Good reminders … thanks.

#5 is definitely key. Too many people will shell out the money for the studio, get in there, and realize that they have absolutely no idea what they’re doing. Getting an engineer pays for itself; instead of spending half your time figuring out how to use that compressor, you can just record your vocals and let the engineer worry about the rest.

#4 is incorrect (in certain respects). Try burning an audio file across 20 CDR’s, with each CD copying the audio from the previous, not the source. Compare CD #1 to CD #20. Myth proven.

@pedant: with the CD, we’re venturing away from the world of purely digital files. The CD is a tangible object, and is thus a digital file stored in an analogue form. It’s the same principle at play as with copying tape reels. When dealing with digital files (and heck, I haven’t burned a CD in several years), there is no such loss, yet some will still try to tell you there is.

Great article! Thanks.

@pedant: If I choose to verify the written data, can’t I be sure that every single bit has been written correctly? I think that it is rather matter of the copying method. The quality would surely be lost if you first grabbed the music to MP3 or other losy format.

@Joel Falconer: In my opinion, the sound should be stored in a digital way on the CD (like on the HDD) and thus it should do better than the tape reel when copying. Nice article!

Great info. You always tend to hear the weirdest conversations that try to discourage digital recording. For the life of me these people are not professional enough to understand recording, let alone, give accurate advice on the craft. This helps me out now. I have a greater appreciation for AudioTUTS, you guys rock!

@ Joel and Pedant… I have to actually agree with pedant to a point as well as a little with Joel to some degree. Digital copying with CDs is not flawless and the next copy won’t be and exact copy of the last. I see the point you are trying to make Joel. Most people just wont ever notice an obvious difference in fidelity to make a difference. However, since CD burners are all different then there’s not consistence between any not even 2 CDs burned one right after the other from the same CD burner. The laser will never be the “exact” same temperature two times in a row and rate at which it does the pits and lands will never be perfect replicas. Also the CD-R will never be exact as the last CD-R you used. So, in that since you really do lose quality in the tangible form of a CD but, when it’s just moving a file with in your computer to another location on your computer or someone else’s computer ( say via firewire or usb) then there’s no difference between the file “quality.” If there were then you wouldn’t actually have the complete file and we’d all be “S.O.L.” if this were the case.

@Hidden Sound: Exactly my point, dude.

Agree with all 8 points! Cheers!

@Joel: Cool cool. Love your articles by the way

Agreed on all points, esp. number 6 – build up a track from one great performance on the backbone instrument (rhythm guitar, piano, etc) and the track will have all the natural push and pull of a full live band. Not for every track, obviously, but it’s a difference you can feel when it’s pulled off.

I liked number 8. When recording for my course work, I pushed and pushed and had about 12 takes of the whole song in the end, and going to number 1, I used a SM58 Beta for the main mic, and stuck a PG81 in the corner of a very oddly shaped room for rever.

Sounded great!

I know absolutely nothing about the recording business. I am an avid CD and digital “album” consumer with over 4200 “albums” on my hard drives (all purchased legally, thank you). I have always wondered about some of the points you mentioned in the article. Thank you for dispelling some of the myths that surrounding my questions. With 25 years of going to concerts and probably listening to music a bit too loudly through headphones, I probably have a bit of tinnitus and can’t tell the difference anyway.

Very interesting! Thanks!

Hi. Almost none of this is true. With the exception of myths 1, 2, and 5 (which are really just reminders to people who are brand new to the world of audio engineering), I wouldn’t agree with much of what you have to say.

First of all lets make one thing clear: the term Digital Recording does not mean “Higher Fidelity”, it means recording sound to digital media through the interpretation of bits and bytes. I can record digitally at 22Khz and 32-bit sound depth. This is a digital recording, but it is nowhere near a high-fidelity recording.

Secondly, the “mild level of distortion” you speak of is not created by a lack of quality, it is actually a harmonic resonance created by the reel system, which causes the high end of your audio signal to become slightly depressed while the bass frequencies are “thickened up” (causing the often sought-after “warmth” effect of tape). This effect is very slight and should be in no way interpreted as a loss of signal quality. Signal quality on tape has to do with the speed at which the audio was recorded (much like bitrate in digital recordings). If you record on lower-speed tape, you will have a lower fidelity recording. If you record on higher-speed tape, you will have a higher fidelity recording. Distortion, in the way that you mean, really has nothing to do with which media you record to, but is more a factor of what preamps you are using.

This is also why i disagree with myth #7. You DO need outboard processors to get a good sound. Plug-ins emulate hardware gear, however there is one major problem…. They have no hardware! Most quality processors sound good because of the capacitors and transistors through which their currents flow. When you try to emulate the “sound” created by certain types of hardware, you cannot achieve the same results (this is especially notable in any “tube” plug-ins you might play around with – Vacuum Tubes physically drive audio in a specific way, no emulation comes close to reproducing the warmth of this sound). There are notable exceptions to the rule (some of the new Convolution Reverb plug-ins are a really nice alternative to an expensive reverb box or echo chamber) but for the most part, plug-ins will not rival the real thing.

By using terms like “Tape fan boys” or by saying “This myth (#4) is perpetuated by people who don’t really understand digital technology, and by the same crowd who insists that tape is inherently ‘better.’ ” you are displaying an undue bias towards tape recording that really denigrates the entirety of this article. Considering that that “myth” #4 is true when it comes to Tape, the “Tape Fan Boys” are in no way perpetuating this “myth.” They are probably just talking about the media that they know.

Furthermore, the reason you may pay more money for a studio session on tape is because any editing done on tape requires much more time and skill than computer based editing. This is the biggest drawback of reel to reel recording in our day and age. I myself like to use a mixed media approach – recording my pre-production work digitally, doing my editing in a digital editing suite, and then re-recording my live/final mix to a 2″ reel. I think the sound of the final product (on tape) is inherently better. Does this make me a “Tape Fan Boy”? If you would like more opinions on the subject look up some articles about the recording process for Amy Winehouse’s latest album, or the Motown sound of the 60s (Yes, I personally prefer these sounds to the Nickleback or Goo-Goo-Dolls Sound).

In closing, digital recording is not accurate representation. Neither is tape recording. Both are interpretation of sound using different technologies. Each has its strengths and drawbacks. To claim that either is worse than the other, or is perpetuated by ridiculous “fan boys” who don’t know what they’re talking about is utter poppycock.

Also… Why would I use Pro Tools (or, for that matter, Logic or CuBase) when I could use Reaper? Hmmm….

ok, A CD turns a digital file into a digital format on digital media, its not analog, its still 0’s and 1’s on the disc, thus, it’s digital. And ripping a cd, then ripping a ripped version, and so on does degrade quality. But if you copy a file in a digital format infinite times (ctrl c, ctrl v, try it) there is never any degradation, same file, every time.

How can you say that digital is higher fidelity than tape? Digital is just connecting the dots, whereas with analog you are getting a true representation of the waveform. Sure, tape does have it own sound due to harmonics being created by the tape, but that is a seperate issue from which medium reproduces the most accurate waveform. Tape has pleasant, clear high frequencies, digital has harsh high frequencies. This is because digital is connecting the dots and creating a triangle sin wave. I’m assuming that everyone commenting about this has heard 2″ tape.

Brent: “How can you say that digital is higher fidelity than tape?”

Science. Doesn’t matter whether we’ve heard 2″ tape or not (though I have); science says that digital recordings most accurately reproduce the waveform.

Joel,

That is inaccurate. Do you have any specific science? I do.

To give an even more specific example from my previous post. If you are recording a 20khz tone at 441.khz digital, you are only getting one sample per waveform cycle. This means you are getting a triangle wave, which will sound a lot different than the original waveform. Not only that, but there is no chance the sample is going to fall directly on the peak and trough of the waveform, giving you and even more inaccurate reproduction of the waveform. Neither one of these things are an issue with tape, considering it does not use samples to record like digital.

Also, it absolutely matters if someone has heard 2″ analog tape. People are listening with their ears, not with science, although in this situation science does prove that 2″ analog tape produces the more accurate waveform. I don’t know any pro engineers that think digital sounds better than analog, although most engineers do work with digital because it is cheaper, easier to edit, quicker and less of a hassle to work with, and because these days it is going to end up in the digital medium eventually anyways.

Pick up “Principles of Digital Audio” by Ken Pohlman, and you can learn about the science behind digital recording.

Also, regarding the loss of quality when copying cds, no one mentioned the difference between cd replication and cd duplication, which makes all the difference as far a quality loss.

Terrible arguments for tape. Sorry, no, it’s not as accurate, but it does have a pleasing tone to it. It sounds better for certain projects but definitely not all – in fact, I’d bet you $1000 none of the tape lovers compose many projects from samples and then bounce to 2″ like their life depended on it. That’s a bit expensive.

Yeah, no, tape doesn’t always sound better.

Great tips Joel,
I’m fairly new to this whole recording/mixing thing, and I actually just recorded a band with a crude (but decent) little basement setup last week.
I must say, a few of these points are reassuring, because, due to my lack of technical knowledge, I unknowingly followed them.

Due to the nature of the band and their music, I didn’t even think of trying to get them to play with a click, and I think it worked out best that way.
As for #8, quite a few of the tracks we did have one or two vocal takes, and in the end I usually just ended up picking one.

Also, despite having a higher quality condenser at our disposal, I opted to have the singer go through an SM58, into his guitar amp, and we mic’d it with the condenser (okay okay, so I stole that one from Julian Casablancas). He’s a really loud, high-energy singer who likes to close his eyes and grab the stand, and trying to get him to be careful with his levels and mic handling on a condenser just sucked the life out of his performance.

We did our best to keep the energy high and every performance as fresh as possible. I’d rather get one raw, high-energy take with a couple of “mistakes” here and there, than ten “perfect” takes that sound stale.
Glad to hear I’m doing things “right”. haha.

I’m starting to see, it’s all about #1.

Thanks again!

P.S.
Arguing about whether tape or digital is higher quality? Seriously?
Come on people…
Go make some music instead!

As HARRY HILL would say

“there’s only one way to find out!!!! ..FIGHT!” (google it)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPrcr5Mj4y0

good tips

old people always bang on about analogue and tube amps. and if you think about it their hearing is really impaired with age.

with the replies you can tell who read Sound on Sound (boring magazine) and who read computer music

I read future music, although sometimes they are wrong

anyway

good work