For me, the advantages of tape (for our time) are about the pleasing colour (distortions) and the compression that is (for me) still the best way to get individual parts to sit in a mix naturally and seemlessly. That is, each individual track is treated with saturation so that the frequencies within each instrumental part become 'rounded' (compressed), and with (musically) pleasing distortions. Isn't that why everything sits well and sounds homogenised?

But, I'm wondering what the advantage is to mastering to tape (I assume a bounced final mix) which I've heard people do to "add the effects of tape".

I can't see how this can be a good idea. I can only imagine mastering to tape would make the recording sound murkier. I prefer only to use tape once anyway. For backup, I usually record straight to tape and digitally at the same time (despite the inevitable stretch shifting with tape).

Cheers

Any cheap tape machine will not be worth bothering with, with a high end tape machine and tape
you will keep a high quality sound and yet have the option to alter the colour a little. You are right a badly maintained or old tape machine can easily make things sound worse. It certainly does not suit all music styles to have a tape pass. Probably more important to make excellent mix downs using the colouration you feel is right at the mix stages.

cheers

SafeandSound Mastering
Audio mastering

RE: "You are right a badly maintained or old tape machine can easily make things sound worse. It certainly does not suit all music styles to have a tape pass. It certainly does not suit all music styles to have a tape pass. Probably more important to make excellent mix downs using the colouration you feel is right at the mix stages."

Hi, is this a reply to a deleted post perhaps?

I was just wondering about the advantages of bouncing a final stereo mix, because I can't see any. I do mean highest quality gear obviously because otherwise the question would be invalid (though incidentally, I have used crappy recorders to get mangled/distorted effects occasionally. Anything that makes a sound is valid in the right circumstances.)

What I mean in other words... tape compression applied to each separate instrument (on its own multitrack track) later results in a more homogenised mix because each instrument has been sonically treated in the same way (and with the same distortions and other tape characteristics that intermingle pleasingly when recombined).

You can't achieve this effect by bouncing a final mix because that doesn't treat all the parts individually. They would be compressed with the original(/digitally treated) dynamics on the separate parts and therefore with no noise compensation you get from driving tape hard.

Thanks

Tape on the master has a similar sort of effect to tape on the multitrack...It knocks the corners off, compresses, adds a bit of noise, fills the gaps in. Sometimes it adds something great, and sometimes it adds something that's not really of benefit. It depends what you start with.

J

--------------------
www.jackruston.com

Do you mean in addition to mixing via tape, or instead of, or both? Cheers

Quote J.A.S:

---

Do you mean in addition to mixing via tape, or instead of, or both? Cheers

---

Compression on the Master is a very common practice, why does the idea of mastering to tape confuse you so greatly?

Mastering to tape was a common practise for many years, even when the tracks had been recorded on tape.

It's still very common, as is mixing to tape from a tape or digital multitrack. I would say though that in cases where people are mixing or mastering to tape it's fairly standard to also take digital prints for comparison.

J

--------------------
www.jackruston.com

RE: Mastering to tape was a common practise for many years, even when the tracks had been recorded on tape.

When there was no choice, there was no choice. My question relates to what benefits there are to mastering to tape today, rather than digital, in a fully equipped digital studio.

RE: "It's still very common, as is mixing to tape from a tape or digital multitrack."

Hence the question. A lot of things were and are common practice.

RE: "Compression on the Master is a very common practice, why does the idea of mastering to tape confuse you so greatly?"

I think it's a pretty straightforward question actually and with reasons given why I believe it would not benefit a master in the same way as does original multitracking on tape. I'd suggest that it's something of a garage band myth that the effects of tape compression are beneficial in stereo mastering a completely digitally recorded mix when weighed against the loss of quality. I don't think this is true of analogue multitracking though. Some may argue that multitracking adds many layers of noise with each track, but of course if you drive tape hard enough, and of course this is then mixed (reintroducing dynamics to an extent)... but doing that on a stereo master?

Thanks.

Quote:

---

I'd suggest that it's something of a garage band myth that the effects of tape compression are beneficial in stereo mastering a completely digitally recorded mix when weighed against the loss of quality.

---

sometimes noise is a tradeoff but usually it's not that noticeable in a good mix. sure, in an A/B situation but not on a single master with no other reference.

Quote:

---

I don't think this is true of analogue multitracking though. Some may argue that multitracking adds many layers of noise with each track

---

Why would multi tracking add layers of noise? Overdubbing might eventually but considering the current price of tape, you'd want to get the performance you plan on recording just right before you even lace it up.

Quote:

---

but of course if you drive tape hard enough, and of course this is then mixed (reintroducing dynamics to an extent)... but doing that on a stereo master?

---

Yes. absolutely. do it all the time. love it.

As you say of each track....

"That is, each individual track is treated with saturation so that the frequencies within each instrumental part become 'rounded' (compressed), and with (musically) pleasing distortions. Isn't that why everything sits well and sounds homogenised?"

You have answered your own question there. That pleasing rounded compression can be just as flattering on a whole mix. Simple as that?

You have a tape machine, try it out.

I only have a humble Tascam 22-2 (1/4 " 2 track), but when I monitor off the heads and get the levels correct, the A/B is like night and day. Its like the most slick bus compressor.

I cant find a plug in to do this yet that doesn't sound fake.

(I'm also a bit old fashioned and like to add live flourishes to a mix, and I like to capture these types of mixes on tape knowing that everything will mesh together. Also There is nothing like a re-wind and a think before a listen back!)

--------------------

Why would multi tracking add layers of noise?"

Well, I mean the noise from each recorded track (compared to those of overall) when the levels of each track aren't saturating the tape to cover it. Plus the repeat recordings wear on tape/recording. Digitally recorded multitracks wouldn't introduce as much noise in a stereo mix, or else they *could* be dealt with digitally before mastering to tape. This isn't me "answering my own question" though because this doesn't maximise each track in the way multitracking to tape does.

RE: "You have answered your own question there. That pleasing rounded compression can be just as flattering on a whole mix. Simple as that?"

But limited to the dynamic/frequency range of tape? What is the advantage to having that on an entire mix? What are we slotting an entire mix into? (I'm thinking of potential digital treatments). On most albums with many parts, like motown hits for example, the individual parts are quite dull actually when heard seperately.

This is one argument for digital remastering, although I've never been that impressed: to maximise the dynamic/frequency range of the multitracked parts that was (now unecessarily) restricted by the stereo master tape. Isn't this also an argument for not mastering to tape now?

People often don't want to maximise frequency response and dynamics, and minimise noise. Quite the opposite. It's not just a technical process but a creative one. And it's enough to say that people do it because they like the sound it makes...and many do. It's a bit like saying the reason we still use outboard rather than plug ins despite the difference in convenience and technical performance is because we prefer the sound. Although in some applications we may find the transparency of digital better.

You seem to really want it to be a redundant process is there a motivation for that or is it just for the benefit of discussion?

J

--------------------
www.jackruston.com

Quote J.A.S:

---

Why would multi tracking add layers of noise?"

Well, I mean the noise from each recorded track (compared to those of overall) when the levels of each track aren't saturating the tape to cover it. Plus the repeat recordings wear on tape/recording. Digitally recorded multitracks wouldn't introduce as much noise in a stereo mix, or else they *could* be dealt with digitally before mastering to tape. This isn't me "answering my own question" though because this doesn't maximise each track in the way multitracking to tape does.

RE: "You have answered your own question there. That pleasing rounded compression can be just as flattering on a whole mix. Simple as that?"

But limited to the dynamic/frequency range of tape? What is the advantage to having that on an entire mix? What are we slotting an entire mix into? (I'm thinking of potential digital treatments). On most albums with many parts, like motown hits for example, the individual parts are quite dull actually when heard seperately.

This is one argument for digital remastering, although I've never been that impressed: to maximise the dynamic/frequency range of the multitracked parts that was (now unecessarily) restricted by the stereo master tape. Isn't this also an argument for not mastering to tape now?

---

No. Listen to old Motown records - that stuff has character and people love it today. Compare that to the bland computer crap that gets churned out day in day out in 2012.

Do you really need a bigger dynamic range than is available on tape? ie will you be listening in an anechoic chamber and using speakers capable of permanently damaging your hearing? If not, tape is perfectly good enough. If you are, you really don't know how to enjoy music and should stick to engineering on a purely academic level.

Noise is a great element in music. Its best when it subtly bounces and pumps naturally along with the track, which is what it does when you get the levels right onto tape. It may not work in all circumstances, but when it works it works great.

RE: "People often don't want to maximise frequency response and dynamics, and minimise noise."

RE: "Listen to old Motown records - that stuff has character and people love it today. Compare that to the bland computer crap that gets churned out day in day out in 2012."

I'm a huge fan of Lee 'Scratch' Perry, Keith Hudson, Joe Meek, and stuff with fizzy static 'whirligig' style delays, etc. But a lot of stuff sounds crap through hi-def speakers. I'd sooner listen to Bob Dylan on an old vinyl 'music centre', otherwise that harmonica splits my head open. It sounds ethereal when breaking through a needle or mangled tape. I don't think it's a coincidence that I stopped listening to Dylan when I got his albums on CD. I might get some vinyl rips, because digital can at least capture it, or anything.

"Noise is a great element in music. Its best when it subtly bounces and pumps naturally along with the track, which is what it does when you get the levels right onto tape. It may not work in all circumstances, but when it works it works great."

I agree with these points. Certainly I think noise gives atmosphere, the needle on a record, tape hiss -like a smokey bar- I just think there's already enough of that after multitracking on tape. The noise of a taped stereo master can only be minimised by cutting overall frequencies or compressed by driving tape hard or with a compressor. Unless you're mastering for 1950/60's car stereos, I'm not sure it contributes anything now.

I think there are sound engineers who have trained themselves to be overly fussy about the slightest noise (probably not even acknowledging traffic noise, buzzing lamps, blood flowing in their earlobes, etc) and are unappreciative of its artistic contribution unless it's a contolled thing on synths or something. They are continuing a fanatical culture that once made a contribution (with tape) but is now producing sterile results (in the digital era).

This culture of preoccupation with noise is now largely invalid because digital tech has reduced it to more than musically acceptable levels. But when using tape it is still (and always was) a valid concern, otherwise you can end up with a dirgy flapjack ~an OK effect for some stuff maybe. That said, I like quite extremely archaic recordings too, early field recordings from Africa and early American blues records.

"...will you be listening in an anechoic chamber and using speakers capable of permanently damaging your hearing? If not, tape is perfectly good enough."

This sounds like a "for it or against it" argument. I wouldn't even be multitracking to tape if I were against it, but then I think it's important to be of your own time and take advantage of the tools available. No absolutes. All this is just talk though. "Never believe what an artist says, only what he does."

I cant listen to those recent Beatles re-masters, they sound like they are encased in glass.

I was looking forward to having that fast version of Revolution (Jude B-side?) on CD, not good. I far prefered my ancient 45.

Back O.T, dont forget those big ass 1/2" - 2" mastering machines at fast speeds are pretty impressive. In fact if I had an all digital mix I wanted to warm up, it would ironically be a bit pointless using a state of the art wide-head high speed mastering tape machine - they were specced NOT to add any more noise or saturation than was technically unavoidable.

A more pleasing grunge is gotten from a 1/4 machine. (I know hough there are some famous 1/4" masters...)

Tape at its best is a match for digital except in the lab, it was the inconvenience and fragilty of the format that speeded up the new technology, and was ditched just when it was perfected.

Now, all this 96 K malarky....

--------------------

RE: "...it would ironically be a bit pointless using a state of the art wide-head high speed mastering tape machine - they were specced NOT to add any more noise or saturation than was technically unavoidable."

It's funny that all those bubblegum pop hits were probably done on lush tape studios we're hankering after now. Kylie Minogue's "You could be unlucky", for instance.

Well of course, everything was.

Thats why people need to stop fetishising the mediums.

Its the message thats important. As much crap sat on plastic and tapes as sits on hard drives.

Mind you I like those S.A.W records !

--------------------

Quote J.A.S:

---

RE:
"...will you be listening in an anechoic chamber and using speakers capable of permanently damaging your hearing? If not, tape is perfectly good enough."

This sounds like a "for it or against it" argument. I wouldn't even be multitracking to tape if I were against it, but then I think it's important to be of your own time and take advantage of the tools available. No absolutes. All this is just talk though. "Never believe what an artist says, only what he does."

---

Who talks in absolutes ?

Hi J.A.S.

I would say that the main reason for mixing to tape is if you don't have the facilities to multitrack to tape. I used to use multitrack tape but have been digital for twelve years now. I do miss the effects, especially on acoustic guitar and cymbals.

However, since I have been mixing to two-track tape again the sound has just got so much better. So much more cohesive. It just sounds like a record should.

It is also a very easy, set-and-forget kind of bus compressor. Pick your tape (406 style for me), set your usual drive level and off you go. Done.

Alec

--------------------
'These are my principles and if you don't like them...well, I have others' (Groucho Marx) www.ownlittleworld.net/tunes.html

RE: Who talks in absolutes ?

But I'm a Sith

"But I'm a Sith "

No, no - thats impossible. we would know.

--------------------

Quote J.A.S:

---

RE: Who talks in absolutes ?

But I'm a Sith

---

I knew it.

Interesting if you can get an old 2 track reel to reel and instead of recording to tape, you can record "through it" for that analog compressed sound?

I bet thats better than any plug in?

No it's the medium of tape itself that is responsible for (most of) this effect. I have messed about with one of those car stereo tape head converters and got something out of it, because sound will be influenced by the recording and playback electronics of tape technology. But exactly what the tape itself does (how it compresses frequencies/dynamics, other nonlinearities, how noise/hiss and signal are blended -not simply 'added') has no substitute yet.

That said, I'd be interested to know what SOSperts think of this:

http://home3.netcarrier.com/~lxh2/tapesat.html

It's very simple... and I'm intrigued to know what it sounds like...

The whole tape recording process is very complex and very variable, and while there have been lots of very simplistic attempts at emulation, few have got anywhere close to a realistic effect. The better ones combine the non linear effects of inductive heads, record and replay equalisation, variable MF and HF compression and loss and so on. I think the introduction of noise is also very important, as is the subtle anharmonic contribution of scrape flutter and other system non-linearities.

The Anamod ATS-1 is the closest analogue simulator I've come across, although the Portico 5042 tape simulator isn't bad. On the digital front, the UAD tape simulators (Studer and ATR) and Yamaha's digital console VCM effects tape simulation are also pretty good -- and there are several others that bring something useful to the party.

The perfect simulation doesn't exist -- and can't -- because every combination of tape machine and tape, and every variation of set up and wear affects the end results quite significantly.

At the end of the day, if the effect does something you like, then that's fine, and it really doesn't matter how you get there, whether with real tape machines or a simulation of some kind.

And more importantly, despite the rose-tinted perspective of so many folk who have never used a real tape machine in anger, a lot of us were overjoyed when digital came along and we could finally hear on replay exactly what we had sent from the console!

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote J.A.S:

---

But, I'm wondering what the advantage is to mastering to tape (I assume a bounced final mix) which I've heard people do to "add the effects of tape".

I can't see how this can be a good idea. I can only imagine mastering to tape would make the recording sound murkier. I prefer only to use tape once anyway. For backup, I usually record straight to tape and digitally at the same time (despite the inevitable stretch shifting with tape).

Cheers

---

People can have different expectations of what tape does to the sound, a lot of it coming from misinformation or nostalgia for all things old. Tape can add "colour" and "Glue" by adding distortion and softening transients, but the effect can range from very subtle to a total make-over. The better the tape recorder, the more subtle the effect. A cassette recorder will add much more "Mojo" to a stereo mix than a 1/2" Ampex recorder properly set-up.

Why do you want to change the sound of a mix at the mastering stage? Does it really need more distortion and compression? Some mixes may benefit from extra "warmth" or compression, and while this can be achieved laying back to tape, this can also be hit or miss and time consuming particularly if you want to experiment and achieve a different sound from what the specific machine can deliver. Generally, a similar result can be achieved by an experience mastering engineer by using Warm EQ, vintage type compression, subtle distortion and/or tape modelling software.

We have two of the best tape recorders (Studer 810 1/4" and Ampex ATR 102 1/2"), but I will only use the lay-back method at the specific request of a client, as I know I can get similar results much more quickly (ie: saving costs) and in a more flexible manner using my usual tools.

--------------------
http://www.flowmastering.co.uk
http://www.wolfstudios.co.uk

RE: "Why do you want to change the sound of a mix at the mastering stage? Does it really need more distortion and compression?"

No, I just use tape to (multi) track, usually directly if I don't need too many takes to get it right. I tend to master with external hardware (analogue) processors to digital. Occasionally I might bounce to digital (to edit) before applying external processors.

I was really questioning why people master to analogue tape, but there has been some confusion, I think. To clarify:

1. I was questioning why people master to tape after recording to multitrack (analogue) tape, because I feel the benefits/characteristics of tape are already present from the multitrack. I feel that a further stereo bounce to tape (in most cases) *might* just drown or strangle it without contributing enough to make it worthwhile.

2. I think some people assume they can get the benefits of multitracking to tape by mastering to tape. But I was pointing out that with a completely digitally recorded mix, you haven't captured the tape compression benefits on each instrumental track that helps them 'sit' in the mix. (But, otherwise, I'm not completely against the idea of mastering a digital mix to tape.)

So the first point was a criticism, the second a clarification.

P.S. I think the practical problems with tape are irrelevant to those creating music purely as personal 'art' rather than perhaps (semi-indifferently) as an engineering job or production job with a deadline. Acrylic paint has many practical benefits over oils but its just not the same. I watched that Jazz Piano Gold thing on BBC4 recently. To me, all the early stuff sounded great (even via that MP4 encoding ) in terms of production (Monk, Brubeck, etc) probably due to the rather extreme effects of the original medium (remastered?). As soon as it got to 80's/90's, it's like the roof had been pulled off and everything was sort of frostier. I'm not sure how that stuff was recorded, it could have been the early digital processors I don't like in the later stuff though.

Thanks

Quote johnny h:

---

Quote J.A.S:

---

Why would multi tracking add layers of noise?"

Well, I mean the noise from each recorded track (compared to those of overall) when the levels of each track aren't saturating the tape to cover it. Plus the repeat recordings wear on tape/recording. Digitally recorded multitracks wouldn't introduce as much noise in a stereo mix, or else they *could* be dealt with digitally before mastering to tape. This isn't me "answering my own question" though because this doesn't maximise each track in the way multitracking to tape does.

RE: "You have answered your own question there. That pleasing rounded compression can be just as flattering on a whole mix. Simple as that?"

But limited to the dynamic/frequency range of tape? What is the advantage to having that on an entire mix? What are we slotting an entire mix into? (I'm thinking of potential digital treatments). On most albums with many parts, like motown hits for example, the individual parts are quite dull actually when heard seperately.

This is one argument for digital remastering, although I've never been that impressed: to maximise the dynamic/frequency range of the multitracked parts that was (now unecessarily) restricted by the stereo master tape. Isn't this also an argument for not mastering to tape now?

---

No. Listen to old Motown records - that stuff has character and people love it today. Compare that to the bland computer crap that gets churned out day in day out in 2012.

Do you really need a bigger dynamic range than is available on tape? ie will you be listening in an anechoic chamber and using speakers capable of permanently damaging your hearing? If not, tape is perfectly good enough. If you are, you really don't know how to enjoy music and should stick to engineering on a purely academic level.

Noise is a great element in music. Its best when it subtly bounces and pumps naturally along with the track, which is what it does when you get the levels right onto tape. It may not work in all circumstances, but when it works it works great.

---

Your point is subjective in my opinion. As an electronic and instrumental composer, I find that dynamic range is still too limited and does not match many of my imagined musical ideas. Examples include the dynamic range all sorts of sound generators from acoustic to electronic and digital; to the perceived norms in the recording process and so on. I envisage electronic pieces that use a huge dynamic range - not all at once - that are near on impossible to consider implementing in current recording setups. And - the whole issue of dynamic range and fidelity in classical recording is still in its infancy. The amount of artificial level manipulation that goes on even in the most rated classical recordings beggars belief; simply because the capture of dynamics and fidelity of a live orchestra or solo and orchestra cannot be recorded still.

No, there will be dynamic range and fidelity issues put to use in innovative new music and in far superior classical recording in the future that will make today’s recording technology seem as crude as the Edison Wax cylinder seems to us today.

Beatles recording are not the only bench mark. Yes the Beatles recording are a product of the vinyl age so that's the 'norm' there; but there is nothing objectively warmer about those recordings and they are but a single genre in the whole tapestry of sound of music that humanity is and will engage. In my opinion, that's why audio technology exists and why it excites me so much. There is nothing academic in wanting greater dynamic range – it can be used in massively innovative ways (if an when play back systems can cope with it – and it does not all have to be exploited in short timescales even on an single piece – it can be exploited in many currently unimagined but wholly musical and artistic ways)

Kevin.

I think this has parallels in other arts. In photography, celluloid is far more 'forgiving' than digital, which can more easily look harsh and easily cheap/naff -or at least less 'earthy'. Many vintage photographic portraits often look majestic and ethereal to me. This is largely due to the longer exposure time, large negatives, materials (silver nitrate, potato starch, etc) and so on. But, like with analogue tape, photographic film eventually reached such high technical standards that the ethereal 'unrealistic' effects were minimised, resulting in products that are not too different from some digital renderings today.

I suppose mimicking vintage analogue sound is quite like mimicking vintage photography too. How do you compensate for physical media with all its natural impurities, behaviours, etc? Applying some clever Photoshop effects to a single image can't begin to make up for the multitude of processes that results in such images as those captured by Edward S Curtis, for example. I have got closer by photographing a person many times and carefully blending the images (with processing) to get that sharp<->soft focus effect typical of those vintage long exposure captures of slightly moving figures, but the final printout (presently) makes it all quite implausible anyway. This is also the case with sound, because we have even less control of its final reproduction -other people's sound systems!

We also have to realise that the technical problems/considerations might not be in tune with what we actually hear/interpret, or actually prefer aesthetically. It's like, great painters who capture something unique to human perception that a photograph can't -we don't actually experience the world in a 'photographic' way anyway. Psychologically things stand out more than others, or are interpreted/distorted after it has reached the retina.

In order to use such technology most effectively, I think it's important to identify what it is about analogues that actually make the difference. It's possible that tape might squash/blend things in such a way that makes our brains more able to appreciate the music as a single entity, and to separate it from other sounds around us. Perhaps certain modern approaches/tools might be more effective for a cinematic experience rather than musical pieces.

I mean, the extreme panning that was used in some late 1960's rock (I assume this was first done to give a mono drum track its place in the stereo image when stereo first came out) is actually very musically effective in allowing you to hear the part. Today, there's a practice of panning drums as though the listener is sat in the middle as though this this more natural. How? What is best musically (for our brains) to digest the music and appreciate a part? What is wrong with an instrument having one source, except perhaps for reflections?

Anyway, the point here is, technical knowledge about achieving 'realism' is not superior to musical (human) preferences. I won't even say there should be a balance between the two because it depends. The intellect (and its motives and ambitions) can be at odds with our natural aesthetic preferences. Just as composers like Schoenberg and Stockhausen wanted to do intellectual things that might not be possible to appreciate as intended, I think studio engineers and producers often impose knowledge-based regulations that might not suite human ears. That's why it should always be about our ear'oles!

Quote Kevin Nolan:

---

There is nothing academic in wanting greater dynamic range – it can be used in massively innovative ways (if an when play back systems can cope with it – and it does not all have to be exploited in short timescales even on an single piece – it can be exploited in many currently unimagined but wholly musical and artistic ways)

Kevin.

---

No, a dynamic range greater than is allowed by analogue recordings would cause you permanent hearing loss in any normal environment.

And the last consideration in making good quality music, for sure.

Quote johnny h:

---

No, a dynamic range greater than is allowed by analogue recordings would cause you permanent hearing loss in any normal environment.

---

I think you may want to think about the veracity of that statement for a minute.

--------------------
I'm All Ears.

Obviously lots of people love the thing that tape adds to the sound. But if you love the sound of what you are doing during the mastering session then presumably that's what you want and not another change on playback.

I do remember reading relatively recently (I think it was in Bob Katz book) that the difference in mastering to tape is up to 7dB.

--------------------
Daniel Davis
Edinburgh Recording Studio Windmill Sound

Quote johnny h:

---

No, a dynamic range greater than is allowed by analogue recordings would cause you permanent hearing loss in any normal environment.

---

I think not...

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

It's great people are enjoying business from transfers where it is most at home. I was lucky to have caught the back end of it when I commenced my training and used it quite a bit in broadcast work, mainly BBC broadcast archive transfers.

Tape used to be incidental it was the industry standard, now it is a tonal option, searched for as part of mastering and quite rightly so, nothing wrong with this. You know... things change, in many instances it adds a lot and sometimes bypass is best. I find rather than switch it on and forget it, it needs to be worked with as part of an entire chain another layer of character which both adds and takes away as do most processes. I am of the mind that tape emulation has reached a level of sonic accuracy where it has all the advantages sonically without the many, many downsides of an actual machine and magnetic tape.

If you know you need that sound all the time, own a high end machine, not a low end machine.

I adore it when it suits the material.

SafeandSound Mastering
online mastering studio