If tape is so good why does it record so poorly?

[Foxbat]

Point well taken, Charles! Of course, the recording side gets less attention because many of us don't have access to master-quality material to record.

But the differences are still there, and the very fact you see differences means are the good and not-so-good recorders. I conducted my own test, where I recorded the same piece of music on six well calibrated high-grade machines, on the same tape. The results were interesting, to say the least.

 

[stellavox]

Point well taken, Charles! Of course, the recording side gets less attention because many of us don't have access to master-quality material to record.

But the differences are still there, and the very fact you see differences means are the good and not-so-good recorders. I conducted my own test, where I recorded the same piece of music on six well calibrated high-grade machines, on the same tape. The results were interesting, to say the least.

Victor,


Another consideration is what I will steal from Mr Einstein. "Relativity"

Probably, most of the decks you refer to were designed maybe 50 years ago .

What would you hear if you made the same tests back then? With the reproduction equipment a available back then? AND. With the EARS. You had back then? Both have also come a LONG way.

My listening acuity is much different, I'd like to think better now, but would you/I come up with as wide a disparity as now? I think not.

The "audiophile world" which I'll define here as questioning EVERY link (no matter how small) in the chain was just starting then

Also, considering the market for recorders, like radio stations, they only has to be "so" good - compared to the REST of the audio chain

 

[Foxbat]

LOL! 50 years ago I was just a normal person, not an audiophile! You are right, our expectations have changed since then.

 

[Sa-dono]

Technics 1520 totally rebuit. Power supply, record and playback boards, heads etc. No stone left unturned. All rebuit.

Good point about the tape output adding its own flavor. I'm not sure how to process that.

My point is that I assume the result would be the same from tape to tape. Lets says 16 tracks squeezed to 4 then to 2, then masters cut and distributed. Maybe duplicated again. Thats quite a few layers of added noise. Digital would not be adding all that noise during the record, master, distribute process. It would remain true to what the mic captured and alter only when processing was applied. The tape seems to be adding its own sound, and it was pretty dramatic with every step. Much more than I expected.

Your hypothesis on digital was incorrect. The level of noise is much lower, and may not be audible to you, but there is digital distortion and processing added at each stage. The continued attempts to advance digital shows many aren’t fully happy with the results.

Digital is common in recording because it’s a million times easier to use. The gear is easier to use, it’s non-destructive, and tracks and takes are nearly unlimited. Anyone that’s ever tried to splice tape knows using digital is easier.

There are still studios that specialize in RtR recording. There’s only one reason…the sound! This is the same reason there are mastering engineers that transfer their digital to RtR.

 

[Kingrex]

Your hypothesis on digital was incorrect. The level of noise is much lower, and may not be audible to you, but there is digital distortion and processing added at each stage. The continued attempts to advance digital shows many aren’t fully happy with the results.

Digital is common in recording because it’s a million times easier to use. The gear is easier to use, it’s non-destructive, and tracks and takes are nearly unlimited. Anyone that’s ever tried to splice tape knows using digital is easier.

There are still studios that specialize in RtR recording. There’s only one reason…the sound! This is the same reason there are mastering engineers that transfer their digital to RtR.

I have no idea if your speaking truth or talking like a expert with no experience. Can you share your technical expertise. Do you have any experience with engineering music in a digital or analog format.

 

[Atmasphere]

You are right that it isn’t objectionable but it is not treated the same by the ear...

Since the 3rd is generated by all analog tape machines and people seem to like analog tape, can you explain this statement in greater detail?

 

[morricab]

Since the 3rd is generated by all analog tape machines and people seem to like analog tape, can you explain this statement in greater detail?

It has a well documented different character. For example, most horns are 2nd/even harmonic dominated whereas a Clarinet is 3rd/odd dominated. 2nd is associated with an "open" character and 3rd with a "hooded" character. Given the levels are usually quite low I would not expect these characteristics to be too prominent but it shows that they are not treated the same by the ear.

 

[Atmasphere]

It has a well documented different character. For example, most horns are 2nd/even harmonic dominated whereas a Clarinet is 3rd/odd dominated. 2nd is associated with an "open" character and 3rd with a "hooded" character. Given the levels are usually quite low I would not expect these characteristics to be too prominent but it shows that they are not treated the same by the ear.

You've presented that before, but haven't explained how that works with tape (or amps for that matter). Given that analog tape has been in use since 1949 or so, are you saying that the entire catalog of recorded sound in the hifi era has a 'hooded' (whatever that means) sound until digital took over? A clarinet really isn't a good example because as you say, its 3rd order dominated (of course there are other harmonics that define its sound also). How does that relate with the 3rd is only 1percent (as many tape machines do when they are at 0VU)?

You're not saying that tape sound is 'hooded'... are you??

Violins have a strong second; apparently that's an 'open' sound (whatever that means). This is about seperating musical instrument properties from music reproducer properties.

 

[morricab]

You've presented that before, but haven't explained how that works with tape (or amps for that matter). Given that analog tape has been in use since 1949 or so, are you saying that the entire catalog of recorded sound in the hifi era has a 'hooded' (whatever that means) sound until digital took over? A clarinet really isn't a good example because as you say, its 3rd order dominated (of course there are other harmonics that define its sound also). How does that relate with the 3rd is only 1percent (as many tape machines do when they are at 0VU)?

You're not saying that tape sound is 'hooded'... are you??

Violins have a strong second; apparently that's an 'open' sound (whatever that means). This is about seperating musical instrument properties from music reproducer properties.

Did you even read my whole response or are you just "knee jerking"? If you have ever heard direct to disk (I don't mean commercial but actually at the making of the disk) tape indeed sounds somewhat dull or "hooded" comparatively. It is not particularly noticeable on it's own. As I said clearly the level matters and for tape machines it is at a low enough level that it is probably just a very small effect...but I hear something there that I don't hear with digital recordings or LPs (especially well recorded direct to disk LPs) and it is a kind of dullness or closed in sound.

I have heard all the big reference machines that everyone touts (they are popular in Switzerland and you can often find them at shows...plus some friends have had them) but I don't find the sound quality actually exceeds a good direct to disk recording or a really good digital recording.

The best copies I have ever heard were on a properly calibrated Nakamichi ZX-9. They were virtually indistinguishable from the source (be that LP or digital).

Not sure what you want to say about instruments vs. reproduction. Harmonic properties on perception still applies to audio gear.

 

[Bruce B]

I have no idea if your speaking truth or talking like a expert with no experience. Can you share your technical expertise. Do you have any experience with engineering music in a digital or analog format.

I totally concur with Sa-dono's response. You get many tracks of digital and start bouncing them down to lower sample rates/bit depths plug-ins and not paying attention to gain-staging, you can end up with a mess.... Just take a listen to Adele or RHCP.....

 

[Atmasphere]

Did you even read my whole response or are you just "knee jerking"? If you have ever heard direct to disk (I don't mean commercial but actually at the making of the disk) tape indeed sounds somewhat dull or "hooded" comparatively. It is not particularly noticeable on it's own. As I said clearly the level matters and for tape machines it is at a low enough level that it is probably just a very small effect...but I hear something there that I don't hear with digital recordings or LPs (especially well recorded direct to disk LPs) and it is a kind of dullness or closed in sound.

I have heard all the big reference machines that everyone touts (they are popular in Switzerland and you can often find them at shows...plus some friends have had them) but I don't find the sound quality actually exceeds a good direct to disk recording or a really good digital recording.

The best copies I have ever heard were on a properly calibrated Nakamichi ZX-9. They were virtually indistinguishable from the source (be that LP or digital).

Not sure what you want to say about instruments vs. reproduction. Harmonic properties on perception still applies to audio gear.

I've recorded direct to disk myself. And ran a tape machine in parallel as a backup.

We played test recordings for our client. Didn't hear that 'hooded' sound to which you refer. We did prefer the D2D recording- it was lower noise and sounded wider bandwidth. Ultimately the client went with the tape backup, since he played a good 10dB higher while recording than he did when we set levels. You're the first I've encountered that describes tape as sounding 'hooded' (I still don't know what that means).

 

[microstrip]

Your hypothesis on digital was incorrect. The level of noise is much lower, and may not be audible to you, but there is digital distortion and processing added at each stage. The continued attempts to advance digital shows many aren’t fully happy with the results.

Surely every operation in digital adds artifacts. However the real point is knowing if properly done it is less or more damaging than successive analogue copies. I am not an expert in recording, but as a consumer looking for modern digital recordings carried with systems such as the Pyramix from Merging Technologies and even from brands such as DG or Harmonia Mundi I think that current digital has a point here.

IMHO debating digital focusing on the problems of yesterday shows good knowledge of recording history but is an extremely biased perspective. 32 bit math errors are completely different from those of the old 20 bit mixers - but expertise is needed to operate them.

Digital is common in recording because it’s a million times easier to use. The gear is easier to use, it’s non-destructive, and tracks and takes are nearly unlimited. Anyone that’s ever tried to splice tape knows using digital is easier.

Fortunately. Just because the tool is harder to use does not imply a better result.
We have interviews with recording engineers telling us why they picked digital and what are the possibilities opened by top digital workstations.

There are still studios that specialize in RtR recording. There’s only one reason…the sound! This is the same reason there are mastering engineers that transfer their digital to RtR.

Yes. Some people prefer the sound of the analogue. What is the point? Every time we have new technologies someone says the older ones were much better. In a simple blind listening test people who comparatively listened to mic feed, tape loop or digital loops preferred the tape loop. What does it teach us? That we must have a R2R at home to run our digital through a tape loop? Yes, I tried it and was not happy with the result.

Can you refer us a few modern recordings carried in specialized RtR studios?

 

[morricab]

I've recorded direct to disk myself. And ran a tape machine in parallel as a backup.

We played test recordings for our client. Didn't hear that 'hooded' sound to which you refer. We did prefer the D2D recording- it was lower noise and sounded wider bandwidth. Ultimately the client went with the tape backup, since he played a good 10dB higher while recording than he did when we set levels. You're the first I've encountered that describes tape as sounding 'hooded' (I still don't know what that means).

Closed-in

 

[Atmasphere]

Closed-in

I guess I've got no idea what that means. Closed-in how??

 

[adrianywu]

Closed-in

If it sounds closed in, the machine probably has a poor HF response. I have been making live concert recordings with a Nagra IV-S directly off an analogue mixing console for years. The machine is bog standard, maintained regularly by Nagra in Switzerland. It sounds more open than Redbook PCM digital recorded in parallel. Low Res digital actually attenuates the acoustic reverberation, making the sound more closed in as you mentioned. High res digital does not have this problem, and I personally prefer DSD.

 

[Atmasphere]

If it sounds closed in, the machine probably has a poor HF response.

I think you might be missing the point of that comment- either that or I am! The comment was in response to the fact that all tape machines operating correctly will produce a significant 3rd harmonic and so is not a frequency response error; the stipulation being that the 3rd harmonic brings a 'closed in' sound. IME/IMO a good tape machine in record and playback does not sound rolled off, nor 'closed in', if the latter can be interpreted to be something about how a tape machine presents a sound stage... I am interested to find out what 'closed in' means.

 

[adrianywu]

I think you might be missing the point of that comment- either that or I am! The comment was in response to the fact that all tape machines operating correctly will produce a significant 3rd harmonic and so is not a frequency response error; the stipulation being that the 3rd harmonic brings a 'closed in' sound. IME/IMO a good tape machine in record and playback does not sound rolled off, nor 'closed in', if the latter can be interpreted to be something about how a tape machine presents a sound stage... I am interested to find out what 'closed in' means.

I guess what he meant by closed-in is a sound that lacks the reverberation cues. We use a similar term in Chinese to describe the kind of sound that one sometimes get in a studio recording that lacks the ambiance of a large recording space. In a system where the HF is rolled off, I have observed this kind of sound. Low res digital can do that too due to a loss of low level information. I have certainly not found that with tape recordings in general, as long as the proper miking techniques and a good venue have been used. I hazard a guess that adding the 3rd order harmonics during tape saturation might mask some of the higher order harmonics, and these high order harmonics can fool the brain into thinking there is more treble energy.

 

[Atmasphere]

I guess what he meant by closed-in is a sound that lacks the reverberation cues. We use a similar term in Chinese to describe the kind of sound that one sometimes get in a studio recording that lacks the ambiance of a large recording space. In a system where the HF is rolled off, I have observed this kind of sound. Low res digital can do that too due to a loss of low level information. I have certainly not found that with tape recordings in general, as long as the proper miking techniques and a good venue have been used. I hazard a guess that adding the 3rd order harmonics during tape saturation might mask some of the higher order harmonics, and these high order harmonics can fool the brain into thinking there is more treble energy.

I'm not used to tape lacking low level resolution, or lacking room ambience! I'm still waiting for a definition of 'closed in'. @morricab is the only one who can explain what he meant by that.

 

[Foxbat]

Indeed. Last night I was playing a 1979 live - orchestral recording by Berlin Philharmonic. The tape was obviously old, its oxide layer dull, not shiny, but I was truly stunned by its resolution. The way the tiny triangle in a large concert hall, and audience noises were presented was simply incredible.

 

[Chops]

Am I wrong???

Yes