Recording - April 2014 - 8

Note to faithful writers: When sending your letters by email,
please remember to include your name and where you hail from.

Tools or vibe-where to invest?

To tape or not to tape?

Dear Eleanor Goldfield: I wanted to reach out to compliment
you on your recent article in Recording Magazine. I've heard
dozens of microphone thoughts and go-to's from the engineer's
side, however a full microphone analysis from a singer's point
of view is much less common.
I couldn't agree more that recording is partly a psychological
task rather than simply a technical one, so my followup question
to you is this: From a vocalist's point of view, would you prefer
having a wider microphone selection, or a larger variety of
instruments available for the creative process?
As a smaller studio we constantly strive to get the biggest
bang for our buck, and I see no greater investment than into
vocal production/development. We try to help singers that are
ready to get into the studio, yet may not have a group to record
with. Do you personally value a more creative space or prefer
technical variety? Ideally a studio team will deliver both, but I still
wanted to get your thoughts. Sincerely,

Hi Recording guys and gals: There are a few plug-ins around
that purport to making digital audio sound like it was recorded
on tape. Couldn't you achieve the same thing by transferring
digital audio to tape and then transferring it back to digital,
ignoring for the moment the quality of the tape machine and any
interface used for the transfers?
If not, why not? And if so, would you mix first and then transfer,
or move each individual track to tape and back and then mix?
Any recommendations? Forgive me if I missed it along the way but
I've never seen a straightforward definitive discussion on this.

Ryan Pino
OC Creative Studios

Eleanor Goldfield replies:
Hey Ryan, thanks for the email. Even though I have spent a lot
of time as a tech and therefore a gearhead, I will always value
creative space and vibe more than gear. As a studio manager
and singer/artist, I have found that you buy the tools so that they
can eventually become nonexistent, allowing the artist to seamlessly connect with his or her craft without focusing on the tangible gear between. Sounds a bit flighty, but it's true. On the flip
side, if your studio feels like a doctor's office, it won't matter that
you have amazing microphones.
Now as this pertains to singers: singers will either have no
idea what they want on their voice, or will know and can tell you
ahead of time. (I'd like to think that at least some of the latter
have read my article!) If the former, use what you have, knowing your staff can deliver the best sound. If the latter, pull the mic
the singer wants from the locker, or rent it if you don't have it...
and be prepared with an alternative or two, just in case.
Now, I'm not sure exactly what "instruments for the creative
process" you mean, but a few flexible virtual instruments, MIDI
keyboards, and a couple of well-maintained guitars, basses,
and amps are excellent choices for any music studio to have. A
drum kit is gold... if you can put it in a good room and mike it
up properly. And on the software side, see my article in this issue
for some easy and free possibilities.
Also in the "creative space" area, I have found that spending
a bit extra to make the studio feel like home is always worth it.
After all, a lack of technical variety can always be rented or
worked around, but creativity can't be compromised. Thanks
again!-EG

John Acchione
via email

John, thanks for writing. Just as with any topic in audio, you'll
get different opinions from all sides, and that's all they'll be,
opinions. Mine: Don't bother getting a tape machine involved.
There was a time when digital converters sounded brittle or
harsh, and "warming up" the audio produced by that flawed
digital equipment by involving actual analog tape was seen by
some as a good thing. These days digital equipment is infinitely
better, as are the effects (whether hardware or plug-ins) that let
you tweak your audio.
If you believe that a plug-in that introduces the kind of subtle
distortion we hear as "tape warmth" can do something for your
audio, go for it. But if you used the best equipment you had
available, with conservative levels and subtle use of eq and compression, you may not think of the results as an improvement.
Tape had limited bandwidth and dynamic range, and going
back to that is largely a nostalgia trip in my view. Others will disagree. Some even avoid digital altogether, so who's right and
who's wrong? See if you can get a trial version of one of those
plug-ins you're wondering about. A/B the results, and you'll
soon hear what it does if anything. Good luck.-LzR
Hi John: Lorenz's point about whether it's needed at all is the
most important one, but I'll add just a few words here about the
nitpicky technical side of things.
The "tape warmth effect" is well understood and most plug-ins
model it well. Whether to use it on the 2-mix or individual tracks
is a matter of taste; tape distortion "layers" differently to different
ears, and you should A/B the same song with a tape plug-in on
the individual tracks vs. the 2-mix to see what sounds nicer to you.
One last warning: you can not, even for a moment, "ignore
the quality of the tape machine." A wide-gauge professional
reel deck might give you the warmth you want, but a cheap
semipro narrow-gauge deck will just compromise your noise
floor and dynamic range. If you want this sound and can't
afford to work with the best tape decks, it's much safer to stick
to plug-ins for reproducible and musical results. Have fun experimenting!-MM

Write to us at: Talkback, Recording Magazine, 5408 Idylwild Trail, Boulder, CO 80301
Or save stamps and send email to talkback@recordingmag.com
8

RECORDING April 2014

Recording - April 2014

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Recording - April 2014