Analog tape and mastering

[sergxp]

Hi, I'm thinking of running my mixes through a reel tape recorder to get that analog feel in them. I just don't have a clue about which one to get or anything like that. Is there a particular recorder that people use for this sort of stuff, or does it even matter a lot? Any advice would be helpful :p

[Smithcok]

Well, if you can find an Ampex ATR 102, those are super sweet and dont require a ton of tweaking. The studer master decks are also good, but I think the ampex ones sound more like tape.

[Rad]

Hm... don't forget though that, if you re going to end up doing a CD, you'd have to digitize them a second time ... and I've never heard good things of the effect of such reconversions on quality... I'd suggest that you just try a plugin for tape emulation, such as ReelTape, where you can control the result and tweak the recording until you like it.

By the way, as an example of what you get from tape on a CD, here is an example of a track recorded and mastered on tape and then digitized -- in my opinion, it doesn't sound all that different from digital:

http://www.jpascual.com/cd.html

[Smithcok]

I would have to disagree. Granted 15 ips sounds a lot more "tape-ee" than 30 ips, but at least on the projects I worked on this summer, there was always a decision to be made as to whether to take the tape mixes or not, even at 30 ips

The difference was subtle, but often the tape was preferred by the clients (without them knowing which was tape/not tape). I haven't heard reel tape yet though, but I have heard good things about it, im sure its a good option.

[Rad]

Interesting! I have a question, though -- was the listening of the tape mixes done before or after they were digitized? Because that could make a difference. Every digital system has some amount of jitter, so when you export to analog, this becomes part of the signal and creates frequency "sidebands" (peaks) at non-harmonic frequencies. Then you pass this through the tape, which sure adds some nicety to it, but the jitter is still part of your signal. When you redigitize, in the process you still add more jitter and hence more non-harmonic distortion, so at the end you end up with twice as much non-harmonic distortion due to jitter as in the original recording. That is why I was curious about the blind listening result you mention. Perhaps what is happening is that tape, having some second and third-order harmonic distortion (which is pleasant to the ear) masks the effects of jitter if it is low enough. With quality low-jitter AD converters, I can certainly see this happening. Roughly what kind of equipment did you use on this?

[DAS]

Yeah, I think it's reasonable to assume the various non-linear distortions and compression present in an analog tape recording would likely swamp the relatively subtle effects of jitter.

[tech1]

I've spoken with several mastering engineer who do something very similar. They all use top-notch D/A and A/D conversion, and run a digital signal through the converters, into some high-end analog mastering gear, and then record through the converter back into the computer. The benfits of the analog "sound" in case far outweighs jitter distortion. Again, this is effective to the degree of quality in your converters.

[Smithcok]

Interesting! I have a question, though -- was the listening of the tape mixes done before or after they were digitized? Because that could make a difference. Every digital system has some amount of jitter, so when you export to analog, this becomes part of the signal and creates frequency "sidebands" (peaks) at non-harmonic frequencies. Then you pass this through the tape, which sure adds some nicety to it, but the jitter is still part of your signal. When you redigitize, in the process you still add more jitter and hence more non-harmonic distortion, so at the end you end up with twice as much non-harmonic distortion due to jitter as in the original recording. That is why I was curious about the blind listening result you mention. Perhaps what is happening is that tape, having some second and third-order harmonic distortion (which is pleasant to the ear) masks the effects of jitter if it is low enough. With quality low-jitter AD converters, I can certainly see this happening. Roughly what kind of equipment did you use on this?

Yeah ditto to the guys above about the analog sound trumping jitter.

I was doing this with Pro Tools HD (192 interfaces with a sync i/o, 44.1/24), with an Ampex ATR102.

[DAS]

...but just to keep things in perspective...with regard to the analog characteristics swamping the jitter...

We have to keep in mind all of the wild debates that ensue about the relative merits of clocking boxes and high quality converters, etc. A LOT of attention gets placed on the importance of jitter and its negative effects on imaging, tonal balance, sidebands, etc. Aside from sample rates I can't think of any topics that have been discussed in converters more than this. And yet here we are talking about a process that wrecks the audio so bad that we likely can't even hear these jitter problems anymore, and seemingly the foregone conclusion is that this is a good thing!

I'm not intending to trash analog or digital here. I own and use both. I just find it ironic how perspectives sometimes get distorted on this stuff, and the ways in which we rationalize (or agonize about) what we think we want.

[Smithcok]

Yeah agreed.

I think its fair to say that mixing out of the box, and mixing through tape are both viable options, and its possible to get a great sounds out of each. Some people prefer tape for the subtle (and some not as subtle) differences, whereas some do not.

I kinda feel the same way when people talk about a ton of "warmth" (or other words) from a piece of gear. The funny is that a lot of times, the warmth is just distortion. Granted, it may sound great, but its still technically a distortion, just like when we are saying that "nuking" a sound with tape saturation is a good thing. Its all preference in the end I guess.

[Rad]

Yes, with good AD/DA convertors, I can certainly see tape "warmth" (or more likely, pleasant distortion) going into the digital world while masking extra jitter. However, we should also remember that the whole "digital gear sounds cold" debate originated in the 80s and 90s, when the first AD/DA convertors were very far from good and many of them INDEED sounded cold. For example, Nika Aldrich has documented that at that time, many convertors sounded quite unnatural and turned many audiophiles away from the first CDs. The first type of digital converter, the R2R, for example, relies on resistors with matched impedance, which due to purely technological reasons, cannot be matched exactly, causing sometimes huge non-linearities. Over the years convertors have improved remarkably, however, the myth that digital is cold has persisted once it was found to be true at some point. At the present stage, I believe we are essentially at the point where studio-qualiy digital sounds as close to analog that it is indistinguishable, save for tape saturation and harmonic distortion. Which, if people like, they should feel free to add to their recording - at which point it becomes a matter of taste.

[dpd]

Having spent a fair amount of time aligning 2 track analog machines I'll add the following distortions added by analog tape:


wow
flutter (that will swamp any jitter from any modern A/D)
channel crosstalk
print-through
phase imbalances due to poor tape head/path alignment
amplitude response nonlinearities due to poor EQ in the electronics
crossover distortion due to improper bias
tape noise
compression


The poorer the tape recorder - and that doesn't necessarily mean inexpensive - the worse these things are.

Save the trouble and grab an emulator. However, if it's just the compression you are after, why not just use some light compression?

[Smithcok]

I would have to disagree. I feel like that's saying the same thing as "don't buy vintage outboard gear/consoles, because there are virtual emulations of those". Even with the most advanced plug-ins, there are differences between them and the original gear.
Granted, I have not used digidesign's tape emulation yet, and I am sure its very convincing, but there is also a certain aesthetic of mixing through tape that I feel is still important to understand (just like with having some vintage gear).

[Audioholic]

to sort of address the original question, I don't think buying a tape machine is an affordable or better way to get an analog sound. A "good" tape machine can be expensive, not to mention the additional cost of tape, which is not being manufactured much anymore, and upkeep, calibration, yada yada.

What would be a better option in my thoughts, if you wanted to run it through analog gear, would be to get a high end analog compressor or eq or both in one, and run your mixes through that, then back into your DAW using a HIGH quality AD/DA converter. This could then impart the sound of an analog device, and not have to worry about the issues with tape based systems, which really, I think is not worth it for the most part. Tracking to tape is another thing, but I still much prefer having a high end analog front end going in digitally.

There are more expensive analog mastering solutions such as the Rupert Neve box, and stuff.

[Smithcok]

to sort of address the original question, I don't think buying a tape machine is an affordable way to get an analog sound. A "good" tape machine can be expensive, not to mention the additional cost of tape, which is not being manufactured much anymore, and upkeep, calibration, yada yada.

What would be a better option in my thoughts, if you wanted to run it through analog gear, would be to get a high end analog compressor or eq or both in one, and run your mixes through that, then back into your DAW using a HIGH quality AD/DA converter. This could then impart the sound of an analog device, and not have to worry about the issues with tape based systems, which really, I think is not worth it for the most part. Tracking to tape is another thing, but I still much prefer having a high end analog front end going in digitally.

There are more expensive analog mastering solutions such as the Rupert Neve box, and stuff.

Agree 100%

However, I still hold that a tape machine can be a valuable addition to a setup.

[Rad]

An interesting discussion and it seems like both sides have some valid arguments. To me it would seem that the right course of action here - to use emulator vs tape - depends entirely on the particular project and its quality and intended audience. The sad reality is that, the hugest amount of "badness" that can get into the sound (if it does), happens at stages different from mastering: tracking, mixing, and effects. At which point, the chosen mastering medium begins to matter so marginally that in practice it may only be used to add some subtle polish to something that already sounds good, no more than that. But doing this requires that you first "clean your shoes" before you put the shine. I agree that tape (and tubes, to that matter) impart a particular sonic signature that can be very pleasant. But if you run a poorly done mix via analog gear hoping it will improve things, it won't. In my opinion, such refinements as passing stuff via real tape machine should be done only, and only when you have a very well sounding project already.


On the other hand, even the best analog-recorded project can be ruined by an incompetent digital mastering engineer. There are people who know how to work with analog gear and not with digital one, ruining CDs of otherwise excellent, artists. Recently I bought a CD by the famous spanish guitarist Tomatito (Fernando Torrez). Nicely recorded, well mixed, with very subtly dosed reverb. Obviously done at a good studio - Eurosonic in Madrid. But the montage of different takes was done SOO badly. At some point they glued one part to the next at a non-zero crossing. The result - a loud pop that even a dilettante will hear. Or take the mastering of the start/end of tracks. Whoever did it apparently didn't know how to fade it in, so the track starts at a non-zero wave amplitude, cutting the sound of an existing wave. Same result: pops & clicks. It was hard to reconcile with the nicely done mixing and effects. So here's an example of how just analog gear not being able to do much for you if you don't know tha basic rules about digital. I guess everywhere there's a tradeoff.

[Audioholic]

Just keep in mind that when mastering guys say running it through analog, then back to digital, does'nt mean tape necessarily, and mostly not, but a high end analog chain that may include a compressor and eq.