Reel to Reel decks

I'll just give my two cents here.

I have been an artist and producer for a good quality artistic label, but have been recording in the digital world since the early 90's.

Mistake

I have personally been a vinyl junkie as long as I have been old enough to listen to music and still am to this day. I always tried to get a warmer thicker richer sound on my recordings than my digital peers, often to either the praise or harsh criticism from the press. A couple years ago I upgraded my entire personal system with a decent Music Hall deck, restored vintage Scott Tube amp and a set of basically modified Forte II's. It was certainly enough to get me to open my eyes and face a new reality.

The label was kind enough to now supply me with a 16 track Tascam tape machine which I have been laying demos on for the last few months.

Wow, is all I can say.
Demos already sound 10 times better than finished digital mixes of the past.

Anyone that suggests that digital recording or playback is superior simply is speaking from a platform of ignorance, and I say this with all due respect. You have to be able to hear a recording played back properly on a quality analog set up to make an educated statement. As a recording artist, you have to have had your work recorded properly AND have heard it played back PROPERLY to make an educated assessment.

If you have been presented with the two mediums properly, you will of course understand the superiority of an unadulterated analog stream.

Now, not to get off topic here.. but unless an artist has been recorded direct to vinyl, tape machines are the best vehicle to record music... period.

So I would argue that a recording that was recorded onto tape, mixed, pressed onto vinyl, them sent back out to a tape machine is not going to improve the sound. It may add a certain tape compression of the signal that may sound pleasing to some, but it is not better in a technical sense. Not possible.

One of the problems facing listeners today is that they are so used to music that is over processed in the digital world, that a proper recording might sound too raw or human.

There are so many options for digital recording artists in the way of processors, plugins, simulators, filters and so on, and young artists seem almost brainwashed to use them.

I would counter and say that if you have a properly tuned instrument, a good quality instrument, play your part well, and have it miked properly direct to a tape machine, you really don't have to do ANYTHING to it. If you are tracking, your mixing board really only has to be used to set volume levels, and a pan fader to place the sound where you want it in a stereo mix. You really shouldn't have to even use EQ.....IF you have recorded the track properly.
The only thing you might want to compress a little bit might be an electric bass guitar a kick drum and some vocalists.

HOWEVER,

If you mic things properly, and you are recording to tape, you have access to such a full dynamic range that you really don't need to compress at all if you don't want to.

It's a subjective thing.. but if there are any recording artists here reading.. you shouldn't HAVE to...

Drummers recording to click tracks in my opinion is still controversial. There is no reason to take a GOOD drummer out of his groove. Humans are not machines.. some ebb and flow is OK.

The digital world is so in love with quantitizing the drum tracks to the nearest 8th note editing them on a computer screen, and usually pulling out and replacing the drummers actual kick and snare drums with stock samples that the producer THINKS sound better. So what we get is a sterile, lifeless over processed homogenized sound that has been spoon fed to the public since the early 80's.

The temptation to FIX everything in the pre mix down production room is just too damn tempting and it ends up getting hacked up with 400 edits and we get what we get.

The great thing about a reel to reel is that it's actually it's LIMITATIONS that open the possibilities to a better record. I say this because in the old days, musicians had to PRACTICE to lay tracks because punching is not as easy on a tape machine, especially with drummers. You try to punch on the cymbal crashes, and if you miss just a bit it doesn't sound good. Sure tape loops have been used and other studio trickery but nothing like what goes on now.

Tape is expensive, and you feel a bit of pressure when those reels are spinning, much more than endless digital takes. Analog tape can only take so many runs across the recording heads before they have to be cleaned or the tape starts losing fidelity.

It asks more of you.

So the best way to both record and playback music is going to be tape machines.

You simply cannot take a dynamic tape recorded performance and dither it down to 16 or 24 bit transferring analog to digital and back through analog converters working full steam and expect a proper playback on CD.

NO

If you love digital music, then good for you, but you won't win any "quality" arguments with someone that knows better.

I'll just toss in one other thing here I have recently found out in the last few weeks. In the recording world today, most of the analog "purists" are still missing the point because "most" of them are using tape machines only for tracking and not mix down. They are tracking on a tape machine, but then dumping those tracks into a computer software program such as "Pro Tools" and then continue to hack up and edit the mixes to death.

A "true purist" would mix onto another tape machine.. preferably a high quality two track (half track) open reel, then use that tape to make any cuts or splices with the good old fashion razor blade on the splicing block. That tape would act as a master and a couple clones would be made from that such as one for a safely backup and one to be sent off to the vinyl cutting lathe. The bigger pro studios would use 2" tape usually Studer machines and smaller studios could still release excellent quality product mixing down onto 1/2 tape or even 1/4 inch tape stereo masters.

I don't know how many artists are doing it the right way anymore, I would guesstimate very very few.

People seem to think that they are saving their music by safely dumping it into a computer.. and that their will be no generation loss..

However..

What people forget is that the initial analog to digital conversion is very destructive and remember, it must be converted AGAIN back out of digital format to be understood by our very human ANALOG ears. So it gets hit twice.

I would not fear two generations of analog tape conversions to get something pressed on vinyl which is now "ironically" being hailed actually as the best possible format for archiving music (about 100 years)

CD life span is suggested at about 30 years max.

However, if the objective is best quality music, then keeping it pure can actually limit the artistic flexibility of the musician/engineer/producer.

I would only suggest that what would appear obvious about digital editing and endless effects and plugins.. this can and actually in most cases takes the music away from the musician themselves and puts it into the digital plethora of endless possibilities which can ultimately hinder the music.

Brian Eno once said "it is not about having more options, it is about having more USEFUL options"

The temptation to over produce is VERY REAL.. and in my opinion hinders the process of creating truly great music which is really best when it is actually being performed by the artists.

Dylan didn't need a lot of studio trickery, and if you love more complex music.. bands like YES and early Genesis just simply had great musicians that where also very creative in the studio environment. But sometimes less is more.. and striving for a better take can actually produce a more heartfelt track than using pitch shifters, and quantizing drum tracks, fixing the mix in protools and so forth.

I suggest that the pressure of having to perform on your instrument properly can lead to better recordings or even great ones.

For us that know... most records these days are created in a very dishonest way. Before the digital age.. I think recordings were much more honest.. and that ultimately transmits to the listener whether they consciously know the recording process or not.

Digital effects can't help but sound digital.
Samples sound like samples and plugins sound like plugins.