Any thoughts on tracking to tape verses mixdown to tape?

[@?,*???&?]

Barcoded releases have better signal to noise ratio.

Oh God, the loudness wars again?

bwaaaaaaaaaahaahahahahahahahhahaha

[@?,*???&?]

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.

[JGriffin]

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.

[Snarl 12/8]

...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].

[ofajen]

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

[@?,*???&?]

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]

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

[lyman]

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]

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

[MoreSpaceEcho]

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]

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.

[drumsound]

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).

[JGriffin]

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)

[honkyjonk]

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.

[MoreSpaceEcho]

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