Anyone love digital recording without doing any tape transfer or simulation?

[Lek]

Please correct me if I type any wrong information - this is from memory of reading gearslutz

Seems people use a cranesong hedd (Wagener, I remember Jules saying he shivered or something when taking the hedd off the stereo mix in comparison to the all digitally mixed signal)

...or a fatso (I remember the comments by Fletcher that "after a hedd and couple fatso juniors later" talking about the RADAR system sounding great)

Some people track to tape, bounce to digital, or mixdown to tape.

I ordered Charles Dye's MILAR and it seems he uses a tape/tube simulation on nearly all of the tracks.

IS ANYONE RECORDING OR MIXING DIGITAL WITHOUT ANY OF THESE METHODS?? (okay, perhaps forget about classical music). I have pretty damn good recordings all digital, but now I'm using an ATR102 for either mixdown or a few tracks here and there to transfer, it's a lot better

[theother]

I don't.

I just bought a Studer A820 1/2" and realized since then that I don't like the HEDD process at all!

Before I had a real tape machine I thought it's pretty good. Go and figure!

It's been heard that taste can change.

Digital only with no tape-like processing? Not for me....

[Jim Williams]

Yea, I'm sure lots of us don't use those things or techniques. I record to digital, but mix analog using all hardwired outboard. I don't compress the stereo buss. I leave that to the mastering stage. The end product is CD's , so I mix at 44.1 into a very good converter. This skips another generation of loss if I used analog 2 track first.

I don't use analog tape, too much loss, too much distortion. It's highly euphonic, but not that accurate.

I think what you will find here is no consensus on technique.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

[Lek]

Originally Posted by Jim Williams

Yea, I'm sure lots of us don't use those things or techniques. I record to digital, but mix analog using all hardwired outboard. I don't compress the stereo buss. I leave that to the mastering stage. The end product is CD's , so I mix at 44.1 into a very good converter. This skips another generation of loss if I used analog 2 track first.

I don't use analog tape, too much loss, too much distortion. It's highly euphonic, but not that accurate.

I think what you will find here is no consensus on technique.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

Hi Jim
I'm sure there wouldn't be a consensus, just interesting to see what people are doing. I'm surprised you track digital and mix to it as well, after reading many of your posts for the past several months - I would have thought you were a tape guy!
I'll occasionally use the fat or tape process in my spider, but lately I've been tracking important things, especially vocals to my atr, then bounce to tape and time align, often through my GR eq2nv and drawmer 1968 (to tape or from), to avoid using digital plugs if I can.

[nathanvacha]

An analog machine is out of budget for me right now, but i have heard first hand a final mix in PT, then bounced to just a tascam 1/4" and then straight back into PT. ( and just on digi converters, can't remember if it was the 192 or 96, but i'm sure the session was 96) We'll just say a tape deck is on my list...

[Lek]

Originally Posted by Jim Williams

I don't use analog tape, too much loss, too much distortion. It's highly euphonic, but not that accurate.

I think what you will find here is no consensus on technique.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

Very interesting to note, too how there is no consensus on how much distortion or accuracy it provides. I believe in a thread on PSW, Albini states how he uses tape because it is highly accurate and he gets out what he puts in.

[Jim Williams]

I find the midrange to be pretty accurate in magnetic tape, it's the frequency extremes that have problems. The low end will be thin at 30 ips due to roll-offs at 40 hz. I found the top end to be dirty as 4~5% thd is the norm above 3k hz in magnetic tape when properly aligned.

The day analog tape died for me was the day I tried to record a bell tree. Won't work.

Unlike some, I don't consider the "storage" medium to be a place for sonic effects. I just want a mirror. One that reflects what I hear over the monitors when tracking. When it changes on playback, I'm not too happy.

Maybe I'm weird?

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

[Charles Dye]

Accuracy is highly overrated.

[Curve Dominant]

Originally Posted by Lek

IS ANYONE RECORDING OR MIXING DIGITAL WITHOUT ANY OF THESE METHODS??

Yes.

When the talent is sublime, inaccuracy is not helpful.

[phelbin]

I use a newer Radar. Depending on the situation I'll either track to it, or through it to Pro Tools. Then I mix back through my Trident console and back onto the Radar.

Admittedly I've never used a 1/2" tape machine, and I must say I'm intrigued by the thought. I seem to be doing just fine with my Radar, though.

[doorknocker]

I gave up on DUY plugs as their customer service is a joke and I also had the feeling that things like DUY Valve and Wide tend to take away impact, even when applied in very small doses, YMMV.

I know find that I get much better results WITHOUT applying DUY Valve and the like to my tracks. Getting a UA 2192 has really made a big difference, less compression and no 'warming' plugs needed.

[Lek]

Originally Posted by Charles Dye

Accuracy is highly overrated.

I do enjoy running mixes and tracks through my drawmer 1968, avalon 747, greq, or atr102. Accuracy can definitely be boring in the guitar realm as well - why not put my univibe through an overdrive and a giant delay pedal - certainly not accurate to what the original vibrating string was, but can be great.

My main point is asking whether digital can stand on two legs by itself.

[dubrichie]

since im looking into picking up a really good 16TR 2" (Studer A80 or Sony APR) with the intention of running my tracks onto it and then back into the box, just to get the sound of tape (but good tape, good machine, good converters) im wondering if anyone thinks that this will give me what i want, as opposed to tracking to tape first and then taking it into the box? it would just suit my way of working much better to record straight to digital and then run it out onto the tape later, after editing, before mixing.

[MAProTulz]

I track and mix on digital mainly (I'll use whatever) and don't go for those emulation thingies. I understand sending something through some iron for that saturation, etc, but I prefer to get as much of that before it hits the converters.

I love the tape method of working, though, and try not to get bogged down with endless stupid edits. Just use the digital system like it's a tape machine, go until you've got to fix a mistake, or do a couple takes and pick a keeper, etc.

Moving the mics (and picking the right mic) is far more effective from where I sit than hemming and hawing about what preamp to use for which source, etc. Have a complement of capable gear and get to it! I love how playback sounds like input.

[Jim Williams]

Originally Posted by Charles Dye

Accuracy is highly overrated.

Like when you try to record a $130,000 Bosendorfer piano and you don't want it to sound like a Yamaha C-2?

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

[Charles Dye]

Originally Posted by Jim Williams

Like when you try to record a $130,000 Bosendorfer piano and you don't want it to sound like a Yamaha C-2?

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

Actually, more like when you record a drum kit. If I wanted it to sound like it does when I stand next to it, then it'd be a jazz record. But in rock, pop, r+b, + hip hop, the only way it will kick my ass, is if it doesn't sound natural.

Or a lead vocal. Amazing sounding lead vocals on nearly all modern productions sound absolutely nothing like that singer does if you were to stand next to them.

Records haven't sounded like acoustic instruments for @ least the last thirty years. Their sound has evolved into something that is much bigger than real life. And the only way to achieve that is by throwing "natural" or "accurate" out the window.

If we + our predecessors had to limit ourselves to making records that accurately captured the sound of the instruments + singers, nearly every aural masterpiece we grew up on simply wouldn't exist.



Accuracy is highly overrated.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by Jim Williams

Unlike some, I don't consider the "storage" medium to be a place for sonic effects.

Awsome quote ...

[u b k]

Originally Posted by Jim Williams

Like when you try to record a $130,000 Bosendorfer piano and you don't want it to sound like a Yamaha C-2?

is that what your deck does to a bosendorfer? if so, it's got issues, or the mic choice/placement are fubar.

i'm thinking the $130,000 bosendorfer to tape should sound like a $130,000 bosendorfer, only sweeter. like, say, oh, a $139,999.95 bosendorfer.


gregoire
del ubik

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by Charles Dye

Accuracy is highly overrated.

Not when monitoring.

[Jim Williams]

Originally Posted by Charles Dye

Records haven't sounded like acoustic instruments for @ least the last thirty years.

Accuracy is highly overrated.

So they did 40 years ago?

I think not.

Seems you need to get out more and check out some of the great stuff some folks have been doing the last 30 or so years, it's not all rock records though.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

[Charles Dye]

Originally Posted by Jim Williams

So they did 40 years ago?

I think not.

Seems you need to get out more and check out some of the great stuff some folks have been doing the last 30 or so years, it's not all rock records though.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

Uncle. You win.

[Slipperman]

Originally Posted by Jim Williams

Like when you try to record a $130,000 Bosendorfer piano and you don't want it to sound like a Yamaha C-2?

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

You can find me a RECORDING of a Bosendorfer Imperial that SOUNDS LIKE WHAT THE PIANO SOUNDS LIKE WHEN YA SIT DOWN AT IT AND PLAY ONE?

Or even what it sounds like when ya sit next to it, while somebody else does?

...


We ain't even REMOTELY in that ballpark with our silly bronze age BS 'state-of-the-whatever' sound transduction hogwash.

I'm with Charlie.

Personally... I'd prefer to concentrate on the smoke and mirrors at this juncture.

These 'Sound cartoons' require only suspension of disbelief and a sense of whimsy to enjoy.

The horrid plastic looking CGI tom-foolery touted as "Accurate recording" is a depressing reminder of how far we have to go.

I seriously doubt it's gonna involve what we currently refer to as microphones, speakers and amps.

That stuff is gonna get filed with the abacus sooner or later.

Till then... I'm doing the Looney Tunes gig.

SM.

[Greg B]

Originally Posted by Lek

Very interesting to note, too how there is no consensus on how much distortion or accuracy it provides. I believe in a thread on PSW, Albini states how he uses tape because it is highly accurate and he gets out what he puts in.

Just a thought, if you get out of tape exactly what you put into it, then why would anyone use it as an effect to warm up a mix?

Sending a digital recording to tape to "warm it up" has nothing to do with accuracy. The warmth everyone loves is distortion and the natural compression of tape. And then there's tape hiss...

To my ears, a good 32 Bit/96k recording is more accurate and life-like than any analog recording I've heard....but our ears don't always want to hear "life-like". Many folks like to hear warm (distorted) recordings like the old days.

I can appreciate two kinds of painters. Some artists can paint such realistic exact replicas that it looks like a photograph, and others are abstract and create.... "Looney Tunes" as Slipperman put it.

[Jazzpunk]

Originally Posted by slipperman

These 'Sound cartoons' require only suspension of disbelief and a sense of whimsy to enjoy.

'Sound cartoons'...I love it! With two words you just summed up the reason I can't listen to modern rock/pop/or so called 'R&B'.

Great term