Mike Stranks wrote:

Arpangel wrote:One thing that you cannot do, with digital, and that’s slowing things down, it just doesn’t work, I’d own a tape machine just for doing that.
The depth and thickness, the solidity, you get with tape is unequaled.

You've obviously never used iZotope RX then...

Yes, nor Cubase, Logic and I'm sure others.

Generally when someone says 'Digital can't do X' I generally take it to me 'I haven't worked out how to do X'.
Sorry Arpangel. :/

Arpangel wrote:One thing that you cannot do, with digital, and that’s slowing things down, it just doesn’t work, I’d own a tape machine just for doing that.
The depth and thickness, the solidity, you get with tape is unequaled.

That's probably because you were working on a machine with NAB eq where the eq effectively changes between speeds. With digital you'd need to use something like Uhe's Satin which allows you to set the eq mismatch properly. You would also need to be working at high sample rates as you may well be bringing supersonic signals down into the audible band.

It is certainly very easy to change speed in digital but it doesn't work in the same way as tape without going to some effort.

That's probably because you were working on a machine with NAB eq where the eq effectively changes between speeds.......It is certainly very easy to change speed in digital but it doesn't work in the same way as tape without going to some effort.

Does it really matter? Ninety five plus percent of people will just hear it as a tape slowing down effect and that includes me, I can’t remember if real analogue tape exhibited some eq change as it slowed down. I don’t think tape speed had anything to do with CCIR and NAB curves though since tape speeds were agreed standards.

The resolution just isn’t there with digital, it just doesn’t work.

:-|

Hmmm.... It does... But only if you use appropriate equipment appropriately and know what to do with it.

Arpangel wrote:The resolution just isn’t there with digital, it just doesn’t work.

:-|

As one who had the "joy" of using analog tape for many years, I really miss it too.
I miss the tape hiss, the limited dynamic range, the smell of isopropyl to clean the heads, the time spent lining the thing up, setting up any noise reduction system (because tape sounds SO good people use noise reduction!), the limited recording time that got halved if you doubled the speed to get better quality, the time to rewind and change reels, the reduced editing facilities, no ability to loop phrases while recording, the limited number of tracks, the storage space reels took up, the space a reel to reel machine took up, loss of quality at each bounce down, very limited editing abilities, depending on your skills with a razor blade only one level of undo, expense of tape, the awful feeling when you changed the monitoring from "desk out" to "off tape"...
Do specsavers do rose tinted specs?!
The very first time I used a digital workstation (AMS Audiofile which wasn't exactly user friendly) I was glad to hear a giant step in fidelity, and was amazed at the editing possibilities. Even slipping one track against another was a game changer.
Now we have incredible A to D converters that can cope with dynamic ranges approaching that of the human ear, running DAWs with editing and sound changing abilities that were science fiction when I used tape machines, on modestly priced computers. The total cost much, much less than any Studer reel to reel tape machine!
Digital works, really well.

I would dearly love a nice reel-to-reel. It's absolutely not necessary, and it doesn't make any sense at all, but none of the things I love make any sense. :beamup:

I know what you mean...

My wife and kids are all bonkers too... :lol:

John Stafford wrote:I would dearly love a nice reel-to-reel. It's absolutely not necessary, and it doesn't make any sense at all, but none of the things I love make any sense. :beamup:

Well I've mentioned the UHER here, and several other places. If you want it, it's yours for whatever you offer more than the cost of postage - with half a dozen tapes thrown in, and a set of replacement belts. It worked last time I tried it, which was something like 6 months ago.

If nobody ever claims it, then with great reluctance it will eventually have to go to the dump.

Kwackman - :thumbup: :clap:

I could add my own list of horrors to yours. But that'll do for starters! :D

The Elf wrote:Kwackman - :thumbup: :clap:

I could add my own list of horrors to yours. But that'll do for starters! :D

Yes indeed - Kwackman's post brought back a lot of painful memories for me too, in my case with a Revox A77.

Never again! :beamup:


Martin

That's very kind of you Folderol. However, my friend tells me he has a reel-to-reel in his attic which he has offered to me.

I'll see if it's any good. Many thanks for your generous offer. :clap:

Folderol wrote:

John Stafford wrote:I would dearly love a nice reel-to-reel. It's absolutely not necessary, and it doesn't make any sense at all, but none of the things I love make any sense. :beamup:

Well I've mentioned the UHER here, and several other places. If you want it, it's yours for whatever you offer more than the cost of postage - with half a dozen tapes thrown in, and a set of replacement belts. It worked last time I tried it, which was something like 6 months ago.

If nobody ever claims it, then with great reluctance it will eventually have to go to the dump.

Don't bin it Folderol! I'll buy it from you. Can you PM me the details on it? It's the stereo version yes?

I guess I'm probably a bit mad, but I've had a big grin on my face for most of the day listening to one of my favourite bands coming off 15ips tape.