The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Burl Mothership or 2" Tape Machine? Digital Converters
Old 14th February 2018
  #181
Lives for gear
 
deuc647's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nOiz View Post
I have recently had a chance to try out the BAD8 card on my Mothership. Long story short, I am sticking with my BAD4. Although the lower latency and having 8 ADs on a single card are nice things to have.
Could you elaborate on this more? Really interested in your thoughts.

View most liked answer
Old 15th February 2018
  #182
Gear Nut
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by bambamboom View Post
This is a weird thread.

The OP has priorities backwards, which is an all too common problem.

None of this matters if you don't have your tracking and mixing chops together. I am confident that many of us who are on the more experienced side could easily best the mix that the OP posted whilst totally ITB using nothing but the "stock" Avid plugins that come with ProTools. I don't mean for that to sound arrogant, but it's just the truth. His mix wasn't bad, but had weaknesses in some pretty obvious areas of the fundamental basics (balance, EQ, compression)

Great gear is fun, but know this - It's about the ear, not the gear.

If more people would invest in THEMSELVES instead of GEAR they would find themselves a lot happier with their output, and we'd collectively be in a much better place.

O.P. here. I totally concede this is true haha. That mix was really poor, along with many of the micing decisions and tracking environment, and the mastering (by me) was crap too. I am grateful to listen back to that mix and be able to hear how much differently and more competently I could do things now even only a couple years later. I owe a lot of that to the criticisms of the engineers on this thread who listened to it, particularly Mike Caffrey who for the most part provided great, honest criticism.

That being said, I have since this thread was created had the chance to track some of my music all analog to 2" 24 track tape. And I am convinced that that is the way to go for me. For the sound I am going for, and the genre I am in and the records I admire, the tape does a billion things to the sound that reminds me of the albums I love, and gets me so much closer to where I want to be sonically. For me the verdict is clear, analog or nothing.

-MM
Old 15th February 2018
  #183
Lives for gear
 
b0se's Avatar
Perhaps try the Handsome Zulu? Not used it myself but it has a lot of fans for HW tape emulation.

handsomeaudio
Old 15th February 2018
  #184
Lives for gear
 
bambamboom's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Moss View Post
O.P. here. I totally concede this is true haha. That mix was really poor, along with many of the micing decisions and tracking environment, and the mastering (by me) was crap too. I am grateful to listen back to that mix and be able to hear how much differently and more competently I could do things now even only a couple years later. I owe a lot of that to the criticisms of the engineers on this thread who listened to it, particularly Mike Caffrey who for the most part provided great, honest criticism.

That being said, I have since this thread was created had the chance to track some of my music all analog to 2" 24 track tape. And I am convinced that that is the way to go for me. For the sound I am going for, and the genre I am in and the records I admire, the tape does a billion things to the sound that reminds me of the albums I love, and gets me so much closer to where I want to be sonically. For me the verdict is clear, analog or nothing.

-MM
I'm glad to hear that you are happy. If that workflow works for you, then more power to you. With 90% of the projects I work on, an analog studio would be severely limiting and wouldn't even be considered. If you have developed enough of a niche in terms of clients/projects that you can make analog your differentiating selling point (and a few have...), that's great.

Having said this, you can achieve a VERY "analog" sound using entirely ITB digital. It's a just a different process to get there that takes some time and experience to figure out.
Old 16th February 2018
  #185
Lives for gear
 
herecomesyourman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bambamboom View Post
I'm glad to hear that you are happy. If that workflow works for you, then more power to you. With 90% of the projects I work on, an analog studio would be severely limiting and wouldn't even be considered. If you have developed enough of a niche in terms of clients/projects that you can make analog your differentiating selling point (and a few have...), that's great.

Having said this, you can achieve a VERY "analog" sound using entirely ITB digital. It's a just a different process to get there that takes some time and experience to figure out.
I do actually agree with you 100%, though I feel it's a bit easier to do this with a nice hybrid setup than going 100% digital...but it is possible to get close. There will always be quirks the more analog you go...oddities that set things apart in a unique way...but talent and an experienced ear can do a lot with a little. I wouldn't want to be only ITB mixing if I could avoid it...even though I'm entirely ITB mastering with my own software I designed myself at this point.

Last edited by herecomesyourman; 18th February 2018 at 10:59 PM..
Old 18th February 2018
  #186
Lives for gear
One of the best lessons I had in analog vs digital was my experience buying a digital mixer (allen heath qu-pac) for my band. We used an Allen Heath mixwizard and analog outboard for many years. I compared both systems side by side in my studio. First compared the preamps, then compared the eqs, then compressors, reverbs and delays. While I preffered my outboard reverbs and delays everything else I preferred on the Qu-pac. The vocals sounded clearer and even the singers said the vocals sounded much better in the monitors. However listening to the mains in front the vocals did not blend at all well with each other when multiple singers sang together, the bass drum did not have the same solidity, and the whole mix did not feel anywhere near as solid and distinct as it used to.

I find this to be a very good analogy in the digital vs tape world. Perhaps when listening to individual sources digital can sound clearer and less noisy but its what happens as you layer things together that I think the tape recordings maintain there separation and solidity better.

I just spent a lot of time listening to tracks recorded with Burls as well as recordings recorded on tape and my heart very much favors the recordings made on tape. I'd still be interested in a direct side by side comparison of the exact instrument/vocal being recorded to both formats simultaneously to eliminate other variables but for now Tape sounds better to my ears.
Old 18th February 2018
  #187
YouTube

Guys, this is brilliant tape sound.

A good reason to keep my 2" machine despite Burl converter.

Needless to say more.

R.
Old 18th February 2018
  #188
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rolf Ebitsch View Post
YouTube

Guys, this is brilliant tape sound.

A good reason to keep my 2" machine despite Burl converter.

Needless to say more.

R.
Nice. How bout this one on a Studer A80:

YouTube
Old 18th February 2018
  #189
Lives for gear
 
cheu78's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diegel View Post
Nice. How bout this one on a Studer A80:

YouTube
Bunker studio is a nice place indeed! Good people there (and good stuff).



Cheu
Old 18th February 2018
  #190
Lives for gear
 
deuc647's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diegel View Post
Nice. How bout this one on a Studer A80:

YouTube
Damn that drummer killed it!!!!!!
Old 18th February 2018
  #191
Gear Addict
 
Deuce 225's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rolf Ebitsch View Post
YouTube

Guys, this is brilliant tape sound.

A good reason to keep my 2" machine despite Burl converter.

Needless to say more.

R.
Thanks Rolf!

Suzanne killed that take. I think that was the third and last take of the song we did that day. The section that begins @ 3:30 still gives me goosebumps. She is an amazing artist who literally "brings it" every performance.

You may be interested to know when we "print" the final mix from our Neve 8014 to digital we do use our Burl B2 Bomber A/D converter.

Thanks again!
Old 19th February 2018
  #192
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diegel View Post
Nice. How bout this one on a Studer A80:

YouTube
Thanks for sharing this. This guy is awesome! Great HiFi sound
Old 19th February 2018
  #193
Lives for gear
 
themaidsroom's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diegel View Post
I just spent a lot of time listening to tracks recorded with Burls as well as recordings recorded on tape and my heart very much favors the recordings made on tape. I'd still be interested in a direct side by side comparison of the exact instrument/vocal being recorded to both formats simultaneously to eliminate other variables but for now Tape sounds better to my ears.
Tape sounds better to my ears too.
Still, even in 2018.
I am the process of moving my entire NYC studio to Lewisham, SE London, UK.
Mostly Analog but fully hybrid. Will upgrade the converters to Burl for those who need to take tracks. I have been really enjoying pro tools lately for making mock edits before someone cuts the 2" tape. I enjoy having 96K backups of all tracks. I replaced something today that was mistakenly wiped on a 2" master with 22 seconds of the track coming back to tape from digital.

The most magical moments to me of doing this for the past 16 years in Manhattan have been great players and great songs and getting great sounds really quickly and recording live music to 2" 8 track or 2" 16 track. What happens in those moments if the players are great is something bigger than the sum of parts.
There is no way to get there via multitracks without a real live core, and as old and difficult and luddite as my opinion may be, there is no way to capture that sound with digital equipment. The digital can store it great and manipulate it, but it has to start on 2" tape. That 3D space and depth still exist only there for me.

I wish this were not the case.
It is easier and much cheaper to use digital.
Analog likes great techs taking care of it regularly, but when this is done, it really sparkles.............



Be well


Jack
Old 1st March 2018
  #194
Lives for gear
 
string6theory's Avatar
High rate DSD is still an awesome alternative (to analogue) when recording straight to digital. 3D spacial integrity is very much retained. That’s one of its greatest strengths imho. But, heck, I’d still love to track a session to a great multi track tape machine, and then on to a DSD digital master, or perhaps my B2’s for PCM.

Old 1st March 2018
  #195
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by themaidsroom View Post
Tape sounds better to my ears too.
Still, even in 2018.
I am the process of moving my entire NYC studio to Lewisham, SE London, UK.
Mostly Analog but fully hybrid. Will upgrade the converters to Burl for those who need to take tracks. I have been really enjoying pro tools lately for making mock edits before someone cuts the 2" tape. I enjoy having 96K backups of all tracks. I replaced something today that was mistakenly wiped on a 2" master with 22 seconds of the track coming back to tape from digital.

The most magical moments to me of doing this for the past 16 years in Manhattan have been great players and great songs and getting great sounds really quickly and recording live music to 2" 8 track or 2" 16 track. What happens in those moments if the players are great is something bigger than the sum of parts.
There is no way to get there via multitracks without a real live core, and as old and difficult and luddite as my opinion may be, there is no way to capture that sound with digital equipment. The digital can store it great and manipulate it, but it has to start on 2" tape. That 3D space and depth still exist only there for me.

I wish this were not the case.
It is easier and much cheaper to use digital.
Analog likes great techs taking care of it regularly, but when this is done, it really sparkles.............



Be well


Jack
I agree.

And this is coming from someone who finally sold his last tape machine recently due to the simple fact that my machines spent more time not making music than making music. I had to decide whether I wanted to spend my time becoming a tape tech or recording music. I chose the latter.

Now, if I lived someplace where tape techs were still to be found, I'd pay what they charged and keep on using tape. It just sounds better.

So though it hurt my heart, I record digitally now. Do I miss tape?

Every day. And, not at all.

Depending on whether I'm thinking about what it sounded like or how big a pain in the rear it was.
Old 2nd March 2018
  #196
Lives for gear
 
burns46824's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by string6theory View Post
High rate DSD is still an awesome alternative (to analogue) when recording straight to digital. 3D spacial integrity is very much retained. That’s one of its greatest strengths imho. But, heck, I’d still love to track a session to a great multi track tape machine, and then on to a DSD digital master, or perhaps my B2’s for PCM.

Curious what DSD converter you're using. I've tried the DA-3000, but obviously that isn't a "primo" DSD converter. (Preferred hi-fi PCM to that.)

I'm using Prism AD-2 and PM HDCD (both PCM).
Old 3rd March 2018
  #197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Moss View Post
O.P. here. I totally concede this is true haha. That mix was really poor, along with many of the micing decisions and tracking environment, and the mastering (by me) was crap too. I am grateful to listen back to that mix and be able to hear how much differently and more competently I could do things now even only a couple years later. I owe a lot of that to the criticisms of the engineers on this thread who listened to it, particularly Mike Caffrey who for the most part provided great, honest criticism.

That being said, I have since this thread was created had the chance to track some of my music all analog to 2" 24 track tape. And I am convinced that that is the way to go for me. For the sound I am going for, and the genre I am in and the records I admire, the tape does a billion things to the sound that reminds me of the albums I love, and gets me so much closer to where I want to be sonically. For me the verdict is clear, analog or nothing.

-MM
Glad it was helpful!
Old 3rd March 2018
  #198
Lives for gear
 
Cardinal_SINE's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by themaidsroom View Post
it has to start on 2" tape. That 3D space and depth still exist only there for me.
Scientifically speaking, how exactly does analog tape provide more space and depth than digital? What is the physics here?
Old 3rd March 2018
  #199
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardinal_SINE View Post
Scientifically speaking, how exactly does analog tape provide more space and depth than digital? What is the physics here?
I am going to take a guess and say that the 80 million or so magnetic particles per second of music recorded on tape provides more resolution than the 44-96 thousand samples per second digital recording provides. The resolution of analog gives the recorded sounds more substance and solidity and helps give instruments separation when blended together. Digital with its lower resolution is more like a hologram and doesn’t have the solidity and clear separation of analog. That is my guess.
Old 3rd March 2018
  #200
Lives for gear
 
themaidsroom's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardinal_SINE View Post
Scientifically speaking, how exactly does analog tape provide more space and depth than digital? What is the physics here?
For me, the point is, it is NOT science. It is sound. It is visceral. It is an opinion. It is an impression. It is not fact. It is my experience of having almost twenty years in which the output of my mixing desk was multed to both Pro Tools HD and a Studer A827 w/ 16 track heads and listening to both. However much science might tell me that the digital was more accurate, my ears and the ears of everyone with whom I was working preferred the sound of the tape machine.
When the tape was rolled in to pro tools, there was a period of mourning. The huge sound we had worked with all day changed. It lost dimension. It lost low frequency umph - umph is not science. It is entirely subjective. My late friend Walter Sear wanted to do MRI tests on brains hearing the same music in both formats with the belief that digital and analog trigger different parts of the brain. I suspect this might be true. He and I both agreed that digital is agitating and fatiguing. It is also easier and quicker and more convenient. I understand why the world has gone there. I do not believe the decision was one made in pursuit of sonic beauty.



Be well


Jack

Last edited by themaidsroom; 3rd March 2018 at 04:49 PM..
Old 3rd March 2018
  #201
Lives for gear
 
chet.d's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by themaidsroom View Post
Tape sounds better to my ears too.
Still, even in 2018.
I wish this were not the case.
It is easier and much cheaper to use digital.
Analog likes great techs taking care of it regularly, but when this is done, it really sparkles.............

Quote:
Originally Posted by themaidsroom View Post
I understand why the world has gone there. I do not believe the decision was one made in pursuit of sonic beauty.
Be well


Jack
I tend to avoid these deliberations as if one has made the decision to stick to ITB for music "production" (even if with consoles & HW) then, one can rationalize they're doing what is right for them and sonics do not suffer. And no amount of credibility of contrary view points can make an appreciable dent in their rational.

I also wish it were not true Jack but, for me it is true that I prefer tracking to tape. I wish it were not as I'm not a tech and dependence on them (even the really good guys) is troubling. spotty & of course costly.

I (FWIW) make it work by imposing limitations governed by both budget, & the challenges that ensue my limitations. We maintain an Ampex 440b 1/2" 4tk and have 1/4" heads for it as well. It (and the heads) are in really good shape.
I track a few people at a time & again, MAKE the 4 trk limitation work.
For overdubs, I generally swap to 1/4" heads and save a bit on tape costs.
I do keep things directly routed incoming to DAW though.

The voxengo latency plug (thanks for the heads up Brad!) on the incoming tape track to DAW works well enough to nudge tracks back to their correct place.

I believe the appreciable richness is cumulative. There are also times when I might go straight in to DAW via the Burl if the benefits of tape are not "as" needed (ie; a few background harmonies or..)

I'd LOVE to think I could make an Ampex or 3M 2" 16 or 8 happen some day budget-wise but tough days in the biz these days. Techs make more than I.
That's my take anyway.
Old 3rd March 2018
  #202
Lives for gear
 
Cardinal_SINE's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by themaidsroom View Post
For me, the point is, it is NOT science. It is sound. It is visceral. It is an opinion. It is an impression. It is not fact. It is my experience of having almost twenty years in which the output of my mixing desk was multed to both Pro Tools HD and a Studer A827 w/ 16 track heads and listening to both. However much science might tell me that the digital was more accurate, my ears and the ears of everyone with whom I was working preferred the sound of the tape machine.
When the tape was rolled in to pro tools, there was a period of mourning. The huge sound we had worked with all day changed. It lost dimension. It lost low frequency umph - umph is not science. It is entirely subjective. My late friend Walter Sear wanted to do MRI tests on brains hearing the same music in both formats with the belief that digital and analog trigger different parts of the brain. I suspect this might be true. He and I both agreed that digital is agitating and fatiguing. It is also easier and quicker and more convenient. I understand why the world has gone there. I do not believe the decision was one made in pursuit of sonic beauty.



Be well


Jack
But 16 track 2in is going to offer something a lot different than normal 24track 2in. Also PT HD sounds mediocre at best, since the converters are sort of cheap quality comparatively. I think if you compare 24track 2inch to an IZ system or a Burl they are going to be comparable as far as spacial element. Sure a Studer 2in 16 track is going to sound better than Protools HD. Since pretty much anything sounds better than that on the pro level. Another thing to consider with a nice 2in deck is the console that accompanies it. That has a lot to do with bigness and depth as well. Rout the Studer playback through a digital console and it won't sound nearly as spatial as it does with a pro analog desk. You are not comparing apples to apples.
Old 4th March 2018
  #203
Lives for gear
 
jjblair's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by burns46824 View Post
Curious what DSD converter you're using. I've tried the DA-3000, but obviously that isn't a "primo" DSD converter. (Preferred hi-fi PCM to that.)

I'm using Prism AD-2 and PM HDCD (both PCM).
Just get a Korg. Seriously. i don't know how they did it for that price. They sound SO good.
Old 4th March 2018
  #204
Lives for gear
 
jjblair's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by themaidsroom View Post
For me, the point is, it is NOT science. It is sound. It is visceral. It is an opinion. It is an impression. It is not fact. It is my experience of having almost twenty years in which the output of my mixing desk was multed to both Pro Tools HD and a Studer A827 w/ 16 track heads and listening to both. However much science might tell me that the digital was more accurate, my ears and the ears of everyone with whom I was working preferred the sound of the tape machine.
When the tape was rolled in to pro tools, there was a period of mourning. The huge sound we had worked with all day changed. It lost dimension. It lost low frequency umph - umph is not science. It is entirely subjective. My late friend Walter Sear wanted to do MRI tests on brains hearing the same music in both formats with the belief that digital and analog trigger different parts of the brain. I suspect this might be true. He and I both agreed that digital is agitating and fatiguing. It is also easier and quicker and more convenient. I understand why the world has gone there. I do not believe the decision was one made in pursuit of sonic beauty.



Be well


Jack
Not that I think that tape makes for better records, but as I always say, if you're gonna go tape, just leave it there. If you're going to end up in PT, going to tape first is kind of pointless, in my experience, and sometimes it makes it worse.
Old 4th March 2018
  #205
Lives for gear
 
chet.d's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjblair View Post
Not that I think that tape makes for better records, but as I always say, if you're gonna go tape, just leave it there. If you're going to end up in PT, going to tape first is kind of pointless, in my experience, and sometimes it makes it worse.
Although I respect your position and experience, and could even imagine a scenario where is some hands it could make it worse, it's not my experience.

Of course not hitting conversion & DAW retains the "most" richness gained from tape but, in many scenerios in a modern world, it's just not possible.
...In which case I by far hear an appreciable benefit form the tape tracks taking into consideration that I directly compare the immediate capture off repro DAW tracks ...to the simultaneus straight to DAW capture tracks (even via Burl).
ie; most tracks gennerally get a capture of both methods to consider.

I suppose not everyone will feel the degree of benefit is worth the work. I can also imagine situations / tracks where retaining the sharper transients of not using tape might be more desirable to some. Tape simply brings something, to me, that is difficult to articulate but deeply felt. A more enjoyable listen.

Would be fascinating to see the results of Walter Sears MRI theory or suggestion. I'd bet the brain does in fact reflect the experience of both differently. I often perceive digital as abrassive & fatiguing.

Last edited by chet.d; 4th March 2018 at 07:30 PM..
Old 4th March 2018
  #206
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by themaidsroom View Post
For me, the point is, it is NOT science. It is sound. It is visceral. It is an opinion. It is an impression. It is not fact. It is my experience of having almost twenty years in which the output of my mixing desk was multed to both Pro Tools HD and a Studer A827 w/ 16 track heads and listening to both. However much science might tell me that the digital was more accurate, my ears and the ears of everyone with whom I was working preferred the sound of the tape machine.
When the tape was rolled in to pro tools, there was a period of mourning. The huge sound we had worked with all day changed. It lost dimension. It lost low frequency umph - umph is not science. It is entirely subjective. My late friend Walter Sear wanted to do MRI tests on brains hearing the same music in both formats with the belief that digital and analog trigger different parts of the brain. I suspect this might be true. He and I both agreed that digital is agitating and fatiguing. It is also easier and quicker and more convenient. I understand why the world has gone there. I do not believe the decision was one made in pursuit of sonic beauty.



Be well


Jack
Walter was a good friend of mine. EVERY time I mix a song down for a client and give them 2 options blindfolded.. 1st pass directly to my Larvy Gold, 2nd pass to my ATR 102 then to my Lavry Gold.. EVERYTIME the clients pick the tape version.. Everytime!!!! This is when I know the art of sound IS NOT DEAD!
Old 4th March 2018
  #207
Lives for gear
 
b0se's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjblair View Post
Just get a Korg. Seriously. i don't know how they did it for that price. They sound SO good.
Which Korg unit are you speaking of JJ?
Old 4th March 2018
  #208
Lives for gear
 
jjblair's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chet.d View Post
Although I respect your position and experience, and could even imagine a scenario where is some hands it could make it worse, it's not my experience.

Of course not hitting conversion & DAW retains the "most" richness gained from tape but, in many scenerios in a modern world, it's just not possible.
...In which case I by far hear an appreciable benefit form the tape tracks taking into consideration that I directly compare the immediate capture off repro DAW tracks ...to the simultaneus straight to DAW capture tracks (even via Burl).
ie; most tracks gennerally get a capture of both methods to consider.

I suppose not everyone will feel the degree of benefit is worth the work. I can also imagine situations / tracks where retaining the sharper transients of not using tape might be more desirable to some. Tape simply brings something, to me, that is difficult to articulate but deeply felt. A more enjoyable listen.

Would be fascinating to see the results of Walter Sears MRI theory or suggestion. I'd bet the brain does in fact reflect the experience of both differently. I often perceive digital as abrassive & fatiguing.
The only thing that I perceive as abrasive and fatiguing is digital distortion. There was an album that came out a few years ago that I love the production of, I love the songs, but they had no respect for headroom in their DAW, and the album was difficult for me to listen to repeatedly.

In terms of where the tape has done more harm than good, it has been situations where people do not know how to properly align the machine, and then dumped into ProTools. If they had left it on tape, could’ve gotten it to sound a little bit better through repro alignment. I am sorry to say that the majority of people using tape machines right now are not very good at alignment. Many of them don’t even own a proper MRL.

In concept, I don’t understand why you would want to use a Burl to transfer from tape. You want coloration on top of your coloration? If you are achieving coloration through tape, why not use a converter that best captures that sound without further alteration?
Old 5th March 2018
  #209
Quote:
Originally Posted by chet.d View Post
Although I respect your position and experience, and could even imagine a scenario where is some hands it could make it worse, it's not my experience.

Of course not hitting conversion & DAW retains the "most" richness gained from tape but, in many scenerios in a modern world, it's just not possible.
...In which case I by far hear an appreciable benefit form the tape tracks taking into consideration that I directly compare the immediate capture off repro DAW tracks ...to the simultaneus straight to DAW capture tracks (even via Burl).
ie; most tracks gennerally get a capture of both methods to consider.

I suppose not everyone will feel the degree of benefit is worth the work. I can also imagine situations / tracks where retaining the sharper transients of not using tape might be more desirable to some. Tape simply brings something, to me, that is difficult to articulate but deeply felt. A more enjoyable listen.

Would be fascinating to see the results of Walter Sears MRI theory or suggestion. I'd bet the brain does in fact reflect the experience of both differently. I often perceive digital as abrassive & fatiguing.

It's like a drug - dilute it's effectiveness and you need more.

I could listen to one cassette on a walkman all day. With digital you need 5000 songs in an MP3 player.


The thing is, if there is a change in the effectiveness of music based on the medium, it should be reflected in the resulting substitutions.

Like when your brains pleasure centers aren't satiated by music, you turn elsewhere - food, opiates. The "savage beast" is not soothed, or is less soothed, so you'd see things like an increase in road rage or violence.


I spent a lot of time talking to Rupert Neve about this around 10 years ago, maybe longer. I even got him together with a bunch of other experts with the idea that I could get them to say that the differences in the effectiveness of digital could be a contributing factor in the drop in sales. Obviously there were a lot of other things at the time that would have been bigger, but could it have been a contributing factor. None were willing to say that. I did get a "maybe" from George Massenberg in a separate conversation.


The thing is if it's really "digital" that's responsible, the production doesn't matter since it's all going to be released as digital.


In the end, all the sound of tape is, is a specific combination of compression, distortion, phase shift etc. There's nothing that stops it from being possible to match through good engineering. So people who can only get the "tape" sound with tape just can't get it from their skills. (Don't read a subtext in of me saying I can and others can't).



The thing is a lot of these questions don't need to be answered. The one that needs to be answered first is whether sound quality matters.

People think that "meme logic" comments like "setting a LPF 100 across a mix makes a difference" proves something. That's nonsensical.


The issue is better looked at in terms of a band like The Strokes. If the fidelity of their recordings was changed, would it affect the emotional impact of the songs and the performance.

If Bieber was recorded to tape and released on vinyl would you like the music?

That's the real issue. Not whether a recording engineer can hear a difference or has a preference.
Old 5th March 2018
  #210
Lives for gear
 
string6theory's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by burns46824 View Post
Curious what DSD converter you're using. I've tried the DA-3000, but obviously that isn't a "primo" DSD converter. (Preferred hi-fi PCM to that.)

I'm using Prism AD-2 and PM HDCD (both PCM).
I’ve used the Korg MR’s for many years. I recently moved and I’m (slowly) putting together a couple new studio spaces.

I have two DA-3000’s (purchased ‘new other’ for a song on eBay) just awaiting recording duties. I’m slotting these for a med-large synth (+mixdown) rig currently setup in my family’s room. For PCM directly to PTHD, I’m using an Orion32 HD.

Across the family room, next to my zero-g recliner , I’m setting up cool little tracking and submixing rig for guitars, bass, vox, etc, that will have two (black) MR2000SBK-SSD’s. For PCM, an Ensemble TB, linked digitally to the Orion32 HD.

Two original (silver) MR-2000S’s I’ve had for years will link up and go in the new (larger) CR space in the garage when it’s converted, providing 4-track DSD recording in this, my main tracking and mixing space. A pair of B2 Bombers for PCM (along with an AD16X and 2 HD I/O 16x16 DA8’s for tracking & mixing).

And, mustn’t forget, two (original) MR-1000 mobile recorders round out my DSD recording capabilities (for now) .

The Prisms look like killer boxes. I haven’t heard of the PM HDCD.

Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump