Arturia Tape J-37

[Zipede]

It's fun when they name drop albums from some of the biggest artists ever to prove it's a good unit. BUT those original albums sounds really bad today sound wise - and NO ONE would release something sounding that bad today......

I would!

There ARE some really incredible good and dynamic recordings from the 60's, but they are rare.

Doesn't those rare recordings prove that the tape machines were not the problem then?

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

What are examples of these rare recordings and what's the definition of the word problem in that context?

My point? This is all subjective. Motown records sound great! They're not hifi. AT ALL. That's NOT a problem. Sgt. Pepper kind of sounds like ass IMO. I think Rubber Soul sounded much better from a fidelity perspective. But Abbey Road sounds great to me today from a fidelity perspective.

The Zombies Odessey and Oracle was recorded in Abbey Road studios the day The Beatles finished Sgt. Pepper with the exact same equipment and engineers, and sounds much better than Pepper. Why? They probably didn't bounce things down as many generations nor did they intentionally EQ things to sound weird. So some reasons technical, some aesthetic. Also, like, that's just my opinion man!

There's no single objective "this sounds good" and "that sounds bad" opinion. Tape machines are also just one factor in dozens. Including how those tape machines were used.

If someone digs the J-37 plugin from Arturia, pick it up. It's a character machine for sure. If that's not your style/taste...no worries either. It definitely won't be the tape machine emulation you want to slap all over your modern EDM mixes or whatever in one of the vintage modes - that's for sure. But hey, maybe it would be cool. What do I know?

[jens]

Cobwebs are sticky. They help to glue your mix.

People here talk all the time about trying to make their music sound organic and natural, and then complain about cobwebs? I just don't get it...

My music is organic and natural simply because it is - I certainly don't "need to try to make it sound like it"

[concealed identity]

Cobwebs are sticky. They help to glue your mix.

People here talk all the time about trying to make their music sound organic and natural, and then complain about cobwebs? I just don't get it...

My music is organic and natural simply because it is - I certainly don't "need to try to make it sound like it"

Honestly I think in 2024, most people won't be able to tell the difference between real cobwebs and software emulations of cobwebs.

Back in the old days, if you're The Zombies and The Beatles used all the cobwebs in the previous section, there was nothing you could do. Nowadays, we have realistically-modeled cobwebs to make any album sound like Sgt. Peppers on Halloween.

[jens]

Nowadays, we have realistically-modeled cobwebs to make any album sound like Sgt. Peppers on Halloween.

Nah, there's no way an emulation is going to be as 3d as a real cobweb.


By the way: I'm really not sure you actually cognitively processed at all why the cobweb might irk me...

[concealed identity]

Nowadays, we have realistically-modeled cobwebs to make any album sound like Sgt. Peppers on Halloween.

Nah, there's no way an emulation is going to be as 3d as a real cobweb.


By the way: I'm really not sure you actually cognitively processed at all why the cobweb might irk me...

I really should clarify that I'm just poking fun at the presence of cobwebs in the first place and general audio talk. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, and I certainly am not trying to minimize any OCD you or others might have! Apologies if it came off that way at all.

[jens]

All good, all good!

I just don't want to give the impression as if I would care about the cobweb per se... my OCD isn't actually quite as bad.

It's just that... you know... how to say it?

If they don't appear to really bother cleaning their machine properly and not even when the Arturia folks are planning to shoot close-ups for their promo-video... then why would I assume it's impeccably maintained otherwise?

And I'm not sure I managed to yet really get that point across.

[Download SOphist]

Also, like, that's just my opinion man!

Big Lebowsky quotes won’t go unnoticed!

[Beatworld]

Waves already offers it for years

The best part of the emulation in my opinion is that you get that slightly larger than life sound, even if you keep it really under driven and even if you balance the frequency response to be as linear as possible. Especially if you use the 'instability' feature at 1 or 2% and have it in full stereo mode (aka dual mono). It sounds absolutely lovely on so many different audio sources.

Do you mean with the Stereo Offset On or off?

[songshark]

Thanks. I guess Ampex was more like a mastering tape machine then. Which Aruria isn't.

It's not just a "mastering" thing. Tape machine technology "improved" dramatically from the early 60's, to late 60's, to 70's, to 80's. The machines got more tracks, ran at faster speeds, but the circuits got cleaner. Not to mention improvements in tape formulations. Now, there was no way NOT to impart some tape saturation as it's baked into the medium, but the circuits of the machines got more and more hifi as they were refined over time.

The same thing happened with consoles and other recording gear. It's a bit of cliche but listen to the difference between Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road. The latter has way more fidelity. The two biggest differences: different consoles and different tape machines.

And note: the J-37 was the Sgt. Pepper tape machine.

But to be fair -- there were quite a few bounce-downs of 4-track to stereo to make room for more overdubs on 'Pepper.' They were still on 4-track machines (J-37). Abbey Road -- 8 track recorder (not sure which brand -- anyone know?) -- and, to my understanding far fewer of these "reduction" mixes (aka bouncing). I think that also must've contributed to the cleaner fidelity on Abbey Road, no?

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Thanks. I guess Ampex was more like a mastering tape machine then. Which Aruria isn't.

It's not just a "mastering" thing. Tape machine technology "improved" dramatically from the early 60's, to late 60's, to 70's, to 80's. The machines got more tracks, ran at faster speeds, but the circuits got cleaner. Not to mention improvements in tape formulations. Now, there was no way NOT to impart some tape saturation as it's baked into the medium, but the circuits of the machines got more and more hifi as they were refined over time.

The same thing happened with consoles and other recording gear. It's a bit of cliche but listen to the difference between Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road. The latter has way more fidelity. The two biggest differences: different consoles and different tape machines.

And note: the J-37 was the Sgt. Pepper tape machine.

But to be fair -- there were quite a few bounce-downs of 4-track to stereo to make room for more overdubs on 'Pepper.' They were still on 4-track machines (J-37). Abbey Road -- 8 track recorder (not sure which brand -- anyone know?) -- and, to my understanding far fewer of these "reduction" mixes (aka bouncing). I think that also must've contributed to the cleaner fidelity on Abbey Road, no?

Sure and I even discussed that in a different post but then compare Odessey and Oracle to Abbey Road. Wouldn't have had quite the same number of artistic choices and quite so many bounces but was made right after Pepper in studio two using the same gear. It's a bit more hifi sounding than Pepper IMO but not Abbey Road fidelity either.

[Vortifex]

Finally gave it a spin. The saturation is nice. The instability added some nice stereo effects but be careful with mono compatibility. They could have made more effort with autogain. Overall I don't feel compelled to buy it as I've already got saturation options galore and this doesn't blow me away.

[Awats]

The solid state console was a big difference in sound for Abbey Road.

[miloszz]

The saturation is nice but it always seems to add ~2db at those nice settings - which makes me wonder whether I'm liking the plugin itself or just a whiff of increased volume. Not being sure is probably a good reason to not splash out $60 on this.

[simon.a.billington]

Thanks. I guess Ampex was more like a mastering tape machine then. Which Aruria isn't.

It's not just a "mastering" thing. Tape machine technology "improved" dramatically from the early 60's, to late 60's, to 70's, to 80's. The machines got more tracks, ran at faster speeds, but the circuits got cleaner. Not to mention improvements in tape formulations. Now, there was no way NOT to impart some tape saturation as it's baked into the medium, but the circuits of the machines got more and more hifi as they were refined over time.

The same thing happened with consoles and other recording gear. It's a bit of cliche but listen to the difference between Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road. The latter has way more fidelity. The two biggest differences: different consoles and different tape machines.

And note: the J-37 was the Sgt. Pepper tape machine.

But to be fair -- there were quite a few bounce-downs of 4-track to stereo to make room for more overdubs on 'Pepper.' They were still on 4-track machines (J-37). Abbey Road -- 8 track recorder (not sure which brand -- anyone know?) -- and, to my understanding far fewer of these "reduction" mixes (aka bouncing). I think that also must've contributed to the cleaner fidelity on Abbey Road, no?

Let's not forget the change in mics and other outboard equipment that may have been used also. They may have even record through a different console by that time.