Tape recorder "vintage vibe" ?

[runamuck]

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

In the end, what I hear as "glue" is a sense of all the sounds feeling connected & breathing together. Like they all live in the same place & are aware of each other.

Thank you.

I kind of think of reverb doing that, not compression.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by runamuck

Thank you.

I kind of think of reverb doing that, not compression.

I tend think both can contribute to that .

And then also , even as technical much of recording is, in the end much is still personal preference and a number of the descriptive terms are very much subject to personal perspective.
Warm - Glue - Sparkle etc.etc.

Dealing with just myself as a client and having a pretty good hardware Reverb, and almost always using reverb more as ambience than effect . My SOP is to have all my different instruments sending into a single parallel Aux reverb track into that HW reverb.
And so the theory is hopefully all the instruments should sound like they are in the same space.
For separation (which I tend to think of in left to right) I use mostly panning and then also possible some EQ

For moving things forward or backward in the space (but still in the same overall space =reverb ) is where I use compression and usually only have the lead vocal move a slight bit forward ....

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

I don't remember calling it loading, but I do remember chasing the high end & trying to outsmart the tape ;-)

That's definitely one of the things I don't miss about tape. I do miss having the time buffer of rewind to collect my thoughts. Now I get artists in the live room yelling "let me do another right away...ready!?" the second they finish a take.

I would likely not be a good recording engineer for other people, as it seems counter productive (and like the saying goes " the tail wagging the dog") to hire an engineer for their expertise and then start telling them how to do their job......

[renoslim]

OP again here. Lots of interesting comments. What was interesting to me was that even though now, we can VERY SPECIFICALLY alter the sound in many ways, there is not a lot of consensus on how that should go. Maybe technology vs. art ? Maybe my next post will be about the virtues of Vinyl ... Lee

[Bob Womack]

Originally Posted by renoslim

Maybe technology vs. art ? ... Lee

Yeah, I think this is the dynamic we are dealing with. A favorite example of this sort of situation is The Wallflowers Bringing Down the Horse album from 1996. It was state of the art for the time, recorded at the best studios and mixed by Chris Lord-Algae. It was, however, produced by T Bone Burnett, who has a habit of putting a "stamp" or twist on each of the albums he produces. In this case, you get the album home, put it on a good system, and discover that there is, indeed, a certain signature on all the songs. Everything recorded is just slightly distorted, with a light distortion that doesn't vary by level, it just sits there, as if it was added in mastering. It sounds "grainy." It is a more subtle version of what producer Roy Thomas Baker did. Roy had a favorite recorder he used, a Stephens 32 track with the tracks squeezed onto 2" tape, that allowed him to easily push every track into distortion. He was convinced that rock n roll shouldn't be recorded with pristine recording techniques. You can hear the effect prominently on Queen's A Night at the Opera album if you listen on a good system. It sets my teeth on edge, but he made good money with it.

Bob

[phcorrigan]

Originally Posted by renoslim

OP again here. Lots of interesting comments. What was interesting to me was that even though now, we can VERY SPECIFICALLY alter the sound in many ways, there is not a lot of consensus on how that should go.

The same is true for other formerly analog now digital technologies. Many photographers use film and somewhat archaic printing techniques. Major Hollywood pictures are still being shot on film instead of digitally.

It's hard to argue against the idea that these digital technologies are technically superior to their analog equivalents, so why are we still so enamored of the old ways?

I highly recommend Damon Krukowski's podcast (and book of the same title) "Ways of Hearing," (https://www.radiotopia.fm/showcase/ways-of-hearing) podcast series, which talks about what is different and what we have gained and lost with the move to digital music.

[Chipotle]

Originally Posted by phcorrigan

It's hard to argue against the idea that these digital technologies are technically superior to their analog equivalents, so why are we still so enamored of the old ways?

Because the "old ways", with all their technical limitations, are what we got used to. I roll my eyes when people claim that vinyl is "closer to the source" than digital. I know Bob Womack has posted the thousand-and-one ways that the signal is mangled to get it into grooves on a piece of vinyl--way more EQ'd, compressed and otherwise processed than any digital recording. But that sound, with all its flaws, is what people grew up hearing and are familiar and comfortable with. Same thing with that low-end bump and high-end loss with tape; it's what we are used to hearing, so much so that we even emulate it with digital processing. It really has nothing to do with fidelity to the source signal whatsoever.

[phcorrigan]

Originally Posted by Chipotle

Because the "old ways", with all their technical limitations, are what we got used to. I roll my eyes when people claim that vinyl is "closer to the source" than digital. I know Bob Womack has posted the thousand-and-one ways that the signal is mangled to get it into grooves on a piece of vinyl--way more EQ'd, compressed and otherwise processed than any digital recording. But that sound, with all its flaws, is what people grew up hearing and are familiar and comfortable with. Same thing with that low-end bump and high-end loss with tape; it's what we are used to hearing, so much so that we even emulate it with digital processing. It really has nothing to do with fidelity to the source signal whatsoever.

I'll agree that it's what those of us of a certain age are used to, but that doesn't explain the attraction of younger people to vinyl records and other analog technologies. Do digital technologies seem to be "sterile" when compared to their analog equivalents? Is the inherent distortion somehow comforting?

The interesting thing to me is that current vinyl records are recorded using modern digital methods, so the only noise and distortion induced is that of vinyl record (and the RIAA equalization curve) itself. Is this just fashion, nostalgia, or something else?

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

Here's the deal with analog tape: it had two things going against it:
1. Right up until the end of analog tape machines, all tape machines exhibited a low-end playback "head bump" in frequency response. It wasn't until the last generation, around 1990, that a manufacturer beat that.
2. From the moment you recorded on analog tape, it was in the process of what is called "High-end relaxation." That meant from the moment a signal was recorded on the tape, the high-end was going away. You could record on the tape today and come back and ask, "Why on earth was I marveling about my high-end yesterday?" Once it was documented, high-budget albums were mixed, and their mixes were rushed across town to the mastering engineer before they relaxed too far. Each copy generation of the album exaggerated both the high-end loss and the low end bump. There was also increase distortion with every generation. You could tell the difference if you got the first pressing and the second by the loss of high-end, increased low-end, and increased distortion, especially if they used a safety copy for the album master rather than the cutting master.

That, rounded off high-end, increased low end, and a bit of gentle distortion, is the effect that is being emulated with tape emulators. There are really good emulators like the Ampex ATR-102. I spent years mixing and mastering to that tape deck. It is good, but it isn't cheap.

Bob

Have you tried the UAD Ampex ATR-102 plug in? Gets good reviews. Some saying if used on the Master bus it does help glue the mix.

Or, does it suffer from the High end loss as well? Or does it keep the integrity of the highs?

Unfortunately I am still intrigued by the concept of tape sound. It seemed like it was easier to get a basic sound with tape. And as others have mentioned probably because tape naturally rounded and compressed a bit. So mistakes, harshness from dynamics were slightly tamed and less noticeable. But then again...I certainly don't want to loose the Highs & their harmonics that this new age of DAW recording allows. UAD is offering Any two plug ins for $99 until the 1st. Trying not to spend money! But don't want to pass on something I might like as well.

There is always this internal fight within me. When I used tape (Teac 3340 4 track)), I thought it was easy to get a good sound...But I always wanted more openness. It was smooth, but lacked the detail I wanted. In the digital world I get more openness & detail, but I yearn for a little bit of roundness.

[Bob Womack]

I used it on the last album I mixed. The ATR-102 was a fantastic transport with pretty good high-end response. I worked on them for years. I used the ATR-102 on the master bus, at the request of my co-producer. Frankly, he was a youngster and was always looking for some magic pixie dust for the mixes we did. The plug has an animated front panel of the 102 and when you engage it, the reels move. You can choose between 15ips tape speed, more low end, more headroom, but more noise, and 30ips, less bass, less headroom, glassier highs, and less noise. Made me feel right at home. I didn't feel a lot high end loss at 15ips, not like the times we used Abbey Road to master our albums, Their analog path rounded things right out. It mostly imposed the gentle EQ characteristics, a tiny bit of noise, and some gentle, smooth distortion for sheen. For glue, I use about 3-4db of the Waves Solid State Logic 4000 Master Bus Compressor. I am familiar with the analog version of this one as well because I mixed on SSL consoles for years, right after I mixed on Neve consoles.

That's 2003 with me at the SSL 4048 at work. I weigh about sixty pounds less now.


Me at a Neve 8058 in 1982. That's an ATR-102 behind me.

We had thirteen of the 102s throughout the facility. Boy do I have stories. They were extremely complicated but the finest transport for editing and at speed accuracy that was ever developed. We hired an engineer basically to keep them going. When it came time to upgrade the facility and we had all these surplus 102s, I found out that ATR Magnetics, the same outfit that bought out the Ampex manufacturing plant and now makes tape, bought up these machines, rebuilt and upgraded them, and sold them for a fortune. I suggested a sale and they bought all of ours. Somewhere out there they are all still making music in ones and twos and being treasured by their owners.

Ten years later I called up Michale Spitz (RIP) at ATR and asked him if he remembered the deal and he did. I asked if I could buy a cueing knob from him for old times sake. Instead, he sent me a wonderful, machined example from the first generation of 102s as a gift. It is in my guitar room these days.


Bob

Originally Posted by AcousticDreams

Have you tried the UAD Ampex ATR-102 plug in? Gets good reviews. Some saying if used on the Master bus it does help glue the mix.

Or, does it suffer from the High end loss as well? Or does it keep the integrity of the highs?

[Glennwillow]

Originally Posted by renoslim

In one of the many pop-up adds I see came one for
"IK Multimedia T-RackS TASCAM Tape Collection".
A plug in for your DAW I imagine. It promises to
"Give your tracks those beloved vintage vibes".

Is this really a thing ?
Does simulating the analog tape recording process make the track sound "better" , "warmer" ? What is "warmer" anyway ?

Lee

I have started using a tape recorder simulation on all my videos. Yes, it's a real thing. The simulation plug-in does take a lot of the harsher digital edges, especially in the upper frequencies, out of the overall sound and makes it a little less tiring and more pleasant to listen to. To me this plug-in is a positive add-on.

I still have analog tape recorders in my studio but tape is expensive, tape recorders are a maintenance hassle, and digital recording is so much more cost-effective and fast, as well. So I can have the advantages of digital recording on my computer and the sound of analog tape by using this tape recorder plug-in.

The difference isn't huge, but I think it's a subtle improvement. I don't want my overall sound to sound too much like an old tape recorder. Consequently, when I use the tape plug-in, I apply it very lightly. Too much does make a muddy sound, but a little, for me, anyway, is a positive.

- Glenn

[runamuck]

Originally Posted by KevWind

I tend think both can contribute to that .

And then also , even as technical much of recording is, in the end much is still personal preference and a number of the descriptive terms are very much subject to personal perspective.
Warm - Glue - Sparkle etc.etc.

Dealing with just myself as a client and having a pretty good hardware Reverb, and almost always using reverb more as ambience than effect . My SOP is to have all my different instruments sending into a single parallel Aux reverb track into that HW reverb.
And so the theory is hopefully all the instruments should sound like they are in the same space.
For separation (which I tend to think of in left to right) I use mostly panning and then also possible some EQ

For moving things forward or backward in the space (but still in the same overall space =reverb ) is where I use compression and usually only have the lead vocal move a slight bit forward ....

I hardly ever use compression, if at all. I prefer to spend the time necessary to automate levels, not liking what a compressor does unless the effect on fidelity is transparent. But the music I work on is acoustic instrumental stuff: cello, piano, ac. guitar, bass, maybe violin, clarinet, etc. - not rock.

I move things front to back with volume, eq and and early reflections, side to side with panning, and use ambience/reverb to create a common space.
I want as much separation as possible between the instruments, rebelling against anything like a "wall of sound".

Maybe I'm missing something but "gluing" anything together seems counter to what I'm after.

Because I'm not a pro at this and hear pro mixes that make my envious, I'm sure I'm missing something but don't know what it is.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by runamuck

I hardly ever use compression, if at all. I prefer to spend the time necessary to automate levels, not liking what a compressor does unless the effect on fidelity is transparent. But the music I work on is acoustic instrumental stuff: cello, piano, ac. guitar, bass, maybe violin, clarinet, etc. - not rock.

I move things front to back with volume, eq and and early reflections, side to side with panning, and use ambience/reverb to create a common space.
I want as much separation as possible between the instruments, rebelling against anything like a "wall of sound".

Maybe I'm missing something but "gluing" anything together seems counter to what I'm after.

Because I'm not a pro at this and hear pro mixes that make my envious, I'm sure I'm missing something but don't know what it is.

To clarify I almost always have vocals and acoustic guitar involved in my music. But even so I do not use compression to make level adjustments. For that I first set fader levels as first rough balance of levels move and then I use clip gain to fine tune the balance
I like to think I use compression to enhance presence, separation, and definition and as I said
I am guessing in my non-pro opinion, that judicious use of compression is transparent and does not noticeably reduce fidelity

Now I certainly do not claim to have the critical listening skills of seasoned pro's. But I think the notion of compression somehow being a degrading factor of sonics , came out of misuse in the unbridled loudness wars and could be more myth than reality.

Agin and perhaps only to my non pro ears ---well configured compression can give a more pleasing result to move a particular element forward in the sound stage than just EQ, Reverb etc. Given EQ which is simply a level boost or cut in a given frequency range.

I may just have play around with demo video of using comp, verb and EQ

[phcorrigan]

Originally Posted by KevWind

TBut I think the notion of compression somehow being a degrading factor of sonics, came out of misuse in the unbridled loudness wars and could be more myth than reality.

Agreed. It seems to me that the over-use of any effect will degrade a recording, with compression in the loudness wars being one of the more egregious examples.

[runamuck]

Originally Posted by KevWind

To clarify I almost always have vocals and acoustic guitar involved in my music. But even so I do not use compression to make level adjustments. For that I first set fader levels as first rough balance of levels move and then I use clip gain to fine tune the balance
I like to think I use compression to enhance presence, separation, and definition and as I said
I am guessing in my non-pro opinion, that judicious use of compression is is transparent and does not noticeable reduce fidelity

Now I certainly do not claim to have the critical listening skills of seasoned pro's. But I think the notion of compression somehow being a degrading factor of sonics , came out of misuse in the unbridled loudness wars and could be more myth than reality.

Agin and perhaps only to my non pro ears ---well configured compression can give a more pleasing result to move a particular element forward in the sound stage than just EQ, Reverb etc. Given EQ which is simply a level boost or cut in a given frequency range.

I may just have play around with demo video of using comp, verb and EQ

I don't have any hardware compressors - only software. Using the best available, I can hear the effects of compression with very little reduction of dynamics along with ratio, attack and release settings that barely move the needle. I don't like that sound.

I do use a limiter on the stereo buss and don't have a problem with that.