MOTUnation.com

I wonder if any of you heard the bryan lenox interview in which he states that no matter what he tried, he could not match the sound a bass on great tape?

This shows how hard it is to recreate tape in some ways.

Yes, I heard that. Interesting that he thought that he COULD. But then he could not. I'll bet it was close, though.

I'm open to the possibility of it all, but I've got to hear some things for myself. I would like to hear some classical recordings A/B'd on tape and digital, and try some things. I KNOW there's a difference, and apparently a lot of people believe it's a difference worth pursuing. I'm just not convinced yet that I'm one of those people. But I'm not convinced that I'm NOT one of them, either. I just need to hear and try some things.

Shooshie

Sorry about the tape loop misunderstanding. It had been awhile since I had heard about it and I thought it was a loop. But, I do recall now that the moment you are through the tape reel, you just rewind the tape and start again, re-using the tape.
I believe there was some sort of memory function in CLASP to avoid starting a recording without enough tape left on a reel.

I watched the video on the Clasp page and I must say he (Bryon Lenox) sure did not try everything - he simply compared signal paths using pre, eq, compression..his various normal signal paths as opposed to simply relying on the Otari machine. That doesn't dispel the idea I have put forward.

To understand what I'm trying to get at you need to look closely and simply at the tape recorder and what actually happens and an audio transformer and what actually happens.

Basic to my argument is the idea that the tape itself has no special magical properties...it is the storage medium and also is analogous to the secondary winding on the transformer. The input circuit ends at the record tape head as it does on the primary winding of the transformer. The electrical energy is then passed on to the isolated secondary via induction. In the case of the tape machine the energy is passed back out of the tape via induction on the playback head.

With the tape machine you can not have the same bias setting for best frequency response and best distortion figures - the optimum set up for one is not the optimum set up for the other... You must compromise in the set up of the machine, you take a hit on one if you try to improve the other, or in other words, the machine has a characteristic. It is the machine that has the characteristic not the actual magnetic tape...not quite true as obviously all tape is not equal, but that's not important to the essential idea.

A theoretical ideal transformer has flat response - frequency and flux vary inversely. By design variation from that ideal you can take advantage of parasitic qualities in the transformer to create eq bias, or in other words the ac induced in the secondary is not absolutely identical to primary. For example, a transformer made for excellent low frequency performance may mean you take a hit in the high frequency range.... sounds useful for bass, no? The important point is that this is entirely different from an eq circuit or a compressor - the ac in the secondary would be altered at the point of induction rather than by an imposed active circuit.

Anyway, I don't profess to be an expert but I have a friend who is and although he is very busy at the moment designing a range of products for a major audio company I'm hoping he will have the time in the near future to discuss and explore the tonal possibilities of a box of various matched pairs of transformers. Maybe he'll tell me it won't work because of this or that but I think it's an interesting idea.

toodamnhip wrote: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.

I like the way you put this Toodamnhip. Well spoken.

Our experience has been, that digital cut in a good room with good converters and mic/pre chain will certainly to our ears beat out cutting to tape in a bad room with less than stellar gear. Vice versa, cut to tape with great mics, pres in nice room will certainly trump cutting to a stock motu or digi rig in a badly designed or prepped room.

So there are so many variables. Not the least is the skills, ears, creativity and experience of the engineers and producers. Hey!!! Thats all of us here on this forum!

My vote, and yours too I bet folks, is for the industry to start concentrating on the skills, ears, creativity and experience part, and head back towards producing some compelling works that help heal, shape history, and inspire.

labman wrote:

toodamnhip wrote: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.

I like the way you put this Toodamnhip. Well spoken.

Our experience has been, that digital cut in a good room with good converters and mic/pre chain will certainly to our ears beat out cutting to tape in a bad room with less than stellar gear. Vice versa, cut to tape with great mics, pres in nice room will certainly trump cutting to a stock motu or digi rig in a badly designed or prepped room.

So there are so many variables. Not the least is the skills, ears, creativity and experience of the engineers and producers. Hey!!! Thats all of us here on this forum!

My vote, and yours too I bet folks, is for the industry to start concentrating on the skills, ears, creativity and experience part, and head back towards producing some compelling works that help heal, shape history, and inspire.

Well-said.

labman wrote:

toodamnhip wrote: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.

I like the way you put this Toodamnhip. Well spoken.

Our experience has been, that digital cut in a good room with good converters and mic/pre chain will certainly to our ears beat out cutting to tape in a bad room with less than stellar gear. Vice versa, cut to tape with great mics, pres in nice room will certainly trump cutting to a stock motu or digi rig in a badly designed or prepped room.

So there are so many variables. Not the least is the skills, ears, creativity and experience of the engineers and producers. Hey!!! Thats all of us here on this forum!

My vote, and yours too I bet folks, is for the industry to start concentrating on the skills, ears, creativity and experience part, and head back towards producing some compelling works that help heal, shape history, and inspire.

+1!

This thread now looks MUCH more like Motunation.

By the way, the Anamod device is totally analog - no digital involved at all. Dave Amels is completely insane and quite brilliant. So it isn't really a hardware implementation of a plugin. It's a totally different method of achieving the result.
I hate smart people....