Sending a Digital Mix through Tape: Can You Hear the Difference?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 вер 2024
- this is a much-requested topic. Is sending a full digital band mix through analog tape worth it? use your ears and find out here! Of course, using the trusty TEAC A-2340 reel to reel on this one!
listen to the digital track:
open.spotify.c...
🙏 SUPPORT ME ON PATREON 🙏
/ madeontape
👂 Listen to the music of Made on Tape 👂
madeontape.ban...
spoti.fi/3dJFkXf
www.madeontape...
⌨️ FOLLOW ME ON THE INTERWEB 🖥 🕸
/ madeontape
/ madeontape
Peace and be good to each other ✌️
Ok I'll be the first out of 165 comments to say that C was mono.
damn this is an early video and I'm always chugging forward, not looking backward. So, thank you for watching first of all. I haven't listened since I published and I have no idea how that happened. Sounds mono to me, too. Might have to do this again...
hey y’all! until i remake this video, please check out this one
ua-cam.com/video/5CZGE9_-LW8/v-deo.html
He was pushing A too much in the red. 7,5 speed on my 2 channel deck is very close in the high end. But i use dark brown hi fi tape.
I love how tape rounds everything out. In this case, the way it pulled some of those sharp higher frequencies, especially from the snare transients, sounds best to me. Dig it. Cool song too. You’ve got a Talking Heads kinda thing going, and I’m here for it. 🙌🏼
thank you!
As an Recording Engineer, A was 7 1/2”, B was 3 3/4”, and C was Digital. I picked it up from the start.
you got those ears! thanks for listening!
I must have the ears of a recording engineer 🤠
The tapes sound pretty similar to me, but the guitar is so much sharper sounding (not in a good way) and not as warm if that makes sense. With the tape it's still fully in the mix, but feels a lot more pleasant.
Thank you for confirming
As an audiophile, a recording engineer, and an analog enthusiast, I could hear the difference very easily and I could pick out which were which.
Letter A is obviously VERY close to Letter C. The differences are that A naturally lacks the same amount of volume on the 2 very lowest frequencies and as well as on the very highest frequency.
However, you can get R2R to sound better than MP3s, but not lossless WAV, lossless AAC, and lossless FLAC (when all are 96 @ 320). You need the thickest R2R possible AND you must run it at the highest speed possible (this means that you will get a very short amoumt of recording time). The higher speed means less "wobble" in the tape, which means a better recording. Thicker tape means capturing all the frequencies with the most db possible. And one thing you must do is run your source of music through a separate equalizer, which can be on a MIDI, a portastudio, or it can be a separate stereo EQ device. You need to run from the source into the EQ first, and then you need to record the sound after it has been EQ'ed properly. If you start with a blu ray player, or any device that you know for sure can play sound at 96 @ 320, and you put lossless WAV, AAC, or FLAC files on a thumbdrive, and you play those files like that as your source, then you EQ them yourself, and you record onto the widest tape possible (10in is damn good) at the highest speed possible, THEN YOU WILL HAVE AN ANALOG RECORDING THAT BEATS DIGITAL MP3S.
Love it. I send mixes to my Tascam 388 and my 414 all the time. Blind tests are great for this! Awesome song btw.
the GREAT 388! thank you, sir! Thanks for watching!
Yoooo two of my favorite analog/ tape headdies conversing on the tube! What a time to be alive
Not surprised... that will save me 800$.
🙏🏻🙌🏻
@@MadeOnTape I forgot to thank you for that!!! Thanks!!! (great video btw)
thanks for checking it out and happy creating!@@prinzbach
The digital mix sounded the best, the highs were clearer and the mix had room to breathe. The tape recordings sounded so congested to me. Thanks this video helped me confirm that tape machine mixing and mastering is a waste of money and messes up the sound of your music.
1. You have to know the machine 2. You have to know what to feed the machine. 3. You have to know 1 and 2 to get a desired result that makes the source better. "Better" in art is subjective. Dirty is better, cleaner is better, darker is better etc...Depends completely on the desired result. As a studio owner, I know my machine. I know what to feed it and I know the results. Adding top end purposefully to a source before hitting tape was/is a common practice with tape. Depends on the tape, depends on the speed, depends on the machine; refer to #1. Stemming out from a daw to tape and back is a common practice still today, especially with drums, bass, guitar bus etc. On a side note: A high shelf before hitting that consumer grade machine is actually nice sounding at 7.5 ips. I'm running Ampex 456 +6 @ 15ips on a Tascam MS16. Cheers on vids, I enjoy these.
this ⬆️ ! 💯
knowing your gear is TRULY the whole point of this channel’s ethos. You can get intimate and make great stuff if you put your efforts there!
thank you for watching and sharing your input 🙏
best comment yet on this subject
what about running only a fewb track through tape is there any issues on the return in regards to re-lining of the tracks
@@corystevenponzo7007 There is a delay, but all tracks delay the same together. This is assuming the tape machine is well maintained and aligned properly. Therefore you would need to send "all" tracks of the song through or run a 1k test signal through the machine and print back into your daw. There you can determine the delay and adjust the tracks not run through tape to align to the ones that did get run through tape. Hope that helps.
The tape definitely gives a little more warmth to the low end and the stereo image, to me, seems wider, but in a flattering way.
I could definitely tell C was the digital, my first thought when I heard the digital track actually wasn't that it had more high end, but that it sounded drier than the other two. Sometimes I have trouble EQing a Porta Two mix to be warm and saturated without also sounding a bit muddy, the reel to reel does a great job there!
wise words! great description!
To my ears you I heard a high end cut as when you went from tape to digital, but personally I like the warmth and bass sound from tape myself..
i do like that too! i might try running individual elements from a mic next time
I knew which was which immediately,could definitely see the 7.5 being useful
7.5 opens the mix a lot. Great demo. Thank you!
Awfully bad demo because...Digital is mono. And because YT is not a good media for this, audio is compressed (MPEG). And all this is so exaggerated that I wonder if the whole thing has not been made in the box with imaging softwares ! When I read the comments of self-saying "audio engineers", I laugh. All these vids have no sense, may be the publishers just hope some clicks, some readings...and some comments. And it works !!! :)
good experiment - brings me back
Man B Sounded Great
Very cool. All were cool. Loved the mono effect of C, loved A for it's colored fidelity, and loved B on the low end and the high pass. Thank you for the cool comparison!
I just picked up a similar quality machine. I’m looking forward to experimenting with it. More likely in a hibred type way.
Tape definitely rounds off the top end. I watched a vid the other day and the tape at 15”/sec was so subtle it hardly seemed worth it.
I got it right, surprisingly. A is the more ideal sound, however B was my personal favorite.
Very subtle - artist choice - know your tools-and what they can do-experiment -good stuff you are doin-peace out
I like c best , it sounds a bit more open and has more midrange . B sounds like it has a blanket over it compared to a and c
I guessed right. It is a no brainer. Digital is cold while analog is full body and warm sounding. Faster tape capturers better detail than slow tape.
Brother I’m so glad you made this video! I definitely knew C was the DAW. It had that typical digital super clean high end. After that it was pretty easy to pick out the tape machine settings. Definitely enjoyed the 7.5!!
So what’s next? Taking the mix out through the cassette??? 👍🏻😁
PS…… also enjoyed the track! I can definitely tell you’re a fan of the talking heads! As am I!!! 🤜🏻🤛🏻
heck yes Talking Heads! thanks for inspiring this videos topic! i might try techniques with the cassette now too 😂
📼🎼🤘✌️
@@MadeOnTape Hey man thanks for making great videos!!! I’ve always been intrigued by the tape side of things, especially the combination of digital and tape!!! 👍🏻😁
a cassette machine might not perform as this reel to reel has
Yep, caught it too. Thank you for cool content and making my ears proud )
thanks for listening and the kind words!
C sounded the best
If this track were recorded entirely analog, while also having the signals split for digital.. it would be a different story. All the conversions from computer to tape and back take away the life of the tape bounces. When I record to tape i usually don’t touch the computer until the very last 2 track mix that goes in at 192k sample rate with a stereo limiter barely on for catching peaks. You run in to a lot of problems if your AD converters suck, but it helps when you are only putting your track through the conversion process once. Hell, I’ve found that doing bounces on a stereo cassette deck works better than bouncing to computer when you run out of tracks. But I’ve heard old DAT machines and hiFI VHS decks work better for the bouncing scenario.
great advice and I agree! If you can afford to stay in analog until the 2 track, then you've got a lot less work to do ... thanks for watching!
I like how average UA-cam avc1.640028 opus 251 compressed audio is good enough to tell the difference between theses tapes and the original.
B is duller...A smooths it out...I bet if this was done on a really fast machine, like a 15 ips machine on 1/2 inch tape, it would be sweet like sugar...thanks for taking the time to do this and sharing it with us.
thanks for listening!
A was awesome
Definitely running my mixes through tape
Love your funky songs. Tape has the best vibe but for a final mix would want a super hi fi with tape, like a Quincy Jones production. Tape has instant vibe its true and its so good and right to have that in the my creative process. I'm loving your channel.
thanks for watching and the kind words! let's see if I ever get crazy enough to acquire a big Quincy machine lol
im gussing right !!! A tape ips 7.5 B 3.5 tape really glue elements toghether!! well done !
I was able to spot the differences and I picked the right options.
My thought process was, B has more low end and less highs, C sounds super sterile and hi-fi, so by default A was the faster tape speed.
It could've been luck tho, but the differences are quite noticeable in my opinion.
thanks for listening!
Great test. Very noticeable difference right away because of the difference in frequency response. I'm curious if we would be able to hear as much of a difference if you matched the frequency spectrums with a matching EQ. Then the difference would just come down to saturation, compression, wow and flutter and we can really hear what the tape is doing.
The A and B has more dynamics , tight, more articulate sound , more instrument and voice separation. The C sound like an mp3 .
7.5 ips was quite good. I do like how the rolloff naturally occurs above 10K on the analogue tape>. Yes, this would be good for taming the digititis of drum samples.
I do this with instruments tracks....on tape and sometimes only using the preamp of the tape recorder....it gives the signal a kind of warmth...it really makes a great difference in color and a little subtle distortion....by the way nice track man
thank you! I've thought about using just the preamps on the TEAC! Probably a future video topic, of course!
📼🎼🤘
Very Nice !! I always wondered about this ...Thanks Bro!! I just like that hallow feel of tape ....It seems just a little less harsh !! ...I think it relaxes me more!! I was even think maybe part of the reason people don't listen 2 whole albums is because digital becomes more irritable over time !!??? I think it is a good idea to have both !!!
both is best 🥰
People [such as myself] that grew up in the pre-digital age [I was 21 when compact discs hit the scene] will very often have a natural bias towards analog because that is what our ears were weaned on. I know I do and I preferred the version at 7&1/2ips over the purely digital file.
I was raised on the same music! thanks for listening!
Man, that is some cool track; you nailed that no wave vibe!
thank you Gina! 🙏
3.75 IPS is REALLY slow, isn't it? I've only worked with tape machine plugins. But they usually have 7.5, 15, and 30. Never even knew 3.75 existed. On the plugins, I always find myself gravitating toward 15. It darkens the sound a bit but not excessively so. I find that 7.5 is almost always too much. 30 is generally too bright for me.
15 is definitely a sweet spot for a classic hi fi sound: 30 is almost too hi-fi, and these older recorders have that “mid-fi” vibe with the slower IPS
Forget that, I send my digital mixes through TUBES, and it's a circuit that I came up with.
heck yes!!! 🤘
Cool experiment. The degradation is not necessarily from the tape machine as much as the Apollo twin. You would need excellent converters (Lynx Hilo for example) and a dedicated clock (Grimm) to really hear the tape. The difference would be more than slight. But still dope vid.
yo! thanks for checking it out! Maybe one day I will be able to afford the Lynx Hilo!
I've been using the UAD plugin at usually 30 ips. I prefer the effects to be much more subtle while still giving me a fatter sound.
Man you just made my mind up...Im getting a Reel a Reel.....
hope you got one and are having fun!
A good way to do this, as with all three head recorders, is to make the recording and transfers in one fell swoop. This way if you have a dead spot or any wrinkle or blemish in the tape, you can heat it in real time, stop and restart the transfer. Also, There is a little more fresh vitality in a magnetic recording that is just a half second old, that quickly fades in scant seconds, to the stable state it will stay... like when you flood a glow in the dark object with light for a second, and it glows brightly for that first moment... if you can catch that first moment of the tape still 'glowing' you'll have a better representation of your analog recording. Plus it's a much faster process.
Using a passive DI in reverse (balanced to unbalanced) will improve the sound quality. Using a DI on the way back in (if output is unbalanced) perhaps hitting a preamp in the way in will also improve the quality. AES and RANE have great resources in regards to mixing balanced (your interface) and unbalanced (your tape) equipment.
ah thanks for the info! I'll go check out the AES and RANE resources! 🙏
it will add saturation from the transformer. but in reverse you step the signal from 600 ohm to 30,000 ohms plus. your input on the tape machined is 10k ohms or 600 ohms so a 30,000 ohm di will usually have frequency response change. this also changes your signal to noise ratio for the worse amplifying hiss on your interface output stage and tape input. balanced does not matter for short cables. think of a home stereo. if you like transformer saturation build a box using 600 to 600 ohm 1:1 or 600 to somewhere between 6k or 10k around 1:7(di is 1:15 or more). build one in reverse back into your interface now you got tape and iron saturation. OEP or VTX transformers this can be done for 100 bucks.
@@corystevenponzo7007 so you’re saying it’s not a great idea going from computer > DI reamp box > tape? I’ve always wondered if it would make a huge difference or not.
Yes I reckon it would. I've run cd into my Technics 1506 and Teac 1000x ....if the source is good tape and system it will add body and some warmth. I don't mind hiss. Bass bump is fun. Like your video.
Nice experiment ! That would be interesting to record some pieces from both speeds and replay this in parallel with the DAW and the tape with the inverted phase, we would immediatly hear and only hear the difference with the 3 !
I gotta try it! My concern is that playback on tape is not as consistent as a digital recording, so it might not be a great comparison. But...I will follow my own philosophy and try it! Great suggestion!
I hear a big Talking Heads influence
yer not wrong!
I could tell immediately and I agree with the answers. Yes and Maybe
I wouldn't do it like this - I would record each track individually and saturate them based on their material (bass heavy can't be driven loud obviously). The vintage mojo usually came from multitrack tape machines where each track was on their own and they were driven over the recommended level. : )
heck yes! Have you seen my video on the the MCI 16-track recorder? Thanks for watching 🙏
ua-cam.com/video/WQ7zzWQ6Zss/v-deo.html
@@MadeOnTape I'll have to check it out!
Of course, this deck could be calibrated to yield more high end in the recording, vs the slight cut it exhibited... or a choice of tape might fo the same... 3 3/4 is just too slow to achieve a hifi result. Bearing in mind that these speeds were all based on the cost contingent, what could be done on a consumer level deck, vs diminished returns... etc. One thing i used to do is get some very fine thin adhesive tape and increase the size of the pinch roller, effectively doubling the IPS... which will throw the bias way off, but give you a heck of a lot more headroom and a ton more high frequency push! It shows you how vastly tape speed changes the resolution of the recording... and will draw things out of the mix that you didn’t even know was there! A metal capable cassette deck, or 3 head cassette, like a Teac i had, was able to give great sound, as was a BIC, which had 2 speeds, one 2x the standard. And DBX equipped decks can really pull your bass program together and make the bass guitar and kick drum congeal in a way that's very funky and is an all but lost art today. It's a shame that there aren't any high level artists that occasionally delve into the world of less than digital hifi. The Black Keys recorded famously on a vintage tascam 388 1/4" 8 track, otherwise known as 6-track with 2 optional fuzzy drop out channels (i never had that problem, but i always serviced mine when that happened. Something you should learn, if you plan on going analog, as most engineers could perform basic servicing of their analog decks, in the day).
Normally people would press play in logic, record on the tape machine, hit stop rewind, press record in logic, playback the tape. But Instead Do this: take a multitrack song in logic, say 8 tracks, run 4 at a time into the tape machine, but record back into logic AT THE SAME TIME from the tape machines PLAYBACK heads(while its recording). This way the tracks don't get out of sync, if you wanted to do 4 more tracks on top of that. You may have to stripe your recording with a click at the beginning of all the tracks so you can line them up later to compensate for a slight tape head delay.
this is very good. Also, if you're bold enough, you can sum to 4 tracks and do the same.
How do you get sound directly from the playheads? Can this be done with cassette decks as well? (tascam portastudio, etc.) Thanks
@@Velociraptarus depends on the deck, does it have a tape monitor, or is it just an input monitor?
@@imothy I have nothing, but I'm looking for a Fostex x28h...
damn was totally skeptical until the random ABC test the difference is insane
nice demo!, the original mix was the best for my taste
Guessed right. Surprised at how much high end was cut out - huge difference. Makes me wonder about pushing more treble to tape. It smoothed out out but the digital mix sounded best.
on this machine and speed, high end is very cut. If you have a very expensive Ampex going 30ips, it's difficult to hear the difference between that and digital, but I think that's why those machines are rarely used now....and instead some of us are gravitating toward more "vibey" machines. thanks for listening!
I had no idea which version was which but i was like the B version was my favorite. I thought A was the daw but i knew i could be wrong because in the C version there was lot of high freq so… but B was my favorite version
point is that since there is so much high frequency rollof after hitting the tape and outboardgear, i thnk you should have compensated for that after the fact, then the mixes would have sounded more equal, but the warmth / fuzzyness (and saturation, but you didnt go for that..) of the tape would added to the Logicmix. but nice vid
that tape sounds rich and luscious as hell😭 gimmie tape decc plz
What i can hear is that tape sounds much more wider! (Wich i like) but at the same time it makes the mix sound loose, the digital sound much narrow but it sound more clear and punchy specially on snare and vocals.
operator error....C was mono....that has nothing to do with digital...
I agree. At the end of the video, the same song is played in stereo, I'm thinking thst was a digital cut
A video on this but with the tascam would be fun to see
noted! I could see using the TASCAM as an effect for an instrument or group of instruments within a mix...
I think with things like this, it has to be worth the extra round of ADC. I believe it only really makes a difference with source material made digitally (a soft synth made of 1s and 0s?) then sent through tape for some real-world analog vibe. Maybe a new test? I’ve been recording to a 688 and I’ve learned a couple neat tricks from this channel.
Also neat tune!
that's a great idea! I agree that giving digital instruments an analog run through really makes a BIG difference. Thanks for watching!
man i feel dac to adc round trip hardly effects the sound. so to be safe i try to do it once on mixdown as im on a 40-channel console. i think i might mix to tape and a daw at the same time so i can choose if the tape is right for the track. i also want to try running only a few tracks through tape not the whole mix
loved this. great video!
thank you!
I guessed that C was the original and I preferred both A and B to C.
C had greater crispness - but listening to this digitally recorded youtube video influences the sound quality I am experiencing. What did you think when you were listening to it live? I would have guessed that B was the 3.25...
I am rebuilding a late 1950s single track reel to reel and tube preamplifier - It will be interesting to see if I like the analog sound quality more than digital...
how’s that late 1950s reel to reel? it’s been so long since i made this video. To be totally honest, the original mix was out how i intended it, so running it through tape just messed with my overall EQ. If i planned ahead on a new piece of music i could take advantage of that though
I got all of them correct!
Wow I'm honestly impressed. Did not think it would make that much of a difference. Now an interested debate. An actual recording made on tape, versus a digital record copied on tape. Can you tell the difference? Hmmm...
B was bussin
🕺
Found this video through instagram, and I really liked the video delivery. For background, I’m 19, and listening on iPhone speakers while making breakfast.
I surprisingly spotted the digital the first time when C came around, there was just more high end crap that was really clear and as soon as it went to A I knew it was the digital. From there I just compared the other two to find which speed lol. I’d be very interested to hear a 15ips comparison to digital, as I record on a TEAC 2 track master deck at 15, but I never compared it to digital as I don’t own a DAC lol, so maybe it’s not worth it.
ahhh 15 IPS and you're getting into hi-fi for real! It's great to hear that a 19 year old is working in the analog world. For me it's nice to be creative off screens.
Thanks for stopping by and watching!
I'm with you. All the rest of the chain remaining equal, I think I'd like a 15 IPS version...
Nice comparison
Liked B the best honestly
thanks y’all! appreciate it
The 7.5ips bounce sounds better to me. It has a wider stereo image and a deeper more laid back tone without being dull. The digital source sounds edgier in the mids and more center heavy (mono)
I've just done exactly the same thing with my ReVox I just got repaired. I do a different kind of music and I've found if some tracks sounded better and some which weren't particular clear in the first place are worse. Not only could I hear the difference I could see the difference in terms of rounding of transients..I got alot more tape compression than I thought..more than I normally get from tape emulation plugins. But thinking about it, if I were to do a mix that I was intending to bounce down to tape I'd do the mix differently in the first place and that must have been what engineers did in the past. If I could figure out how to do the synchronisation I'd track to tape and then mix / master the results digitally.
Apparently there is some difference in audio quality depending on NAB's or trident hub use. That would be awesome if you could test this too.
wow never heard that before! very interesting....
@@MadeOnTape Curious if we can hear it....
I think you're getting mixed up with NAB and IEC equalisation. The notion that trident hubs vs NAB hubs affects the sound is not only something I've never heard of before - and trust me I've heard all the snake-oil stories going - but it's purely within the realms of science fiction for reasons which should be 100% obvious.
Yo, I didn't think I would hear the difference but I even picked them out on my phone.
C - A - B from left to right
(A)Best TAPE FAST GIVES BEST WARMSOUND TO THE MIX
it's definitely FATTTTT 🙏
That one was my favorite as well out of the tape speeds. But I liked the high end in the digital version.
Very cool video!
Will you please make a video to show if Adat adds any cool color?
I have to get familiar with ADAT first! i've spent very little time with ADAT, but i'm keeping this idea in the idea spreadsheet, thank you for your question!
The absolute irony is the legends of the old days, would have given an arm and a leg to have our equipment, yet here we are...using their equipment xD I loved the track and tape certainly has a vibe to it; very 'warm' indeed.
And people still think past gear is better. No, the songs were. The recordings were, for the most part, awful. Nobody wants tape back 😂
@@ElectroPanPipes You are absolutely right. I sometimes catch...'mixing mistakes' from my favourite bands of the 60s/70s but I genuinely don't care because the songs kick ass!
@@bassinblue Totally. None of the greats would thank you if you broke a tape machine out today. I’ve learned, if I’m trying to make a track ‘sound better’… my track sucks and I need to address that.
Great music shines through on any format/device.
A is kinda balanced. B is a little bit muffled. C is crystal clear.
So... A: 7.5 B: 3.75 C: DAW
Hello thep on maden, I very much like your videos. I have a really old grundig tk-141 at my home which my gf gifted me. I really like it, but its also really old. That Said, if You know one. How could I best record on it? I have the option to send a digitaal mix through it but im getting really mixed results with the input levels. Is there a way that can help manage this? Maybe digitally
hi there! There could be so many different reasons for this to be happening. Without seeing your workflow I'd just be speculating. Let me know if you're still having trouble!
It should be recorded to analog first and using a real tape machine then finished in the box.
luckily, my Teac can run 15ips and I wouldn't use anything else for the final mix as you loose upper frequency response but for treating individual instruments like drums could be useful. I wonder what would be the difference if you bypassed the DAW and recorded directly to tape... something you can do easily with MIDI / sequencer and synths setup
most of my channel is recording directly to tape, but on a portastudio. If I keep going down this rabbit hole, there will be bigger projects down the road! thanks for watching and listening!
A sounds amazing holy shit
I guessed all examples right. but for me the digital version was the best. I have 15 IPS tape recorder, 1/4 inch tape, 2 tracks....sort of studio standard. Would try this as well, not for sonic benefits, but because I am nostalgic when it comes to tape. However....what is about signal/noise ratio? Tape hiss? Well, you don`t hear it with this kind of music, but I record a lot of classical musicians. Would it be an issue? Like....imagine pink floyd "dark side of the moon" opening sound effects, slowly building up...Would it work without noise reduction?
for fidelity, and classical musicians, tape hiss is probably not the way to go these days, unless you're going for a vintage vibe in your recording! all is fair in love and art
The 3.75 IPS was immediately clear (rolled off highs). Not so easy to hear the difference with the 7.5 IPS, but by the end of the demo I had a suspicion.
thanks for listening and watching!
can you do another video of digital to vhs and cassette comparison?
hey there! have you seen this video? or did you have something else in mind? I could certainly do an update
ua-cam.com/video/B7J7OBYT2ic/v-deo.html
@@MadeOnTape just watched it, now I’m curious as to how you transferred the digital daw audio onto the vhs and cassettes??
Didn’t try to guess, but I liked B best, A second, and C third. B did sound beefier and a bit more raw to me, which I like. C sounded a bit thin to me. A sounded nicer to C to me, but a bit vanilla.
thanks for watching! without re-watching, i don’t remember which is which 😂
Dont know who steals your views, but keep it up!
many thanks 🙏 🤘
more coming always! thanks for stopping by!
Direct digital sounded a little "thin" to me.
Tape at 7.5ips sounded more "full bodied" and pleasing!
A was excellent
good video as someone who is new to music production and doesnt have all the experience let alone money like all you guys do here so thankyou all for the help!🫶🏽
La diferencia no sería apreciable para la música empleada. Sin embargo, la señal digital debe tener una S/N de 95 - 100 dB o más, mientras que la relación S/N en las analógicas debe estar entre 70 y 75 dB. La diferencia sería apreciable con pasajes de bajo nivel y al menos una amplificación de + 50 dB, de manera que el ruido de la cinta sea perceptible. No mencionas si empleas algún sistema de reducción de ruido (Dolby A o DBX), no obstante, es claro que, a mayor velocidad de la cinta, la S/N, juntamente con la respuesta en frecuencia, mejora también. Personalmente prefiero el sonido cálido de la cinta analógica, aunque sea todo un tema el ruido en estos medios. Saludos
I Would love to see a video without the real to reel but if they’re using the VHS
Cool music you make ❤
thank you very much 🙏🏻 more music coming very soon
I'm looking for camera suggestions and I like the way this looks. Can you tell me which camera you used?
yo! i’m rocking the Canon 80d
without re watching this is either the 24mm pancake lens or the standard wide angle lens
@@MadeOnTape Thanks! My 70D recently died during a shoot. I loved that camera, but the price didn't get me the mileage I was hoping for.
A sounded the best in my opinion
I like this guy. He is funny.
omg Make Mine Music! Love your mix tutorials 🙌
A - 7.5, B- 3.75, C - DAW
I’ll record to tape first then record to daw then the tape sound is already in der but I guess if i recorder that back onto tape again it’d be double taped.
I hear warmth on A. B sounds like a bit of a loss of quality, just me personally. Logic mix was clear and crisp. I personally like A the most.
Peace, great video first off, I have the same tape deck except it's the 2340r. My question is, are you able to record this back in as your sending like with some other decks or did you have to rewind and record?
To me it sounded the best at 7.5IPS