Why do we tube lovers love tubes?

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

maybe to you, but IMO, they're a cheap imitation, since i haven't heard one yet that sounds like real 2" tape.

Maybe if they add hiss.

and do they add the sound of a 24 track 3M or Studer input and output amplifiers as well? IME, i don't think so.

Maybe they do the 16-track versions.

 

[johnk_10]

let's try to get this thread back on track

http://johnkvintageguitars.homestead.com/jaguarbass/image6-3.jpg

http://johnkvintageguitars.homestead.com/jaguarbass/image6-2.jpg

 

[projectMalamute]

+1
There's a long but fun AES recorded presentation by Ethan Winer and others (you may have been there)

And bit depth of a CD more than adequate.

It's fun to see big old tape recorders with Solid-State electronics like the above still around, but the youtube video get's into even cheap audio cards on a PC are very good and can do multiple analog to analog bouncing and hardly degrade the sound at all. Everybody has room and can afford a good PC these days. And many mastering plugins can add in the tape saturation distortion just like the real reel tape.

Wow did you ever pick the wrong guy to reference.

He made similar claims over at Gearslutz. After every single person there with a professional monitoring chain picked out the cheap soundcard correctly he engaged in a legendary incoherent mess of a flame war, digging himself a deeper and deeper hole as it became clear that he had no idea what the hell he was talking about.

I think they ended up deleting the thread.

 

[johnk_10]

Wow did you ever pick the wrong guy to reference.

He made similar claims over at Gearslutz. After every single person there with a professional monitoring chain picked out the cheap soundcard correctly he engaged in a legendary incoherent mess of a flame war, digging himself a deeper and deeper hole as it became clear that he had no idea what the hell he was talking about.

I think they ended up deleting the thread.

that's what happens when the only experience that someone has is reading about gear. IMO, those that actually own and use the gear, and have personally made the comparisons themselves, tend to have more credibility.

 

[lowphatbass]

let's try to get this thread back on track

http://johnkvintageguitars.homestead.com/jaguarbass/image6-3.jpg

http://johnkvintageguitars.homestead.com/jaguarbass/image6-2.jpg

Bravo, very nice Jag's.

 

[johnk_10]

Bravo, very nice Jag's.

jags, jugs, what's the difference?

 

[lowphatbass]

maybe to you, but IMO, they're a cheap imitation, since i haven't heard one yet that sounds like real 2" tape.
and do they add the sound of a 24 track 3M or Studer input and output amplifiers as well? IME, i don't think so.

Not to further derail, but I think this will be tackled pretty soon in a more satisfactory way. Tape is just WAY too hot right now and there's too much money on the table to be had.

Also, tubes are terrific. They sound squishy and complex, just like us.

 

[JimmyM]

that's what happens when the only experience that someone has is reading about gear. IMO, those that actually own and use the gear, and have personally made the comparisons themselves, tend to have more credibility.

i once asked him what practical experience he had with tube amps. he refused to answer. bet you get the same answer out of him for master level recording equipment.

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

More importantly, no one's answered my question about solid state amps that handle fuzz pedals the same way as tube amps.

 

[Mudfuzz]

More importantly, no one's answered my question about solid state amps that handle fuzz pedals the same way as tube amps.

I will as soon as I can find one of those solid state amps you speak of that I like the sound of.....

Really, if you like the sound of your bass though a amp you should like the sound of fuzzes you like through the amp.

 

[JimmyM]

More importantly, no one's answered my question about solid state amps that handle fuzz pedals the same way as tube amps.

mudfuzz is right. look for an amp where you like the tone by itself, then adding fuzz is a piece of cake.

 

[Calaverasgrande]

Actually, no; it works most impressively with classical and other acoustic music with wide, uncompressed dynamic range.

That was what they said when CD's first came out. Along with much more scratchproof than records! I dont really hear it on my classical CDs.
I 've got Stravinsky on CD and on LP. (not the same conductor/symphony unfortunately) The quiet passages of "Le Sacre du Printemps" are almost indecipherable. (this is through an Adcom 535 and JBL control 10's) Now of course I think the mastering engineer should've cheated and shortened up the scale on that a bit. Maybe a 2:1 or 1.5:1 compressor? On an LP you do have compression, both as part of the transfer function, and as needed to make sure the needle stays in the groove. So the LP will sound like it retains more body to the music in the softer movements.
The classical CDs I only listen to the parts that sound good, the loud parts, this is not me being a snob. I just couldnt tolerate it after a while. I guess I have trained my ears to hear into stuff more than your average joe. hundreds of hours at a DAW will make you sensitive to the subtle difference between 88.2k and 44.1k. 16 and 24 bits.
To me, the LP sounds like 24 bits, but with some intermittent noises.


As far as double blind tests, at my studio, or with my AKG240s on, no problem. Asking people to identify the format of mixed program material in an unfamiliar acoustic environment is silly. Much less at an AES con! I used to try out mics and pres on the floor, but you really cant make an informed decision unless your day job is recording crowd reactions for a game show.

 

[Calaverasgrande]

maybe to you, but IMO, they're a cheap imitation, since i haven't heard one yet that sounds like real 2" tape.
and do they add the sound of a 24 track 3M or Studer input and output amplifiers as well? IME, i don't think so.

i havent heard one that even sounds like real 1/4" tape!
Actually stillwell audio has some really great plugs. Their Neve-alike and their various dynamics get me super close to analog sound. They also have a buss "crusher", darned if I cant recall the name. But it gets a nice nonlinear sound while still sounding not entirely destroyed. It actually has knobs marked "nonlinear".
The only tape saturation plug in i like is the old Cakewalk tape sim. It doesnt sound like tape, but it adds harmonics nicely.

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

mudfuzz is right. look for an amp where you like the tone by itself, then adding fuzz is a piece of cake.

I'm saying that I haven't yet found a solid state amp that responds the same way to a piping hot distortion signal. 'zats why I love both of my tube heads.

 

[Calaverasgrande]

I'm saying that I haven't yet found a solid state amp that responds the same way to a piping hot distortion signal. 'zats why I love both of my tube heads.

all rhetoric aside.
Thats what I like about tube amps. I could never find a single solid state amp that I could get a decent clean sound and a good overdrive sound out of. I would be able to get one or the other, but never both. the Acoustic 456(I think thats the model, Rob Wright used to use one) did it for me for a while, but it had a habit of eating cones.
Good tube amps are hard to make sound bad clean, and once you start smacking it with a drive box it just gets better.

 

[JimmyM]

i would have to agree to an extent, however, it's hard to argue with the fuzz sounds justin mj got with nine inch nails using his aggie rig. he used a b:assmaster and a depth charge into a db751/db810 and ag500/db412, with the ag being his dirt amp, i believe.

 

[seamonkey]

Wow did you ever pick the wrong guy to reference.
...

Regardless of how others feel about Mr Winer's findings. They can publish their own findings and present them. The whole discussion there seems to be digital expensive versus digital cheaper. Digital expensive is still way cheaper than analog expensive. I haven't seen a lot of pro-analog sites willing to publish sound sample comparisons.

Taking what people consider expensive like Digidesign Pro-tools. They are not cheap as most would like, but in relative terms they are cheaper than analog counterparts. They do have an online test people can compare against
http://www.digidesign.com/index.cfm?langid=21&itemid=25669&navid=49
The recording is digital, but the comparison is analog console versus pro-tools.

Make take is digital can be degraded through plugins to sound like analog if and when you want it. It's up to the musicians to decide. The musicians don't have to take what's handed to them and make the best out of it.

If you want to distribute music in any way these days you're going to need to get it into digital at some point. In-and-out of digital 100% of the analog is preserved.

 

[johnk_10]

Regardless of how others feel about Mr Winer's findings. They can publish their own findings and present them.

so how does that make anything that he stated valid?

Taking what people consider expensive like Digidesign Pro-tools. They are not cheap as most would like, but in relative terms they are cheaper than analog counterparts.

i have both pro tools and nuendo and IMO, they have their place and own set of benefits, but do not sound like analog no matter what you do with them. and, IMO, there is a very good reason that they are cheaper than their analog counterparts.

Make take is digital can be degraded through plugins to sound like analog if and when you want it. It's up to the musicians to decide. The musicians don't have to take what's handed to them and make the best out of it.

maybe it can sound like analog to you, but not to me. what i'd like to know is, do you have any actual hands on experience with anything that you continuously spread misinformation about? because it sounds like you just read about it on the internet, and reply with alot of wishful thinking.

maybe it's just me, but your entire reply just doesn't really say, mean, or contribute anything......

now back to something with meaning :

http://johnkvintageguitars.homestead.com/jaguarbass/bikini_girls-1.jpg

 

[JimmyM]

yep, lots of meaning in that pic!



anyway, show up to a rick rubin master session with a computer loaded with plugins and see how quickly you're shown the door. plugins have their place, and for a while it looked like digital recording was making some inroads, but it sure seems to me that analog with old fashioned amps and outboard effects still rule the recording scene. the editing scene, yes, digital has pretty well taken over, but not for recording.

 

[Calaverasgrande]

Comparing Protools/Sonar/Logic with high end analog isn't really fair. You can spend $100,000 on a protools rig, or $1599 on a Macbook and logic express.


If talking about even medium to low end priced analog recording gear, I find it superior in many respects to digital to comparably priced digital. I would rather record some types of bands on an 8 track Tascam 80-8 or Otari MX5050. With the right board (Pm1000 or Ramsa WRS) and a couple outboard boxes you can mix very quickly on that kind of rig. The main thing preventing me from going back to all tape is the tenuous supply of magnetic tape. Well that and it takes up a lot more room!
I've been working 100% digital for 15 years or so now. It's got some benefits, like editing and recallability. But for headsnapping tone and fidelity a well set up analog deck sounds fuller more detailed and just plain better than anything except the very best digital, like Apogee, Mytek, Lavry Prism etc.
But cost effective...Digital. It wont ever be able to "degrade enough" to sound like analog. But it gets the damn job done.