Transfer From Tape BACKWARDS For Bigger Punch!

[ashcat_lt]

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.

[Scodiddly]

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]

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.

[supafuzz]

I'm mixing with my mind right now....
it's easy
Mastering with my mind is much more difficult

[KennyLusk]

em ot driew ytterp sdnuos gniht elohw eht tub daerht gnitseretnI

[signorMars]

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.

[lefthanddoes]

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.

[Gregg Juke]

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]

. 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.