Digital Production vs Reel to Reel!?

I do, it's refreshing to see someone admit error.

 

Now I'm totally confused

 

Oh , this is a great thread. I cannot wait to hear all the disagreements and personal opinions. But unfortunately, I think most of us have pre-conceived notions rather than personal experience.

I disagree with the above answer 100%. Signal-to-noise is such a small part of the aural experience, listening to reproduced music. I have listened to some WONDERFUL digital. But, when a direct copy from a master reel-to-reel tape is played, WOW, it has so much more life... so much more vivid dynamics... so many more subtle details to notice... and so much more realistic room ambience. Nobody can know until they have heard it for themselves. Any reel-to-reel tape enthusiast will tell you the same thing: a very good tape sounds like an original recording, whereas the best digital sounds like a facsimile by comparison.

I believe Neil Young would certainly agree. And I know Steve Hoffman would, too. But, of course, they have access that we don't. Direct copies from an analog master tape is difficult to obtain, and not practical for the mass market. Digital is the medium that we can duplicate, transfer and distribute to the large audience. It's just not a fair comparison, in terms of practicality.

Sorry: no matter what the "technical specs" say, my ear is my final evaluation tool. Pure analog still murders pure digital, at least for now.

 

+1 on the above statement, I have a collection of Master Tapes and many of the same albums and the tapes are flat out better by a good bit!!! I just doesn't get any better than analog tape... My reel to reel deck is also modified to bypass all the internal electronics and take the playback signal directly from the playback head, and send it to an external tape pre then from there into my system. The results are staggering!!!

 

To my ears the added noise from being a tape copy messes with the details and dynamics and room ambience on the original master in a way that good digital doesn’t, and I don’t like it

 

a violin can have a frequency upp to 31khz what do frequency can a master tape have max?

 

No need to imagine. This dude did a test where he plays a solo acoustic guitar tune and recorded one digitally and the other on tape.

He plays both back and asks the viewer to see if they can pick out which recording is which. Even on my crappy iPhone speakers, I picked it out correctly immediately. If you know how good tape sounds, the difference is pretty obvious. Tone is richer and has a bigger bloom and more lingering decay.

Others will argue about whether this test is a valid way to compare. I just let my ears decide.

 

Really can never be "equal" because one is "playing vinyl", and the other is not. Can't have both really.
My needle-drops sound almost exactly like the vinyl, just a little "drier" (for lack of a better term).

 

Very interesting Brian. I really wanted to hear a difference, something really significant, but I would "think" I heard a difference and when I listened again, I would not hear that difference again. When the demos are that close, for me it's tough to choose. On my first initial listen, I chose demo #1, however, listening over and over I just did not hear even small differences, wish this demo had done it for me. Thanks for sharing, I suppose my impression is, they are so close, either would be fine, however, I no longer have a Studer/ReVox tape deck. I think if I had unlimited money, for me it would be a United Home Audio Deck and the great tapes on the market now, but alas they are far beyond my reach, so I must rely on my PS Audio Direct Stream components and the clear digital forever approach.

 

The authentic tone is what is important. You can have frequency but if it's out of audible range, what does it matter?

 

Ya, I agree. I'm a punc.

 

the same as you dont hear a trumpet or violin frequency when you play by your self whitou recording it, but that it doest mean that the sound is not over 20 khz, so if we want the sound much close to the sound of the trumpet or violin that we hear with our ears when we play whitout recording then should not we have these khz over 20khz to sound so much possible to the sound in the air?

 

I will take good tone over extreme frequency. - I agree with our host, "the magic is in the mid-range"...

 

Although, to me, that era of digital recorder did almost as much changing to the sound as analog does, just a different flavor. A modern digital workstation plopped into that album’s production would sound better than what we got, all else remaining the same.

 

amen in regards to mid-range... as for extreme frequency, I am about sick of this post-modern fascination with sub-bass... I definitely lay that blame at digital's feet

 

But nothing is equal in the equation. Vinyl will have variables from pressing to pressing and cart to cart and from first song to last song on the side. And I’m someone who might not be able to hear that difference necessarily, but can acknowledge that it must exist no matter the listener’s preference.

 

today the digital microphones had been develop in greatness, today digital products is better than some 15 or 20 years ago i belive!

"This means that, for the first time, the whole audio production signal chain is entirely digital. Optimal A/D conversion, especially developed synchronization technology and the capability of controlling standard microphone parameters and various integrated signal processing functions remotely ensure that Solution-D meets the most demanding professional audio production requirements. "

Google Image Result for https://www.pro-sound.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/SolD_Z.jpg

 

My two cents is that digital is not art. One can't tell if some kid made the recording using copy/paste or if it's a real pro. It has no "soul". It sounds like a computer because it is a computer. When you listen to it for a long time it starts sounding like the same cheezy electronic sounds coming out of vintage gaming systems such as an Atari...

No doubt it is more accurate. But the overall sound is not pleasing to my ears and does not excite the same feelings as a live performance. Analog does that to my ears.

 

I've been a recording engineer for quite a while, but I have to ask: what on earth is a digital microphone?

The professional chain is usually:
Acoustic event - microphone - mic preamp - optional signal processing (eq, comp) - AD converter - digital audio workstation (ProTools, Logic, etc).

The microphone is a transducer that turns pressure changes into voltage changes. That is a 100% analog process.

 

I assume he’s referring to mics with an AD converter built in. Same process but the pre and conversion happen inside the mic body and it sends a digital signal. Not sure if they are prevalent in studios. I would assume not.

 

Why not just go with digital reel-to-reel?



You get the superior audio from PCM digital, plus the whatever the heck fetish people have about reels and tape. Best of both worlds.

 

I was kinda surprised to learn Chris and Tom Lord-Alge actually do use open reel digital for their modern mixes. This is indeed a disturbing universe.

 

Again, all else being equal.

 

It's a fragile and unstable format, still very expensive, and just aren't used much anymore. If you go digital, it's all about hard disk recording. or SSDs now.