I worked on countless analog sessions in the 80's and 90's and could align a 24-track in my sleep. There is no question that digital makes the workflow much faster and the sonic qualities are much closer than they used to be. One notable difference is the time it takes to rewind the tape (20-30 seconds), which was a great time for the musician, engineer and producer to take a sip of coffee and chat for a moment about that take. It was a forced mini-break in the session. As digital emerged (tape before HD) we would often record straight to tape to capture the analog sound, then immediately transfer to digital to keep that sound and avoid degradation. Good points about having to dial in gear far from the sweet spot, but the pros were masters at doing it. I commend you taking the time to do this - nice work.
As an engineer and producer in the 80' / 90's I used tape all the time. I became a magic tape editor with a razor blade. I would mix sections of the songs and then splice them all together. The magic of tape was really the commitment you make to it. Unlike digital, you can always change it again and again. Tape was more like a marriage, total commitment and the sound would be that way forever.
As memory slowly became a non issue over the last 3 decades to today, there really isn't a reason why you should mix and produce in a destructive way today. wether you have a ton of the raw recordings before any edits or not, really don't matter today. You just save it all so can always go back. I agree .. cutting and splicing tape was an art not many young people of today can comprehend, but you could easier mess things up back in the days. And just the shear ammount of space needed to store the raw tapes under optimal conditions to avoid degredation was also a problem. Some things have defenitly gone lost from the old days, but on the other hand people don't need a record deal with a major label today to produce music and you can do it at home with a standard PC. You have much more control of your music and you have so many options to distribute it without someone telling you how it should sound. It's just a question of of if people like your music and not so much how much money someone is willing to throw at it to even get it out to the public..
I listened to the examples like 10 times on my studio monitors / sub. The difference is so incredibly small I definitely don't think it's worth the hassle. If you like the subtle difference of tape better you could make an EQ/compression adjustment in like 10 seconds and have the "tape" sound. Thank you Jordan for making such a great video with A/B comparisons!
I found the differences to be pretty huge regardless to what I listened on, and even out of a phone speaker. Which monitors are you using? It doesn't sound like they're detailed enough
As a drummer from the 70s/80s, I remember what a pain it was recording Analog. We had to travel to Hollywood and recorded late at night through early morning to save money. Compared to digital it was a pain in the butt to end up with a recording that may have sounded slightly better. I wouldn't want to go back.
Awesome video bro! And I really appreciate you giving your best effort to stay neutral minded about it, as I know the brain can easily sway people to want they want to hear. And I agree man. Tape was better, but not worth the hassle. However, I do differ in the case of outboard gear as I LOVE working with it. Keep doing what you do man!!!👊
Yes this is awesome.....but the whole thing digi/analog/drummers/engineers/gobs of money.....I'm way past tired of it....I went vst ....not perfect.....but I no longer want to kill the drummer or engineer etc....because they're gone lol
Great video. Just like in a car wreck, hours after the accident, traffic is still slow. I remember 30 years ago, when Digital recording was still emerging, and plug-ins were not as sophisticated, the difference between Tape and Digital was very noticeable, huge debates ensued, and the remnants are still going on today. On this video, I could barely tell apart the two, I struggled to hear differences even after knowing which one was which. In a blind test, I wouldn’t stand a chance, and in a full mix, forget it. For the money and time, Digital wins hands down.
Spittin facts! I could hear more of a difference when just listening to the kick and snare, but in a blind test listening to all the drums together no way.
@@crunchwrapsupremium1053 This is the point... I bet you could have switched back and forth inside the final mix and no one would have heard the difference.
So... hearing less than before is somehow a benefit? I watched on a freaking cheap flat TV, and could clearly hear the more deep end on the tape OHs, kicks, and snare -- even in the mix. Way punchier. Just because you cannot hear it, it does not mean cheaping and dumbing down sound is a benefit. Digital has to be on par so we are not losing quality and knowledge (there are good tape plugins out there).
Great video, thanks! The world really needs actual real-life comparisons like this, instead of the endless forum arguments that don’t usually contain a single audio example. I’m a producer and composer for almost 30 years, and I’m really struggling to hear any meaningful difference between the two, even when I know which is which.
To me the only noticeable (worth) difference I heard was in the kick and snare, the midrange is more important and maybe driven (squishy squishy). However that can be emulated those days with the plugins, even if it's not the same experience. Good video :)
Completely agree. At first I was mistakenly listening to the hats. And it didn't seem different enough to warrant to process. But, if you focus on the kick, and especially snare ... it's there. That's why I think, just use a two track Nagra at low speed, for the kick and snare. Doesn't have to be calibrated perfectly. Also, could just use it to process the whole drum sub-mix. Modern digital is great as a recording device. Why not just use a 'good-enough' two-track tape as a processor, not a multi-track recorder. Also, definitely, some of the plugins have good sound. And, for me, it's the more lo-fi character-driven units, like Sketch Cassette. I'd like to hear some drums like this done through a) high-end multitrack, perfectly calibrated b) 1/2" Studer A820 stereo mastering or next best thing c) 1/4" Revox a77 or Nagra portable recorder e) good quality cassette machine but with modern noise reduction in post-processing
When solo'd I agree, but when mixed there was a few crash hits that popped through a bit more too, but not much else I noticed as the rest of the track was masking a lot of it, and as that was digital there was nothing else to listen out for other than the transients of the drums pushing through really. I did like the chunky crunch of the kick though, but I've heard a similar sound with just heavy analog compression used instead.
If you want great free suggestions that show no BS, I suggest you use IronOxide5 for dirty tape distortion, and ToTape6 for a bus tape compressor by Airwindows. They also have if you want to have "silky" overheads like with tape, ChromeOxide, which smooths the highs perfectly. They're simple to use, don't waste CPU with big image renders, and sound great.
You can hear that the snare decay is longer and all the instruments have less bite and a tad more harmonics. I haven't found that plugins are smooth enough to nail the sound, but they approximate it.
Another thing though is youtube compression, we are basically listening to mp3's afaik. High quality ones, but there will be some lossiness with that, so some of the finer details may of gotten removed, but as most people listen to mp3's anyway, if it doesn't translate to mp3 most people will not benifit from any extra diferance we can't hear anyway. The thought of using tape, just to master to mp3 makes me feel kinda dirty inside anyway, even though I've never used anything more than 2 track cassettes when it comes to magnetic tape lol.
To me, this definitively proves what I have felt for a long time-- wow tape is a pain and I have never really been able to tell much of a difference at all. I am drummer, so maybe I fried whatever hearing would have allowed me to tell the diff? Dunno. All I know is, I LIKE digital recording. A lot. I do like what the digital "saturation" stuff does and use them on every track. The ease of editing capability in digital is a dream. I am very much in the realm of semi-pro (at best) these days, myself included, so being able to move a few hits around is much appreciated. I truly respect the genuine engineers who run a studio like that! But I am glad I don't have to save money to go in places like that and record anymore. Home digital recording with good mics and plug ins works for me.
I could definitely hear a difference but you’re correct in saying that it’s a vibe I worked with a tape a lot wow and audio school and it is unique and has its own characteristic of digital hasn’t captured. But by this point most listeners would never know the difference if you record it on Digital or tape or a consul it’s all going to get squashed anyway
You can get more "tape" sound then they did. And it does sound more dramatic off the repro head than through digital capture. I used to run a fairly low maintenence machine, and I'd say it was worth it then. I still prefer the sound now, but my friend's machines do break down a lot.
Also, the tape mindset is one where you come ready for a good take, and you don't do tons of editing or comps. More about getting a pleasing raw sound from the performance.
Ive had a Tascam 38 8 track for a few years now. It's no Studer, but I'm sure it has a sound. Ive never run it. Tape seems like so much pita and Im a person with a ton of high end analog mixing gear, including a 56 channel console.Tape may sound better or at least ineteresting, but I have to draw the line somewhere. As an audio engineer you learn to prioritize your time, even on your own songs. I've heard recordings on a Tascam 38 though, and yeah its a different sound than digital recording. I'm definitely a believer that analog processing of any kind (recording to tape is processing) sounds different to plugins doing the same thing. I'm a believer because ive tested it thoroughly and mixed through analog and digital in the same locations for decades. If it's worth doing a particular analog process though depends on tons of factors, and i easily use plugins way more than my analog gear. Still even cheap analog gear for me destroys plugins, not in capability for sure, just the sound. - I dare you to try a lowly ART Pro Vlaii against your best Fairchild plugin, go ahead! Dont have ProVlaii riches? Someone gave me a DBX 266XL for a single extra hour of session time about 15 years ago. The next day I did a blind shoot out against all my other plugin compressors. It wasnt even close. I still remember the sound and what the difference of that test was. Even though all pieces of gear sound different there's a commonality in the world of analog sound processes. There's a solidity (the only word i can use to describe it) in the sound that's hard to describe other than saying it sounds like an analog compressor. Analog EQs have their own thing goin on too. - I have tons of analog mixing (and mastering) gear these days but unlike what you might think, I don't have these thoughts on sound to justify my purchases. It's alot of money, alot of hassle to use, and takes way more time. Oh and i make way more money for the time when i mix in the box. Conversely, Id rather get the sound from in the computer where i have almost every plugin known to man. I have people pay extra, alot extra if they want me to mix with analog gear, and i still make less for the time. I have the gear because it sounds good, better than the same processes in the box. That doesnt mean it gets used even half the time. When i do use it, it sounds better, but im not paying the studio tab so its not up to me anyway. - Here the difference in the video is subtle. I dont use tape machines really. The difference doesnt wow me, but remember theres a whole lot of other analog processing happening too. He's recording through a Neve and compressing and EQing on the way in. Theres gonna be lots of saturation from that already. Also, are they summing on the board too? Thats gonna change things for sure. Even if no summing, is the main out going through that board? There's a lot of variables here. What I mostly here from the "Tape" versions is some non-time based compression an effect tape is well known for. Sounded kind of like a transparent compression. A subtle lift that makes the sounds sit a little better. I didnt hear much difference in the tone, but im wearing some high end gaming headphones, Ill listen again on some studio monitors.
Great vid. I recorded multitrack analog at 15ips for 20 years and love the sound, but the overhead and cost is a huge lift these days. Also, tape emulations and saturation plugs have improved by leaps and bounds over the last few years and I feel like I can get the vibe I want ITB now.
So, a couple things... I feel like a big fancy tape machine like this, back in the day, was meant to sound as flat and unflavored as possible, because in the height of tape days, the goal was to eliminate, or minimize, the coloration of audio recorded to tape. The industry was constantly working toward getting as far away from a heavily coloured analog sound (think of like a drum sound from the early Beatles days, for example) as possible, and more toward a clinically "clean" sound. Then digital recording became more practical, and essentially achieved that: recording without modification- a perfectly replicated recording. I notice also that I see a lot of reviews for analog equipment that demonstrate a signal that is at normal, clean levels, i.e. not distorted or overdriven. The thing is, the magic of tape, and analog equipment in general, is not in the recording of a clean sound (in my opinion, the sound in this video was pretty clean and so the comparison to digital recording is very close). What really gets exciting is riding the fine line on the edge of blasting the shit out of a piece of equipment. Really cooking that tape (especially for drums) so that you can hear what happens when the signal falls above the "comfort zone" for the machine/tape. That's what you get with tape that you can't get with a digital recording. That's where the character really comes out, and some magic happens. So when I see people say that recording to tape has no advantage over recording digitally, if you're going for a clean signal, yes the difference is probably so subtle that it may not be worth the hassle. But if you push so much signal into that tape that the crunch really comes out, the difference would be unparalleled. No way you can get that with computer. I am not a professional audio engineer, this is just my opinion. Or just get a Handsome Audio Zulu and you're 95% there. Edit: Also, loved the video, great experiment and that studio has some insane gear.
True, however, I didn't' care for the digtial snare sound and would have reached for some plugins to eq it and process to sound more like the analog Tape version. The vocals seemed a bit foreword cold in the digital mix and more warm on tape but again, I would have used Decap, SSL G series to warm the digital vocal up. All an all, digital sure has come a long way. The first pro tools daw systems sounded thin, tiny, and no where near to where they are now.Around 2010 digital started sounded better and has continued.
I've been an engineer since the early 80s, when sessions were always like that. I was very pleased to see the end of the many downsides of tape. Also, I spent many years dropping in and out of record on individual tracks, or sometimes a whole band to construct good takes. A lot of concentration, and no undo! Another quality concern I always had was making comps from several tape tracks onto one - the playback had to be from the record (sync) head which sounded noticeably different. In fact, during a session we would very seldom play from the repro head! And don't get me started on the hassle of syncing multitrack machines to get 48 tracks....
Pro studios using 2" Tape sounds great but yes it's very very subtle and takes a lot of work. Personally I enjoy using 1/4" Tape Machines like consumer or semi pro grade stuff in a home studio. (Teac A2300/A3300 - Consumer - 7.5ips) (Tascam 32 - Semi Pro - 15ips 2 Track). It's a lot less work, get your machine serviced and calibrated for whatever tape you're using, and then just clean the heads before/after recording. I send tracks out like the tape machine is outboard gear, and print the tape back into the DAW in real time. I have to go and line up the audio because there is a small amount of latency but you can really hear the characteristics of tape in the lower end gear and that's the whole point of using tape in a digital era, to hear the character! And it's actually affordable! 😅
I love the tape saturation on the kick and cymbals - and the final track. It sounds like the music that I was used to hearing pre90. The stereo spread is more condensed and "glued together".
First off ... insane video quality - so good. In terms of sound quality / difference - yes there is a difference, but I can't see how the difference justifies it. It's INSANELY subtle to the point that only those with extremely tuned ears will be able to hear. The digital signal sounds incredible still with everything you did in terms of EQ/Compression. So to me - it doesn't make sense to use Tape - especially when we could easily emulate that tape machine with plugins that cost... like... $100 lol.
Can definitely hear like a natural compression the tape does, making things appear to be a little more seated/settle, especially in the higher frequencies. Awesome video!
The tape sound most folks look for these days is the super saturated one. I have a pro summer 1/2” 8 channel tape machine Teac 80-8 back to factory specs and this thing sounds amazing. LoFi analog vibes for days; it doesn’t sound digital at all. These 2” machines sound better than digital so it is really difficult to hear the sound, I hear it, but we are trained to hear tape as a degrading format, like vinyl, and it can be, but not in these phenomenal 2” studers tape machines. If you are looking for a machine to saturate the sound the teac 80-8 delivers in spades. Great video! ✌🏽
Very interesting. You can hear the difference on the kick and snare quite clearly. The overheads and room sound like they are warmer AND more energetic at the same time. Gorgeous! The difference is not big enough to warrant the cost and setup time etc, but great vid and cool to hear for sure!
The difference is huge to some people and they're willing to pay the big bucks for that small difference. Take Foo fighters for example, and i freakin hate that band.
@383stroker Grohl has standards since Nirvana and honestly it suits his style as he used to be a Grunge and Alt Metal drummer. Drum should hit you like your standing on the other side and Dave understands that well.
From memory - Im responding now to notifications, not direectly from watching the vid again - it has a little more 'blat' to it, thicker. I'd say it's just kind of changed the loudness envelope which may give the impression to some as being more impactful.. That aspect one can surely recreate somehow else.
More than anything, I think source tone, room selection, and final processing have sooooo much more to do with the sound of a recording! Tape definitely adds a different width and life to a recording, but where you choose to record and what you use make a recording sound UNIQUE to you.
Love it. I’m only half way through the vid and it makes me smile knowing the difference we had “back in the day”. An hour plus, just to set up gear etc, patch bays!, having to turn around and crouch down to adjust outboard gear, turn around to hear what it sounded like, turning back around and crouching to fine tune, trying to remember what it sounded like before. You ever wonder why albums used to cost so much to make?!
I did plenty of sessions in the last century where the whole first day was spent getting drum sounds. I still often spend the first half day, particularly if there will be drums swapped out from song to song. If the machine is well maintained and used often calibration can be done before anyone even shows up. Patchbays, consoles, and outboard still take the same amount of time with Pro Tools that it took with tape, it's just that now nothing has to be bussed together if the kit is huge and track count is maxxed out.
Great video! Have to mention, This studer tape machine is one of the last analog 2 inch machines they made (if not the last) the most clean sounding analog 2'' machines ever made. All the tape machine manufacturers ever wanted to accomplish, is to make the machine's recorded output signal sound as identical as possible to the input signal. That's why a lot of engineers were so happy when digital multitrack recording came out, no calibration, no bias, no expensive 2'' reels, identical frequency response on the output. If you'd record to a older MCI, Ampex, 3M or a Scully 2'' machine where the technologies were more primitive, there would be a lot more color and character added by the machine. More wow and flutter, saturation, discrete electronics, audio transformers etc. witch add to the sound character we love from 60's, 70's and 80's recordings. The late 80's tape machines are very very clean. I actually knew an engineer who had a studer and a MCI, eventually sold the Studer because the MCI had way more mojo and character, and the studer was ''too clean''. But anyway, great comparison! Very honest and accurate
The sound difference becomes even more difficult to hear with UA-cam's compression, and in the full mix, it's negligible in my opinion. I believe that tape recording is often overhyped online, and as you mentioned, it's no longer commonly used because the hassle outweighs the benefits. Thank you for creating and sharing this excellent video. Cheers!
if you had to calibrate the tape machines every day you will if not earlier, then after a few days turn to digital ;-).. and in the mix, with a few plugins for imitating the tape.. well.. no one will hear on a blind test.
You're right on the money about UA-cam compression. Digital has gotten so good, the differences are negligible these days. It wasn't always like that. As far as production, there's something to be said about commitment vs endless edits/punches and quantizing everything to perfection until the life is sucked out of a song.
@@tomkent4656 This is tape vs digital... not analog vs digital. The entire signal flow up to the point of recording was analog. Real acoustic drums in a good room with a good drummer, real mics, real cables, real preamps and real outboard gear. That is what made the track sound so good. The use of tape being the only change is what made it such a subtle difference in sound, and that is the point. I guarantee of this had been 100% analog vs totally in the box with plugins, VSTs and samples... its game over. Digital is great for convenience (and for being cheap--as most wannabe "producers" are) but an ALL digital workflow is sterile and lifeless and boring. The best of all worlds is a hybrid workflow with real musicians, some analog gear, some plugins and digital recording.
i love this video SO MUCH omg, answering a question that's been burning in my mind for decades in such a satisfying way. feels like vicariously living out an analog studio dream experience. thank you!!
i guess what i really want to know now is, have you tried putting some tape emulation plug-ins on the digital version to see how close you can get to the tape version without all the hassle of actually recording to tape??
I'm definitely partial to tape. Especially on the Drums (snare in particular), and Bass guitar. Acoustic guitar also sounds better, especially on classic 60s, and 70s recordings. I understand we live in the modern age, and not everyone has access or the money for Tape equipment so they record with what's available, but I love tape! It's good to know it's still in use. Some groups have even embraces a "hybrid tape/digital" approach where they record tracks on tape, and mix down digitally. All I can say, is I'm all for tape if possible.
I think the most important difference isn’t in the timbre, that actually the easiest part to tweak; but there is definitely a sort of “bounciness” present in the tape examples that make it more pleasant/exciting to ear over the flatter overall response of digital.
Great video 👍🏻👍🏻Having been involved with Studios in the 80's/90's, I personally think this absolutely proves that Plug-ins and Digital mixing has been perfected and definitely caught up to Analog Mixing, meaning that it not only sounds AS GOOD, but look at the advantages!!! Not only the time and conviniences, being able to record drums in your living room or any decent room at home... but THE MONEY 🤑🤑🤑... These tape machines cost more than a car, then all the rack processors, cabling expensive mixers and huge spaces to make this all work, that with acoustic treatments etc.etc... Definetely A LEAP FORWARD for Musicians and the music industry. Congrats👍🏻👍🏻
The tape machines are dirt cheap now used, and since they were built like tanks and designed for maintainability, repairable. But need for perfectionism and ongoing maintenance continues.
Can we just appreciate the beautiful drumming and mixing? I am a drummer and producer and the difference is neglible to my ears. Sure, the 5% warmer sound is nice, but the flow in just recording to digital is so much worth it.
So funny. I just recorded two albums to tape last year, and the difference was mostly of psychological nature. No looking at screens, just one more take until the tape is full, the lore of magic. Those things really played a part in the overall making of the records but I gladly record most of anything to digital. The recording in this video is up there man! Cheers!
I agree 100% recording via digital so much easier, but if you have access to all that great sounding outboard (and tape) then you'd be crazy not to consider using it. That warmth may not be very apparent during the recording and initial mix, but when the mastering engineer is squeezing the final few dBs out and all the subtle detail is being brought forward, that's when having the great sounding source is so important.
I love your channel, congrats! But now, if you allow me to say, I think you should try to record a whole band next time to really see the difference. I mean, all the experiences involving analog recording are very complex, I mean, I use to say that there's just one very important thing that digital recording never will have: IMPERFECTION! The combination of all of those little "whims" that analog recording can provide is what makes the magic happen, and trust me, I've been doing this for the last 44 years now! lol. Awesome content, good job! Sending love from Brazil! 💙
Very subtle difference but I think I would prefer the tape too. I wonder if there is a greater difference from the audio before being uploaded to youtube due to the youtube compression. Would be interesting to have the tracks available for download to check, as I would guess there is possibly more of difference before being uploaded.
With a Little Saturation, Little Eq Boost on highs and a little squash on the transients designer = Tape Record = your money Back = Your time Back =D maybe you can do this just with the 1176 (blue) settings , less time atack and a lot of compression, or ir separeted plug ins too Salutes From a Brazilian Producer
Crazy, the tape sounds more squashed but punchier at the same time. Like the transients are shaved off but in a better way. I'm wondering if this would help the mixing/mastering process later, since I'm assuming it would need less limiting. From what I've seen, usually in mastering the drum transients are the first to go. Also to me, the tape saturation sounds "splooshy".. like its a very specific vibe that was way more obvious in this comparison! Then obviously digital is just crystal clean. Sick comparison man!
I went to an audio recording school in AZ where they taught us how to calibrate 24 track tape machines. We had an Otari 24 track and a Studar 24 track machine. We had every type of analog outboard gear from Manly compressors, LA2A compressors to high end reverb. We even had an SSLG+, a Neotek Eleite and a Nieve which was replaced by an API board later. I do miss the sessions we did at the school, we were able to bring in local bands, check out a room if available and check out almost any mic we wanted and were able to just experiment for 6hrs each session. It was so much fun. This was back in 2008.
It's funny how I was expecting much more of a difference ! Eric Valentine has a cool Saturn2 technique to reproduce the transient shaving and excitement that tape brings. Considering the price of tape machines and tape itself, it's nice to hear we're not missing that much by using digital gear.
I think they should have drove the tape harder. Most analog year needs to be pushed a little harder to make the differences. The snare has quite a bit more snap, though on tape.
Yeah, I'm over the "tApE sOuNdS bEtTeR" thing. It doesn't, especially for the price you pay. What most people think of as the sound of "tape" is really just the sound of people engineering a record competently and not loading it down with a bunch of digitized schmaltz.
the snare is where I hear the most drastic difference, and I do like it. Overall there is a pressense to the drums overall that seems to fade away in the tape version when listening to the full song vs the full song with digital drums, but it also feels more glued to the song, so its an interesting give and take I suppose.
It's interesting and sort of funny to see someone go to tape for the first time. I was nostalgic when he commented that adjusting outboard gear while being way out of the monitoring sweet spot was challenging. Now, try a session totally without a DAW. Then the real test begins. Punch in's and outs, no undo, edits..... making decisions, mixing! Little or no automation. Yup.....Could you do it? Oh, and calibrating a tape machine is a whole world unto itself. Oscilloscope purchase, tape cost calibration tape purchase - yikes! Glad you noted some of this here! Anyway, I am not advocating going back to all analog - simply remembering. Also, I'm saying that it's good to learn the analog method too because it teaches you soooooo much that is usable in the digital domain. Great video!
I got my start on tape and really missed the mojo when I got ProTools. Cranesong Phoenix and McDsp AC were the closest things I had back then and totally saved the day for me, but now there are so many amazing tape emulations out there that give me all the same "feels" that I could never go back. Such an amazing comparison though and huge props for putting this out here for us all to hear...and btw...what a killer song, vocal and track too!!!
@@dannydaniel8975 It really depends on what you want. A cheap Radio Shack cassette deck sounds like a shitty radio shack cassette deck. It will never be better than that.
man, you really do make the best music tutorial / studio engineer / production / mix help videos ever, Jordan! props.. really dug this one. there's nothing i can add, opinion-wise that you didn't already perfectly say here in this tape/digital adventure. thanks for posting!
Really excellent comparison. I admit I'm biased as I started out working in 24 track Tape studios but I think you are spot on with the plus and minus comparison. Digital has come a very long way and the unique qualities of tape can be worked into your mix and the setup in a template so you can be as close to that vibe as possible without the laboriously long prep time. We would spend hours getting a good drum sound then if it was a live rhythm section all the work with those instruments and the logistics of that would cause the musicians to feel a bit drug out by the time we were ready to actually cut tape. I'll have fond memories of those days but yea, the efficiency of digital is better for getting things down while everyone is hot.
I started recording, performing and doing studio tech workin the 70s. I was in a band and got a used Teac 3340 and learned what it was like to bounce 3 tracks to one, then filled up the rest, then mixed to another 1/4" tape machine, no high end to speak of, but the thrill of punching in, cutting tape was quite a rush. Moved up to 8 track, dbx noise reduction units, then working in commercial studios with a myriad of different 16, 24 and 32 track machines, both analogue then digital open reel machines, all the different synchronizing equipment, dolby A, then SR, consoles of all shapes and sizes, outboard gear from floor to ceiling, mixing to pcm formats, first using decoders in tandem with vcrs, then DAT machines, mini discs, ADAT machines, then the first 8 track digidesign interfaces synced to ADATs....man what a lot of hardware came and went, I am sure you could build a fleet of buses from all the scrap metal from all that was produced, sold for top dollar and dumped for pennies 10-20 years later. I was always taught that the most important gear in the studio is your ears and what is between them, the rest is extra. If you don't understand how sound "works" in the room you are recording in and you can't make a decent recording with 1 mic and 1 track, on whatever medium, then do not hope that all the snappy gear in the world, virtual or physical will make it better. Make the best of what you have.
im pretty sure the digital version also ran through the same console and analog compression/eq also dan worral has a good video comparing an analog and a digital console and it pretty much completely nulled out
I preferred the digital sound. Tape was bringing out some bad stuff in the snare that I didn't care for. Lots of ring and overtone. Digital had that clean crack I was looking for. Cymbals sounded a little more smooth on tape. Really cool experiment. Thanks putting the work in and showing it to us!
Great video! Next, I'd like to see the comparison of adding tape emulation plugins to the digital signal and comparing those to the physical tape. Kudos to your educational and enlightening channel.
Let’s be honest, any modern comparison of the two formats has to include those things you mentioned, otherwise it’s not really viable as a comparison, in terms of asking ‘can digital sound so much like tape that in a blind A/B/X test no one, including experts, can tell the difference’?
The problem here is UA-cam. I listened on multiple deceives and through my monitors, then tried to get a sound like it myslef with EzDrummer, plugins Distessor, Pro Q, Tape Saturator and LA-2. What I noticed is just how compressesed yours was. Thats not you, its UA-cam. I'm very, very far from being any good, but its amazing what you can do now in the box. I bet in the room the tape was all the clichés and amazing, but.... Good enough now, is good enough. Great video and song.
Man, what a great set up. 24 track with a Neve board, 1176s and all that other outboard gear. You really got the analogue experience. I spent a lot of days and nights at Larabee Sound in LA back in the 80s. The tape playback through those massive speakers was just insane. I've never heard it that vibey since then. But it was a gigantic pain in the butt. I often wonder whether the tape machines that would be built today with todays technology would be easier to use and less prone to messing up. Great video brother. Awesome!
I'm listening on BeyerDynamic Dt-990 open back headphones and a decent DAC and I can *barely* hear a difference. This gives me even more confidence in digital.
This is a really great video. As a now "getting older" audio engineer I'm still very fond of the tape sound. I grew up in the 80s and 90s listening to tape cassettes and had a ton of CDs and I just loved the sound of all of the productions from the analog era. I think a big part of the sound is having the whole production from tracking to mixing and mastering all to tape and in the analog domain that makes a pretty big difference in my view as opposed to using tape as an "effect" for one instrument and then dumping that back into the digital domain.
I think they should improve on tape technology to make it more user-friendly and a viable option instead of using ancient machines. I liked the tape sound. Crispy was a good way to describe it, probably the analog saturation working. I would say it sounds "more real" and less processed in a good way. The digital drums sounded more contemporary, nothing wrong it. But the analog recording did add something cool in my humble opinion. 🎉
Great video man. I know a ton of work went into this. You can definitely hear differences between the two, but I was honestly surprised by how little the differences were. I guess I expected there to be a bigger difference. That tells me that tape machine was seriously dialed in. For it to sound as clean as digital with some very MINOR subtle compression and saturation, that's impressive. Steven Wilson of Porcupine Tree said that in 2001 when they were tracking the In Absentia album in NY, they tracked Gavin Harrison with and without tape, and then compared. They sent all the reels of tape back. Just have a listen to that album and tell me those drums dont absolutely kick ass. I digress. Loved watching this process in your vid man. And btw great mix on that track.
Great video as always! There is a video at "Inside Blackbird" with Marc Daniel Nelson recording a live band on 8 tracks. They did an comparison between an 8-track, 16-track and 24-track tape machines and Protools using HDX converters. All three tape machines were 2-inch and recorded at 15 IPS. You can hear some serious differences between the 8-track and Protools. The 8-track recording, having more tape per track (1/4"), sounded more open with a lot more depth (like if the band was in front of you). The 16-track (1/8" per track) still sounded great but not as open as the 8-track. The 24-track (1/12" per track) sounded really close to Protools but one thing you can hear is that the sound of Protools felt like it had only two dimensions whereas the tape felt tridimensional. Interesting video. I would recommend everybody to watch it and make their own conclusions. Now, tape saturation may also bring some significant differences between tape and digital recordings.
Very interesting and in depht video ! Thanks to let us dive into that kind of studio session. I would say for a pop-rock / punk / hc drum recording, the transients are a bit too squashed but in other genres it would work well. On the other side, it would be interesting to try it on heavy guitars or bass.
What are you talking about? The transients being too squashed? Once it's done with mastering, it's nothing but a brick wall. Zero dynamics. But that's what the kids want.
To my ears, on the JVC Gumy Plus earbud headphones I'm listening on, the difference was pretty negligible, except when testing the kick and snare only, where the difference was glaringly obvious with the tape sounding louder and more punchy.
This video is fantastic! Beautiful explanation of what tape does to drums. The rounding of transients and creating more harmonic rich content might not be good for your song. The Slate Virtual Tape Machine is a perfect plugin to hear the differences on your mix tracks. It is a beautiful tool to sit things in your mix better and take harshness out if needed.
The difference is very noticeable for those that actually listen to hear the difference but that is the issue right, being able to hear the difference? There are people that actually can't, no fault if their own. Tape has always sounded great to me, digital can sound great to me.
Would love to hear how those tape tracks sound like compared to UAD Studer plugin. Especially now that it's available in native and with a free trial. Could be a good middle ground
Great video! The greatest advantage to me is Spatialization. The tiny imperfections of analog give us 3D space. It's just a better experience when the space the speakers create is bigger and more nuanced. That's the ultimate mixing goal, that feeling.
When i went to audio school (2007) they showed us how to calibrate tape and record with it (how our final project had to be done). Pro tools was on version 7 and in general working 100% in the box was no where near as good as working with hardware or on a console. The few hardware emulations out there were awful sounding. I learned a lot. I’ve never worked with tape since, but it sounded good! When i am in a room with modern engineers and they sit in front of a console they are always a little shocked when i just know how it all works and they are completely confused. Makes me sad that i spent so much time learning the ropes of the analog world only to have that rug pulled out from under me upon graduation and most big studios close and huge leaps in DAWs and plugins came soon after. The barrier to entry is just huge now and everyone wants to pay as little as possible because we’re all broke. Not the same economic environment i started in. Which is a BIG reason why people don’t record to tape anymore, it’s very expensive and calibration takes a while, which means paying for the space and time of the engineer and assistant. As far as the digital vs analog, the kick sounds sooo much better on tape. Sometimes I’ll add a tape sim on to my kick track for extra oomph. Overall the tape feels like it has that extra polished ‘pro’ sound. Is it worth it though? Not imo. I’m curious how using tape emulation plugins would compared to the actual tape.
Love the tape. I could really hear it in the full drum mix and room mics. I got to record to tape once and I loved how my drums sounded. My bucket list is to record with Steve Albini in his studio, on tape. Thanks for making this video.
This is a great video! Im curious to know if you insert any type of tape emulation into every track would bring it closer to the actual tape sound, were you able to try this?
This was an easy subscription. Great content and editing! Keep them coming! Edit: You just proved that tape isn't necessary for a great recording and that the engineer's use of hardware (consoles and outboard gear) had the biggest impact on recordings. Although most vintage gear was designed to be transparent, tape was the medium, so that had to be the cleanest. It's interesting even at 15ips, the tape still sounded clean. I've worked with master tape, but this is one of best examples of 24-track tape and the sound that it imparts on the source. Thank you for sharing, this was very educational and entertaining!
I love this because, it's a great example of how subtleties are built up through the whole process. What the tape did may not be majorly apparent at first to some, but it's when you start processing it that it becomes overy obvious indeed. That splat, pillowy hits, glue and sustain is the tape sound. And you like that enhancement. So what pro engineers did when first going ITB with plugins, was to find ways to enhance their sound with the same traits. Because back then the plugins didn't exist, or they just sounded nothing like tape.
Thanks for doing this! I actually very much preferred the digital version until things were mixed, then I only SLIGHTLY preferred the tape version. There was some nastiness in the cymbals on the tape version that negated any minor benefits until you apparently tamed that in the mix. I'm really underwhelmed by the tape for how expensive and laborious it is. At the same time I'm still incredibly fascinated with older technology and it makes me sad to see it disappear even if it is obsolete. We stand on the shoulders of giants.
I definitely liked the tape a lot better. It just feels more right. Also, props for not slamming it super hot to make it obvious. I used to work in a Studer A827 studio and I think for rock, or more old school genres tape is just more satisfying and easy on the ears. Loud music isn't meant for hard transients for the listener. The bummer though is that not all of the goodness translates to digital capture, but enough does. It makes mixing a lot easier too because dynamics are less finicky and there is more natural presence. If I could I would still do as much analog recording and mixing as possible. Even the workflow is chill when you have to wait for the tape transport vs frantically clicking over and over.
Hoenstly I think the biggest difference I heard was in the full track. The version with the drums on tape just kinda... felt better, somehow. Like, the drums weren't getting in the way of the vocals as much, and the whole mix just felt more cohesive.
That saturation on crashes and the hihat - dead giveaway even without the labels in the video. So much more depth and oomph to the snare. What a nice and fun experience that must have been. Haven't recorded onto tape since 1993/4.
The difference between the drums on tape vs digital is very small, but... if you record an entire song on tape compared to digital, the sound as a whole is far warmer and spirited IMO. That's why records up to the mid 90s sound more wholesome and 'live' than the sterile Protools pap that came afterwards.
I'll take far cleaner, more dynamic, and exacted digital tools over murky, EQ tilted, and noisy tape. Like, I can emulate basically everything tape can do, character wise, and I highly doubt anyone could tell. A little glue, a little open high end with a wider soundstage, some focused and slightly tilted EQ, maybe even some phasing, warble, tape hiss, etc,. at extremely miniscule levels (5% or less) with automated looping. I just don't see the need for tape ever again considering 32-bit float and modern editing techniques. Razor sharp EQ, new methods of ducking, insane reverb now, etc,. But of course, everyone has their opinions and yours about tape is true. It IS enough of a sound, and unique to each session, that it takes many songs to the next level. I just personally think it's very genre dependant. I would love tape on some groovier, more funky genres than I would dance or metal. The cohesion/glue is very pleasant, but there's nothing imo tape does that you can't emulate easily. 'course I love cassettes and vinyl. It's hard to separate what I like to listen to, from what I want analytically in a track I've worked on.
Some people just like the work flow when recording analog rather than looking at a screen for hours. It's a total physical process. Having a mixing console with a channel strip and outboard gear that you can make physical adjustments is really an awesome thing. You also only have your ears to rely on because there is no visual representation of the sound coming in or going out other than the meters on the tape machine, console, and outboard gear you use. I personally like tape better although I still record with a DAW sometimes. So im not saying the digital world by any means. I just think it's more fun for me personally rather than working on a computer.😊😊😊
Again Im Repeating when you said. For the average listener there will not be difference. ( THEY WONT NOTICE) Half of them Might even skip the Track at 10 seconds lol but I Love that he is passionate about it. nothing beats passion and maybe God pours that passion into him so we the "Regular can just relax and enjoy what we hear" and not think of how the panning and the Saturation is and if it was recorded to Tape or not..... at the end of the day it dont matter ( to the regular people )
I think one thing that maybe missing from this video is the clipping - slamming stuff to tape is such a part of tape recording for that extra crispy compression, something prince would do on every track of his sessions for example. My experience of this was recording to a 1969 Scully 8 track, tracking drums, guitar and bass together. However, this old tape machine needed new trim pots installing, and we couldn’t get one channel to work (a big deal when you only have 8 lol). So we went to digital instead. The sound immediately became totally hollow, I was so disappointed. I’ve been trying to mix those stems for ten years since and they never sound quite right, like they did when the tape machine was rolling. That maybe the transformers, the transistors and the tape all working together, but it made one hell of a difference 😊
Dude, the tape was awesome . So much depth I mean. Seriously I never expected this much of a difference. When compared side by side, tape sounded like a bangin’ performance imho.
Okay... it's NOT JUST RECORDING to TAPE that makes a difference, but the SPEED of the tape and the WIDTH of the tracks. In the late 90s I saw a company demoing their 2" eight track headstack for a Studer A827. One of these was used to record drums for an Ozzy Osborne record, recording the drums at 7.5 IPS... offering IMMENSE LOW END! YES... recording drums on analog tape will sound better than digital, but be smart and record them at 15 IPS for the best overall tradeoff between high frequency fidelity and solid low end... then to make things even better, make sure that you're recording on a 2" 16 track machine (and NOT an OTARI MX-70 because it's a bit of a compromise overall)... something like a refurbished MCI or an Otari MTR-90 MkII or MkIII, or a Studer A827... but the 16 track stack has a greater track width. Then don't be afraid to record at a hotter level and you'll be amazed. Just do a LOT of listening tests to find your own 'sweet spot' in your process.
Me too I dont hear it.. and I'm using My Audio tehnica and HS8 Speakers but these guys look on things deeper so they maybe hearing a slight difference for real because they have more experience than us professionally ( I guess ) but the Regular public wont hear the difference to be honest. I wouldnt Kill my self to record on tape in 2023 🤷♂ no one cares when a hit Record or copyright free music is done on a Tape or on a Phone.
Not enough to justify a several thousand dollar purchase of a tape machine and associated outboard, and the tape itself which runs several hundred per 20 minutes or so.
I don't think we can distinguish much difference because we are listening through UA-cam, which standardizes the sound when uploading video. It's just an idea, I'm not an expert, but it makes sense to me.
@@delbosdrums this is a good Point! so the Master he has maybe he should have a track link for us to download to hear the file, because youtube conversion in bitrate will tear that down. He should make the Original Files available to us so we can judge that!
What?? Clearly more high end and excitement on the tape recordings. Also clearly less dynamic range; slightly more “squeezed” feeling. I don’t think it’s worth the hassle for most people, especially in this genre.
This was a video I didn't even know I wanted, down to the T. Really cool experiment, and the A/B comparisons were extremely well-done. Thoroughly enjoyed.
In this case I really didn't hear a difference, which surprised me. It could be the speakers that I'm using, but because the difference is so subtle, you did a fantastic job mixing everything down and having it sound consistent the whole way through. I may have to listen again, but good job. I really enjoyed this.
Definite difference, especially in the OH's and Rooms. And I think that's where tape wins IMO. But you're right. In the end, it's not enough to win over the convenience of digital... especially with the cost of tape. I've been fortunate enough to work with both for years. And I would choose digital in the end. BUT, if there is a tape machine at the studio, it would be worth running it thru the repro head without recording to tape. Just another sort of color to the sound on the way into Tools. Great video and great info and examples. Really appreciate your hard work. This is one of the few channels that are very honest and legit.
Thanks fellows for making the time to put this experimental and most interesting test together. The differences really are so close. This means a lot to me personally as I produce mostly in the box. Great stuff.
Nice video, well done. On my last album Yay! (2014) I did both overdubs and mixes at Revolution using both the Neve and SSL rooms. It's still my favorite "sounding" album I've done. Tape rules but yes, waaaaaaaay to much hassle. There's no way I could afford to do it that way again. Steve was around at a few of my sessions, super guy.
It's when mixing down the 24-track to a 2-track at 15ips the magic happens. All tracks gets the same compression and sounds more collected together, plus you get "the shine" in the top end. That's what a lot of these vst's are trying to emulate. This effect are more noticable on a 2-track than the 24-track, because on the multitrack the induvidual tracks compresses differently due to levels and dynamics of each track.
Loved hearing and learning more about this. Thank you for making this video! I hear a difference for sure, but knowing I can get 90% of the way to "that sound" without having to sell my car for it helps me put this to bed. If I'm ever lucky enough to record in a studio like that, I'll be stoked. Until then, I'm fine with what little I have.
I heard the difference, but it was relatively small for sure. Drums only, I would pick the tape easily, but full mix is harder. Almost felt like the full mix needs the transients more, otherwise everything mushes together too much. Practically speaking, if I wanted that sound, I would definitely just use a tape plugin and call it a day. I used to be a big believer of trying to emulate any analog pieces you were missing, but I've been finding that not everything needs the full analog/analog emulation treatment. Some recent stuff I recorded, I tried throwing on Neve mic pre emulations and I honestly didn't like what it did to those particular tracks. The tape emu OTOH was nice so I kept that. It really depends.
I interned at United Sound Studios in Detroit (classic motown facility). Not only did I learn to calibrate and set up a 24 track tape machine, but I learned to do the literally opposite of what you do with digital. Instead of keeping it at -18 (or whatever your preference is), we would actually push it to +12 in some cases.
I worked on countless analog sessions in the 80's and 90's and could align a 24-track in my sleep. There is no question that digital makes the workflow much faster and the sonic qualities are much closer than they used to be. One notable difference is the time it takes to rewind the tape (20-30 seconds), which was a great time for the musician, engineer and producer to take a sip of coffee and chat for a moment about that take. It was a forced mini-break in the session. As digital emerged (tape before HD) we would often record straight to tape to capture the analog sound, then immediately transfer to digital to keep that sound and avoid degradation. Good points about having to dial in gear far from the sweet spot, but the pros were masters at doing it. I commend you taking the time to do this - nice work.
true but also, people could collectively afford more time back then aswell lol, the economy is wild rn!
As an engineer and producer in the 80' / 90's I used tape all the time. I became a magic tape editor with a razor blade. I would mix sections of the songs and then splice them all together. The magic of tape was really the commitment you make to it. Unlike digital, you can always change it again and again. Tape was more like a marriage, total commitment and the sound would be that way forever.
After the save function you may not be able to go back... Depending on how you're mixing.
@@billbradleymusic but if you save original copies that you don’t alter, you can. With tape, you can’t ever undo.
I want a divorce!
As memory slowly became a non issue over the last 3 decades to today, there really isn't a reason why you should mix and produce in a destructive way today. wether you have a ton of the raw recordings before any edits or not, really don't matter today. You just save it all so can always go back. I agree .. cutting and splicing tape was an art not many young people of today can comprehend, but you could easier mess things up back in the days. And just the shear ammount of space needed to store the raw tapes under optimal conditions to avoid degredation was also a problem. Some things have defenitly gone lost from the old days, but on the other hand people don't need a record deal with a major label today to produce music and you can do it at home with a standard PC. You have much more control of your music and you have so many options to distribute it without someone telling you how it should sound. It's just a question of of if people like your music and not so much how much money someone is willing to throw at it to even get it out to the public..
Same. Agree.
I listened to the examples like 10 times on my studio monitors / sub. The difference is so incredibly small I definitely don't think it's worth the hassle. If you like the subtle difference of tape better you could make an EQ/compression adjustment in like 10 seconds and have the "tape" sound. Thank you Jordan for making such a great video with A/B comparisons!
That wouldnt get you the tape saturated sound. Also hum and hiss and timing things are happening with tape.
It works great on vocals tho 💯
I found the differences to be pretty huge regardless to what I listened on, and even out of a phone speaker.
Which monitors are you using? It doesn't sound like they're detailed enough
I'm listening via my phone and in-ears, the difference wasn't insignificant.
@@UncleBenjs Come on man! You can't say there's a huge difference. It's noticeable yes, but huge?
@@henrikpetersson3463 Yes there is a pretty big difference
As a drummer from the 70s/80s, I remember what a pain it was recording Analog. We had to travel to Hollywood and recorded late at night through early morning to save money. Compared to digital it was a pain in the butt to end up with a recording that may have sounded slightly better. I wouldn't want to go back.
This mirrors my experience. Digital has it's problems but the advantages far outweigh them...
finally some sense ;)
Interesting. I still stubbornly want to do a 4 track song. :)
Awesome video bro! And I really appreciate you giving your best effort to stay neutral minded about it, as I know the brain can easily sway people to want they want to hear. And I agree man. Tape was better, but not worth the hassle. However, I do differ in the case of outboard gear as I LOVE working with it. Keep doing what you do man!!!👊
Yes this is awesome.....but the whole thing digi/analog/drummers/engineers/gobs of money.....I'm way past tired of it....I went vst ....not perfect.....but I no longer want to kill the drummer or engineer etc....because they're gone lol
Great video. Just like in a car wreck, hours after the accident, traffic is still slow.
I remember 30 years ago, when Digital recording was still emerging, and plug-ins were not as sophisticated, the difference between Tape and Digital was very noticeable, huge debates ensued, and the remnants are still going on today.
On this video, I could barely tell apart the two, I struggled to hear differences even after knowing which one was which. In a blind test, I wouldn’t stand a chance, and in a full mix, forget it.
For the money and time, Digital wins hands down.
Spittin facts! I could hear more of a difference when just listening to the kick and snare, but in a blind test listening to all the drums together no way.
P00😊
I feel you
@@crunchwrapsupremium1053 This is the point... I bet you could have switched back and forth inside the final mix and no one would have heard the difference.
So... hearing less than before is somehow a benefit? I watched on a freaking cheap flat TV, and could clearly hear the more deep end on the tape OHs, kicks, and snare -- even in the mix. Way punchier. Just because you cannot hear it, it does not mean cheaping and dumbing down sound is a benefit. Digital has to be on par so we are not losing quality and knowledge (there are good tape plugins out there).
Great video, thanks! The world really needs actual real-life comparisons like this, instead of the endless forum arguments that don’t usually contain a single audio example. I’m a producer and composer for almost 30 years, and I’m really struggling to hear any meaningful difference between the two, even when I know which is which.
To me the only noticeable (worth) difference I heard was in the kick and snare, the midrange is more important and maybe driven (squishy squishy). However that can be emulated those days with the plugins, even if it's not the same experience. Good video :)
Completely agree. At first I was mistakenly listening to the hats. And it didn't seem different enough to warrant to process. But, if you focus on the kick, and especially snare ... it's there. That's why I think, just use a two track Nagra at low speed, for the kick and snare. Doesn't have to be calibrated perfectly. Also, could just use it to process the whole drum sub-mix. Modern digital is great as a recording device. Why not just use a 'good-enough' two-track tape as a processor, not a multi-track recorder. Also, definitely, some of the plugins have good sound. And, for me, it's the more lo-fi character-driven units, like Sketch Cassette. I'd like to hear some drums like this done through a) high-end multitrack, perfectly calibrated b) 1/2" Studer A820 stereo mastering or next best thing c) 1/4" Revox a77 or Nagra portable recorder e) good quality cassette machine but with modern noise reduction in post-processing
When solo'd I agree, but when mixed there was a few crash hits that popped through a bit more too, but not much else I noticed as the rest of the track was masking a lot of it, and as that was digital there was nothing else to listen out for other than the transients of the drums pushing through really. I did like the chunky crunch of the kick though, but I've heard a similar sound with just heavy analog compression used instead.
If you want great free suggestions that show no BS, I suggest you use IronOxide5 for dirty tape distortion, and ToTape6 for a bus tape compressor by Airwindows. They also have if you want to have "silky" overheads like with tape, ChromeOxide, which smooths the highs perfectly.
They're simple to use, don't waste CPU with big image renders, and sound great.
You can hear that the snare decay is longer and all the instruments have less bite and a tad more harmonics. I haven't found that plugins are smooth enough to nail the sound, but they approximate it.
Another thing though is youtube compression, we are basically listening to mp3's afaik. High quality ones, but there will be some lossiness with that, so some of the finer details may of gotten removed, but as most people listen to mp3's anyway, if it doesn't translate to mp3 most people will not benifit from any extra diferance we can't hear anyway.
The thought of using tape, just to master to mp3 makes me feel kinda dirty inside anyway, even though I've never used anything more than 2 track cassettes when it comes to magnetic tape lol.
To me, this definitively proves what I have felt for a long time-- wow tape is a pain and I have never really been able to tell much of a difference at all. I am drummer, so maybe I fried whatever hearing would have allowed me to tell the diff? Dunno. All I know is, I LIKE digital recording. A lot. I do like what the digital "saturation" stuff does and use them on every track. The ease of editing capability in digital is a dream. I am very much in the realm of semi-pro (at best) these days, myself included, so being able to move a few hits around is much appreciated. I truly respect the genuine engineers who run a studio like that! But I am glad I don't have to save money to go in places like that and record anymore. Home digital recording with good mics and plug ins works for me.
I could definitely hear a difference but you’re correct in saying that it’s a vibe I worked with a tape a lot wow and audio school and it is unique and has its own characteristic of digital hasn’t captured. But by this point most listeners would never know the difference if you record it on
Digital or tape or a consul it’s all going to get squashed anyway
You can get more "tape" sound then they did. And it does sound more dramatic off the repro head than through digital capture.
I used to run a fairly low maintenence machine, and I'd say it was worth it then. I still prefer the sound now, but my friend's machines do break down a lot.
Also, the tape mindset is one where you come ready for a good take, and you don't do tons of editing or comps. More about getting a pleasing raw sound from the performance.
I agree, but is that a problem with digital recording or the laziness of the musicians?
Ive had a Tascam 38 8 track for a few years now. It's no Studer, but I'm sure it has a sound. Ive never run it. Tape seems like so much pita and Im a person with a ton of high end analog mixing gear, including a 56 channel console.Tape may sound better or at least ineteresting, but I have to draw the line somewhere. As an audio engineer you learn to prioritize your time, even on your own songs. I've heard recordings on a Tascam 38 though, and yeah its a different sound than digital recording. I'm definitely a believer that analog processing of any kind (recording to tape is processing) sounds different to plugins doing the same thing. I'm a believer because ive tested it thoroughly and mixed through analog and digital in the same locations for decades. If it's worth doing a particular analog process though depends on tons of factors, and i easily use plugins way more than my analog gear. Still even cheap analog gear for me destroys plugins, not in capability for sure, just the sound.
-
I dare you to try a lowly ART Pro Vlaii against your best Fairchild plugin, go ahead! Dont have ProVlaii riches? Someone gave me a DBX 266XL for a single extra hour of session time about 15 years ago. The next day I did a blind shoot out against all my other plugin compressors. It wasnt even close. I still remember the sound and what the difference of that test was. Even though all pieces of gear sound different there's a commonality in the world of analog sound processes. There's a solidity (the only word i can use to describe it) in the sound that's hard to describe other than saying it sounds like an analog compressor. Analog EQs have their own thing goin on too.
-
I have tons of analog mixing (and mastering) gear these days but unlike what you might think, I don't have these thoughts on sound to justify my purchases. It's alot of money, alot of hassle to use, and takes way more time. Oh and i make way more money for the time when i mix in the box. Conversely, Id rather get the sound from in the computer where i have almost every plugin known to man. I have people pay extra, alot extra if they want me to mix with analog gear, and i still make less for the time. I have the gear because it sounds good, better than the same processes in the box. That doesnt mean it gets used even half the time. When i do use it, it sounds better, but im not paying the studio tab so its not up to me anyway.
-
Here the difference in the video is subtle. I dont use tape machines really. The difference doesnt wow me, but remember theres a whole lot of other analog processing happening too. He's recording through a Neve and compressing and EQing on the way in. Theres gonna be lots of saturation from that already. Also, are they summing on the board too? Thats gonna change things for sure. Even if no summing, is the main out going through that board? There's a lot of variables here. What I mostly here from the "Tape" versions is some non-time based compression an effect tape is well known for. Sounded kind of like a transparent compression. A subtle lift that makes the sounds sit a little better. I didnt hear much difference in the tone, but im wearing some high end gaming headphones, Ill listen again on some studio monitors.
Great vid. I recorded multitrack analog at 15ips for 20 years and love the sound, but the overhead and cost is a huge lift these days. Also, tape emulations and saturation plugs have improved by leaps and bounds over the last few years and I feel like I can get the vibe I want ITB now.
I don' believe people recording digitally should use "tape emulator plugins" if you're going to go the digital route, then make is sound digital.
Wants your favourite tape plugin?
@@Rotary_Phone that is the dumbest thing ive heard in a sec
So, a couple things...
I feel like a big fancy tape machine like this, back in the day, was meant to sound as flat and unflavored as possible, because in the height of tape days, the goal was to eliminate, or minimize, the coloration of audio recorded to tape. The industry was constantly working toward getting as far away from a heavily coloured analog sound (think of like a drum sound from the early Beatles days, for example) as possible, and more toward a clinically "clean" sound. Then digital recording became more practical, and essentially achieved that: recording without modification- a perfectly replicated recording.
I notice also that I see a lot of reviews for analog equipment that demonstrate a signal that is at normal, clean levels, i.e. not distorted or overdriven.
The thing is, the magic of tape, and analog equipment in general, is not in the recording of a clean sound (in my opinion, the sound in this video was pretty clean and so the comparison to digital recording is very close). What really gets exciting is riding the fine line on the edge of blasting the shit out of a piece of equipment. Really cooking that tape (especially for drums) so that you can hear what happens when the signal falls above the "comfort zone" for the machine/tape. That's what you get with tape that you can't get with a digital recording. That's where the character really comes out, and some magic happens.
So when I see people say that recording to tape has no advantage over recording digitally, if you're going for a clean signal, yes the difference is probably so subtle that it may not be worth the hassle. But if you push so much signal into that tape that the crunch really comes out, the difference would be unparalleled. No way you can get that with computer. I am not a professional audio engineer, this is just my opinion.
Or just get a Handsome Audio Zulu and you're 95% there.
Edit: Also, loved the video, great experiment and that studio has some insane gear.
The snare was the biggest difference imo. Gave it a lot of character.
True, however, I didn't' care for the digtial snare sound and would have reached for some plugins to eq it and process to sound more like the analog Tape version. The vocals seemed a bit foreword cold in the digital mix and more warm on tape but again, I would have used Decap, SSL G series to warm the digital vocal up. All an all, digital sure has come a long way. The first pro tools daw systems sounded thin, tiny, and no where near to where they are now.Around 2010 digital started sounded better and has continued.
I've been an engineer since the early 80s, when sessions were always like that. I was very pleased to see the end of the many downsides of tape. Also, I spent many years dropping in and out of record on individual tracks, or sometimes a whole band to construct good takes. A lot of concentration, and no undo! Another quality concern I always had was making comps from several tape tracks onto one - the playback had to be from the record (sync) head which sounded noticeably different. In fact, during a session we would very seldom play from the repro head!
And don't get me started on the hassle of syncing multitrack machines to get 48 tracks....
True, but now the pace of work is even more stressful and you have to deal with licenses and driver updates that are probably more infuriating.
Pro studios using 2" Tape sounds great but yes it's very very subtle and takes a lot of work. Personally I enjoy using 1/4" Tape Machines like consumer or semi pro grade stuff in a home studio. (Teac A2300/A3300 - Consumer - 7.5ips) (Tascam 32 - Semi Pro - 15ips 2 Track). It's a lot less work, get your machine serviced and calibrated for whatever tape you're using, and then just clean the heads before/after recording. I send tracks out like the tape machine is outboard gear, and print the tape back into the DAW in real time. I have to go and line up the audio because there is a small amount of latency but you can really hear the characteristics of tape in the lower end gear and that's the whole point of using tape in a digital era, to hear the character! And it's actually affordable! 😅
I love the tape mix! Everything sounds so glued together and energetic.
The tape saturation emulations these days are incredibly realistic though. You can really get a very similar sound with Slate's VTM.
This is such an extraordinarily high quality video, and I'm only 2:30 into it. The work you do to provide for this community is incredible.
I love the tape saturation on the kick and cymbals - and the final track. It sounds like the music that I was used to hearing pre90. The stereo spread is more condensed and "glued together".
First off ... insane video quality - so good.
In terms of sound quality / difference - yes there is a difference, but I can't see how the difference justifies it. It's INSANELY subtle to the point that only those with extremely tuned ears will be able to hear. The digital signal sounds incredible still with everything you did in terms of EQ/Compression.
So to me - it doesn't make sense to use Tape - especially when we could easily emulate that tape machine with plugins that cost... like... $100 lol.
Can definitely hear like a natural compression the tape does, making things appear to be a little more seated/settle, especially in the higher frequencies. Awesome video!
The tape sound most folks look for these days is the super saturated one. I have a pro summer 1/2” 8 channel tape machine Teac 80-8 back to factory specs and this thing sounds amazing. LoFi analog vibes for days; it doesn’t sound digital at all. These 2” machines sound better than digital so it is really difficult to hear the sound, I hear it, but we are trained to hear tape as a degrading format, like vinyl, and it can be, but not in these phenomenal 2” studers tape machines. If you are looking for a machine to saturate the sound the teac 80-8 delivers in spades. Great video! ✌🏽
They are also going for a clean sound, not pushing the tape too much.
Very interesting. You can hear the difference on the kick and snare quite clearly. The overheads and room sound like they are warmer AND more energetic at the same time. Gorgeous! The difference is not big enough to warrant the cost and setup time etc, but great vid and cool to hear for sure!
The difference is huge to some people and they're willing to pay the big bucks for that small difference. Take Foo fighters for example, and i freakin hate that band.
@383stroker Grohl has standards since Nirvana and honestly it suits his style as he used to be a Grunge and Alt Metal drummer. Drum should hit you like your standing on the other side and Dave understands that well.
To me the tape version sounds more explosive on the final mix. Great video!
From memory - Im responding now to notifications, not direectly from watching the vid again - it has a little more 'blat' to it, thicker. I'd say it's just kind of changed the loudness envelope which may give the impression to some as being more impactful.. That aspect one can surely recreate somehow else.
That is wonderfully calibrated machine. Kudos to the Tape Op!
Very fun video!
More than anything, I think source tone, room selection, and final processing have sooooo much more to do with the sound of a recording! Tape definitely adds a different width and life to a recording, but where you choose to record and what you use make a recording sound UNIQUE to you.
Love it. I’m only half way through the vid and it makes me smile knowing the difference we had “back in the day”.
An hour plus, just to set up gear etc, patch bays!, having to turn around and crouch down to adjust outboard gear, turn around to hear what it sounded like, turning back around and crouching to fine tune, trying to remember what it sounded like before.
You ever wonder why albums used to cost so much to make?!
I did plenty of sessions in the last century where the whole first day was spent getting drum sounds. I still often spend the first half day, particularly if there will be drums swapped out from song to song. If the machine is well maintained and used often calibration can be done before anyone even shows up. Patchbays, consoles, and outboard still take the same amount of time with Pro Tools that it took with tape, it's just that now nothing has to be bussed together if the kit is huge and track count is maxxed out.
Great video! Have to mention, This studer tape machine is one of the last analog 2 inch machines they made (if not the last) the most clean sounding analog 2'' machines ever made. All the tape machine manufacturers ever wanted to accomplish, is to make the machine's recorded output signal sound as identical as possible to the input signal. That's why a lot of engineers were so happy when digital multitrack recording came out, no calibration, no bias, no expensive 2'' reels, identical frequency response on the output. If you'd record to a older MCI, Ampex, 3M or a Scully 2'' machine where the technologies were more primitive, there would be a lot more color and character added by the machine. More wow and flutter, saturation, discrete electronics, audio transformers etc. witch add to the sound character we love from 60's, 70's and 80's recordings. The late 80's tape machines are very very clean. I actually knew an engineer who had a studer and a MCI, eventually sold the Studer because the MCI had way more mojo and character, and the studer was ''too clean''. But anyway, great comparison! Very honest and accurate
Studers were too clean because the newer ones got rid of the transformers, among other things.
The sound difference becomes even more difficult to hear with UA-cam's compression, and in the full mix, it's negligible in my opinion. I believe that tape recording is often overhyped online, and as you mentioned, it's no longer commonly used because the hassle outweighs the benefits. Thank you for creating and sharing this excellent video. Cheers!
if you had to calibrate the tape machines every day you will if not earlier, then after a few days turn to digital ;-).. and in the mix, with a few plugins for imitating the tape.. well.. no one will hear on a blind test.
@@HR2635 So true. Amazing the number of people who still claim analogue is better than digital.
You're right on the money about UA-cam compression. Digital has gotten so good, the differences are negligible these days. It wasn't always like that. As far as production, there's something to be said about commitment vs endless edits/punches and quantizing everything to perfection until the life is sucked out of a song.
@@jerk_store Exactly. People pine for the process of working on tape, and I'm like ".....you can do that on digital too, you know. " 😂
@@tomkent4656 This is tape vs digital... not analog vs digital. The entire signal flow up to the point of recording was analog. Real acoustic drums in a good room with a good drummer, real mics, real cables, real preamps and real outboard gear. That is what made the track sound so good. The use of tape being the only change is what made it such a subtle difference in sound, and that is the point.
I guarantee of this had been 100% analog vs totally in the box with plugins, VSTs and samples... its game over. Digital is great for convenience (and for being cheap--as most wannabe "producers" are) but an ALL digital workflow is sterile and lifeless and boring.
The best of all worlds is a hybrid workflow with real musicians, some analog gear, some plugins and digital recording.
i love this video SO MUCH omg, answering a question that's been burning in my mind for decades in such a satisfying way. feels like vicariously living out an analog studio dream experience. thank you!!
i guess what i really want to know now is, have you tried putting some tape emulation plug-ins on the digital version to see how close you can get to the tape version without all the hassle of actually recording to tape??
I'm definitely partial to tape. Especially on the Drums (snare in particular), and Bass guitar. Acoustic guitar also sounds better, especially on classic 60s, and 70s recordings. I understand we live in the modern age, and not everyone has access or the money for Tape equipment so they record with what's available, but I love tape! It's good to know it's still in use. Some groups have even embraces a "hybrid tape/digital" approach where they record tracks on tape, and mix down digitally. All I can say, is I'm all for tape if possible.
I think the most important difference isn’t in the timbre, that actually the easiest part to tweak; but there is definitely a sort of “bounciness” present in the tape examples that make it more pleasant/exciting to ear over the flatter overall response of digital.
Tape naturally sidechains it sounds like.. wonder if that is my ears or something going on with the audio science
Great video 👍🏻👍🏻Having been involved with Studios in the 80's/90's, I personally think this absolutely proves that Plug-ins and Digital mixing has been perfected and definitely caught up to Analog Mixing, meaning that it not only sounds AS GOOD, but look at the advantages!!! Not only the time and conviniences, being able to record drums in your living room or any decent room at home... but THE MONEY 🤑🤑🤑... These tape machines cost more than a car, then all the rack processors, cabling expensive mixers and huge spaces to make this all work, that with acoustic treatments etc.etc... Definetely A LEAP FORWARD for Musicians and the music industry. Congrats👍🏻👍🏻
The tape machines are dirt cheap now used, and since they were built like tanks and designed for maintainability, repairable. But need for perfectionism and ongoing maintenance continues.
Can we just appreciate the beautiful drumming and mixing? I am a drummer and producer and the difference is neglible to my ears. Sure, the 5% warmer sound is nice, but the flow in just recording to digital is so much worth it.
So funny. I just recorded two albums to tape last year, and the difference was mostly of psychological nature. No looking at screens, just one more take until the tape is full, the lore of magic. Those things really played a part in the overall making of the records but I gladly record most of anything to digital. The recording in this video is up there man! Cheers!
I agree 100% recording via digital so much easier, but if you have access to all that great sounding outboard (and tape) then you'd be crazy not to consider using it. That warmth may not be very apparent during the recording and initial mix, but when the mastering engineer is squeezing the final few dBs out and all the subtle detail is being brought forward, that's when having the great sounding source is so important.
Rooms definitely sounded better on tape to my ears but on the close mics it was negligible. Great video!
Listen to the snare decay, way longer on the tape, and more body on all the drums.
Listen again to the snare... Big difference I agree on the room also..
I love your channel, congrats! But now, if you allow me to say, I think you should try to record a whole band next time to really see the difference. I mean, all the experiences involving analog recording are very complex, I mean, I use to say that there's just one very important thing that digital recording never will have: IMPERFECTION! The combination of all of those little "whims" that analog recording can provide is what makes the magic happen, and trust me, I've been doing this for the last 44 years now! lol. Awesome content, good job! Sending love from Brazil! 💙
Very subtle difference but I think I would prefer the tape too. I wonder if there is a greater difference from the audio before being uploaded to youtube due to the youtube compression. Would be interesting to have the tracks available for download to check, as I would guess there is possibly more of difference before being uploaded.
With a Little Saturation, Little Eq Boost on highs and a little squash on the transients designer = Tape Record = your money Back = Your time Back =D
maybe you can do this just with the 1176 (blue) settings , less time atack and a lot of compression, or ir separeted plug ins too
Salutes From a Brazilian Producer
Crazy, the tape sounds more squashed but punchier at the same time. Like the transients are shaved off but in a better way. I'm wondering if this would help the mixing/mastering process later, since I'm assuming it would need less limiting. From what I've seen, usually in mastering the drum transients are the first to go.
Also to me, the tape saturation sounds "splooshy".. like its a very specific vibe that was way more obvious in this comparison! Then obviously digital is just crystal clean. Sick comparison man!
I went to an audio recording school in AZ where they taught us how to calibrate 24 track tape machines. We had an Otari 24 track and a Studar 24 track machine. We had every type of analog outboard gear from Manly compressors, LA2A compressors to high end reverb. We even had an SSLG+, a Neotek Eleite and a Nieve which was replaced by an API board later. I do miss the sessions we did at the school, we were able to bring in local bands, check out a room if available and check out almost any mic we wanted and were able to just experiment for 6hrs each session. It was so much fun. This was back in 2008.
It's funny how I was expecting much more of a difference ! Eric Valentine has a cool Saturn2 technique to reproduce the transient shaving and excitement that tape brings. Considering the price of tape machines and tape itself, it's nice to hear we're not missing that much by using digital gear.
My thoughts too
Is there a tutorial available for that transient shaving technique? Peeked my interest!
is there a video for this saturn 2 thechnique?
I think they should have drove the tape harder. Most analog year needs to be pushed a little harder to make the differences.
The snare has quite a bit more snap, though on tape.
Yeah, I'm over the "tApE sOuNdS bEtTeR" thing. It doesn't, especially for the price you pay. What most people think of as the sound of "tape" is really just the sound of people engineering a record competently and not loading it down with a bunch of digitized schmaltz.
That snare sounds amazing
the snare is where I hear the most drastic difference, and I do like it. Overall there is a pressense to the drums overall that seems to fade away in the tape version when listening to the full song vs the full song with digital drums, but it also feels more glued to the song, so its an interesting give and take I suppose.
It's interesting and sort of funny to see someone go to tape for the first time. I was nostalgic when he commented that adjusting outboard gear while being way out of the monitoring sweet spot was challenging. Now, try a session totally without a DAW. Then the real test begins. Punch in's and outs, no undo, edits..... making decisions, mixing! Little or no automation. Yup.....Could you do it? Oh, and calibrating a tape machine is a whole world unto itself. Oscilloscope purchase, tape cost calibration tape purchase - yikes! Glad you noted some of this here! Anyway, I am not advocating going back to all analog - simply remembering. Also, I'm saying that it's good to learn the analog method too because it teaches you soooooo much that is usable in the digital domain. Great video!
I got my start on tape and really missed the mojo when I got ProTools. Cranesong Phoenix and McDsp AC were the closest things I had back then and totally saved the day for me, but now there are so many amazing tape emulations out there that give me all the same "feels" that I could never go back. Such an amazing comparison though and huge props for putting this out here for us all to hear...and btw...what a killer song, vocal and track too!!!
The only way to get real tape sound is with real tape. Hell, even a cheap radio shack cassette deck sounds better than tape emulations
@@dannydaniel8975 It really depends on what you want. A cheap Radio Shack cassette deck sounds like a shitty radio shack cassette deck. It will never be better than that.
@@freethinksman4393
Nor will plugins ever sound analog
man, you really do make the best music tutorial / studio engineer / production / mix help videos ever, Jordan! props.. really dug this one. there's nothing i can add, opinion-wise that you didn't already perfectly say here in this tape/digital adventure. thanks for posting!
Really excellent comparison. I admit I'm biased as I started out working in 24 track Tape studios but I think you are spot on with the plus and minus comparison. Digital has come a very long way and the unique qualities of tape can be worked into your mix and the setup in a template so you can be as close to that vibe as possible without the laboriously long prep time. We would spend hours getting a good drum sound then if it was a live rhythm section all the work with those instruments and the logistics of that would cause the musicians to feel a bit drug out by the time we were ready to actually cut tape. I'll have fond memories of those days but yea, the efficiency of digital is better for getting things down while everyone is hot.
I started recording, performing and doing studio tech workin the 70s. I was in a band and got a used Teac 3340 and learned what it was like to bounce 3 tracks to one, then filled up the rest, then mixed to another 1/4" tape machine, no high end to speak of, but the thrill of punching in, cutting tape was quite a rush. Moved up to 8 track, dbx noise reduction units, then working in commercial studios with a myriad of different 16, 24 and 32 track machines, both analogue then digital open reel machines, all the different synchronizing equipment, dolby A, then SR, consoles of all shapes and sizes, outboard gear from floor to ceiling, mixing to pcm formats, first using decoders in tandem with vcrs, then DAT machines, mini discs, ADAT machines, then the first 8 track digidesign interfaces synced to ADATs....man what a lot of hardware came and went, I am sure you could build a fleet of buses from all the scrap metal from all that was produced, sold for top dollar and dumped for pennies 10-20 years later. I was always taught that the most important gear in the studio is your ears and what is between them, the rest is extra. If you don't understand how sound "works" in the room you are recording in and you can't make a decent recording with 1 mic and 1 track, on whatever medium, then do not hope that all the snappy gear in the world, virtual or physical will make it better. Make the best of what you have.
I completely agree with you, I'd pick the tape one, but cost and effort doesn't worth it. Also the console played a big role though!!
right, let's not discount the Neve
im pretty sure the digital version also ran through the same console and analog compression/eq
also dan worral has a good video comparing an analog and a digital console and it pretty much completely nulled out
I preferred the digital sound. Tape was bringing out some bad stuff in the snare that I didn't care for. Lots of ring and overtone. Digital had that clean crack I was looking for. Cymbals sounded a little more smooth on tape. Really cool experiment. Thanks putting the work in and showing it to us!
Great video! Next, I'd like to see the comparison of adding tape emulation plugins to the digital signal and comparing those to the physical tape. Kudos to your educational and enlightening channel.
Let’s be honest, any modern comparison of the two formats has to include those things you mentioned, otherwise it’s not really viable as a comparison, in terms of asking ‘can digital sound so much like tape that in a blind A/B/X test no one, including experts, can tell the difference’?
The problem here is UA-cam. I listened on multiple deceives and through my monitors, then tried to get a sound like it myslef with EzDrummer, plugins Distessor, Pro Q, Tape Saturator and LA-2. What I noticed is just how compressesed yours was. Thats not you, its UA-cam. I'm very, very far from being any good, but its amazing what you can do now in the box. I bet in the room the tape was all the clichés and amazing, but.... Good enough now, is good enough. Great video and song.
amazing video. Thanks all for the work that went into this.
Man, what a great set up. 24 track with a Neve board, 1176s and all that other outboard gear. You really got the analogue experience. I spent a lot of days and nights at Larabee Sound in LA back in the 80s. The tape playback through those massive speakers was just insane. I've never heard it that vibey since then. But it was a gigantic pain in the butt. I often wonder whether the tape machines that would be built today with todays technology would be easier to use and less prone to messing up. Great video brother. Awesome!
I'm listening on BeyerDynamic Dt-990 open back headphones and a decent DAC and I can *barely* hear a difference. This gives me even more confidence in digital.
I was able to discern more transient information on the rooms mics over my iPhone speakers 😅 we are not the same
:(
It's not the gear, it's your ear.
If you cannot hear a clear difference you may need train your listening as you could be missing some major elements.
So you can sing on a microphone from Best Buy and it will sound just as good as a Neuman U47 ?????? Please don't say yes to that, please :(@@petegiant
@@OperationChicago Listening is different to recording. To a certain extent your ears will get you further than your gear.
This is a really great video. As a now "getting older" audio engineer I'm still very fond of the tape sound. I grew up in the 80s and 90s listening to tape cassettes and had a ton of CDs and I just loved the sound of all of the productions from the analog era. I think a big part of the sound is having the whole production from tracking to mixing and mastering all to tape and in the analog domain that makes a pretty big difference in my view as opposed to using tape as an "effect" for one instrument and then dumping that back into the digital domain.
I think they should improve on tape technology to make it more user-friendly and a viable option instead of using ancient machines.
I liked the tape sound. Crispy was a good way to describe it, probably the analog saturation working.
I would say it sounds "more real" and less processed in a good way. The digital drums sounded more contemporary, nothing wrong it. But the analog recording did add something cool in my humble opinion. 🎉
Great video man. I know a ton of work went into this. You can definitely hear differences between the two, but I was honestly surprised by how little the differences were. I guess I expected there to be a bigger difference. That tells me that tape machine was seriously dialed in. For it to sound as clean as digital with some very MINOR subtle compression and saturation, that's impressive.
Steven Wilson of Porcupine Tree said that in 2001 when they were tracking the In Absentia album in NY, they tracked Gavin Harrison with and without tape, and then compared. They sent all the reels of tape back. Just have a listen to that album and tell me those drums dont absolutely kick ass.
I digress. Loved watching this process in your vid man. And btw great mix on that track.
I like how it tames the high end a bit, sounds a bit smoother. That said, it's not a drastic difference.
Great video as always! There is a video at "Inside Blackbird" with Marc Daniel Nelson recording a live band on 8 tracks. They did an comparison between an 8-track, 16-track and 24-track tape machines and Protools using HDX converters. All three tape machines were 2-inch and recorded at 15 IPS. You can hear some serious differences between the 8-track and Protools. The 8-track recording, having more tape per track (1/4"), sounded more open with a lot more depth (like if the band was in front of you). The 16-track (1/8" per track) still sounded great but not as open as the 8-track. The 24-track (1/12" per track) sounded really close to Protools but one thing you can hear is that the sound of Protools felt like it had only two dimensions whereas the tape felt tridimensional. Interesting video. I would recommend everybody to watch it and make their own conclusions. Now, tape saturation may also bring some significant differences between tape and digital recordings.
Very interesting and in depht video ! Thanks to let us dive into that kind of studio session. I would say for a pop-rock / punk / hc drum recording, the transients are a bit too squashed but in other genres it would work well. On the other side, it would be interesting to try it on heavy guitars or bass.
But for the rooms I believe I definitly prefered the tape version.
What are you talking about? The transients being too squashed? Once it's done with mastering, it's nothing but a brick wall. Zero dynamics. But that's what the kids want.
To my ears, on the JVC Gumy Plus earbud headphones I'm listening on, the difference was pretty negligible, except when testing the kick and snare only, where the difference was glaringly obvious with the tape sounding louder and more punchy.
This video is fantastic! Beautiful explanation of what tape does to drums. The rounding of transients and creating more harmonic rich content might not be good for your song. The Slate Virtual Tape Machine is a perfect plugin to hear the differences on your mix tracks. It is a beautiful tool to sit things in your mix better and take harshness out if needed.
The difference is very noticeable for those that actually listen to hear the difference but that is the issue right, being able to hear the difference?
There are people that actually can't, no fault if their own.
Tape has always sounded great to me, digital can sound great to me.
Saturation & transient are so much better with the Tape! Thanks for this video.
Hint: in a full song mix with other tracks and instruments these minimal differences are not audible. ^^
Would love to hear how those tape tracks sound like compared to UAD Studer plugin. Especially now that it's available in native and with a free trial. Could be a good middle ground
That Studer is kick ass for sure. I like it for 2 bus, but on every track is a little too thick.
Great video! The greatest advantage to me is Spatialization. The tiny imperfections of analog give us 3D space. It's just a better experience when the space the speakers create is bigger and more nuanced. That's the ultimate mixing goal, that feeling.
Tracking a band and producing on Tape is an “never-going-back” experience.
Realistically, you do have to go back though, but it does kind of ruin what you thought was good with a pure ITB setup.
This video is so well produced, i kept coming back to it. Great work, Jordan!
Grab your free Mixing Cheatsheet to learn the go-to starting points for EQ and compression in heavy mixes: hardcoremusicstudio.com/mixcheatsheet
May I ask name of song on the video?
Hi! I like to know at what sample you record the drums? Thanks in advance
can you add in description audio previews or add video to another service like dailymotion?
When i went to audio school (2007) they showed us how to calibrate tape and record with it (how our final project had to be done). Pro tools was on version 7 and in general working 100% in the box was no where near as good as working with hardware or on a console. The few hardware emulations out there were awful sounding. I learned a lot. I’ve never worked with tape since, but it sounded good! When i am in a room with modern engineers and they sit in front of a console they are always a little shocked when i just know how it all works and they are completely confused. Makes me sad that i spent so much time learning the ropes of the analog world only to have that rug pulled out from under me upon graduation and most big studios close and huge leaps in DAWs and plugins came soon after. The barrier to entry is just huge now and everyone wants to pay as little as possible because we’re all broke. Not the same economic environment i started in. Which is a BIG reason why people don’t record to tape anymore, it’s very expensive and calibration takes a while, which means paying for the space and time of the engineer and assistant.
As far as the digital vs analog, the kick sounds sooo much better on tape. Sometimes I’ll add a tape sim on to my kick track for extra oomph. Overall the tape feels like it has that extra polished ‘pro’ sound. Is it worth it though? Not imo. I’m curious how using tape emulation plugins would compared to the actual tape.
the tape version did sound slightly better to me, a subtle difference. and slightly more noticeable in the full mix i thought
Love the tape. I could really hear it in the full drum mix and room mics.
I got to record to tape once and I loved how my drums sounded.
My bucket list is to record with Steve Albini in his studio, on tape.
Thanks for making this video.
This is a great video! Im curious to know if you insert any type of tape emulation into every track would bring it closer to the actual tape sound, were you able to try this?
It gets you about 90% of the way. If all you want is to add some vibe and contrast, "good enough!" If you're a die-hard purist, maybe not.
This was an easy subscription. Great content and editing! Keep them coming!
Edit: You just proved that tape isn't necessary for a great recording and that the engineer's use of hardware (consoles and outboard gear) had the biggest impact on recordings. Although most vintage gear was designed to be transparent, tape was the medium, so that had to be the cleanest. It's interesting even at 15ips, the tape still sounded clean. I've worked with master tape, but this is one of best examples of 24-track tape and the sound that it imparts on the source. Thank you for sharing, this was very educational and entertaining!
Flawless video, from the production to the musical result and showing the process clearly and enjoyably :)
I love this because, it's a great example of how subtleties are built up through the whole process.
What the tape did may not be majorly apparent at first to some, but it's when you start processing it that it becomes overy obvious indeed.
That splat, pillowy hits, glue and sustain is the tape sound.
And you like that enhancement.
So what pro engineers did when first going ITB with plugins, was to find ways to enhance their sound with the same traits.
Because back then the plugins didn't exist, or they just sounded nothing like tape.
Thanks for doing this! I actually very much preferred the digital version until things were mixed, then I only SLIGHTLY preferred the tape version. There was some nastiness in the cymbals on the tape version that negated any minor benefits until you apparently tamed that in the mix. I'm really underwhelmed by the tape for how expensive and laborious it is. At the same time I'm still incredibly fascinated with older technology and it makes me sad to see it disappear even if it is obsolete. We stand on the shoulders of giants.
I noticed that too, the top end was nice but 2-3k screeching a bit really surprised me.
I definitely liked the tape a lot better. It just feels more right. Also, props for not slamming it super hot to make it obvious.
I used to work in a Studer A827 studio and I think for rock, or more old school genres tape is just more satisfying and easy on the ears. Loud music isn't meant for hard transients for the listener. The bummer though is that not all of the goodness translates to digital capture, but enough does. It makes mixing a lot easier too because dynamics are less finicky and there is more natural presence.
If I could I would still do as much analog recording and mixing as possible. Even the workflow is chill when you have to wait for the tape transport vs frantically clicking over and over.
Hoenstly I think the biggest difference I heard was in the full track. The version with the drums on tape just kinda... felt better, somehow. Like, the drums weren't getting in the way of the vocals as much, and the whole mix just felt more cohesive.
That saturation on crashes and the hihat - dead giveaway even without the labels in the video. So much more depth and oomph to the snare.
What a nice and fun experience that must have been. Haven't recorded onto tape since 1993/4.
The difference between the drums on tape vs digital is very small, but... if you record an entire song on tape compared to digital, the sound as a whole is far warmer and spirited IMO. That's why records up to the mid 90s sound more wholesome and 'live' than the sterile Protools pap that came afterwards.
I'll take far cleaner, more dynamic, and exacted digital tools over murky, EQ tilted, and noisy tape.
Like, I can emulate basically everything tape can do, character wise, and I highly doubt anyone could tell. A little glue, a little open high end with a wider soundstage, some focused and slightly tilted EQ, maybe even some phasing, warble, tape hiss, etc,. at extremely miniscule levels (5% or less) with automated looping.
I just don't see the need for tape ever again considering 32-bit float and modern editing techniques. Razor sharp EQ, new methods of ducking, insane reverb now, etc,.
But of course, everyone has their opinions and yours about tape is true. It IS enough of a sound, and unique to each session, that it takes many songs to the next level.
I just personally think it's very genre dependant. I would love tape on some groovier, more funky genres than I would dance or metal. The cohesion/glue is very pleasant, but there's nothing imo tape does that you can't emulate easily.
'course I love cassettes and vinyl. It's hard to separate what I like to listen to, from what I want analytically in a track I've worked on.
Some people just like the work flow when recording analog rather than looking at a screen for hours. It's a total physical process. Having a mixing console with a channel strip and outboard gear that you can make physical adjustments is really an awesome thing. You also only have your ears to rely on because there is no visual representation of the sound coming in or going out other than the meters on the tape machine, console, and outboard gear you use. I personally like tape better although I still record with a DAW sometimes. So im not saying the digital world by any means. I just think it's more fun for me personally rather than working on a computer.😊😊😊
Both sounds fine and difference is not big one.For the average listener there will not be difference.
Again Im Repeating when you said. For the average listener there will not be difference. ( THEY WONT NOTICE) Half of them Might even skip the Track at 10 seconds lol but I Love that he is passionate about it. nothing beats passion and maybe God pours that passion into him so we the "Regular can just relax and enjoy what we hear" and not think of how the panning and the Saturation is and if it was recorded to Tape or not..... at the end of the day it dont matter ( to the regular people )
With tape, immediately everything sounded separated and alive, nice video 🤙🏼
can't really hear the difference. recording to tape is pain tho
digital rules)
I think one thing that maybe missing from this video is the clipping - slamming stuff to tape is such a part of tape recording for that extra crispy compression, something prince would do on every track of his sessions for example. My experience of this was recording to a 1969 Scully 8 track, tracking drums, guitar and bass together. However, this old tape machine needed new trim pots installing, and we couldn’t get one channel to work (a big deal when you only have 8 lol). So we went to digital instead. The sound immediately became totally hollow, I was so disappointed. I’ve been trying to mix those stems for ten years since and they never sound quite right, like they did when the tape machine was rolling. That maybe the transformers, the transistors and the tape all working together, but it made one hell of a difference 😊
Dude, the tape was awesome . So much depth I mean. Seriously I never expected this much of a difference.
When compared side by side, tape sounded like a bangin’ performance imho.
Okay... it's NOT JUST RECORDING to TAPE that makes a difference, but the SPEED of the tape and the WIDTH of the tracks. In the late 90s I saw a company demoing their 2" eight track headstack for a Studer A827. One of these was used to record drums for an Ozzy Osborne record, recording the drums at 7.5 IPS... offering IMMENSE LOW END! YES... recording drums on analog tape will sound better than digital, but be smart and record them at 15 IPS for the best overall tradeoff between high frequency fidelity and solid low end... then to make things even better, make sure that you're recording on a 2" 16 track machine (and NOT an OTARI MX-70 because it's a bit of a compromise overall)... something like a refurbished MCI or an Otari MTR-90 MkII or MkIII, or a Studer A827... but the 16 track stack has a greater track width. Then don't be afraid to record at a hotter level and you'll be amazed. Just do a LOT of listening tests to find your own 'sweet spot' in your process.
Not a real difference to me honestly
Me too I dont hear it.. and I'm using My Audio tehnica and HS8 Speakers but these guys look on things deeper so they maybe hearing a slight difference for real because they have more experience than us professionally ( I guess ) but the Regular public wont hear the difference to be honest. I wouldnt Kill my self to record on tape in 2023 🤷♂ no one cares when a hit Record or copyright free music is done on a Tape or on a Phone.
Not enough to justify a several thousand dollar purchase of a tape machine and associated outboard, and the tape itself which runs several hundred per 20 minutes or so.
I don't think we can distinguish much difference because we are listening through UA-cam, which standardizes the sound when uploading video. It's just an idea, I'm not an expert, but it makes sense to me.
@@delbosdrums this is a good Point! so the Master he has maybe he should have a track link for us to download to hear the file, because youtube conversion in bitrate will tear that down. He should make the Original Files available to us so we can judge that!
What?? Clearly more high end and excitement on the tape recordings. Also clearly less dynamic range; slightly more “squeezed” feeling. I don’t think it’s worth the hassle for most people, especially in this genre.
This was a video I didn't even know I wanted, down to the T. Really cool experiment, and the A/B comparisons were extremely well-done. Thoroughly enjoyed.
Digital sounds better to my ears. More Punch. You can always squash it later if you really want to do that.
In this case I really didn't hear a difference, which surprised me. It could be the speakers that I'm using, but because the difference is so subtle, you did a fantastic job mixing everything down and having it sound consistent the whole way through. I may have to listen again, but good job. I really enjoyed this.
Definite difference, especially in the OH's and Rooms. And I think that's where tape wins IMO. But you're right. In the end, it's not enough to win over the convenience of digital... especially with the cost of tape. I've been fortunate enough to work with both for years. And I would choose digital in the end. BUT, if there is a tape machine at the studio, it would be worth running it thru the repro head without recording to tape. Just another sort of color to the sound on the way into Tools. Great video and great info and examples. Really appreciate your hard work. This is one of the few channels that are very honest and legit.
Thanks fellows for making the time to put this experimental and most interesting test together. The differences really are so close. This means a lot to me personally as I produce mostly in the box. Great stuff.
Nice video, well done.
On my last album Yay! (2014) I did both overdubs and mixes at Revolution using both the Neve and SSL rooms.
It's still my favorite "sounding" album I've done.
Tape rules but yes, waaaaaaaay to much hassle.
There's no way I could afford to do it that way again.
Steve was around at a few of my sessions, super guy.
It's when mixing down the 24-track to a 2-track at 15ips the magic happens. All tracks gets the same compression and sounds more collected together, plus you get "the shine" in the top end. That's what a lot of these vst's are trying to emulate. This effect are more noticable on a 2-track than the 24-track, because on the multitrack the induvidual tracks compresses differently due to levels and dynamics of each track.
Man! Such a great concept for a video. That comparison is something I've been wanting to hear for a long time. Thank you!
Loved hearing and learning more about this. Thank you for making this video! I hear a difference for sure, but knowing I can get 90% of the way to "that sound" without having to sell my car for it helps me put this to bed. If I'm ever lucky enough to record in a studio like that, I'll be stoked. Until then, I'm fine with what little I have.
I heard the difference, but it was relatively small for sure. Drums only, I would pick the tape easily, but full mix is harder. Almost felt like the full mix needs the transients more, otherwise everything mushes together too much.
Practically speaking, if I wanted that sound, I would definitely just use a tape plugin and call it a day.
I used to be a big believer of trying to emulate any analog pieces you were missing, but I've been finding that not everything needs the full analog/analog emulation treatment. Some recent stuff I recorded, I tried throwing on Neve mic pre emulations and I honestly didn't like what it did to those particular tracks. The tape emu OTOH was nice so I kept that. It really depends.
lol. When you hear all of tha tape tracks together, it comes more alive. Plug in's should be illegal :(
I interned at United Sound Studios in Detroit (classic motown facility). Not only did I learn to calibrate and set up a 24 track tape machine, but I learned to do the literally opposite of what you do with digital. Instead of keeping it at -18 (or whatever your preference is), we would actually push it to +12 in some cases.