I get asked all he time about the differences between Tape and Digital! Here, Marc Damiel Nelson has very kindly created a video showing those differences! You can download the multi tracks for yourself and compare in your listening environment! Also, you can evaluate what Tape Emulation plug ins may bring to your mix! Here are the tracks:- producelikeapro.com/marc-daniel-nelson-analog-vs-digital/ What are some of your favourite mixing tricks?
Doing as much as I can _before_ hitting Record. I'm not afraid to use some EQ and a touch of compression on the way in because I started out on a 244 when there was no other choice (I had one compressor and one effects box). I mix waaaay too slowly to risk failing to commit to the sound from the beginning. I also punch-in rather than comping - especially now we have Undo for those times when the punch is even worse! 😀
I'd like to try Mastering first on each track of the song and sort that first. Then give it to the AI to mix down Then get a real person (like Warren) to sort it out properly with the wife's help!
Many of them, but lately i like to send doubled vocal only to vox reverbs and delays sends, and not to the mixbus. The main vocal stays dry. Interesting sound. Much wider.
It was good, and it would have been much better without the "Back to Tape!" and "Back to Digital!" exposition, and kept to text-only during the audio comparison. We can't even hear 2 measures of A/B without a massive V/O interruption :(
As musician/producer who was raised by a musician through the 70's and 80's, who played records and cassettes of all kinds of music everyday, that sound is so familiar. When you play the digi version it is nice. It is clear. It has some vibe. But when you kick in the tape RS it just feels like the 70's. It changed the feeling in my body. Not just what I could hear but how it felt. Amazing. Thanks for sharing this!
The Tape version sounds amazing, Time and Time again when I go back to some of my old listening favs that were done on tape they always have a superior sound type to them. This demonstrates the tpe effect and how it is so pleasing to the ears
Having worked in both mediums, there is no better or worse, just different. Different vibe, different detail, different dynamics. I love the warmth of tape and the definition of digital. Variety is the spice of life.
Now i understand the difference, the digital print has sharper transients and more space between the instruments while the tape sounds softer on the transients and fuller overall Thanks ever so much for this clear comparison!
I love how even though the analog tape is used in some tracks for this mix, it’s still mixed in digital using a digital capture of the analog recording! The fact that digital is still able to capture the analog “warmth” or can be used in pure form for a sharper , clearer sound shows its versatility.
The tape sounds so much warmer and fuller, just way more musical to my ear. Why did we get away from tape exactly? Seems tracking to tape and mixing in digital is a great combo.
Money,... with the advent of digital recording technology in around the late 80's early 90's there was a push by new technology companies to persuade/convince the music industry and general public that the new digital format was far superior to the then existing vinyl and tape based formats. Of course all this, as it usually is, based on generating profits for those who are invested in the latest , "new thing". Sometimes it's legitimate and other times just the latest ' Snake Oil'. In the case of the digital revolution I think it is a little of both. Everyone chooses what they prefer but I personally think tape has the edge in terms of an overall feel of a recording and believe it will always be present to some degree. Definitely in my studio.
Man this is incredible insight, Marc is an absolute legend, I love how he breaks these tracks down. This track is right up my alley and absolute gold.Marc please make more of these videos. Your lessons are absolute gold dude.
man alive... tape just feels like a big warm hug. absolutely it's the right call for this track. Kudos to Marc for being a great presenter as well! Thanks for this Warren, and Happy Christmas to you, your family, and the crew at PLAP!
there are two storis told in both examples. 1. this is fantastically educational in hearing the very noticeable things tape does. easily one of the best videos you will ever every see on the subject. 2. a fantastic engineer and fantastic set of musicians and a fantastic producer made a beautiful wonderful recording, and both sound wonderful. those little openings up of low mids and whatnot are wonderful in the tape, but if someone said, "You have to use those digital files," I'd be thrilled to do so because Marc and team just made a beautiful recording that sounds ready to go. I can promise that if someone told Marc that he had to use the digital files, he'd make it sound out of this world amazing. get a tape machine if you can, but dang... the end of the story is, both of those examples just tell the tale that your tape recording is likely not going to sound as good as his digital unless you're already a boss because it's all in the musicians, the music, and the production team capturing it all right. this isn't a mix, and it sounds mixed both digital and analog. just so good.
How did all these music-professionals claim that you can not hear the difference between digital and analogue. I mean this here proofes that you can hear the difference. Weather you then want to use analogue or digital is a creative process, just like Mr Nelsons says here. Best channel on Mixing and Music anyway.
When the choir breakdown came in.. Digital got almost ZERO VIBES when compared to tapes.. and I listened with my eyes closed.. thanks for this highly educating video 🙏
Even through the youtube pipeline I can hear the difference. There is just that weight and saturation on the tape version. With a few plugins we can make the digital version sound actually more analogue. The Kazrog Tru Iron... transformer plug in would fix most of it in the digital domain when you get back into the DAW. Some people always prefer the tape sound. Thanks Marc excellent comparison. Also gets very interesting when you create a hybrid recording and they seem to interact with each other. Opens up a lot of discussion on the art of sound recording.
This is the most amazing sample of this digital-analog discussion. Close your eyes and you can feel the kick moving the air against your leg in analog recording. Feeling blessed to record in all analog with our local Astia Studio in Finland.
On tape, sounds more shimmer, at 8:15, "let me down", the cymbal is dark on digital, but at 8:41, that cymbal more brighten and open and sustain on tape, this is huge.
@@RonnieVaiArovo OK, I'm sorry, I know this is Warren's channel I am watch almost daily, but I thought this episode is made from Marc and the reply was from him. My mistake!
Both have their positives & negatives, but there's no denying tape is just more interesting and fun to work with. Man, the long hours and days on end I used to spend in the bedroom with my little Tascam studio recorder bouncing and layering tracks. Fond memories that bring a smile to my face. It's the simple things in life that offer the most reward.
the wonderful thing is, because of the quality of the tracks in digital and tape i now can make further comparisons with my tape emulations IK tapecollection and taupe from acustica. thanks!!!
The tape sounds magical, smooth and comforting. You can certainly hear the digital ride “ping” a little more and it does sound good, no doubt. Comparatively, the analog ride sounds beautiful, perfect just right. I really love the way you married the live analog rhythm with the digital over dubs, I’ve never heard of anyone doing that before which may just mean the rock I’ve been living under is a little bigger than I thought. Trying to explain the difference between tape and digital to people without using food or wine analogies is difficult at best and hopeless when their eyes proclaim that their mind has left to take a table at their favourite restaurant. Thanks, not only for addressing the topic but for how you addressed it. It was the most effective way to identify the difference between the two. For me the most impressive thing about the video was the recording process you used. The way you got the analog to hug the digital without sacrificing any digital dynamic freedom really was special. Your mix captured the songs personality, The vocalists tone, phrasing and articulation checked all the boxes of shit hot for me and that song deserved all the talent and hard work that brought it to life. Everything about this video blew my shit hot meter to bits. Bravo sir, a tip of the proverbial hat to you, the composers and the musicians involved.
Best example of the differences, and you are right, the tape glues everything together, further more, "this is not mixed" it is extremely well recorded.
About nearly 30y ago, i had an analogue recording studio with both digital (Tascam DA30 and Panasonic DAT) and analogue Tape Machine (OTARI MX 5050 with butterfly heads, German AGFA hi flux tape, 15ips, Dolby SR)... I used to mix down my 24-track to both simultaneously, and after a while, i let customers compare the sound in A-B- swiching... of course blind without telling. They could not tell details, but they felt better with the analogue Dolby tape mix. Especially the younger producers felt "more punch" over all. After all those years i tend to say that Dolby SR Tape is sounding better than 16bit digital, but not state of the art 24bit when there is a lot dynamics. With modern pop music, i would say a good calibrated analogue machine with Dolby SR still may win the ears, hearts and bellys ;-) BTW: Most of my DAT recordings are broken now after so many years, so the tape mixes won the battle anyway... Even recordings from the 70s are just running flawless with that AGFA (and BASF) tapes... The Ampex, 3m and other japanese tapes are way more affected by moisture and bad storage, and have to be "roasted".
@@BrunodeSouzaLino Yes i could. But first i let them switch by themselves (on an analogue board), and second, in this times many producers tended more to the digital recordings because of prejudice.
@@fibboobbif It doesn't matter. There's a very good reason why scientific testing is double blind. You're just trying to sell your opinion without noticing under the guise of a test where people can decide which they prefer. You've already decided for them. If you prefer A over B and you know which is which, you'll steer people towards A, even if you couldn't tell A from B in a double blind test. Humans are very good at self deception.
@@BrunodeSouzaLino If you need a technocrat scientific test, go ahead and pay for it, or do it by yourself. But i have the right to tell my opinion and experience as long as there is free speech. Have a nice day,
Finally a good example of what Tape does to transients and overall depth. An unmixed session like this shows it quite obvious. It also makes clear that proper recording makes most of the mix. Rough mixes should sound like this! Merry Christmas, guys!
Excellent example. The tape does half the work for you. When you hear it, it sounds much more together and complete. The digital makes you want to start tampering with things to get to that point. It's sounds more unfinished.
@@dighawaii1 bro, it’s pretty difficult to record to tape, (you said it was silly yourself to go through the hassle in another comment) if anything digital plug-ins are a crutch lmao
@Robert Helix I'm very aware. Many of the great recordings I love were also recorded to ADAT and hard drive. Some were recorded to digital, then printed to tape, then re-recorded into digital. For me, in 2020, tape recording is the ultimate nod to times past. However, it's akin to driving a Model-T on an 800 mile road trip to grandpa's. Fun, but not required.
God, the way the tape just hits me...idk if it's bias, but I just get chills listening to the tape here. I'm even TRYING to get that same feeling listening to the digital, and.....I can't. It's not just what I'm HEARING, but what I'm FEELING listening to it. Low frequencies hitting me in the chest, vibrating at a deeper resonance within me. It's like, the digital is all cerebral, but the analog is in my chest, if that makes sense. On a side note, what GREAT piano playing! Mic choice was superb for it as well, wonderful tone, both analog and digital
In another lifetime I did this work. We had Ampex 24 tracks and a Sphere console and I couldn't believe that CD's would ever catch on because they sounded so bad. I was wrong. We would tune the noise so it was "present noise" if that makes any sense. This is the best demonstration I have heard. Thank you for doing good work.
Being your average millenial hobbyist home recorder, I have always recorded digitally. The convenience of digital is amazing, and there really is no way I could have an analogue setup of equivalent quality in my two bedroom apartment, However, I am a fan of old analogue sound and therefore use techniques and plugins to escape what I perceive as the sharpness of digital recording. This video highlights one aspect of digital I dislike, and have heard many people talk about before: in digital the tracks often sound "seperate" as opposed to as a glued together track. More like a song and less like 15 tracks. The tape in this example just sounds more musical and pleasant and less fatiguing to the ear to me. You can of course do processing in the box to approximate the tape sound, but goddamn, if I had the space and opportunity I would get an analogue setup!
I highly recommend saving up for a 4 track tape machine, like an old Teac 3340s or an Akai. Lots of good brands, just get a good one! Tascam as well, they bought out Teac back in the day
Thanks for providing the tracks! The tape version has a soul. The digital version just is a capture. I recently started using my old PR-99 tape machine again as a hardware plug-in to the DAW. Adds instant magic!
Thanks a million Marc . I recently bought a Fostex A8 as I'm a drummer, pianist and ( uh-hum ) bass player . You have confirmed EVERY reason why I paid double the asking price . I used an R8 for years in the 90s but I think they all got thrown out . . . God Bless You'n'Yours . Perfect Explanation .
I'm listening on low budget (studio) headphones that have a little bit of bump in the bass. When the tape recorded piano started playing, I was really moved by the warmth (excellent performance btw). The digital version sounded more like... a CD? A recording? Certainly sharper and less touching but also the kind of sound I am very much used to. I didn't expect such a difference. Really impressive stuff.
I think the main feature of the sound of tape is that everything has more weight and body to it, like when sound runs through a Lindhal transformer. It just sounds more definite and substantial. This similar weight can also be imparted by an analog console. It seems that whenever sound passes through big solid state or tube devices, you get that girth. It's like riding in a Rolls Royce or Bentley. It also makes things sound more "real" and "in the room". There is a certain organic presence that occurs.
Both sound great. For bluesy context the tape works nicely but on some other application the clearer digital version might be the right one. Technically the digital one sounds better, less hiss and distortion, clearer high end. It comes down to application and taste.
A big plus for Digital is that all musicians no matter how rich are now able to record and mix their own projects without paying the price of analog multitrack studio time. Multitrack tape is very expensive. Multitrack tape machine maintenace costs are sky high. That is if you can find an engineer with experience to work on them. I have a 16 track Studer A80 which sits in the corner because it is far cheaper to use a DAW.
Always enjoy Marc's contributions. When I pulled all the tracks up in Pro Tools it only took a few minutes to get a really nice, balanced mix. Sign of a 1st class tracking session methinks!
What a GREAT presentation by Marc Daniel Nelson. You have to have a good set of headphones to hear the subtle differences. Like he says....this doesn't work in every situation, but you can hear the personality the analogue adds. If you need sharp, and crisp.....probably not so much. If you are looking four fullness and roundness.....sure bet. Thanks much for putting this together.
Yup! This is the reason why our band records, mixes and masters these days only on full analog signal path and tape. It just makes us sound better and the workflow is just so much more straight forward and faster wirhout the possibility to start the endless tinkering and editing.
@@SirDolittle I think thats the key, as long as the stamping master was cut on a lathe from an analogue tape without any digital delay lines! That's why I particularly enjoy listening to vinyl records from 1979 or earlier - you know the audio has never been turned into 0's and 1's at any point and then converted back into an analogue wave.
@@TheMentalblockrock I understand and share the same passion. One of the best records I have is an original Vinyl printing of Pink Floyd’s the Wall. The sound quality is spectacular and the level of detail is amazing. All the fine nuances, the room ambience, the material of the Drum body and felt, the Guitar strings and body and all those things that make a recording whole and true to life and I find always missing in digital recordings are there. I don’t care what the current narrative is but the magic of analog doesn’t lie in harmonic distortion or saturation, for me it is that it captures and/or preserved the things between the lines, the stuff that isn’t obvious but makes a recording feel true to life not just sound like it is. Just like in this video, the digital stems sound flat and lifeless even though a hi res version of lifeless. When listening to the vocals with the analog rhythm section in the background it is even more obvious, how flat and plastic the vocal recordings sound. The resonance characteristics of the chest, the softening of the sound by the skin on the lips and the reflected sound from the face are missing completely. The Full digital Version draws my attention to the lackluster sound and makes the song uninteresting and unengaging, as if my brain was like „so you thought you could fool me with this? Ha, booorriing!“
@@SirDolittle To me, analogue has the sound of "air" about it, the sound of the air from the vocalists throat, lips and gravelly growl from the voice box the air from 12" celestion speakers in the 4x12 guitar cabs and the whoomph of air captured from the bass drum (AKG D12 etc) and ALSO the "air" sound of the room, the acoustic space the music was captured in. one of my favourite records for this is Highway to Hell by AC/DC which I bought in 1979. Possiby like the Wall, 1979 of thereabouts is the pinnacle of pure analogue recording when the tape, desks, effects mics were all the best they ever would be with highly skilled sound engineers and prducers such as Mutt Lange or Bob Ezrin to achieve the ultimate in pura analogue sound quality!
@@SirDolittle By the way- a lot of people who have not heard the end product of a great analogue chain would disagree, but it's something that once heard you cannot "un-hear".
I definitely hear the difference and discovered it in my own recordings. Using a DAW, the sound was sharp and brittle. Using analogue there was a depth and smoothness that I prefer.
I actually prefer the depth and clarity of the digital here. Particularly in the bass, kick drum details and the snare. The lower noise floor is wonderful and makes everything feel more spacious. The tape compression brings out some of the harmonics on the lower piano notes, which is cool and a little hairy, but can be reproduced without the tape if the slight tuning issues inherent in the piano harmonics are your cup of tea. Of course the is not an apples-to-apples comparison, because we're comparing digital to pushed, compressing tape. YMMV.
Yeah the bass guitar particularly sounds fat. In the sixties and early seventies they were recording at 15 ips. Those records have really great bass guitar sounds. Warm and punchy. Drum sounds too. In the late seventies they switched to 30 ips and those records were missing some of that richness.
Maybe I'm just a newbie here at this, but as a drummer it seems to me that I can hear the mic placement in the room more obviously in the digital format (i.e. when the hi hat pops out of the mix a little bit it pops out of one specific speaker, the ride etc...) and I experience a wider stereo spread which seems like it should provide more depth but as you stated, the opposite is true. Actually the tape seems to somehow "hug" if you will, the vocals in the middle of the stereo field and provide superior depth, especially when coupled with the digital overdubs. Thank you so much for this video. Gabriel
I have worked in tape with STUDER A 800 MKIII , and it is not the same hearing it directly from the machine to the console and the monitors, that printed on Daw and hearing from there. The tape direct sound from it sounds really sweet.
No you can't. I can barely hear any difference on my studio speakers. And I have been mixing and mastering for 20 years. You get fooled when you read the "tape" text on the video. If it had been a blind test you wouldn't know the difference.
@@elguitarTom No, I absolutely can. I would challenge that with a blind test easily. I have also been mixing and mastering for 20 years and have a diamond ear certification on sound gym.
I can hear the difference on my Iphone For real. I’m at work, and i always want to learn more music stuff when i dont have to do much And just watching these videos on my phone, and i totally hear the difference
@@philburns5656 @MattDaw Man, that was fun. So I loaded up the tracks and the plugins I shot out were the UAD Studer, Acustica Tuape and Softube Tape. I have some others that I didn’t shoot out because they are not really subtle i.e. UAD Oxide (adds a huge low mid bump) and Waves. So I put the plugins on every channel and tried as many different settings as possible. With the UAD Studer, to me the best sounding setting in comparison to the real tape was 15ips (and driving the input a bit) and 456 or 250 tape type. In comparison I really could not get it to do the same thing as the real tape. In every setting it added a low mid thing that was unnatural and the real tape sounded much more open in a/b’ing. As well as Better sounding saturation (to me) on the high end. Which is annoying because Ive used the studer on most mixes I’ve done the last couple years haha. Acustica Tuape, I tried using their MCI multi track first (not sure if the model is in the ballpark of the real machine in the samples) it sounded like absolute shit in comparison. Nothing notable, just all of the things I didn’t like about the UAD except way worse. So I started trying a bunch of the other settings that I like the best from prior shootouts and nothing was as good....or maybe the right thing to say is nothing sounded like the real thing. But my favorite setting from Tuape is C6. Can’t remember what kind of tape that’s emulating. But that setting totally hangs...I maybe even liked it better than the real thing, other than it shifted the left side of the stereo image a tiny bit louder or shifted the phase or something. I put a trim -0.2 dB on the left side and yeah it sounds great. So that’s encouraging. Buuuut Acustica destroys my CPU. Freezing stuff all the time annoys me. Hoping the new M1 chips will help haha. Softube Tape...nah Thanks @ProduceLikeAPro suuuuper fun!!
@@philburns5656 sick! I’ll have to mess with B9 again. Studer was ok but not really close to the real tape. Everything was tracked so nice though...it’d be hard to make it sound bad haha
These videos Mr. Nelson is releasing are the best content out there for more seasoned mixers. Finally something beyond basic gear operation skills and tips&tricks nonsense, with deep insights about aesthetics and atention to detail. His stuff has made me enjoy mixing like a kid again. Thanks so much and keep on with this approach! Regarding this one, I'm definitelly a digital guy :) I love some hiss and saturation, but the whole pack is overwhelming for my taste. I'm glad we have the choice to use it exactly where we want and as much as we want nowadays.
One difference I noticed between the digital and tape was that the analog brings out a certain girth and inflates the bass in such a smooth and silky way. The digital almost seems like there is no blending and everything is very separate and precise, unlike the tape where it sounds beautifully blended and very sweet and delicious sounding. It's almost as though the two have different flavors and are a completely different recipe.
Yes, there's a slight smearing between frequencies that I could definitely see how it could be overdone. Proper compression should be subtle. Too much just muddys the high end. And analog overdrive and distortion sound good and soft where digital is sharp
The blending itself **is** precise in digital, and largely a matter of routine maths. Not that it's always/ever perfect... - With tape the non-linearities (i.e. imprecise fidelity in the circuit and/or recording instead of a 1:1 reproduction of the input signal at the circuit's output) are what can make it sound "nicer" in the sweet-spot of saturation. It slews or 'smears' the signal while also potentially 'cooking' it with more saturation/harmonics. This can reduce ear-fatigue and sound subjectively "smoother", "warmer", or whatever adjective you care to wax about. Non-linearities in a digital system may be a result of rounding errors, a bug in the driver code, user error leading to digital clipping, errors in circuit design that can produce noise or EM interference and/or cross-talk at the conversion stage, etc. _far from perfect, if still potentially much more linear than tape_ - Softer transients and a gluing of the mids is typical with tape. Some formula+recorder combos may sound better than others. - Digital is like a lens that is creating a sharply-focused picture throughout vs. tape being somewhat closer to how our eyes see - i.e. when we look we like to focus on detail while blurring what is surrounding the subject of interest.
My dad inherited a home studio for me and my brother. Back then it uses a 16 track analog Tascam multitrack. Now we're using Cubase. One of the difference I felt was during recording process. With digital, the sound we heard during tracking is almost exactly the same with what we heard during playback. While when using analog the playback sounds were a bit different than the sound we listened through the monitors during tracking.
I have some great analog plugins and when I push it hard enough I get that old school fuzz I love doing that. I use only Pultec Eq’s the Avalon Plugin; API Eq’s; a UAD Brigade Chorus Pedal Plugin; and push it through Kramer Tapes; Abbey Rd Vinyl. It’s crazy. I can mimic Analog almost 1:1 with my setup. I grew up to tape and vinyl and I’ve engineered on tape even did recordings on tape so I know the sound very well. Oooooh sweet analog and I get the hiss too. Nice and creamy. Ty for this! So nice and warm. A nice fuzzy wool sweater. Now I just need an old school brown and tan ugly ass winter coat with a corduroy collar and some corduroy bell bottoms! This is nostalgia!
Reminds me of the good old day. Only had one but it was really good. I love both. I think the mixture of both is amazing! It does seem like the tape is hugging the vocals! Great analogy!
I've always enjoyed using 4trk tape machines, still do. Magnetic tape compression is very pleasant to my ears...especially fantastic on drum kits and for synths/electronics. However, DAWs have come a long way...I remember when DAT was all the rage.
You make a good point - go with the format that makes the vibe. For my projects I have a CLASP system and print to 2-Inch, 24 Track (with Dolby SR or even sometimes Dolby A) and to ProTools at the same time - for backing and overdubs. In one of my racks I have a working Adams Smith Zeta 3 that will lock up the ProTools rig and the Studer for playback and evaluation. Sometime the vibe comes back best with analog sometime digital.
"This isn't a mix, this is just tracks put together from the tracking session. . . " ☝️ It was at this point that I decided to sell all my gear and take up competitive cross-stiching. 😭 Dude's digital sounds warmer than my analog, lol.
When I heard that I just went, damn it already sounds great. It just goes to show you how well recorded source material doesn't require much done to it.
I believe there's some smart processing going on, you can clearly hear it. It could be even just a quick rough mix (of a truly excellent recording), but a simple recording won't sound anywhere close to this. The given multitracks are just the proof.
@@jeandista waaaa? Really? Other than me tracking this with a lot of hardware on the way in.. I don’t have any processing on the session other than some balancing of the mix. Not sure what mutlitracks you got. 🙃
Marc has given us a first class demonstration. And it really will help anyone on the Produce Like A Pro channel to see and hear the real differences. It's all here, looking into the magical mystery tour of sound.
Listening to this through: computer via optical to Arcam rDAC -> CI Audio VH2 Headphone Amp -> Beyerdynamic DT770 Pro 250Ω; I prefer the digital rhythm section. I think there's a lot of expectation bias going on here. The limitations of analogue tape are very apparent, to my ears, with the analogue track adding noise, colouration and compression and generally sounding a bit flatter (as in presentation, i.e. blander, not frequency response); the digital track gives what the engineer did to the track; it sounds more dynamic and full bodied giving the track more life, especially the drums where you can hear their timbre much more readily. 11:10 the rise and fall of the choir and their intonation and timing is more obvious with the digital recording; the analogue recorded rhythm section distracts from what the choir are doing, but the digital version allows better integration and lets you really hear what the choir are doing.
Neither sound like I'm in the room with the musicians. The all analog version in this comparison sounds like I'm listening to an analog recording - sounds mushy but has a lot more bottom end than the digital, AND these lower frequencies sound really nice. The all digital version in this comparison sounds less organic and sounds artificial in that the overdubs sound disjointed from the rhythm section and there is a sad lack of bottom end. Digital done well, of course, doesn't sound like this - this video is just a demo showing one particular comparison. A decent digital recording of voice and other acoustic instruments does sound like the musicians are in the room with me. Analog absolutely never even approaches this.
At one time, analog vs. digital was very much an apples to oranges comparison. It's getting to the point where it's almost Honeycrisp apple vs. Gala apple. What a great time to be making music in home and professional studios. For the record, I like both and will use whatever is available to me to make the best music I can. (At 52, I don't think the "versus" discussion is relevant too much anymore.) Having said that, I would probably choose analog for what it does if I could have only one. Meaning, I don't have to do anything extra if I'm looking for that sound. Less work always leaves time for more music. But like many others, I work solely in a digital world for recording live analog instruments (except for keys, which are all digital for me for the time-being). This was a great video!!
The snare sounds much better on the tape version. Although I think one could get that exact sound in a digital recording. As far as hiss of a tape goes; it creates a noise floor. Its like distortion on a guitar. Fills the sound and hides the flaws.
@@Producelikeapro this was a particularly good example which so clearly demonstrated the difference. Really love the effect of the rhythm section on tape and overdubs digital, clearly a best of both worlds situation- the gluey fullness of tape with the clarity of digital with the foreground parts- Marvelous!!
Both sound great in my opinion, I would be interested in hearing the differences between the tape recorded tracks and then the digital tracks with a tape emulator vst and see the differences there. Like the J37 or similar. This also gives me some great ideas for triggering the tape effect in a song because I really liked how defined the part with all the gospel singers was, but with the tape I liked the other parts of the song better glued. Would triggering a tape emulator at different times in a song create a cool effect or would it make the song too dynamic and not sound right when it was not triggered. Definitely an experiment I am going to try with these multi-tracks. Thanks for this Warren! A topic that seems to be quite hot right now amongst our musician and recording friends :)
Hi Mary & Sam, When you consider that GOOD VIBRATIONS is sections from 3 different studios spliced together, I'd think your triggering idea would have every chance of well.
As always thanks Marc! Your videos are amazing! Please keep making more and more content for us the world needs to know what you have to say. Thanks for sharing your knowledge
TBH the rhythm track of this could easily have come off Sticky Fingers or Exile and that analogue vibe, rolled off top and bottom, accentuated mids for piano and guitar, bit of tape saturation makes it sound that much more authentic, like was it actually recorded in '71.
Damn. That’s…shocking! To hear the A-B between the two formats…it eliminates any debate on ‘whether or not there’s a difference’. Like someone else commented below-the fact that this is merely a SESSION PLAYBACK and NOT A MIX is overwhelming in regards to the talent in recording. Thanks ever so much for the gift of these multi tracks to study. I’m still struggling to pick my jaw up off the floor…
@@mountainhighrecordingstudi8760 Nice one brother! I haven't tried it yet but it sounds like we should be bouncing with tape plugins somewhere along the way! I use Toneboosters Reelbus 4. I've wondered before about emulating an analogue workflow - run everything through a console emu then bounce to tape, then add effects and automation, bounce again, busses, and so on. The gentle addition might help maintain some realism and it might also help commit to sounds as the mix progresses. Did you treat the individual tracks separately/differently with TAPE or did you just strap one to each track and the 2buss?
Wow. Fantastic Video and Recordings. The first really good Tape to digital comparison I am aware of. I downloaded the tracks, put them into Pro Tools and ran all my Tape Plugins on the digital Piano and compared to the real thing. I tried Waves J37 and Kramer, Softube Tape, Farbfilter Saturn and U-HE Satin. I tweaked through presets and settings and could recreate the sound of the real tape recording with the Satin Plugin. Really amazing. All the others do not get the softening of the harsh stuff and the warmth and dimension right. Really great to know now, for someone who has no tape machine how tape really should sound like. Made a preset in Satin for future projects. Thanks very much Marc and Warren !!!
I get asked all he time about the differences between Tape and Digital! Here, Marc Damiel Nelson has very kindly created a video showing those differences! You can download the multi tracks for yourself and compare in your listening environment! Also, you can evaluate what Tape Emulation plug ins may bring to your mix! Here are the tracks:- producelikeapro.com/marc-daniel-nelson-analog-vs-digital/ What are some of your favourite mixing tricks?
Doing as much as I can _before_ hitting Record. I'm not afraid to use some EQ and a touch of compression on the way in because I started out on a 244 when there was no other choice (I had one compressor and one effects box). I mix waaaay too slowly to risk failing to commit to the sound from the beginning. I also punch-in rather than comping - especially now we have Undo for those times when the punch is even worse! 😀
I'd like to try Mastering first on each track of the song and sort that first. Then give it to the AI to mix down Then get a real person (like Warren) to sort it out properly with the wife's help!
Many of them, but lately i like to send doubled vocal only to vox reverbs and delays sends, and not to the mixbus. The main vocal stays dry. Interesting sound. Much wider.
Yellow and blue make green
Putting Sausage Fattener on everything.
Probably the best video ever made to illustrate the differences so concisely
Wow! That’s wonderful to hear!!
Agree. The wonderful recording and performances don't hurt either. :)
@@Producelikeapro Thanks for this. WE NEED TO BRING BACK TAPE!!!!
agree
It was good, and it would have been much better without the "Back to Tape!" and "Back to Digital!" exposition, and kept to text-only during the audio comparison. We can't even hear 2 measures of A/B without a massive V/O interruption :(
That snare sound on tape is priceless!
As musician/producer who was raised by a musician through the 70's and 80's, who played records and cassettes of all kinds of music everyday, that sound is so familiar. When you play the digi version it is nice. It is clear. It has some vibe. But when you kick in the tape RS it just feels like the 70's. It changed the feeling in my body. Not just what I could hear but how it felt. Amazing. Thanks for sharing this!
The Tape sounds so so good!
The silky, warming effect of the tape is so comforting. It's subtle, but it's sublimely essential.
The Tape version sounds amazing, Time and Time again when I go back to some of my old listening favs that were done on tape they always have a superior sound type to them. This demonstrates the tpe effect and how it is so pleasing to the ears
Having worked in both mediums, there is no better or worse, just different. Different vibe, different detail, different dynamics. I love the warmth of tape and the definition of digital. Variety is the spice of life.
Which of them is closest to reality, i.e. like someone singing in front of you, but it's not recorded.
@@Andersljungberg digital
@@Andersljungberg the question is, do you want closest to reality or do you want most vibe?
Now i understand the difference, the digital print has sharper transients and more space between the instruments while the tape sounds softer on the transients and fuller overall
Thanks ever so much for this clear comparison!
That's definitely a big part of it!
And the compression ... and don't forget the lovely hiss.
Love the thickening compression and depth of tape. I don’t miss the hiss.
Indeed!
I love how even though the analog tape is used in some tracks for this mix, it’s still mixed in digital using a digital capture of the analog recording! The fact that digital is still able to capture the analog “warmth” or can be used in pure form for a sharper , clearer sound shows its versatility.
Amazing how much more musical, vibey, and glued-together the tape sounds. Thanks for demoing this..
The fact that the question is a valid one to ask tells you all you need to know.
Very cool comparison.
Thanks ever so much
Damn, those drums sound so nice! No matter if digital or tape, because they're so well tuned and recorded
Very true! Great instrument played well!
The tape sounds so much warmer and fuller, just way more musical to my ear. Why did we get away from tape exactly? Seems tracking to tape and mixing in digital is a great combo.
Money,... with the advent of digital recording technology in around the late 80's early 90's there was a push by new technology companies to persuade/convince the music industry and general public that the new digital format was far superior to the then existing vinyl and tape based formats. Of course all this, as it usually is, based on generating profits for those who are invested in the latest , "new thing". Sometimes it's legitimate and other times just the latest ' Snake Oil'. In the case of the digital revolution I think it is a little of both. Everyone chooses what they prefer but I personally think tape has the edge in terms of an overall feel of a recording and believe it will always be present to some degree. Definitely in my studio.
Man this is incredible insight, Marc is an absolute legend, I love how he breaks these tracks down. This track is right up my alley and absolute gold.Marc please make more of these videos. Your lessons are absolute gold dude.
Thanks ever so much Sean!
man alive... tape just feels like a big warm hug. absolutely it's the right call for this track. Kudos to Marc for being a great presenter as well! Thanks for this Warren, and Happy Christmas to you, your family, and the crew at PLAP!
there are two storis told in both examples. 1. this is fantastically educational in hearing the very noticeable things tape does. easily one of the best videos you will ever every see on the subject. 2. a fantastic engineer and fantastic set of musicians and a fantastic producer made a beautiful wonderful recording, and both sound wonderful. those little openings up of low mids and whatnot are wonderful in the tape, but if someone said, "You have to use those digital files," I'd be thrilled to do so because Marc and team just made a beautiful recording that sounds ready to go. I can promise that if someone told Marc that he had to use the digital files, he'd make it sound out of this world amazing.
get a tape machine if you can, but dang... the end of the story is, both of those examples just tell the tale that your tape recording is likely not going to sound as good as his digital unless you're already a boss because it's all in the musicians, the music, and the production team capturing it all right. this isn't a mix, and it sounds mixed both digital and analog. just so good.
How did all these music-professionals claim that you can not hear the difference between digital and analogue. I mean this here proofes that you can hear the difference. Weather you then want to use analogue or digital is a creative process, just like Mr Nelsons says here. Best channel on Mixing and Music anyway.
When the choir breakdown came in.. Digital got almost ZERO VIBES when compared to tapes.. and I listened with my eyes closed.. thanks for this highly educating video 🙏
Even through the youtube pipeline I can hear the difference. There is just that weight and saturation on the tape version. With a few plugins we can make the digital version sound actually more analogue. The Kazrog Tru Iron... transformer plug in would fix most of it in the digital domain when you get back into the DAW. Some people always prefer the tape sound. Thanks Marc excellent comparison. Also gets very interesting when you create a hybrid recording and they seem to interact with each other. Opens up a lot of discussion on the art of sound recording.
This is the most amazing sample of this digital-analog discussion. Close your eyes and you can feel the kick moving the air against your leg in analog recording.
Feeling blessed to record in all analog with our local Astia Studio in Finland.
On tape, sounds more shimmer, at 8:15, "let me down", the cymbal is dark on digital, but at 8:41, that cymbal more brighten and open and sustain on tape, this is huge.
Marvellous! Please feel free to download the tracks and listen in your own environment! producelikeapro.com/marc-daniel-nelson-analog-vs-digital/
@@Producelikeapro Thanks Marc, already downloading, and thanks for this very professional content.
Well spotted, that's quite a bigg difference in brilliance!
@@smpiggystudio His name is Warren, not Marc, don't disrespect Master Warren please
@@RonnieVaiArovo OK, I'm sorry, I know this is Warren's channel I am watch almost daily, but I thought this episode is made from Marc and the reply was from him. My mistake!
Thanks
Both have their positives & negatives, but there's no denying tape is just more interesting and fun to work with. Man, the long hours and days on end I used to spend in the bedroom with my little Tascam studio recorder bouncing and layering tracks. Fond memories that bring a smile to my face. It's the simple things in life that offer the most reward.
Good days indeed
That tape sound gave me chills especially in the middle part. It scooped me back like a time machine to my childhood days. Thank you for this Marc.
Wow this is exactly why I still miss recording in analog studios Im not crazy its still a huge difference in my ears.
the wonderful thing is, because of the quality of the tracks in digital and tape i now can make further comparisons with my tape emulations IK tapecollection and taupe from acustica. thanks!!!
The tape sounds magical, smooth and comforting. You can certainly hear the digital ride “ping” a little more and it does sound good, no doubt. Comparatively, the analog ride sounds beautiful, perfect just right. I really love the way you married the live analog rhythm with the digital over dubs, I’ve never heard of anyone doing that before which may just mean the rock I’ve been living under is a little bigger than I thought. Trying to explain the difference between tape and digital to people without using food or wine analogies is difficult at best and hopeless when their eyes proclaim that their mind has left to take a table at their favourite restaurant. Thanks, not only for addressing the topic but for how you addressed it. It was the most effective way to identify the difference between the two. For me the most impressive thing about the video was the recording process you used. The way you got the analog to hug the digital without sacrificing any digital dynamic freedom really was special. Your mix captured the songs personality, The vocalists tone, phrasing and articulation checked all the boxes of shit hot for me and that song deserved all the talent and hard work that brought it to life. Everything about this video blew my shit hot meter to bits. Bravo sir, a tip of the proverbial hat to you, the composers and the musicians involved.
Barely no difference at all. I am listening through studio speakers.
If this was a blind test you would just had to guess.
Best example of the differences, and you are right, the tape glues everything together, further more, "this is not mixed" it is extremely well recorded.
About nearly 30y ago, i had an analogue recording studio with both digital (Tascam DA30 and Panasonic DAT) and analogue Tape Machine (OTARI MX 5050 with butterfly heads, German AGFA hi flux tape, 15ips, Dolby SR)... I used to mix down my 24-track to both simultaneously, and after a while, i let customers compare the sound in A-B- swiching... of course blind without telling. They could not tell details, but they felt better with the analogue Dolby tape mix. Especially the younger producers felt "more punch" over all. After all those years i tend to say that Dolby SR Tape is sounding better than 16bit digital, but not state of the art 24bit when there is a lot dynamics. With modern pop music, i would say a good calibrated analogue machine with Dolby SR still may win the ears, hearts and bellys ;-) BTW: Most of my DAT recordings are broken now after so many years, so the tape mixes won the battle anyway... Even recordings from the 70s are just running flawless with that AGFA (and BASF) tapes... The Ampex, 3m and other japanese tapes are way more affected by moisture and bad storage, and have to be "roasted".
If it's not double blind, it's not conclusive. You could bias the listener unconsciously by simply knowing which is which.
@@BrunodeSouzaLino Yes i could. But first i let them switch by themselves (on an analogue board), and second, in this times many producers tended more to the digital recordings because of prejudice.
@@fibboobbif It doesn't matter. There's a very good reason why scientific testing is double blind. You're just trying to sell your opinion without noticing under the guise of a test where people can decide which they prefer. You've already decided for them. If you prefer A over B and you know which is which, you'll steer people towards A, even if you couldn't tell A from B in a double blind test. Humans are very good at self deception.
@@BrunodeSouzaLino If you need a technocrat scientific test, go ahead and pay for it, or do it by yourself. But i have the right to tell my opinion and experience as long as there is free speech. Have a nice day,
@@fibboobbif You certainly have all the rights in the world to have your own opinions on anything. Your opinions are not facts, however.
Finally a good example of what Tape does to transients and overall depth. An unmixed session like this shows it quite obvious. It also makes clear that proper recording makes most of the mix. Rough mixes should sound like this! Merry Christmas, guys!
Excellent example. The tape does half the work for you. When you hear it, it sounds much more together and complete. The digital makes you want to start tampering with things to get to that point. It's sounds more unfinished.
Totally agree. I was thinking the same thing
Tape is a crutch.
Well said
@@dighawaii1 bro, it’s pretty difficult to record to tape, (you said it was silly yourself to go through the hassle in another comment) if anything digital plug-ins are a crutch lmao
@Robert Helix I'm very aware. Many of the great recordings I love were also recorded to ADAT and hard drive. Some were recorded to digital, then printed to tape, then re-recorded into digital. For me, in 2020, tape recording is the ultimate nod to times past. However, it's akin to driving a Model-T on an 800 mile road trip to grandpa's. Fun, but not required.
That tape sound its so warm.. love it
Tape is a blessing straight from Lord Jesus Christ. Hallelujah!!!!
Happy Christmas!
AMEN TO THAT BROTHER
God, the way the tape just hits me...idk if it's bias, but I just get chills listening to the tape here. I'm even TRYING to get that same feeling listening to the digital, and.....I can't. It's not just what I'm HEARING, but what I'm FEELING listening to it. Low frequencies hitting me in the chest, vibrating at a deeper resonance within me. It's like, the digital is all cerebral, but the analog is in my chest, if that makes sense. On a side note, what GREAT piano playing! Mic choice was superb for it as well, wonderful tone, both analog and digital
Merry Christmas, Warren, Eric, Marc and everyone in the community! All the best for 2021.
Thanks ever so much! Happy Christmas to you too!
In another lifetime I did this work. We had Ampex 24 tracks and a Sphere console and I couldn't believe that CD's would ever catch on because they sounded so bad. I was wrong.
We would tune the noise so it was "present noise" if that makes any sense. This is the best demonstration I have heard. Thank you for doing good work.
Thanks ever so much Wayne
Being your average millenial hobbyist home recorder, I have always recorded digitally. The convenience of digital is amazing, and there really is no way I could have an analogue setup of equivalent quality in my two bedroom apartment, However, I am a fan of old analogue sound and therefore use techniques and plugins to escape what I perceive as the sharpness of digital recording. This video highlights one aspect of digital I dislike, and have heard many people talk about before: in digital the tracks often sound "seperate" as opposed to as a glued together track. More like a song and less like 15 tracks. The tape in this example just sounds more musical and pleasant and less fatiguing to the ear to me. You can of course do processing in the box to approximate the tape sound, but goddamn, if I had the space and opportunity I would get an analogue setup!
I highly recommend saving up for a 4 track tape machine, like an old Teac 3340s or an Akai. Lots of good brands, just get a good one! Tascam as well, they bought out Teac back in the day
Normal folks just hear the song. Producers n engineers.....this is the stuff we obsess over! Nice vid.
Thanks for providing the tracks! The tape version has a soul. The digital version just is a capture. I recently started using my old PR-99 tape machine again as a hardware plug-in to the DAW. Adds instant magic!
Thanks a million Marc . I recently bought a Fostex A8 as I'm a drummer, pianist and ( uh-hum ) bass player . You have confirmed EVERY reason why I paid double the asking price . I used an R8 for years in the 90s but I think they all got thrown out . . . God Bless You'n'Yours . Perfect Explanation .
I'm listening on low budget (studio) headphones that have a little bit of bump in the bass. When the tape recorded piano started playing, I was really moved by the warmth (excellent performance btw). The digital version sounded more like... a CD? A recording? Certainly sharper and less touching but also the kind of sound I am very much used to. I didn't expect such a difference. Really impressive stuff.
The TAPE!!!! I like that hiss a lot!! Great video!
love to see more and more Marc's video, thanks and Merry Xmas, Warren and Marc.
More to come!
@@Producelikeapro This is just awesome. Can't help waiting for it. :)
@@cabuffal0 Thanks ever so much! Happy Christmas!
I think the main feature of the sound of tape is that everything has more weight and body to it, like when sound runs through a Lindhal transformer. It just sounds more definite and substantial. This similar weight can also be imparted by an analog console. It seems that whenever sound passes through big solid state or tube devices, you get that girth. It's like riding in a Rolls Royce or Bentley. It also makes things sound more "real" and "in the room". There is a certain organic presence that occurs.
In Marc Daniel Nelson we trust. Keep bringing more content! 👍
Thanks ever so much Robert!
Thank you very much for multitrack and human explanation of difference digital versus tape recording...
Both sound great. For bluesy context the tape works nicely but on some other application the clearer digital version might be the right one. Technically the digital one sounds better, less hiss and distortion, clearer high end. It comes down to application and taste.
You can definitely hear the fullness and warmth of the tape. Great job on the video!
A big plus for Digital is that all musicians no matter how rich are now able to record and mix their own projects without paying the price of analog multitrack studio time. Multitrack tape is very expensive. Multitrack tape machine maintenace costs are sky high. That is if you can find an engineer with experience to work on them. I have a 16 track Studer A80 which sits in the corner because it is far cheaper to use a DAW.
Absolutely 100% agreed! This is just a test to show the characteristic differences! Many thanks
Marc is so awesome and chill it must be a blast to work with him. Merry Christmas and nice weekend people.
Always enjoy Marc's contributions.
When I pulled all the tracks up in Pro Tools it only took a few minutes to get a really nice, balanced mix.
Sign of a 1st class tracking session methinks!
Hi Gary! Agreed! Thanks for sharing!
What a GREAT presentation by Marc Daniel Nelson. You have to have a good set of headphones to hear the subtle differences. Like he says....this doesn't work in every situation, but you can hear the personality the analogue adds. If you need sharp, and crisp.....probably not so much. If you are looking four fullness and roundness.....sure bet. Thanks much for putting this together.
Yup! This is the reason why our band records, mixes and masters these days only on full analog signal path and tape.
It just makes us sound better and the workflow is just so much more straight forward and faster wirhout the possibility to start the endless tinkering and editing.
Not to forget, that when you release on Vinyl, the audio stays fully analog without any ADDA conversion.
@@SirDolittle I think thats the key, as long as the stamping master was cut on a lathe from an analogue tape without any digital delay lines! That's why I particularly enjoy listening to vinyl records from 1979 or earlier - you know the audio has never been turned into 0's and 1's at any point and then converted back into an analogue wave.
@@TheMentalblockrock I understand and share the same passion. One of the best records I have is an original Vinyl printing of Pink Floyd’s the Wall. The sound quality is spectacular and the level of detail is amazing. All the fine nuances, the room ambience, the material of the Drum body and felt, the Guitar strings and body and all those things that make a recording whole and true to life and I find always missing in digital recordings are there. I don’t care what the current narrative is but the magic of analog doesn’t lie in harmonic distortion or saturation, for me it is that it captures and/or preserved the things between the lines, the stuff that isn’t obvious but makes a recording feel true to life not just sound like it is.
Just like in this video, the digital stems sound flat and lifeless even though a hi res version of lifeless. When listening to the vocals with the analog rhythm section in the background it is even more obvious, how flat and plastic the vocal recordings sound. The resonance characteristics of the chest, the softening of the sound by the skin on the lips and the reflected sound from the face are missing completely. The Full digital Version draws my attention to the lackluster sound and makes the song uninteresting and unengaging, as if my brain was like „so you thought you could fool me with this? Ha, booorriing!“
@@SirDolittle To me, analogue has the sound of "air" about it, the sound of the air from the vocalists throat, lips and gravelly growl from the voice box the air from 12" celestion speakers in the 4x12 guitar cabs and the whoomph of air captured from the bass drum (AKG D12 etc) and ALSO the "air" sound of the room, the acoustic space the music was captured in. one of my favourite records for this is Highway to Hell by AC/DC which I bought in 1979.
Possiby like the Wall, 1979 of thereabouts is the pinnacle of pure analogue recording when the tape, desks, effects mics were all the best they ever would be with highly skilled sound engineers and prducers such as Mutt Lange or Bob Ezrin to achieve the ultimate in pura analogue sound quality!
@@SirDolittle By the way- a lot of people who have not heard the end product of a great analogue chain would disagree, but it's something that once heard you cannot "un-hear".
The transients with the snare slaps me in the face... and I like it!!
I definitely hear the difference and discovered it in my own recordings. Using a DAW, the sound was sharp and brittle. Using analogue there was a depth and smoothness that I prefer.
I actually prefer the depth and clarity of the digital here. Particularly in the bass, kick drum details and the snare. The lower noise floor is wonderful and makes everything feel more spacious. The tape compression brings out some of the harmonics on the lower piano notes, which is cool and a little hairy, but can be reproduced without the tape if the slight tuning issues inherent in the piano harmonics are your cup of tea.
Of course the is not an apples-to-apples comparison, because we're comparing digital to pushed, compressing tape. YMMV.
The low end on the analog tape is definitely noticeable!! Reminds me more of radio
Yeah the bass guitar particularly sounds fat. In the sixties and early seventies they were recording at 15 ips. Those records have really great bass guitar sounds. Warm and punchy. Drum sounds too. In the late seventies they switched to 30 ips and those records were missing some of that richness.
Maybe I'm just a newbie here at this, but as a drummer it seems to me that I can hear the mic placement in the room more obviously in the digital format (i.e. when the hi hat pops out of the mix a little bit it pops out of one specific speaker, the ride etc...) and I experience a wider stereo spread which seems like it should provide more depth but as you stated, the opposite is true. Actually the tape seems to somehow "hug" if you will, the vocals in the middle of the stereo field and provide superior depth, especially when coupled with the digital overdubs. Thank you so much for this video.
Gabriel
Oh this is great! (Haven't gotten through the whole thing, but just an honest comparison is very much appreciated!)
You're very welcome Chris!!
I have worked in tape with STUDER A 800 MKIII , and it is not the same hearing it directly from the machine to the console and the monitors, that printed on Daw and hearing from there. The tape direct sound from it sounds really sweet.
Holy crap.. I can hear the difference on my laptop speakers.
No you can't. I can barely hear any difference on my studio speakers. And I have been mixing and mastering for 20 years.
You get fooled when you read the "tape" text on the video. If it had been a blind test you wouldn't know the difference.
@@elguitarTom No, I absolutely can. I would challenge that with a blind test easily. I have also been mixing and mastering for 20 years and have a diamond ear certification on sound gym.
@@MOSMASTERING ouch
You both could meet and have a coffee altogether while listening to the nuances in the formants of your words.
I can hear the difference on my Iphone
For real. I’m at work, and i always want to learn more music stuff when i dont have to do much
And just watching these videos on my phone, and i totally hear the difference
Love that rich, round, warm analog sound.
Merry/Happy Christmas to all of you, and happy holidays! 🎅🙌
Happy Christmas!!
I love the Bass in the tape tracks, it has more depth to my ears. Great Tracks Marc and Warren, Thanks a Ton!!
Sick! I’m gonna download em and see how my tape plugins stack up!! Ahhh, such a great Christmas present. Thank you
That's a great idea!!
would you mind giving me feedback here as to how that panned out?
@@mattzere78 no pun intended?
@@philburns5656 @MattDaw Man, that was fun. So I loaded up the tracks and the plugins I shot out were the UAD Studer, Acustica Tuape and Softube Tape. I have some others that I didn’t shoot out because they are not really subtle i.e. UAD Oxide (adds a huge low mid bump) and Waves.
So I put the plugins on every channel and tried as many different settings as possible. With the UAD Studer, to me the best sounding setting in comparison to the real tape was 15ips (and driving the input a bit) and 456 or 250 tape type. In comparison I really could not get it to do the same thing as the real tape. In every setting it added a low mid thing that was unnatural and the real tape sounded much more open in a/b’ing. As well as Better sounding saturation (to me) on the high end. Which is annoying because Ive used the studer on most mixes I’ve done the last couple years haha.
Acustica Tuape, I tried using their MCI multi track first (not sure if the model is in the ballpark of the real machine in the samples) it sounded like absolute shit in comparison. Nothing notable, just all of the things I didn’t like about the UAD except way worse. So I started trying a bunch of the other settings that I like the best from prior shootouts and nothing was as good....or maybe the right thing to say is nothing sounded like the real thing. But my favorite setting from Tuape is C6. Can’t remember what kind of tape that’s emulating. But that setting totally hangs...I maybe even liked it better than the real thing, other than it shifted the left side of the stereo image a tiny bit louder or shifted the phase or something. I put a trim -0.2 dB on the left side and yeah it sounds great. So that’s encouraging.
Buuuut Acustica destroys my CPU. Freezing stuff all the time annoys me. Hoping the new M1 chips will help haha.
Softube Tape...nah
Thanks @ProduceLikeAPro suuuuper fun!!
@@philburns5656 sick! I’ll have to mess with B9 again. Studer was ok but not really close to the real tape. Everything was tracked so nice though...it’d be hard to make it sound bad haha
These videos Mr. Nelson is releasing are the best content out there for more seasoned mixers. Finally something beyond basic gear operation skills and tips&tricks nonsense, with deep insights about aesthetics and atention to detail. His stuff has made me enjoy mixing like a kid again. Thanks so much and keep on with this approach!
Regarding this one, I'm definitelly a digital guy :) I love some hiss and saturation, but the whole pack is overwhelming for my taste. I'm glad we have the choice to use it exactly where we want and as much as we want nowadays.
One difference I noticed between the digital and tape was that the analog brings out a certain girth and inflates the bass in such a smooth and silky way. The digital almost seems like there is no blending and everything is very separate and precise, unlike the tape where it sounds beautifully blended and very sweet and delicious sounding. It's almost as though the two have different flavors and are a completely different recipe.
Yes, there's a slight smearing between frequencies that I could definitely see how it could be overdone.
Proper compression should be subtle. Too much just muddys the high end.
And analog overdrive and distortion sound good and soft where digital is sharp
The blending itself **is** precise in digital, and largely a matter of routine maths. Not that it's always/ever perfect...
- With tape the non-linearities (i.e. imprecise fidelity in the circuit and/or recording instead of a 1:1 reproduction of the input signal at the circuit's output) are what can make it sound "nicer" in the sweet-spot of saturation. It slews or 'smears' the signal while also potentially 'cooking' it with more saturation/harmonics. This can reduce ear-fatigue and sound subjectively "smoother", "warmer", or whatever adjective you care to wax about. Non-linearities in a digital system may be a result of rounding errors, a bug in the driver code, user error leading to digital clipping, errors in circuit design that can produce noise or EM interference and/or cross-talk at the conversion stage, etc. _far from perfect, if still potentially much more linear than tape_
- Softer transients and a gluing of the mids is typical with tape. Some formula+recorder combos may sound better than others.
- Digital is like a lens that is creating a sharply-focused picture throughout vs. tape being somewhat closer to how our eyes see - i.e. when we look we like to focus on detail while blurring what is surrounding the subject of interest.
My dad inherited a home studio for me and my brother. Back then it uses a 16 track analog Tascam multitrack. Now we're using Cubase.
One of the difference I felt was during recording process. With digital, the sound we heard during tracking is almost exactly the same with what we heard during playback. While when using analog the playback sounds were a bit different than the sound we listened through the monitors during tracking.
As a performer I never care what the producer uses and as a producer I only use what I have on hand. Merry Christmas Warren!
I have some great analog plugins and when I push it hard enough I get that old school fuzz
I love doing that. I use only Pultec Eq’s the Avalon Plugin; API Eq’s; a UAD Brigade Chorus Pedal Plugin; and push it through Kramer Tapes; Abbey Rd Vinyl. It’s crazy. I can mimic Analog almost 1:1 with my setup. I grew up to tape and vinyl and I’ve engineered on tape even did recordings on tape so I know the sound very well. Oooooh sweet analog and I get the hiss too. Nice and creamy. Ty for this! So nice and warm. A nice fuzzy wool sweater. Now I just need an old school brown and tan ugly ass winter coat with a corduroy collar and some corduroy bell bottoms! This is nostalgia!
thanks, Marc so much for this great inside. I will be having fun after Christmas with your multi-tracks. Warren you are one of a kind!!!
Happy Christmas!! Marc Rules!!
Reminds me of the good old day. Only had one but it was really good. I love both. I think the mixture of both is amazing! It does seem like the tape is hugging the vocals! Great analogy!
I've always enjoyed using 4trk tape machines, still do. Magnetic tape compression is very pleasant to my ears...especially fantastic on drum kits and for synths/electronics. However, DAWs have come a long way...I remember when DAT was all the rage.
You work with what you have.
Love Marc’s videos, and not just because he was named after me.
Haha Thanks ever so much
Thanks Marc. It is so useful for us amateurs to have access to well recorded material.
I think it did great things for the piano, specifically. Made it sound more lively and not so tinny.
Agreed. Became alive.
You make a good point - go with the format that makes the vibe. For my projects I have a CLASP system and print to 2-Inch, 24 Track (with Dolby SR or even sometimes Dolby A) and to ProTools at the same time - for backing and overdubs. In one of my racks I have a working Adams Smith Zeta 3 that will lock up the ProTools rig and the Studer for playback and evaluation. Sometime the vibe comes back best with analog sometime digital.
"This isn't a mix, this is just tracks put together from the tracking session. . . "
☝️
It was at this point that I decided to sell all my gear and take up competitive cross-stiching. 😭
Dude's digital sounds warmer than my analog, lol.
When I heard that I just went, damn it already sounds great. It just goes to show you how well recorded source material doesn't require much done to it.
Haha yes, that Marc is rather talented isn't he!
@@adam872 that will help and also knowing what to listen for. A lot of the time people mix for the sake of mixing!
I believe there's some smart processing going on, you can clearly hear it. It could be even just a quick rough mix (of a truly excellent recording), but a simple recording won't sound anywhere close to this. The given multitracks are just the proof.
@@jeandista waaaa? Really? Other than me tracking this with a lot of hardware on the way in.. I don’t have any processing on the session other than some balancing of the mix. Not sure what mutlitracks you got. 🙃
Marc has given us a first class demonstration. And it really will help anyone on the Produce Like A Pro channel to see and hear the real differences. It's all here, looking into the magical mystery tour of sound.
Oh man, this is just awesome. Love the song and can't wait to start mixing it. I've been wanting to see a blues based track for a while now!
Amazing!!
Listening to this through: computer via optical to Arcam rDAC -> CI Audio VH2 Headphone Amp -> Beyerdynamic DT770 Pro 250Ω; I prefer the digital rhythm section. I think there's a lot of expectation bias going on here. The limitations of analogue tape are very apparent, to my ears, with the analogue track adding noise, colouration and compression and generally sounding a bit flatter (as in presentation, i.e. blander, not frequency response); the digital track gives what the engineer did to the track; it sounds more dynamic and full bodied giving the track more life, especially the drums where you can hear their timbre much more readily. 11:10 the rise and fall of the choir and their intonation and timing is more obvious with the digital recording; the analogue recorded rhythm section distracts from what the choir are doing, but the digital version allows better integration and lets you really hear what the choir are doing.
Digital sounds like I'm in my room listening to a CD.
Analog sounds like I'm in the room with the musicians while they're tracking live
Thanks ever so much!
Neither sound like I'm in the room with the musicians. The all analog version in this comparison sounds like I'm listening to an analog recording - sounds mushy but has a lot more bottom end than the digital, AND these lower frequencies sound really nice. The all digital version in this comparison sounds less organic and sounds artificial in that the overdubs sound disjointed from the rhythm section and there is a sad lack of bottom end.
Digital done well, of course, doesn't sound like this - this video is just a demo showing one particular comparison. A decent digital recording of voice and other acoustic instruments does sound like the musicians are in the room with me. Analog absolutely never even approaches this.
At one time, analog vs. digital was very much an apples to oranges comparison. It's getting to the point where it's almost Honeycrisp apple vs. Gala apple. What a great time to be making music in home and professional studios.
For the record, I like both and will use whatever is available to me to make the best music I can. (At 52, I don't think the "versus" discussion is relevant too much anymore.) Having said that, I would probably choose analog for what it does if I could have only one. Meaning, I don't have to do anything extra if I'm looking for that sound. Less work always leaves time for more music. But like many others, I work solely in a digital world for recording live analog instruments (except for keys, which are all digital for me for the time-being).
This was a great video!!
The snare sounds much better on the tape version. Although I think one could get that exact sound in a digital recording.
As far as hiss of a tape goes; it creates a noise floor. Its like distortion on a guitar. Fills the sound and hides the flaws.
Awesome demonstration
Thanks ever so much
Great comparison- thanks
Thanks ever so much Steve!
@@Producelikeapro this was a particularly good example which so clearly demonstrated the difference. Really love the effect of the rhythm section on tape and overdubs digital, clearly a best of both worlds situation- the gluey fullness of tape with the clarity of digital with the foreground parts- Marvelous!!
@@steveg219 Thanks ever so much!
Huge difference, thank you for taking the time to share this
Both sound great in my opinion, I would be interested in hearing the differences between the tape recorded tracks and then the digital tracks with a tape emulator vst and see the differences there. Like the J37 or similar. This also gives me some great ideas for triggering the tape effect in a song because I really liked how defined the part with all the gospel singers was, but with the tape I liked the other parts of the song better glued.
Would triggering a tape emulator at different times in a song create a cool effect or would it make the song too dynamic and not sound right when it was not triggered. Definitely an experiment I am going to try with these multi-tracks. Thanks for this Warren! A topic that seems to be quite hot right now amongst our musician and recording friends :)
Hi Mary & Sam,
When you consider that GOOD VIBRATIONS is sections from 3 different studios spliced together, I'd think your triggering idea would have every chance of well.
As always thanks Marc! Your videos are amazing! Please keep making more and more content for us the world needs to know what you have to say. Thanks for sharing your knowledge
wow what a great video , really good examples and awesome to have the opportunity to hear this project
Thanks ever so much!
@@Producelikeapro I was exited that I forgot to say thank you 🙏🏽 sorry . Thank you guys what a great gift 🙏🏽
Aw shucks! Thanks ever so much! I’m so glad to be able to help
Tape is a nice warm sound, incomparable. Great explains great video🎙💫
TBH the rhythm track of this could easily have come off Sticky Fingers or Exile and that analogue vibe, rolled off top and bottom, accentuated mids for piano and guitar, bit of tape saturation makes it sound that much more authentic, like was it actually recorded in '71.
Wow! What a wonderful compliment!
Damn. That’s…shocking! To hear the A-B between the two formats…it eliminates any debate on ‘whether or not there’s a difference’. Like someone else commented below-the fact that this is merely a SESSION PLAYBACK and NOT A MIX is overwhelming in regards to the talent in recording. Thanks ever so much for the gift of these multi tracks to study. I’m still struggling to pick my jaw up off the floor…
It would be an interesting experiment to see how close you could get the digital version sounding like tape with a tape machine sim vst plugin.
This ^^^
Yes that would be fascinating- in fact we could all do this at home with the tracks!
@@paspallum Haha I'm not sure if you're being a smart alec or not but that's a great point :) I'm going to give it a go
@@fattommy4436 No I'm not clever enough to be a smart alec
I just tried it with IK Multimedia TAPE (Plugin) and it really closed the gap a LOT
@@mountainhighrecordingstudi8760 Nice one brother! I haven't tried it yet but it sounds like we should be bouncing with tape plugins somewhere along the way! I use Toneboosters Reelbus 4. I've wondered before about emulating an analogue workflow - run everything through a console emu then bounce to tape, then add effects and automation, bounce again, busses, and so on. The gentle addition might help maintain some realism and it might also help commit to sounds as the mix progresses. Did you treat the individual tracks separately/differently with TAPE or did you just strap one to each track and the 2buss?
The low mids of the piano are so robust on the tape. Agree with the clarity of the cymbals on digital. Quite nice picking up the attack.
Great Stuff Marc, keep them coming
Yes! Marc Rules
@@Producelikeapro Your right there, your good self and Matt included
Thanks ever so much Joey!!
Wow. Fantastic Video and Recordings. The first really good Tape to digital comparison I am aware of. I downloaded the tracks, put them into Pro Tools and ran all my Tape Plugins on the digital Piano and compared to the real thing. I tried Waves J37 and Kramer, Softube Tape, Farbfilter Saturn and U-HE Satin. I tweaked through presets and settings and could recreate the sound of the real tape recording with the Satin Plugin. Really amazing. All the others do not get the softening of the harsh stuff and the warmth and dimension right. Really great to know now, for someone who has no tape machine how tape really should sound like. Made a preset in Satin for future projects. Thanks very much Marc and Warren !!!