Any thoughts on tracking to tape verses mixdown to tape?

Recording Techniques, People Skills, Gear, Recording Spaces, Computers, and DIY

Moderators: drumsound, tomb

User avatar
@?,*???&?
on a wing and a prayer
Posts: 5804
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 4:36 pm
Location: Just left on the FM dial
Contact:

Post by @?,*???&? » Thu May 26, 2011 1:12 pm

Dakota wrote:Barcoded releases have better signal to noise ratio.
Oh God, the loudness wars again?

bwaaaaaaaaaahaahahahahahahahhahaha

User avatar
@?,*???&?
on a wing and a prayer
Posts: 5804
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 4:36 pm
Location: Just left on the FM dial
Contact:

Post by @?,*???&? » Thu May 26, 2011 1:16 pm

mr. nick wrote:Comparing an analog and digital recording of the same take through the exact same signal path and monitoring situation. My digital system is more accurate, I can't believe I'd ever write this. I get that the analog format can have some glue to it when used right, but, the stereo image and depth of field, and character of the digital recording sounds more accurate to the intent of the recording session I setup. I expect the playback to mirror the recording.
I maintain that analog tape is right for about 60% of sounds- at least that's about how often I prefer the sound of tape for the source.

User avatar
JGriffin
zen recordist
Posts: 6739
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:44 pm
Location: criticizing globally, offending locally
Contact:

Post by JGriffin » Thu May 26, 2011 1:53 pm

@?,*???&? wrote:Your biggest discussion here should be about signal to noise ratio and dynamic range.

With tape you sacrifice both. With digital both improve.

In the Musician/Engineer Survey, a little over half of the 600+ folks responding favored dynamic range over frequency response.

http://www.myspace.com/musicianengineer ... A381295%7D

I think the fact that your results were split almost 50/50 indicates that most don't see it as an either/or question.
"Jeweller, you've failed. Jeweller."

"Lots of people are nostalgic for analog. I suspect they're people who never had to work with it." ? Brian Eno

All the DWLB music is at http://dwlb.bandcamp.com/

User avatar
Snarl 12/8
ghost haunting audio students
Posts: 3421
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:01 pm
Location: Right Cheer
Contact:

Post by Snarl 12/8 » Thu May 26, 2011 4:56 pm

@?,*???&? wrote:...which is greater than the human ear can perceive.

...
I find sounds I can hear much more interesting than sounds I can't hear.

Also, aren't those specs you listed theoretical maximums that are actually much lower when you factor in the real world [again].
Carl Keil

Almost forgot: Please steal my drum tracks. and more.

ofajen
pushin' record
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 9:13 am
Location: Columbia, MO

Post by ofajen » Thu May 26, 2011 9:00 pm

@?,*???&? wrote:Your biggest discussion here should be about signal to noise ratio and dynamic range.

With tape you sacrifice both. With digital both improve.
Precisely... dynamic range is the enemy. I want to sacrifice it in the way tape does. Tracking and mixing.

Cheers,

Otto
Daddy-O Daddy-O Baby

User avatar
@?,*???&?
on a wing and a prayer
Posts: 5804
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 4:36 pm
Location: Just left on the FM dial
Contact:

Post by @?,*???&? » Thu May 26, 2011 10:30 pm

ofajen wrote:
@?,*???&? wrote:Your biggest discussion here should be about signal to noise ratio and dynamic range.

With tape you sacrifice both. With digital both improve.
Precisely... dynamic range is the enemy. I want to sacrifice it in the way tape does. Tracking and mixing.

Cheers,

Otto
I agree. 24-bit digital feels loose, open and uncontained to me. I think digital sounds like ass, but try telling the industry this. Cheap and affordable wins hands down against sound quality. Ask Joel Hamilton how much he actually rents reels of tape to clients. Uh, can you say "Never" on an annual basis?

ofajen
pushin' record
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 9:13 am
Location: Columbia, MO

Post by ofajen » Fri May 27, 2011 5:57 am

@?,*???&? wrote:I agree. 24-bit digital feels loose, open and uncontained to me. I think digital sounds like ass, but try telling the industry this. Cheap and affordable wins hands down against sound quality. Ask Joel Hamilton how much he actually rents reels of tape to clients. Uh, can you say "Never" on an annual basis?
True enough. I don't have lot more to offer than my sympathy. I record myself, my kids and my other musical friends and I get to make the call. The last thing I want to be accused of is resembling today's "industry standard" in any signficant way. Maybe the standards of the late 60s...

Cheers,

Otto
Daddy-O Daddy-O Baby

User avatar
lyman
re-cappin' neve
Posts: 667
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 5:14 pm
Location: Plymouth Rock City, MA

Post by lyman » Fri May 27, 2011 9:23 am

MoreSpaceEcho wrote:oh please. even my otari 1/2" 8 track has a perfectly excellent dynamic range and a noise floor i have to crank the monitors to hear. i'm actually thinking of putting that sucker back into service for recording drums, as the tape compression just makes them so much easier to deal with later.
once i get some money coming back in we'll take you up on that offer, hombre.

ofajen
pushin' record
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 9:13 am
Location: Columbia, MO

Post by ofajen » Fri May 27, 2011 10:10 am

MoreSpaceEcho wrote:oh please. even my otari 1/2" 8 track has a perfectly excellent dynamic range and a noise floor i have to crank the monitors to hear.
Yeah, it's one of those things you can sometimes hear that doesn't really matter. No doubt when I tracked to and mixed from my M-56 1" 8-track the individual tracks had a bit lower noise floor, as did the mixed signal going to the 2-track, and I can hear the difference when there is no signal. OTOH, it's really irrelevant, since I never notice the difference when listening to actual music. I suppose it does mean I need to be a bit more exacting in setting levels to minimize noise without having the signal too bent when it comes back off the tape.

Cheers,

Otto
Last edited by ofajen on Fri May 27, 2011 12:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Daddy-O Daddy-O Baby

MoreSpaceEcho
zen recordist
Posts: 6514
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 11:15 am

Post by MoreSpaceEcho » Fri May 27, 2011 10:31 am

@?,*???&? wrote:24-bit digital feels loose, open and uncontained to me.
omg what on earth does this MEAN? this is an amazing quote even for you.
I think digital sounds like ass
dude, like 5 posts ago you were calling me a layman and touting the benefits of digital's superior dynamic range. now it sounds like ass? WHICH IS IT ROBINSON?

honkyjonk
dead but not forgotten
Posts: 2182
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 10:50 pm
Location: Portland

Post by honkyjonk » Fri May 27, 2011 12:39 pm

Nobody has mentioned the cumulative effect of A to D conversion, and then D to A (during mixing) of every track, when tracking to digital.

Conversely, if you can do everything on the analog multi track, and then mix to digital, that's only 2 tracks of A to D. I would prefer this, (if not for the previously mentioned opportunity to hit tape at different levels according to source which is also a bonus,) but for the drastically reduced number digital conversions.
Stilgar, we've got wormsign the likes of which God has never seen!

drumsound
zen recordist
Posts: 7058
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Bloomington IL
Contact:

Post by drumsound » Fri May 27, 2011 11:13 pm

honkyjonk wrote:Nobody has mentioned the cumulative effect of A to D conversion, and then D to A (during mixing) of every track, when tracking to digital.

Conversely, if you can do everything on the analog multi track, and then mix to digital, that's only 2 tracks of A to D. I would prefer this, (if not for the previously mentioned opportunity to hit tape at different levels according to source which is also a bonus,) but for the drastically reduced number digital conversions.
It's really nice when the Mastering Engineer makes the first conversion (except for efects).

User avatar
JGriffin
zen recordist
Posts: 6739
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:44 pm
Location: criticizing globally, offending locally
Contact:

Post by JGriffin » Sat May 28, 2011 7:55 pm

honkyjonk wrote:Nobody has mentioned the cumulative effect of A to D conversion, and then D to A (during mixing) of every track, when tracking to digital.

Conversely, if you can do everything on the analog multi track, and then mix to digital, that's only 2 tracks of A to D. I would prefer this, (if not for the previously mentioned opportunity to hit tape at different levels according to source which is also a bonus,) but for the drastically reduced number digital conversions.
To play devil's advocate, if you mix in the box you only A to D once, and D to A doesn't happen until mastering, if then. Hell, you could keep it entirely in the digital domain until it gets to the consumer if you play your cards right.


(this is of course ignoring the much much larger discussion of converters, clocking, jitter, etc. OR the cumulative effect of generation loss in multiple analog copies OR the signal change due to tape wear during lengthy overdub sessions) :wink:
"Jeweller, you've failed. Jeweller."

"Lots of people are nostalgic for analog. I suspect they're people who never had to work with it." ? Brian Eno

All the DWLB music is at http://dwlb.bandcamp.com/

honkyjonk
dead but not forgotten
Posts: 2182
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 10:50 pm
Location: Portland

Post by honkyjonk » Sun May 29, 2011 9:55 am

Even if you keep it in the box, that's not one conversion of A to D (unless you actually only have one track), it's 16, 24, however many tracks you have, so it's still way more conversions than a final 2 track mix (or master)

On the other end, it would probably behoove us to consider the large consensus of people who hear digital summing as such an enormous barrier in terms of sound quality that they're willing to deal with the extra D to A's just so they can sum tracks in analog.
Stilgar, we've got wormsign the likes of which God has never seen!

MoreSpaceEcho
zen recordist
Posts: 6514
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 11:15 am

Post by MoreSpaceEcho » Sun May 29, 2011 10:43 am

am i the only person who thinks digital summing sounds just fine?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests