When did recording studios switch to digital recording from tape?

A mate of mine has just remixed an entire album on ADAT for another friend of mine. Transferred all the files from the ADAT to computer.

 

That’s very true, any early direct-to-2 track would be “all digital” as well, (so long as the digital output was used to make the resulting CD and not the analog outputs) so I should clarify my above statement to read as the earliest all-digital multitrack production.
The early 70’s recording, IIRC I think there was some debate elsewhere on the forum if the CD release was actually taken from the digital recording (and if so, then how?) or mastered from an analog backup.
But I’d definitely be interested in any earlier examples of full-digital multitracks, if anybody knows of one.

 

And the DASH format was very fragile.

The 90s...

Ignorantly, yes. Today, digital technology has gotten to the point where there is virtually no difference in sound quality between the two. Back when Jamie was an active member, he posted two versions of a mix he was considering for a major label release and asked the forum to pick which one they preferred. He sent a split signal to digital and the other to analog tape. Wouldn't you know it? The forum couldn't tell which was which.



Printing a hot signal to tape and getting natural compression is what they were going for.



I did a studio session around '95 to multitrack ADAT.[/QUOTE]

 

Check out some early GRP records recordings. That company used Soundstream digital recorders. Around the same time, Stevie Wonder was using Sony. Some were using 3M.

 

Some SPARS codes on the CDs were inaccurate. There's an original copy of David Bowie's "Let's Dance" CD that has DDD on it.

If memory serves, the Bangles' "Everything" CD from 1988 is a DAD recording. It was done that way because David Sigerson dumped the project to analog tape for Susanna Hoff's vocals.

 

An undecoded Dolby A recording would be bright as the sun after having your pupils dilated after an eye exam. I think there are CDs out there that weren't properly decoded or not at all. It likely happened because the engineer was too lazy, knowledgeable about the recording, or the engineer couldn't get a working Dolby A unit.

 

[/QUOTE]...because the forum members were hearing two digital sources.

 

I have noticed material out there that was 'fixed' by a nice -3dB at 3k, sometimes -6dB. DolbyA is very bright -- but amazingly, a lot of pop music isn't too far off.

DolbyA doesn't really do much above about -10dB and below about -45dB (depending on band.). So, the 3kHz on up is approx the same level at -6dB, but is boosted 10 to 15dB at the range of -40dB or so. At near 0dB, DolbyA is essentially flat. At -60dB, DolbyA tend to be flat up to the 4k-5kHz range (forget exactly), and increases to about +5dB at 15kHz on up.

All of the action is at the lower/middle signal levels, different knees for different bands -- there are places where each band is boosted by 10dB (or up to 15dB when the 9kHz filter is contributing signal) -- that boost isn't at the higher levels where pop usually sets. So, compressed pop music tends to be brightened noticeably -- but not destroyed, because it tends to dwell at the higher signal levels. The attack speed (for the 3k+ range) is 1msec->approx30msec, and the release speed is approx 2poles of 30msec each at the slowest -- so it is better than just 60msec for distortion products. Anyway, with such fast attack/release times, there is plenty of time to reach down and bring up the lower middle inter-syllable signal -- unless the signal is already fairly well compressed.

John

 

No?

 

No. Not even close, as several posts in this thread have already discussed.

 

Even there, Neve's first digital console came out in the early '80s, and by the mid-'80s a successor had arrived. I'm sure plenty of albums recorded in the UK during that period used one.

 

I've heard the difference between a digital and analog version of the same recording with the Star Trek: The Motion Picture soundtrack. It's night and day - you can hear both the tape compression and the noise and grunge of the analog safety copy. That jazz piece sounded way too clean to be an analog safety from that period. I suppose it could be an analog copy of the digital original taken much later on a really high-quality analog recorder from the mid-'80s using Dolby SR. But that seems...unlikely.

 

Naaah. By the mid '80s virtually all of the big studios had a digital recorder, even if it was just Sony's thing. They might not have used it for every record, but one was available. They weren't particularly expensive by that point, at least as far as studio gear went.

A surprising array of records turn out to have a digital stage somewhere in their production during that era. I always assumed Touch from Eurythmics was an analog recording, but apparently it was mixed to digital using one of those Sony PCM thingamabobs.

 

You'd be surprised. If the recording was already dull, undecoded Dolby A might give it some needed air. And a heavy hand with the EQ could fix a lot of issues.

Also, some of those early CDs are about as bright as the sun after having your pupils dilated...

 

Great album anyway. I prefer the vinyl.

 

...because the forum members were hearing two digital sources.[/QUOTE]
The final product was digital, but one was was run through an analog stage. The forum could not tell which was which.

 

Not true. It didn't happen until the late 80s. Many studios still found it too expensive to go to digital which is where Dolby saw an opportunity to promote its new Dolby SR (Spectral Recording) to rival digital.

Sony and 3M were the biggest. Mitsubishi tried but never caught on, but the best-known album done on a Mitsubishi DASH was Michael Jackson's "Bad" album from 1987. I think it used a 50 kHz sampling rate as there was no standard back then.

Before DASH, digital was recorded, edited, and stored on U-Matic tape cartridges, the same one used for video which partly explains why 48 kHz was often used.

 

ADAT is an interesting format.
I was in a band and we recorded an album onto ADAT and it came out sounding pretty good.
Always seemed odd to me looking at this VHS contraption.
I don't know anything about them, nor if they store well, but the album we did, even now, to my
ears sounds pretty darn good.

 

I would say "not reliably". My experience with Dolby A is mainly with 1" videotapes. There were a series of stickers that would say "Dolby A Encoded" or something of that nature to put on the reels, but those could fall off due to age. It could be handwritten, or a box gets checked somewhere on the hard plastic shipper case. Really, though, there was supposed to be a "warble" tone during the bars that would signify that Dolby A was used, but that was not always a sure thing, either. The best thing to do is to spin into program and listen down. Sometimes, the poor condition of either the tape or machine makes the undecoded sound, with that toppy, compressed sound, preferable to the breathy sludge when Dolby is engaged.

I have seen 1/2" and 1/4" tape boxes marked "Non-Dolby 30 ips" or some such.

Dan

 

This sounds correct. I've gone crazy trying to "fix" such recordings on CD. I can get very close, but it's that attack and release that gets me.

Anyway, I like these types of discussion.

 

Thanks, If you are ever interested -- feel free to chat with me (privately for certain subjects) about DolbyA and and other NR/gain control devices. That stuff is a specialty of mine. I am working with a recording/restoration engineer (I am a DSP/SW programmer) to create a DolbyA decoder (only decoder.) It works pretty well, and it is a hell of a hobby. I'll give you lots of details privately (the name of my project partner/etc) -- and talk about the algorithms, etc. The name of the project is DHNRDS -- there is a placeholder web site right now. I am pretty open with most technical info.
Never worry about marketerring with me -- I am pure techie, and my major interest is that the SW device benefits the available sound quality of all of that ancient music. I just sent a release (hopefuly THE release) to my project partner 5minutes before this posting.
So very frustrating -- I just did some casual demos -- but about 2-3Hrs afterwards, came up with another major improvement. Emulating DolbyA is NOT for the faint of heart.

John

 

There was an early X-80 that came out in 1980. Only 200 were manufactured. 2-track. It used the oddball 50.4kHz sample rate.

Their ProDigi line came out in the mid-'80s. I'd imagine that's what Bad was cut to. 44.1kHz, also supported 48kHz, but I don't think that was used often since the work was destined for 44.1 CDs. Later decks were backwards-compatible with the older X-80. There was a 16-track X-400 and several 32-track decks. Some of the 2-track Mitsubishis recorded at 88kHz and even 96kHz...back in 1988!

ProDigi was big in Nashville. Nearly all the large studios there used it, from what I've read.

48kHz was seldom used, since conversion was more difficult back then, and the material was destined for 44.1kHz CDs. I don't think any of those early standalone Sony PCM converters supported 48kHz. You didn't commonly see 48kHz used until DAT rolled around, and even then I don't think much was actually recorded and mixed that way. 48kHz material didn't become common until DVD settled on 48kHz in the mid-'90s.

Digital 2-track decks were commonplace all over by the mid-to-late '80s, even if it was just an outboard Sony unit with a VTR attached. Digital multitrack wasn't as common, but it certainly wasn't rare by '87-'88.

 

I think I remember a thread you started on this months ago. I'm glad someone is taking it seriously, too. I just wish your work had been around when CD reissues were the hot thing in the 90s.

I'm certainly no expert. I just try to pick up things here and there as I try to fix things the record labels screw up.

 

Here's an ad. for the 96 kHz Mitsubishi:



and here's an ad. Sony made at Mitsubishi's expense: