Hi everyone. I have something I'd like to input to this discussion. First of all, I'd like to say thank you to "Chords of Orion" for doing this comparison for all of our benefit. I'd like to talk about what analogue warmth really, is in my experience. We all know about tape hiss and all the shortcomings of the medium. However, I think that what's really going on is something that I like to call the "deep dark". I know that may sound funny, but I invented it one night when I was drunk. I think that our minds, when listening to to analogue audio, are "kept busy" by the hiss, wow, flutter, artifacts etc in the background, and this gives the impression of intangible life in the recording. I urge all of you to try this: Park your car, with the motor still running in idle (best at night when it's dark), and put on your favorite tune, digital, analogue, old, new...it doesn't matter. Shut your eyes and really think about what you're hearing..they dynamics, the instruments, how it makes you feel. Now shut the motor off and do the same. See what I mean? It suddenly sounds cold in comparison. I equate this to the imperfections of tape, all that crap running in the background that adds an imperfect sound-stage for the music to be contrasted against. You can also do this in a DAW simply by adding a white noise generator effect to the master track and getting it so low that you can only hear it in the pauses. Seriously, try this and A-B it without the effect. We also know that dynamic compression can glue tracks together individually when mixing, so I expect that this effect is generated yet again on playback from a tape source. The demo in this video is great, but it's only on guitar. I also think that the "deep dark" and all of it's benefits are most noticeable on low frequency signals ie. bass instruments, and kick drum. So my personal solution is to record in the digital domain, while using analogue compressor and tube mic preamps on the way into the interface. Then bounce only the bass and drums to tape, but let them SATURATE the tape for effect and then bring them back. Best of both worlds: Clean and present instruments, with harmonic distortion and the "deep dark" on the bass. Hope someone out there is with me on this, and you guy can feel free to disagree. I'd love to see someone demo this on RU-vid, so if Chords of Orion is reading this, maybe he can give us a video of a comparison. Peace guys. Jim
I was thinking of doing the same thing - bouncing all tracks with low end to tape - I just love the sound of a bass guitar and kick drum on tape, and I've never heard anything that sounds like it in modern digital recordings.
I really liked the digital to tape at 15ips. I think what was interesting is that it seemed like the digital captured an element that the analog couldnt do, but then there was an element that analog captured what the digital couldnt do and when you bounced the digital to tape, it brought all of those elements together as one.
OK. Here are my preferences from first to last - 1. Original tape 2. Digital bounce to tape at 15 IPS 3. Kramer Master Tape plugin 4. Digital tape 5. Digital bounce to tape at 7.5 IPS Keep in mind that this is very subjective, and these preference are really only applicable to the test recording. But the general idea of running digital recordings through tape seems to me to be a good one. I can easily see me taking final mixes of my recordings and running them through tape to get it's feel and vibe as a final step before mastering, in much the same way I currently use the Waves plugin. Unfortunately, I often record more than 4 tracks of audio, so it is not feasible for me to record an entire mix to tape, so this strategy would be a good compromise. Keeps the thoughts and comments coming!!
+Chords Of Orion As a hardcore analogue user (Studer A810), I record CDs (through a heavily modded and re-clocked CD player) as well as internet radio onto SM468 tape To give your labour a fair run, I donned headphones and asked my son to assist in a blind/double blind test. The tape and digital recordings where easily identified. The taped guitar is far more 'believable" than the digital version. The digital bounce @ 15IPS had less hiss than the original, yet added (retained?), a natural mellowness that only tape imparts; in addition, the decay was more natural than the digital. I must agree with your ears; 1. Original tape 2. Digital bounce to tape at 15 IPS
For me, it's interesting how the "Digital bounce to tape at 7.5 IPS" recording sounds. It sounds a little bit LoFi, but there seems to be some kind of phasing, or flanging, because of the tape movement, I think ... the sustain of the notes sounds interesting, because of this effect. The color here is is not so clear like in the digital recording bounce, but it has an interesting character. The question is as always, what I like to do with the recorded track, and in which context it has to be in the end.
Thank you. Most helpful. Sometimes I use plugins and sometime I go digital to tape. Because of wear and tear of my recorder and the cost of tape Im leaning towards plugins, eq and compression. Ultimately I just want to put out a good recorded performance.
There's something about the stereo image that's different between the original tape recording and the others. I can't quite figure out what it is, but the digital versions (all the versions recorded to computer first) seem to have a slightly less in-phase quality to them. You can tell on that first chord - the tape recording sounds like one solid piece whereas the others sound more separated and slightly less comfortable to listen to.
My theory (only a theory) is that it's the crosstalk between channels on the tape that create the more cohesive image. I wonder if reducing the stereo width on the digital version would have a similar effect? Hmm...
Chords Of Orion I tried playing around with the stereo width and some slight panning. Any time I thought I had the digital close I'd switch over to the tape and boom, there it was, fuller and just better. I think tape wins in this case, at least in comparison to the Kramer. Plenty of other sims out there - I'm curious, but not thousands of dollars curious. Anyway, interesting experiment that I think confirms that the hype around tape is more than just mumbo jumbo.
I could hardly believe that the digital and tape were from the same mics with the same setup. The tape really sounds more alive. An extraordinary comparison. Thanks so much. What is odd is why the digital bounce to tape shouldn't sound exactly like the original tape.
I do it very often using my Technics cassette tape deck : I use my PC's hard drive from the music library after i have transffered my CDs making a playlist and record this list on a cassettet tape most often normal type one tape with or witout dolby B or C the results ?? AMAZING :-)
Listened on my Shure headphones, and I think the first two sound the best. Pure analog and pure digital sounds well rounded, at least from these examples.
Very good effort on your part to show the difference of two total different mediums, Sometimes "best"is not preferable because to direct, THAT is the problem with digital, it is so revealing that it could also be fatiguing to the ears and brain in particular when listening to the crappy music we are force-fed all-day. Remember that 99 procent of music we here today on TV and radio (TV first, radio second) is made to sound sort of good, on sort of good consumer equipment, those same listeners are not musicians and do not have any idea how a particular instrument really sounds, and the jonger generation is more interested in deep Basss and sharp HIsss and of-course a booming beat. luckily there still is a tiny minority of people listening but the mass dictates what there is sold on the street and what is sold is DIGITAL not analogue . in a few years we all adjust to the new reality , so forget analogue, even when it sounds 'Better' witch it aint BTW. its the same as with photographie , that is WY KODAK lost the film battle, nowadays we are DIGITALLY streaming and downloading, almost nobody buys records or CDs.
Hello Bill, thank´s for your work. I think the basic digital / analog discussion is how everyone is grown up with learning to listen music. As an instrument player your ears are shooled in another way than the ears of a music consumer. If you are grown up with vinyl and old Mono Tube Radios you listen in other clusters. Last times i´ve buy the firste Beatles LPs on vinyl to hear it on an very cheap kitchen record player. For my ears it´s sounds much better than any digital remastered version of them. For my ears more authentic. Also the first recordings of the KINKS in Mono... The same effect with my new Fender Bass IV playing through the Korg Stage Echo give the Sound Jet Harris produced. It´s more authentic than every digital Echo/Reveb effect cause of all the specific noise/dirt/minimal-tempo-changes. These analouge Tape Echo effect works more like waves at the beach. Once a little higher, once a little faster. But they are waves for my ear and sound more natural and authentic. Digital waves are determinate at their numbers and the thing betwen them is evertime a step. Not a slight. A step fom 1 to 0 or from 1 to 2. That´s my ears. If you are shooled with digital sounds, like the most younger people, who don´t grow up with Tape and Vinyl and the typical Vinyl Scratches on Records you love so much, there´s of course also a different between digital and analouge. But this make no sense. It´s only an effect in producing. For their ears it may make not a different cause it´s only on of thousend effects. Like the scartch effect on video programms to make it like old super8 style films with special colours from the 70s. Thanks for all. Love and Peace Benward
The tape version is rounder and sweeter. Waves version is clean and its EQ edge makes it very radio ready, but my preference is the tape. Thanks for this; I might apply the Waves app to some of my over-ProTool'd recordings. Great sharing of information here
There is nothing like the original tape sound. The digital bounce to tape at 15 IPS is close but doesn't capture the performance quite like the original tape. Without a doubt the natural distortions of tape comforts the human ear unlike any other way of recording.
Agreed. The way the sound hits the tape as oppose to hitting the digital 1s and 0s sampled and then going to tape is a very different sonic approach. Although it does seem to warm it up the digital version and place it nicely (relative term, I know) as oppose to the digital being so 'sterile'.
I really heard the Wow and Flutter difference in the 7.5 ips. It sounded really cool, but I would have thought that the way it sounded, it almost sounded like there was something wrong with the deck itself, such as maybe the capstan flywheel belt was a little worn. Both direct digitals definitely sounded a little brighter, but not necessarily better. They were good though. I didn't necessarily care for the digital bounce back to 15 ips. The direct to tape was really nice. I think the direct to tape definitely has richer bass. Thank you for posting. I love the track, too.
Otari MX5050 BII-2 and Tascam BR20t owner here, I like the sound of tape and often copy my favorite SACD songs onto my reels. Interestingly, the reels always sound better than the source (sacd). I don't know why. ATR tapes are used.
Hmm maybe it's psychological but I couldn't hear the warmth that the 15 ips and 7.5 ips digi through tape had compared to the Kramer version. But Def it's a combination between composition and recording process. It's not only about that "tape sound"
@@philperry6564 I used this plugin quite a lot and figured it makes the signal louder, then if bring down the signal to match the dry signal, there's practically no difference. At least to my ears..
in the Waves Kramer rendition I can hear more sounds than in any of the originals, as if it is played through a SE valve amp (should read harmonic distortion). Or maybe it's just me hearing things...
So I said in the video that I was going to keep my thoughts about which version sounds the best. I will share what I think in the comments here, but will wait a bit to see if others have thoughts.
Hi Bill, what a fantastic work! It is exactly the thing I was looking for. I am very happy that I found you. I have downloaded the hi res files not listened to them yet but even from You tube you can tell that this analog recording has that feeling of body once again like vinyl. You image the guitar very nicely like you can touch it. This is strangely transferred somehow through the bounces. How is this happening? That digital recording lacks that definition, the image once again is like a phantom it doesn't has that body. The plug in is very interesting and very high quality. I will listen once again very carefully the high res. Happy to be the first to comment keep the good work with more experiments.
Sotiris Proedrou I'm glad the shootout was helpful! Agreed that there is fullness to the analog tape that the digital does not have. As you observe, the bounces get some of that fullness too. I'm still listening back and forth to see which I like best. Part of my personal goal in this is to determine how to treat the tracks on my upcoming album. While I can't track everything through the deck, I can bounce the mixes through the tape deck.
Thank you very much for making a so cool shoutout.Especially the feature with possibility of clicking to the different versions makes it really helpful!!! Only the Master Kramer version is a bit too loud for comparison. But anyway I was mostly interested how close it sounds to the original tape, when the digital recording goes on tape and back to the computer! And I really like them both (the 15 and the slightly more wow and flutter 7,5). I am surprised, but in the end your TEAC works like an amazing plugin, just outside of the computer :-)
Yes, I was pleased with tape's effect on the digital recording too, although personally, I would probably only use the 7.5 ips version for specific lo-fi effects. And I think you are correct about the Waves version being a little louder. I tried to level match all 5 recordings by average RMS levels, but perhaps that one should have been tweaked a bit. Still, it's pretty easy to hear the difference.
Chords Of Orion Yes for Mastering Saturation, the 15 is the better choice, but for single FX also the 7,5. I am really pissed, since I watched your vid and wrote the comment, I am reading in different pages all about 1/4 tape decks, instead of making music ;-) In Germany most available are the Revox A77 , especially interested in the MKIII or IV version. Damn, I need more place... ;-)
Let me start off by saying all of the samples are very musical and in the hands of a good engineer, they could all be passable, or even great recordings IMO. I understand everyone's nostalgic take on tape. Perhaps it's because I'm of a different generation used to hearing lots of digital recordings, but I think I like the straight to digital recording. Agreeable: the straight to tape recording gives some nice warm and round characteristics to the bottom end, but at the expense of wobble and a higher noise floor. Maybe it's just me but I felt that the straight to Digital had a wider stereo separation that gives the recording some depth and width. The straight to tape was not as wide, the rendering back to Digital from tape was even more narrow. Mind you, as I said before, they all sound great, I think I just prefer (all though a bit more "sterile" or"lack of artifacts") I feel that (in general) Digital recordings are more true to life. With the higher sampling/bit rates, computers are actually able to capture frequencies way beyond what analog was engineered to capture. I know we can only hear up to 20kHz (well some of us, give or take), but there are harmonics that are being reproduced that just give recordings life IMO. After all, why would companies like Earthworks be manufacturing microphones that reproduce 5Hz-50kHz if there was no reason to capture those frequencies? Even running microphones through an analog signal path (i.e. a tube preamp/compressor/EQ) will create some nice analog artifacts. Tube saturation creates harmonics that are pleasing to the ear, and perhaps those infinitely higher harmonics would best be captured at 192kHz/24-bit... Good shootout, lovely recordings, great playing, great musicality keep it up!
Hi Bill, I just have heard for a very first time all the records and find this experience absolutely fantastic! I am actually doing the same kind of tests (being passioned by analog tape recording since many years ...) here in Belgium for a particular presentation to members of the Belgian Acoustician Association. I'll formulate my personal comments a bit later in this month. Thank you one more time for these very exciting tests and quality of the presentations.
Dominique Pleeck Sorry for being late in replying. I'd love to hear more from your presentation. Please post back here and let me know where to find the information! Thanks!
I don't know, even with headphones, the difference is subtle. I mean, maybe only a guitar player or recording enthusiast could tell the difference, not sure the general public could... Having said that, the last one sounded pretty authentic... Would be slot easier to use a plug in that's for sure and if it sounds pretty much the same, why not?
I understand and appreciate this- BUT I am on a computer, youtube, and D/A converter at my end. All I know is cassete tape I recorded (TDK SA) directly from mikes in the 80s sounded better in listenability and "space and time" try it .
Thanks again Bill. I've now watched all parts (1/2/3). An amazing journey into digital vs analog. As the age of using tape sadly draws to a close, I agree with you on getting the best D/A converter to compete. These days, for better, for worse, the majority of music consuming public is demanding digital downloads/ digital format. I personally, loved the natural, dynamic sound of your tape recording as my number one vote. Emotionally I get much more excited in its sound characteristics. The Waves Kramer Master Tape is my second pick, although I find that digital compression gets fatiguing after a while to my ears these days. If I was 20 years younger, I'd probably appreciate that Waves Kramer more than the analog tape recording, especially for dance/ house music! But at my older age, the more natural tape sound of your beautiful sounding Lowden acoustic guitar, sounds excellent to my ears.
POG FROGULPOP Glad you enjoyed the series. It has been a learning journey for me for sure. I feel like the exercise has help to "calibrate" my ears to the types of tones I like the best (tape of course) and helped me understand some of the components that go into the sound (compression, high-end, saturation, crosstalk, etc.). Thanks for the great comments!!!
Thanks for taking the time to do this series! I was able to get close to the original tape version by applying a gentle high shelf and sknote's RoundTone plugin to the digital track in REAPER. It's not as good as the original tape (naturally!), but it sounds better than the Waves version to my ears. But now I'm GASing for a tape machine... thanks Bill!!!
+ambiguationdotnet Cool that you were able to experiment! I've learned a few things about the Waves plugin since I did this video, and a high shelf is a good strategy for sure. Go for the tape machine if you can make it work. They won't be around too much longer!
I did eventually take the plunge on a stereo 1/4" AKAI reel to reel, and I love it! Just bit the bullet on a Fostex M80 which should pair nicely with my old school Studiomaster desk. I miss the days where I had to learn a song and play it right, all the way through so I'm looking forward to this! :-) Also bought a cassette four track which I plan to use for looping things :-) If you're the praying type please pray for me to get out of my head an into my music room! Thanks for all you do, Bill! It's entertaining, informative, relaxing, encouraging and inspirational! Get 'em!!
I think the original master digital is the best. It produces the cleanest sound and you can hear more small subtle audio that gets completely drowned out by the tape hiss. If you want "warmth" there's an EQ for that. The tape does not sound natural, and has problems recording low end frequencies. I'm certainly no expert, but I imagine that much like camera film, each different type of tape "colors" and "tints" the sound in different ways. It's fine if you prefer the sound of tape, but it's just not as accurate as digital, and many old recording artists (Including Alan Parsons) were very excited about digital and how they could FINALLY get things to sound the way they wanted, rather than being limited by the medium. Detail is just straight up lost in tape that's easily present in digital, and the dreaded lack of low end is glorious on digital.
i know im asking randomly but does any of you know a method to get back into an instagram account..? I somehow forgot the account password. I would love any assistance you can give me.
@Jayce Matthias I really appreciate your reply. I got to the site through google and im waiting for the hacking stuff atm. Takes a while so I will get back to you later with my results.
My opinion mimics the one below given that I am comparing in the digital domain. I am a bass player and seek analog tube gear anytime I can get my hands on it, but, I like the digital version better as far as clarity, the original analog recording sounded dark to me right out of the gate and only got darker with the digital to analog recapture. I like the fuzzy low end of the original but the clarity in the top end of the digital and I think, as Bryan James posted, if you had added some EQ to the Kramer version you would have hit the nail in the head without the hiss and tape flutter. To me it would have had the best of both worlds. But again even though am listening in HD using a pair of old Sony 7506 headphones which are very very flat and very very truthful am not listening to the actual tape recording. Bryan James - "Yes, sounds best to actual tape, but not so sure that a little stereo imaging adjustments & additional EQ (mid-low bump especially) beyond the tape plug-in (Kramer, which sounded 2nd best to me) wouldn't 97% equal the actual analog tape recording."
+ZakarooNetwork I have to agree, The original master is sublime, but the 7 1/2" added something. You can actually see the ever so slight compression in the wave forms created by the slower speed. And yes, ATR is really nice.
My take is that what medium you use is source dependent. In this case, I like the original digital best. Had this been an electric guitar track, I might have gone with the 15ips tape.
+Camilo Guerrero Suena bien la musica pero si hay que "sacarla de la cajeta". Te recomiendo un preamplificador de al menos dos canales de tubo para en general y algun preamplificador con compressor/eq designado solo para voz con el cual le darias dinamicas sutiles al momento de grabar. (el cual tambien puedes aplicar para guitarras). Hay unos buenos equipos econimicos tales como ART y si vas a las grandes ligas, tirale un ojo al Avalon 737 y para comp, Universal Audio 1176.
Wow! Hard to decide! I like the 7.5 version a lot, although it really loses high frequencies. For a more concrete comparison I'd chose the digital bounce at 15 IPS over the original tape, it looks easier to done on a regular basis. The least favorite was the all-digital, and the kramer did a good job emulating the warmth and the body of the tape without adding noise to it. Would be interesting to bounce a mix in half tempo to tape at 7.5 IPS and accelerate the track again to it's original tempo in the DAW, as the 7.5 IPS bounce has a less audiable noise.
Diogo Sarcinelli Even though I like the 15 IPS bounce a lot, I do like the Kramer plugin quite a bit. It really improves a mix, is very pratical, and I use it all the time. I actually have tried bouncing to tape at 1/2 speed and then speeding it up. It didn't work very well on my deck. Might get a better result on another deck.
Chords Of Orion I do use the Kramer too! And it works awesome! But I've always been curious about the similarities between real tape and the kramer. Your video settle it out! Haha! Great content! Saw your ambient guitar video, loved it. Keep on!
There is a big Stereo Image difference between the Original Tape and the Original Digital recordings. The stereo image of the Original Tape is well balanced from left to Right. That gives it a huge advantage over that of the Original Digital. The stereo image for the Original Digital is unbalanced in that it is leaning more towards the right side of the sound field. The almost "emptiness" of the sound on the left side creates a disadvantage for it. For this shootout you should use the Avid HD audio interface or another high-end audio interface and all the recordings should be performed at the time to avoid changes in position of the microphones and of the Guitar player.
My thoughts on this Tape Shootout Part 3 are from the perspective of my experience in recording music for many many decades on ALL mediums from Very High Quality 16" Electronic Transcription Disc (RCA), to 30 ups Open Reel & Pro Cassette Dolby S, to AFM, & Digital over the years and using RCA Ribbon Velocity (1938) 44-BX Broadcast Microphones throughout ALL. In listening & enjoying your VERY interesting comparisons of various analog vs digital recording of the same sound source; my trained ear listening to your You Tube Part 3 comparison I note that the BEST sound to my ear was the processed "Wave Unit" recording which to me adds greater separation of the stereo spread at higher frequencies. For absolute accuracy to the Live Sound you recorded, the Digital is the Most Accurate as the S/N ratio or "Noise Floor" is the BEST by better than 40 db. Tape can sound just as good if you allow proper high frequency headroom on recording & use Dolby S & Metal Tape to control S/N & headroom.
+BJSTV Good observation on the S/N ratio. That particular deck has a SNR of 53dB, so it tends to be on the "hissy" side. i do have the original DBX Type 1 unit and as you observe, it does indeed reduce the noise floor significantly. I elected to leave it out when I did the recording, because it tends to affect the tone somewhat.
+BJSTV ~ Exactly right. Analog tape can't quite match digital recording's frequency response (though it can come close) and S/N ratio, plus it always adds a bass bump. Also, not only does digital give a better stereo separation, but 24-bit will give you better separation than 16-bit. That's really the only difference I can hear between 16 and 24-bit recording, although with 24-bit you can also make more destructive edits to a track before any serious signal degradation sets in.
Great comparisons, thanks for your time in sharing your experiments with others. Although raw untouched signals is an important part of comparing, I would be very interested to see you do a final mix comparison where you made each style sound as good as you possibly could via EQ, compression, gate, etc. In the end, you're after that final product, not the raw. In other words: Tape has hiss and kind of dark on the treble side. Digital has no hiss but not deep/round enough on the bass side Fix their flaws, add compression, gate, whatever else you do for a final mix. Master the signals. THEN compare. If you already did this my apologies, I'm making my way through your helpful videos
+Chaplin G Good thoughts and points. I did indeed elect to compare the "raw" audio in these comparison vids, but you're right - the final product is where it's at. Maybe there is a part 5 to this series... :-) Thanks!!!
+Chords Of Orion Cool. Honestly I'm hoping when all tweaks are done, digital can truly hold up because it's so cost / time effective. Plus, I know when I went into the studio we recorded to 1/4 inch, THEN down to 1/2 inch and that whole process has my head spinning on the how's and why's. If tape truly sounds better in the end then I'm just gonna have to make it happen end of story
My favorite was Dig thru 15 IPS. It seemed to have less hiss than the original tape, and I could see it being a way easier process (effortlessly recording digi, editing digi, then bounce down each track tape). Original digital was very crisp and clear, but I find that kind of boring, and doesn't feel as interesting or alive as the tape. The 7.5 ips had a pretty clear flutter. The Waves plugin seemed to add some warmth, but not really in any kind of beneficial way, there is nothing like the real thing.
I like the original anolog it has natural harmonic phase shifts that happen. Wher at the digital dosent capture that correctly. I notice the imbalance in the digital recordings between the high mid and low ends. Where as the one the is the anolog has this harmonic distortion the happens when a threshold is reached that causes every other sound to redistribute its self across the headroom in a natural and warm sounding way. It sounds natural.
the original recording on reel is the best for me (even if i'm listening on youtube) and the the kramer master tape is doing a good job.i would say that digital recording has no colour to it that's why there is so many plugins too add the colour needed and also there is summing boxes that can add that warm sound and also the equalizer can add that bottom bass that we have naturally with reel machines. digital is like cooking without salt and pepper so we have to add that ourselves.a good engineer with good ears and good equipments will make a killer record with digital or analog.
As just a casual music listener, with my millennial ears, I have grown up in that awkward phase between analog and digital media, and I still enjoy my physical formats. It might just be nostalgia based preference, but one thing is definitely for sure, there is a difference between them! I feel like everything today, from photography, to cinema, and music is a little too overdone digitally. I enjoy digital, but everything should be presented with intention. For instance, if a movie was shot to be played on cinema film, we as the audience should see the actual film, instead of a digital conversion. That's my preference at least, but digital does have it's advantages too. it's convenient and small to take with you anywhere.
like that 15ips. Almost "blooms" too much on the bottom end. buts its damn nice. Interested in those NEVE 542's....but an actually R-to-R would prolly be cheaper.
Original to tape...I went back and forth...how do I put it...just has more life...and I was hoping you could achieve the same sonic quality by taking a good digital recording and putting it onto tape...oh well, looks like there is only one way to do it...record to a good multitrack tape machine then transfer to your daw to do any editing/ polishing...if any one has found different then let me know...with examples, of coarse...thanks for sharing these samples for us to compare.
Yes, sounds best to actual tape, but not so sure that a little stereo imaging adjustments & additional EQ (mid-low bump especially) beyond the tape plug-in (Kramer, which sounded 2nd best to me) wouldn't 97% equal the actual analog tape recording.
Brian James Could very well be. In the Kramer version, I really only focused on the Kramer plugin, with a little buss compression. EQ would have taken it one step closer, for sure.
Original tape recording had that "thickness" on the low end which i really appreciated, but is it worth it? I don't think so, because you get a generous amount of background noise on tape that doesn't always give prominence to the music itself. That said, i really DON'T LIKE the COLD CLEAN totally digital sound of some plugins at all, and i think modern high quality recordings should always rely on a fair amount of external outboard (hardware compressor, vintage EQ, channel strip and so on) to get a natural, fat and pleasant SOUND).
+Gianluca Di Stefano ~ I'm pretty much with you. When my studio went from tape to digital back in the mid 90s, we were stunned at how much better digital recordings sounded than tape. ALL tape has a bass bump and a gradual roll-off of highs, and those are very easy to mimick with EQ. But as much as I prefer digital recording, digital effects plug-ins just don't do it for me. Even a cheap old Alesis 12-bit microverb sounds better than 24-bit reverb plugins. I don't pretend to know why and don't care.
Thanks for this research you are doing. Very interesting. The Digital to Tape @ 7.5 IPS sounds too dark and muffled as a finished track and this is where I think you maybe should have used a fully mixed band to do the comparison? It could be that a dark guitar parts sounds good in isolation ... but in a whole mix that same effect is not so nice. he Waves Kramer Tape plugin also seems to be adding some compression ... and so it sounds best to me. I guess these ears are used to compressed music :-)
+Terry Doyle Agreed about the 7.5 IPS version. I personally think that it is good for a specific effect, but I would not want to listen to an entire album of that tone. Thanks for the comments!!!
This was an awesome project. Im still looking for a full band recording for a better comparison of what i want to do this fall. Im going to make a more shocking preference. After about 3 listen throughs of each, my 1-5 is the digital vst, the original analog source, the digital copy, the 7.5, and last, the 15 ips. While the analog was nice and the most pleasant, i enjoyed the presense of the plugin (might lead to a new experiment). The digital still had plenty of character, but the digital to tape was not successful to me. The 7.5 was far more enjoyable than the 15, which reminded me of when i made recordings on my dads little tape deck; it was overly hissy and any warmth that was given to the tracks would easily go overlooked without some type of gate or high pass filter.
I recently mastered an EP for a friend, and tried bouncing the full band digital mix to tape to see what it sounded like. I'll see if I can get his permission to post an excerpt. If I can, I'll let you know!
Awesome. That would be amazing. It will be even better since he has mastered it, as well. Ive been researching this for a while and your videos were the only ones done where it was done right with the side by sides. I was surprised because i listened to them blind. I really like the warbly sound of 7.5. Though it was acting out of character, it was unique. Another trial of a previous age is that artist would nail a performance and the take was completely dependent on the condition the tape came out. I think the appreciation of this process is another reason some can feel more strongly about the sound of tape vs just the "analog warmth" that it provides.
Nathan Holmes Hey! I have the "full band" digital mix bounced to tape experiment posted, using the track i mentioned. Check it out here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-07AylGg7bl8.html Also, look in the description of that video for a download link if you would like to audition the uncompressed audio, which sounds way better than RU-vid. Hope this is helpful for ya!
hi to all out there. I picked up a otari mx 70 and ton of zonal tapes.I can tell you I was over the moon with the sound of the tapes.with reel to reel you got to find tons of ace used tapes. for editingand masting I use a computer just to save time. tape makes it sounds ace.you know there's a site called spotify. I use the otari mx70 to make on linemusic sound better. bob
Don't mean to be picky, but how is your 1. Original tape, different to 2. Digital bounce to tape at 15 IPS? It was exactly the same process, the only difference being that in 1. you bounced to tape at the same time as recording in computer, you were using preamps and converters on your interface, which converted the sound coming from microphones to digital and then converted back to analog, so that you can output the analog signal in order to record it on tape and, so you had a total of 3 conversions A/D > D/A > A/D in both cases. If you were using external preamps (and possibly converters) and then split the signal and go to line inputs of both tape and interface, you would have just one conversion in both and it can even be done at the same time, if you recorded outputs of tape to separate line inputs of your interface (with aa slight delay from tape recorder). Please correct me if I'm wrong.
+Retro Man We've had some discussion on the topic of the AD convertor in the Focusrite interface. I emailed them today to get clarification on whether or not direct monitoring goes through a conversion. When I find out, I will report back and comment on the digital conversion path of each scenario that you've commented on. Just want to make sure that I have all the facts...
+Retro Man OK. I heard back from Focusrite and they confirmed that when the device is set to direct monitoring (the technique I used to split the signal), NO conversion occurs between the line inputs and the line outputs. So...to answer your question about the difference between the 2: 1. Original tape recording: The path for recording was analog from the microphone through the interface to the tape deck. Thus the there was one A/D conversion when the tape was recorded to the computer 2. The digital recording conversion sequence was as you observed: 1. A/D during the initial recording, 2. D/A to bounce to tape, and 3. A/D to record back to the computer. Hope this helps to clarify!!!!
IME... digital bounced to tape from a 24-bit source sounds good at 30ips, from 16-bit it's generally better at 15. Only worthwhile if it's quite a 'pure' recording, if there is a lot of VSTs/plugins/effects used in the mix it may not be worth the effort tbh
Hello, I recorded my L/R tracks on tape AKAI GX 625 @ 7 1/2 IPS but for some reasons the song pitch its changed. Do you think that I have to do something else before recording than clean the heads and VU level ? Thanks !
The most pleasing sound is obviously original tape, digital sounds flat even at 15 IPS. Tape at 7.5 is really interesting. I bet there is a market for a simple 7.5 IPS 2 track cassette machine.
Gotcha. But that is very unusual today. Most vinyl being produced is cut from a digital recording. Nothing intrinsically wrong with that - it's just very unusual to have an all analog path.
Very good. The original analouge sounds great. When digital gets bounced to tape, whether 15 or 7.5 ips, it lacks something. So im curious how an original analouge sound of 7.5ips would sound would sound. The waves plugin has many characteristics of the original digital and doesnt really sound like an emulation of the digital that was bounced to tape. I am more of a hardware guy, so i dont like pluins and this proved it. In the end no one is right or wrong because when it comes to personal preference, its all a matter of taste and what you personally want the listener to hear. I personally prefer the original analogue tape 15ips to digital. Im curious as to an original analouge of 7.5 to digital, as the original digital lacked body to begin with.
Yeah, I don't often record at 7.5 ips. Both of my tape decks sound so much better at 15. And I don't know if you noticed, but the 7.5 recording had a significant amount of wow and flutter. Almost to the point that I wonder I am starting to have an issue with the deck. Yeesh!
Chords Of Orion yes, i heard the wow and flutter. You know, the original digital sounds like it was recorded from a video camera. The analogue recording sounds like it was recorded in a studio. It would be cool to try this overall experiment with a live band, split the signal and presto. Now you can compare many instruments. Way cool.
What speed was the original tape made at ? I heard a lot of 'wow' on the 7.5 ips version. I think the waves Kramer master tape (The last one) was the best. Has the fullness of the tape sound, the slight natural compression but without the tape hiss.
In a digital play back I would choose the original digital source through an analog playback I would choose the original analog source. Then I would choose analog to be The more natural Sounding. Digital recordings go through conversion and processing dithering and fir filters then the dac This creates an artificial sound .
The digital captures the low level noise in the Space of the recording that the analog hiss covers up. With the digital you get a lower noise floor. That's the only thing that's a fact in this experiment. What sounds better is subjective to the listener.
Do you recommend the Focusrite Scarlett 2i4 audio interface for someone that is obsessed with the "'60s analog sound". I want to do something similar that you do with the reel-to-reel and want to preserve it as much as possible without too much 'digital' getting in the way.
I wonder if some of the differences between the direct to tape and digital to tape come from the line inputs vs mic inputs. Both the direct to digital and direct to tape have clear high end and fast transients. Once it gets sent back to tape from digital the high end openness is lost and things sound slower and muddier. I think something in that process is having a negative affect on the sound. Did you send the audio through the line-in inputs, or the mic inputs of the Teac?
The Widest Smiling Faces All audio was sent through the line inputs of the tape deck. The digital bounce to tape version was sent from the audio interface line outs to the tape deck line inputs. And then of course, when copying back from the computer, the audio went from the tape deck line outs to the audio interface line inputs. Maybe some of the difference is that there was an extra D/A conversion step that did not occur in the direct to tape?
From my experience, DACs are usually essentially flat, though not sure which one you used, but maybe? For me, there seems to be a general similarity of sound between the two "direct" recordings. Direct to tape and direct to digital. And there also seems to be a similar quality to the two digital -> tape recordings. To my ears, the direct to tape recording sounds more like the direct to digital than it does the digital -> 15 ips. IMO, that's worth investigating, as maybe something about the flow of electricity, impedance, etc is doing that.
I prefer the analog sound as I am an old analog guy but is the preference worth dealing with tape hiss? I think not. I'm experimenting with my vintage Electrodyne console at the moment hoping I can get the best of both worlds with analog summing using the old board. Thanks for the comparison, it's a very important question.
Mark Saville I guess that answer to the tape hiss question depends on how offending you think it is. One thing I do have with the A-3440 is the original DBX unit. I do like the sound better without, however, DBX drops the hiss level way way down. In these comparisons, I did not use DBX, thus the more audible hiss level. I think the Electrodyne experiment sounds fascinating! And awesome that you have one of those old units.
hi to all there one thing you had tdk in your hand what was used in this test i go from computer to tape doe's sound better there's something i can't put it in words i am lucky i pick up a small uk model sound craft 762 need a lot of work on it 3 3/4 7 1/2 15 ips how did i get the slow speeds easy once you know i love the sound of the old zonal tape has a lot of power 1/4 tape prices are very high why i used 1 inch tape look up how the speed servo works on the unit one wonder there's a lot after this deck
nice video. well virtual tape machines are good enough , maybe the analog tape sounds slightly better but remember people who listen to your music are not sound engineers with normal ears.they will hardly find any difference.
I think the original tape sounds the best; you can hear the room a little better (more depth), and to my ears there's more air in the top end. The digital take and the digital with tape plugin are pretty damn close for my money, maybe missing just that last 2%. IMO bouncing digital to tape is garbage because it cuts off the top end and sort of muffles and obscures detail. Of course these aspects have their place in certain applications. In any case, room, performance, mic selection and placement will be far, far more important than whether you're recording to tape or a DAW. My $.02.
is there any diagrams that shows how to loop line outs from tape machines into an interface? when you send tape to digital do you just plug in tape out (L,R) into the interface or do you send each track to its own preamp channel on the interface?
+izzydclxvi 18 i don't have a diagram, however the connection is very straightforward. Simply connect the line outs from the tape deck to the line ins of your audio interface. There's no need to go through a preamp channel. My tape deck has RCA jacks so I had to get a cable that went from RCA to 1/4" jacks in order to plug the tape deck into my Focusrite line inputs. Hope this helps!!
Hi in order for you to get the original analog taperecoording, into the computer, doesnt it become digital? And another question: how did you get the recording from tape to computer?
Of course - there is always an analog to digital conversion to get any audio into a computer. To do so, simply connect the line outputs of the the tape deck to the line inputs of the audio interface.
You need to send your reel to reel to jrs magnétics for repairthen buy New tapes like the SM 911 and get your deck ajudsted tô the sm911. Believe me you Will fall from The floor when your hear The diference
Hi, I think that tape shouldn't sound this bad. There is a lack of high specter. And I hear there is something wrong in phase. Tape recorders in great condition and calibrated sounds more opened at high specter and they add a little bump at low end. I have three of them fully recaped/serviced and calibrated. (ampex atr800, revox pr99 and tascam 80-8) I've just made a test and it came out completely different. Sound was more open and massive...it just sounded a lot better than the digital version. Did you serviced your machine? But great video anyway. All the best, T
I don't think bouncing to tape does much of anything good (to impart any of the benefit of 'original tape')?! GIGO ... Tape and the Plug-In (quite impressive) sounded best to me (though the plug-in had a volume advantage, as noted).
lizichell2 It is hissy, for sure. I actually kind of like it - it's soothing... This particular deck does have DBX noise reduction, but I elected to not use it for this experiment, as it does changed the tone somewhat.
Down right madness it's about even on how many like the tape and how many like digital. Are we doing this to please ourselves or our listener when creating music. Because as you can see we can't please all. Tape has characteristics a rounded brown sound warm with a natural tape compression that please 1/2 of us. Digital has its cleaner no hiss and sterile sound that please the other 1/2. Articles on this subject have been around for years, some called digital cold. Me being grown up on analog i have to agree but I don't like hiss either, digital has its pluses. It has not arrived yet 2017 to recreate it. As much as this holds our interest, its the old apples and oranges thing. Until the genius programmer can program the elusive plugin or advanced technology make the computer that can process and recreate all the mathematics involved with authentic tape sound in a plugin for audio engineers with golden ears, lets put this to rest. But when that plugin is available I'll be checking back here again for a new comparison. Joe
I came back to listen again, not even trying to compare, and playing the digital, after the original ,the full body was gone, and has a tight sound to it ,to me anyone with ears would noticed the diffrernce to me.Not to sound negitive now,but all the new tech and stuff, is ruining music, and nobody wants to play anything thing anymore, ya they want it all done with sampling lol.
christopher dunn I do agree that the tech can take over the music. It's something I've been trying to balance out, especially on my electric/ambient stuff.
lizichell2 Ya but it was much more thinner sounding ,and has a more solid state sound, than the analog ,i feel the tape was much better even with the hiss.
+christopher dunn What's wrong with sampling? Some of my favorite records were made by people who never touched an instrument to make them. Hell, Richard D. James (Aphex Twin) cannot even play an instrument at all, and yet I don't think you could listen to a piece like Avril 14th and conclude that this has had a negative impact on his work. I should add that I too prefer the sound of reel-to-reel and cannot stand working in a DAW, but this is mainly because I think you can get so hung up on what the "music" looks like on the screen that you stop listening to it. I think your ire is misplaced. Really creative artists can use the sampling process just as creatively as sitting down with an instrument to compose, lazy artists (oxymoron?) have always wanted convenience: the tools are not the issue. Sure, the playing field is leveled a bit for those who would prefer not to labour over their art, but music has not been ruined at all. There are still great artists around making great, innovative and powerful art, as indeed there always will be. It would take more than some digital toys to achieve the ruin of an artform as old as human culture!
+Chords Of Orion The other thing i didn't think about also, you have put all these tracks to computer, and now on youtube, and yet that's all digital now, and yet you can still hear the complete difference between the tracks.So it pays to record analog ,then can put to digital after, without losing the full sound.But i'm sure if you played your reel to reel ,it would still sound even better.
