Sorry...

[MichaelAlan]

I'm goin' into this again...

I just don't hear how tape is "better" than digital. Ok, it's "fatter" that digital. I'll add some 30Hz to the kick, or some 15K to the vocal. I just don't hear what's better. Maybe someone can enlighten me on EXACTLY what the difference is, maybe some a/b clips. Cause my recorder's mojo's not enough to keep it in use.


Mike

P.S. I am keeping in mind that it IS 1/2" 16 track, but still...

[LRRec]

You're not keeping in mind that it is 1/2" 16 track.


Sorry

[sonikbliss]

with a 1/2" 16 track you should probably be comparing your analog recordings to 8bit digital recordings.

[theposterkid]

Download the Huntingtons "Get Lost" album from 1999: 2 inch, 24 track ...then listen to one of their new tracks from like 2003 (there should be a clip on truepunk.com) their self-titled album which was done in ProTools.

Same studio, same producer.

Quite a different result.

However, the two forms of recordings are just different tools. It depends on who is using the tools. For some people with a certain amount of talent and experience, I doubt it matters. In this case, it seems there was/is a noticeable difference in the two. Being familiar with that band's work, the difference was obvious and kind of disappointing.

[MichaelAlan]

I like the album where they had the song about "Back to the Future".

Mike

[Nathan Eldred]

16 track 1/2" is the most unprofessional i.e. lowest quality open reel machine you could be using. Was that 1/2" a misprint? Even if you had a 1" 16 track (i.e. double fidelity than what you are using now) it is still of questionable "professional" quality. I would rather use silver face ADATS than 1/2" 16 track any day of the week...and that pretty bad. Professional "analog" IMO include the following:

2 Track 1/4", 2 Track 1/2", 2 Track 1"
4 Track 1/2", 4 Track 1"
8 Track 1", 8 Track 2"
16 Track 2"
24 Track 2"

Anything less than these track width to track ratios is considered to be "sketch pad" quality. The best you can ever hope to get out of this machine in a professional situation, would be to utilize it for an effect, for intentionally making something sound small or distorted.

Even the most modern mediocre digital will stomp a bad analog machine.
Just like a good analog machine will stomp a bad digital machine, or a good digital machine/system.
IMO, from direct experience, good analog stomps good digital. The 2 analog machines I own are an AMPEX MM1200 2" 16 Track, and an AMPEX 2 Track 1/4". I am often forced to transfer multitrack mixes to multitrack digital, since everything ends up on CD anyway, I have to transfer my 2 track mixdown back to digital also. I've done rigorous comparison tests on A/D and D/A conversion, using 5 of the most common pro brands of conversion, and the converters I use are what I know to be the most true to the original source (which to answer part of your question, "good" analog is always more true in sound to the original source). But, even with the best conversion, analog converted to digital, loses some detail and frequency "width" to the trained ear. I speaking in terms of inches and not miles. I think that really good analog helps digital, for example, record the some tracks straight to the computer, record the same tracks to a good analog machine, then convert to the computer, the analog recorded tracks will sound better than the digital recorded tracks.

Until you can do a proper comparison yourself you yourself will never know. Comparing what I'm assuming mediocre digital to very poor analog is NOT a comparison. Compare true professional analog to true professional digital, and then you can make a judgement call saying "I hate/love tape". But until you do the pro vs. pro test, you shouldn't really have any bias against analog. Especially when it is proven, time and time again, in many comparison tests, maybe I'm on a soapbox, but IMO audio is going through a "dumbing down" process. With the advent of demos being disguised as "albums", done on DAWs with Chinese mics and shit converters, listened to on MP3s, it's a far cry from a top major label mastering house where it's scrutinized on a PRO system being listened in 24/96 with 15k of A/D/A conversion.

[Knights Who Say Neve]

A much better comparison- a pre-1979 LP pressing VS. a CD reissue.
If you listen to mp3s you won't hear much difference.

If you really want to hear the difference, mult the mics from your board
to your 1/2" 16 track (it is aligned, clean, and calibrated, isn't it?) and also to
a HD recorder of some sort. Make sure there's no A to D going on on the analog side. Than compare the results. That way you'll sorta know. Do the same with a 1" 8 track and you'll really know.

[MichaelAlan]

Well I can clearly see part of my problem was being duped into thinking this tape format was worthwhile. But I still miss the editing and routing capabilities of a DAW.

Also, I don't consider myself professional. I have a home studio where i record bands that want to say they recorded with me because my band is popular in the area. Tryin to be truthfull here. Thanks for the advise and ball breakin' so far.

What are the views on the digi 002?

[Knights Who Say Neve]

Actually 1/2" 16 track can be a very good format. I have one and I like it better than the akai DPS16 I used to have. Notice I said "like it" better, not "it is" better. It's different...more detail, much better low end but less sheen, more noise, and it's far less convienent. If I was still doing live electronica I'd be using the dps16, but I'm doing guitars now. If you like digital better use it.
But I wouldn't assume that 1/2" 16 track is always bad. It's just that 2" 16 track is far better (and far more expensive and much, much less convienent).

Just my two cents.

[hiwatt33]

I'm goin' into this again...

I just don't hear how tape is "better" than digital. Ok, it's "fatter" that digital. I'll add some 30Hz to the kick, or some 15K to the vocal. I just don't hear what's better. Maybe someone can enlighten me on EXACTLY what the difference is, maybe some a/b clips. Cause my recorder's mojo's not enough to keep it in use.


Mike

P.S. I am keeping in mind that it IS 1/2" 16 track, but still...

Throw that thing outta window. Or plug it into the lake.

Guess which format this was recorded on: http://prayerfurnace.org/magicfingers.asf

Free handshake to winner.

[Mark Alan Miller]

I have to disagree with the post about 'sketch pad quality'. I (and many many others) have made plenty of 'professional' records on smaller-format machines, like 1" 16 and 1" 24, and 1/2"8. A competent engineer can make a professional sounding record on 1/2" 16 track. Sure, the smaller formats are perhaps a touch noisier and less flat than larger decks, but I'll say it again: "A compenent engineer..." So, perhaps while these machines are classified as 'prosumer' or whatever, the results a good engineer can get on them can be perfectly professional.
Also, I'd rather track on a 1/2" 16 than on 2 ADATs, especially pre-20-bit models *any* day.

[joeysimms]

What cowtrax said.. my 1/2" 8 track doesn't fell like a sketchpad at all, but whatev..

Bottom line: If you can't hear a difference then there isn't one!

[MASSIVE Mastering]

IMHO, if you can't hear a difference, you are probably in serious need of new monitors and/or room treatments.

That being said - Once you can hear the difference, it doesn't mean you're required to like it.

[jp76]

That being said - Once you can hear the difference, it doesn't mean you're required to like it.

I think this is what bugs me about certain "analog purists." There's this idea that analog tape is somehow objectively better. Everything's subjective in music and making any kind of art. Where would hip hop be without digital technology? I'm not opposed to tape or anything, I just hate this idea that it's better by some kind of divine right.[/quote]

[Nathan Eldred]

There's this idea that analog tape is somehow objectively better.

Yeah, it's called an opinion.

Everything's subjective in music and making any kind of art.

Who said it wasn't?

Where would hip hop be without digital technology?

Is this a rhetorical question?

I just hate this idea that it's better by some kind of divine right.

heh?