I hear ya!!

Go the Tascam - they work so well !

@@jamiedurrantmusician Been a year already since I left this comment lol. Happy to say I moved up from the 80-8 to a 90-16. What an amazing machine, I love it to death. Tascam knew what they were doing when they made those things!

@@PrestonHazard send me a pic of the 90-16 in action!

I hear ya, lining up the 16 track and keeping it all maintained is a huge deal. As you say, digital can be great with the right converters!

So glad you liked the video. Yes now is a great time to re-explore older devices and also use digital for selective instruments and mixing/compiling. Great ideas there!

Thanks for the kind words - it's amazing how nice it is to again use an analogue 3 track - you can feel the audio! Such silk and substance!

Funny that as a film for photography is the same - film prints look more 3D

Funny that as a film for photography is the same - film prints look more 3D

Tape rarely disappoints... so long as you hit it with level! Less hisssss!

That’s cool but digital for tracking and editing has come a very long way. I’d go with that and then analog for mastering

Yeah, I was surprised, as I did some band demos mid-90s with the Porta1, and the quality coupled with the DBX noise reduction was excellent.

@@jamiedurrantmusician indeed it was, and a real innovation for musicians starting to get into recording.

cool huh?

In this case, routing was all done via the console. This does add another layer of warmth but nothing like what tape can do for achieving that silky top end and mix glue effect!

So chain was REM converters out > Chilton 2 channels line in, no EQ > direct Chilton channels out > Teac Tape Machine inputs > Teac Monitor outputs > another set of Chilton 2 channels line in, no EQ. So effectively, what we hear difference wise is ONLY the tape.

@@jamiedurrantmusician Nice. Is the tape effect maintained once it goes back through the converters DA into your DAW?

@@henryafterall Yes, if running 24bit 48k conversion - or higher, the tape effect and smoothness is captured as an effect. As I mentioned in the video, in the 90s mastering engineer Don Bartley at EMI Studios 301 would run mixes through the EMI console, then via GML mastering EQ and Compressor, and then to an Ampex mastering tape machine. The output of this was then captured via and Apogee AD-500, which was 44.1khz for CD mastering, but even this device was smooth enough to represent the analog effect in digital form. Now days any modern Apogee (including the first generation Quartet that I'm using), or Lynx or RME 24bit converters can do the job well.

So surprising isn't it?

True - never covered that bit if history!! Have you got any photos from 301? I don't think we ever made any! I'll see if I can transfer some high 8 videos from the sessions

Wonderfully said! It’s also amazing how cool my recent recording with only 1 key mic source is working out. Limitations are creative and powerful

The Teac is in-fact not mine! I think it’s fantastic for a domestic or semi pro machine, but in terms of quality it can all be about price. Like if you have more cash go for a pro Revox machine or a bucket of cash a Studor! But regardless the Teac sx model (lower noise) would be the one to find, and make sure the heads are good and rubber roller is not dried out and cracked. Get a degaussing device and clean it with isopropyl alcohol - learn how to keep tape machines squeaky clean and they’ll serve you well ! Find new old stock tape too!

@@jamiedurrantmusician thanks for the tips, I’ve not really checked out the Teac sx model so will have a look. I’ve been keeping my eyes out for a high speed revox A77, but it’s tricky getting one that’s also serviced. I’d love a studer but way out of my budget unfortunately.😊

@@wehappyfewmusic you’re think like me… it’s the SX, then Revox, then Studor - with Dolby SR cards… in any case… keep looking!

Indeed there’s something beautifully tangible and real about multitrack tape!

Well, both work, there recording is reasonable!

Perhaps you’re right, however the tape deck input routing basically adds some circuit warmth, which is marginal, however once the record/playback head is switched in you really hear the silliness of tape and that’s the part I wanted it illustrate!

Sounds like a warm signal path, the good old days!

A glad you like it, this one took a lot of editing and planning! What model was that 1/2 inch tascam

@@jamiedurrantmusician it was old 70s weighed probably 60 lbs 4 tracks .

@@ADGreen-es6hm model number?

@@jamiedurrantmusician looking for the manual

@@jamiedurrantmusician Tascam series 70 -4

He he

Hi Felipe, thanks for subscribing! I’m sorry, I don’t understand your question, please rephrase or give more detail

@@jamiedurrantmusician Hello, Master of music. I am give forgiveness for not dure my ask. The question are below: 1-Which are recommend Mixing for livestreamings and Voice over? Because,I am building homestudio for 3 Channels on KZfaq:Gospel, Podcast, Gameplays. Also me searching distinctions digital and analog Mixer. Lord bless you. Many thanks for attention.

@@felipecastro5752 check this out for clever:mackie.com/products/dl32r-wireless-digital-mixer Mackie mixers are fantastic!

What do you use now?

@@jamiedurrantmusician Oh, now I work totaly in the box, an iMac Pro and an UAD Apollo 8 with Logic. But I still have a B77mk2 high speed which I use from times to times when I need some real tape sound, either for some kind of effects or to "smooth" some tracks. I also have a cassette deck as well (an old denon 3 heads) for the same kind of effect. One of my mackie 1604 is also in my studio, I use it to connect my external synths (the other is with the d90, in the bassement... I like to keep things...) But I'm not a sound engineer/mixer/producer, I'm a composer, I've not the same use of my studio than you. Regarding the endless debate about analog vs digital I would say that both are excellent, it only depends of what you do with and what you need at a certain time in your creation. 😎

Love the old Mackies

@@FLH3official totally agree!

Of course, I know what this does and I don’t believe it is anything like tape, why do you ask?

Well I find I can get rid of a lot of the harshness of digital sound by rolling off the high frequencies. YMMV, shrug.

@@XanarchistBlogspotyes I agree that rolling off the top end does do magical things, however there is mid range gluing and ultra high frequency smoothing that I hear with tape.

NOT that I know of... I take my voice audio out of Nuendo and import it into Adobe Premiere Pro and set the voiceover level to -6 dB

@@jamiedurrantmusician Cool mate. BTW I think I see a Crane Song Trakker over your left shoulder. Unbelievably awesome piece of kit.

That’s an interesting perception, because the digital is 24 bit, but the analog is actually a generation loss with missing information - but it’s this tape compression and top end roll off and silky effect of continuous tape (not bits and samples) that so pleases our ears! Analog tape is technically in many ways inferior but don’t we love what it does for our minds

Well, it's all about taste. I like the effect of the analog tape saturation, slight compression and softening of the top end. But digital was invented to avoid all of these effects. In any case, you can hear the difference and that is a part of the discussion!

Benalla, NE Vic - High Country they call it

@@jamiedurrantmusician Jamie , question what are your childhood groups ...

@@ADGreen-es6hm band names you mean?

2 inch would be fantastic !

You’ve got sharp ears… paralleled back to digital will cause phase issues however because tape will have a slight movement away from digital grid lock. I was okay with a low mid hump (kinda boost) and low end compression because my song was too heavy in low end which sounded like crap on be hifi systems. Tape reined in a lot of problems.

Madness! And this is why I'm here using a domestic machine! All I want is a Studer!!!!

You know, I used that term FAR to lightly, and it's wrong. It is simply a analog vs. digital audio comparison. I've just changed the video title to correct this!

I’d love to use one... please have a courier send one to me today! He he

@@nicksterj Any digital value is really only an approximation of the real world analog signal

Apologies for the very late reply! Digital is getting closer ... but when you use the real thing, it kinda stands out!

@@jamiedurrantmusician Thanks for your reply, Jamie, much appreciated.

You could be well right... but tell me, what do you hear that tells you this!

Yes I love Warren! I’d happy work with him...

No, I hate Cubase… I use Nuendo and Adobe Audition

Nuendo 1.6 … but note, it sounds incredible and plug-ins are not the focus when you have expensive outboard and 1960s tube mics to record through

I never had the chance to compare so much however always noticed how tape sounded silky and smooth - even well mastered cassettes! Early days of digital were horrible but it’s so much better now, but still cannot do what tape can.

@@jamiedurrantmusician we are in the early days of digital!! 30 years is nothing on the timeline of an industry. For example, in the automobile industry, it took 30 years to develop hydraulic brakes, an independent suspension. Digital recording will surpass analog someday, but it won’t be anytime soon.

Your thoughts are very real and accurate both human and technical responses!

@@jamiedurrantmusician I just wanted to add that some of the most memorable, powerful, and impactful sounds I've ever heard, came from an analogue source, and NOT digital. I truly believe that a well-engineered analogue recording can surpass digital. Specs are NOT everything!

Interesting comment - is this true? What is the true life cycle of an SSD?

Absolutely - and unfortunately I owned a Fostex D160 multitrack in the late 90s that I recorded lots of music on, the converters were trash!