This brings back, all that angst, insecurity, uncertainty, of tape in music studios of the 80's and 90's . Oh no! Another bad batch of Zonal from the frogs! Re-biasing the MCI 16 track between 3M 226, 206 and BASF sessions, lining up the HF on all 16 tracks, closing the drawer and it would all be messed up and down by 3dB. The anxiety of handling the incredibly expensive (and seemingly untrustworthy) 2" CCRI test tape. Lining up the old hammer grey Studer 1/4" mastering machine, (with the bad back-tension) again and again, because you were never quite sure, because it drifted out by two deebs every time you turn your back. I'm feeling viscerally ill with the memories. Dry joints, bad MOLEX edge connecters and flaky routing switches. Saved by DAT and then by DAW! So solid! So flat! So quiet! The only thing I miss from that time is - the small EMT gold foil echo plates, Beyer headphones that hurt your ears, but never broke, and the Hammond organ that's calling all angels through it's Leslie speaker in a happy clapper church somewhere, just south of the Limpopo😢
Has anyone ever mentioned that you look a bit like Eric Idle, and that bit about a copy of a copy reminded me about "our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers"
Nice job. Enjoyed this series. I still enjoy using real life actual tape, but only as a piece of outboard gear, or "plugin" (basically using it as a compressor/EQ). Can't really imagine going back to it to actually record onto like we used to do. I do kinda feel bad for the younger generation of audio folks......they are seriously romanticising it, and I don't blame them. I hope that those folks get the chance to work with it. Some of them will probably realize what a drag it is, but I wouldn't be surprised if we see some folks coming up with some really insane ideas on how to manipulate it in ways that haven't be thought of before
Perfect series. Describes my sentiments and 40+ years experience exactly. I do bounce to an A80 or 807 and back in from the repro head when I really want that sound, but I would seek another career before going back to tape!
Thanks ! I enjoyed your videos very much ! I found them the week that I bought my first multitrack tape machine: the little brother of your beloved Fostex 16 track, the R8. Seems like I'm going to have loads of fun ! :)
Wow ! " scrape flutter " at last now I know why I miss my cassette deck for recording RU-vid music. Head ware wasn't a problem, neither wow and flutter. But after 15,000 hours. The electrolytic caps in my DD-7 spilled thier precious fluids. I really miss that sound ...TDK D series no noise reduction. It's like a good wool coat in the damp winter. You know comforting...when you really need it.
Excellent series sir...This should disabuse everyone who loves the "warmth" of analog tape... One thing I did not hear was tape wear after playing back for so many times because of overdubbing. The engineer for Pink Floyd's "The Wall" recorded all the drum tracks on to a 16 track 2 inch tape and then mixed a scratch track for the drums on a 24 track 2 inch tape for overdubs... When mixing, the 16 channel tape was synchronised to the 24 track and the original pristine recording of the drums was mixed with all the other tracks preserving whatever analog goodness there was on the original tape...
You are undoubtedly correct. It slipped my mind probably because I don't remember ever being conscious of suffering from tape wear. Except... In my younger days in a band where we used a WEM Copycat echo machine on stage. Run it long enough and the loop of tape will first create an interesting textured sound, then sound bad, then split into two loops. The tape would wear completely through lengthways. DM
Год назад
Thank you for these superbe series. I am a very old engineer from Patagonia Argentina and I love to learn. I suffered harshly the analog era. Gracias.
Very good series. I don't think you mentioned that analogue tape has a 'natural' compression of about 3 to 4 db, so that each copy will be more compressed compared with the master.
That's a good point. The compression will be most on the original recording, then because the peaks have already been squashed it should be less on the copies. However there will always be the desire to optimise noise, so a little bit more squashing is inevitable. I could have commented on the squashing of peaks in the section about distortion. However, although it was definitely an issue in the old days, I now see this as a feature of the analogue tape sound that has value to add to our near-perfect but dry digital recordings, when wanted. DM
One general comment: People that have had any technical experience in a recording studio, they nearly all prefer digital. They know through personal experience that digital is closest to the original musical performance. By contrast, audiophiles that aren't involved in content creation may prefer vinyl, cassette, or reel-to-reel tape because that's how they're accustomed to hearing it, so that's they're point of reference. And as David Mellor mentions in Part 1, this has little to do with a person's age. It's more about personal experience.
I completely agree with everything said in this series. But small imperfections don't bother you in home audio, especially if you grew up on analog audio.
Baby boomer here again.. really enjoyed the video and can relate to much of what you have to say. I still have an old Technics turntable and Teac reel-to-reel. Back in the day I would get a new LP and a new 10 inch tape and immediately record the LP to tape at 7.5 IPS. Then put the LP away. That was about as good as you could get back then as a basic consumer. I even had a Pioneer range expander that did a pretty good job of reducing tape hiss. I still have most of the old equipment that I smile at when I think about it. But, not much play. When CDs came out I repurchased most of what I had as LPs and never looked back. Today it is even better because all of those CD are ripped to FLAC and now the CDs are put away. Listening to the music from the server. To me it seems that the quality of the mastering is more noticable from CD to CD. Some CDs just sound better. I remember several of the items you pointed out in your videos. I bought a new reel-to-reel recently, one that I saw on CL that I had wanted for long time. Was wondering why all of my old tapes are missing a bit of the high end. They do still play okay as they were recorded back in the late 70s 46 years later.
Good old Ampex 456!! Fortunately, I transferred all my important tapes into Protools in the late 90s before they all suffered SSS...... Err, except for that one album I really want to remix!
After all these years, while listening to one of the videos in this series, I finally realized something: Scrape flutter is not just random noise. I still figure that asperity noise is pretty much random, but scrape flutter, if the original signal is not random, worst case if it's a single tone, acts like the bow of a violin, sort of. So you get get sidebands, as they're called here. Ugh.
@@AudioMasterclass as a breve.. I started straight ito streaming… as I evolved.. I’ve looked at vinyl. (All the pressure & hype) but … as a mechanical engineer…, I just do not see how it ca be superior…., different..👍 but it superior.. Thanks again 🙏🙏
Thank you soo much. I really like your insights. After the upgrade of my system to RME DAC and HIFMan headphones I started to wonder why so many albums recorded over last 60 years sound so inconsistently. From excellent to real cr*p. The same Dac / HP gear , the same Qobuz (Cd or higher digital formats), the same ears, and so different music quality. If master tapes suffer from your top 21 issues how the rerecording into digital format for streaming should be any better even in the best quality format? However, I wonder what are the technics to take old analog master tapes and try to "clean" or repair" them in digital format - whatever it means, to improve the quality. Is there such a thing?
Analogue tape does have all of the problems I mentioned in all parts of my series. But if a machine is well maintained, most of these problems are slight. Those that remain are manageable, as we can hear from the many amazing albums recorded on analogue. However, the maintenance burden is high, and digital simply does not have these problems. It has others, but that's a different story. Regarding existing master tapes, this opens another can of worms. Firstly many do not exist because they were destroyed in a fire - 100,000+ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Universal_Studios_fire Of course that was just one event but tapes may suffer from sticky shed en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticky-shed_syndrome This can be ameliorated for transfer, but not without degradation. Giles Martin had some interesting comments on restoring Beatles masters in a radio interview. I may still have a copy of that and perhaps I can comment further in a future video. DM
Although I agree with pretty much all you say, now that you get perfect sound reproduction all you need is people with perfect hearing, and a solo artist, or band that doesn't sound exactly the same as everyone else, and obviously producers who don't make everyone sound exactly the same.
An aspect not mentioned in the “Copying” section is that every time an analog recording is played, be it to copy or listen, *critically*, the *source* recording is damaged. This fact along with the fundamental replicative degradation of analog, mentioned in the video, drives the economics of analog by limiting the number of “least damaged” copies of a recording available. It becomes a zero-sum game where my ability to listen to a high quality analog recording deprives others of the same privilege. The economics of digital is non-zero-sum; digital is egalitarian.
My experience with tape got limited to cassette and VHS-hifi. I couldn't afford reel-to-reel, and don't want one now that they're given away for free. My old tapes still play, but when there are 4100 songs on the jukebox, there's limited reason to bother. The abandonment of VHS still amazes me, though I'm part of the effect. Few want to watch NTSC with wear, when they can get 480P or better. Often you can't pay people to take VHS libraries.
Very nice series, David. You should run for Nobel Piece Prize! I find difficult that someone would get back to tape these days, but since there's a couple of rich guys that spent $20 millions to get a ride at the stratosphere...
It is very interesting to know more about how the scrape flutter acts in creating the harmonics which give the artificial “analog warmth”, that many people like. I am not a friend of “warm” sound in general. I am a friend of the recording technology just that simply gives less difference to the source sound (and analog is not, to my ears).
Some would contend that the sound of tape is part of the sound of the music. If I had a plugin that emulated scrape flutter I'd use it as and when I felt it helped my music. Maybe I should get my old Revox out and make a vid.
@@AudioMasterclass Nice argumentation from some alleged audiophiles:) But in the Hi-Fi and audiophile world, the only parameter that matters should be the difference between the recorded sound and the source sound. Anything that is added to the sound by the recording system is an unwanted alteration, even if the listener likes it. The personal taste has not to be not confused with the fidelity. The most of the audiophiles confuse it.
I hear everything you.say, watched all these five videos. But when I record via digital means the music I’m making through remixing records on my Technics 1200’s. And play it back, it sounds total crap in comparison to what I was hearing when remixing the two records. All the detail’s lost. Maybe I need a decent DAC. I wish to cut dub-plates of my remixes. Never gonna happen with this digital 1’s and 0’s format. But with a decent reel to reel I can see me achieving my goals Glad I found your channel. Gonna watch all your vids. Like your energy bro. 👊🏼
Another point should be the tape wear. I wonder since ever about how the tape wearing affects the analog master tapes, especially the primary master with the original session recording. Many tracks are recorded at once separately, at different times on the multi track tape. Each track needs to be recorded many times, again and again, until the musician is satisfied with the performance. This means that the tape is rewinded, stopped and started many times, during the recording of each track. At this point the whole tape width should be already so worn, that it should be no more usable, full of audible faults and dropouts. On a 24 tracks tape is should a huge amount of wearing. And it is only the begin. Then comes the mixing phase. The tape needs also to be played, replayed again hundreds of times until the desired result has been reached. How is it possible that the tape and the sound is still not damaged?
That's assuming that you're not suffering from data rot, which as Linus from Linus Tech Tips learned, if you don't have proper storage technology and proper area correction, usually the travel to the bottom with no redundancy (it's about the $$$; video really has it hard), then you be fooked! Make sure those drives and backups are properly regulated on that storage medium. Unfortunately, "cost cutting" is how many masters got totalled, so this is a legitimate mention.
Great job, dear David! Really interesting and a little bit nostalgic, for me. I also had a Fostex multitrack tape recorder, but with only 8 tracks. After all, I'm not a professional Best, marco
Thank you for your comment. If it was the Fostex R8 that you had, it looked like a toy but I remember it being good. You can read my review, even after all these years, at www.muzines.co.uk/articles/fostex-r8-the-8-track-take-away/4476
Thanks for an absolutely fascinating series. I wondered what you make of the Plangent Process for correcting wow and flutter. As far as I’m aware, that’s one of the few more recent steps forward in enhancing the playback of analogue tape recordings. It’s a shame it’s not used more widely on archive reissues. Interesting that some of the other problems with analogue tape are now only starting to be correctable with digital restoration techniques such as those made possible by Izotope, Cedar etc.
I would have to hear it to be convinced, but I said that about single-ended noise reduction systems before I heard Cedar. For transferring archive material, anything that can reduce wow and flutter is great. But as with single-ended noise reduction systems, I would always say it's better not to record noise in the first place. One more point is that I have a very dim memory of a multitrack recorder that used a pilot tone to reduce W&F. All in the past now. DM
its probably a pain in the arse to do a full track on tape but you can record certain tracks onto tape and get a certain amount of warmth etc. Tape is more of a tool now than a necessity
I find that people that continue to mock tape are no better than people that refuse to record in the box. If you hate tape because you cannot afford it or are lazy then good for you. But there is a quality with tape that digital is always trying to replicate. They both have a purpose . Tape is certainly more work but if a person loves it then let them be. And yes digital opened up a whole new world for people and is much easier to use. But so is using a keyboard to get horn and string sounds. Is it better ? No but it has a purpose.
I was fortunate enough to work with tape in one of my college classes. My instructor is from the analog days and has been an active engineer through modern times. As a teacher, he felt it was important that we learned the ups and downs of analog recording. Our college has an Otari 24 track, 2 inch machine. The warmth of analog cannot be replicated by digital. I can honestly say that the calibration and maintenance of the machine (that was part of what he taught us about tape) adds a ton of work to the recording process. Tape machines require constant attention. Digital is hard to beat for the average engineer. BTW, here’s one my instructor engineered using tape in his personal studio. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qW9mZLnQ7Yc.html
But here's the thing. If you make a digital copy of an analogue master tape you can't tell the difference in double blind testing. All that analogue warmth - I mean distortion is present in the digital copy. This means that analogue is adding something and not that digital is removing it. Same applies to making a digital copy of an LP. Double blind tests confirm they sound the same.
@@AudioMasterclass it is funny as I’ve always had a really average 80s deck along with 1950s and 60s valve decks that are quality. The 80s issues sound terrible on the good quality older decks and the 60s vinyl sounds terrible on the 80s deck and vice versa. They sound really good on the era deck they were made.
Younger guy here who recently tripled down on expanding an analog home recording setup alongside a standard DAW. Started with 4 track cassettes at 13 (24 now) and currently working with an otari 4 track and fostex 8 track as my nicest units. Nothing this guy is saying is wrong. Tape is only fun when it's working correctly. When it is not it is a nightmare and frustrating. We can wax on about vibe and virtues of tapes workflow all day but I don't think anyone would agree trying to set up noise reduction units for an hour to record an entire session only to have the dbx mistrack and pump all over my beautiful song "warmth" or "vibe". Lol but I'm stubborn! I like these videos they remind me at a certain point I might have to figure out if my approach is of any real value to me or just a sort of masochist hobby!
R8? honestly while i love fostex, absolutely adore their products, they have a sound that aligns well with what i like, whoever was okaying their products had a similar ear to me lmao, but those r8's are so flimsy, i'd honestly be surprised if it was an E8, but in their prime im sure that machine would sound better than spotify today, that's what counts aint it
Yeah, I guess no one contests that DSD digital is more perfect and affordable than tape (although DSD is not mentioned). Good job proving this. But sources of DSDs are also scarce or ZERO. This is also a problem in itself. Then, next alternative like PCM/CD is having also some serious phase problems, don't they? My God, MP3 or streaming formats are FULL of "musical" problems. Let's not compare MP3 with tape, please. Now, can you show/elaborate (probably in a Q&A follow up session) an example for scrap-flutter spectra of 1, 5, 19 and 15KHz? Also, cover a bit more indepth the modulation noise. Tell us more about these. This is what we expect and ready to applaud - specifically your experience - if you care to share a bit more about them.
You mention MP3. I'm not an MP3 lover though I will accept AAC. Regarding tape, maybe I'll expand further in future but in the meantime you can hear a real tape recorder compared with a plugin at ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Bd2F5bD0NzQ.html DM
@@AudioMasterclass I have looked at the recommended video. About 15 minutes effort, for a 1-2 seconds of "btw. - this is important" kind of apopheny (or epiphany - as you like) dry statement from you. Generally, I expect a different kind of feelings at the end, not the "am I /are we stupid or what?" kind of Kodak-moment. For one, not the feeling that behind advices/sharing actually lies a strong pecuniary personal interest for a given direction. Second, I expect to not doubt presence of either "I don't know", or "I can't explain" or "I don't want to explain" situations. It is not that my personal expectations are high. It is the subject which puts the difficult requirements and sets the standards. When you say that in your opinion the XYZ-feature is the essence of the ABC-instrument, it is the first natural expectation to hear (sufficiently) more about it - from you.🤐😀
Too bad you haven't experienced something like a Nagra T-Audio. SN ratio is 99db (better than CD), and the copy is SUPERIOR to the original. So when you say they don't go much beyond 65db and that the copy degrades every time, you're wrong. No other media can create a copy that is an improvement from the source. Also, the Nagra-T is not the only machine with a 90+ db SN ratio. There are many others. So i would add a closing comment to your video which would read: "and YET I wouldn't have it any other way!"
