curious as to how all of yous are using tape compression during tracking. im mainly interested in using it in a subtle way as oppposed to smashing the crap outta the tracks.
is there an easy way to figure out where a certain machine starts to tape compress at? id think that using drums would be the easiest to judge the compression because of the transients. im basically trying to get to the point where i can say "ok the machine starts to compress at +3 on the VU, so if i want to smoosh the bass a bit, it should peak at +5 or +6". any other listening or metering tricks that can help with this? more suggestions and opinions are welcome!
btw...my machine is a tascam 58 1/2", calibrated for 456.
using tape compression?
-
joel hamilton
- zen recordist
- Posts: 8876
- Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 12:10 pm
- Location: NYC/Brooklyn
- Contact:
What tony said above.
Also, you get a feel for where your deck likes to live... Some machines just dont even want to deal with higher levels, so what you get it just repro electronics crapping out, rather than snazzy sounds. Tape compression is just an artifact of the medium, rather than a precise function to be strived for by the operator. Figure out where your deck really "speaks" and shoot for that, because the tape is gonna compress a little no matter what you do, especially if you are smaking the machine a bit. If you are looking for "guilt free compression" then just track way too hot and forsake all the transient information that makes music exciting..
That way you look "tough " when your pals see how hot you are tracking.
Also, you get a feel for where your deck likes to live... Some machines just dont even want to deal with higher levels, so what you get it just repro electronics crapping out, rather than snazzy sounds. Tape compression is just an artifact of the medium, rather than a precise function to be strived for by the operator. Figure out where your deck really "speaks" and shoot for that, because the tape is gonna compress a little no matter what you do, especially if you are smaking the machine a bit. If you are looking for "guilt free compression" then just track way too hot and forsake all the transient information that makes music exciting..
That way you look "tough " when your pals see how hot you are tracking.
If you want to look tough, align to +3 . then you'll sound tough to.
I think the term "tape compression" is an unfortunate one. Tape has a sound whether you hit it hard enough to run into it's Maximum Output Level (MOL) or not. Somehow it seems to me that people need to have a name for that sound, and tape compression has become the name for the sound of tape even when there's no compression. Then, since these days digital is often the first recording expereince, people think you have to hit harder than the tape's MOL to make it sound good.
Then on top of that, people choose high output tapes. If you really want tape compression, 456 is the way to go.
About 7 years ago I spent a day doing all sorts of listening expereiments with my tape machine. First, I tweaked the hi freq and low freq during play back to hear what they did. Then I printed some sounds a -18, -16, -12.... up to 0, +2, +4, +6 up to pinned and then listened back.
The result was, i finally beleived my tech that the ligment being off by half a dB doesn't matter and I stopped printing hot. I think tape sounds great, but tape compression does not.
MOL is kind of interesting, especially when transferring to digital after. I used to track to tape and then transfer to ADAT. I'd be able to set levels with either the ADAT meters or the tape machine's meters. Of couseh the digital meters moved far faster, but if you wathed them during the take and then during play back, the look completely different. What was really cool was how the MOL functioned as a form of what some converters call "soft limit".
During the take, you'd see the ADATs peak in the red, but during playbakc of anything recorded to 456, they'd never hit the red no matter how hard I printed.
The reality is, "tale limiting" is more accurate than "tape compression". Maybe it's a limiter with a soft knee, but there is a hard ceiling with tape - as hard as an L2 becuase each tape has a physical limit to what it can reproduce.
I've also spent some time A/Bing tape stocks. I found 456 to hav a little bit of sccuped low mids, GP9 to have a midrange bump that I didn't like and settled on SM900 for a long while. I recently got a Dolby SR rack and swtiched to 15ips for everything and picked the 456 over the SM900 and then switched to the SM911 which is pretty close to the 456.
There are a lot of variables with tape and like everything in audios, it's all a question of taste.
I'd estimate that at the major label leve, 1995 was the tipping point wehre digital became more prevalent than tape. That's 12 years! I think you'll find there is very little true expertise about tape in 2007 and that regardless of what the consensus seems to be about tape, don't believe a word of it until you've really tried it for yourself.
I think the term "tape compression" is an unfortunate one. Tape has a sound whether you hit it hard enough to run into it's Maximum Output Level (MOL) or not. Somehow it seems to me that people need to have a name for that sound, and tape compression has become the name for the sound of tape even when there's no compression. Then, since these days digital is often the first recording expereince, people think you have to hit harder than the tape's MOL to make it sound good.
Then on top of that, people choose high output tapes. If you really want tape compression, 456 is the way to go.
About 7 years ago I spent a day doing all sorts of listening expereiments with my tape machine. First, I tweaked the hi freq and low freq during play back to hear what they did. Then I printed some sounds a -18, -16, -12.... up to 0, +2, +4, +6 up to pinned and then listened back.
The result was, i finally beleived my tech that the ligment being off by half a dB doesn't matter and I stopped printing hot. I think tape sounds great, but tape compression does not.
MOL is kind of interesting, especially when transferring to digital after. I used to track to tape and then transfer to ADAT. I'd be able to set levels with either the ADAT meters or the tape machine's meters. Of couseh the digital meters moved far faster, but if you wathed them during the take and then during play back, the look completely different. What was really cool was how the MOL functioned as a form of what some converters call "soft limit".
During the take, you'd see the ADATs peak in the red, but during playbakc of anything recorded to 456, they'd never hit the red no matter how hard I printed.
The reality is, "tale limiting" is more accurate than "tape compression". Maybe it's a limiter with a soft knee, but there is a hard ceiling with tape - as hard as an L2 becuase each tape has a physical limit to what it can reproduce.
I've also spent some time A/Bing tape stocks. I found 456 to hav a little bit of sccuped low mids, GP9 to have a midrange bump that I didn't like and settled on SM900 for a long while. I recently got a Dolby SR rack and swtiched to 15ips for everything and picked the 456 over the SM900 and then switched to the SM911 which is pretty close to the 456.
There are a lot of variables with tape and like everything in audios, it's all a question of taste.
I'd estimate that at the major label leve, 1995 was the tipping point wehre digital became more prevalent than tape. That's 12 years! I think you'll find there is very little true expertise about tape in 2007 and that regardless of what the consensus seems to be about tape, don't believe a word of it until you've really tried it for yourself.
Thanks for that specific and thought provoking inquiry.msmith wrote:???
Real friends stab you in the front.
Oscar Wilde
Failed audio engineer & pro studio tech turned Component level motherboard repair store in New York
Oscar Wilde
Failed audio engineer & pro studio tech turned Component level motherboard repair store in New York
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: jmele2 and 79 guests