I'm very familiar with the current trend of over-compression and ridiculous limiting (I've made my fair share of records that got obliterated in mastering), but how is that the fault of the medium? Just because digital makes it possible doesn't make the meduim inferior. It's a problem with modern recording engineers, not digital recording itself.
Also, if we're going to compare mix-down mediums, we shouldn't be comparing a 1/2" machine with CD. Do you actually mix down to redbook CD? I don't know any professional who does. If you want to compare something to CD, it needs to be another delivery medium (vinyl, cassette, 8-track, etc). Let's make a fair comparison and put the tape machine up against an Alesis Masterlink (a very popular 24-bit 2 track recorder, widely used for mixing down multitrack audio, for those who may not know). I fail to see how the specs you linked to are better.
Tape w/ Dolby NR Frequency Response: 20hz-20khz, +/- 1dB
Masterlink Frequency Response: 20hz-20khz, +0, -0.3dB
WINNER: Masterlink
Tape w/ Dolby NR Dynamic Range: 105dB
Masterlink Dynamic Range: 113dB
WINNER: Masterlink
THD Tape w/ Dolby NR: <0.2%
THD Masterlink: <.002:%
WINNER: Masterlink
As far as recording and mixing down goes, digital offers more as a recording medium.
I never said anything about signal processing. You and I are in total agreement that analog signal processing is still vastly superior to digital emulations. I know of no digital eqs or compressors that can emulate the magic of quality outboard gear. That's why I record digitally with a bunch of nice (analog) mic pres, mics, compressors, equalizers, etc.
We also agree on the declining skill and taste in modern recording engineers. Engineers 20 and 30 years ago were much more skilled than those today. Compare Back in Black to a modern rock record (sonically)... Enough said.
The only place that it sounds like we disagree is about the validity of tape. I think that tape is dying, and I wish it would hurry up. I'm required to work on tape fairly regularly, and everything about it sucks. It does have a certain vibe, but the upkeep and work that needs to constantly be done to keep it working sucks. Actual physical tape sucks, it's a pain to deal with. Tape machines are finnicky (even ampex and studer decks). The sound of tape is different than digital, but the same effect can be achieved and controlled with outboard gear. Digital recording is more flexibile, reliable, is cleaner sounding, has better specs, is cheaper, etc.
Also, if we're going to compare mix-down mediums, we shouldn't be comparing a 1/2" machine with CD. Do you actually mix down to redbook CD? I don't know any professional who does. If you want to compare something to CD, it needs to be another delivery medium (vinyl, cassette, 8-track, etc). Let's make a fair comparison and put the tape machine up against an Alesis Masterlink (a very popular 24-bit 2 track recorder, widely used for mixing down multitrack audio, for those who may not know). I fail to see how the specs you linked to are better.
Tape w/ Dolby NR Frequency Response: 20hz-20khz, +/- 1dB
Masterlink Frequency Response: 20hz-20khz, +0, -0.3dB
WINNER: Masterlink
Tape w/ Dolby NR Dynamic Range: 105dB
Masterlink Dynamic Range: 113dB
WINNER: Masterlink
THD Tape w/ Dolby NR: <0.2%
THD Masterlink: <.002:%
WINNER: Masterlink
As far as recording and mixing down goes, digital offers more as a recording medium.
I never said anything about signal processing. You and I are in total agreement that analog signal processing is still vastly superior to digital emulations. I know of no digital eqs or compressors that can emulate the magic of quality outboard gear. That's why I record digitally with a bunch of nice (analog) mic pres, mics, compressors, equalizers, etc.
We also agree on the declining skill and taste in modern recording engineers. Engineers 20 and 30 years ago were much more skilled than those today. Compare Back in Black to a modern rock record (sonically)... Enough said.
The only place that it sounds like we disagree is about the validity of tape. I think that tape is dying, and I wish it would hurry up. I'm required to work on tape fairly regularly, and everything about it sucks. It does have a certain vibe, but the upkeep and work that needs to constantly be done to keep it working sucks. Actual physical tape sucks, it's a pain to deal with. Tape machines are finnicky (even ampex and studer decks). The sound of tape is different than digital, but the same effect can be achieved and controlled with outboard gear. Digital recording is more flexibile, reliable, is cleaner sounding, has better specs, is cheaper, etc.
Comment