KVR Audio

Ogopogo · Post by **Ogopogo** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 6:01 pm

Makes a stupid statement, won't admit it and tries to get out of by quoting one word that supposed to change the meaning of his whole statement but doesn't (semantics), insults me and tells me I don't understand what he's saying while every response he makes has nothing to do with what I said to him, says he doesn't have time to argue semantics and leaves like he's too above the stupid shit that he started all by himself. Idiot.

Hink · Post by **Hink** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 7:30 pm

Gnomebe wrote:Well... true... but someone "needs" a proper sound to begin with...NOT... a better speaker monitor speaker system. It is truly sad nobody brings up the "obvious"..."digital recording is a "pathetic" "not even close" comparison to as good sounding tape recordings. What I'm saying and so many others agree that digital vs. tape...tape wins in the first round. It's not even close. Analog sounds better. Period... and what's sad is so much effort by so many people to dignify digital recording as something even whorth while.

naturally that's your opinion (and so many others), so let me ask you a question...why are you here on a forum that is dedicated to digital software for recording? Clearly one who has such a strong dislike for digital must be using tape and not digital...so what brought you here?

Oh wait perhaps you are using digital because you can do much more, it's so much cheaper (go back to pre-digital and see what the cheapest 2' 24 track recorder cost and that's just the tip of the iceberg), storage is far less risky, much easier, far less expensive and really for recording if that is what you are into (which I think most people here are) digital is far more practical than tape. You post really speaks more to listening than to recording.

Just in the past ten days I reconnected on FB with an old friend who also plays guitar, we haven't seen each other or spoke for close to 16 years. He posted a song on my time line of one his songs (my FB friends can find the tune just a few posts down...my friend's nickname is syd), back when we would jam together it was with my 4-track. He is still on the 4-track and what struck me right away was how lifeless and flat the sound was. Sure it was just a porta studio and you cant compare that pro tape gear. But still it quickly reminded me of why I am glad I grew from tape and followed technology to digital, I can do so much more.

I'm old, I can be nostalgic about tape, but then I also think of people like Zappa who were recording in digital when many of us thought digital was one of those clock radios with the cards that flipped down displaying the time. I listen to my songs in digital and with the lower noise floor, the more headroom, more tracks and more tools my music is far more dynamic than I ever could have done before I went digital (which was something I didn't care for until I took the leap with an Akai DPS12 12 track digital recorder in 98, I was a tape hold out digital hater once myself).

My music makes a much better presentation now, with tape while looking back nostalgically at it the truth as I see it (or hear it as it were) is if you recorded it in your bedroom often it sounded like you recorded it in your bedroom. With digital it's possible to present a very well produced and polished piece with just the tools that come with even a lite version of any DAW. You can even do it on a train, on top of a mountain, on a boat, in the jungle, in the desert...hell you can even do it in the bathroom.

But that's just me, you obviously see digital as something dirty and bad while I just see myself being able to really enjoy my passion with far more creative ways to go than when I suffered all the limitations of tape. More power to you, I couldn't be happier though with where I am at today

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 8:14 pm

Hink wrote:
Gnomebe wrote:Well... true... but someone "needs" a proper sound to begin with...NOT... a better speaker monitor speaker system. It is truly sad nobody brings up the "obvious"..."digital recording is a "pathetic" "not even close" comparison to as good sounding tape recordings. What I'm saying and so many others agree that digital vs. tape...tape wins in the first round. It's not even close. Analog sounds better. Period... and what's sad is so much effort by so many people to dignify digital recording as something even whorth while.
naturally that's your opinion (and so many others), so let me ask you a question...why are you here on a forum that is dedicated to digital software for recording? Clearly one who has such a strong dislike for digital must be using tape and not digital...so what brought you here?

Nah, all tape is intrinsically superior. That's why all the big studios ditched ProTools and RADAR rigs for proper analog... tape 'just wins'...

trimph1 · Post by **trimph1** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 9:12 pm

Nah...we gone for the big Wollensack thing.

,........

I guess he longs for the day when you had to go to a "pro recording studio" to do anything.

SODDI · Post by **SODDI** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 11:05 pm

Striping a +/- square wave on track 4 for synchronization.

Mixing to bounce.

And keeping a pencil around at all times to wind the tape back into the cassette shell.

SODDI · Post by **SODDI** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 11:05 pm

Dupe, sorry.

SODDI · Post by **SODDI** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 11:05 pm

I am so sorry. Dupe.

But what is the old stuff about storing tapes "bails in or bails out" (I don't know if it's spelled that way) - meaning fully rewound or fully fast-forwarded.

SODDI · Post by **SODDI** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 11:07 pm

nother dupe. It must be my karma.

hibidy · Post by **hibidy** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 11:13 pm

Another reason why the world would be better if it was analog. No quadruple posts

woggle · Post by **woggle** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 11:29 pm

no point putting this here

UltraJv · Post by **UltraJv** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 3:01 pm

Ogopogo wrote:Makes a stupid statement, won't admit it and tries to get out of by quoting one word that supposed to change the meaning of his whole statement but doesn't (semantics), insults me and tells me I don't understand what he's saying while every response he makes has nothing to do with what I said to him, says he doesn't have time to argue semantics and leaves like he's too above the stupid shit that he started all by himself. Idiot.

I made a statement, you disagreed. No problem. Lets hope your anger management goes well

jancivil · Post by **jancivil** » Mon Dec 22, 2014 12:32 pm

Gnomebe wrote:Well... true... but someone "needs" a proper sound to begin with... It is truly sad nobody brings up the "obvious"..."digital recording is a "pathetic" "not even close" comparison to as good sounding tape recordings. What I'm saying and so many others agree that digital vs. tape...tape wins in the first round. It's not even close. Analog sounds better. Period... and what's sad is so much effort by so many people to dignify digital recording as something even whorth while.

What is superior? You liken it to 'analog'; it looks like you like the distortions and skewing effect of these processes better. I would rather have the assured headroom of digital for *recording*. I don't have to 'dignify' it and I don't think anyone else is experiencing that defensiveness on it either. Strange, seemingly almost Luddite view you're sharing.

DevonB · Post by **DevonB** » Mon Dec 22, 2014 12:55 pm

http://www.devonbrent.com/PracticalArtO ... eSound.wav

Analog vs. Digital.

Devon

jancivil · Post by **jancivil** » Mon Dec 22, 2014 1:28 pm

Gnomebe wrote:With Tape your signal (sound) has harmonic overtones as well as a better interpretation of that signal (sound). Tap esp. interprets harmonics accurately...large spaces seem warm and reflections interact with other reflections MUCH better I would say.

Digital sounds like a clinical white hospital room.

Overtones of a tape sound accurate and realistic.

I would like you to support that with data. "has harmonic overtones"; as opposed to what? Are you actually arguing that digital recording, through itself is 'less harmonic'?
"seem warm" is subjective language. The thing you say about 'digital' is 'clinical'. So all we have really is 'seems warm' vs 'clinical' but you have asserted 'accurate and realistic'. I don't think this works. I think 'warm' is added value, ie., distortion, in all probability. I think what's really going on is a certain flattering set of characteristics rather than fidelity. But prove that wrong with some data, some science. Reflections interact 'MUCH better', why? How does it work?

jancivil · Post by **jancivil** » Mon Dec 22, 2014 1:36 pm

DevonB wrote: Analog vs. Digital

Is that produced by someone selling "the Diva"? On one listen my impression is that 'on hard drive using the Diva' is more or less like the higher speed tape while the other things deficient. "On a DAT recorder" (not a very good one apparently) inserted between '1/4 inch tape at 15ips' and 'hard drive using the Diva' does the opposite of help me A/B the two clearly better results.

Donno what that's supposed to show. I come away with the impression of <'the Diva', about as good as 15ips>, in some marketing. And like this is taking place ~15 yrs ago.

What is lost in computer recording compared to original tape?