The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
PorticoTM 5042 Two-Channel "True Tape" Emulation and Line Driver
Old 25th July 2005
  #61
Warning the post below is long and boring as hell.. lots of rambling. Apologies in advance.

heh

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey
as far as the sound in the room, i think that's a bit overrated, as all Music has 4 lives, each different.

in silence (pre creation)
in the ear of the composer
performed in the room
on the record, a manufactured reality
Yes exactly. This is essinetially the foundation of Plato's "forms" in which he stated that all things in the physical world are imperfect copies of the true form of that object or idea.

To paraphrase one of the greatest thinkers in human history and make one of his greatest ideas into a blurb heh Plato felt that the only true perfection was idea and imagination. When any idea is manifested in the real world it is always flawed.

In our minds we have a vision of what a house should be. House to us means this this and this but when we build the house the color is not exactly as we imagined or the door knob is slightly larger, the built house is a flawed interpretation of the idea we have of a house. More importantly each of our ideas of what the prefect house is is different therefore no two people can completely agree on what a prefect house is.

Anyway, in recording, our mind has a "form" for how a guitar or a drum sounds in a room but that sound is already flawed because it is manifested in the real world. Each of us has an idea of how a guitar should sound but no two people can ever agree that any recording of a guitar is "correct" because the "form" of a guitar sound can never be represented in the real world.

What I am getting at (and really I am getting at something heh ) according to PLato nothing we record is a true representation of the thing we want it to be. The best we can do is make it as close to the "form" that our mind hears and the "form" that our minds hear includes an analog element because our minds are geared to analog creations. Realism is not what we are looking for we are looking for the best representation of the "form" of the perfect guitar tone.

I believe this is why many people do prefer analog recordings over digital. So the goal of digital recording is to better represent the form our minds hear and to do this we incorporate as much analog into the process. The "form" I have of a good recording includes things like analog phase and distortion so things like the 5042 and HEDD just get me closer the the "form" I have in my mind.

Or I could just be crazy and all the above is hogwash......
Old 25th July 2005
  #62
High End Moderator
 
mwagener's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey
...snip... GML pre are very clean and true...snip...
And yet in a conversation with Mr. Massenburg, he told me: "...never ever has anybody translated the sound "a human hears in a room" exactly onto any kind of recording medium, and it will be a very long time until that will be achieved. So, since it's flawed anyway, why not give it your own interpretation" That's how I feel about it too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey
digital has just sucked for so long it's been all about coloring it to hide the suck.
Funny, I feel the same way about analog tape, except that tape has sucked for a lot longer heh

One has to use different tools in order to get good recordings on either medium. In the late 70s you could buy a Telefunken 251 in Germany for around $100.00 a piece, nobody wanted them; why? because they didn't translate very well to tape or were hard to deal with, using the existing technology. Now, that we are dealing with a different recording medium, those things go for $30K and more; why? because they work wonderful with the current recording technology. Same with tubes, analog and tubes sometimes amounted to too much mudd, so tubes were bad, transistors were good. Now tubes are good again because they work with the current technology. Nothing magical about it.

And yes, manufacturers try to make the most of it for their own profit, I have no problem with that. We, as audio engineers, just have to be educated and informed enough not to fall for any hype or stuff that anonymous people write on the internet as the law of recording. Try a box, like a box, buy a box - don't like it, don't buy it, end of story. I love when guys like Rupert or Dave Derr or Dave Hill or ... come up with stuff that gives me yet another tool to color my flawed recordings. Heck, I even tried a few Behringer boxes, just to find out if they work for ME. If engineers wouldn't have an open mind towards trying things, no matter what they are called, flanging would have never made it into recordings...and if every manufacturer would stop making cool sounding boxes like the Portico, choruses, delays, HEDDS, reverbs etc. and concentrate solely on building better converters and recording machines, albums (I still call 'em that) would sound pretty boring.

I don't look at boxes like the Portico etc, as a unit to "hide" anything, they are tools for recording as much as an EQ or a compressor is a tool. Let's not get hung up on the manufacturers choice of name for the boxes in question, just use them and enjoy them, unfortunately they were not existing 25 years ago, when we had to try to get over the problems of analog tape heh heh heh
Old 25th July 2005
  #63
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwagener
when we had to try to get over the problems of analog tape heh heh heh
you're very hostile to analog ... why is that?

which multitrack machines did you use?




Quote:
Originally Posted by mwagener
And yet in a conversation with Mr. Massenburg, he told me: "...never ever has anybody translated the sound "a human hears in a room" exactly onto any kind of recording medium, and it will be a very long time until that will be achieved. So, since it's flawed anyway, why not give it your own interpretation" That's how I feel about it too.
I never said a GML was perfect ... nothing is. So we agree there. the Binaural Head is an interesting concept but i've never wanted to use one ... YET!


Quote:
Funny, I feel the same way about analog tape, except that tape has sucked for a lot longer heh
Joke all you want but Les Paul is still using a tape machine and a ribbon mic to record guitar. You know Les, inventor of the electric giutar and that sound-on-sound thing we call multitrack recording! Nuff said.


Analog tape technology stopped progressing in 1983 or so, so it had a run of MAYBE 30 years in the mainstream markets, if we can even call them that due to their smaller scale.

Digital is now almost 25 years old and has had all the major players involved and hundreds of millions poured into it ... and I'd say it's a preference thing between Radar or an MM1200.




And looking at modern analog 2 x ATR 2" 8trk ARIA machines ($60,000) vs. ANY 16 tracks of digital AD/DA you want ... tape wins that one.

Sure it requires musicans to practice, and it makes the engineers job less glamorous ... but it puts the focus on the music and the performance.
Old 25th July 2005
  #64
Lives for gear
 
themaidsroom's Avatar
 

i would repeat what someone else said earlier:

buy a tape deck before you buy a box that emulates a tape deck -
even if it has got mr. neve's name on it

tubes and tape sounded amazing........
listen to a beach boys
or a motown
record.......................



be well

- jack
Old 25th July 2005
  #65
Lives for gear
Quote:
lucey: digital has just sucked for so long it's been all about coloring it to hide the suck.
Quote:
mwagener: Funny, I feel the same way about analog tape, except that tape has sucked for a lot longer.
i love this town!
Old 25th July 2005
  #66
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey
you're very hostile to analog ... why is that?

which multitrack machines did you use?
Instead of attacking (which by the way is how your thread's can come accost sometimes man, and don't attack me now because I am only pointing it out okay, it's all good) take a minute and read Michael's posts first alright??

Michael said
Quote:
Me, myself and I like digital better because TO MY EARS it reproduces better what I put in than analog tape. And as I mentioned before, me and some pretty high end studio technicians/engineers/producers, have messed with different machines, different tapes, different heads on different machines, modified electronics, different alignments for weeks at a time to get the most out of analog tape. Still, my kick and snare always came back sounding different (in an uncontrollable way) than they sounded at the output buss of the console. With digital I don't hear that.
He tried all kinds of machines and TO HIS EARS digital works better for him. It's all good.

Also Lucey said a few posts up
Quote:
digital has just sucked for so long it's been all about coloring it to hide the suck.
???? Who is hostile again????

Quote:
Joke all you want but Les Paul is still using a tape machine and a ribbon mic to record guitar. You know Les, inventor of the electric giutar and that sound-on-sound thing we call multitrack recording. Nuff said.
Henry Ford (you know Henery, the inventor of the Model T) drove a Model A for years before he died (or so I have read).. so what? That makes the Model A better than a 2005 BMW M3 now?? Also with all due respect to Les Paul he is 90 freak'n years old and has the ears to prove it. Nuff said.....

Quote:
Analog tape technology stopped progressing in 1983 or so, so it had a run of MAYBE 30 years in the mainstream markets, if we can even call them that due to their smaller scale.

Digital is now almost 25 years old and has had all the major players involved and hundreds of millions poured into it ... and I'd say it's a preference thing between Radar or an MM1200.
Yep and like it or not many (I would go so far as to say most) people would and are choosing Radar. I know this is true because I can pick up a 1200 in perfect shape for $4000 to $5000 now. A new Radar system costs double the price of a used 1200 which is not being made anymore. Supply and demand would say the supply of used 1200's is pretty low so if there were a demand the price should be higher not lower. The demand for the 1200 is just not there.

The market has spoken and that says something doesn't it?

You can bury your head in the sand all you want but digital is here to stay so how about we just make it better instead of complaining about what should have happened or what could have been.

Quote:
And looking at modern analog 2 x ATR 2" 8trk ARIA machines ($60,000) vs. ANY 16 tracks of digital AD/DA you want ... tape wins that one.
For you.... how can you speak for the rest of the world??

Quote:
Sure it requires musicans to practice, and it makes the engineers job less glamorous ... but it puts the focus on the music and the performance.
I believe Michael said earlier in this thread "I really don't want to get into an analog vs. digital discussion. The following is based solely on my personal opinion."

I just don't understand why you can't get over the fact that someone disagrees with you? Let it go man, ya don't have to convince the world to think like you, it would be a pretty boring place for you wouldn't it?
Old 25th July 2005
  #67
HA!

Here's is an example that might fall in with Michael's experience..

Read this tip I have written for someone new to recording with tape.. I used to do this, so it is tried & tested... after reading it - I have a point to make relevant to this thread...

-------------------
get the drummer to take his headphones off and play the song (on his own) WHILE YOU HAVE TAKEN THE 2" OUT OF SYNC and put it into REPRO & RECORD

This way you can HEAR how the tape is reacting to level and push levels or back them off to your taste...

You can EQ drums in this mode too - but bear in mind there will be a slight delayed reaction due to the gap between the record head & the repro head!!!

This is IMHO, a GREAT way to finalize kick drum EQ & record level (and drum eq/levels in general)

Once done - headphones back on - and continue with session ...

No need for "guesswork" & you will KNOW what the drums will sound like when you play them back...

(BTW this trick will give the rest of the band a laugh as the drummers arms will be waving wildly 'out of sync' with the sound coming out of the control room monitors.. somehow bands find this 'our drummer looks like an idiot' phenominon 'hilarious'...



(P.S In theory, you could even mess with the record line up while the drummer was playing and the tape was in repro.. to arrive at ideal settings to suit the drums but that is a rather er.. advanced, "expert level" type of adventure to embark on...)

-----------------------------

OK I would do that and it WORKED VERY WELL FOR ME, but guess what...???? after all the hard work to make tape "sound the best" when ever I stopped the tape and the tape machine switched over to "imput" - THERE WAS THE COOLEST SOUND EVER SITTING THERE!!!

So I always liked the 'input sound' better than the 'off tape' sound...

Old 25th July 2005
  #68
Quote:
Originally Posted by themaidsroom
i would repeat what someone else said earlier:

buy a tape deck before you buy a box that emulates a tape deck -
even if it has got mr. neve's name on it

- jack
Unless of course you don't have room for a 2 inch machine, the money to purchase one, the money to purchase tape, the expertise, equipment and time to maintain the 2 inch machine, you don't want the editing "features" of a 2 inch, you want more than 24 tracks without geting another machine (including all the hassle of locking the 2 decks) and you don't want to wait for the tape to rewind each time you want to listen to a take.

In which case by all means buy a box (I would call it a "tool") to make your recordings sound better and one that emulates a tape deck no matter who's name is on it.

Call it something else if it makes you happy but if a tool makes your recordings sound better then use it, if not move on.
Old 25th July 2005
  #69
Lives for gear
 
kevinc's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mwagener
And yet in a conversation with Mr. Massenburg, he told me: "...never ever has anybody translated the sound "a human hears in a room" exactly onto any kind of recording medium, and it will be a very long time until that will be achieved. So, since it's flawed anyway, why not give it your own interpretation" That's how I feel about it too.
That`s one of the main points I was trying to make but maybe I`m not saying it right.

We don`t have speakers, mics, mic pres, converters etc... that CAN accurately pick up something in a room.

The thing is with speakers and converters we are still getting more and more accurate.

With the exception of a few pieces here and there the quest for accuracy in mic pres and mics has stopped years and years back when it became cool and hip to use vintage Neves and vintage mics and anything that has a tube in it because that was everybodys solution to "warming up" digital a bit. Now were basically stuck in the past with all these Neumann and Neve wanna be mics out there and we aren`t pushing the envelope like Neumann and Neve indeed did back than.

I`m not talking anout existing "transparent" pres out there because there aren`t any. Theres a few that get closer than say a Neve but if your telling me your "transparent" pre you used makes things sound sterile or cold or harsh or small it sure as hell aint transparent. It`s doing SOMETHING to the sound to make it that way and theres room for improvement. Again theres nothing sterile about a Marshall in a room and that`s the sound I want on a record. Not something that`s additionally screwed with.

The problem is theres so much hype and $ with the vintages ripoffs right now that were not even worried about getting more accurate which has been the goal in recording before this.

The artist is in the room and our job as an AE used to be to record the artist as accurately as possible and not pretend were the artists as well with all the neat toys we put your sound through. I bet if you ask a guitar player if he`d rather have his Marshall recorded as accurately as possible like it sounds in the room with the settings that HE`s been using for the song that HE helped write he`d much prefer that to the idea of the AE`s more "colored" representation of the sound in the room based on hearing the song once.

Again leave the artistry to the artist and just be there to help them fulfill there vision instead of yours.



b.t.w sorry I`m woefully off topic and again I own and love my FATSO and I`d love to try the Portico emulation. If we had the perfect recording medium and mics we wouldn`t need them though.
Old 25th July 2005
  #70
High End Moderator
 
mwagener's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jules
HA!

Here's is an example that might fall in with Michael's experience..

Read this tip I have written for someone new to recording with tape.. I used to do this, so it is tried & tested... after reading it - I have a point to make relevant to this thread...

-------------------
get the drummer to take his headphones off and play the song (on his own) WHILE YOU HAVE TAKEN THE 2" OUT OF SYNC and put it into REPRO & RECORD

This way you can HEAR how the tape is reacting to level and push levels or back them off to your taste...

You can EQ drums in this mode too - but bear in mind there will be a slight delayed reaction due to the gap between the record head & the repro head!!!

This is IMHO, a GREAT way to finalize kick drum EQ & record level (and drum eq/levels in general)

Once done - headphones back on - and continue with session ...

No need for "guesswork" & you will KNOW what the drums will sound like when you play them back...

(BTW this trick will give the rest of the band a laugh as the drummers arms will be waving wildly 'out of sync' with the sound coming out of the control room monitors.. somehow bands find this 'our drummer looks like an idiot' phenominon 'hilarious'...



(P.S In theory, you could even mess with the record line up while the drummer was playing and the tape was in repro.. to arrive at ideal settings to suit the drums but that is a rather er.. advanced, "expert level" type of adventure to embark on...)

-----------------------------

OK I would do that and it WORKED VERY WELL FOR ME, but guess what...???? after all the hard work to make tape "sound the best" when ever I stopped the tape and the tape machine switched over to "imput" - THERE WAS THE COOLEST SOUND EVER SITTING THERE!!!

So I always liked the 'input sound' better than the 'off tape' sound...

Jules

BINGO!!!

that's exactly how we used to record. And after all that equing and "coloring" to fix what the tape messed up, it still sounded not as good as the output of the console (or input of the tape machine). It was a pain in the ass, because, depending which studio you were working in, you had some bleed coming through and you would have to listen really loud in order to hear "just" the tape playback. heh Also, try to align the bias and EQ on 24 channels of a tape machine, based on what you hear in THAT studios speakers, while a drummer is trying to play exactly the same way for 15 or 20 minutes. Afterwards the machine was a mess because not all the channels were aligned the same way. Kick tracks were aligned different than the overhead tracks and snare and again different from the guitar tracks, bass tracks etc. Then you had to proceed to use the board EQ to try to get it closer to what you lost and it ended up sounding somewhat artificial and not even close to what you heard in the room, not necessarily bad, though.

I'm glad I don't have to deal with that anymore.
Old 25th July 2005
  #71
Old 25th July 2005
  #72
High End Moderator
 
mwagener's Avatar
Bam, and here we are smack in the middle of an analog vs. digital dscussion. This thread is about the Portico 5042 and what it does or not does. The digital vs. analog question will NEVER be solved, because it's based on opinions, like most things in music.

So I'm just going to answer to lucey's thread and then let it rest on my end. Everybody knows MY opinion (which I formed over the last 35 years being in this business) and no thread or discussion in the world will change that opinion.

First, let me say that anything I write here is not meant to attack YOU (lucey) or anybody else personally in any way. It is, as stated above, my personal opinion about the recording process. I simply used your thread as a basis for my answers, nothing personal.

Second, it might not come across that way, but I write all this with a big smile on my face and I don't take it dead serious. It's all about recording music and it's all about capturing performances, which can be done a thousand different right ways.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey
you're very hostile to analog ... why is that?
I'm not more hostile towards analog than some people are against digital, but, I've been there and had to deal with the shortcomings 24/7, being disappointed about what those recordings could have sounded like, if the system was technically better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey
which multitrack machines did you use?
ALL of them. I used to work in a small company in Germany where we imported, distributed and maintained the first "Docoder" 4 tracks then later the first Otari 8 tracks. I went to factory training courses about aligning those beast from Studer, Otari etc. During the years I've worked on pretty much every type and model of analog machine out there, from an Echolette tape echo thorugh an Ampex 1200 through a MCI with Studer heads to a Telefunken 2" 32 track and everything else in between. As soon as the first 3M digital 32 track machines showed up in Germany (around 1982?) I never looked back. Actually let me correct that: when Sony came out with that horrible sounding 24 track, I went back to anlog for drums for a couple of projects until the Mitsubishis showed up. I also had one of the first AKAI DD-1000 in town (LA) which I used as my 2 track machine, later with the Apogee 500 converters.

Records I recorded (and mixed) on early digital include:
ACCEPT "Balls To The Wall"
STRYPER "Soldiers Under Command"
DOKKEN "Under Lock And Key"
METALLICA "Master Of Puppets" (transferred to 3M dig for mix)
ALICE COOPER "Raise Your Fist And Yell"
WHITE LION "Pride" and "Big Game"
SKIDROW "SkidRow" and "Slave To The Grind"
EXTREME "Pornograffitti"
SAIGON KICK "Saigon Kick"
OZZY "No More Tears" and "Live And Loud"
WARRANT "Dog Eat Dog" (recorded on a Studer dig mixed on a Sony 3348)

...and of course everything I have done at WireWorld has been fully digital first on Yamaha 02Rs and Tascam DA88s, and after 2000 on the R-1 and the Sony consoles.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey
I never said a GML was perfect ... nothing is. So we agree there.
Well "true" comes pretty close. heh

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey
the Binaural Head is an interesting concept but i've never wanted to use one ... YET!
Why not? They rockl! I own one called :"Fritz". Amazing piece of work, very natural sounding to the point where it's scary, but still not an "exact" reproduction of what a human hears in a room. The first time I used a binaural head was on ACCEPT's "Breaker" album in 1980. It was used for drum overheads and was staring at the drummer all the time, it drove him nuts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey
Joke all you want but Les Paul is still using a tape machine and a ribbon mic to record guitar. You know Les, inventor of the electric giutar and that sound-on-sound thing we call multitrack recording. Nuff said.
If I would have invented the multitrack machine, I probably would be still using it too heh

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey
Analog tape technology stopped progressing in 1983 or so, so it had a run of MAYBE 30 years in the mainstream markets, if we can even call them that due to their smaller scale.

Digital is now almost 25 years old and has had all the major players involved and hundreds of millions poured into it ... and I'd say it's a preference thing between Radar or an MM1200.
Didn't they come out with different new types of tape until the late 80s? I know I stopped when 256 was around, but I'm sure there were at least three more progessions after that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey
And looking at modern analog 2 x ATR 2" 8trk ARIA machines ($60,000) vs. ANY 16 tracks of digital AD/DA you want ... tape wins that one.
Not in my book. And I would need 6 of those ($360,000). Some fellows here in town have an ATR 1" 2 track and a 2" 8 track which they used to use for mixing, besides mixing to digital. When it came to mastering, after extensive listening tests, the digital mix got used in most cases. According to them, those machines are seeing less and less use.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey
Sure it requires musicans to practice, and it makes the engineers job less glamorous ... but it puts the focus on the music and the performance.
Exactly, that's why I don't use a DAW. Music should be performed by the musician not by the engineer. But that is a whole new discussion, nothing to do with the Portico. heh

Well, I hope that puts us back on topic. Let's just agree to disagree in the digital vs. analog discussion and get back to the topic in the original question. And most important, let's stay friendly. We are all basically pulling at the same rope, to record/mix/master fine music, which is hard enough in todays market. So let's not hack at each other about diferent opninions
Old 25th July 2005
  #73
Gear Addict
 
rlnyc's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jules
and if you read any interview with producer tony visconti (bowie, thin lizzy, marc bolan, etc etc...) he will talk about how all those records sound the way they do because he felt the need to use tons of eq to get back what the tape lost everytime it got played. by the time all the overdubs were done the tape sounded like dull ****.

i know a guy who records to WIRE. wanna go back to that?

its a shame this tread has turned into a pissing match, but that's the way it is with people when you start talking digital vs analog.

this thread was supposed to be about the portico 5042 - not digital vs analog.

they are supposed to have sent me one on friday, but it hasn't arrived yet. until then, all this talk is hot wind.

best regards,
rlnyc
Old 25th July 2005
  #74
Gear Addict
 
rlnyc's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mwagener
Why not? They rockl! I own one called :"Fritz". Amazing piece of work, very natural sounding to the point where it's scary, but still not an "exact" reproduction of what a human hears in a room. The first time I used a binaural head was on ACCEPT's "Breaker" album in 1980. It was used for drum overheads and was staring at the drummer all the time, it drove him nuts.

oh, that is beautiful. makes me want one!!!! LOL.
thanks michael.

best,
rlnyc.
Old 25th July 2005
  #75
Lives for gear
 
themaidsroom's Avatar
 

[QUOTE=rlnyc]and if you read any interview with producer tony visconti (bowie, thin lizzy, marc bolan, etc etc...) he will talk about how all those records sound the way they do because he felt the need to use tons of eq to get back what the tape lost everytime it got played. by the time all the overdubs were done the tape sounded like dull ****.


the original context of this quote was from visconti's discussion of the wonders
of gp9, how far tape has come, and how much he's been using it right now........
saying something to the effect of tape is the best its ever been........


- jack
Old 26th July 2005
  #76
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
When companies try to make sample rates higher, when things like DSD are developed that is advancing digital technology and digital recording.
I don't think that making sample rates in and of itself is advancing digital technology. Sure, it is if it makes things sound better...and in most cases it does...but I think that making existing sampling rates sound better is advancing digital technology as well (and personally that's what I'd rather see happen...but I don't want this to turn into one of those threads.

Quote:
Joke all you want but Les Paul is still using a tape machine and a ribbon mic to record guitar. You know Les, inventor of the electric giutar and that sound-on-sound thing we call multitrack recording. Nuff said.
I don't think that's "'nuff said". He's just one person, as is Rupert Neve with all of his controversial anti-digital comments, as are all of the pro-digital people as well. Everyone has opinions, and nobody's opinion trumps anyone elses in this case since this is all so subjective (and if you want to look at it objectively digital wins out, right, because it's more accurate?).

-Duardo

PS That last aside was rhetorical.
Old 26th July 2005
  #77
Quote:
but I don't want this to turn into one of those threads
Don't worry, that happend about 3 pages ago.....

Old 26th July 2005
  #78
Lives for gear
 
kevinc's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duardo
.I don't think that's "'nuff said". He's just one person, as is Rupert Neve with all of his controversial anti-digital comments, as are all of the pro-digital people as well.

Plus Old Rupe aint no spring chicken himself is he these days.

Why would you trust his ears any more than Les Pauls if old people can`t hear ?

Both of them can hear good enough to know what sounds good I`m sure. Especially based on all the super positive reviews of the Portico we`ve allready seen.
Old 26th July 2005
  #79
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
yea, I have a smile too Michael, and no desire to bash digital or those who hear it as best. i have a great 2 track AD here and it just doesnt do it for multitracking to my ear

then again, most tape decks leave me feeling grey ... yet since i got the MM1200 tweaked, i've always prefered what it gives back off of Repro to the Input (and yes we MUST listen to Repro) ... i dont hear this sound as loss or distortion, but gain and patina to an already good sound. just like the Portico!


I dont have a Head as I MUST stick to mastering gear, I have plenty of recording gear for the 4-6 records a year I do ... listening to the Fairman TMEQ now ... yikes



as far as tape technology ... the tape itself made a few changes but the recorders were stuck after the Mid 80s ... the new ATR tape should be very nice indeed.




and er, the Portico ... I cant wait to hear it heh

Portico thread


Portico thread
Old 26th July 2005
  #80
High End Moderator
 
mwagener's Avatar
heh heh heh
Old 26th July 2005
  #81
Gear Addict
 
rlnyc's Avatar
 

[QUOTE=themaidsroom]
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlnyc
and if you read any interview with producer tony visconti (bowie, thin lizzy, marc bolan, etc etc...) he will talk about how all those records sound the way they do because he felt the need to use tons of eq to get back what the tape lost everytime it got played. by the time all the overdubs were done the tape sounded like dull ****.


the original context of this quote was from visconti's discussion of the wonders
of gp9, how far tape has come, and how much he's been using it right now........
saying something to the effect of tape is the best its ever been........
- jack
i know tony, and while i can't speak for him, i know that he works in digital formats aplenty and is happy to do so. he has said the same thing several times in different published interviews, as well as to me personally. i do not think you are correct in assigning a context to those comments about tape. but if so, so. i don't want to argue.

personally, i spent the day doing overdubs on tape (gp9 on a studer a800, +6), and i could hardly wait for it to end - sitting through rewind after rewind and fast (slow really) forward after "fast" forward. i used to be known as an analog dinosaur, but i was dying to return to my hd24xr, with it's instant locate and it's 5 second fast forward and rewind function.

best regards,
rlnyc.

tape is like film, going going gone...
Old 26th July 2005
  #82
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
A Studer on GP9 is nothing to write home about ... Radar beats that

GP9 has a very harsh and digital-like sound to my ear ... nothing like SM900, or 911 (personal fave on the MM1200)


of course a PORTICO in the chain might help
Old 26th July 2005
  #83
Gear Addict
 
rlnyc's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey
A Studer on GP9 is nothing to write home about ... Radar beats that

GP9 has a very harsh and digital-like sound to my ear ... nothing like SM900, or 911 (personal fave on the MM1200)
i was not the engineer on those sessions, just a victim.

my point was not about the sonic quality of the tape or machine. me, i would never have chosen gp9 (i still like 256), but hey... not my choice.

my point was about waiting for an antequated format to lumber through it's flawed paces. i am not a member of the "supersize it" generation, and my attention span is not that of a goldfish watching mtv, but we should face the fact that tape spools sprinkled with poorly glued iron dust on it slowly inching its way across magnetic heads is caveman science.

imagine storing sound by scratching a nail into a flat piece of plastic! (vinyl record). by objective reason, this is extremely primitive compared to storing sound by a mechanism utilizing a coherent light source (CD read via laser).

since this thread has turned into a digital vs analog discussion (by virtue of the fact that only michael wagener has recieved a portico 5042 to report about), cogent arguments ought to be developed about the subject.

there is nothing special about tape as a sound storage medium, except that some of it's limitations (tape compression and saturation) are euphonic. since that is the case, there should be nothing to stop an imaginative soul from creating a device to emulate those limitations, while stopping short of emulating the more undesirable aspects, such as having to deal with heavy and unwieldy reels of polyvinyl with iron filings lightly stuck to it.

and as for digital, certainly there are problems to be solved. developing devices to increase the euphonics of the medium while continuing to increase it's accuracy in translating sonic representations seems to me to be a pretty good idea. i have no problem if some such device calls itself a "tape emulator". we gotta work from what we know - all other inventions are the results of fortuitous accidents.

best regards,
rlnyc.
Old 26th July 2005
  #84
Lives for gear
 
kevinc's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rlnyc
and as for digital, certainly there are problems to be solved. rlnyc.

Definately !

Starting with the fact the storage itself can be very glitchy and it`s easy to lose a lot of work if your not carefull about backing up everything. Even then your not allways safe. It`s terrible to lose a session to a bug in the software.

But really what I want is something that completely sonically BLOWS AWAY both tape and digital to this point and they SHOULD have it by now if great sonics really was the goal of the music industry or the people making the CD players. Obviously it isnt.

I could care less personally about all this nostalgia marketing with the plug ins and rack units claiming to emulate vintage gear or tape or tubes. (though I`ll use them and buy them if they sound cool) I don`t want digital to sound more like tape I just want it to sound GOOD which is where these processers come in to play. Whether or not the make digital sound better (which they do in my book) the goal should be to improve the initial medium to where it sounds good to begin with instead of having to fix it with things.

It`d be refreshing to see digital (which is becoming ancient technology itself) or some other newer format take the next 10 steps it should have allready and just decisively beat the hell out of anything we`ve heard to this point. Something so clear and true that it would make both tape and digital look like Dinosaurs.

If there was enough money behind it we`d be there allready but judging by the popularity of MP3`s were now moving backwards.

I should sell off my converters and go back to using ADAT`s.....
Old 26th July 2005
  #85
Quote:
there is nothing special about tape as a sound storage medium, except that some of it's limitations (tape compression and saturation) are euphonic. since that is the case, there should be nothing to stop an imaginative soul from creating a device to emulate those limitations, while stopping short of emulating the more undesirable aspects, such as having to deal with heavy and unwieldy reels of polyvinyl with iron filings lightly stuck to it.

and as for digital, certainly there are problems to be solved. developing devices to increase the euphonics of the medium while continuing to increase it's accuracy in translating sonic representations seems to me to be a pretty good idea. i have no problem if some such device calls itself a "tape emulator". we gotta work from what we know - all other inventions are the results of fortuitous accidents.
Yep yep and yep. I would add that I personally have no problem with calling something a "take emulator" either.

I call a car a car, I don't call it a fish. A tool to emulate the sound of analog tape is a "Tape Emulator" no more no less. How well it does that task may be up for debate but that is what it was designed to do, no shame in that.

The 5042 "Tape Emulator" is not an Mic Pre, it is not an EQ (could be seen as one in a way I guess), it is not a speaker or a power amplifier. It is a device that was specifically created using mechanical properties to as closely represent the mechanical properties of a tape machine.

At the end of the day you may complain that "tape emulation is not tape" and I would not disagree nor would the manufactures of said products so you can call it want you want.

If it makes better sounding recordings then great use it and call it what you will. I am interested in it because it is a Tape Emulator that may make my recordings sound better and with a name like "Tape Emulator" I know what to expect. I don't expect a Mic Pre or a speaker, I expect that I will hear something that rounds off the edges of a recording much like tape would.
Old 27th July 2005
  #86
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlnyc
i was not the engineer on those sessions, just a victim.

my point was not about the sonic quality of the tape or machine. me, i would never have chosen gp9 (i still like 256), but hey... not my choice.

my point was about waiting for an antequated format to lumber through it's flawed paces. i am not a member of the "supersize it" generation, and my attention span is not that of a goldfish watching mtv, but we should face the fact that tape spools sprinkled with poorly glued iron dust on it slowly inching its way across magnetic heads is caveman science.
ah the Simple Life


I find the waiting time for a machine to cue is as useful as any time in the studio ...





the Pause



the emotional admission that we (engineer or artist) are not omnipotent, and that there is a time to rest ... and talk ... or just sit and listen to the music in our heads.



then in a minute or so ... tape ready .... the begin again, refreshed.



Digital's speed is more harmful with anxious rushing and a reliance on editing always creeping in ...




Of course a PORTICO may help things feel more imperfect, and thus human/emotional!
Old 27th July 2005
  #87
Quote:
Of course a PORTICO may help things feel more imperfect, and thus human/emotional!
Come on man why do you mock things huh? Seems like you are just itching for a fight.
Old 27th July 2005
  #88
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by not_so_new
Come on man why do you mock things huh? Seems like you are just itching for a fight.

what ???



please RELAX ....
Old 27th July 2005
  #89
Lives for gear
 
kevinc's Avatar
 

Kinda looked like a joke to me NSN.

Why the hot head ?

Old 27th July 2005
  #90
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinc
Kinda looked like a joke to me NSN.

Why the hot head ?


Not hot at all, no big deal really. It's like a white muntiy is all. Lucey spent quite a few pages lameting the wonders of tape then in two consecutive posts he says..

Quote:
of course a PORTICO in the chain might help!
and

Quote:
Of course a PORTICO may help things feel more imperfect, and thus human/emotional!
You know he does not mean that, I know he does not mean that and I know he knows he does not mean that. Unless of course he was lying when he said...

Quote:
digital has just sucked for so long it's been all about coloring it to hide the suck.
and

Quote:
The main difference is the lack of 1 and 0s! Once you have turned what Neve called a "perfectly good sine wave" into an integer, you have a different quallity of sound and no digital multitrack will ever sound like my MM1200 at 15 ips tweaked to my taste.
Don'tmean anything to me, no hard feelings or anything but it does look like he is fishing for something....
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