@@hainesworld1 not the 80's...since around 2005 to 2010...thats when recording to tape died out. (all of the 90's and early 00's albums were still recorded in studios on tape)
@hainesworld1 so do you think oasis guns and roses the stone roses were recorded digitally? Just to name three from 1988 89 and 93 or 4. I can assure you tape was used. Protools didnt get going until the 90s and the first digitally recorded pop single was by Ricky Martin I think between 98 and 2001
491 views in 4 months. Obviously this guy is on to something. It would be 490 if I could retract my view. None of the things mentioned are problems, except cost. And on that front, you don't subscribe to a roll of tape, you buy it. It's yours to keep forever.
So, I got about one minute into this and realized that none of this matters. At all. Tape can sound great, it doesn't require a computer, I dig the rewind time, only people who can actually play and sing get to use it, etc.. Tape is, for many reasons, the superior workflow.
To me the only good quality of in the box is ease of use. Not that it is better than tape but easier to use. Tape has a quality that people try to copy but can't. But yes tape takes more time to use with set up and no instant recall. But for sound quality I will go with tape everytime.
The big question is why has the music written in the digital era, been significantly poor on average when compared with the analogue era? Might just be coincidence but maybe the better music in the older era, was due to having to find solutions and workarounds to the drawbacks of tape, which led to "happy accidents" and unusual results and richer more characterful music. Digital just removes most of the obstacles.............any quality you want, any amount of tracks you want etc. So no happy accidents or workarounds for the most part.
@Kevlar Absolutely. I once had a long tiring session recording, and I was unhappy with a guitar solo. I spent a long time near the end of that session, trying to digitally splice together a better solo using different cuts from various takes. This was not to my liking, so I decided to end the session, give my ears and mind a rest and come back the following day. Come the next day I replayed the original unedited take, and was blown away. I saying to myself, "how did I not hear how perfect this take is!". Just because digital recording gave me the ability to piece something together artificially, did not mean it would be better than the traditional one take method.
@Kevlar That guitar solo was done using a Marshall JMP-1 into a 8008 Valvestate amp, 1960A 4x12 cab, Yamaha FX500, Yamaha RGX321 with PAF Pro humbuckers and stock single coil, through a AKG C3000 (original model). I had better mics in the years after, but that AKG is better than most give it credit, especially on guitars!
It seems as though analog and vinyl aficionados today are like photographers back when who initially winced at digital photography. Just because a photograph is captured on film (using analog methods) doesn't mean its resolution and quality is going to rival that of its digital equivalent today.
Oh yes the Woodles. I think I had their self titled debut album. I wanted to buy their second album "Crosstalk" but I never got around to it. One of Britain's best musical duos. Think their names were Wow and Flutter
Regarding the E2 or any similar recorder, it could be used for stereo or two separate tracks. But to be properly stereo it would need a 'butterfly' head with a narrow guard band. This wouldn't work so well for 2-track because of crosstalk. The E-22, if I remember, was the version with centre-track timecode. I never used it but I used other Fostex sync equipment and it worked very well, particularly considering the cost which was low compared to the alternatives. Regarding pros/cons, if you need it then you need it. DM
I was thinking of buying a vintage Revox for nostalgia to take me back to my teen years. But he`s right , i can stream with perfect sound now, why bother . Shame really. It would probably end up as a ornament .
The trick is to use your. Head amplifiers that measure well. Don't sound well analogue is infinite no limits digital is fixed. It is the same reason you pick a by purity girl you did not way up all factors people find digital clinical and tiring,that why people prefer ancient valve for sound.
0:24 nah. the gap width in the head to the width of the tape to the tape speed all ratio to create a resonant highpass filter, yes the higher the tape speed the higher the frequency of this resonance, for example my 30ips 1/2 16 track, yes, eat doo doo, is at 60hz, and -3db at 40hz, and if i switch it to 15ips the bump becomes 30hz, and the low dip is unnoticeable, but there's always going to be a 2-3db bump in the lows, its just what frequency it is, and it might aid the music
I'm enjoying all the intelligent, rational comments. No one is being trigger or feels personally attacked at all. Refreshing. Keep it up analog snowflakes! Analog Snowflakes? That actually would make a great artist name for whomever wants it. LOL
Aha, you're attacking me for my age, not my arguments, which shows you have nothing useful to say. As for bitter, analogue tape has found its rightful place in the past and I couldn't be happier! DM
your arguments? you just tell disadvantages and leave out the arguments for tape and why so emotional? thats what i call bitter. i‘m earning my money with working on tape all day. i should be should broken, if i am listening to you. but i‘m not. i had a pro tools session last month and i missed tape so bad… it‘s the 3d sound, it‘s listening, not seeing music and musician can play again. best wishes from germany.
Thank you for the clarification. There's a point in one of the videos in this series where I say clearly that if you like tape for its sound, then use it. If you can tolerate the problems then that's fine. I like the sound as one possible alternative among all the many effects and processes that we have available electronically and digitally but I prefer to put the problems, and the cost, behind me. DM
