Tape recording theory
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
I'd have thought it pretty easy these days to provide a digital 'filter'
that gave the analogue tape sound. Although I'd guess that's not the
'magic' those who still use such machines are looking for.


I've just sort of inherited some CD's that are of quite old recordings
and I'm impressed that some of them sound .. well they don't have that
modern sound on them .. a sort of -vague- harshness..

Perhaps most of my first CDs were from analogue masters - and I was very
happy just to lose the curse of vinyl. But I've also got some early all
digital ones that sound very good too.

Agreed

I'll trade a slight amount of tape hiss for the lack of that!..

There're fine otherwise, top 'n bottom end is there alright!.

And very transparent too, not veiled just very -real- for want of a
better word.

I'm still of the opinion that current mastering fashions are the root of
the problem. Not the equipment itself.

This has been apparent for a number of years, and has been
discussed ofte on this and other groups. The fact that the
public don't seem to react, and also that -mp3 is now becomiing
the standard by which others are judges, means that it is now
probably too late to do anything about it.

Iain

Tape recording theory
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Could be that these days of everything being multi-tracked and an
emphasis on a 'perfect' performance from all in the session - and
often things being recorded at different times - you lose that
'something' that comes from an essentially 'live' performance.

Multitrack has been with us since the mid sixties, so
cannot be to blame?

In a crude form with many less tracks than is the norm these days, yes.

Though I do agree with you that
recording in sections, or single instruments, (or even a drum kit,
one drum at a time) must have an effect on the cohesion of the
overall production.

Which is what I was implying.

I have worked on many recordings put
together in this way (we called it "musical bricklaying" where
it took often 1 hr to record a drum kit, drum by drum to a
click track, for a title which lasted 3 mins. Even at the
much later stage of putting on the background vocals,
no-one had heard the melody:-)

Heh heh - I'd say 1 hour is very fast. Some have spent days doing just
that.

Too many think everything is in the mixing/recording process and miss
out on other perhaps more important things.

David talked about "rough" recording of the sixties. These products
though they may not be be clinically clean, have "feel" which is so
important in pop recording, and may be one of the reasons that
may popm projects still start with analogue multitrack.

Strangely, it's that slightly 'rough' feel which is missing from so many
pop recordings - probably because so few real instruments are used on
many.

Musicians too may not give their
best when they know it can always be done again.

That is probably an unfair generalisation. They get paid their
session fee even if they play the six titles prima vista in
20 mins. No-one wants to perform badly in the presence
of their colleagues.

I did say 'may'. And of course was referring to where they were laying
tracks individually. Get them all playing together negates the problem in
the first place. I've got plenty of respect for real session musicians.

--
*Geeks shall inherit the earth *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Tape recording theory
 

David Looser wrote:
"tony sayer" wrote in message
...


I've just sort of inherited some CD's that are of quite old recordings
and I'm impressed that some of them sound .. well they don't have that
modern sound on them .. a sort of -vague- harshness..

I'll trade a slight amount of tape hiss for the lack of that!..

Are you suggesting that an analogue tape generation removes "a sort
of -vague- harshness" that would otherwise necessarily be present? Seems a
pretty daft idea to me.

It can, if you'd like it to. I can set the tape machine up to smooth the
top end out, and I can set it up to make the top end a little bit sharper
and more brittle. I can set the machine up to give an artificial sense of
ensemble by blending sounds together, and I can set the machine up to give
an artificial sense of separation too. It's a hell of a powerful tool for
making subtle sonic changes.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Tape recording theory
 

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
David Looser wrote:

Are you suggesting that an analogue tape generation removes "a sort
of -vague- harshness" that would otherwise necessarily be present? Seems a
pretty daft idea to me.

It can, if you'd like it to. I can set the tape machine up to smooth the
top end out, and I can set it up to make the top end a little bit sharper
and more brittle.

Indeed you can, but an equaliser does the same job far more easily and
controllably, and without adding unwanted noise and distortion.

I can set the machine up to give an artificial sense of
ensemble by blending sounds together, and I can set the machine up to give
an artificial sense of separation too.

Pardon??? A tape recorder doesn't record "sounds", it records a waveform. It
has no knowledge of what "sound" any particular part of that waveform
belongs to. What you are claiming is physically impossible.

It's a hell of a powerful tool for
making subtle sonic changes.

So "subtle" that you need a great imagination to hear them.

David.

Tape recording theory
 

David Looser wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
David Looser wrote:

Are you suggesting that an analogue tape generation removes "a sort
of -vague- harshness" that would otherwise necessarily be present? Seems a
pretty daft idea to me.

It can, if you'd like it to. I can set the tape machine up to smooth the
top end out, and I can set it up to make the top end a little bit sharper
and more brittle.

Indeed you can, but an equaliser does the same job far more easily and
controllably, and without adding unwanted noise and distortion.

No, not at all. It's a very different set of tools from a conventional
equalizer. For one thing the action can be level-dependant if you want
it to be.

I can set the machine up to give an artificial sense of
ensemble by blending sounds together, and I can set the machine up to give
an artificial sense of separation too.

Pardon??? A tape recorder doesn't record "sounds", it records a waveform. It
has no knowledge of what "sound" any particular part of that waveform
belongs to. What you are claiming is physically impossible.

Nope, it's just a psychoacoustic trick. The tape machine adds certain
distortion characteristics, if I want it to, and those characteristics
are completely under my control. Some of them have precisely the
perceived effects I describe.

It's a hell of a powerful tool for
making subtle sonic changes.

So "subtle" that you need a great imagination to hear them.

Oh, I can make it pretty blatant and nasty-sounding too, if the customer
wants that. I've done that before too. Blues singer brings in a record,
says he wants to sound like that.... I set up 641 with a teeny bit of
underbias (using 1KC peak method), set operating levels to the point where
I get first audible distortion on a 1KC tone at -1dB on the mark... voila!
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Tape recording theory
 

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
I can set the machine up to give an artificial sense of ensemble by
blending sounds together, and I can set the machine up to give an
artificial sense of separation too.

Pardon??? A tape recorder doesn't record "sounds", it records a
waveform. It has no knowledge of what "sound" any particular part of
that waveform belongs to. What you are claiming is physically
impossible.

I'd guess Scott is referring to messing about with the separation between
tracks. What you get on the 'other' track isn't linear referred to the
original.

--
*Shin: a device for finding furniture in the dark *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Tape recording theory
 

In article , Scott Dorsey
scribeth thus
David Looser wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
David Looser wrote:

Are you suggesting that an analogue tape generation removes "a sort
of -vague- harshness" that would otherwise necessarily be present? Seems a
pretty daft idea to me.

It can, if you'd like it to. I can set the tape machine up to smooth the
top end out, and I can set it up to make the top end a little bit sharper
and more brittle.

Indeed you can, but an equaliser does the same job far more easily and
controllably, and without adding unwanted noise and distortion.

No, not at all. It's a very different set of tools from a conventional
equalizer. For one thing the action can be level-dependant if you want
it to be.

I can set the machine up to give an artificial sense of
ensemble by blending sounds together, and I can set the machine up to give
an artificial sense of separation too.

Pardon??? A tape recorder doesn't record "sounds", it records a waveform. It
has no knowledge of what "sound" any particular part of that waveform
belongs to. What you are claiming is physically impossible.

Nope, it's just a psychoacoustic trick. The tape machine adds certain
distortion characteristics, if I want it to, and those characteristics
are completely under my control. Some of them have precisely the
perceived effects I describe.

It's a hell of a powerful tool for
making subtle sonic changes.

So "subtle" that you need a great imagination to hear them.

Oh, I can make it pretty blatant and nasty-sounding too, if the customer
wants that. I've done that before too. Blues singer brings in a record,
says he wants to sound like that.... I set up 641 with a teeny bit of
underbias (using 1KC peak method), set operating levels to the point where
I get first audible distortion on a 1KC tone at -1dB on the mark... voila!
--scott


Above all noted..

Except that what I'm describing is seemingly a -lack- of distortion!.

Course you can get the tape machine to -modify- the sound but in those
days they weren't looking to the tape machine as a sound processor in
its own right..

Least ways in the classical field..
--
Tony Sayer

Tape recording theory
 

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Oh, I can make it pretty blatant and nasty-sounding too, if the
customer wants that. I've done that before too. Blues singer brings
in a record, says he wants to sound like that.... I set up 641 with a
teeny bit of underbias (using 1KC peak method), set operating levels
to the point where I get first audible distortion on a 1KC tone at -1dB
on the mark... voila! --scott


Above all noted..

Except that what I'm describing is seemingly a -lack- of distortion!.

Think the best it can do is about 1%.

--
*Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Tape recording theory
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Oh, I can make it pretty blatant and nasty-sounding too, if the
customer wants that. I've done that before too. Blues singer brings
in a record, says he wants to sound like that.... I set up 641 with a
teeny bit of underbias (using 1KC peak method), set operating levels
to the point where I get first audible distortion on a 1KC tone at -1dB
on the mark... voila! --scott


Above all noted..

Except that what I'm describing is seemingly a -lack- of distortion!.

Think the best it can do is about 1%.

You're about an order and a half of magnitude off. More than that if you're
willing to live with restricted dynamic range, which we often are. On the
other hand, if you want distortion, we have that too.

These days lots of people are running at elevated levels because they like
the coloration it gives you, but there's no reason you have to run at
elevated levels.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Tape recording theory
 

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Think the best it can do is about 1%.

You're about an order and a half of magnitude off. More than that if
you're
willing to live with restricted dynamic range, which we often are. On the
other hand, if you want distortion, we have that too.

Distortion is quoted at standard reference levels, typically 185 nWb/m, and
the last time I looked most tape formulations were producing around 1% 3rd
harmonic at those levels.

These days lots of people are running at elevated levels because they like
the coloration it gives you, but there's no reason you have to run at
elevated levels.
--scott

It's not "coloration", it's distortion. If you say that "lots of people"
like distortion I'll have to believe you, but it seems that those of us who
have been under the misapprehension that a recording machine should simply
reproduce as accurately as possible what was fed into it have been wasting
our time.

I referred earlier to the obvious distortion (read muddiness and mush) on so
many classic 60s pop albums, if people like that then they have peculiar
tastes. Of course it can be done better, much better, such as by a digital
recorder.

David.