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
Best Tape Machine and why? Recorders, Players & Tape Machines
Old 27th September 2017
  #211
Gear Guru
 
Drumsound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by unfiltered420 View Post
That's kind of like saying don't click to agree with user agreements online. Yes, technically you should read them before clicking, and it's the user's responsibility, but in practice no one reads them. The operator uses DAW's on the vast majority of productions these days, and the DAW regardless of the freedom it gives you, forces a certain type of production, which is much more visual than analog, and more OCD.
I call bull**** on this. Look at the mixer screen if you're so unable to make records with your ears. LISTEN and edit the few things that NEED to be edited. Don't, just, by matter of course, edit things to lifelessness, because you think your "supposed to." Or even worse to make it LOOK RIGHT.
Old 27th September 2017
  #212
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gevermil View Post
Ah cmon noodle , a lot of great stuff was done on
Scullys . Zep II mix . Stones brown sugar .
Stepen wolf born to be wild record ( no over dubs tho ) . I imagine over dubbing and sub mixes
On that machine must have been tough tho.
Overdubs were a piece of cake. And I had to learn it all on the fly. With nothing but a 1979 revision of 'Modern Recording Techniques' in hand.


Wait, here it is:
Attached Thumbnails
Best Tape Machine and why?-sam_0539.jpg   Best Tape Machine and why?-sam_0541.jpg  
Old 27th September 2017
  #213
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Here's a better look at the Scully:
Attached Thumbnails
Best Tape Machine and why?-e6.jpeg  
Old 27th September 2017
  #214
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumsound View Post
I call bull**** on this. Look at the mixer screen if you're so unable to make records with your ears. LISTEN and edit the few things that NEED to be edited. Don't, just, by matter of course, edit things to lifelessness, because you think your "supposed to." Or even worse to make it LOOK RIGHT.
Yeah, and read every user agreement several times if you don't want to be spied on, and read the entire tax code if you don't want to make any errors on your returns. Short of that, there is no privacy on the internet, everyone makes errors on their tax returns, and people produce songs to a large extent visually. I am talking about how things happen in reality, not how they should be in an ideal world.

Part of the reason I am all analog is because I know human behavior and psychology, and how vision is a far more predominant sense and OCD is a much bigger factor than anyone cares to admit in so many things. Why do you think they have mastering versions of gear? Can you really not match levels on a regular massive passive, for instance? That you need to spend a couple thousand for detents? Or that recall is impossible on a continuous control? Or that you need accuracy up to ultrasonic frequencies?

Last edited by unfiltered420; 27th September 2017 at 12:46 PM..
Old 27th September 2017
  #215
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
I just rankle at the idea that I'm seeing in here that you can't make great recordings with digital, or that you need tape to make things sound "big." But to subscribe to a dogma that you can't make great sounding records without tape, is really tying one hand behind your back.
Is someone actually saying that or are you extrapolating what people are saying?

I have read most of the responses on the thread and don't recall seeing someone state those things. They could have and I just missed it, and at 8 pages and still going I don't have time to go back and re-read, but I'm wondering if you might be drawing conclusions from what was said that maybe aren't 100% what the person meant.

For example, I've offered my opinions, and one of those opinions is that to my ears tape sounds bigger and wider and more 3-D than digital. Now, that doesn't mean that someone can't achieve a big, wide, and 3-D sound with digital, but if they do (assuming my opinion is accurate to begin with), it's going to take some additional wrangling that isn't going to be inherent in the format.

So I can express the opinion that tape is inherently bigger and more 3-D than digital without claiming that you can't make a big sounding record with a DAW. I would not claim that, as many fine sounding records that I would aspire to achieve the equivalent of have been made digitally.

As for tape vs digital being a "dogma," I've arrived at my opinions by testing, albeit using my ears only as an assessment tool. I notice that I've asked you twice now whether you have tested your Symphony in what we both agree would be a proper A/B test against a tape machine and you have declined twice to address that question, yet you maintain that you feel that your Symphony gives you as big, wide, and 3-D image as tape.

How do you know, if you haven't A/B ed them side by side with all other variables equal?

My point, and again, I'm not trying to pick on you specifically, is that there is just as much dogma on the digital side of this debate. People who used tape 10 or 15 or 20 years ago and who simply rely on their memory of what it sounded like (under completely different conditions, in different studios with different gear, monitors, etc., without the benefit of those additional years of experience...) confidently state that their digital and plug-ins sounds just as good, better, whatever.

If we're going to hold one side of the debate to a standard, let's be fair with the other side as well.
Old 27th September 2017
  #216
Gear Guru
 
Drumsound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by unfiltered420 View Post
Yeah, and read every user agreement several times if you don't want to be spied on, and read the entire tax code if you don't want to make any errors on your returns. Short of that, there is no privacy on the internet, everyone makes errors on their tax returns, and people produce songs to a large extent visually. I am talking about how things happen in reality, not how they should be in an ideal world.
I know people in the real world, making their livings though music who do not let the visual rule their recordings. They are listening to music made by people. they are making small fixes WHEN NECESSARY but keeping the human element, even with a DAW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unfiltered420 View Post
Part of the reason I am all analog is because I know human behavior and psychology, and how vision is a far more predominant sense and OCD is a much bigger factor than anyone cares to admit in so many things. Why do you think they have mastering versions of gear? Can you really not match levels on a regular massive passive, for instance? That you need to spend a couple thousand for detents? Or that recall is impossible on a continuous control? Or that you need accuracy up to ultrasonic frequencies?
This is YOUR issue, not the digital medium. Just because you have OCD, and can't help yourself it you see something on the screen that isn't perfect, that doesn't mean everyone using a DAW does that. And As to mastering gear, the real expensive stuff isn't using detented pots, but very expensive switches, with high tollerance so that the left and right sides are perfectly matched and so that recall is exact. Ask anyone who's done a analog recall on gear with pots, even with the best notes its never exactly the same. With switched gear, like a mastering EQ, it is.

I say this all as a guy who opened his studio with NO digital multitrack, called Oxide Lounge. I love the sound of tape, and still use it when there's budget. More often, I use the 2-track on mixes these days. But I have made and will make a ton of records with no tape in sight that will still sound wonderful and still have emotional impact, which is something that gear knows nothing about.
Old 27th September 2017
  #217
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumsound View Post
I know people in the real world, making their livings though music who do not let the visual rule their recordings. They are listening to music made by people. they are making small fixes WHEN NECESSARY but keeping the human element, even with a DAW.


This is YOUR issue, not the digital medium. Just because you have OCD, and can't help yourself it you see something on the screen that isn't perfect, that doesn't mean everyone using a DAW does that. And As to mastering gear, the real expensive stuff isn't using detented pots, but very expensive switches, with high tollerance so that the left and right sides are perfectly matched and so that recall is exact. Ask anyone who's done a analog recall on gear with pots, even with the best notes its never exactly the same. With switched gear, like a mastering EQ, it is.

I say this all as a guy who opened his studio with NO digital multitrack, called Oxide Lounge. I love the sound of tape, and still use it when there's budget. More often, I use the 2-track on mixes these days. But I have made and will make a ton of records with no tape in sight that will still sound wonderful and still have emotional impact, which is something that gear knows nothing about.
Of course you know people, everyone knows people. I even know someone who reads all of the user agreements and even tax code. Doesn't mean it's predominant.

" the left and right sides are perfectly matched and so that recall is exact"

EXACTLY. This is obviously nowhere near necessary, it's pure OCD. Thanks for proving my point. "Perfectly"? This is an artform. Nothing is perfect. Just extrapolate that OCD to infinitely more controllable DAWs and we are on the same page, notwithstanding people you or I happen to know.
Old 27th September 2017
  #218
Lives for gear
 
jjblair's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by drpeacock View Post
Is someone actually saying that or are you extrapolating what people are saying?

I have read most of the responses on the thread and don't recall seeing someone state those things. They could have and I just missed it, and at 8 pages and still going I don't have time to go back and re-read, but I'm wondering if you might be drawing conclusions from what was said that maybe aren't 100% what the person meant.

For example, I've offered my opinions, and one of those opinions is that to my ears tape sounds bigger and wider and more 3-D than digital. Now, that doesn't mean that someone can't achieve a big, wide, and 3-D sound with digital, but if they do (assuming my opinion is accurate to begin with), it's going to take some additional wrangling that isn't going to be inherent in the format.

So I can express the opinion that tape is inherently bigger and more 3-D than digital without claiming that you can't make a big sounding record with a DAW. I would not claim that, as many fine sounding records that I would aspire to achieve the equivalent of have been made digitally.

As for tape vs digital being a "dogma," I've arrived at my opinions by testing, albeit using my ears only as an assessment tool. I notice that I've asked you twice now whether you have tested your Symphony in what we both agree would be a proper A/B test against a tape machine and you have declined twice to address that question, yet you maintain that you feel that your Symphony gives you as big, wide, and 3-D image as tape.

How do you know, if you haven't A/B ed them side by side with all other variables equal?

My point, and again, I'm not trying to pick on you specifically, is that there is just as much dogma on the digital side of this debate. People who used tape 10 or 15 or 20 years ago and who simply rely on their memory of what it sounded like (under completely different conditions, in different studios with different gear, monitors, etc., without the benefit of those additional years of experience...) confidently state that their digital and plug-ins sounds just as good, better, whatever.

If we're going to hold one side of the debate to a standard, let's be fair with the other side as well.
While maybe not specifically said in this thread, it's a dogma I've seen espoused here frequently. there's mythology around tape, and as I've said earlier, many people who can't understand why their recordings aren't great have been led to believe that it's a cure for an all together different ailment.

The last time I did a specific test of mult'ing and A/B'ing was with AD16X's. I've done sessions with both tape and the Symphony, and while I was not doing an A/B test, I was not hearing discernible differences in that "3D-ness," which I was always able to perceive on hybrid sessions.

The only specific Symphony A/B listening I've done was during 2" transfers, and listening for what I was losing in the process. All previous converters, I've been able to hear that loss. I don't know why this should be any different.

But more importantly, I've been able to A/B between my all analog recordings and my recordings done with the Symphony, and that quality exists. If the end result retains that, then that's the most important benchmark for me. In fact, I think it might be even more 3D, when I listen side by side, but I'm not sure if that's the medium or the different mixing process.

Based on discussions with designers, I've always attributed that 3D quality to the pre-ringing filters in AD converters. Analog has a more immediate transient, while pre-ringing is parabolic. Current high end converters have made pre-ringing such a non-issue now that the transients have such minimal pre-ring, that the 3D quality is still there. At some point, the transition is not much different than whatever immediacy tape loses. You get into the difference between measurable and perceptible.

Last edited by jjblair; 28th September 2017 at 06:38 AM..
Old 30th September 2017
  #219
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjblair View Post
While maybe not specifically said in this thread, it's a dogma I've seen espoused here frequently. there's mythology around tape, and as I've said earlier, many people who can't understand why their recordings aren't great have been led to believe that it's a cure for an all together different ailment.

The last time I did a specific test of mult'ing and A/B'ing was with AD16X's. I've done sessions with both tape and the Symphony, and while I was not doing an A/B test, I was not hearing discernible differences in that "3D-ness," which I was always able to perceive on hybrid sessions.

The only specific Symphony A/B listening I've done was during 2" transfers, and listening for what I was losing in the process. All previous converters, I've been able to hear that loss. I don't know why this should be any different.

But more importantly, I've been able to A/B between my all analog recordings and my recordings done with the Symphony, and that quality exists. If the end result retains that, then that's the most important benchmark for me. In fact, I think it might be even more 3D, when I listen side by side, but I'm not sure if that's the medium or the different mixing process.

Based on discussions with designers, I've always attributed that 3D quality to the pre-ringing filters in AD converters. Analog has a more immediate transient, while pre-ringing is parabolic. Current high end converters have made pre-ringing such a non-issue now that the transients have such minimal pre-ring, that the 3D quality is still there. At some point, the transition is not much different than whatever immediacy tape loses. You get into the difference between measurable and perceptible.
Yep, listen to the JCF converters and you find that depth and image stability absolutely stellar like the best analog recorders.. the guy put some serious care into all the details with regard to passing audio with the least damage
Old 30th September 2017
  #220
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by PartHunter View Post
Yep, listen to the JCF converters and you find that depth and image stability absolutely stellar like the best analog recorders.. the guy put some serious care into all the details with regard to passing audio with the least damage
No one has demonstrated that they can tell the difference between two modern converters to any degree in blind tests, unless they are deliberately colored with analog front ends. Same with DSD vs PCM, which was proven to be indistinguishable. And even if they did, it wouldn't mean they are any better, especially on a multitude of sources. You'd think we could just accept that audio tech has matured and homogenized, but people still buy the myths.

It's funny that we look to tape and analog and colored gear to give us something extra, yet we won't accept why we do this, which is because digital audio transparently captures audio virtually perfectly.
Old 1st October 2017
  #221
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thenoodle View Post
Yeah, well, you're one of the few guys I run across who is intrigued by all that. I'm convinced one sort of had to be there in those days to really understand it. No one in their right mind would WILLFULLY spend so much time submixing if there hadn't been such woefully inadequate ways to get the tracks needed to produce the sounds you had in your head.

I can just imagine me trying to teach 12-week classes on it with a console and a couple of tape machines... and one solitary song to track from ground up.

The class drop-out rate after week 9 would be mindnumbing .
And people wonder how SAE and Audio Schools made all....that money!
Phewww!
Old 1st October 2017
  #222
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLastByte View Post
And people wonder how SAE and Audio Schools made all....that money!
Phewww!
Not following you on that one.
Old 2nd October 2017
  #223
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

This is similar to the mixing board I used with the Scully. 16 inputs and 2 outputs! I had to swap the cables at the inputs to go from mic to tape. lol




I just learned as I went along. Nobody told me nothin'.





Of course this was such a huge step up from my Teac 3340s and this:



Old 2nd October 2017
  #224
Lives for gear
 
illacov's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
This is similar to the mixing board I used with the Scully. 16 inputs and 2 outputs! I had to swap the cables at the inputs to go from mic to tape. lol




I just learned as I went along. Nobody told me nothin'.





Of course this was such a huge step up from my Teac 3340s and this:



The GM at one of my subs used to work at Tangent. Small world.

Thanks
-L.
Old 2nd October 2017
  #225
Lives for gear
 
ddageek's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumsound View Post
I call bull**** on this. Look at the mixer screen if you're so unable to make records with your ears. LISTEN and edit the few things that NEED to be edited. Don't, just, by matter of course, edit things to lifelessness, because you think your "supposed to." Or even worse to make it LOOK RIGHT.
Well Tony
They did say Video Killed The Radio Star!
This guy just found a new way to do it!
Old 3rd October 2017
  #226
Lives for gear
 
ddageek's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
This is similar to the mixing board I used with the Scully. 16 inputs and 2 outputs! I had to swap the cables at the inputs to go from mic to tape. lol




I just learned as I went along. Nobody told me nothin'.





Of course this was such a huge step up from my Teac 3340s and this:



I had that Tangent thought it was the greatest mixer ever, well that was 32 years ago and what did I know at 17? Worked great with my tascam 70-8!
Old 3rd October 2017
  #227
Gear Guru
 
Drumsound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddageek View Post
Well Tony
They did say Video Killed The Radio Star!
This guy just found a new way to do it!
Old 3rd October 2017
  #228
Lives for gear
 
ddageek's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumsound View Post
Today we all need a good laugh!
Old 3rd October 2017
  #229
Gear Guru
 
Drumsound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddageek View Post
Today we all need a good laugh!
Agreed.
Old 5th October 2017
  #230
Lives for gear
 
vernier's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
This is similar to the mixing board I used with the Scully. 16 inputs and 2 outputs! I had to swap the cables at the inputs to go from mic to tape. lol




I just learned as I went along. Nobody told me nothin'.





Of course this was such a huge step up from my Teac 3340s and this:



Lol, that stuff brings back memories!
Old 20th December 2017
  #231
Lives for gear
 
Arseny's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
The ReVox C278 is a credible machine but no where near the fidelity available from other machines from the Swiss maker.
Yes, but then again: It depends on the use case:

While my c278 is not here, I tried today to put A80 somewhere in the voice tracking chain, so I ended up with: Brauner Velvet >Tube Tech MEc1a > A80 -> MH ULN8
...tracked digital, just gone through the tape...

My A80 was calibrated by a Studer tech, it is very linear frequency wise and sounds pretty transparent with RTM SM 900 at 15IPS

Yes, A80 adds that decent tape sound and the depth on the Mixbus. But nowhere like C278 in terms of effect, which has plenty of coloring on the individual channels.

Last edited by Arseny; 23rd December 2017 at 08:18 PM..
Old 21st December 2017
  #232
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
Hello Arseny,

Yes, certainly that is how it is supposed to be. A80 was never designed as a color box, indeed only as the cleanest tape recorder designed in that era. Your C278 has more noise, more distortion and perhaps gives you more saturated sound which you may be seeking.

Two different approaches-only one of them a professional tape recorder.
Old 21st December 2017
  #233
Lives for gear
 

Quite simply anything I put though a pair of Tube Tech or Pulse Equalisers dials null sounds thicker then my Sony APR 5003 1/4 and it's 1/2" head stack well I'm not too certain, though at the USD$ price it's not worth a repair or relapping so up to the user me thinks, does your tape machine give
A. Flat and Tape Sound
B.Trafo syrup thick sound
C. Totally messed up sound?

All three have uses!
I guess!
Old 21st December 2017
  #234
Lives for gear
 
Sigma's Avatar
the sony SUCKS ..the punch out electronic switching always makes you think you clipped the out ..the plasma meters are useless ... lol get a 3m m79 fast as all get out and great curves..lol just make sure you know how to tension it properly or it will throw tape like a steer under a cowboy..we had 7


yeah that's madonna



lol yours truly as an assistant

Last edited by Sigma; 21st December 2017 at 11:26 PM..
Old 22nd December 2017
  #235
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Here's a better look at the Scully:
Nice Mock !
Old 22nd December 2017
  #236
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
Hello Arseny,

Yes, certainly that is how it is supposed to be. A80 was never designed as a color box, indeed only as the cleanest tape recorder designed in that era. Your C278 has more noise, more distortion and perhaps gives you more saturated sound which you may be seeking.

Two different approaches-only one of them a professional tape recorder.
If you look at the specs, it's not that clear. At 15ips, A80 and C278 have about the same 61db SNR. Distortion specs is less than 1% for both models also. Of course the A80 can run at 30ips where it does better than that.
Old 22nd December 2017
  #237
Lives for gear
 
skybluerental's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
Hello Arseny,

Yes, certainly that is how it is supposed to be. A80 was never designed as a color box, indeed only as the cleanest tape recorder designed in that era. Your C278 has more noise, more distortion and perhaps gives you more saturated sound which you may be seeking.

Two different approaches-only one of them a professional tape recorder.
Hmmmm,

Some of this is dubious at best.

First of all, it depends on which A80 you are talking about.
An A80RC is probably slightly cleaner than the C278, but an A80VU is going to add more color than a C278 in my experience.

A Revox C278 is NOT a color machine. It is clean like an A807 (they have very similar electronics and transport.)

All of them are pretty linear as far as tape decks go.
Old 23rd December 2017
  #238
Gear Guru
 
Drumsound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigma View Post
the sony SUCKS ..the punch out electronic switching always makes you think you clipped the out ..the plasma meters are useless ... lol get a 3m m79 fast as all get out and great curves..lol just make sure you know how to tension it properly or it will throw tape like a steer under a cowboy..we had 7


yeah that's madonna



lol yours truly as an assistant
I made a lot of records on my M79, and have been thinking of resurrecting her lately.
Old 23rd December 2017
  #239
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumsound View Post
I made a lot of records on my M79, and have been thinking of resurrecting her lately.
Gotten past the bigger-Hammond fantasy, have we? :-)
Old 23rd December 2017
  #240
Gear Guru
 
Drumsound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
Gotten past the bigger-Hammond fantasy, have we? :-)
Someone offered my cash for my MCI, thus I'd want to get the M79 going. I think it needs a PSU rebuild, though.

A bigger Hammond is always a desire, but the M3/147 combo does me quite well.
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
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
lanervoza / So much gear, so little time
6
nalin / So much gear, so little time
0
Circular Light / Low End Theory
21
blumediaprojekt / So much gear, so little time
2
FMNYC / So much gear, so little time
4

Forum Jump
Forum Jump