BadComrade wrote:Why not just record straight in to pro tools if it's gonna wind up there anyway?

Music recorded to analog tape has a different quality to music recorded digitally. You can record loud to tape, taking advantage of the phenomenon of tape compression that adds a little crunch to the music. And then transfer to your digital machine, taking full advantage of the automation, etc. that the digital medium has to offer.

When I've worked at studios I've always told bands that it's nice to be able to take advantage of those qualities of tape compression. But if you've got a band that is pressed for time or pressed for cash then you just skip it. It's an aesthetic preference really.

noise&light wrote:

BadComrade wrote:Why not just record straight in to pro tools if it's gonna wind up there anyway?

Music recorded to analog tape has a different quality to music recorded digitally. You can record loud to tape, taking advantage of the phenomenon of tape compression that adds a little crunch to the music. And then transfer to your digital machine, taking full advantage of the automation, etc. that the digital medium has to offer.

When I've worked at studios I've always told bands that it's nice to be able to take advantage of those qualities of tape compression. But if you've got a band that is pressed for time or pressed for cash then you just skip it. It's an aesthetic preference really.

this is "abusing" tape, and not really its intended purpose. In my experience tape compression does little more than cause mudiness and a loss of transient information. There is other outboard equipment that can produce pleasant harmonic distortion without the other effects of tape saturation. If recorded at proper levels, analog tape and high quality digital recording can both be acceptable and accurate mediums for capturing sound, and while they may sound a little different, that difference is negligible when you conisder other variables that have a much greater impact onthe overall sound of the recording, such as performance,the acoustics, instruments, mic placement, engineering experience, etc. With that said, using a nice, well calbrated tape machine is a gratifying experience, and has merits beyond its "sound".

I think the actual process of recording music in the linear fashion that tape demands is preferable. But I don't think recording onto tape and transferring it to digital gives great results. If you're going to put it into Pro Tools or whatever and do a bunch of editing I see no point in spending the extra time.

We use distressors, fatsos, etc. for getting a "tapey" sound.

this is "abusing" tape, and not really its intended purpose. In my experience tape compression does little more than cause mudiness and a loss of transient information. There is other outboard equipment that can produce pleasant harmonic distortion without the other effects of tape saturation. If recorded at proper levels, analog tape and high quality digital recording can both be acceptable and accurate mediums for capturing sound, and while they may sound a little different, that difference is negligible when you conisder other variables that have a much greater impact onthe overall sound of the recording, such as performance,the acoustics, instruments, mic placement, engineering experience, etc. With that said, using a nice, well calbrated tape machine is a gratifying experience, and has merits beyond its "sound".[/quote]


abusing tape. this should be a basic rule when fidelity is a goal. whenever i am in conversation or scenario involving pushing the levels into analog tape recording, the people most likely are speaking of a myth that they have never been in a situation to illustrate the loss of dynamic range, transient response, or long term listenability... is it kinda like using compression/limiting to solve problems/inconsistencies, vs, as an effect. but this thread has been jacked and good points have been made because of that.

i will ramble on.


like a preamp, tape has a character, as with each tape machine and its setup, and tape stock. recording to tape as "selling point" or "statement" (i am gonna catch a bunch of shit!) will not make or break a record, song, ep, etc. it is like everyone freaking out about all of the gear they don't have to make a recording instead of laboring over the writing and the recorded performance of a song. i like tape, it sets a good pace to a session, it limits the amount of tracks, i do not have an automated board so it can gets everyone involved mixing, and it is decisive in the takes to keep. there's no extra labor in sifting through, usually vocal and/or guitar takes. a decent engineer will run a session that way in the digital realm. i think the way way people make music is changing, so the format is changing, the typical recording scenario is/has changed. make something worth while. the more someone understands a format, mic placement, signal chain, gain structure, monitoring, communication, etc. usually the better the results in a timely situation. i think it is great that the level of fidelity, the grasp of understanding home recording has finally evolved into, the accessibility of information, the tools are not the master, the master uses the tools (i wish i was high in rereading that!). but lastly, if you are worried about wearing out the tape on takes, please take it a step back and get the songs ready to record. you will ultimately thank yourself for that effort.

be comfortable and honest in whatever situation you choose to document your art.

this is "abusing" tape, and not really its intended purpose.

I guess that only matters if "intended purposes" are important you. Don't want to get into the whole engineering as art vs. science debate, but what do you think Van Gogh would say if someone told him "that wasn't the intended purpose of oil paint", or someone told Herzog, "that's not the intended purpose of 35mm film"? Just something to think about.

like a preamp, tape has a character, as with each tape machine and its setup, and tape stock. recording to tape as "selling point" or "statement" (i am gonna catch a bunch of shit!) will not make or break a record, song, ep, etc.

You're right. Just like one preamp or compressor, choosing tape vs. digital won't make ore break any project. But like we all know, every project is a series of very little elements that add up to make up the big picture. Tape is just one of those little elements that adds up along with every other element.

man, you guys don't like to hit tape a little hard at least for bass and some guitars? nuts. i mean, it doesn't work for every instrument of course (and some machines sound better than others), but when it works it's an irreplicable sound imo.

if i wanted perfect transient response, i'd just go straight to digital quite frankly.

Did you notice that Sonic youth recorded over Sister to make Experimental Jet Set, Trash and blah blah whatever its called? I thought they were joking, but if you listen really really carefully you can hear songs from Sister in the background during the quiet parts.

chet wrote:Did you notice that Sonic youth recorded over Sister to make Experimental Jet Set, Trash and blah blah whatever its called? I thought they were joking, but if you listen really really carefully you can hear songs from Sister in the background during the quiet parts.

If that's not true, it's a great rumor. I'll have to check that out somehow since that's one of the SY albums that I don't own.

watchyourhead wrote:I guess that only matters if "intended purposes" are important you. Don't want to get into the whole engineering as art vs. science debate, but what do you think Van Gogh would say if someone told him "that wasn't the intended purpose of oil paint", or someone told Herzog, "that's not the intended purpose of 35mm film"? Just something to think about.

This is an incredibly tired subject. I was completely prepared not to reply. But I couldn't help it.

let's say for kicks we're talking about an artist who records himeself (because otherwise it brings i nthe whole creativity vs problem solving debate which is also tired).

You're comparing individual artists who tried something no one else was doing with a myth that nearly every engineer has heard of and either puts faith in or denies it.

If you were the first person to say "hey what if we turned everything up really loud on tape and made it compress (distort)" then it's a plausable comparison. But alas, you aren't.

ok, now to attempt un-hijack this thread -

the only issue i have with reusing tape is that whatever you recorded before now has no master. One of the greatest features of tape, which has been discussed at length on this forum, is it's longevity. That is no longer applicable when you're recording over the master tapes.

Jeremy

Jeremy wrote:

watchyourhead wrote:I guess that only matters if "intended purposes" are important you. Don't want to get into the whole engineering as art vs. science debate, but what do you think Van Gogh would say if someone told him "that wasn't the intended purpose of oil paint", or someone told Herzog, "that's not the intended purpose of 35mm film"? Just something to think about.

You're comparing individual artists who tried something no one else was doing with a myth that nearly every engineer has heard of and either puts faith in or denies it.

If you were the first person to say "hey what if we turned everything up really loud on tape and made it compress (distort)" then it's a plausable comparison. But alas, you aren't.

You make a good point, but it in a way obscures what I was trying to say. Hitting tape 'hard' is not a switch you just flip on or off. It's not a binary function. There are all sorts of factors, i.e. how hard you hit it, tape level, tape formulation, machine, nature of material, etc. I guess I might have come off too bombastic before, but what I'm saying is how hard you hit tape (and under what circumstances) is just another "brushstroke" in the big picture of things. And if tape isn't designed to be treated that way, then too bad for it. All that matters is the results.

Alright, now I apologize because this thread was never meant to be about this or any kind of right/wrong conventions. It was only a simple question about tape resilency, and for those of you who actually responded to that question, I appreciate it.

Mark