The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
adding 2" to tracking setup, couple of questions
Old 6th September 2006
  #31
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
The main thing about tape is the lack of any DA or AD artifacts. So if you want tape for an effect on the way to AD maybe get a 2 track machine, or any number of compressors and distortion boxes in combo.

If you want THE SOUND, meaning the depth, detail and lack of harmonic smear that comes with 99% of all AD DA ... stay analog on the multitrack ... there is no comparison.




Anyone using Flux multitrack heads? Just heard 2" 16 stock vs. 2" 24 Flux on the MM1200 ... wow. Makes me consider 2" 16 Flux as a nice way to go.
Old 6th September 2006
  #32
Lives for gear
 

That's what I was trying to say - albiet in a very round about wayheh
Old 6th September 2006
  #33
mpr
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kats View Post
In other words, eventhough the recording was all done in the analog realm - once dumped to digital, all was lost......except of course the tape artificats that we wish we could get rid of. Am I understanding this correctly - 'cause if so, what's the point of all this?
All is not lost! IMO, the benefits FAR exceed the losses during conversion (lousy conversion not withstanding).

We use 192s clocked to Big Ben at 96khz and while I can hear obvious differences, the feeling of analog remains, and it is the feeling of analog that I have learned to LOVE about recording to tape. My shoulders relax when I listen to heavy GTRs and cymbals playing back from tape.

I have never ever had the same relaxed physical reaction when listen back from even the highest end (Mytek, Lavry, Apogee) digital recordings. Our bodies are smarter than we think!
Old 6th September 2006
  #34
Lives for gear
 

Not my words, I was just responding to this:


Quote:
last month i transfered
a beautiful recording done by albini at electrical into pro-tools at 192......going back and forth, the band could not believe how different the sound was, immediately......
the depth just goes away.......even at 192
Old 22nd September 2006
  #35
Lives for gear
 
jslevin's Avatar
Just stumbled into this thread, mostly from last month, and was really glad I did.

We're thinking about venturing back into the Tape realm, and while it would bring an interesting sonic element into our toolbox, the real reason is ... business. People want tape. Or at least, they think they do. So we want to have it as an option, along with the high-end digital sound we've had since 2001 or so.

I mention this because I think many others here are thinking the same thing but not coming right out and saying it. Fletcher, the perception of the client is one area where the Fatso Jr. is definitely not going to replace tape. In fact, in that area, a totally non-functioning half-inch deck will trump the Fatso Jr. every time. And that is part of the reality of the business right now.

I think tape sounds nice. I think it can sound better than tracking straight to digital sometimes -- and yes, it must be considered an effect at this point if the delivery medium will be anything but vinyl. I think for any project with a budget under $10,000 -- which is most of ours -- it would be hard for the use of tape to be worth the extra money spent -- both on tape and on the extra time required to get the same functional work done -- for whatever sonic benefits are perceived.

But some clients, particularly rock bands, want it, or at least think they want it, and I want to give them the option. I have a suspicion that we will get in several bands who want the option of tape, but who will then end up not using it. I think it's interesting that jazz and classical and world music clients never, ever ask about tape. For many rock bands, however, if you don't even have a tape machine, you are not an authentic option. For some, it's like not having a guitar amp.

Of course, if we have it, we have to be able to use it as a very high-quality tool. Our engineers have all worked with tape and are comfortable with it, but none of them is a tape maintenance guru. We're going to have to find a specialist to have on call for that -- much like a piano tuner, I'm imagining. Probably depends on what we buy.

Anyway, I have no big conclusion, just thought I'd share what we're thinking on this subject, I certainly benefitted from reading everyone else's thoughts.

JSL
Old 22nd September 2006
  #36
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
Mostly agree JSL except a couple of points.

1. Great sounding tape recordings actually save time. Pre production is more important, no reliance on editing. Musicians are inspired to perform and happy with the results. Mixes are rolling downhill, sonically. Less compressors are needed. It's easier, period. (yes, the maintenance takes some time, so you need to account for that, but so does HD maintenance)

2. The sonic benefits are not in doubt IF you have a great sounding machine, set up for your tape. I would highly recommend a Flux play head to anyone going into tape. The price is well worth it. Recording to tape is easy compared to playback and the Flux heads are faster, more modern, but still retain the good sonic features.


Glad to hear you're going that way ... got a 2 track machine too
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