Digital vs Analog

[FilterFunk]

Within the past 5 years or so, I've transferred some of my mid-'80s/early '90s Tascam Portastudio (Porta One and 424) recordings straight from the 4-track units to a Fostex VF160 digital recorder and then to computer as WAV files.

I was shocked - not just surprised, but shocked - at how great some of those 4-track recordings still sound. If there's any degradation, I can't hear it. My old master cassettes have been stored in my home all these years - no garage, attic, basement or shed time, and away from sunlight, moisture, or any temperature extremes.

I'm speaking as a non-expert on tape longevity, but I wonder if properly stored high-quality cassettes keep well because of their small size. I will tell you this - if I only needed 4 tracks for my recordings, I'd use a good 4-track cassette recorder exclusively for recording, then transfer the songs to digital. My only issue with 4-track was having to ping-pong/stack tracks to make room for more tracks. I can see 4-track cassette units still being very useful to singer-songwriters. If I only needed to record, for instance, vocal, guitar or piano, bass and drums (via drum machine), I'd go 4-track cassette all the way.

 

[monsterthompson]

I'm speaking as a non-expert on tape longevity, but I wonder if properly stored high-quality cassettes keep well because of their small size.

I have a family member who spent years working for a big computer companies focusing on data storage and I heard many stories about how great tape drives were for maintaining data backups. The access speeds were the bigger drawback, but if you wanted to archive information tape had some very redeeming qualities, including low levels of bit rot. Of course that was regarding tape storage of digital information.

If 4 track recordings on cassette are stable then that’s quite the interesting contrast to the position stated by Messrs. Rubin and Young.

 

[FilterFunk]

I have a family member who spent years working for a big computer companies focusing on data storage and I heard many stories about how great tape drives were for maintaining data backups. The access speeds were the bigger drawback, but if you wanted to archive information tape had some very redeeming qualities, including low levels of bit rot. Of course that was regarding tape storage of digital information.

If 4 track recordings on cassette are stable then that’s quite the interesting contrast to the position stated by Messrs. Rubin and Young.

That clip is what prompted me to post, but I'm not disputing their experience with tape; I'm just relating my experience.

 

[monsterthompson]

That clip is what prompted me to post, but I'm not disputing their experience with tape; I'm just relating my experience.

Understood. You’re probably using a very different tape and playback rig from what they have used. And we all have different ears and brains processing what we hear.

Also, as someone who spends time listening to YouTube uploads of early death metal and grindcore, and who likes a lot of industrial, EBM, and Agrotech, as well as a variety of ambient stuff, I have a broad tolerance and acceptance for audio fidelity and sound sources. Do I like things to sound good? Yes. Will a lo-fi playback source stop me from listening to music I like? Not usually.

 

[FilterFunk]

Within the past 5 years or so, I've transferred some of my mid-'80s/early '90s Tascam Portastudio (Porta One and 424) recordings straight from the 4-track units to a Fostex VF160 digital recorder and then to computer as WAV files.

I was shocked - not just surprised, but shocked - at how great some of those 4-track recordings still sound. If there's any degradation, I can't hear it. My old master cassettes have been stored in my home all these years - no garage, attic, basement or shed time, and away from sunlight, moisture, or any temperature extremes.

I'm speaking as a non-expert on tape longevity, but I wonder if properly stored high-quality cassettes keep well because of their small size. I will tell you this - if I only needed 4 tracks for my recordings, I'd use a good 4-track cassette recorder exclusively for recording, then transfer the songs to digital. My only issue with 4-track was having to ping-pong/stack tracks to make room for more tracks. I can see 4-track cassette units still being very useful to singer-songwriters. If I only needed to record, for instance, vocal, guitar or piano, bass and drums (via drum machine), I'd go 4-track cassette all the way.

Here's one of my Tascam Porta One 4-track recordings from 1986, recorded on a TEAC CRC90 cassette and recently converted to a WAV file. Now when I say it still sounds "great," I mean it has retained its original sound quality - I'm not saying I'm Rick Rubin or anything! I'm just giving an example of how well the cassette had held up all these years, and this is just the second song I ever recorded - I was still figuring things out. One synth and one drum machine directly into the Porta One. The only digital post-production I applied was some mild limiting to cut off some peaks and then raised the overall volume level.

 

[Jeff Scott]

I never had a Portastudio, but I did have one of these that made excellent recordings, particularly at 3 3/4 IPS.

 

[brianrost]

if I only needed 4 tracks for my recordings, I'd use a good 4-track cassette recorder exclusively for recording, then transfer the songs to digital.

Cassettes have only half the track width of 1/4” tape. Most cassette 4 tracks ran at 3-3/4 ips while open reels typically ran at 7-1/2 or 15 ips, with pro machines going up to 30 ips. The faster speeds and wider tracks made for much better sound…higher frequency response and lower noise. The Fostex 8-track reel machines that used 1/4” tape had track widths like cassettes but running at 15 ips sounded much better. Tascam made some 8-track cassette recorders and these suffered from even narrower tracks and more crossover bleed on adjacent tracks. Their best ever tape Portastudio was a 1/4" open reel, the 388 of 1985. Like Fostex, it used the narrower track width but running at 15 ips it easily beat the sound of cassettes. These go used for big bucks now. The standalone Tascam 8-track open reels were all 1/2”.

BTW, the best sounding 1/4” open reel format is two track. Consumer stereo open reels and cassettes used four tracks, 2 in each direction. Pro 1/4” machines from Revox, Ampex, Sony, Akai and others were 2 track with the tracks twice as wide (same as 2” 16 track machines) and used for mixdowns. Even today custom modified 2 tracks are popular with audiophile engineers doing direct-to-stereo recordings…set up two great mikes in a great sounding room, position the musicians to set the balance and hit the record button. Listening to a 2-track running at 30ips is as close to pristine as it gets with tape.

After quad audio showed up around 1970, Teac was the first to sell a quad open reel deck with a sync head that made multitracking possible. It cost about $1000.

They followed this up with the legendary 3340, which had integrated preamps and 10” reels (there was also the 7” version, the 2340) and a max speed of 15 ips. I owned one along with the AX-20 mixdown panel, a passive 4in-2out unit where each input could be panned L, center or R. That and a handful of mikes was my first home studio rig. The 3340 had knobs for each track’s output so the levels were set there and the pan set by the AX-20…as simple as it gets with open reel. I’d run the output to a stereo cassette deck for my “final mix”.

They later added an actual mixer, the Model 2…the VU meter panel was an option!

The 3340 was a runaway success and dominated the home studio market until Tascam came out with the first Portastudio in 1979, the 144, putting the mixer and cassettte recorder in one package for $899, roughly half the cost of the 3340/M2 package and it was more portable. The 144 used Dolby B noise reduction like stereo cassettes used, while the 244 of 1982 and later models used the superior dbx noise reduction. The 144 was the real beginning of the “bedroom studio” era.

Once the Alesis ADAT came along in 1992, it was the beginning of the end for tape in small studios. The ADAT recorder was 8 tracks and could be chained together for up to 128 tracks But they cost almost $4000 brand new and soon had competition from had disk recorders.

In 1996 Roland came out with the VS880, the first hard disk recorder/mixer combination. It recorded eight tracks, but a VS1680 soon followed with double the track count. Tascam was the last to sell hard disk multitrackers, the 2488 Neo (I owned a 2488 mkII for a couple of years, until I moved over to Ableton Live). It’s replacement, the $750 DP-24, uses SD cards. That machine, minus MIDI and CD burner, is still sold as the DP-24SD for $525, sometimes on sale for about $400. I paid that much for my Tascam 424 cassette multitrack back in the 90s

Boss, Zoom and Tascam all still sell compact digital portastudios starting at under $200 for people who want to avoid using a computer to record. They may not sound as “warm and organic” (i.e. hissy and warbly) as cassettes but they blow them out of the water in terms of fidelity.

 

[FilterFunk]

Cassettes have only half the track width of 1/4” tape. Most cassette 4 tracks ran at 3-3/4 ips while open reels typically ran at 7-1/2 or 15 ips, with pro machines going up to 30 ips. The faster speeds and wider tracks made for much better sound…higher frequency response and lower noise. The Fostex 8-track reel machines that used 1/4” tape had track widths like cassettes but running at 15 ips sounded much better. Tascam made some 8-track cassette recorders and these suffered from even narrower tracks and more crossover bleed on adjacent tracks. Their best ever tape Portastudio was a 1/4" open reel, the 388 of 1985. Like Fostex, it used the narrower track width but running at 15 ips it easily beat the sound of cassettes. These go used for big bucks now. The standalone Tascam 8-track open reels were all 1/2”.

BTW, the best sounding 1/4” open reel format is two track. Consumer stereo open reels and cassettes used four tracks, 2 in each direction. Pro 1/4” machines from Revox, Ampex, Sony, Akai and others were 2 track with the tracks twice as wide (same as 2” 16 track machines) and used for mixdowns. Even today custom modified 2 tracks are popular with audiophile engineers doing direct-to-stereo recordings…set up two great mikes in a great sounding room, position the musicians to set the balance and hit the record button. Listening to a 2-track running at 30ips is as close to pristine as it gets with tape.

After quad audio showed up around 1970, Teac was the first to sell a quad open reel deck with a sync head that made multitracking possible. It cost about $1000.

View attachment 7058323

They followed this up with the legendary 3340, which had integrated preamps and 10” reels (there was also the 7” version, the 2340) and a max speed of 15 ips. I owned one along with the AX-20 mixdown panel, a passive 4in-2out unit where each input could be panned L, center or R. That and a handful of mikes was my first home studio rig. The 3340 had knobs for each track’s output so the levels were set there and the pan set by the AX-20…as simple as it gets with open reel. I’d run the output to a stereo cassette deck for my “final mix”.

View attachment 7058327

They later added an actual mixer, the Model 2…the VU meter panel was an option!

View attachment 7058326

View attachment 7058325

The 3340 was a runaway success and dominated the home studio market until Tascam came out with the first Portastudio in 1979, the 144, putting the mixer and cassettte recorder in one package for $899, roughly half the cost of the 3340/M2 package and it was more portable. The 144 used Dolby B noise reduction like stereo cassettes used, while the 244 of 1982 and later models used the superior dbx noise reduction. The 144 was the real beginning of the “bedroom studio” era.

View attachment 7058334

Once the Alesis ADAT came along in 1992, it was the beginning of the end for tape in small studios. The ADAT recorder was 8 tracks and could be chained together for up to 128 tracks But they cost almost $4000 brand new and soon had competition from had disk recorders.

In 1996 Roland came out with the VS880, the first hard disk recorder/mixer combination. It recorded eight tracks, but a VS1680 soon followed with double the track count. Tascam was the last to sell hard disk multitrackers, the 2488 Neo (I owned a 2488 mkII for a couple of years, until I moved over to Ableton Live). It’s replacement, the $750 DP-24, uses SD cards. That machine, minus MIDI and CD burner, is still sold as the DP-24SD for $525, sometimes on sale for about $400. I paid that much for my Tascam 424 cassette multitrack back in the 90s

View attachment 7058355

Boss, Zoom and Tascam all still sell compact digital portastudios starting at under $200 for people who want to avoid using a computer to record. They may not sound as “warm and organic” (i.e. hissy and warbly) as cassettes but they blow them out of the water in terms of fidelity.

View attachment 7058339

View attachment 7058338

View attachment 7058340

Reel-to-reel over cassette all day, but I don't know if I'd want to deal with the reel-to-reel format. It wouldn't be practical for me.

As far as cassette ministudio vs. digital ministudio - I've run the same synths and drum machines through both. The digital ones have less noise, but I disagree that they have better fidelity in instances when you're recording directly and don't need to ping-pong/stack tracks. A new, high-quality tape in a properly maintained 4-track cassette recorder has excellent fidelity. IME, my cassette recordings have a certain intrinsic richness that my digital recordings don't. My opinion has nothing to do with format bias or rose-colored glasses; it has to do with actually listening to the sound of the same synth and drum machine tones directly recorded into both types of hardware units.

I'll take the digital units because of the greater number of separate tracks, but when I record on just four tracks of the cassette units, with no ping-ponging/stacking, I prefer the tone of cassette for my music. Tape has a certain natural sound that countless computer DAWs with countless plug-ins were specifically developed to emulate, just as countless plug-ins were developed to emulate what analog synths and tube amps do naturally.

EDIT: A correction to my previous post...the song I embedded is not the second song I ever recorded, but it is one of my earliest recordings from 1986-87.

 

[brianrost]

A new, high-quality tape in a properly maintained 4-track cassette recorder has excellent fidelity. IME, my cassette recordings have a certain intrinsic richness that my digital recordings don't.

It depends on how you define fidelity. A four track cassette will be hard pressed to have frequency response above 15 Khz. Digital can easily go to 20 Khz. Digital has no wow and flutter, the noise floor is at least 40 dB lower and there’s no inherent source of hiss the way there is with tape. The highest fidelity is when the output sounds just like the input. Digital comes closer than cassette tape.

Tape sounds better to many people because of the coloration. Different brands and formulations of tape sound different. I used to dub CDs and LPs to cassettes for listening in the car and mainly used Maxell UR for that. But when dubbing borrowed CDs and LPs for listening at home, I'd use XL-II or TDK SA because it was better sounding tape. I really liked the sound of Maxell UR, though. It rolled off the highest frequencies and fattened up the sound in a pleasant way. But when played over a good stereo system, it was obvious that the XL-II dub had more fine detail and “air”, coming closer to the sound of the LP, CD or radio broadcast.

 

[ajkula66]

If and when I move to a house in the countryside, one of these will follow shortly, simply because I had promised that to myself...

Link Removed

 

[Major Seven]

The math used in conversion rebuilds the wave form from the sample points. It's not stepped.

Take 2 semesters of calculus then have a look at fourier series.

 

[Jeff Scott]

If and when I move to a house in the countryside, one of these will follow shortly, simply because I had promised that to myself...

Link Removed

That should be pretty nice!

A friend of mine used to have a Studer B67 in a travel case. He's had a whole lot of open reel recorders but is down to just an Ampex ATR-100 these days.

 

[paulraphael]

Your understanding of digital audio is just wrong and its not close. There are no "steps" as your describing them among many things

Well, the samples are in a way steps. If you could play each sample at its constant loudness for 1/44.1kHz you would have stepped sound. However, the analog equipment can not and does not play it like that. Proof? A stepped sound would have frequencies to infinity. But trace the signal anywhere and you don't see these. That's because the analog equipment smoothes them out.

This idea of steps is a common, almost universal misunderstanding of how digital audio works. If you really want to understand it, go to audiosciencereview.com and roll up your sleeves. The nyquist/shannon theorem is hard science, and represents solved problems that no one in physics or audio engineering questions anymore.

There is something called quantizing error, which is the technical term for the phenomenon you describe: the actual level of a sound falling somewhere between the digital levels available at a given bit depth. But the result of this is not what people assume. It does not sound like "steps," or inaccuracy, or lack of detail, or blurred transients, or artificial sounding cymbal decay. None of the things people claim.

It takes the form of low-level noise, called quantizing noise. How low ? With 16-bit audio (cd quality) it's at 96db below full scale. Which is to say: you can't hear it under ordinary circumstances. This level is orders of magnitude quieter than any reel to reel tape machine ever made. It's more orders of magnitude quieter than any vinyl record. It's orders of magnitude quieter than the room you're going to listen in. It's unimaginably quieter than any electric bass.

Beyond this, most recordings are made at 24 bits, which puts the quantizing noise below the noise floor of any known analog equipment, so there's literally nothing there. When the signal is down-quantized to 16-bit for distribution, it's typically done with dither and noise shaping, which effectively puts the noise floor closer to 100db below full scale.

This is part of the reason that modern digital audio is transparent. Meaning, it sounds precisely like nothing. There have been blind listening tests (done with a/b/x setups) comparing a recording to a copy of the same recording that's passed through a dozen rounds of d/a to a/d conversion. People cannot tell them apart.

If you prefer the way tape sounds, it's because you like the artifacts being added by the tape and tape machine. It's not that you don't like the inherent sound of digital, because there isn't one. Not if it's done well.

To be fair, digital sound is not always done well. It can be godawful. But this is a problem with choices made by people using the technology, not the technology itself.