. It makes me really question something in my process. I'm asking myself whether or not there is something I could have done wrong to upset the careful control of variables. I may rerun the tracks and mixes to eliminate any environmental conditions as variables that could effect tape playback. It would be nice to get repeatable results. And it would be exciting to have a verifiable conundrum on our hands.

In the meantime check out this statement and my response on the following thread in reference to some crazy non-sensical thing that Tom Scholz apparently said in an interview:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/4206380-post312.html

Brad

[Brad McGowan]

Originally Posted by illacov

While its too late to go back to that album you mentioned before, it does add that extra hint of "hmm" to the equation.

I actually intend to present clips to address the original poster's question. However, it was necessary to answer some other questions first so that I know the best way to present those clips and everyone understands the set of controls and variables. I think we're getting there. I'd prefer not to introduce summing OTB vs. ITB into my investigation at the moment. It would complicate things. And besides my world right now is only 8 tracks.

Brad

[princeplanet]

Originally Posted by Musiclab

well one of the problems with automating in your daw and busting it all out to a console is if your using outboard say like a compressor. You are totally monkeying with the way the compressor is working. For me I prefer to treat the daw like a tape deck. I can also lock my 2" up so I have 72 channels of I/O well really 71, that I can automate with the console. I have no problem what so ever using my console's automation and I prefer the tactile response I get from doing so

You haven't read my entire method. I can automate levels either before and/or after the console and compressors. There is no disadvantage. If I want tactile automation, I move the console faders and print the audio out of that channel.

[princeplanet]

Originally Posted by Brad McGowan

I actually intend to present clips to address the original poster's question. However, it was necessary to answer some other questions first so that I know the best way to present those clips and everyone understands the set of controls and variables. I think we're getting there. I'd prefer not to introduce summing OTB vs. ITB into my investigation at the moment. It would complicate things. And besides my world right now is only 8 tracks.

Brad

If the DAW sum has more kick than the console sum, it could be due to the console's power supply's idiosyncracies. The power supplied to channels may be variable. Not to be confused with power supplied to centre (summing) section. However, it seems that DAW to separate channels sounds similar to you to the ITB sum (back to console). This suggests that your console sounds inert at 8 channels. (try 72 and get back to me!). If I have understood this right, it's the tape to console that sounds different. Interesting, is it because line level can behave differently with different current loading?

I still haven't heard the examples as I only visit GS at home on the laptop. When at the studio I never have the time, but am interested in what you are doing so hopefully this thread will kick on for a bit, thanks!

[Brad McGowan]

Check out the clips and re-read the details of each clip when you get a chance at your studio.

Any potential power supply issues are held constant between clips "MonoDrums" and "MonoDrum-01". Both of those mixers were summed identically through the console. The source of playback and number of conversions were the only variable.

I'll let you make up your own mind about the differences between 01 and 05. To me I've written them off as the same....or similar enough for my brain not to bother caring.

I think the tape playback mix sounds different because of the following (this is the latest hypothesis I want to explore further):

Summing of "MonoDrums" tracks occurs before the first A/D conversion (in 01 and 05 summing occurs after A/D conversion). The digital conversion process changes the phase response of the individual tracks, so therefore as 01 and 05 are summed post-conversion we hear a different result. The uncorrelatd reflections, which help us perceive depth (see Mastering Audio by Katz, page 214), that are contained in the bleed of multiple mics are having their phase relationships changed as well so when those signals are summed the depth cues are altered and thus a "flattening" is perceived.

Brad

[DamnYankee]

Originally Posted by Brad McGowan

Check out the clips and re-read the details of each clip when you get a chance at your studio.

Any potential power supply issues are held constant between clips "MonoDrums" and "MonoDrum-01". Both of those mixers were summed identically through the console. The source of playback and number of conversions were the only variable.

I'll let you make up your own mind about the differences between 01 and 05. To me I've written them off as the same....or similar enough for my brain not to bother caring.

I think the tape playback mix sounds different because of the following (this is the latest hypothesis I want to explore further):

Summing of "MonoDrums" tracks occurs before the first A/D conversion (in 01 and 05 summing occurs after A/D conversion). The digital conversion process changes the phase response of the individual tracks, so therefore as 01 and 05 are summed post-conversion we hear a different result. The uncorrelatd reflections, which help us perceive depth (see Mastering Audio by Katz, page 214), that are contained in the bleed of multiple mics are having their phase relationships changed as well so when those signals are summed the depth cues are altered and thus a "flattening" is perceived.

Brad

Maybe someone who has an analyzer could do an A/B comparison of the graphics/waveforms...?

[Brad McGowan]

I was thinking that too...what is the relationship of two signals where one has passed through an AD-DA loop and the other has not?

What if I were to do a test where I have multiple live sound sources and I compare the result of:

1) summing those multiple live sources through a console and then capturing the stereo result to digital (A/D)
2) recording those multiple live sources simultaneously to digital (A/D), then stemming those converted tracks (D/A) through the same console and capturing the stereo result to digital (A/D)

That would eliminate the effects of the tape deck from the question and solely examine the effects that conversion has on signals that are to be summed together. It would maybe address the question: does digital conversion change the phase relationships between multiple tracks that are to be mixed together?

Brad

[princeplanet]

Originally Posted by Brad McGowan

Check out the clips and re-read the details of each clip when you get a chance at your studio.

Any potential power supply issues are held constant between clips "MonoDrums" and "MonoDrum-01". Both of those mixers were summed identically through the console. The source of playback and number of conversions were the only variable.

I'll let you make up your own mind about the differences between 01 and 05. To me I've written them off as the same....or similar enough for my brain not to bother caring.

I think the tape playback mix sounds different because of the following (this is the latest hypothesis I want to explore further):

Summing of "MonoDrums" tracks occurs before the first A/D conversion (in 01 and 05 summing occurs after A/D conversion). The digital conversion process changes the phase response of the individual tracks, so therefore as 01 and 05 are summed post-conversion we hear a different result. The uncorrelatd reflections, which help us perceive depth (see Mastering Audio by Katz, page 214), that are contained in the bleed of multiple mics are having their phase relationships changed as well so when those signals are summed the depth cues are altered and thus a "flattening" is perceived.

Brad

Interesting, but I wouldn't discount the possibility of the culprit residing elsewhere. There's still a lot of variables to consider.

[Brad McGowan]

Ain't that the truth! That's why it's nearly impossible for anyone to make any headway with this stuff. Most people get fed up with the proper investigating part and just want to get back to making the music. I don't fault them at all.

Brad

[dubrichie]

kick ass thread guys, keep it coming!

i'm making the jump up to working at 96K and have my first proper tape machine arriving in about a week, vintage Studer B62 2-track. i can't wait to print some ITB mixes to it.

[Brad McGowan]

Okay guys. I re-did my loop clips to further eliminate potential test setup errors. Here's what I did (you can skip these details if you don't care...they are nerdy and boring):

1. Four drum tracks were recorded to tape (same tape, deck, and peformances as before).
2. I transferred those four tracks to the DAW at 88.2 using my Mytek converter. The signal was multed to channels 1-4 of my console. The same level settings were left up from last time. Each channel was panned hard left. The left output of the console was captured on Mytek channel 7. So in one pass of the tape I simultaneously captured the four tape tracks as well as a mixdown through the console.
3. The four tracks in the DAW were then output to console channels 1-4. A second mix was run using the same console setup with the result being captured again by Mytek channel 7.
4. I went to great lengths to trim each console channel such that the mix playing out of the computer was coming into the console at the same levels as it came out of the tape deck. I used test tone loops through the console channels to verify both D/A calibration and A/D calibration. I was able to determine any A/D channel gain errors and compensate for them during playback of the DAW tracks. Again, the intent was to ensure uniform gain levels coming into the console from both the tape deck and the DAW so that both mixes were identical in terms of levels. Ideally I would pop open the Mytek and manually adjust all A/D and D/A gain trims using an analog test tone generator and a voltmeter. This is really the the most accurate way to guarantee unity gain at A/D and D/A stages. Because I didn't do this I'm guessing my error on track levels between DAW output and tape output to be definitely less than 0.1 dB (minimum perceptible change in level is ~0.1dB).

What I'm going to do is give you three clips. Two of these will be identical clips. One will be unique. So there are two different mixes you are listening to. One is the analog mix captured to DAW. The other is the DAW-sourced mix stemmed through the console. One of these mixes will be presented twice. Listen and answer these two questions:

Which two loops are the same? Based on the previous set of clips, which loop(s) is/are the analog mixdown?

Brad

[norman_nomad]

Just listened. My initial gut impression is that clip 3 is different. The low end changes. I'll do critical listening on the headphones and post more of what I'm hearing.

[Brad McGowan]

Which one do you think is the analog clip?

Anyone else get a listen yet? I'm primarily curious if people can even identify the different clip. Secondly I'm curious about the biases we have about what constitutes an "analog" sound.

Here's something I found interesting. My girlfriend and I did the same test...mixing up the files for each other. Both of us where able to pick out the unique clip among the other two. She has no musical training and picked correctly. However, when we tried to do the test a second or third time after listening to these clips for 10 minutes, we both found it increasingly more difficult to hear any differences. So make sure your ears are fresh when you listen.

Brad

[drBill]

Originally Posted by Brad McGowan

Which one do you think is the analog clip?

Anyone else get a listen yet?

Brad - this makes my head hurt even thinking about it. Too detailed, too complicated. I'd love to be a part, but my head is already hurting too much from everyday life. You guys have fun!!! I'll catch the next time around.

bp

[Brad McGowan]

No worries. If you feel like listening it's a 10 second download. Just pick the odd man out.

Brad

[Brad McGowan]

Just wanted to bump this for those that might want to listen to the latest round of clips.

Brad

[Brad McGowan]

For kicks I re-ran my test yet again. This time I recorded using my Black Lion Audio modded MOTU Traveler at 176.4kHz. The Mytek is hooked up to the computer via ADAT so I can't get more than 96k out of it. Anyway, I couldn't tell a damn difference this time. It seemed even more subtle than the previous rounds. What does that tell us? Absolutely nothing. Although I did reinforce the fact that using a computer to record music is an absolute uninspiring pain in my ass. I'm not even going to bother posting the files since nobody seemed interested in the last round. I'll save my effort for the clips of this upcoming weekend's session where there will be digital, tape, and bounced to tape tracks summed ITB, OTB and every which way in between.

Brad

[dubrichie]

cool man, keep us posted.

i haven't done a blind test on the files you posted because i'm up to my eyeballs in the studio this week and can't face any more messing around with audio, files and the damn computer.

i might give it a whirl at the weekend as i am very interested in the question posed by the test.

[alcohol]

Originally Posted by Brad McGowan

For kicks I re-ran my test yet again. This time I recorded using my Black Lion Audio modded MOTU Traveler at 176.4kHz. The Mytek is hooked up to the computer via ADAT so I can't get more than 96k out of it. Anyway, I couldn't tell a damn difference this time. It seemed even more subtle than the previous rounds. What does that tell us? Absolutely nothing. Although I did reinforce the fact that using a computer to record music is an absolute uninspiring pain in my ass. I'm not even going to bother posting the files since nobody seemed interested in the last round. I'll save my effort for the clips of this upcoming weekend's session where there will be digital, tape, and bounced to tape tracks summed ITB, OTB and every which way in between.

Brad

Really, having done both, I don't see what's more inspiring in pushing buttons on a tape controller over a mouse or a control surface? I think waiting for the tape locator is an uninspiring pain in the ass. And let's not talk about punch-ins with tape.

hear the story about coloring white wine with red coloring and all the wine experts couldn't tell the difference?

[basho]

Originally Posted by alcohol

Really, having done both, I don't see what's more inspiring in pushing buttons on a tape controller over a mouse or a control surface? I think waiting for the tape locator is an uninspiring pain in the ass. And let's not talk about punch-ins with tape.

hear the story about coloring white wine with red coloring and all the wine experts couldn't tell the difference?

Why don't we just hear some music you've recorded lately. That should help the discussion immensely.

[alcohol]

Originally Posted by basho

Why don't we just hear some music you've recorded lately. That should help the discussion immensely.

Don't know what it has to do with the point I've made, but here:

http://redredrockit.com/whale/ep/05%...e,%20Hello.mp3

http://redredrockit.com/whale/2-Reco...eMyHand5.2.mp3

http://redredrockit.com/whale/ep/01%...0A%20Woman.mp3

Music appreciation is so subjective. Hope you enjoy the music.

[Brad McGowan]

There's no need to bash anyone's musical tastes and/or workflow preferences. The computer is on my shit list. It's helped me to make to make some good music over the years. We just no longer have the same chemistry we used to. Relationships change like that. I totally respect and admire those folks that can tame that beast.

I will say this...the virtual record buttons on the computer screen never crack off from pushing them too hard. Stupid MCI blink eye switch caps....

I'm listening to Alcohol's tracks right now and the songs are rockin'. Nice tambo action! I dig it. Mind if I bounce these tracks to the Studer and repost them? Maybe I'll do a quick Otari vs. Studer test with some ATR tape. If you can send me a WAV for Hello, Goodbye that would be awesome. Just PM me.

By the way...what did you record the vocals with? The kick drum on Got a Woman is slammin' in that Bonham kind of way. What kind of kick drum was that?

thanks,
Brad

[alcohol]

Originally Posted by Brad McGowan

There's no need to bash anyone's musical tastes and/or workflow preferences. The computer is on my shit list. It's helped me to make to make some good music over the years. We just no longer have the same chemistry we used to. Relationships change like that. I totally respect and admire those folks that can tame that beast.

I will say this...the virtual record buttons on the computer screen never crack off from pushing them too hard. Stupid MCI blink eye switch caps....

I'm listening to Alcohol's tracks right now and the songs are rockin'. Nice tambo action! I dig it. Mind if I bounce these tracks to the Studer and repost them? Maybe I'll do a quick Otari vs. Studer test with some ATR tape. If you can send me a WAV for Hello, Goodbye that would be awesome. Just PM me.

By the way...what did you record the vocals with? The kick drum on Got a Woman is slammin' in that Bonham kind of way. What kind of kick drum was that?

thanks,
Brad

Thanks for the kind words.

I'm not sure about the vocal mic. I think it was an EV RE27, but it could have been a RTF M16 MKII, through an GR MP 1NV to an Aurora 16.

The bass drum is a DW 24". No resonator hole. Beta 52, GR MP 1NV. I used my console's EQ to shape that drum. Also used Royer 121s for room mics in a small room with 7' ceilings. Might have used some PCM 90 on the bass drum. Been awhile.

[Brad McGowan]

Sometimes small rooms just work. Yours certainly did. Good work!

Brad

[Brad McGowan]

I did the test that the OP was originally wondering about. I recorded a band this weekend simultaneously to the tape deck and the DAW. I was able to transfer the tape tracks to DAW and bounce the digital tracks to tape using level matched settings on the tape deck. I should have session files and mixes available perhaps tomorrow.

The bottom line is that the two approaches are different sounding to my ears. I'm not going to bias anyone's preference for one or the other by saying anything more just yet.

Brad