Transfer From Tape BACKWARDS For Bigger Punch!

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

Moderators: drumsound, tomb

ashcat_lt
tinnitus
Posts: 1082
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:54 pm
Location: Duluth, MN
Contact:

Post by ashcat_lt » Sat Feb 04, 2012 7:43 am

I think that the "slew" is the same either way. It wouldn't seem to matter wheher you're going from silence to really loud or from really loud to silence. It still takes the device a finite time to get there. If the program material tries to get there faster than the machine can, you get distortion.

I'd venture to guess that - especially in the case of tape>digital - the damage has already been done. The tape will have slew limited more than the DAC ever would.

When one considers the tendency for some circuits to "ring", it complicates things a bit. Maybe (if you squint) the fact that this ringing comes more as a fade in makes it seem to "smear" the transient less, so that there is a sharper and better defined decay (slope between attack and sustain) portion of the envelope. This could make it sound punchier. Maybe.

User avatar
Scodiddly
cryogenically thawing
Posts: 3500
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2003 6:38 am
Location: Mundelein, IL, USA
Contact:

Post by Scodiddly » Sat Feb 04, 2012 4:47 pm

The "attack" thing sounds like BS to me. The circuitry and the tape don't know that there's lots of instruments there, it's just a waveform. Just a collection of sine waves, and consult Fourier if you're not sure of the difference.

Or to play devil's advocate... I grew as a bass player, living within radio distance of Detroit. How you stop each note is just as important as how you start it, so why is attack so important? Wouldn't doing transfers in reverse cause damping problems?

lefthanddoes
gimme a little kick & snare
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 6:35 am
Location: Allston, MA
Contact:

Post by lefthanddoes » Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:00 pm

I just tried doing an out-of-the-box sum this way. I found that when I did the transfer in reverse, then flipped it back, it sounded better than if I just did it forwards. I a-b'd them and the backwards one definitely had better low-end attack in the drums.
I do a regular ITB mix, then divided the mix into 4 stereo busses to run in and out of the mixer for some simple analog character. Just a desktop mixer I'm using as a summing amp, not a tape machine.
It makes sense to me because any piece of equipment has different distortion statistics for "peak" vs "rms." In this case we are eliminating "peak" from the equation.

User avatar
supafuzz
carpal tunnel
Posts: 1728
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 6:02 am
Location: Beacon NY
Contact:

mixing

Post by supafuzz » Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:06 pm

I'm mixing with my mind right now....
it's easy
Mastering with my mind is much more difficult
Super 70 Studio.. Never tell a perfectionist that the mix is perfect!

http://www.super70studio.com
http://www.facebook.com/Super70Studio


now in glorious HD3

KennyLusk
dead but not forgotten
Posts: 2037
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 10:22 am
Location: Ramah, New Mexico

Post by KennyLusk » Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:36 pm

em ot driew ytterp sdnuos gniht elohw eht tub daerht gnitseretnI
"The mushroom states its own position very clearly. It says, "I require the nervous system of a mammal. Do you have one handy?" Terrence McKenna

signorMars
re-cappin' neve
Posts: 741
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 12:30 pm
Location: El Paso, TX

Post by signorMars » Fri Aug 03, 2012 6:41 pm

lefthanddoes wrote:I just tried doing an out-of-the-box sum this way. I found that when I did the transfer in reverse, then flipped it back, it sounded better than if I just did it forwards. I a-b'd them and the backwards one definitely had better low-end attack in the drums.
I do a regular ITB mix, then divided the mix into 4 stereo busses to run in and out of the mixer for some simple analog character. Just a desktop mixer I'm using as a summing amp, not a tape machine.
It makes sense to me because any piece of equipment has different distortion statistics for "peak" vs "rms." In this case we are eliminating "peak" from the equation.
The peak is still there. It's just at the tail of the sound instead of the head. The distortion characteristics wouldn't really change. I guess there MIGHT be some difference based on your opamp's slew rate, but I personally just don't see it being enough to make a difference. It's all just electricity to your mixer. I assume the idea in "Mixing with your Mind" was just to force yourself into a different, more instinctual approach, which may help get you out of a rut.

Also, how did you handle the test? Was it a double blind? I find results like these to be a little fishy, not because of any intentional deception, but because of human nature. If you expect something to sound better, it usually will, unless you make sure you don't know which is which.
---
ross ingram
[brainville]

lefthanddoes
gimme a little kick & snare
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 6:35 am
Location: Allston, MA
Contact:

Post by lefthanddoes » Tue Aug 07, 2012 11:02 am

The 'mixing with your mind thing' is a completely different topic. I am totally interested in that and would probably try it if it were more practical (i.e. if the DAW had just a one click thing that would flip the whole tune or if I was working from tape).

I probably won't go through all this on the next record.
I suppose we could be getting into the question of what a peak is? The signal has to both attack quickly, and decay quickly? I guess that's why they call it a 'transient,' it just means it's not at a high level for that long. Whatevs, I think I'm going to let go of the idea that my actions are at all based on an understanding of the science.
My testing was admittedly only as blind as 'nobody around, close my eyes, flip back and forth until i cant remember which one i've got selected, and see which one i like better.' Not totally sure but I think my unconscious bias wasn't toward the backwards result because it was a b**** to flip all those mixes backwards and forwards etc, and it would have been a relief to not have to do that. But who knows.

...I'll bet TOMB does. Maybe I'll put up sound samples later this week.

User avatar
Gregg Juke
cryogenically thawing
Posts: 3531
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:35 pm
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Post by Gregg Juke » Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:03 pm

THAT would be cool, and more of a stat-building test.

BTW, if Justin C. is reading-- What ever happened with that Mp3 vs. .Wav thing over at TMIAS? I never got an e-mail that the results were in...

GJ

signorMars
re-cappin' neve
Posts: 741
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 12:30 pm
Location: El Paso, TX

Post by signorMars » Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:45 pm

lefthanddoes wrote:. Whatevs, I think I'm going to let go of the idea that my actions are at all based on an understanding of the science.
My testing was admittedly only as blind as 'nobody around, close my eyes, flip back and forth until i cant remember which one i've got selected, and see which one i like better.'
That's my exact method for determining whether a compressor/eq/etc is doing anything positive for the sound. hehe. Honestly, if the results are positive, the science is secondary, but I'd love to hear a blind comparison.
---
ross ingram
[brainville]

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests