Sorry...

[nestle]

I think my 1/2in 8 track is the monkeys nuts, I don't think that format is amature at all, especially something like an Otari-
it's just kind of snobby to say that-
and I've made plenty of great records on a MS16 tascam 1 inch-
fuck even a cassette can work under the right circumstances-

that said I would be a little dubious of a 16track 1/2 inch. if it had NR. that is a strange format

[TapeOpLarry]

I always say that the true benefits of analog are really only heard on 2" 16-track at 15 ips with no Noise Reduction and 1/2" 2-track at 15 or 30 ips with no NR. Anything else is truly a compromise, I should know because I have neither format these days!

[bassface]

I also recommend the "A/B CD" that larry reviewed a couple issues ago. Gives you side by side comparisons on different formats.

[ELCUBO]

i cant talk deep about this particular theme...but i just read this:

Anything digital more closely reproduces the original signal than anything analog. PERIOD!

Freq response
Harmonic distortion
Signal to noise
phase shift
wow & flutter
signal loss over time
speed accuracy
ability to make clones of the original
track bouncing
editing
flying parts to other parts of the song
etc.

Roger Nichols

maybe sound diferent...maybe the analog flavor is the color...but, if you want to repreoduce what u are hearing...

[nacho459]

Listen to Steely Dan's "Two Against Nature" CD (digital 2001) and then listen to "Everything Must Go" (analog 2003) Two Against nature sounds awesome, but Everything Must Go sounds awesomeer.

[joel hamilton]

I wouldnt even dare try to cheerlead a format, but I will say this:

In my experience, subjecting every single sound you capture to a unified and consistent set of dynamics dependent frequency reponse makes a record sound like a record.

In other words, recording to tape makes everything "gel" better because every track is an actual physical chunk of the same stuff that everything else is printed to. I realized that is why I love the drums coming off tape. It isnt that it is "phatter[cringe]" or "warmer[double cringe]" but it is the fact that every part of what is really 4 to 10 instruments acting as one element.. it is all being subjected to the frequency response inherent to the medium, and that is dynamically controlled! The harder the drummer hits the cymbals, the darker they get (sort of) but at least it sounds like a drum kit. I dont have to de-ess the room mics when I go to tape first either.

I have done recordings that I am very proud of to tape, and I have done recordings that I am very proud of straight to HD, the ones that I used both are still my favorite. I do always mix to analog though, for that very reason. Everything magically sits a little better on tape.

I really think it is the aforementioned uniform frequency response theory, as that is one of the key differences between the two formats.

In the end, it has to sound good whether it is ADAT, analog of any format, or digital of any make/model.

YOU make it work, or not.

[ELCUBO]

interesting...thanx for sharing Joel

[Knights Who Say Neve]

Anything digital more closely reproduces the original signal than anything analog. PERIOD!

Freq response
Harmonic distortion
Signal to noise
phase shift
wow & flutter
signal loss over time
speed accuracy
ability to make clones of the original
track bouncing
editing
flying parts to other parts of the song
etc.

Roger Nichols

If you ignore the "anything" part, he is correct- in a "math" sense. Naturally something will look more accurate when measured when its been quantized into discrete steps, i.e. turned into math. But ears aren't digital.

Another way of looking at this quote is to consider the difference between "signal" and "music". Signal is a scientific term, and as such, accuracy is all-important. Digital achieves that accuracy by throwing out all information that can't be quantized. Can you hear what it leaves out? I can...on good equipment. Some can't hear it or feel that the difference isn't important. I think it is important, because music is not "signal".

What the original poster is asking, however, is if a 1/2" 16 track is worth holding onto and using. That's a judgement call that has nothing to do with the "accuracy" of "signal".

[Stephen]

Anything less than these track width to track ratios is considered to be "sketch pad" quality. The best you can ever hope to get out of this machine in a professional situation, would be to utilize it for an effect, for intentionally making something sound small or distorted.

I have made over 25 very good sounding CDs using 1" 16 TR. They sounded neither small nor distorted.
Pax, Steve

[MichaelAlan]

What the original poster is asking, however, is if a 1/2" 16 track is worth holding onto and using. That's a judgement call that has nothing to do with the "accuracy" of "signal".

It's already on ebay.


Mike

[Knights Who Say Neve]

oh well, so much for this thread...

I wish you the best of luck with whatever format you're going to use.

[spectralgrey]

I think it would be beneficial to spend as much time as you can recording, rather than worrying about the format. If you can learn how to use your ears and get great sounds out of a cassette four track or 1/2" 16 track you'll be in a better position when you do move to a higher fidelity format. Tape hiss and wow and flutter present a challenge, but overcoming that challenge can make you better at recording in the long run. Whatever you use, learn how to use it well and you'll be set.

[seeabove]

Well I can clearly see part of my problem was being duped into thinking this tape format was worthwhile. But I still miss the editing and routing capabilities of a DAW.

I'm with you on this. So, in the words of Joel Hamilton, use your tool however you want. I think my favorite recording I did was for a class where we recreated Steely Dan's "Deacon Blues". We all did these mixes in PT, then the instructor took the final stereo output through a tube compressor and again slammed to a 1" 2track and we A/B/C'ed em. I liked the compressor best, but it was a fun exercise.

They are all weapons.

[patternagainstuser]

With the advent of demos being disguised as "albums", done on DAWs with Chinese mics and shit converters, listened to on MP3s, it's a far cry from a top major label mastering house where it's scrutinized on a PRO system being listened in 24/96 with 15k of A/D/A conversion.

and then these "demos" get distributed to "teenagers" who listen to them and feel "emotions" so deep and powerful that it shapes the way they think for the rest of their lives. meanwhile that major label piece of shit gathers dust as the next big thing hits the air. my favorite songs are by a local band who recorded them in their basement on a truly shitty roland digital 8-track.

these format wars are moot.

for the record, i record on digital and analog (mediocre digital adat xt-20's and truly shitty 1/4" 8-track) and i like them both in their own way (it doesn't hurt that i run through an old soundcraft mixer). i think the very best sound comes from professional 2" tape machines, but what's the point if the musicianship or mic technique sucks? also for the record, i am not a teenager. but i work for them, and if they think it sounds good, then everyone is happy.

anyway nathan no disrespect to you because you obviously know your shit very well. just trying to put a perspective on why we're all doing this in the first place. and i'd like to see the major labels go bankrupt, their ceo's burn in hell, and pro studio rates drop to reasonable rates. until that happens, people with money, not talent, will rule the industry.

[trodden]

16 track 1/2" is the most unprofessional i.e. lowest quality open reel machine you could be using. Was that 1/2" a misprint? Even if you had a 1" 16 track (i.e. double fidelity than what you are using now) it is still of questionable "professional" quality. I would rather use silver face ADATS than 1/2" 16 track any day of the week...and that pretty bad. Professional "analog" IMO include the following:

2 Track 1/4", 2 Track 1/2", 2 Track 1"
4 Track 1/2", 4 Track 1"
8 Track 1", 8 Track 2"
16 Track 2"
24 Track 2"

Anything less than these track width to track ratios is considered to be "sketch pad" quality. The best you can ever hope to get out of this machine in a professional situation, would be to utilize it for an effect, for intentionally making something sound small or distorted.

Even the most modern mediocre digital will stomp a bad analog machine.
Just like a good analog machine will stomp a bad digital machine, or a good digital machine/system.
IMO, from direct experience, good analog stomps good digital. The 2 analog machines I own are an AMPEX MM1200 2" 16 Track, and an AMPEX 2 Track 1/4". I am often forced to transfer multitrack mixes to multitrack digital, since everything ends up on CD anyway, I have to transfer my 2 track mixdown back to digital also. I've done rigorous comparison tests on A/D and D/A conversion, using 5 of the most common pro brands of conversion, and the converters I use are what I know to be the most true to the original source (which to answer part of your question, "good" analog is always more true in sound to the original source). But, even with the best conversion, analog converted to digital, loses some detail and frequency "width" to the trained ear. I speaking in terms of inches and not miles. I think that really good analog helps digital, for example, record the some tracks straight to the computer, record the same tracks to a good analog machine, then convert to the computer, the analog recorded tracks will sound better than the digital recorded tracks.

Until you can do a proper comparison yourself you yourself will never know. Comparing what I'm assuming mediocre digital to very poor analog is NOT a comparison. Compare true professional analog to true professional digital, and then you can make a judgement call saying "I hate/love tape". But until you do the pro vs. pro test, you shouldn't really have any bias against analog. Especially when it is proven, time and time again, in many comparison tests, maybe I'm on a soapbox, but IMO audio is going through a "dumbing down" process. With the advent of demos being disguised as "albums", done on DAWs with Chinese mics and shit converters, listened to on MP3s, it's a far cry from a top major label mastering house where it's scrutinized on a PRO system being listened in 24/96 with 15k of A/D/A conversion.

ahahhahhhahaha wtf ahahahahhah,
wait a minute,,, am i at the tape op site?
oh fuck, i am
anhahhahahah
granted, there is a lot of truth to your post. 2", fuck 10'' whatever.. size does matter sometimes.. headroom, this and that ... but you know, i've heard some albums, i've assisted on some albums, i've recorded some stuff that beats the shit out of "pro" recorded material.. on 1'' 16 track, through a.... mackie board... !!! I've been drinking tonight so i'm sure that my testimony is out the window anyhow.