MOTUnation.com

Shooshie wrote:Ok, well you've got me thinking, anyway. There must be a way to make that happen on input, but if you guys say there's not, I'll have to trust you. Looks like there might be a market for some piece of hardware that can create the bump/smear. I might go for such a thing, if it could be reliably created.

A couple of points:

1) I think Shooshie has said all along not that there isn't a difference, but with the right plug-ins, etc. you can get *close*. The point of contention might be what constitutes "close ENOUGH?" Is it going to be the difference between a commercial success or failure? Both probably sound so good that we may be discussing differences that are meaningful to some, but lose on the end user or public or the person writing the checks. I heard debates about mixing ITB or OTB, and I've heard examples of the same piece of music done totally ITB and another with an outboard summing box and the difference was so slight that the person who buys the CD or sits in the theatre would never know the difference. In some cases I preferred the sound of ITB.

2) Also, and I mean no disrespect here, but could if we took two mixes, one done on tape and the other using one of those tape emulation plugs (whether its PT Heat or UAD's Studer plug, etc.) how many of the people could pick out which is which in a double-blind test? How many could say "THAT is real tape!" 10 times out of 10??

James Steele wrote:

Shooshie wrote:Ok, well you've got me thinking, anyway. There must be a way to make that happen on input, but if you guys say there's not, I'll have to trust you. Looks like there might be a market for some piece of hardware that can create the bump/smear. I might go for such a thing, if it could be reliably created.

A couple of points:

1) I think Shooshie has said all along not that there isn't a difference, but with the right plug-ins, etc. you can get *close*. The point of contention might be what constitutes "close ENOUGH?" Is it going to be the difference between a commercial success or failure? Both probably sound so good that we may be discussing differences that are meaningful to some, but lose on the end user or public or the person writing the checks. I heard debates about mixing ITB or OTB, and I've heard examples of the same piece of music done totally ITB and another with an outboard summing box and the difference was so slight that the person who buys the CD or sits in the theatre would never know the difference. In some cases I preferred the sound of ITB.

2) Also, and I mean no disrespect here, but could if we took two mixes, one done on tape and the other using one of those tape emulation plugs (whether its PT Heat or UAD's Studer plug, etc.) how many of the people could pick out which is which in a double-blind test? How many could say "THAT is real tape!" 10 times out of 10??

Which is to say, how does one quantify the percentage by which this library has been made better by going to tape, if one subscribes to that theory? 5%? 15%? 35% better? In other words, how many people would not buy the library had it been recorded by digital means? Somewhere along the line, the developer thought it was worth the extra dollar and hassle to do it, so the return must have been justified.

Could or would most people tell in the context of any recording? That is indeed another question.

cbergm7210 wrote:Somewhere along the line, the developer thought it was worth the extra dollar and hassle to do it, so the return must have been justified.

Exactly. I don't dispute that. The proof will be in how many people BUY it, ultimately. For many people it will make sense and be worth it to them. For others it will not. To each their own.

James Steele wrote:

cbergm7210 wrote:Somewhere along the line, the developer thought it was worth the extra dollar and hassle to do it, so the return must have been justified.

Exactly. I don't dispute that. The proof will be in how many people BUY it, ultimately. For many people it will make sense and be worth it to them. For others it will not. To each their own.

It would have indeed been interesting to be in that booth when they were A/B'ing between the tape and digital recordings of the orchestra. A luxury most have not had. Perhaps if we could have been there we'd have given the thumbs up to whatever the expense ended up being that the accountant stated that it would cost to incorporate that part of the equation. On the flip side, I think for most of us to see the justification for the extra effort and cost in lieu of today's technology is a tad of a stretch. To each his own for sure, especially for those footing the bill.

Assuming that Spitfire uses the same samples for Albion as were used for their Bespoke library, I don't doubt that it will sound very good and people will buy it. I may be one of them, depending on budget and need, as well as on performance of the library. It needs to work as well as Bespoke. I'm assuming the difference between the two would be the amount of variation available in articulations, runs, chords, etc.

But yes, James really nailed what I've been circling to no avail: could you always or even usually identify the recordings that use the tape/digital method? Can you identify those that do not? Just guessing, I'd say that somewhere between 990 to 999 people out of 1000 (or even more) can not identify them, and those who can are quite often going to be in the audio/music profession, and very likely would be competent engineers.

If it's something that makes people stop what they're doing and say "wow… how was THAT recorded? That's beautiful!" then I would jump on it. I just don't think we're talking about something that makes THAT kind of difference. That's been my point since the very beginning. I'd have to use the Bespoke library for a piece of music or two before I could make that judgment for myself, but I'm guessing that by the time the recordings get to the end-user's hi-fi system, there's not a lot present that even a rather sophisticated listener would recognize as a difference, which could be attributed to the taped origins of the sample.

Of course, every little bit helps, so I'll assume that it makes its contribution, and that we're reaping the benefits of those contributions when we listen to the music. Pardon my skepticism. It's not rooted in meanness or a desire to denounce anyone's efforts; let's just call it a desire to know the facts through proof. I think the flute sound was very good. If that is due to tape, and if it would NOT have sounded good if you had gone direct to digital, then I will stand corrected when I hear the two side-by-side in similar recordings.

Contrary as I may sound, I do feel like we're making some progress here. Before this dialogue I would have felt strongly against the suggestion that starting with tape could make a big difference in the outcome of a mix. Now I'm at least open to the suggestion; I only want to hear it. Maybe someday I'll get a chance to try it.

Shooshie

James Steele wrote:2) Also, and I mean no disrespect here, but could if we took two mixes, one done on tape and the other using one of those tape emulation plugs (whether its PT Heat or UAD's Studer plug, etc.) how many of the people could pick out which is which in a double-blind test? How many could say "THAT is real tape!" 10 times out of 10??

Right James, because in the end, people only care about the music. Unless the sound is just bad, they don't hear the subtleties, they hear the emotions that were directed at them by the artist/composer.

Shooshie wrote:Ok, well you've got me thinking, anyway. There must be a way to make that happen on input, but if you guys say there's not, I'll have to trust you. Looks like there might be a market for some piece of hardware that can create the bump/smear. I might go for such a thing, if it could be reliably created.

Shoosh

Transformers not only provide impedance matching and noise reduction but they can have frequency bias. There are many ways to make a transformer and each different tranny can have it's own distinctive flavour. Whereas in a theoretical ideal transformer frequency response would be uniform, i.e flat response, it is also true that by careful design a less than ideal transformer can impart the tonal characteristics considered desirable. A choice of various flavours of less than "ideal" transformers might then be a very useful toolset for making things happen before digital conversion.

I think we have gotten too complex.
Here is the SIMPLE truth.
The guys tried tape in a very nice studio, and it sounded better to them. They used it!

In better mixing facilities, they often will print a mix to both digital and analog and let the producer decide which version he wants to use.

At the end of the day, there is no ONE rule. Sometimes digital will work best on a song, sometimes tape.

This company chose tape, and all the talk of A-B testing, double blind, can tape be emulated, should it be, are the samples any good...etc..........................

None of that pertains to why they used tape. It just surprised the guy that it sounded better through tape and he used it. Then he mentioned it in his promos.

By the way, There is a device, I forgot the name of it, it is pricey and it runs 8 tracks of audio through tape on the way to digital. The tape loops and never runs out, only needing to be changed occasionally for a new reel. It is basically a set it and forget it propostion with 2 settings options having to do with tape speed I believe. . It is very cool, and, I think, around 5000-8000.

Sounds like a nice piece of equipment to have!!

Will it always be better? No! But when it is..it is!
Source dependency being the key. This is art, not science here....and full of personal taste and opinion...this last aspect being why we all can argue so much..it is SOOOO subjective.
But there are a few adjectives that come up enough to be beyond opinion...Fatness, connectedness, tape sheen....warmth..and many others..The terms come up over and over and cannot be denied.

toodamnhip wrote:By the way, There is a device, I forgot the name of it, it is pricey and it runs 8 tracks of audio through tape on the way to digital. The tape loops and never runs out, only needing to be changed occasionally for a new reel. It is basically a set it and forget it propostion with 2 settings options having to do with tape speed I believe. . It is very cool, and, I think, around 5000-8000.

Cool. I just mentally invented that device today, but I gave up on it pretty quickly, because I figured it meant aligning heads on a regular basis, cleaning them, and replacing the tape regularly, because of the ravages of frequent erasures and mechanical wear. And what do you do when it crosses the splice? You'll recall that the Mellotron -- the instrument you hear in Stairway to Heaven's "flutes" and in Strawberry Fields, as well as many other hits of the day -- was a technical nightmare. Keyboardists in touring bands such as Led Zeppelin reported that they sweated those Mellotron solos more than anything else. It consisted of 8-second lengths of tape under each key, playing one of several sounds prerecorded to that tape like our modern samples, but on tape; with counterweights that "rewound" the tape segment after the key was released. As they moved from location to location, the changes in humidity often meant that various segments of that tape would get stuck or off track. A device such as you described might not have as much chance involved as a Mellotron, but it would certainly bring back the frustrations of tape recorders. "Set and forget?" I kind of doubt that.

Overall, though, we're coming into agreement 100% on one thing:



Shoosh

toodamnhip wrote:This is art, not science here....and full of personal taste and opinion...this last aspect being why we all can argue so much..it is SOOOO subjective.
But there are a few adjectives that come up enough to be beyond opinion...Fatness, connectedness, tape sheen....warmth..and many others..The terms come up over and over and cannot be denied.

Also which cannot be denied: tape died. Efforts to clone its DNA back into sampled existence notwithstanding, the last hit delivered on tape was… well… too far back for me to care about now.

That reminds me; one summer I was working on the railroad up in Enid, Oklahoma, and a girl I met lent me her 8-Track tape player. I found an 8-track tape of Cat Stevens, and that was my only music for that summer, outside of what I played myself. It may be one of the reasons I'm so hard on tape now.

When talking about tape the word that is often left out is magnetic. The simple truth is that tape recording is all about induction - the mojo is in the isolation and induction.
What I'm suggesting is that the same mojo can be applied without the tape by using transformers, which of course are all about isolation and induction...
and transformers are a lot less complex than tape machines

CLASP

http://www.endlessanalog.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's appearing in many major studios here....

anamod looks very interesting to me:ATS-1 ANALOG TAPE SIMULATOR http://www.anamodaudio.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Agreed the ATS-1 looks interesting and is obviously well made:


The ATS-1 is essentially a modelling device and, as such is possibly unnecessarily complex in it's attempt to be "artificially" flexible in it's recreation of the benefits of isolation and induction.

An earlier product from Neve, which actually relies more directly on transformers:



This Neve unit has both input and output transformers "sandwiching" high quality line driving amps. It probably offers far less flexibility than the ATS-1 but I'd bet it does what it does very well.

This is very interesting. I feel like this conversation is finally bearing fruit. I'm not sure it's fruit that I can eat: I was under the impression earlier that Clasp contained a tape-loop. That's not accurate. It requires a tape deck such as a Studer or Ampex or whatever one happens to have in the studio closet. Not having a pro-level tape machine, I'd have to get one first, but I'll bet they can be found for very little money. Apparently, Clasp is feeding off the live monitor heads and taking that directly into your DAW. The recording has to make the half-inch trip from record head to monitor head, and then it's superfluous.

This video is very informative as to what's going on in Clasp:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mE0UgLl ... r_embedded" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


And did you see the news of those who have just released recordings with it?

• 06.29.11 PRO SOUND NEWS EUROPE – CLASP THE RETURN OF ANALOGUE
  06.23.11 KISS RECORDS NEW ALBUM WITH CLASP
  04.23.11 BLADE MAKES SHARP RETURN TO ANALOGUE RECORDING
  04.18.11 HIT MAKER FRASER T. SMITH MAKES HISTORY WITH CLASP
  04.7.11 GRAMMY.COM – The Soul of Analog
  04.4.11 JOHN HIATT Records New Album With CLASP
  01.13.11 TAPE OP MAGAZINE CLASP REVIEW
  01.4.11 VARIETY MAGAZINE – Analog recording makes a comeback
  12.13.10 Endless Analog CLASP at the Motor Museum – exclusive review by Mike Crossey…
  11.20.10 MIX MAGAZINE – The Secret Sisters Record Debut Album using CLASP with producer Dave Cobb and executive producer T Bone Burnett
  11.15.10 MIX – Endless Analog CLASP Signal Processor Review
  11.12.10 ELECTRONIC MUSICIAN CLASP REVIEW – The Next Big Thing Uses Yesterday’s Technology
  11.1.10 Austin’s Yellow Dog Studios Purchases a Second CLASP® From Endless Analog
  10.31.10 Nashville Hit Makers David Brainard & Brian Kolb Grasp CLASP
  10.19.10 BUTCH WALKER returns to tape with CLASP
  10.18.10 Manhattan Sound Recording becomes first in New York City to integrate CLASP®
  10.15.10 The Conservatory of Recording Arts & Sciences adds CLASP to School Educational Program
  09.9.10 Endless Analog CLASP® Nominated For Technical Excellence & Creativity Award
  08.14.10 MIX MAGAZINE – Analog Tape Is Back!
  08.10.10 NASHVILLE SCENE – The Innovations Issue
  08.5.10 SONIC SCOOP – Endless Analog Demos Its Dream-Come-True CLASP at Avatar NYC
  08.4.10 AES NEWS – Dave Cobb Chooses Endless Analog’s CLASP® for Secret Sisters
  07.24.10 EQ MAGAZINE – Endless Analog CLASP Review
  06.28.10 Endless Analog Appoints Vintage King Audio As Exclusive U.S. Retailer
  05.16.10 MICHAEL W. SMITH RECORDS NEW ALBUM ENTIRELY WITH ENDLESS ANALOG’S CLASP SYSTEM
  05.7.10 BROADCAST ENGINEERING – Endless Analog Founder/President Chris Estes Addresses the Conservatory of Recording Arts and Sciences in Arizona
  04.14.10 MIX BLOG – The Future Is Analog
  03.31.10 PRO SOUND NEWS – Chapman Adopts CLASP
  03.10.10 ENDLESS ANALOG APPOINTS CLYNE MEDIA TO LEAD MARKETING AND PUBLIC RELATIONS INITIATIVES
  02.28.10 MIX MAGAZINE – Lenny Kravitz’ Gregory Town Sound & CLASP – Cover Story
  

That kind of press can't be bought. This may be a movement. I'm amazed that this is the first I'm hearing of it, though admittedly I'm kind of cloistered here. This changes things: here is the first somewhat practical method of incorporating analog tape into digital recordings that I've seen since… well… since Tridents, Otaris and Neves went to the museums. This makes it as simple as patching it into the input chain, IF you already happen to have a pro-studio recorder. It doesn't have to be a 24 track, but obviously that would help. I say "somewhat practical," because it's still a huge expense if you don't happen to have a tape machine. If you do, then it's very practical.


Before, I was skeptical because I just didn't think that the difference between recording to tape and using tape emulator plugins was EVER going to be great enough to justify the expense and hassle of setting up and recording with old analog boards, what with all the maintenance and obscure parts and tape that would be so hard to find, then transferring all your tracks to digital. Just seemed to be a pipe dream for purists. While I'm a purist of the musical line, I'm sheerly practical when it comes to the technology for capturing those lines in some medium that enables you to distribute it to others.

Think back on my arguments since the beginning of this thread:

• 1) tone is nice, and I love a good sound, but it MUST be accompanied by fluid technique that enables total musicality and expression of the musical line
  2) the flute demo called into question either the musical choices of its performer or the capability of the library. At no time did I call into question the actual timbre of the flute, which sounded beautiful in its own context
  3) I was willing to sacrifice that tone for lesser sounds in libraries that could be performed with much more believable expression. (it turned out that the Bespoke library is just as capable)
  4) the idea of using tape first sounded like a high-dollar nightmare for sampling, for only marginal gains. Of course I like tape sound -- if it could only be as flexible as digital, but it seemed very impractical to record that way.
  5) I've argued that tape is nice, but it's the expressivity of the mix that is most important. Digital has the edge on mixing artistry, precisely because it opens the gateway for so many possibilities and the trial-&-error required to find the best options. I'm not going to sacrifice that for the marginal gains in pure sound quality. People hear and respond to expressivity and creativity. They like great timbres, but to use an analogy that Ned proposed (and I altered), Jascha Heifetz sounds better on a student violin than a student sounds on Heifetz's strad.

At all times, I have kept the musical line in the highest regard. Technical achievements in the medium are great, but they need to serve the musical line and they are more apt to be used if they are practical and if the cost does not far overshadow the margin of improvement they impart on the final mix.

Well, Clasp, if it works as well as their PR suggests, solves the problem. It serves the musical line, imparts its improvements on the input signal, and does not stand in the way of anything that follows in the digital realm. It costs $7495, requires a tape machine -- which could be a major cost, though a lot of them are available for dirt cheap now, and Clasp puts it all together very much in the realm of possibility and practicality, though "practical" in this case means "practical for those who already have or who can afford a 24 track Studer!

This is great to know, though I still question its feasibility for classical music. Classical music has always begged for a larger S/N ratio than was possible with tape, though it came close with DBX or even with Dolby C noise reduction. But now we're talking about all the things that made tape expensive and problematic. The Digital domain provides that headroom. Must we really step back into tape for this elusive tape-compression, noise reduction and all the rest, when classical music sounds wonderful in digital without having to be compressed. Well, it still has to be compressed to go into 16 bit 44.1 CD format. Ok, I don't know, maybe this is the best thing yet. I'm sure intrigued by it.

Paul at Spitfire, is this the system you used to record your samples?

Stephen Taylor, I'm really curious as to your opinions of this. I believe you to be the sort of person who gets the most out of whatever equipment you have at your disposal, so having a Clasp engaged would not be essential to you, yet may well be desirable. What do you think of it?

Getting somewhere now…

Shooshie

PS: Dave Dempsey, I'm also enamored with your idea of using transformers to reshape the sound into that of analog tape, without the tape. I still believe there has to be a way to emulate tape with hardware without actually having to use tape. I'd love to hear this done.