Head to Head

[SoundSnob]

Ok so we all agree good tape sounds really nice.
Is it the tape we like or is it only the magnetic field created by the emulsion of magnetic particles fixed on to the tape?Do we like the sound of electrons through a magnetic field?How does the field change the sound?Does it shift frequencys amplitudes to the nearest field line? Like iron filings on paper with a magnet underneath,there are lines.Do electrons clump together?Is this why it sounds better (imho)?What is going on here? Why cant we just pass a signal through one head to another?

[Chris H]

Lots going on,most of it i dont know about. A few quick thoughts from picking others brains
Not all tape is equal. I had a look at the response curvs of various tape machines and saw immediatley why i used to have so much trouble getting the bass right on a Ta@#$% 1 inch 24 i used to use.I would rather record on digital than that thing. My 1/2 inch 8 trk otari is a lot better sounding, and the Ampex MM 1100,16 tk 2 inch, even better.The other machine i have used often is an MCI 24 tk 2 inch and its different again and easier to use
The sound i like is machines that are accurate (sort of) pro machines.
Tha ampex mm1100's electronics are nice sounding. Discreet transformer topology. Next is the sound of tape saturation. Especialy how the transients are limited and the follow on sound of the drum is louder in relationship to the thwack of the stick, therefore the tone of the drums is fuller. At least that is what i think i'm hearing.

[wez]

it's not that simple - there are a lot of variables, and the result is a combination of several elements. but what we like about tape is usually the non-linear response to frequency and amplitude... ie saturation, compression, of different frequencies at different rates. but we 'like' some tape machines better than others, so the electronics are very important (just like they are in all analog gear - transformers, caps, power supplies etc are such a big part of 'the sound'). it's the absence of these colourations in non-analog recording that make tape more aesthetically satisfying to many (most?) people.

then there's tape speed, formulation, bias, alignment.... the 'sound' of tape is a combination of many things.

[Adam Dempsey]

Not a lot of time and I'm not sure I can hear "electrons moving through magnetic fields" per se, but there are two major factors to The Sound:

- high (audio) frequency saturation and its differing characterstics re different tapes & record bias (bias being an added current at the record stage, at least 5 times the highest audio freq or higher, to fully randomise the magnetic particles & assist a more efficient/accurate transfer to tape). HF saturation, in the right amounts, effectively compresses dynamic range in higher freqs, raising lower level, musical overtones

- transformer stages in machines (eg the Ampex AG440) and the record electronics to drive the head plays a large part in "the sound", again via musically harmonic distortion & taking the edge off peaks.

Electrons don't "clump together" - it's the flow of them that forms electric current. It's magnetic particles on tape that configure according to changes in the mag field across the heads.

Good tape will only be as good as a good (well maintained) machine - its heads, tension, consistent tape to head contact & headroom (you generally want to drive the tape hard, not the record electronics!).

[Chris H]

- transformer stages in machines (eg the Ampex AG440) which can play a large part in "the sound", again via musically harmonic distortion & taking the edge off peaks.
.

.

I had an AG 440 for a few years, a !/4 " 2 track, 1/2 inch 4 trk. Nice machine but a bit of head ware. Same electronics as th MM 1100.
Sold it to a mate. 3 machines was one too many.
Tape is another component to the sound. I have used Ampex 456, 499 and GP9.
456 was great for bands but i had a batch that was going bad as it is prone to do. 499 was great for getting above the noise floor because it takes a lot of level as was GP9 but GP9 sounds a bit hard and clinical.

[SoundSnob]

http://www.rupertneve.com/
he has made a tape emulator.
how does this work?

[Martinez]

I would love to go with the tape option but f^%$#g expensive!

plus I don't know anything about caring for a tape machine.

a friend who runs tape says if you have the choice between 2" 16 or 2" 24 go for the 16 everytime if you can get away with it that is.

[Adam Dempsey]

The Rupert Neve box reads like part harmonic distortion due to the inherent electromagnetic hysteresis curve (non linear freq/amplitude transfer) and part transformer elctronics, with a dash of marketing.
It'd be interesting to hear from anyone who has used one though.

[chris p]

I saw a DIY tape simulator (in more precise terms, frequency dependent compression) based around two nifty strings of germanium diodes in parallel to the signal path. The idea hadn't yet been fully developed when I last looked, but it would cost about $1.50 to build if it worked.

[Martinez]

any tape sims might make the sound more pleasing,

but they arent going to sound like tape simply becuase they arent tape.

[davemc]

Also what you use as a front end for digital and what convertors you have means a lot.
Guitar through my API's into my 2254's into my HD rig sound a lot nicer then 5+years ago with a Mackie into a adat style creamware convertor.
Also not all tape is created equal as said. I used a 1" 24 track and 1" 16 track for a while.. They did not sound anything like the 2" I only used now and then. I was happier going to Digital from the 1".

The reason I would love to go back to tape is not teh sound. Its the ease and lack of editing crap together. Which you can always say no to, although have to end up doing.

[SoundSnob]

Adam-regarding neve box:is that the hysterisis curve of the head to what?i thought that hysterisis loop was due to the memory of the magnetic domains on the tape,that need to be cycled through hysterisis loop to average zero-with bias signal.am i a bit confused?

btw-person who has one says it sounds like 456 .

[Jason]

I have something sort of related. Has anyone tried the SPL Charisma 8??? Is it any good? etc......

[Linear]

Ok so we all agree good tape sounds really nice.
Is it the tape we like or is it only the magnetic field created by the emulsion of magnetic particles fixed on to the tape?Do we like the sound of electrons through a magnetic field?How does the field change the sound?Does it shift frequencys amplitudes to the nearest field line? Like iron filings on paper with a magnet underneath,there are lines.Do electrons clump together?Is this why it sounds better (imho)?What is going on here? Why cant we just pass a signal through one head to another?

i loathe any 'simulators' or 'emulators'. complete waste of time.

i liken them to a plastic flower. sure, from a distance it looks like a real flower and i guess for some things (waiting rooms, australian idol sets) a plastic flower will suffice. but up close it looks like a piece of plastic, doesn't smell like a flower and doesn't feel like a real flower would. that's because no matter how hard you try, you won't be able to emulate a real flower because it's far far too complex. would you ever send your wife/girlfriend a dozen plastic roses??

if you like the sound of tape recording, then use a tape machine. if you want non-permanent, non-compatible, infintely editable and inferior sounding audio, then use a computer. but don't try and compensate for digitals shortcomings with a bit of misplaced distortion (a la 'warmth'), in my opinion you're wasting your time.

and lastly, i don't think that retarded quantum theory explanations of the magnetic recording process is going to help at all, full stop. you can't hear electrons, electrons don't 'clump together' and comparing iron filings to electrons is like comparing the size of my left testicle to the size of the sun.

Chris

ps i've had a bad day, sorry...

[Jason]

Why don't you tell us how you really feel javascript:emoticon(':lol:')
Laughing

[SoundSnob]

chris,

firstly electrons can group together in relation to each other and they can collide.
maybe clump was a bad analogy.
i am trying to investigate the ramifications of not using my fridge tape machine.i would like to have the best of both worlds.i would like to understand as much as possible the technology wich creates the desired effect.tape machibes are huge,no-one makes or easily services them anymore and tape is now very expensive!
maybe i would accept your plastic flower analogy if we were comparing analouge to digital .we are comparing analog parts to other parts.
btw ever given your girlfriend an analouge CD....please c'mon

i dont care if you have had a bad day,u know better.
p.s. please do not tell me what to do !!!

[Linear]

firstly electrons can group together in relation to each other and they can collide.
maybe clump was a bad analogy.

really? have you got a particle accelerator? wow.

i am trying to investigate the ramifications of not using my fridge tape machine.i would like to have the best of both worlds.i would like to understand as much as possible the technology wich creates the desired effect.tape machibes are huge,no-one makes or easily services them anymore and tape is now very expensive!

in a way i'm a sound snob too - i'm glad tape machines are cumbersome, heavy and difficult to use. it's about the only way to keep the noobs, wannabes and amateurs away.

tape machines relative to a bear ringer all in one digital portastudio-in-a-box are expensive, yes. but compared with what they cost to build, they are an absolute steal.

maybe i would accept your plastic flower analogy if we were comparing analouge to digital .we are comparing analog parts to other parts.

no, we're comparing an emulation to the real thing. it's exactly what i meant. i don't imagine anyone would be retarded enough to use 'tape emulation' if they were printing to tape, so the direct relationship to digital is a given.

btw ever given your girlfriend an analouge CD....please c'mon

it's 'analogue' and i have no idea what you're talking about.

i dont care if you have had a bad day,u know better.
p.s. please do not tell me what to do !!!

you asked the question, so i gave you my opinion. if you don't want people to give you ideas and recommendations, then don't post your stupid questions on a forum.

Chris

[Martinez]

If emulators don't sound exactly like the real thing but they improve the sound,
then you would be a fool not to use them.

The Charisma sounds great on paper, would love to have a play.

some times I add a tape sim to my drums.
it definately gives them a bit more punch.

[Martinez]

Chris,

Your agro isnt welcome here!

thats the reason the original forum was moved in the first place.

I think sound snob was looking for some knowledge from those in the know like everyone here or whats the point?
not for someone to lord it over him with experience.

go be a complete bastard somewhere else! :x

[Chris H]

http://www.rupertneve.com/
he has made a tape emulator.
how does this work?

I've asked the question before about this box on another forum and it's in relation to analogue tape saturation's effect on the dynamic range as i was waffling on about in my previous post. My guess is it would have to have a look ahead peak limiter to do that aspect of what tape does. So does anyone know if any digital tape emulaters out there actually have algorithms to limit the transients like tape saturation does plus the distortion, etc, etc.

I tent to agree with Linear in what he is saying about substitutes and simulation. Give me a bottle (prefferably glass) of King Island Cream to have with my sticky date pudding rather than that fake cream that squirts out of a pressure can.
I love the King Island Cream analogy.
Mackie preamps = no name cream ( not thickened )
Optro preamps = King Island Cream.
( I did'nt say neve as i have had minimal experiance working with neve pres.)

[davemc]

Its like Coke vs Pepsi. PC vs Mac
There really is no right or wrong. Whatever you like.
Chris runs a fully analogue setup and it works for him.
A lot of the time I prefer digital as I spent a bit of time getting the sound right. When I play it back from digital it sounds the same as when it was recorded. Some tape and machines changes the sound a lot some little. Its hard to just generalise on things.
I also have a Fatso and some tape and valve plugins. I try to get the sound I am after. I do not always use these. Do they sound like tape I do not know, lots of different Tape.. If they or a compressor or a EQ or a change of mic gets me the sound I am hearing in my head I am happy.

[Linear]

Chris,

Your agro isnt welcome here!

thats the reason the original forum was moved in the first place.

I think sound snob was looking for some knowledge from those in the know like everyone here or whats the point?
not for someone to lord it over him with experience.

go be a complete bastard somewhere else! :x

agro? far from it.

that's it from me for this post, I think everyone should lighten up a little.

Chris

[Ausrock]

Considering the only person who probably had a hope in hell of understanding the point of the initial post/question was the poster of that question and that emulation was introduced to the thread by the same person then I have to sit on Linear's side of the fence. His comments made as much and probably a damned sight more sense than the original post and us Chris's have to stick together.

A comment from my 23 yr old..........FFS Dad, digital, regardless of what level is still only parts of the sound, tape is much closer to the real thing.

And for the hell of it, a couple of excerpts by a poster on another forum where "fidelity"=analogue and "viable" refers to digital.........:

"I feel compelled to chime in to say that giving up on digital was the most liberating decision I've made in recent years. And I now feel like the guy who brought the gun to the knifefight................../ /..........Lucky for me I discovered there's a reason why the words "fidelity" and "viable" are more than 900 pages apart in the dictionary. It's because they have little in common.

So, as long as sonics and fidelity are of secondary importance to convenience of manipulation we all will continue to observe analog meaning less.........."

[SoundSnob]

hi ausrock,
the initial point to the post was to discover what each part of the tape recording process does to the sound.i wanted to know this because i am exploring.i use tape,have for 14 yrs. i make seedy sound design music .get it now.we are not talking digitlal.i am tying to get this analouge effect live for what,is not a given.

-adam has really helped me out ,thanks adam

i did not want this post to degeneate into a very tired debate of A vs D.i couldnt give a rats.there is so much bad music recorded full stop. and it all ends up on mr job's ipod/itunes mp3 anyway.coldplay was recorded on digital using prism converters.then mixed analog,sounded pretty good to me.if we all lived in linears world we would all have 4trk reel to reels in our living rooms.just like pulp fiction. btw i like ipods:)

[Adam Dempsey]

firstly electrons can group together in relation to each other and they can collide.
maybe clump was a bad analogy... tape machibes are huge,no-one makes or easily services them anymore and tape is now very expensive!

Yes, "clump" isn't the word and yes a particle accelerator - cyclotron, syncrotron or linac - would be needed to cause sub atomic particles to collide, producing further reactions and energy far beyond the scope of what a tape machine could deal with! ;)
But there do remain specialists in servicing tape machines, and tape is expensive but the professional market for it will remain for, I suspect, quite some time.

[michael]

the problem with the question (well actually the question is fine, any question is fine, discussion is good) but... nevertheless... (the problem with the question)... is "tape sound" is a completely undefined term, and ultimately, will understanding the physics of a magnetic tape recording process get you any closer to a sound?? probably not.

What format? what machine?... what tape sound?

And whilst theses seems like pedantic, rhetorical questions they are important ones if you want to emulate tape. As Chris H said the electronics are hugely important and imo often underrated in terms of the tape sound. Even notions of tape compression and "tape glue on a mix" are completely dependant on the machine, the format, the levels used, the engineer... so what tape sound is being emulated?

To step back from the rant for a second, I'm not actually arguing that trying to emulate tape is a bad thing at all. Like Marteniz said "If emulators don't sound exactly like the real thing but they improve the sound, then you would be a fool not to use them"

But the 'but if they improve the sound' is a big but. Personally i think tape emulation is so subjective and such a case of misnomer and diminishing returns that, like a lot of other 'tricks' these days, it takes focus away from the important stuff. (actual performance and engineering)

But that's just me.

I'm not a purist and not an all tape person, infact i think some people place far to much emphasis of medium and a lot of it becomes mindless tape voodoo or chasing the latest(or vintage) piece of tricked out kit to improve something that already SHOULD sound great. IMO every half decent studio (and probably the majority of home DIY types) CAN or could produce amazing recordings if they, and the 'talent' are talented enough.

A wonderful performance of a great song will sound better than fine regardless of medium if the engineer does his job. I'm all about any tool to help the process and improve the sound IF needed, but too often it's just a case of diminishing returns and compensating for the lack of song, performance & engineering job.

(yeah

[Chris H]

Here is a link to a good discussion about mic modeling that has many parallels to tape emulation IMHO.
( its an article,not a thread ).

http://www.prosoundweb.com/recording/ar ... ing2.shtml

Peace.

[Martinez]

Interesting,

I would be inclined to think that emulating tape would still be possible with time, where as mic modeling wouldn't really be possible at all because of the fact that mics are a lot more complicated than tape.

[Howard Jones]

[quote]I would be inclined to think that emulating tape would still be possible with time, where as mic modeling wouldn't really be possible at all because of the fact that mics are a lot more complicated than tape.[/quote]

If by "tape" you are referring to the process of recording to tape then recovering a useable signal back off tape, you are wide of the mark here.

A dynamic mic uses a magnetic transducer to convert an acoustic signal to an electronic one, a process which has some obvious parallels to reading a magnetic signal back off a tape and converting it to an electronic one. However, the tape recording process also requires the original conversion of an electronic signal to a magnetic one. All this is an inherently much more complicated process than the electro-acoustic conversion in a microphone.

To simulate a tape sound, you need to capture the fact that the input signal in an analogue tape recorder enters through an input circuit that may or may not have transformers, is blended with a bias signal, is passed through an inductive circuit on its way to the heads, is converted to a magnetic field, is recorded on several possible tape types etc etc.

I don't need to bore you by going on about it but, as you can see, there is more to this process than what goes on inside a microphone.

Putting a mic together is pretty simple. Describing where the vast differences in sound between mics comes from isn't.

[JulienG]

The Rupert Neve box reads like part harmonic distortion due to the inherent electromagnetic hysteresis curve (non linear freq/amplitude transfer) and part transformer elctronics, with a dash of marketing.

It claims to have real tape heads up against each other, ISTR TapeOp have a positive review in the latest issue, but I have no idea where my copy is in the piles of crap around here.