In 2016 I had the chance to spend a day with Radiohead producer Nigel Godrich. He told me he almost always records Radiohead to tape (mostly of the 8-track variety, which I found surprising). Of course, digital is used by the band as well, but basic tracking and final mixing is done to tape. But it’s not for any sound reasons, it’s because it was the only way to get the band to *commit* and not faff around endlessly. It’s a disciplinary measure. That’s a pretty good reason for using tape, and I wouldn’t know how you would replicate that in a DAW with the same efficiency.
David, I watched all 5 parts of your series and have a few things I would like to point out. To be clear, my perspective (for these comments) is coming from the musicians/creatives perspective. First thing I will start with and the main point I see that you missed is that music is art. As with all art-forms, the headspace you're in (and environment) while creating will greatly effect the end result. In regards to strictly analog recording, being able to work with a hands on/tactile approach and environment can positively influence creativity. Using your ears and hands (instead of your eyes) while creating an auditory art form can be a really great thing. This change will drastically alter the perspective of the music, functioning and creative decissions. Having the recording medium induce limitations can also be a really great creative benefit and cannot be overstated. What I’m getting at here is that it’s not about the “sound of tape” itself, it’s compression, it’s flaws, or the difference in sound quality between the two formats. It’s how the different approach to recording can drastically change the creative process, workflow and headspace of the musicians. Hince the end result of the music. I'm not against digital-audio by any means or digital workstation softwares. DAW’s are neat and they are also limitless. For some areas of recorded audio, digital workstations are an amazing evolution in audio recording. They allow people to start multi-track recording at low investment with out really any physical maintenance, as you pointed out. There is however a constant need for software updates (in all areas of digital audio). There are also other options than a multitrack reel-to-reel machine to achieve what I have pointed out. You could replace the tape machine with a computer interface setup and have an assistant operate it as a tape machine and nothing more. However humans in this day and age are attracted and addicted to screens, which brings on another challenge in and of itself. There are modern recording systems like Radar as well, these are designed to take the place of an analog tape machine but capture digitally with practically zero maintenance or continuous cost after the initial purchase. I do understand the cons you pointed out and since you’re coming from strictly an engineering and technical perspective, I do understand where you’re coming from. - Chris
I recently did a shootout with a couple friends with a digital recording (Steely Dan - Two Against Nature) passed through a 2 track at 15ips vs the original file. The analogue version was redigitized and both files were played through the same DAC at the same level. All of my fiends picked the tape version as sounding best to their ears, indicating they felt it had more depth and felt more "enveloped" in the music. I felt the same and I must say, perhaps we all preferred a more "distorted" and "imperfect" version, but something sounding musical doesn't necessairily mean transparent.
I think each medium has a place. I relate it to the situation where you can use a keyboard to record a bunch of electronic strings and have it work just fine. Or you can bring in a string section and get pure warm deep sound. But both will do the job. The problem with tape is the set up , the maintenance , the cost, and yes it is not as easy to track or edit. But it has a quality that is desired and always will be. So although in the box is here to stay it is not the only choice .
Though analogue may have a slightly worse sounding music quality then digital has, most people (including me), aren’t getting into the hobby for that reason. Analogue brings a sense of warmth that digital does not.
I stopped recording in analog studios once I found UAD tape emulations. I couldn't hear the difference. Many of problems people think "TAPE" solves is more gain staging issues, using your eyes to mix instead of listening, and editing too much. If you think tape sounds "better" you haven't properly gain staged your tracks and ran them through a studer 800 emulation. Seriously it's basically the same. You can add as much wow and flutter as you want with waves cassette or UAD tape as well. Why not some hiss? Digital recording is so immediate and the argument "you have to stare at a screen" is just not true with MCU protocol mixers. I 100% agree with this take after watching two analog revival videos stating why tape is better.
If there's anything you've done in this video, it's highlighted all the things about tape that I (and growing scores of people) love. You are quite right in that there are a multitude of components of recording and playing back tape on a professional deck that are cumbersome (if the procedures of aligning, demagging and biasing are followed, regularly). Or are they? Tape is an imperfect medium, yet it's capable of extremely high resolution audio capture, while also peppering this with a score of imperfections that sound very musical to our ears. We are analogue beings - human music-making is by its inherent nature, wildly imperfect. We resonate with inflection, nuance and subtlety. The messages I get from your comparisons between digital and tape in this video, are analagous to those drawn between an artist's fluid paint pallet and imprecise brush, with the perfection and one-click ease of an RGB pixel with hundreds of thousands of hues available, at the drop of a button. The reasons you list for digital and against analogue in this video, are largely the reasons an engineer with a penchant for ease and numbers (and perhaps a disregard for the incongruences that underscore some of the best music and art) would give. With the greatest of respect, a revival of tape is simply a growing, collective ache for the scores of great music that has spanned eras where technical precision wasn't always (despite best efforts) something that was achieved. What was achieved was a committal attitude to engineering, recording and production that limited artists in ways that bred fierce creativity. Digital's endless forgiveness faces the artist with no barrier, and thus ultimate comfort, and often a sense of complacency that is lacking from the more feared analogue process. Add in the tonal characteristics experienced from one tape stock to the next, the effects of different alignments, gain staging etc., and you have an endless list of variables that - in inexperienced hands - lead to inconsistency and poor repeatability. But in capable hands, tape recording can be consistent, and provide the sonic motion that digital simply cannot hold a candle to. The movement and granularity in the high end of a good tape recorder, with a high-output tape, for instance, is something that is so remarkably 3-D, textured and 'deep'; and something that not even the best digital converters slathered in post-processing can achieve. It's inherent to the medium. If convenience, ease and repeatability are the sole things you seek when you're approaching recording on tape, you're missing almost the entire point.
I could probably give many examples of this but one that comes to mind is that a typical song has many repetitive elements, so with DAW software you can get one good take then cut and paste. With tape the equivalent 'spin in' process was tricky and time consuming (according to level of skill of course) so it was normal for musicians to perform all the way through, dropping in on any problems. I'd prefer the old way for musicality, but practicality often wins. DM
Dude, you're clearly upset.. for nothing! If an analog tape revival should happen, why should you care? You obviously have an irrational hatred for analog.. Get Over It!
From a technical standpoint I agree with you digital is better as long as the recording is the same. The problem is many recordings have become victim to the loudness war. I have heard records that sound better for this reason. Also some albums you can’t get on digital. That being said I will take a great digital recording over analogue any day.
That loudness war was already a thing before the first consumer digital audio formats became widespread. It's rise in popularity may coincide with the shift to digital formats, but that is correlation, not causation. I have modern rereleases and original releases of Supertramp's Crime of the Century, both on CD and vinyl. The old vinyl and CD releases have a very good dynamic range, and are rather nice to listen to. The original vinyl release is more pleasant to listen to than the modern CD release, but along the same lines, the original CD release is a lot nicer to listen to than the modern vinyl release.
Haha - Your psychic powers have failed you. Last time I recorded drums to 2" tape at 15 ips (or was it 30? I forget) was at Abbey Road Studio 3. The sound is nice, but I won't be going back to analogue, for all of the reasons I've given in this series. DM
@@AudioMasterclass Tape compression is very nice on drums. The low end bump at 15 ips is beautiful. Sometimes nonlinearity is a good thing, especially for rock & roll. Analog, digital or both, they are all tools in the artist's toolchest. I use both. I'm glad digital is working for you. In my opinion digital recording hasn't done anything to actually improve music.
If one has at least two assistants, infinite cash, and a station wagon, recording drums on analog tape would actually be a smart move. Put your assistant with increasingly rare alignment chops to work and order, oh, 10 reels of brand new Ampex 499 on 2” x 10.5” reels. By the end of the week, you’ve tracked your drummer for the album if you’re a total badass and you’re ready to transfer those reels back to your Pro Tools master. Let’s say 2 weeks assuming you’re a normal human being. At this point you are out $25-30,000. You got there by paying the studio bill for a facility that keeps a flawless Studer A820 right next to a ProTools system., paying your 2 assistants, and paying your tape dealer. You can now go where you like to dub and dream but call one of those assistants again and here’s where the station wagon comes in. You’ll be ferrying 275lbs of tape you’ll never use again for years to come because it’s now too precious to just leave somewhere. In fact, it must be in a very strictly climate controlled environment for eternity. Or, you can find one of the 6 bulk erasers in the USA or wherever you are, pay hundreds of dollars to ship it there and back, and then list it on eBay to recoup food money for the upcoming sessions that don’t need it. In other words, you’ve just gained a new responsibility that will dog you for years, and cost money to keep or money to not keep. Like I said, a responsibility. And now, you’re just starting to think creatively. Worth it?
Being an old f…old guy, I'm full of stories. Here's a little one. Late in high school, in 1969, I began to ponder recording, and broadcasting. Being young and dumb and f…lacking life experience and perspective, I just figured that everything that was broadcast was being saved permanently to some kind of archival tapes, and someday, maybe even in my lifetime, all of this stuff would be available to everyone, at our fingertips. I didn't know how. I had no inkling of what digital even was. And probably few people outside of Bell Labs did, either. Even the widest forays into futurism never mentioned it. But I figured the Future would bring wonderful things. Well, the future did come. In some ways, it came sooner, and better, than I ever expected. Carrying around a stick in my pocket with my whole music collection? Now THAT was science fiction. But all the archives of all broadcasting being saved? Alas, NO. Many of them are just GONE. Lost to the mists of time. Not so much to the expense of tape, although that was certainly a serious block in those days. More just the cost of labor. Someone had to monitor the program, swap tapes or cartridges, and curate huge shelves of these devices. We don't even need to get into the other problems, mostly about the ravages of time. It just wasn't going to happen. But now we CAN pretty much save everything. There IS something new under the Sun. Lots of things.
Yes tape was expensive so it was reused, particularly Quadruplex video tape. There were other reasons too. There's an interesting page at Wikipedia - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_missing_episodes DM
@@AudioMasterclass Yes, fascinating subject. Thanks for the link. To this day I'm oblivious to all of Doctor Who. I have only so much bandwidth. But I have seen every ep of: Thunderbirds Are Go, Fireball XL-5, Twilight Zone original Series, Outer Limits Original Series and New Series, and all Star Trek series up through Enterprise. Fortunately, none of THOSE got purged.
This series of videos has been living in my head for the last week. I basically agree with you except I feel like for accessibility analog tape might be best to keep around as a safety master. The problem with digital is formats become obsolete rather quickly and then forgotten. Look at how many albums in the late 70's and 80's were recorded digitally and finding something to play back those recordings seems almost lost to time. Analog tape is rather simple comparatively and much easier to find something that can play it.
I used to have a Studer-Revox B77, back in the day. Trying to recapture lost youth, I very nearly bought a 2-track Scully 280 last year - just C$500 - allegedly in working order. Then I saw how much NOS Ampex tape or more modern stuff actually goes for these days. And I thought, "What would I do with it?"
I've worked and recorded on 16 track and 24 track tape in big professional studios. I now have my own little home studio running Cubase 11 Pro and to tell the truth, I can't hear enough of a difference to ever want to record on tape ever again. The sheer amount of just pissing around with tape is beyond irritating. Not to mention the cost. Nope. Never going back. Plugins? Who needs 'em? Cubase comes with such a great set that you really do NOT need to spend any money. Just time to learn how to properly use them. Don't bother telling me otherwise either. It'd be pointless.
Actually, recording is a form of art and recording gear like tape machines or computers are just the tools for an artist to express himself. It just makes no sense to discuss, if analog or digital is right or wrong. It's totally subjective. It's like saying, drawing with a pencil on paper is wrong.
Recording and mixing can be anything between 'accurate registration' and 'art in its own right'. Regardless, using whatever gets you the results you need is good, and there can be totally valid artistic reasons for wanting the behavior of analog tape for example exactly because of its imperfections. For artistic recording and mixing, all that matters is getting that sound you are looking for, nobody cares about what technology is used for that. But that is not what this video is about. There are lots of people making all kinds of what is best called pseudo-scientific arguments as to why analog is better, and pretty much none of those holds up to scrutiny. No, analog does not have infinite bandwidth (that isn't even remotely possible) or infinite resolution (this is also impossible), unlike what many 'analog purists' claim.
Speaking of tape revival, the interesting thing is one of the best reel-to-reelish analog recording mediums is actual VHS/Betamax, and there have been some wonderful DIY community examples for low budget recording. That said, much of the issues with digital recording has to do with the conversion, not digital itself. Again, "digital" just means discrete packets. The issues of data loss are a separate matter.
Apparently the lifespan on hifi on videotape was noticeably lower, down to single digit numbers of replays. It was awesome for making an 8 hour mix tape. And interestingly, some of the the first mass market digital audio storage systems were on standard VHS tapes using the Technics SV-P100. Techmoan has a video on one he found.
@@MikeDS49 From what I heard, VHS audio had a substantially low noise ratio or something. The better quality of tape/player you have probably helps, and I'd imagine that the pro quality metal tapes probably have more reliable playback accordingly. Though, whether they still have the aforementioned problems that you mentioned, I wouldn't know-but, if you can't afford a decent analog to digital converter like a good pre, I'd been told that these mediums work pretty well considering. 😅
@@Dragoon91786 They do sound excellent. It has to do with the audio being FM, and helical scanning of the head laying down the audio over a much larger area of tape -- *beneath* the video track. I have not witnessed the degradation of recordings, but one article stated that reviews were initially excellent for hifi VHS audio, but had to walk them back as the degradation became apparent.
I love and recorded on a 24 track Suder for many years and it sounded amazing. But I actually started producing at the dawn of digital. Both sound perfect for most things. I would never go back to tape for all the reasons you mention. All storage systems impart a subtle signature to the content and I'm fine with that. There is a lot more to a recording. Thanks for your perspective on this!
you had a very early and glitchy MD, The later units were far better ,i loved MD. it was the perfect portable recorder, and also great for home recording and wonderful as a portable playing device. sound wise ,yes, it was compressed but the sound quality was better than cassette ,to my ears near cd quality and to my ears the ATRAC compression had a more warm analog sound quality as opposed to harsh digital sound. i still have several portable and a deck and all work great . i still enjoy the format.
Well, I switched to analogue when I could no longer buy new hard drives for my different digital recorders. Sonics aside, the forced upgrades were getting far too expensive; for me, running two inch is cheaper and it has outlasted five different generations of completely incompatible hard drives, but I erase the tapes and reuse them, i also ‘help clean up’ studios that don’t use tape any more, I’ve got probably 25 or 30 reels of nice 3M tape for free. But the real reason I switched back was just that I couldn’t get new compatible PATA drives any more and didn’t want to replace my digital recording system.
Just wish I'd bought a couple of good tape decks when they went out of fashion. I have a pretty machine that I love to watch running but it's rarely used.
Most of us are perfectly aware of the fact that a digital sound chain is way better than, analog, but its no fun? Fun is when I press 'Play' on a stereo cassette deck from 1975, and The Sweet materialises. It's fun and the pure sound is often great
Some of the bands I've liked over the years have recorded to both tape and digital. I almost always prefer the former. It simply sounds better for many genres.
Eegadds!! Yon Lord of Edge in the video doth say I’m doing it all wrong!! Must start streaming instead (or whatever he prefers) post haste!! Scone? Lack of dental care? Jolly good.
i have a litle studio and still kids under 20 years old ask me tro record a demo , in the 80´s i started to use the DAT ,in 87 but know i returned to my fathers Revox professional recorder(not studer) with a 70´s mixing board, it stays perfect ,i can easilly record till 20 tracks with no problem, it´s a mod wran....not sure, it´s on the dark side of the moon, i´ll have to check it .Also have a DBX equalizer with so many frequencies i can´t remenber
Loved the video. I have a fostex 4 track R2R. Had a great time with it. Cost of tape prohibits use. I had also forgotten about SNRatios although the machine was pretty quiet. I know ha. Quiet , isn’t silent. I did invest in a Boss, BR1600CD digital recording studio.
Just bought a 1/4" 8 track machine. Lol. It's going to be a project and I will learn to align and calibrate the thing for my own interest in the history of the format. This is not to do real work on, I have my 18x18 interface for that. Unless of course some band or musician wants to give the old techniques a go on purpose.
I am confused. My Audiolab 6000CDT, a digital CD-transport, contains a DAC (Digital-to-Analogue converter) since the human ear (not to mention speakers and headphones) needs an analogue waveform. As 'What Hi-Fi' clearly explains: "a DAC is a fundamental key to unlocking the convenience of digital music. It converts the countless reams of digital information into analogue signals that are intelligible to the likes of speakers and headphones - and the human ear. They all need an analogue waveform. Without a DAC, your digital music collection is nothing but a sizeable collection of “0s and 1s” that makes sense only within the digital domain. In short, DACs play a large part in making digital music worthwhile." This means that we cannot hear digital music unless it is first converted into analogue. Using a reel-to-reel tape recorder (or a vinyl turntable) gives you access to listenable analogue music instantly, without the need to first convert the signal to digital and then back again to analogue in order for it to be heard.
Of course you’re confused, he’s talking about a completely different thing than what you just said. He’s talking about how music is RECORDED not how it’s PLAYED.
@@lulas491 Not at all. He is talking about consigning analogue tape to the dustbin of history. If you had replied, "... he’s talking about a completely different thing FROM what you just said", I might have been less confused.
@@alangeorgebarstowwell sorry English is not my first language. My main point (and the point he is trying to make) is that music recorded and played back digitally is more convenient than it is recorded or played analogically. Then we could spend days talking about which one is better, but if we’re talking about convenience than digital music is more convenient.
The technical issues with old Analog sources, they are best heard through a properly scaled Gain Stage system. I find that my Reel to Reel needs ideally a +20 dB Gain Stage. Else I need to operate the unit with a higher output raising the already high Tape Hiss, yes Tape Hiss. Now, that same Reel to Reel played into a higher gain, low noise Input Stage to a Preamp, sounds marvelous, with a depth and richness that a CD just does not offer. Digital sometimes and not often can sound sterile whan the stage it drives is "over-driven" by the the standard CD Line Stage output of around 2Volts RMS, so I usually gravitate towards connecting CD players into a variable gain input, so I can drop the Volume on the Source and recover the Signal with a little less tape Hiss. Ye I compensate for things old, just like I help people on Wheelchairs instead of criticising them for slowing me down. On my +17 dB 6SN7 Line Stage Tube Preamp, I installed a linear 200K pot in Input 1 and call this one Digital. This is to lower the input sensitivity at the Preamp input, as my Volume Control is on the output stage. Hence, the variables to the enjoyment of older sources really require that the Gain Stages they connect to are optimized for lower level sources that domnot sound as good when the source signal has to over compensate for modern Line Stage that expects a higher signal input level. Lots of this is well known by Studio folks.... Love your videos!!!
Money, all that i have was given by family or friends but in the 90´s i bought a complete new system, you talk about alignement but any digital device needs to be tunned or it stops working, normally a guy who knows nothing about digital devices , says: it needs a new laser but wrong ,it might work again for 6 monthes but if well tunned it can work for more 20 years
Tape is the ultimate recording medium, it adds a randomness and a mystique quality to recordings. Saying we don't need tape is like suggesting a painter doesn't need paint when they have an ipad and electronic brush. We're being pushed to embrace digital everything more and more, they even want us to live online so we can be easily manipulated and controlled. I reject digital technology whenever possible, it's a solution to so many problems that don't exist.
i totally agree, i use tape in my music to give certain tracks an analogue tape sound, i like how you said it, to "add a randomness and a mystique", its just like photography, the latest digital cameras keep boasting that they take the clearest most acurate super high definition photos but to me they are plain and sterile, i prefer the slightly grainy imperfect look of analogue film, analogue feels more human.
If I may suggest, I propose you to make a video with tittle "Digital will save the analog music" or "Only digital can save the music". The magnetic tapes don't last forever, and they physically can't. It is already great that tapes form the 70's are still enough usable. But in further 50-100 years the master tapes will fall apart. It comes the day where the plastic material and the chemicals that keep the particles bounded on the tape will be so degraded by the aging, that the tapes will be no more playable and no more recovered. In any way. The original masters of the Beatles, Pink Floyd, etc, will be no more usable, soon or later. It is only matter of time. The only way to preserve the analog music and to can listen it forever in the future, is to convert it into digital form. Only digital can be lossless copied 1:1 infinite times. No way that 500 years (or less) after its creation, people can hear music in analog format from end to end, from the analog master to an analog consumer format.
The production format matters less, actually, than production techniques. An over-compressed turd, on analog tape or in a 96k 24bit file, is still an over-compressed turd.
At 1:11+ are you serious? Do you realize that Open Reel to Reel is a complete system for playback straight to Analogue music? You get to hear all the recorded music, and frequencies from an Open Reel to Reel Tape Deck! The tape is obviously very wide in the Open Reel medium, and contains more music than a Cassette Tape; and a even little more than a vinyl record! Maybe you have been in isolation for too long! Listen to analogue, and smell the coffee; and that advice goes to you other audio aficionados who completely hear, and believe that digital playback is supposed to be perfect. Maybe it is close to perfect, for the most part if it is recorded well! Then you've got to get a better, more updated DAC, for example. I have two turntables, 2 Cassette Decks, one of each connected to my main audio system. I've got up to 5 different CD Players, from 3 eras, connected with 3 different interconnect cables; therefore, I know what I'm saying. As Stan Lee said, "enough said".🔉🎼🎵
Well, or in the event that you are reading a physical medium or the actual data, which is stored even if in discrete packets, is nevertheless corrupted due to data rot, or worse, downright corruption or drive failure. 😂
And yet we still have sonically beautiful tape recordings that are famous for this and are constantly being abused for $$$ by being remixed digitally. All I really hear from you is that it’s easier to make money with a digital recording and you dont really care about the sound beyond its cost to record.
Every song that I like was recorded on TAPE, almost everything before the year 2000 was recorded to tape.... I am 48 years old, I listen to bands like Guns N Roses, Van Halen, Ozzy Osbourne. Their music would not have sounded so good had it not been recorded on tape. There are ZERO new bands that I listen to or like that did not record on tape. THAT is enough to defeat your debate.
Christopher Cross released his self titled album in 1979! It was the first album to chart that was digitally recorded - on a 3M 32 track digital recorder. I think there are probably lots of things you like that were recorded digitally during those 21 years
In 2016 I had the chance to spend a day with Radiohead producer Nigel Godrich. He told me he almost always records Radiohead to tape (mostly of the 8-track variety, which I found surprising). Of course, digital is used by the band as well, but basic tracking and final mixing is done to tape. But it’s not for any sound reasons, it’s because it was the only way to get the band to *commit* and not faff around endlessly. It’s a disciplinary measure. That’s a pretty good reason for using tape, and I wouldn’t know how you would replicate that in a DAW with the same efficiency.
David,
I watched all 5 parts of your series and have a few things I would like to point out.
To be clear, my perspective (for these comments) is coming from the musicians/creatives perspective.
First thing I will start with and the main point I see that you missed is that music is art.
As with all art-forms, the headspace you're in (and environment) while creating will greatly effect the end result.
In regards to strictly analog recording, being able to work with a hands on/tactile approach and environment can positively influence creativity.
Using your ears and hands (instead of your eyes) while creating an auditory art form can be a really great thing.
This change will drastically alter the perspective of the music, functioning and creative decissions.
Having the recording medium induce limitations can also be a really great creative benefit and cannot be overstated.
What I’m getting at here is that it’s not about the “sound of tape” itself, it’s compression, it’s flaws, or the difference in sound quality between the two formats.
It’s how the different approach to recording can drastically change the creative process, workflow and headspace of the musicians.
Hince the end result of the music.
I'm not against digital-audio by any means or digital workstation softwares.
DAW’s are neat and they are also limitless.
For some areas of recorded audio, digital workstations are an amazing evolution in audio recording.
They allow people to start multi-track recording at low investment with out really any physical maintenance, as you pointed out.
There is however a constant need for software updates (in all areas of digital audio).
There are also other options than a multitrack reel-to-reel machine to achieve what I have pointed out.
You could replace the tape machine with a computer interface setup and have an assistant operate it as a tape machine and nothing more.
However humans in this day and age are attracted and addicted to screens, which brings on another challenge in and of itself.
There are modern recording systems like Radar as well, these are designed to take the place of an analog tape machine but capture digitally with practically zero maintenance or continuous cost after the initial purchase.
I do understand the cons you pointed out and since you’re coming from strictly an engineering and technical perspective, I do understand where you’re coming from.
- Chris
You're right, but this guy is obsessed and totally irrational. He hates analog and he's on some hate crusade against it! He needs mental help!
I recently did a shootout with a couple friends with a digital recording (Steely Dan - Two Against Nature) passed through a 2 track at 15ips vs the original file. The analogue version was redigitized and both files were played through the same DAC at the same level. All of my fiends picked the tape version as sounding best to their ears, indicating they felt it had more depth and felt more "enveloped" in the music. I felt the same and I must say, perhaps we all preferred a more "distorted" and "imperfect" version, but something sounding musical doesn't necessairily mean transparent.
I think each medium has a place. I relate it to the situation where you can use a keyboard to record a bunch of electronic strings and have it work just fine. Or you can bring in a string section and get pure warm deep sound. But both will do the job.
The problem with tape is the set up , the maintenance , the cost, and yes it is not as easy to track or edit. But it has a quality that is desired and always will be. So although in the box is here to stay it is not the only choice .
Sorry for the length. I’ve been doing this for decades and it just so happens those were the same decades I lost my tan. One job had a $30k tape bill.
Maybe “So wrong” but look on the bright side. There’s good in each of these formats. 👍👍👍
Though analogue may have a slightly worse sounding music quality then digital has, most people (including me), aren’t getting into the hobby for that reason. Analogue brings a sense of warmth that digital does not.
Do you think digital files could survive 100 years and still be playable.
I stopped recording in analog studios once I found UAD tape emulations. I couldn't hear the difference. Many of problems people think "TAPE" solves is more gain staging issues, using your eyes to mix instead of listening, and editing too much. If you think tape sounds "better" you haven't properly gain staged your tracks and ran them through a studer 800 emulation. Seriously it's basically the same. You can add as much wow and flutter as you want with waves cassette or UAD tape as well. Why not some hiss? Digital recording is so immediate and the argument "you have to stare at a screen" is just not true with MCU protocol mixers. I 100% agree with this take after watching two analog revival videos stating why tape is better.
If there's anything you've done in this video, it's highlighted all the things about tape that I (and growing scores of people) love. You are quite right in that there are a multitude of components of recording and playing back tape on a professional deck that are cumbersome (if the procedures of aligning, demagging and biasing are followed, regularly). Or are they? Tape is an imperfect medium, yet it's capable of extremely high resolution audio capture, while also peppering this with a score of imperfections that sound very musical to our ears. We are analogue beings - human music-making is by its inherent nature, wildly imperfect. We resonate with inflection, nuance and subtlety. The messages I get from your comparisons between digital and tape in this video, are analagous to those drawn between an artist's fluid paint pallet and imprecise brush, with the perfection and one-click ease of an RGB pixel with hundreds of thousands of hues available, at the drop of a button. The reasons you list for digital and against analogue in this video, are largely the reasons an engineer with a penchant for ease and numbers (and perhaps a disregard for the incongruences that underscore some of the best music and art) would give. With the greatest of respect, a revival of tape is simply a growing, collective ache for the scores of great music that has spanned eras where technical precision wasn't always (despite best efforts) something that was achieved. What was achieved was a committal attitude to engineering, recording and production that limited artists in ways that bred fierce creativity. Digital's endless forgiveness faces the artist with no barrier, and thus ultimate comfort, and often a sense of complacency that is lacking from the more feared analogue process. Add in the tonal characteristics experienced from one tape stock to the next, the effects of different alignments, gain staging etc., and you have an endless list of variables that - in inexperienced hands - lead to inconsistency and poor repeatability. But in capable hands, tape recording can be consistent, and provide the sonic motion that digital simply cannot hold a candle to. The movement and granularity in the high end of a good tape recorder, with a high-output tape, for instance, is something that is so remarkably 3-D, textured and 'deep'; and something that not even the best digital converters slathered in post-processing can achieve. It's inherent to the medium. If convenience, ease and repeatability are the sole things you seek when you're approaching recording on tape, you're missing almost the entire point.
Thanks for bringing back memories of crouching in front of a 24 track machine for an hour, lining it up.
Then there are the endless arguments whether you should set the bias at 1 kHz or 10 kHz. DM
@@AudioMasterclass 3db over at 10k...Always
And these are just practical implications! Tape requires discipline that majority of musicians lack.
I could probably give many examples of this but one that comes to mind is that a typical song has many repetitive elements, so with DAW software you can get one good take then cut and paste. With tape the equivalent 'spin in' process was tricky and time consuming (according to level of skill of course) so it was normal for musicians to perform all the way through, dropping in on any problems. I'd prefer the old way for musicality, but practicality often wins. DM
Dude, you're clearly upset.. for nothing! If an analog tape revival should happen, why should you care? You obviously have an irrational hatred for analog.. Get Over It!
Oh plz...it's entertainment. In case you haven't already noticed, all people do on the internet is complain.
You haven't watched this guys channel enough, all he does is dislike "________ music format"
From a technical standpoint I agree with you digital is better as long as the recording is the same. The problem is many recordings have become victim to the loudness war. I have heard records that sound better for this reason. Also some albums you can’t get on digital. That being said I will take a great digital recording over analogue any day.
That loudness war was already a thing before the first consumer digital audio formats became widespread.
It's rise in popularity may coincide with the shift to digital formats, but that is correlation, not causation.
I have modern rereleases and original releases of Supertramp's Crime of the Century, both on CD and vinyl. The old vinyl and CD releases have a very good dynamic range, and are rather nice to listen to. The original vinyl release is more pleasant to listen to than the modern CD release, but along the same lines, the original CD release is a lot nicer to listen to than the modern vinyl release.
This man has obviously never recorded drums on 2" tape at 15 ips.
Haha - Your psychic powers have failed you. Last time I recorded drums to 2" tape at 15 ips (or was it 30? I forget) was at Abbey Road Studio 3. The sound is nice, but I won't be going back to analogue, for all of the reasons I've given in this series. DM
@@AudioMasterclass Tape compression is very nice on drums. The low end bump at 15 ips is beautiful. Sometimes nonlinearity is a good thing, especially for rock & roll. Analog, digital or both, they are all tools in the artist's toolchest. I use both. I'm glad digital is working for you. In my opinion digital recording hasn't done anything to actually improve music.
Tape is still one of the most reliable storage media if handled correctly.
If one has at least two assistants, infinite cash, and a station wagon, recording drums on analog tape would actually be a smart move. Put your assistant with increasingly rare alignment chops to work and order, oh, 10 reels of brand new Ampex 499 on 2” x 10.5” reels. By the end of the week, you’ve tracked your drummer for the album if you’re a total badass and you’re ready to transfer those reels back to your Pro Tools master. Let’s say 2 weeks assuming you’re a normal human being.
At this point you are out $25-30,000. You got there by paying the studio bill for a facility that keeps a flawless Studer A820 right next to a ProTools system., paying your 2 assistants, and paying your tape dealer. You can now go where you like to dub and dream but call one of those assistants again and here’s where the station wagon comes in. You’ll be ferrying 275lbs of tape you’ll never use again for years to come because it’s now too precious to just leave somewhere. In fact, it must be in a very strictly climate controlled environment for eternity.
Or, you can find one of the 6 bulk erasers in the USA or wherever you are, pay hundreds of dollars to ship it there and back, and then list it on eBay to recoup food money for the upcoming sessions that don’t need it. In other words, you’ve just gained a new responsibility that will dog you for years, and cost money to keep or money to not keep. Like I said, a responsibility.
And now, you’re just starting to think creatively. Worth it?
Being an old f…old guy, I'm full of stories. Here's a little one. Late in high school, in 1969, I began to ponder recording, and broadcasting. Being young and dumb and f…lacking life experience and perspective, I just figured that everything that was broadcast was being saved permanently to some kind of archival tapes, and someday, maybe even in my lifetime, all of this stuff would be available to everyone, at our fingertips. I didn't know how. I had no inkling of what digital even was. And probably few people outside of Bell Labs did, either. Even the widest forays into futurism never mentioned it. But I figured the Future would bring wonderful things.
Well, the future did come. In some ways, it came sooner, and better, than I ever expected. Carrying around a stick in my pocket with my whole music collection? Now THAT was science fiction. But all the archives of all broadcasting being saved? Alas, NO. Many of them are just GONE. Lost to the mists of time. Not so much to the expense of tape, although that was certainly a serious block in those days. More just the cost of labor. Someone had to monitor the program, swap tapes or cartridges, and curate huge shelves of these devices. We don't even need to get into the other problems, mostly about the ravages of time. It just wasn't going to happen.
But now we CAN pretty much save everything.
There IS something new under the Sun. Lots of things.
Yes tape was expensive so it was reused, particularly Quadruplex video tape. There were other reasons too. There's an interesting page at Wikipedia - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_missing_episodes DM
@@AudioMasterclass Yes, fascinating subject. Thanks for the link. To this day I'm oblivious to all of Doctor Who. I have only so much bandwidth. But I have seen every ep of: Thunderbirds Are Go, Fireball XL-5, Twilight Zone original Series, Outer Limits Original Series and New Series, and all Star Trek series up through Enterprise. Fortunately, none of THOSE got purged.
@@ronaldgarrison8478 I think we have to thank the fact that film isn't reusable, otherwise everything you mention would have gone too. DM
@@AudioMasterclass Right! Maybe we should have just archived all our sound to film. Oh, wait, there is that small matter of cost…
I love the “analog sound” but I refuse to spend that analog cash Imma just stick to my digital processing to get to that sound lol
This series of videos has been living in my head for the last week. I basically agree with you except I feel like for accessibility analog tape might be best to keep around as a safety master. The problem with digital is formats become obsolete rather quickly and then forgotten. Look at how many albums in the late 70's and 80's were recorded digitally and finding something to play back those recordings seems almost lost to time. Analog tape is rather simple comparatively and much easier to find something that can play it.
I used to have a Studer-Revox B77, back in the day. Trying to recapture lost youth, I very nearly bought a 2-track Scully 280 last year - just C$500 - allegedly in working order. Then I saw how much NOS Ampex tape or more modern stuff actually goes for these days. And I thought, "What would I do with it?"
I've worked and recorded on 16 track and 24 track tape in big professional studios. I now have my own little home studio running Cubase 11 Pro and to tell the truth, I can't hear enough of a difference to ever want to record on tape ever again. The sheer amount of just pissing around with tape is beyond irritating. Not to mention the cost. Nope. Never going back. Plugins? Who needs 'em? Cubase comes with such a great set that you really do NOT need to spend any money. Just time to learn how to properly use them. Don't bother telling me otherwise either. It'd be pointless.
Actually, recording is a form of art and recording gear like tape machines or computers are just the tools for an artist to express himself. It just makes no sense to discuss, if analog or digital is right or wrong. It's totally subjective. It's like saying, drawing with a pencil on paper is wrong.
Recording and mixing can be anything between 'accurate registration' and 'art in its own right'.
Regardless, using whatever gets you the results you need is good, and there can be totally valid artistic reasons for wanting the behavior of analog tape for example exactly because of its imperfections. For artistic recording and mixing, all that matters is getting that sound you are looking for, nobody cares about what technology is used for that.
But that is not what this video is about. There are lots of people making all kinds of what is best called pseudo-scientific arguments as to why analog is better, and pretty much none of those holds up to scrutiny. No, analog does not have infinite bandwidth (that isn't even remotely possible) or infinite resolution (this is also impossible), unlike what many 'analog purists' claim.
Speaking of tape revival, the interesting thing is one of the best reel-to-reelish analog recording mediums is actual VHS/Betamax, and there have been some wonderful DIY community examples for low budget recording. That said, much of the issues with digital recording has to do with the conversion, not digital itself. Again, "digital" just means discrete packets. The issues of data loss are a separate matter.
Apparently the lifespan on hifi on videotape was noticeably lower, down to single digit numbers of replays. It was awesome for making an 8 hour mix tape. And interestingly, some of the the first mass market digital audio storage systems were on standard VHS tapes using the Technics SV-P100. Techmoan has a video on one he found.
@@MikeDS49 From what I heard, VHS audio had a substantially low noise ratio or something. The better quality of tape/player you have probably helps, and I'd imagine that the pro quality metal tapes probably have more reliable playback accordingly. Though, whether they still have the aforementioned problems that you mentioned, I wouldn't know-but, if you can't afford a decent analog to digital converter like a good pre, I'd been told that these mediums work pretty well considering. 😅
@@Dragoon91786 They do sound excellent. It has to do with the audio being FM, and helical scanning of the head laying down the audio over a much larger area of tape -- *beneath* the video track. I have not witnessed the degradation of recordings, but one article stated that reviews were initially excellent for hifi VHS audio, but had to walk them back as the degradation became apparent.
Id rather record my music on a tascam 4 track cassette recorder and a Alesis 3630 compressor than protools and all its, "plugins"
Those portas can be really nice. Very direct and creative. Rock on
@@Lmoes
Your limited, so you have to make it work!!
I love and recorded on a 24 track Suder for many years and it sounded amazing. But I actually started producing at the dawn of digital. Both sound perfect for most things. I would never go back to tape for all the reasons you mention. All storage systems impart a subtle signature to the content and I'm fine with that. There is a lot more to a recording. Thanks for your perspective on this!
Love it! But it worked well when you and John recorded with George Martin.
you had a very early and glitchy MD, The later units were far better ,i loved MD. it was the perfect portable recorder, and also great for home recording and wonderful as a portable playing device. sound wise ,yes, it was compressed but the sound quality was better than cassette ,to my ears near cd quality and to my ears the ATRAC compression had a more warm analog sound quality as opposed to harsh digital sound. i still have several portable and a deck and all work great . i still enjoy the format.
Well, I switched to analogue when I could no longer buy new hard drives for my different digital recorders. Sonics aside, the forced upgrades were getting far too expensive; for me, running two inch is cheaper and it has outlasted five different generations of completely incompatible hard drives, but I erase the tapes and reuse them, i also ‘help clean up’ studios that don’t use tape any more, I’ve got probably 25 or 30 reels of nice 3M tape for free. But the real reason I switched back was just that I couldn’t get new compatible PATA drives any more and didn’t want to replace my digital recording system.
very excellent - content and production values
just started with #3 and worked my way backwards....looking forward to the rest
big thanks for answering this...very informative!!!! waiting for the next one
Ha 😃 I used to have a reel-to-reel. Great for home use - so much better than cassettes - but great when borrowing friends’ records. 😎👍
There is no undo if you get a punch-in wrong! It might even earn the engineer a punch in the head!!
Just wish I'd bought a couple of good tape decks when they went out of fashion. I have a pretty machine that I love to watch running but it's rarely used.
Complain, complain, complain. Apparently audio files egos are more important than just listening to music on so-called inferior formats.
You’re an old guy????
I was first accused of being a dinosaur round about 1988 so I guess that qualifies me. DM
Maybe the best thing would be to have a digital recorder in a box with some tape reels on the front that wizz round when you are using it!
Most of us are perfectly aware of the fact that a digital sound chain is way better than, analog, but its no fun?
Fun is when I press 'Play' on a stereo cassette deck from 1975, and The Sweet materialises. It's fun and the
pure sound is often great
Unfair comparison, you can't keep multiple bad takes on tape.
Pay him no attention.. he's mental!
Some of the bands I've liked over the years have recorded to both tape and digital. I almost always prefer the former. It simply sounds better for many genres.
Eegadds!! Yon Lord of Edge in the video doth say I’m doing it all wrong!! Must start streaming instead (or whatever he prefers) post haste!!
Scone? Lack of dental care? Jolly good.
"And perhaps, another revival" jajaja very funny! Good vid
I have a plan for the far future when I cover the computer audio revival (I said 'computer', not 'digital'). That also should never happen. DM
I really like this guy's content, and presentation style, but why is he such a contrarian all the time?
i have a litle studio and still kids under 20 years old ask me tro record a demo , in the 80´s i started to use the DAT ,in 87 but know i returned to my fathers Revox professional recorder(not studer) with a 70´s mixing board, it stays perfect ,i can easilly record till 20 tracks with no problem, it´s a mod wran....not sure, it´s on the dark side of the moon, i´ll have to check it .Also have a DBX equalizer with so many frequencies i can´t remenber
we could digitize old LPs and Tapes to CD, but no need for buying new ones ....
Loved the video. I have a fostex 4 track R2R. Had a great time with it. Cost of tape prohibits use. I had also forgotten about SNRatios although the machine was pretty quiet. I know ha. Quiet , isn’t silent. I did invest in a Boss, BR1600CD digital recording studio.
Fostex made some good, and good value, products back in the day. I enjoyed my E16.
Just bought a 1/4" 8 track machine. Lol. It's going to be a project and I will learn to align and calibrate the thing for my own interest in the history of the format. This is not to do real work on, I have my 18x18 interface for that. Unless of course some band or musician wants to give the old techniques a go on purpose.
I am confused. My Audiolab 6000CDT, a digital CD-transport, contains a DAC (Digital-to-Analogue converter) since the human ear (not to mention speakers and headphones) needs an analogue waveform.
As 'What Hi-Fi' clearly explains: "a DAC is a fundamental key to unlocking the convenience of digital music. It converts the countless reams of digital information into analogue signals that are intelligible to the likes of speakers and headphones - and the human ear. They all need an analogue waveform. Without a DAC, your digital music collection is nothing but a sizeable collection of “0s and 1s” that makes sense only within the digital domain. In short, DACs play a large part in making digital music worthwhile." This means that we cannot hear digital music unless it is first converted into analogue.
Using a reel-to-reel tape recorder (or a vinyl turntable) gives you access to listenable analogue music instantly, without the need to first convert the signal to digital and then back again to analogue in order for it to be heard.
Of course you’re confused, he’s talking about a completely different thing than what you just said. He’s talking about how music is RECORDED not how it’s PLAYED.
@@lulas491 Not at all. He is talking about consigning analogue tape to the dustbin of history. If you had replied, "... he’s talking about a completely different thing FROM what you just said", I might have been less confused.
@@alangeorgebarstowwell sorry English is not my first language. My main point (and the point he is trying to make) is that music recorded and played back digitally is more convenient than it is recorded or played analogically. Then we could spend days talking about which one is better, but if we’re talking about convenience than digital music is more convenient.
@@lulas491 Thanks for that, I appreciate it. Now the message is much clearer.👍🏻😊 No need to apologise for English not being your first language.
The technical issues with old Analog sources, they are best heard through a properly scaled Gain Stage system. I find that my Reel to Reel needs ideally a +20 dB Gain Stage. Else I need to operate the unit with a higher output raising the already high Tape Hiss, yes Tape Hiss. Now, that same Reel to Reel played into a higher gain, low noise Input Stage to a Preamp, sounds marvelous, with a depth and richness that a CD just does not offer. Digital sometimes and not often can sound sterile whan the stage it drives is "over-driven" by the the standard CD Line Stage output of around 2Volts RMS, so I usually gravitate towards connecting CD players into a variable gain input, so I can drop the Volume on the Source and recover the Signal with a little less tape Hiss. Ye I compensate for things old, just like I help people on Wheelchairs instead of criticising them for slowing me down. On my +17 dB 6SN7 Line Stage Tube Preamp, I installed a linear 200K pot in Input 1 and call this one Digital. This is to lower the input sensitivity at the Preamp input, as my Volume Control is on the output stage. Hence, the variables to the enjoyment of older sources really require that the Gain Stages they connect to are optimized for lower level sources that domnot sound as good when the source signal has to over compensate for modern Line Stage that expects a higher signal input level. Lots of this is well known by Studio folks.... Love your videos!!!
You're clearly a true enthusiast. Keep up the good work. DM
@@AudioMasterclass A collector of old stuff, keeping the machines oiled.... :)
Love this channel!!!
I love tape for the same reasons that I believe DSD is better than PCM. Those are my arguments.
misleading, opinionated assertions, use tape if it’s appropriate to your project
If you would like to counter my facts, please go ahead. DM
@@AudioMasterclass yours is an opinion expressed in a didactic way
Is there anything you like?
Cheese.
Money, all that i have was given by family or friends but in the 90´s i bought a complete new system, you talk about alignement but any digital device needs to be tunned or it stops working, normally a guy who knows nothing about digital devices , says: it needs a new laser but wrong ,it might work again for 6 monthes but if well tunned it can work for more 20 years
Tape is the ultimate recording medium, it adds a randomness and a mystique quality to recordings. Saying we don't need tape is like suggesting a painter doesn't need paint when they have an ipad and electronic brush. We're being pushed to embrace digital everything more and more, they even want us to live online so we can be easily manipulated and controlled. I reject digital technology whenever possible, it's a solution to so many problems that don't exist.
i totally agree, i use tape in my music to give certain tracks an analogue tape sound, i like how you said it, to "add a randomness and a mystique", its just like photography, the latest digital cameras keep boasting that they take the clearest most acurate super high definition photos but to me they are plain and sterile, i prefer the slightly grainy imperfect look of analogue film, analogue feels more human.
@@SiClopsThe1EyedMan Thank you for your comment. I will cover this point in a later video in this series. DM
@@AudioMasterclass im guessing it will be about tape emulation plugins 🤣
No, just no. Tape is not the ultimate recording medium. Try making a living wage with tape
I dont believe he was talking about making money.
If I may suggest, I propose you to make a video with tittle "Digital will save the analog music" or "Only digital can save the music". The magnetic tapes don't last forever, and they physically can't. It is already great that tapes form the 70's are still enough usable. But in further 50-100 years the master tapes will fall apart. It comes the day where the plastic material and the chemicals that keep the particles bounded on the tape will be so degraded by the aging, that the tapes will be no more playable and no more recovered. In any way. The original masters of the Beatles, Pink Floyd, etc, will be no more usable, soon or later. It is only matter of time. The only way to preserve the analog music and to can listen it forever in the future, is to convert it into digital form. Only digital can be lossless copied 1:1 infinite times. No way that 500 years (or less) after its creation, people can hear music in analog format from end to end, from the analog master to an analog consumer format.
if you don't like it, don't use it.
I also like player pianos. So shoot me!
I have one!
The production format matters less, actually, than production techniques. An over-compressed turd, on analog tape or in a 96k 24bit file, is still an over-compressed turd.
At 1:11+ are you serious? Do you realize that Open Reel to Reel is a complete system for playback straight to Analogue music? You get to hear all the recorded music, and frequencies from an Open Reel to Reel Tape Deck! The tape is obviously very wide in the Open Reel medium, and contains more music than a Cassette Tape; and a even little more than a vinyl record! Maybe you have been in isolation for too long!
Listen to analogue, and smell the coffee; and that advice goes to you other audio aficionados who completely hear, and believe that digital playback is supposed to be perfect. Maybe it is close to perfect, for the most part if it is recorded well! Then you've got to get a better, more updated DAC, for example.
I have two turntables, 2 Cassette Decks, one of each connected to my main audio system. I've got up to 5 different CD Players, from 3 eras, connected with 3 different interconnect cables; therefore, I know what I'm saying. As Stan Lee said, "enough said".🔉🎼🎵
What are you rambling about, dude, this is about music recording and production, not audiophile listening.
Well, or in the event that you are reading a physical medium or the actual data, which is stored even if in discrete packets, is nevertheless corrupted due to data rot, or worse, downright corruption or drive failure. 😂
Digital sucks
Nope
Tracking ***drums***
Thank you for posting.
And yet we still have sonically beautiful tape recordings that are famous for this and are constantly being abused for $$$ by being remixed digitally. All I really hear from you is that it’s easier to make money with a digital recording and you dont really care about the sound beyond its cost to record.
Remastered..l not remixed. Big difference.
brown stain🦦
Just do it ! It is a hobby, isn`t it ?
It is for me. Fostex E2.
Every song that I like was recorded on TAPE, almost everything before the year 2000 was recorded to tape.... I am 48 years old, I listen to bands like Guns N Roses, Van Halen, Ozzy Osbourne. Their music would not have sounded so good had it not been recorded on tape. There are ZERO new bands that I listen to or like that did not record on tape. THAT is enough to defeat your debate.
It's not an argument. You've no idea what your opinion would be if the bands you did like had actually recorded digitally.
Ok Boomer@@tomstickland
@@veronatragedy7016 Are you sure you are 48? You sound like an edgy teenager 😂
check out dire straits brother in arms if you like dire straits thats a DDD release
Christopher Cross released his self titled album in 1979! It was the first album to chart that was digitally recorded - on a 3M 32 track digital recorder. I think there are probably lots of things you like that were recorded digitally during those 21 years