Analog Tape Recording vs. Direct to Digital Shootout
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 ноя 2014
- Decide for yourself in this audio shootout! Does analog tape sound better than direct to digital recording?
I'm trying to decide if I want to record to analog tape and then transfer the recording into the digital realm vs. an all digital recording. I set up a test, using a Teac A3440 4-track reel deck. I set things things up to record the same performance, feeding the audio into the Teac and computer at the same time. I came away feeling that one sounded better than the other. Watch, listen and see what you think!
Check out Shootout Part 2 (comparison between the tape recording and the Waves Kramer Master Tape plugin): • Waves Audio Kramer Mas...
Check out Shootout Part 3 (comparison ofdigital recording copied/bounced to tape!):
• Copy/Bounce Digital Au...
Check out Shootout Part 4 (full band digital mix bounced to tape and compared): • Full Band Digital Mix ...
Link to uncompressed audio files:
chordsoforion.com/2014/11/anal...
Jecklin Disk/OSS information:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jecklin_...
DOWNLOAD the LATEST Chords of Orion Ambient Guitar music here: chordsoforion.bandcamp.com
Equipment used:
Lowden O35 Acoustic Guitar
Oktava MC012 microphones
Jecklin Disk/OSS
Teac A3440 Reel to Reel Tape Deck
RMGI SM911 Reel Tape
Focusrite Scarlett 2i4 audio interface
Apple Logic Pro X
2009 Macbook Pro
chords of orion - ambient/post-rock guitar music for the heart and mind.
bill vencil - guitars, vocals, other instruments and sounds.
web: chordsoforion.com
facebook: / chordsoforion
twitter: / chordsoforion
soundcloud: / chordsoforion 
Видеоклипы
Heard the hiss immediately on Two, knew it was tape instantly.
Yea this was a dumb test
Didn't know Ser Davos was into music this much!
Didn't have my system turned up loud enough to catch the tape hiss, but the give away for me was the fuller bodied sound at the beginning of the song. The analog tape just gives it a thicker, warmer tone.
NOTE: The signal path from the Focusrite interface to the tape deck (during the initial recording) is all analog. There is NO digital conversion when direct monitoring. I contacted Focusrite tech support and they confirmed this. Thanks!!
This is an eyebrow raiser for me! I have the same interface and was always curious about that.
Hello Bill Vincecil of Chords of Orion
I'm in the process of building a home recording studio.I have purchased all the recording tools needed and built a recording booth. My goal is to get the perfect sound quality in all my recordings. I have a AG03 Yamaha recording mixer. 24-bit/ 192khz. Im in the process of ordering a new interface; the foucusrite clarett 4pre from sweetwater.com. My question is if I purchase a reel to reel tape machine will I be able to connetct it to my interface like you did in your video?
Yes. You should be able to connect it to the Clarett's line inputs.
yeah but it still effects the sound heavily
Chords Of Orion two sounded like shit
Did no one mention that the guitar work is dope? Nice playing, man - killer riffs.
Many thanks. I truly appreciate it!!!
+alfanth Sorry, but I can't reply to your comment, so I hope you see this! In this video there was no noise reduction used, however, I do have the original DBX noise reduction unit that came with the deck. I use it from time to time, but I find that it does affect the tonality slightly. Another option I have used when transferring old recordings from analog to digital is to use the noise reduction components of Adobe Audition CC. With a little practice, you can get an effective hiss reduction without changing tone of the actual program material.
very good work, my advice for hiss man use Izotope RX denoiser is good for that.
When I listened, I was pretty sure that #1 was digital, especially after #2 started and I could plainly hear the difference. What is interesting is that I am hearing impaired in my left ear, but only the second recording allowed me to hear certain frequencies from your guitar. Lovely music, fun experiment! I also had, for many years, a Tascam 40-4 open reel deck and miss it greatly. Love your channel! Cheers!
I too immediately stopped listening at mile marker 4 on song #2. I could pretty much tell the difference too. I liked the test I think number 1 was clearer even though I'm a analog nut. I'm sure a normal EQ would have made the difference and it would have been a closer race.
digital = pristine, crisp, no hiss, imo too much high-end shrill
analog = hiss, but felt like the guitar player was playing in front of me in a small cozy room. warm.
stringsnare I was pretty confused, but u explained easily, now I understand thank you 👍🏼
So eq the high end out and add some hiss to the digital and bam, same sound.
Correct...and also if you connect to very high end speakers like Adam Classic MK3 series then the analogue signal will be breath taking and the digital too sterile. You simply have to have high end spkrs to really discover what analogue is capable of.
Mickeyislowd you really don’t even need expensive speakers to tell the difference. A DECENT set of speakers and a decent turntable will do wonders for those discovering analog sound. And then as your first album to be wowed by incredible analog recording-Rumors by Fleetwood Mac. You’ll never go back.
Sound depth (timbre) is what digital kills
OK everyone. I am officially going to create a part 3 in this series (in about 2 weeks)! I will take the digital version of the guitar recording, record it to the tape deck and then run that back into the computer and compare it against the original analog version. Should be interesting to see what the tape does to the digital. And finally, if you've not checked out part 2 of the series, please do so. I compare the analog tape version in this video against the digital version processed by the Waves Kramer Master Tape plugin. Watch and listen over there and let me know what you think Here's the link: ruclips.net/video/Ck-9XcXqef4/видео.html
ANNOUNCEMENT! Part 3 is here! I copied the digital guitar recording back to my A3440 at both 15 ips and 7.5 ips. I then copied it back to the computer, and in the video, compare the results. ruclips.net/video/4JJC8HUejWw/видео.html
Chords Of Orion one was much better to my ears personally, It captured the attack, sustain and harmonics of your very fine finger style playing and immense sounding lowden. I shall check out the other parts, Cheers for putting them up
Thanks so much for checking in. It's been really interesting to me to get everyone's thoughts!
Nekro Dean Digital has high resolution at the top end of the dynamic range when all bits are being used. However, the very quiet stuff is not rendered using all the bits and is not in as much focus. This tends to - at first - make you think that digital is "clearer", because the loud parts (which are by obviously more obvious to the ear) are clean and clear and undistorted. Analog on the other hand can have a bit of distortion going on as you reach the upper limit of the tape's dynamic range...BUT...the softer stuff is actually very clear and the resolution doesn't drop off with decreasing level...it just disappears smoothly into the noise floor. So, the very soft "underlay" of the sound is actually clearer in analog. If you listen again you might hear this - but it's a different "kind" of clarity in a different part of the dynamic range. Think of it this way: imagine you are standing at the base of a skyscraper with a camera. You aim it up the side of the building, and you have a problem; what part of the building do you set the focus on? You decide to set the focus so that the top of the building is sharply in focus, but the building then becomes less focused towards the base; that's your digital recording right there. Now, imagine if we took a second picture with the camera set so that the bottom half of the building is in focus; that's your analog recording....well...sort of. We still need to somehow account for the tape hiss at the very bottom of the dynamic range. OK...so at the moment you snap the second picture with the bottom half of the building in focus, some wind blows a fine mist of smoke across the very base of the building. I find that digital tends to draw one's ear to the front end of the sound and the attack which - again - fools you into thinking "ah...clarity". But analog is more subtle in the way it renders the sound, and the low level stuff and decay is more natural. But having said all of this, it depends on the specifics of the equipment used. One shitty capacitor in the signal path of the audio can be the great equalizer between any two pieces of recording equipment, and make meaningless any comparisons or discussions of analog vs digital.
Huxxy Real interesting skyscraper analogy that I think has merit when thinking about analog vs. digital.
Question - how do you think that the clean "focus" of digital comes into play when analog audio (like the example in this video) is copied to the digital realm. Does the bit resolution affect the softer analog edges of the focus range?
I think this is a terrific video as lot of bands are going back to tape these days and I wondered why.
The digital recording for me sounded sharper but almost synthetic compared to the more rounded analogue recording. For me the tape sounds more feature rich and picks up the full tone of the guitar and sounds like you’re in the room hearing it.
The analog noise on the background of the second audio immediately told me that was the Tape recording! Great video demostration! Please keep it up
Thanks so much for doing this. I noticed the digital recording had more stereo information than the tape, which could easily make the listener prefer it, yet the tape had more low end, a bit rounder. They definitely had different tonal qualities. Different in the mid range. Tape a bit more colourful, digital more accurate? A bit more presence in the mids on the digital.
I listened in mono, the digital was a bit boxy, a bit hollow.
I think if the stereo spread could be matched, the tape would win all day.
+J Harris Sorry - I can't reply to your comment directly (think it's your G+ settings). Anyway, The Jecklin disk is typically my preferred configuration for recording acoustic guitar in stereo. I really like the separation that it provides. And just to be clear - the signal from both the right and left mics was split and fed into both the tape and digital recordings so each version got the same stereo image from the mics.
I cannot believe this. I was always told i'd love the analogue direct to tape recordings, i was told they're warmer, and more natural. But this video has totally changed my entire thinking process. The digital was so pristine. I almost feel like my ears don't work.
In order to appreciate analog you must be in the studio or in your own home (with all your analog equipment if you want to hear the differences which the results are clearly in favor of analog... Digital is just music for robot, analog for humans. Analog waves are digitized by the youtube converter so its impossible to hear the analog sound from youtube videos which is a digital medium just like all internet videos and music formats.
This makes perfect sense. How can we appreciate analogue sound when we are listening from youtube, which is digital platform.
I also liked the digital better. To me the tape version sounded like lower quality recording. And I'm producing electronic music where I love to put noise and dirt in on purpose for sound design.
But, what you're really hearing is 2 digital recordings since they're both on YT and something had to be used to digitize the tape. Without a full analog chain (and I would argue for a better tape deck too) this test is flawed.
I must also add, tape is also incredible unforgiving. So whilst you come to expect a more warm tone, remember that in a great studio, with outboard gear and hardware EQ pre-tape it would indeed sound absolutely phenomenal. I do firmly believe it still sounds warmer and deeper, however you need to massage the sound out with some decent hardware gear.
I’m analog all the way. Digital is cool for certain conditions but yeah, I’m an analog guy.
Nice playing! Beautiful recording too! I guessed 2 was the tape, but I used tape a lot. I heard that nice little analog rounding & tape compression. Personally I liked the digital here, but a lot of the time it really depends what a guy is recording & how its getting done. Hats off for a good comparison!
Just added - Analog Tape Shootout #4. I bounce a full band mix to tape to see if any magic happens! ruclips.net/video/07AylGg7bl8/видео.html
Hiss was definitely a dead giveaway for the 2nd recording being "tape".
To my ears, the direct digital sounded more full-bodied (for whatever reason).
Neither sounded "bad"; both were "good" - albeit those descriptions are/will always remain quite subjective.
Overall, good stuff...wish I'd known what gem I had back in the day when I bought a tape deck from a pawn shop, but didn't know how to use it, and gave it away... 😞
Hymn
+i. Am Hymn Totally agreed with you on the point about subjectivity. Beauty is in the "ear" of the beholder!!
Chords Of Orion True indeed...both renditions sounded quite good...good work. 👍
Hymn
Dear stranger Hymn, have to agree with you on this one, which surprised me as I was expecting the tape to shine, I once owned one of those Teac machines, knowing about 'rocks' can help align them to the fullest.
Just the analog recording sounds the tape going on but I liked the digital
Yes, I have to admit that the digital recording did sound more "Full" to me too!
I know that this happened a few years ago, but I’ve only just found you and started working my way through your content.
This is, believe it or not, the first time in my excessively long life, that I’ve listened to a direct analog/digital comparison. Analog wins! (Although my digital setup will remain).
Thanks for opening up a new music style for me - I might even post a few videos myself when time permits. 👍🏻
Thanks for hanging out! If you have any questions about any of the content, let me know.
Just got to the second one and I'm commenting up before I finished listening to it but the tape hiss and high roll-off gave it away right away. I have been recording for a quarter-century the most people probably wouldn't hear all that right away. Love your videos man keep doing it!
Obviously, the tape really saturates and rounds the peak noise pleasingly - especially noticeable on hard picking / staccato hits. There is also noticeable compression and a presence rolloff with the taped recording... It's a classic sound... Very musical and colorful. The tape distortion I'm hearing is very similar to what you get from high end tube processing. The effect on the dynamics and the presence rolloff is reminiscent of what you get out of an 1176 compressor. I also hear some slight modulation in the taped recording (is that modulation also called "flux"?)... I also hear very slight wowing and fluttering. All of the described effects are subtle and weaving (except for the presence rolloff, that's pretty signature).
The digital recording, on the other hand is very bright, open, and lively. It really really really allows one to hear the tone of the wood and strings unobstructedly. This could be good or bad depending on the player and the quality of an instrument's different parts... But on this particular recording, the digital sound certainly isn't bad. It's perfectly clean with a hint of transformer grit on the peaks. I suspect that with higher-end preamping, the recording would gain some extra flavoring - but that's neither hear nor there for this review.
In the end, I liked the taped recording better for this particular song. It's more interesting on a lot of different fronts., though I'm partial to the bright and open sound. Sometimes, I do prefer some slightly harsh digital/Class-A grit to help an acoustic blues riff cut through a busy mix but in this case, the taped recording is king.
+Jordan Pauley Thanks so much for listening so closely and providing great detail to what you heard. Lots of good observations here!!
Jordan Pauley a joy to read
Regarding your comment, you mix technical terms and subjective terms together which muddles understanding.
If levels are set correctly there will be no 'saturation' and with even a semi-pro tape machine no roll off under 20Khz esp at 15ips. It will be ruler flat from 20-20 within 0.5db. Any tape running at 15ips, as long as it's serviced and running well will not have any wow or flutter that could possibly be audible. The inertia of the capstan flywheel at high speed is tremendous. I guarantee nobody could hear any wow or flutter from a studio quality tape machine running correctly. Listen to any recording from 1955 - 1980 and pick out wow and flutter.
Things like 'presence rolloff' can not be attributed to tape as a medium. Compression also is not something that tape machines will automatically do, sure the absolute dynamic range is limited by the higher noise floor, but tape will faithfully capture, on a good machine,with a good tape formulation, well over 70db. Enough to capture a full orchestra with no compression. A guitar is real easy.
What is 'transformer grit'? I can't comment on that as I don't know what it is.
What is 'Digital/class A grit'? Class A as an output stage topology is 'grit' free from my understanding of the subjective value of grit.
Funny though I detected the recording 2 to be recorded at a different level which put it at a disadvantage though I haven't listened to the quality stream.
Thanks to the German Tonschreiber and Bing Crosby for the birth of the modern recording industry. We almost certainly would not have Elvis,The Beatles or Beach Boys without them.
Digital records are more accurate, so they sound closer to what you would hear live.
Analogue adds imperfections that some people actually enjoy.
@@joaosousa1025 "Digital records are more accurate, so they sound closer to what you would hear live."
No they're not. The distortion of tape emulates the resonance of actual sound in real life.
Excellent video and comparison. I could listen to you speak all day :)
it's funny how people's ears have been trained these days to process higher frequencies/presence (as present in the digital recording) as better quality. Most people find it hard to focus on the mids to low range when compared against something with more high end. Analog roundness and thickness is just beautiful and reminds me of my favorite albums of yesteryear. In fact, you put any good 90s and back record against new records and you'll notice far more crystal air and presence in the newer material - not my personal preference. Bring back the warmth I say, it's just so beautiful to hear. It speaks to your core.
Great video to capture the differences. There’s a lot of valuable points to be said about playing back analog through analog equipment too. My youth years were exactly that. Hearing my parents jam vinyl albums and 8track cassettes through their Zenith console stereo at generous volumes, coupled with the scent in the air of the heated electronic components galvanized an appreciation and likeness for analog audio. I like digital too but for a whole other set of reasons. There’s a warmth and hearty quality that my old cassette tape Yamaha 4-track recordings have over my later better produced digital recordings.
#1 was better for my ears, so calm, delicate, balmy sound
Wow really perfect timing to find this and thanks for such a good job and I agree; the analog has a fuller rounder bottom end Exactly what need and want as a Pro Bassist looking to record some Acoustic 6 string songs. Almost was going to sell my treasured Pioneer 1020 Reel-to-reel deck but I'm holding onto it for dear life now that I've really heard the comparison. Thanks
I came here after watching The Big Interview with Neil Young. I grew up listening to Analog but my ears were slowly tricked into digital thinking they were the same. It's very clear now the distinct difference from digital to analog. You can hear the fingers stroke the strings, everything is more crisp and authentic. It's almost as if your right there playing. Damn I miss the good ole days. Thanks Neil Young for explaining what has gotten lost in digital recordings and thank you for making this video. Very informative.
I find the high end more controlled, yet still very silky on the tape. Just sounds beautiful man.
Excellent sound! You really know how to record great sound properly! Awesome video, keep it up!
+Vinyl Eyezz Thanks!!
Reel-to-reel rules! Got the tape recognized to, coz it sounds cool :)
Awesome performance as well of course! Enjoyed every time listening
Great video nicely introduced, edited and delivered. Hiss on the 1/4" tape on 2 was the giveaway. SOUNDED GREAT!!!!!
Cool... I have my old Teac two-track in the garage. I've been thinking of mixing down to it for an old-school project I'm working on, so you've motivated me. I often end up using UAD emulations in Pro-Tools anyway, but it might be worth the trouble trying the reel thing! Now to find some quarter inch tape...
Just found your comparison, and it was pretty much as I expected - I did guess right as I was listening. I didn't use my reference monitors, just my Martin Logan home speakers which are decent. And I listed to the samples at lower and moderate volumes.
The major difference I heard in your demo was less articulation in the analog version - I couldn't hear your fingers on the strings as well and the high frequencies sounded like there was a blanket over the speakers compared to the digital version. I did also notice the bigger - and as you said rounder - bass frequencies of the analog. However I don't know if the bass was actually less on the digital, but just less noticeable because of the increased high frequencies. However I did think the analog was a bit muddy sounding.
All of those issues could be minimized by selective eq to drop a couple of decibels in the muddy region of the analog (I'm guessing between 320 and 400 hz.) and increasing the top end a couple of decibels with a shelf. Or on the digital recording by upping the warmest frequencies and some judicious compression.
In the end, they both sound really good and my view is that whatever gets you to actually record your music - whether analog or digital - is the "right way to do it."
+HardwireSpeers Excellent points. And about the low frequencies: they are more prominent on the analog because the analog doesn't have as much highs as the digital. It's a similar thing to tone knobs on guitars/basses: by decreasing the treble the mids come to the front, so to speak.
i agree with " whatever gets you to actually record your music - whether analog or digital - is the "right way to do it."
Teac reel to reel, oh how I've missed you my old friend! why oh why did I sell you?!
I highly recommend listening to the uncompressed audio files he linked in the description. I feel like some of the attack transients were lost in the analog recording. Ultimately, it's personal taste as far as what people like best. Makes me want to experiment with analog tape saturation using my old NAK cassette deck!
LOVE the guitar work / song. Keep it up. Makes me interested in hearing your other work.
Thanks very much! I do have some other acoustic videos on this channel, although most of it is electric ambient style guitar.
The hiss gave it away lol
sadly i'm not an audiophile, I couldn't really hear the difference
I'm sure it's all psychological (like what isn't). I hooked up my 4-track last night and played some old tapes... it was "warm" to me too. Booting up a computer to process sound is like buying processed cheese slices (vs. a block of cheese).
+daddyrichten I think this is one of the most overlooked points of the analog vs digital debate. couldnt agree more, well put.
+General Shamic It is definitely noticeable...to those of us who are engineers, anyway. Analog will always be noticeable if you listen closely enough because tape physically responds to the input. Imagine walking on wet sand at the beach. When you put your weight down, it captures an imprint of your foot, but in addition to that, around the outside of the image sand bulges and distorts as it is displaced to make room for your foot. This is exactly the same thing that happens to tape. The harder you drive the input, the greater it causes the tape to react to it...this causes compression of the high frequency information, and a pleasant warm tone to the mid-range and low end. Obviously if you drive it too hard it distorts which sounds terrible, but tape, itself, is basically a signal processor itself. Digital converters are not. The reason digital doesn't TYPICALLY sound as alive as analog tape is because it converts the incoming electrical signal to a certain bit depth at a certain frequency (moments in time, not audio frequency). There will always be small errors in capturing the incoming signal, so the computer has to fill in the gaps with what amounts to educated guesses. It will round to the nearest bit, and what not. Over time this results in the perception of dullness in the recording. Also known as jitter. The solution to this problem is to spend $10-20,000 on high quality converters and word clock....but most home recordists cant afford that. When you listen to the SUM of MANY tracks recorded with tape vs computer, the differences become much more apparent.
+General Shamic You might also need decent speakers or headphones to hear it, but I heard significant differences. The digital didn't have any background hiss, the low-end of extremely subtle and the high-end was tinny and sharper. The analog recording had the hiss, the low-end was more noticeable and appreciated in a way, but also the medium and high-end had a nicer rounder tone which sounded more natural and less sharp.
+Eric Pederson I have to respectfully disagree that tape distortion sounds terrible.
As a video professional since the 80's, I've obviously worked with both A and D. When it comes to audio in any video production, neither really have an advantage as far as the end product is concerned. Digital is the clear winner, though, when it comes to the entire production process. When it comes to music, I tend to prefer the original instruments recording done with analog for all the reasons your video make obvious (the dynamics, specifically). However, I'm more than happy to use any and all NR to kill that hiss. I'll even sacrifice the extreme top end with a filter to get rid of it. I don't listen to music in anything resembling a purist setting, so ultimately there is very little difference to my ears. Life is too short to be bothered trying to aim for non-existent perfection. Also, great digital gear coupled with an experienced "engineer" can fool many an expert.
Totally agree with you. Analogue is not necessarily 'better'! It is just what people are USED to! ONCE I heard digital, I go, 'WHERE'S the MUD?' More freq range, more dynamics, LESS noise or colouration that comes from physical media!
Vinyl better than CD? Nah! Physical media were almost always extremely limited in what they could handle!
You can MAKE an all digital recording SOUND analogue if you use it properly, don't overload the signal, and AVOID @ all costs, hard limiting to make everything max out @ +4dB!
1 of my friends who has a studio, does both analogue tape and digital, tho he favours digital for ease of use, flexibility and virtually limitless tracks!
His recordings have all the warmth and character of tape, without the noise! (So it CAN be done!)
I disagree. Analog recordings sound better than digital
@@willthetrill4849 LOL! * Citation Required *
The Analog sound you have is amazing, it sounds really deep, rich and fullbodied
Thanks! A lot of it is the Lowden. It sounds pretty fabulous.
I picked #2 as the tape. I also heard the fullness of the sound as well. I own a 3440 as well I have used mine several times for multimedia shows where on track handled the cues to control numerous projectors. I have also used it to play back a recording of the US Marine band playing the Star Spangled Banner in a studio setting- all analog. The ACTUAL band was on site and began playing with themselves on tape as the marched through a ribbon screen for a patriotic opening ceremony for a convention we did. Incredible match in the fullness and brightness of the band. The speakers were 6 old Voice of the Theater A7s (25 years ago)each on its own 150 watt amp.
I have this exact same machine! Inherited it from my friend who had an all analogue studio here back in the 80s & 90s!
Still works but hard to get new tapes these days!
Freshly manufactured blank recording tape is plentiful these days. And so are high quality pre-recorded tapes.
@@EdSullivan101 Ok, nice to know! But I could not be bothered these days!
I started recording in 1961 on an AGS 1/2 track machine. It was a terrific little machine. Years later I became a recording engineer/producer and have spent my life recording in professional studios. I was there through it all during the transition from analog to digital. I still record professionally today. I recently sold my Otari 5050B. It sat unused in my studio for over 5 years. Why? I don't have any more tapes to digitize, and on new productions it just isn't worth the trouble (and expense) to get a little tape compression and added noise. I've spent my life battling noise, why would I seek it out now? If I really need to add noise, I've have tons of plug-ins that will do it. For me it's all about the performance of the music, and the music itself. Digital serves the music. Analog serves the romantics.
I agree 100% with You.
Absolutely right!👍
@@jjcale2288 i understand but analog does pay the artist better.
@@ringtanz we all should pay the artists better, no matter the media they are recorded on.
Dear Sir
the last part took me to snow covered mountains of Alaska!!!
I'd definitely go for the analog.
tnx for the awesome video
Glad you liked it. Thanks for letting me know!!
Dear Bill
could you please direct us more to the information about the mics you used to record the guitar sound. I mean the twin ones.
Many tanx in advance
I got so caught up in the wonderful music that i forgot to listen for the subtle differences.
Thanks for the video.
It was very clear that the first was digital after hearing them both. I felt that the tape version had some phasing issues, the middle felt a bit lost. I think it may be due to crosstalk of the tape machine which caused some combfiltering. I think with a different mic placement would have made the tape version higher fiderlity due to the tape compression and harmonic distortion. The first one sounded clean, but dull and colorless, which is what you’d expect with an unprocessed recording.
I've recorded using both mediums over the years and not biased to either. Each has its merits and drawbacks, but when I heard the first recording (lack of hiss aside) my immediate thought was that it sounded warm, round and full-bodied and had to be the analogue recording! Who knew!! What's more impressive is that no EQ was applied to either recording, yet to my ears the digital version conveyed warmth and balance with no harsh highs. Bill also obviously knows how to choose his mic and instrument carefully and captured his performance beautifully, which goes to show that the analogue vs digital choice is frequently not the most important factor.
Waaaaay back in the last century ... don't make us all feel so old! Nice video!
Hi Bill, this was a really fascinating video, thanks for sharing. Firstly, some beautiful guitar work, I thoroughly enjoyed listening to that.
I listened to this through my MOTU audio express interface on some Sennheiser HD650 headphones. Interestingly, when I was listening to the RUclips stream I preferred the tape sound, but when I listened back to the uncompressed original recordings, the digital for me won out. Here's why:
The tape sound was definitely "warmer", which is what one would expect. The hiss was not an issue for me and in fact adds to the ambiance (it could also be removed quite easily if required). I agree with your analysis that the bottom-end was fuller, but it was at the top-end that suffered. This of course is what gives tape that"warmth", but for that type of detailed acoustic performance, part of the magic for me is in the tiny, high-frequency picking and clicking sounds which just bring your playing to life. The digital recording lost absolutely none of that, it was truly "flat" from the bottom to the top, and that really made it sound completely real in my headphones, whereas on the tape recording I found myself wanting more detail and almost straining to hear it.
Anyway, just my opinion! I do still love the tape sound, and I think for vocals or instruments where extreme top-end is not as important, tape captures more soul.
I liked the first recording better. The 'roundness' of the second recording I perceive as a dullness in the higher register.
thats exactly what I thought and it shouldnt be,a RtoR running at 15ips should have a response to 20Khz.maybe the heads were dirty or it was very old tape or the tape eq wasnt correct or maybe the heads need to be demagnitized.
I thought exactly the same thing. 15ips should not pull the highs back.
Most engineers would add some highs before hitting tape, to bring back some presence as tape does warm things up. Its clear that he didn't do that.
@@voltare2amstereo The tape used for the recording was RMGI 911, which makes it newer tape. The original BASF 911 from the mid 80s: It should be noted that BASF, unlike Agfa, Ampex, and 3M, never used the polyurethane infamous for breaking down over time and causing sticky tapes. I've used a lot of open reel tape over the years, and there is no other tape that outperforms BASF mechanically. Maxell made a great open reel tape; but in published, independent comparison tests for electro-acoustic properties of consumer open reel tapes, BASF was the regular winner. All of the tapes I salvaged years ago still wind perfectly with no significant rub off and no sign of shedding.
The machine may have had head alignment issues, bias and eq settings may have been wrong for that particular tape (911) , the head azimuth may have been off, and at 15 ips the low end response (Below 50 hz) gets rolled off.
Tape had more tone. Dangerous potential mud in a thicker mix, but superb acoustic solo sound
I KNEW it! Number two! Digital more than makes up for its piercing sound with efficiency and cost reduction. But the reel to reel definitely sounds better. I don’t know if u ever had a little portable 4 trk by foster or tascam but I was SO amazed by the difference in quality when the digital ones debuted. A whole new world opened up. I’d still love to get into pro sounding analog recording tho. Killer acoustic riff by the way! Gettin’ CRAAAZY with the capos!🤘🏼
Glad you liked the piece. thanks!!!
Forgot that this had anything to do with recording techniques when he you started playing. Such a beautiful tone.
Thank you VERY much for the kind words. I have to say that the Lowden guitar in the video is very easy to mic. It is truly a wonderful sounding guitar.
Digital is more accurate while analogue has imperfections that some people enjoy.
What we are hearing is a digital lossy compressed audio from a video on RUclips.
Yet, it can accurately record the imperfections of the analogue record. :)
That's too much his for analog. It can be much better
Hmm well I have to say that recording one was better, it sounded clearer and more focused were as recording 2 seemed farther away and not as clear, it also seem to pick up more room noise.
Great comparison.
Thanks for putting it together. Keep playing your fantastic guitar music.
Before seeing your answer, they both sound very good. I could easily live with either. I'm going to say that the first clip seemed to have more high end and I'll claim it as digital.
The digital recording had a bit more top end to my ears. It certainly sounded a bit brighter. They both sounded good but I think I preferred the digital.
clearly listening, clarity of the analog is better, even with a little noise is natural, for me wins the tape
I would have to disagree...how is noise(tape hiss) natural?? You certainly wouldn't hear any if you listening to the live performance!!
I would say the digital recording is a more accurate representation of what the guitar would sound like in the room, and the tape seems to bring out certain frequencies in the guitar giving some notes more of a hum. Which is better depends on what you're trying to accomplish.
I used to have a MOTU Ultralite for years, and i did a series of recordings with it just before changing to the Focusrite 2i2 gen3 (no driver issues). But I have to say that the MOTU captured so much more than the focusrite. Not comparable to analogue, but definitely the motu was more solid sounding, had more character and felt like a subtle compression compared to the 2i2.
Great to hear these comparisons of the tape, I've always been a fan of it.
Years ago, I noticed the difference between a Vacuum tube amplifier and a Solid State device. You have to understand the difference in the way each type handles the signal. A vacuum tube is slower in response to a signal, than a solid state device, mainly because the solid state device is much faster in responding to the signal, than a tube device is. In conclusion this gives the tube device, ie, the tape deck a mellow sound, where as the solid state, ie, Solid State transistor device handles the signal in a much faster way, resulting in every little change in signal is detected. The younger generation is more apt to like the solid state reproduction than the Tube version because that is what they are used to. I am 83 years of age, and I detected the difference immediately, because of my career in electronics.
You know a well designed valve amp and a well designed SS amp should sound exactly the same when operating under their specifications (ie no clipping). Carver proved this back in the 1980s with the Carver Challenge (google it) where he proved he could emulate the sound of any high end valve or SS amp with one of his much cheaper SS amps. Both Stereophile and The Audio Critic took him up on the challenge and both could not tell the difference in blind testing. Valve amps are more expensive, less efficient and higher maintenance and that is why they have faded away, apart from some 'audiophile' applications where the amps are intentionally designed to distort to produce a mellowy sound.
that's not how electricity works lol
There was also hiss in the tape
Ridiculous. Tubes are not "slower". Both respond at the speed of light. Tubes are actually far more sensitive and wider in frequency response, than transistors. FETs come close, but no cigar. You're hearing something else altogether.
Both sounded amazing, maybe its more the music and the playing that counts and not what its recorded on.
👍
GREAT JOB PAL!!!
That is a beautiful piece of music with fine playing - it sounds just great on tape
Thanks very much!
Man.... Analog or digital, your guitar is something I've never heard anywhere.... There's a color in there that, honestly, made me look for an output jack on your guitar! I think it's the strings and perhaps something else that makes your notes ring out that way because, frankly, I was blown away.... Do you think you could tell me on a private message, or via email, what kind of strings, gauge, and tuning that you're using? I'm just curious, as a musician myself ;)
Glad you liked the tune! Maybe one day, I'll turn it into an official recording. As far as the sound/tone goes, I am using Elixir Phosphor Bronze Medium gauge. The tuning is standard, but I am using a full and a partial capo to achieve a "fake" DADGAD tuning. I think the main thing that you are hearing is the Lowden guitar itself. Lowden have a unique and (to me) very special tone. And this one is a beauty with a spruce top and koa back and sides.
Chords Of Orion I guess you're right about Lowden guitars, I've done a quick research about them and they are totally nailing a new level of natural sound out of the guitar itself! I also have to say that something in my head told me that you were using Elixir's ;) but again.... Lowdens are really something else.... They're better than Taylor, Gretsch, National and a few other brands (both historical and modern). Have you ever tried to fine tune your guitar at 432 Hz rather than the standard pitch? If Lowden hadn't done it yet from the workshop....
Agaliarept 731 i've tried 432 once or twice, but don't really buy all benefits that some folks tout. Just sounds slightly flatter to me. What I do like to do with that guitar from time to time is to string it with heavy gauge strings and tune it down a whole step to D. Now THAT is profound. :-)
Chords Of Orion I've found that D tuning has a mysterious magic to it, so I agree 👍 I use 432 on my electric, and the difference to 440 is tremendous really.... Maybe on an acoustic it has a different resounding. I really dig your soulful playing BTW
i think you will find that the mics and room have a lot more effect on the tone than anything else...
The analog sounded way more muffled.
Wonderful video, good performance. The obvious hiss aside, the fullness, loudness and even width of the analog is quite staggering when doing a/b back and forth.
Awesome video Bill!!!!!
Analog all day. The tape sounds great.
Yeah, I just love the sound of analog tape hiss.
I don't.
silence of real life is not "silent" you are just going deaf! lol
A STUDER Tape Machine doesn't have hiss
Was just going to say..
I genuinely like tape hiss.
Not super duper overpowering, but a fair amount of it is fine.
I really like both recordings !! Your guitar sound , playing , and microphone choice is awesome ! I have the Octava for over head drum sound. . It makes the cymbals sizzle
The best Analog Tape Recording vs. Direct to Digital Shootout i ever heard - well done - i have a Tascam MS-16 ( analog studio's take a lot a room and a MS-16 is very heavy) thinking of going only Digital - it w'ont happen Thankyou
Well, after listening both, the digital was way better. with dynamics and crisp detail. Maybe the analogue recorder needed some care or new heads, but the digidal was simply like the source (the quitar), The analogue was lacking detail and has far less dynamics and it was a bit unatural and tiring to hear, I leave the hiss aside because it is natural for tapes to have a little even with dolby S. I think the digidal wins once fo all and the analogue is for people who still like it as it is, not bad but obsolete. So, go for the digidal and leave the analogue behind.
What's interesting is that recording two had smeared transients and is NOTICEABLY duller in the high frequencies. All the impact of the soundboard "hits" are greatly reduced. Take one is also more open and I can hear more 'air". I don't see how people can even say there is any comparison. Analog = mushy and dull, Digital = open and vibrant with a lot of impact.
You're talking about a specific ATR, and not a professional one.
I saw a similar video comparing two audio recordings, and the 'surprise' at the end was that they were the same recording, just to prove how much some of these things are all in your head. Was expecting that here lol but at least there was an actual difference here.
Interesting! There was a definite difference between the 2, especially if you listen to the tape deck through an all analog path (which obviously can't be done on RUclips).
Thanks' for posting this clip/comparison! I must admit that at 61 years of age,I really don't hear much hiss on (#2).(#2) is warmer sounding,but (#1)has clarity.Just got my old "TEAC-A3340S "running.I have to admit that the pre-amps' are noisy to begin with,without even running the tape! : )
2 was better. It sounded richer, warmer and fuller of tones. No contest.
vaibanez17 Yeah, after all this experimenting, I am still drawn to the tape version!
and a annoying hiss
larry dude that can easily be edited and EQ'd away.
My last name is STUDER! Long live analog!
I KNEW that number two was analog from the first strum. That beautiful warmth just enveloped my ear drums.
Great work!
Both are fine in my opinion. In my notes I added that the low end was smoother and the highs were mellow in the tape recording. The first one felt a bit sharper sonically, and the mid frequencies messed with the highs. I think they both have different tonal colors that have different places. Good video!
To me, the pure digital version sounds like it has a band-pass filter where as the digitized analog tape version sounds wide open--virtually breathable. The hiss is smooth as silk and reminds me of my days playing with cassette tape as a youngster. I can see why many who grew up in the digital age won't like the hiss, but there are ways to deal with that. Actually, many cassette tape decks back in the old days had a hiss filter on them, but I usually left them in the off position because they filtered out some of the high-end nuances of the instruments as well. I'm not sure any tape-based plugin can truly put back the air into any digital recording but I hope I'm wrong because I'm working purely digital now. I love to create some acoustic guitar recordings that are as convincing as they were in the analog days. Great video.
I prefer the digital recording... it sound more neutral with more micro nuances sub-harmonically.
ha - that's what i liked about the analogue recording. increased impact (oomph) notwithstanding....
oh you can hear the sub harmonics can you? idiot
rekeesefil lmfao
rekeesefil www.scienceforums.net/topic/81920-fundamental-frequencies-and-subharmonics/
Agreed. Sort of wish i didn't but to be honest I liked the digital better.
ON SECOND LISTEN OF THE DIGITAL VERSION I LITERALLY THOUGHT YOU WERE SITTING IN FRONT OF ME PLAYING YOUR GUITAR.
LOVE THE PERFORMANCE MAN
For my money, the analog recording lacked "air" compared to the digital; what you call a rounder bottom end to me just sounded muddy. Not to mention the noise.
The 24-bit digital sounded a lot more natural to me. Now that's not to say the analog sounded "bad;" it just didn't sound as natural and true-to-life as the digital did. The digital preserved the "sparkle" I love in a good acoustic guitar recording, the nice airy high end, which analog tends to obscure.
I'm inclined to say that you're right. However I find that if you add the top end into the source prior to it hitting tape you'll get a MUCH nicer sense of air than with a digital recording. Digital recording can easily sound "brittle" if you try to emphasise top end at a later date. A large part of that is due to awful phase representation of the top end in cheaper AD/DA convertors.
Set up a tape machine correctly and watch your gain staging to avoid the hiss, I promise you it'll win everytime when frequency balanced with the digital
+Daniel Crook But the beauty of digital recording is the ruler flat frequency response that makes such gain staging totally unnecessary; you get out what you put in exactly. Takes all the guesswork out.
I am a child of the analogue era myself. Analog has its charms, but in the end digital recording can preserve the original signal with greater fidelity than analog could ever hope to. I come to this opinion honestly, having worked with both.
Think we'll have to agree to disagree here. 😉
It's a very interesting topic. Always circling back around to the user and their preference. They have their inherent pros and cons but the top end saturation of tape negates so many problems that I detest about digital.
The benefits of using analogue recorders is less about "vibe" or "character", it's about how a program signal responds at varying amplitudes. Recording to tape hot takes away so many of the processes that an engineer performs later, enabling them to focus on the song in the same amount of time we would normally spending de-essing a vocal or some other 21st century bullshit task.
Digital has more than earned it's place. It's a great for sonic pallets ;)
however how the program signal responds is what people are typically referring to as the "vibe" or "character" as it compresses, colors and distorts the sound, not to mention adds hiss, wow and flutter, and lacks dynamic range and frequency response in comparison to high bit digital, at a high frequency. It's not that digital is adding anything. If it's high end, what you put in is what you get back in terms of what you can hear. That's the reason for example you can make a digital recording of an analog mix and have it sound better than a mix to all digital if it so happens that the analog mix helped remove anything offending, brash, or altered the dynamics in a way that made say a kick drum sound better, or helped to reduce over all dynamic range positioning of different instruments, so as to squash the signal a little to "round" it out.
If however it was fine to start, and mixed in a daw the right way, it's not needed. In this case he's mixing nothing anyway. It's just a recording of a guitar which is not the best way to show what tape does. That said, in terms of "gluing", all this means is reshaping, bringing instruments together in a dynamic space. Basically warping (or distorting what you have), so that the recorder does some of the work to improve a recording.. IF it's needed. In the all digital world, nothing responds, and some people think this is ugly or bad. It is not. If used as a recorder, it's the perfect recorder. What goes in is what comes out.
What's happened is in the past, people have sometimes relied on the limitations of analog to pull a mix together, or "round" out the sound by using the tape machine as a sound processor. He says there is no compression or EQ he added, but forgot that the tape machine by default compresses and EQ's (by basically rolling off high frequencies while adding noise, distortion, wow and flutter etc, and sometimes that's nice if the person prefers the change or it's a terrible mix or harsh to begin with). But that's "fixing" a recording that basically has a problem or is not suited to subjective taste at the cost of adding other noise and dealing with degradation, so that every play it sound different. In this case a guitar was not the best choice to show how analog tape can sometimes help mixes or recordings. I have mixed for decades before digital and basically I simply just had to re-learn how to mix, master etc, so that I didn't need to rely on a tape machine. Also to make it easier, as you said, there's tools to do this on every channel or at the final stereo buss output.
And I can tell you it's absolutely possible to get not only that "warm" sound, but it's superior and noiseless. And if you like tape hiss, it can be added which is a bit silly. Also de-essing would be completely needed should that problem arise before recording to a professional analog deck such as a studer A800, or Otari MTR90 etc. That's because they are so quiet and clear, if problems/challenges exist with the microphones, singers voice, the way it was EQ'd, processed etc, it means the mix engineer didn't know what they were doing, and again, waited for their "trusty" tape recorder (which will eventually break), to remove some of that hiss.. but again, won't be enough on a high end machine. Also different channels can have different levels of harshness. And yes, the engineer needs to do a good job.
In his case, he's just recording a guitar. The digital recorder did nothing wrong (as you know :) because you said it's earned it's place) It just recorded what was there. If he doesn't like the sound, it's the sound of the microphone, or guitar. If it's a mix project, then a competent engineer can easily reshape, compress, filter, squash etc, the sound all in the digital domain. And guess what? If the guitar and microphones and placement are great the digital recording will simply reflect that. So digital recording does NOT need any reshaping or anything if what you start with is what you wanted. Yet somehow, it irritates people who got used to a recording that doesn't sound like the original. So if you need to alter the sound, all the tools are available in digital now. And he IS reshaping, compressing and EQ'ing sound by using tape, so it's just basically a machine used to alter the sound. Same can be done digitally now. It just took them a while to learn how to do that. I think the problem for those who are not mixing an album is they just record in stereo to software and forget that in some cases the analog tape, by distorting the sound, sometimes is more pleasant to them.. and they forget that it's possible to do this in some recording software, or simply use an external preamp that has the features, OR if they can't get over it, an analog one, as it starts analog anyway.
And the kids today, don't love tape hiss just because they didn't grow up with it. I was determined not to have sucky, thin sound in digital, and I won. And for those who just can't figure it out, there's even software that emulates the IMPORTANT aspects of what tape does, not to mention it works so well, people can not tell the difference. I think this notion that digital recording is inferior, or analog is superior is just naive and silly.
try listening to digital you can't its simple and has no place
Basically, if you grew up with analogue, you are used to analogue's sound characteristics. If you grew up with digital, you are used to digital's sound characteristics... Which is "better" is subjective.
themotownboy1 Absolutely!
I agree great comment even for 2 years ago!!
grew up with digital but i reeeeeally dig the tape version. Nothing wrong with digital though.
Technically "better" is subjective, but there's a science to sound, and some things are not opinion.
People are blinded by nostalgia and the idea that old is better. Both sound good and have their own signatures. The digital recording sounds amazing and to say it sounds much better is very subjective. The digital version had more dynamic range and that means everything to me.
My first experience in a studio was back in 1970 at WVON in Chicago. Bill Putnam Sr was the head engineer, and he recorded/mixed our band's two demos. Tape machine was an 8-track Ampex 1-in deck. I had never heard anything, before or since, sound as good. My friend bought a TEAC 3340 the following year. It was a phenomenal machine, but we never attained anything close to that enormous, incredibly detailed sonic tsunami that we heard at WVON studio. Getting back to your test, I was actually surprised at how compressed and less detailed the tape version sounded. As a practical matter, if I had to choose which version to use as a source, there's no question that I'd prefer the digital one. On the other hand... if I had that 8-track Ampex... I can dream can't I?
Near the end there was a part where the notes were much higher and louder. I felt like the digital was topping out and cutting something off. This definitely helped reaffirm my desire to work on presenting new entertainment that is recorded purely in analog until the very end where it would be digitized for distribution.
I liked 1 better. 2 had the background noise. 1 sounded more controlled to me. Sounds like 2 was in the red........ Yeah to warm
Rick Rijuana Beats Exactly what I was thinking. It sounded like it needed a gate, and seemed a little muddy at the low end
Rick Rijuana Beats That noise would disappear in the mix. There was a major difference in space and clarity that I particularly liked in the tape recording.
I've been recording with reel-to-reel since 1960, and in recent years it's been 8-channel with DBX noise reduction. I've also recorded in recent years on Data Minidisks.
To be perfectly honest, I can't tell the difference in the sound quality, but it could be because my hearing is not as acute as it was when I was younger.
I couldn't tell any difference between your two recordings.
I love analog recorders. Thank you for this beautiful video and have a beautiful day!
Thanks for the comparison. And well done on the song. That's a nice one.
Thank you very much!!
As a musician of many years and an avid audio freak, hands down everytime analog! Digital sounds thin with no timber or dynamics of the instruments. The higher frequencies sound harsh and un-natural. My brother and I have been doing A&B comparisons, even records sound more natural. you have not lived until you hear music from 2 inch tape!!
+Greg Alex I would love to have a 2" tape deck!
Greg Alex Its apples and oranges buddy. One tape recorder can sound significantly different to another, even with the exact same tape. Whereas digital records what is being sent through the microphone, providing you use a high enough bit rate and resolution. As a musician, you ought to know that.
For everyone talking about tape hiss as if it's a negative, go listen to "brown Sugar" by the Stones, the hiss is almost as loud as Keith's guitar in the into riff, is it bad? should it be subjected to noise reduction? HELL NO! Tape hiss 4 life!
And the song would be much better without so many hiss.
Don't tell the Stones I'm sure they would be devastated to know you could have done it better
Why not? its just another generic Stones style song.
zing!
why dont you write one and record it to show us as generic it is ?
The second all the way. Expected that to be the digital one. Not being as familiar with the differences between tape and digital as some of those "Now it all" officianardos commenting below, I found the results quite surprising. Great job!
I can understand why some would prefer the digital version in a back-to-back comparison--the increased high-end presence taps into psychoacoustic preferences for louder audio. However, the analog recording by itself has a more memorable tone and mood, I think. A good tape simulator plug-in is a must for digital recording.
I think that Teac is poorly calibrated and doesn't have flat frequency response at the high end frequencies. Using a professional R2R would give much better picture about analogue vs digital. Your project is very good but the analogue side has poor quality machine. I worked on a lot R2R's and always considered TEAC as poorly design machines. Revox or Tandberg would be much better choice as home use R2Rs
I agree.I think your machine isn't great.I've been recording for over 40 years on many open reel machines but would say you would get better results from studer or revox.Still an interesting project .
Analog has a lot of character which you don't get with digital tape deck.
+DAVID GREGORY KERR Agreed!
+DAVID GREGORY KERR I totally agree.
+DAVID GREGORY KERR I love tape for this reason. Playin the devils advocate though you can color sound in digital with EQ. can't undo it on tape
brendan rice That is certainly a valid point!
Nice playing. In this shoot out, you have analog to digital RUclips vs digital to digital RUclips. Hearing it live, analog will sound even more warm and natural because you are getting the full uncut signal not tiny snap shots of sound knitted very closely together. I never could get used to CD's for that reason. I do like however the clean quiet background and the convenience of digital.
Great song in this video and very enlightening! thanks for sharing!