The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
What artists mastered to tape and cut with preview head
Old 4 weeks ago
  #31
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bgrotto View Post
By "DAC" i meant "Digital Audio Convertor", not "Digital-to-Analog Convertor".
Then I misunderstood you, too. I guess I always assume that a reference to a DAC is a reference to the thing that is the opposite of an ADC. But I also grew up thinking that I knew what a regular coffee and a standard poodle were.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
Then I misunderstood you, too. I guess I always assume that a reference to a DAC is a reference to the thing that is the opposite of an ADC. But I also grew up thinking that I knew what a regular coffee and a standard poodle were.
Haha yes, fair enough. DAH was talking about "DAC artifacts moved to the ultrasonic range at higher sample rates" in a preceding post, amid a conversation about capture, and my mentor way back in the day used "DAC" as short-hand for any digital audio convertor ("AD" and "DA" was what we used to describe the particular flow of a box), so my streams got crossed. My apologies for the confusion.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #33
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by bgrotto View Post
so my streams got crossed.
Sneaking in a Ghostbusters reference? I appreciate that.
1
Share
Old 4 weeks ago
  #34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushman View Post
Sneaking in a Ghostbusters reference? I appreciate that.
Ha what can I say? im an 80s kid

ETA: better a bit of confusion than every particle in your body simultaneously exploding at the speed of light :D
Old 4 weeks ago
  #35
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAH View Post
That is the problem. Judging purely by the sound quality, Snoop Dogg's (except maybe the NoLimit era) and Ice Cube's releases (War and Peace and later) are quite on par, but both coming from under Dre's wing, so the mixing to DAT practice might as well be adopted by them.
I don't see why it's a problem, if ya just looking for an example of something done in this way (straight from tape no ddl etc) then fair enough but if ya looking for a reference of something that sounds great then who cares what format it was mixed to. Since we've been talking bout Dre mixing to DAT I can't imagine he made that choice out of necessity or convenience considering how much of a perfectionist he is known to be. Maybe he preferred mixing to DAT coz he thought it did a better job of capturing what was coming off the desk than analog tape did? Maybe analog tape imparts too much character to the recording and DAT's actually more neutral? just an idea no real world experience of mixing to tape myself.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #36
Lives for gear
 
DAH's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by meez61 View Post
I don't see why it's a problem, if ya just looking for an example of something done in this way (straight from tape no ddl etc) then fair enough but if ya looking for a reference of something that sounds great then who cares what format it was mixed to. Since we've been talking bout Dre mixing to DAT I can't imagine he made that choice out of necessity or convenience considering how much of a perfectionist he is known to be. Maybe he preferred mixing to DAT coz he thought it did a better job of capturing what was coming off the desk than analog tape did? Maybe analog tape imparts too much character to the recording and DAT's actually more neutral? just an idea no real world experience of mixing to tape myself.
The problem is I can hear whether the LP was cut from/with non-high res digital., so it will not sound as good. Yes, Dre sounds good even on youtube via a phone, but I would not use it as a reference. Unless it is 3d, I do not bother referencing it, but it's OK for listening.
As I read in Internet, the sound recorded on master tape would change with every playback. This, and the size and easy handling of a DAT cassette over tape.

Last edited by DAH; 4 weeks ago at 06:12 PM..
Old 4 weeks ago
  #37
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAH View Post
The sound recorded on master tape would change with every playback.
Do you know this because you know this, or because you've read about it?

On the GS Remote forum, this would be the point where a certain contributor would say, "Fill out your Profile so we can tell if you're somebody."
Old 4 weeks ago
  #38
Lives for gear
 
DAH's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
Do you know this because you know this, or because you've read about it?

On the GS Remote forum, this would be the point where a certain contributor would say, "Fill out your Profile so we can tell if you're somebody."
I am nobody and was told that. Will change to "As I read in Internet", sorry.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #39
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAH View Post
I am nobody and was told that. Will change to "As I read in Internet", sorry.
Thanks for that. Sometimes The Internet is pretty uninformed.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #40
Lives for gear
 

strange to read how some folks claim to know the reason for a specific sound without having been involved into the relevant part of the production but read some stuff somewhere and then immediately point at a piece of gear which in their ideas is evil - even more strange if they don't have any experience with the gear in question but base claims on theoretical ideas that higher resolution/sampling rates must sound better in any case and that a specific producer does always achieve a typical sound with every song/album...

one cannot tell what gear affected sound to what extent: there is no way of telling what desks or converters got used, neither what efx devices, real rooms/plates nor what eq, dynamic, pres or mics - there is no way to pinpoint a specific piece of gear upon listening to a commercially realased album and attribute the sound quality to this single piece of gear - no freaking way!


___


i was quite glad to get off tape (studer 1/4" btw) and record straight off the comp into a da30mkII at 44.1khz - i too did experiment with 'better' converters (lex 20/20) but i did not like results better in every case while i did quite often prefer results upon feeding mixes into a fairlight (which used an early version of apogee 16-bit converters if i rember right - i didn't care at all at the time).

and then came 'multitrack dats' (adat/da88) so even the large studer (a800mkIII in my case) got hardly used anymore and the aforementioned evil dat was kept to record 2mixes... - and yet things sounded good!

nevertheless, i was glad i got off all of them and things quickliy moved to 20 and 24 bits, then to 88.2 or 96, even dsd for some time! - i mostly kept mixing on desks, went digital 20 years ago and i'm happy to report that i'm still mixing on digital desks - and that i'm back to 24/48.

but yeah, it's so damn non3d, everyone and his/her dog can hear that i'm using low-fi crap throughout - it doesn't matter to me 'cause i can't hear much above 10k anyway (but don't tell anyone) - wish though i would finally make a cent from my work that i could invest into a stratospheric converter and all be good...



p.s. still have my dat! :-)
2
Share
Old 4 weeks ago
  #41
Lives for gear
This thread goes on because, as I understand it, the OP claims he can hear differences in the original multitrack formats, AND in the mix formats, AND in the disc mastering processes of old vinyl. He cites proof of his superior hearing that isn’t verifiable, but... there isn’t any proof I am aware of that indicates anyone can hear way into a mix and make those judgements accurately and with repeatable results. And the truth is, it isn’t apparently much of a concern for anyone other than the OP.
I don’t know... this thread may be must-read stuff for intelligent bat and dog colonies who can hear above 24 kHz, but they don’t post responses much.
But a greeting for any of my squeaky and howly friends who are following this.
1
Share
Old 4 weeks ago
  #42
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushman View Post
... a greeting for any of my squeaky and howly friends who are following this.
Then again, we're making an assumption about our OP.
Attached Thumbnails
What artists mastered to tape and cut with preview head-internet_dog.jpg  
3
Share
Old 4 weeks ago
  #43
Lives for gear
 
IM WHO YOU THINK's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
Then again, we're making an assumption about our OP.
What's up Dog?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #44
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
Then again, we're making an assumption about our OP.
“AN assumption”? Only one?
I’m disappointed in us.
We’re better than that!
Old 4 weeks ago
  #45
It’s threads like this that make me wonder if everyone I’ve ever worked with (myself included) has been worrying about the wrong things.

Whilst I’ve certainly printed mixes to tape, the vast majority of my output has been digital capture, rarely above 48k.

Apparently my recordings (including the award winning ones) have no depth.

Whooda thunk?!
7
Share
Old 4 weeks ago
  #46
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAH View Post
The problem is I can hear whether the LP was cut from/with non-high res digital., so it will not sound as good. Yes, Dre sounds good even on youtube via a phone, but I would not use it as a reference. Unless it is 3d, I do not bother referencing it, but it's OK for listening.
As I read in Internet, the sound recorded on master tape would change with every playback. This, and the size and easy handling of a DAT cassette over tape.
When you reference something surely ya referencing it as something good to listen to though? if not what are you referencing it for?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #47
Lives for gear
 
IM WHO YOU THINK's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
It’s threads like this that make me wonder if everyone I’ve ever worked with (myself included) has been worrying about the wrong things.

Whilst I’ve certainly printed mixes to tape, the vast majority of my output has been digital capture, rarely above 48k.

Apparently my recordings (including the award winning ones) have no depth.

Whooda thunk?!
Well, don't take it so personal. According to the theory exibited, most of the entire history of recorded music that's been captured digitally, doesn't qualify as reference material.
1
Share
Old 4 weeks ago
  #48
Lives for gear
 
DAH's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by meez61 View Post
When you reference something surely ya referencing it as something good to listen to though? if not what are you referencing it for?
For mixing\recording for the final mix/recording good to listen to.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #49
Lives for gear
 
DAH's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
Then again, we're making an assumption about our OP.
It ain't me barking here in a horde though.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #50
Lives for gear
 
DAH's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah View Post
higher resolution/sampling rates must sound better in any case
They do, in practice, with everything else being equal.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #51
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAH View Post
It ain't me barking here in a horde though.
A group of dogs is a pack.
A large group of Mongolian horsemen is a horde.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #52
Old 4 weeks ago
  #53
Lives for gear
 
Lumbergh's Avatar
 

Are we sure Dre was using DAT? Studios I worked in '99 were mastering to 24(20?)/96 2Trk ADAT as a backup for tape ...
Old 4 weeks ago
  #54
Lives for gear
 
DAH's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumbergh View Post
Are we sure Dre was using DAT? Studios I worked in '99 were mastering to 24(20?)/96 2Trk ADAT as a backup for tape ...
We are not, this is stated in articles like this one: https://homerecording.com/bbs/genera...re-lab-174522/
They say it was the first 24/96 ADAT devices released in 2001:
https://www.alesis.com/products/view/hd24xr
Old 4 weeks ago
  #55
Lives for gear
 
Lumbergh's Avatar
 

Apogee made a MUX box to interface with ADATs and dump 2Trk across the 8 channels. Plus you got their converters, not a cheap solution but it worked. My clients may well have had pre-release boxes in '99. Dre could have afforded it, might even have had the clout to be offered them, not my scene but its possible.

Edit: The mastering guys around that time might know, although I suspect they were used for archiving and label approval, that kind of thing because they were quick and cheap to courier. Plus they all had 2Trk tape anyway.
1
Share
Old 4 weeks ago
  #56
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAH View Post
I read Dre had mixed to DAT which kills all the resolution of the analog (then) mix.
There is another source of degradation: getting the sound to the lathe via a digital delay where the original signal, mind you, goes to the groove pitch (read distance between the grooves) computer.
Would like to know from witnesses or reliable sources, who of the bigger artists cut records off tape using master machines with a preview head (read maximum resolution).
And I do believe in digital, just not 44.1 or 48 kHz sample rate.
The way you stated whatever it is you are asking is very unclear and difficult to make any sense of.

I believe I understand your question as: "What successful artists have tracked using the repro head of a tape machine then onto digital in real-time, and used delay compensation to account for the slight lag"

So I will answer the question (As I understand it) with all-due honesty...

WHO CARES?!

Whether that's the answer you want, I don't care, this is the answer that will do you the most GOOD.

Stop looking to "Rock stars" to validate anything you may or may not do. TRY IT, then TRUST YOUR EARS.

This is the path to bigger and better things, whether you choose to walk it is up to you now.

Peace.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #57
Lives for gear
 
Lumbergh's Avatar
 

@ DAH Thats an interesting article, thanks for posting SV3800 then, I remember them.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #58
Lives for gear
 
DAH's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrible.dee View Post
The way you stated whatever it is you are asking is very unclear and difficult to make any sense of.

I believe I understand your question as: "What successful artists have tracked using the repro head of a tape machine then onto digital in real-time, and used delay compensation to account for the slight lag"

So I will answer the question (As I understand it) with all-due honesty...

WHO CARES?!

Whether that's the answer you want, I don't care, this is the answer that will do you the most GOOD.

Stop looking to "Rock stars" to validate anything you may or may not do. TRY IT, then TRUST YOUR EARS.

This is the path to bigger and better things, whether you choose to walk it is up to you now.

Peace.
The question was about completely different things, namely, the mixdown and the vinyl cutting without going to/through non-high res digital as two consecutive production stages, but thanks for the answer, though I beg to refrain from patronising tone in future, especially when the question is unclear to you. Need not Yoda advice I.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #59
Lives for gear
I’ve printed mixes to tape.
I’ve printed mixes to DAT.
I’ve printed mixes to the hard drive.
I’ve printed mixes at 44.1k, 48k and (very very rarely) 96k.

There is not one bit of difference in depth between any of them. I won’t touch the sample rate argument, but you can guess my thoughts probably.

I’ve got probably a dozen records I’ve done that had vinyl pressed. They all sound like crap compared to the CD versions. Less high end, more noise, not to mention clicks and pops (well, not the FIRST time I played them, but every play after that!). I only ever played them to a) check the pressing quality – the very first play, and b) for the fun factor of playing vinyl. When I wanted to listen to good sound, I played the CDs.

Regarding preview heads vs DDLs, I’m pretty sure just about everyone was using DDLs for lathe cutting by the end of the 80s. Further, I’m almost absolutely certain that the ONLY person who would have known if the vinyl of a particular album was cut using a preview head or a DDL was the actual mastering engineer cutting it. Nobody at the label is going to know, the artist, producer, etc. are not going to know. The actual mastering engineer is the only person who is going to know. Why? Because it doesn’t really matter. I can promise you that nobody at the label was saying “let’s not get Hank to do the cutting because he has a DDL, but Susie uses a preview head so let’s get her to do it!”

This is akin to a chef trying to figure out if using salt with a 0.31mm grain size provides better flavor in their chicken than salt with a 0.38mm grain size.
2
Share
Old 3 weeks ago
  #60
Lives for gear
 
DAH's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris carter View Post

This is akin to a chef trying to figure out if using salt with a 0.31mm grain size provides better flavor in their chicken than salt with a 0.38mm grain size.
To me the difference between a low sample rate and a high sample rate is rather 3.1 vs 0.38, both when capturing an LP (PF, classical) cut before the DDL era or a live stereo mic feed. In terms of space and sound stage depth. With various ADDA chains.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump