# First Post?



## audiomaster (Jun 9, 2006)

Surely someone here wants to talk about reel to reel, Sheffield lab and Telarc direct cut discs and the general insanity of cutting up a perfectly good analog wave form into 96,000 or more pieces and then trying to put it back together properly again?


----------



## ngarjuna (Mar 29, 2010)

It's ironic to me, back before there was digital audio everybody just wanted more SNR. Now that we have digital everyone wants to go back to the hiss days. Grass is always greener I suppose.

Do you record, mix or master on tape?


----------



## ejbragg (Dec 13, 2009)

Oooooh! Now why would you want to do all that?! LOL.

I'm certainly the wrong guy for this conversation - way too lazy for that stuff, although I've actually done worse in my early teens, attempting to splice together cassette tape tracks for all my hair-brained multi-tracking ideas! To save my sanity, I converted to digital as soon as it came out! I have a lot of respect for people who can (or did) all that tedious work - and a lot of guessing, I'm sure!


----------



## ngarjuna (Mar 29, 2010)

Well every format has its pluses and minuses...no doubt editing and the like are pretty easy in digital but good luck trying to saturate your ADC =)


----------



## jaddie (Jan 16, 2008)

The test, for me, has always been: which recording sounds like the console? I've never been fooled into thinking tape was the console, but digital systems...yup. Got me more than once. If you like tape, in any form, as a "filter" that makes things in some way sound subjectively pleasing, it's valid. And tape was at its best pretty good. 30ips 1/2 two track was amazing, though flawed...a tad weak in the bottom end. 

And I did a vinyl project in the 1980s where we made the vinyl sound exactly like the master (except for surface noise, of course), which sounded exactly like the CD. Hmmm!


----------



## Elliott Studio (Mar 15, 2008)

I'm not an engineer, just a fan of vinyl, and yes, reel to reel tapes (though you can't find any these days)

I love the sound of vinyl and have dedicated much of my music collecting to the procurement of cheap .99¢ albums at the used record stores and good will. Some of my favorite music comes in this form.. 

I especially like the sound of the rock / pop stuff from the '70's, when musicians and producers really cared about singing in tune and vocal harmony and such..


----------



## fractile (Mar 15, 2009)

It was in the 90's before I finally bought a CD after finally hearing something on a good system. Before that all I could remember was how jagged it sounded.

I like the saturation, compression and phase effects of tape. The AutoTune and Vocorder effects being used sound like an exaggeration of the effect tape, radio and vacuum tubes can have. These days people can record simultaneously to digital and tape and blend them in the mix; one for body and one for detail.

I'm in the middle of a construction zone right now, but I bought a Revox[Studer]B77 1/2-track and found a Sony portable with vacuum tube inputs on the sidewalk. When I get things together I intend to use those for things tape machines can do.


----------



## jaddie (Jan 16, 2008)

To be fair, when forming opinions about a recording medium, you need to have all variables under control so you know what you are really listening to. 

What we are really hearing when we compare tape/vinyl to “digital” (wow, there’s an overly generic term!), are differences at every step of the entire signal and work flow, including the skill and training of the people who handled the material. In the “analog days”, mastering engineers were very few in number, and in that select few were highly trained and skilled people. A few people were really responsible for the overall sound and quality of what we got on vinyl. When digital recordings appeared, so did a whole new group of relatively unskilled and untrained people who then handled the work flow. And that changed how subjective judgements were made, what specific hardware was used and how. Just like a circular saw in unskilled hands can destroy a good piece of furniture, audio tools in unskilled hands can produce distorted recordings. 

I may sound like a blow-hard, but this is actually true. I’ve been in a position to evaluate the analog/digital differences while keeping the rest of the work flow under control, and under the watchful eyes and ears of well seasoned and skilled professionals. It’s not an easy thing to do, and hardly anyone has really done this, so I’m sharing an experience.

What we did was record a stereo mix of a jazz group in the studio from the console directly to both a well calibrated analog machine (Studer A80, 15ips, Dolby A, Ampex 456 tape) and a Sony PCM 1630 (this was mid 1980s), then compare the results, and also compare live to the direct console out (no dynamics processing, by the way). The 1630 sounded shockingly similar to the console . The tape was good, but not exact. Comparing the 1630 to the tape later, we decided the 1630 digital was more open, cleaner, and had less noise, more life and emotion. 

Here’s where the work flow split: From the digital masters, we did a bit-for-bit clone, sent one to Japan for the CDs. The other copy was taken to Bernie Grundman for analog mastering. I sat with him as he did his thing. I had requested that he try to stay faithful to the master, and only do what might be necessary to condition the work for the vinyl release. He added no dynamics processing, and just some slight level adjustment and EQ. The only addition piece of equipment

Getting the vinyl pressed without issues was a huge problem, but a dozen test pressings later we got a good one. The CDs came back from Japan without issue. Playing them side by side was a revelation. They sounded almost exactly the same! The only real difference was that the vinyl had surface noise, and slightly less air. This was on the first playing of a fresh copy, and the turntable and cartridge were precisely calibrated to hit the RIAA EQ curve within .1 dB. We then got out the master and played it with the CD and vinyl for comparison. The CD was an exact match to the master, the vinyl also very close, but gave itself away with noise. After 10 playings, the vinyl began to wear, and distortion crept in, and the differences became more than obvious.

Here’s the point: It’s not necessarily true that analog tape or vinyl is better than “digital” as a recording medium, but it is absolutely true that the two follow different paths to end product. Well done digital recordings and well done analog recordings are both well done. The inverse is also true. 

While the chances to mess up a digital recording seem to be many, it should be understood than an analog recorder is a touchy, sensitive beast that needs periodic adjustment, cleaning and alignment with precision test equipment and test tapes. Just owning an analog machine to record with is only the beginning. They take a LOT of care and feeding, in an almost organic way. There’s the mechanical aspect of motors, bearings, tape guides, and the tape path, head alignment and wear. There’s the magnetic aspect of the tape itself, biasing (changes not only from one tape type to another, but batch to batch, even reel to reel) and coercivity. The electrical aspects of play EQ, record EQ, and reference levels and fluxivity. There’s the electro-magnetic aspects of bias and high frequency self erasure, bias purity and DC component, residual magnetism and all of that interacts with frequency response and distortion. You’re not going to get the best out of a 20 year old machine without dealing with all of that. , we could barely do it when the gear was brand new! How would you like to record a beautiful take, only to have the noise come up and the highs to go down every time you play it because you didn’t now one of the guides was magnetized? Not common, but it did happen. None of the above is trivial, none of it can just be ignored.

Basic digital recording needs none of that. It pretty much records well out of the gate. Your chances of getting it right are greater with a more stable system. But it's completely valid if you like what a somewhat miss-adjusted analog tape machine does as a "filter". But our goal in the old days was to try to get recordings that sounded exactly like the raw console output, and tape only ever came close.


----------



## PepAX7 (Mar 11, 2008)

Your right, Jaddie.... there is a lot of "physics" to the analog way. I was listening to some of my old tape recordings from the late '70s and '80s and was surprised at what I thought was good, clean audio. Recording at 96kHz/24bit can spoil ya.

But then again... as I was listening... it did sound pleasant, with a little noise and subtle distortions. I began to wonder if its all related more to dynamic range? I mean... you were lucky to get better than 55-60db dynamic range out of tape. I have dbx so I was getting closer to 85-90db with _other distortions_ added. Vinyl was more like 45db if you got an un-warped pressing.

I believe the average Joe likes an "FM' sound i.e. somewhat squashed sound, better than a full range CD. I really believe that! I think all this "tube warmth" and vinyl revival stems from this. I love this sound too. As a long time guitar player, I look for tube amps over solid state for that compression. _ Although, these plugins are getting really close._

Some of my older vinyl records sound very nice..but... I'm in the process of converting them to 96/24.:rofl:

Pep


----------



## fractile (Mar 15, 2009)

I'm in a learning curve transition in learning the nature of electronic sound from vacuum tube to solid-state to digital. In my evaluation I have been working from digital source; I guess I should set up some analog tape and disk sources. I'm in the middle of the whole studio build, so it's been mainly listening to CDs in a Pioneer PD-F1009 300 disk changer with 1-Bit DLC [direct linear conversion].

I've been running this through a Manley Massive Passive EQ [passive filters with vac tube gain], a Manley 16x2 mixer [tube gain], Manley Snapper monoblocks [complete balanced signal path], to ProAc Studio 100 monitors [Manley ML-10's on order; Tannoy concentric drivers, Mastering Lab xover].

Maybe I am naive, but I have sensed the opposite of compression, a sort of airy floatiness that I began to think sounded 'too Manley'. Due to practical considerations of versatility and portability for remote work, I got an SSL X-Desk mixer; my first impression on hearing it was "coherence".

I'm still learning about all the odd and even harmonics with vacuum tubes and solid-state circuits and circuit design, but I'm gaining trust in solid-state design, at least with professional grade equipment. I also got an SPL Qure EQ [active solid-state circuits with a Qure vac tube circuit similar to their Vitalizer technology (I'm a wannabe (re)mastering engineer who likes to 'fix' things)]. I haven't noticed either the SSL or SSL 'messing up' the signal.

I have an assortment of outboard and inboard gear of about ;-) all kinds that I will eventually integrate as I go.


----------



## jonathanm (Mar 24, 2010)

Analog tape never held much fascination for me, although I was definitely fascinated by the whole SMPTE syncing / striping thing..it seemed like such a complicated, convoluted way to do something, lol. When I hear of guys running stuff out to tape then back into the DAW to get some saturation, or just "feel".. it seems like an equally complicated and convoluted thing to do.

I had a long and expensive love affair with vinyl however. The sound is one thing, but there is the whole mechanical nature of it that I loved too. It's like the difference between a fine clock movement and a modern electronic movement...

They both do the same thing, and the digital movement is no doubt more accurate...but to look at the mechanism, and just see it happening right there in front of you, I could look at it for ages (both clocks and vinyl, lol). Does anyone remember a guy doing the rounds on TV years ago - he could tell you what a piece of vinyl was just by looking at the groove?

BTW, I'm pretty sure that the dynamic range of an LP is more like 75dB...theoretically more, except for the high noise floor.... and you can get more out at 45rpm. :scratch:


----------



## jaddie (Jan 16, 2008)

PepAX7 said:


> ... I began to wonder if its all related more to dynamic range? I mean... you were lucky to get better than 55-60db dynamic range out of tape. I have dbx so I was getting closer to 85-90db with _other distortions_ added. Vinyl was more like 45db if you got an un-warped pressing.
> Pep


Ah, dbx. Now there's a study in non-linearity. Take any response anomaly in your analog system and now multiply by 2X. You should hear what it does with a 5dB narrow track head bump! Yikes! And tracking of encode/decode was pretty good, but not always right for transients. Dolby A was much more transparent, as it did less, did it with multiple bands of compression, and at high levels it pretty much dropped out of the circuit. SR was better yet.


PepAX7 said:


> I believe the average Joe likes an "FM' sound i.e. somewhat squashed sound, better than a full range CD. [/I]
> Pep


Could be conditioning. Joe's heard a ton of FM in his life. But I don't think it's really his preference, just what he's used to. Joe doesn't often get to hear a well balanced system in a good room either. He sure does need some limited dynamics to hear his tunes over background noise. But that really should be done in his player, not on the recording. If only.

Oh, and it 's not really the sound of FM, it's the sound of processing on FM. Raw FM can do up to 86dB of dynamic range, with very low distortion and 50dB of separation. good until they muck it up with all that processing. By the way, that's really and argument for cleaner recordings...processing induced distortion is additive, and if your stuff is going to be broadcast, you don't want the radio boys adding to your mess.


----------



## jaddie (Jan 16, 2008)

jonathanm said:


> I had a long and expensive love affair with vinyl however. The sound is one thing, but there is the whole mechanical nature of it that I loved too. It's like the difference between a fine clock movement and a modern electronic movement...
> 
> They both do the same thing, and the digital movement is no doubt more accurate...but to look at the mechanism, and just see it happening right there in front of you, I could look at it for ages (both clocks and vinyl, lol).


When my son was about 9 or 10 he told me he liked music better when I played vinyl because he could watch it play. Then I showed him a reel to reel... Today he listens to an iPhone. No moving parts. Who knew?


jonathanm said:


> BTW, I'm pretty sure that the dynamic range of an LP is more like 75dB...theoretically more, except for the high noise floor.... and you can get more out at 45rpm. :scratch:


It's actually not quite as simple as a single number. The RIAA curve messes that up, and so does the physical nature of cutting grooves in lacquer. There are limits to how much groove modulation you can do physically. If you cut too hot at the high end the trailing groove wall runs into the rear facet of the cutter, and that maximum level changes with frequency. Dynamic range in vinyl is really complex, so you have to reference it's non-flat power bandwidth too, but I never ever saw a groove quiet enough to measure 75dB, even if you ignore rumble. It is the surface noise that does it. 

The direct-to-disc recordings that Doug Sax did with Sheffield in the mid 1970s were the most dynamic vinyl ever recorded with a totally analog system. They cut the lacquer live, the lathe driven from the console output, no processing. "The Missing Linc" still blows my socks off. Doug Sax is the man. So is Lincoln Mayorga. Of course, last I heard, Doug hated digital audio.


----------



## ngarjuna (Mar 29, 2010)

jaddie said:


> Basic digital recording needs none of that. It pretty much records well out of the gate. Your chances of getting it right are greater with a more stable system. But it's completely valid if you like what a somewhat miss-adjusted analog tape machine does as a "filter". But our goal in the old days was to try to get recordings that sounded exactly like the raw console output, and tape only ever came close.


This is quite true, the filtering effect of saturation is very pronounced. It's certainly ironic that saturation and noise (two of the things that would prevent the tape master from being a perfect copy of what you're hearing out of the main outs) are exactly what is so sought after in the digital environment.


----------



## audiomaster (Jun 9, 2006)

[QUOTE=.

What we did was record a stereo mix of a jazz group in the studio from the console directly to both a well calibrated analog machine (Studer A80, 15ips, Dolby A, Ampex 456 tape) and a Sony PCM 1630 <<

Too bad you couldn't have added a nice Neumann lathe operated by one of the masters of the day as a third comparison option. Some of the "direct cut" discs they did are amazing.


----------



## PepAX7 (Mar 11, 2008)

jaddie said:


> Ah, dbx. Now there's a study in non-linearity. Take any response anomaly in your analog system and now multiply by 2X. You should hear what it does with a 5dB narrow track head bump! Yikes! And tracking of encode/decode was pretty good, but not always right for transients. Dolby A was much more transparent, as it did less, did it with multiple bands of compression, and at high levels it pretty much dropped out of the circuit. SR was better yet.
> 
> Could be conditioning. Joe's heard a ton of FM in his life. But I don't think it's really his preference, just what he's used to. Joe doesn't often get to hear a well balanced system in a good room either. He sure does need some limited dynamics to hear his tunes over background noise. But that really should be done in his player, not on the recording. If only.
> 
> Oh, and it 's not really the sound of FM, it's the sound of processing on FM. Raw FM can do up to 86dB of dynamic range, with very low distortion and 50dB of separation. good until they muck it up with all that processing. By the way, that's really and argument for cleaner recordings...processing induced distortion is additive, and if your stuff is going to be broadcast, you don't want the radio boys adding to your mess.


Jaddie,

Funny how each of us has a different opinion. I always disliked the old Dolby... just didn't like what it did with the high end... too hissy!... and yes I checked the ref levels constantly. I had a Tascam 8tr 1/2" tape with DBX1 (multiband) and never had a problem. It would cough every once in a while but not too much. I even bought a couple of DBX II records and decoder. Made a pleasant sound. To each his own.onder:, I guess?

Your right about Joe though.... he doesn't get to hear much fidelity nowadays!

Pep


----------



## jaddie (Jan 16, 2008)

PepAX7 said:


> Jaddie,
> 
> Funny how each of us has a different opinion. I always disliked the old Dolby... just didn't like what it did with the high end... too hissy!... and yes I checked the ref levels constantly. I had a Tascam 8tr 1/2" tape with DBX1 (multiband) and never had a problem....
> Pep


Pep,

First, all types of dbx were single band, and used one VCA (voltage controlled amplifier) as the gain cell to modulate overall gain in the channel, 2:1 logarithmic compression on encode, 1:2 logarithmic expansion on decode. What they changed was the basic response curve of the system for different dbx tipyes. All used high emphasis, but the low end response was changed for various reasons, including the inherent head bumps in narrow track recorders. The version used on vinyl was modified so rumple wouldn't freak it out. 

There were many flavors of "Dolby". If you were using the Tascam 8tr, then most likely you weren't using Dolby A, which cost about $1000/channel, and 8 tracks of it would have cost more than your tape machine. Dolby A was really the gold-standard for analog noise reduction. Many of the best audiophile recordings were made with Dolby A. Its multi-band method was quite transparent, you could really never hear it in action, other than the fact that noise was 10dB lower. It's pro successor was Dolby SR, again over $1K/channel, and an improvement of 25dB of noise reduction. The cost of Dolby A and SR is the reason for dbx being in the market in the first place.

What you most likely tried was Dolby B, the second NR system Dolby designed, and was specifically much simpler and therefor cheaper. In eventually became one chip (worth less than $1) per channel, hand only one "band" (primarily mid to highs), offered 9dB of weighted NR, but could do strange things to the high end. There were two reasons: first, high end response of tape machines was the most unstable part of them. Just change tape types, and you've completely blown your high end, and Dolby B would mistrack. Second, because it was a single-band system, solo instruments did tend to have modulated noise around them through the system. dbx was really bad about this too, especially with solo piano. 

dbx worked well in multi-tracks because each channel covered for the other, and it all worked out in the mix. dbx was the perfect NR system for the Tascam 1/2" 8 tracks because of cost, performance, and when you mixed it all down, you could never hear the tracking and noise modulation issues.

Funny tidbit: the Dolby A card is known as the Cat. 22 card, for Catalog number 22. dbx issued a pin-compatible card that would plug into any Dolby frame that would accept the Cat. 22 card, but it was of course dbx I. They named it the K9-22 card. 

Jim


----------



## jaddie (Jan 16, 2008)

audiomaster said:


> Too bad you couldn't have added a nice Neumann lathe operated by one of the masters of the day as a third comparison option. Some of the "direct cut" discs they did are amazing.


This is a sort of re-post, the original was done on a mobile device and may have gotten stuck somewhere else on the forum by mistake. Big fingers, small phone, sorry.

I need to correct what I said before, we didn't record to a PCM 1630, that was another project. This was to a Sony PCM-701ES, the consumer 16 bit digital system, printed to Beta tape. Tapes were later bumped to PCM1630 digitally. Editing was on a Sony digital editor, tape based, then masters were PCM1630 format. Sorry, been a few years. 

On having a lathe to record direct to disc, we felt that when we listened to the PCM701 looped in/out, (it sounded so much line the console that it fooled us several times), that the disc we had Bernie Grundman master was as close to a direct-to-disc recording as practical for a low budget jazz session, even if it was targeted at the audiophile market. Also, we couldn't have gone direct to lacquer as Bud Freeman, though playing superlatively, was in his late 70s and didn't have the stamina for more than one take at a time. Direct-to-disc is one side at a time, straight through, not editing.

I don't recall what lathe Grundman used then, but the only piece of gear in the analog chain that was different from the digital chain (besides Grundman's custom mastering EQ, the lathe and driving amps) was a Sony digital preview system for the lathe. As I recall, the CD got good reviews in "Digital Audio" (Wayne Green's magazine). The project was "The Real Bud Freeman", on Principally Jazz Productions. We did "Conserving NRG" with Hal Russel's band, recorded later, but both projects were edited and mastered at the same time. The recordings were 1984, 1985, I believe. I've heard they are something of a collectors item now. Who knew?

If anyone is interested, the other gear I remember was: console, Neotek Series III, mic preamps: custom designed and built by me, but they were the Jensen 990 design concept, used for most mics. Mics were AKG 414EB, Neumann KM-84, Shure SM-81, and several B&K 4001 omnis. I'd listened to a couple of tube mics, but rejected them because of the noise floor. No compression or limiting anywhere. Monitors were B&W 801, bi-amped with Apt-1 power amps. Everything was recorded live to 2 track, we had no digital multi-track back then. Metal mother was made at Sheffield Labs, vinyl was pressed at RTI, Camarillo, CA. By the way, getting good, quiet vinyl in the mid 1980s was hard to do. Even the exotic formulas were unreliable. We tried Quiex, got better results from standard Kaiser vinyl.

But the short story is, if we got the CD to sound like the console out direct, we were happy. And that's what we felt we got, on both the CD and the vinyl. The differences between the two were really the imperfections of the vinyl. 

Hope you guys had fun rummaging around in my brain...

Jim


----------



## PepAX7 (Mar 11, 2008)

Yea.. Jaddie... it was a Dolby B that I gave up on. We were dumping everything to cassette in those days for mass duplication. I think I had a Marantz and Tascam cassete deck and they had Dolby B and I thought SR or some other Dolby.

I remember reading reviews and articles about the 701 and would drool all over the articles :sweat:

That's really cool you got to experience all that first hand! And your equipment list was top of the line for 80's (B&W 801's bi-amped)! Really cool.

Jensen 990.. I've got his application notes on that. If you like, you should start a thread over on the "DIY" section and "rummage" through that.... I'll be the first to join ya!

Your right... it has been a long time.. seems like yesterday though. Thanks for your expertise and hope we can "rummage" again. I promise not to break anything.:bigsmile:

Pep


----------



## jaddie (Jan 16, 2008)

PepAX7 said:


> Yea.. Jaddie... it was a Dolby B that I gave up on. We were dumping everything to cassette in those days for mass duplication. I think I had a Marantz and Tascam cassete deck and they had Dolby B and I thought SR or some other Dolby.
> 
> (snip!)
> 
> ...


The flavors of Dolby found on cassettes were B, C, and HX. B was first, of course. C was a noise reduction increase, but not compatible with anything else. HX was a method of modulating the bias so that high level high frequencies could be recorded. It momentarily reduced bias so HF response increased for the duration of the HF transient, then went back to normal. You can reduce tape bias and get more highs, but you increase distortion radically doing so. Dolby found that if you increased distortion only momentarily, it was not audible. HX was another brilliant Dolby idea, but it was introduced about 1982, when guess what else was introduced...CDs. SR was never found on anything but pro stuff, and was almost always outboard. I think a few 1" video machines may have had SR cards in them, they certainly had Dolby A cards.

Not sure about the DIY for the 990, my project was hardly DIY. I designed and built them like a manufacturer, in quantity, with manufactured PC boards, etc. If I start the thread, I'll post a picture.

Jim


----------



## biigniick (Jan 26, 2010)

ngarjuna said:


> Well every format has its pluses and minuses...no doubt editing and the like are pretty easy in digital but good luck trying to saturate your ADC =)


a client i do some work for just got the CLASP system in thier studio. it takes both the pluses of digital and the pluses of analog and integrates them into the studio. a very slick system with an HD3 system and sweet API console.

check it out here.
www.endlessanalog.com/what-is-clasp

- nick


----------



## fractile (Mar 15, 2009)

FM i think has to do with the live sound of atmospheric phasing of the signal. These days they try to do it with a vocorder or auto-tune, but it is not so light and pure.

I'm not familiar with clasp or hd3; I have a little SSL X-Desk mixer, plus a lot of analog gear. I'm whittleing things down as I learn; eg., in the box digital can be done for signal dynamics and EQ. I think some recordings are best on tape, like vocals and acoustic guitar and real drums. Then electronic kbds and stuff can be recorded on fast 1-bit digital.

I can talk out of my hat sometimes; I have a lot of technical experience but need to get serious about my professional ability ;-)


----------



## fractile (Mar 15, 2009)

I looked at your clasp link and the signal flow diagram; it is similar to what the SSL X-Desk can do. I must say that I think the X-Desk is more versatile; it has about 56 I/O points.

I can understand the need to comprehend how digital and analog get together.


----------



## fractile (Mar 15, 2009)

It could get endless; analog mic s and pre s ; Manley and SPL parametric EQ. there are some physics about sound and signals, like a tunnel of sound transfer.

There might be two philosophys; one that the source and the room are ideal beautiy, which I think is rarely true; another, that the electronics are a part of the instrument tuning.
Production value can lead to an endless conversation; but look at my first two terms.
This is initial recording.


----------



## fractile (Mar 15, 2009)

I can only hope to clarify; in the old days of Atlantic records or such, jazz bands were recorded on the 6th floor of some place in Manhattan; it was a good recording, but it still sounded like a room.

I'd like to shut up, but finding a good room is one thing; post-production is one more thing. Another thing is comprehending how to record live and get an ideal sound from what is given in the room.


----------



## fractile (Mar 15, 2009)

I am guessing it has to do with phase transfer of the sound into the electronics; a sort of coherence. it might sound imaginary but i think it is a real concern. Synchronization of the musical with the recording instruments. A sounding out of the whole system. So that they get on the same wave-length. This would be done in a warm-up session.


----------



## 1Michael (Nov 2, 2006)

Michael W Smith seems to like the Clasp system.


----------



## ngarjuna (Mar 29, 2010)

Clasp sounds great. So does the Anamod machine. So do the Nebula tape programs (which actually sound about as good as the Anamod in comparisons I've heard). For that matter, you could just run a tape machine between your DAW outputs and DAW inputs (in addition to cost and maintenance, there are potential downsides depending on how you implement but it will give you a tape-y sound).

You can get saturation *into* your DAW, but your DAW can't saturate; always gonna need tools to do that. Clasp and Anamod are both incredibly expensive money-wise and Nebula is somewhat costly in terms of resources (it can really alter your workflow due to CPU considerations).

Pluses and minuses. Personally, I wouldn't be without my tape programs, I consider them vital. But it's a minus to my digital recording rig that I have to use third party programs to make the recording device sound the way I want to (or go back to the various minuses of using actual tape).

Still, I'm quite happy to live in a day and age where I can mix and match so as to balance the pluses and minuses in such a way that they fit into my desired rig, workflow and budget quite nicely.


----------

