Analog Tape vs Pro Tools: Direct Shootout – Studer 8, 16 & 24 Track Comparison!

Comments · 335

• ED

  @EdwinDekker71 · 1 year ago

  There is a substantial volume difference which makes judging the quality very hard. Louder always sounds better.

  242

• SO

  @somedood6621 · 1 year ago

  it'd be nice to download these as they're not level matched in the video

  40

• MI

  @michaelking7593 · 1 year ago

  I would really enjoy hearing this again but loudness matched.   I also like the idea of looping the audio so each option is playing the exact part.   You went to all the effort to set up this test, let us hear it.

  8

• SW

  @sweettlover123 · 1 year ago

  REAL missed opportunity here by not level matching the different sources.

  48

• JI

  @jimrogers7425 · 1 year ago

  When I worked at Starstruck Studios in Nashville back in the mid to late 90s, we were doing a project for an artist and the engineer/producer asked us to mix to both 1/2" analog (a new Studer A820) and the Sony Magneto Optical recorder (I forget the model number) going through a Crane Song HEDD for the digital conversion. In studio, we all felt that the MO recordings were the best. However, when they took both to Doug Sax' Mastering Lab to master, the analog 1/2" was the clear winner. It was more than likely the fact that Doug had the BEST monitoring chain, and the most modified analog machines ever. They both sounded great for sure! Tape used? Probably GP9 because that's what most wanted to use at the time... at least in our studio.

  8

• ST

  @steveg219 · 1 year ago

  Fantastic comparison, thank you for the effort to set this up!<br><br>The differences are obvious. I personally felt like the 16 track was the best overall because it had the bigness like the eight track, but it maintained more high mid and highs so it sounded more balanced while giving you that tape vibe.

  5

• DO

  @dom2555 · 1 year ago

  I tell you guys what probably happened that fooled everybody (them included), they probably matched the peak level, but tape at higher level has compression and saturation baked into it, so once you account for that, at same peak level you end up with a higher rms and perceived loudness (other than colored sound). What should have happened is instead to do that test at volumes like -21db peak where tape still behaves fairly linearly and then in post (or live if they have the tools) match for perceived loudness (LUFS), as well they could have compressed with outboards and after that print the output with already stable compression and saturation for both systems.

  55

• TA

  @tasteapiana · 1 year ago

  Levels considered or not, that 8-Track had so much more resolution. The drums were all there on 8 track, I matched my own levels and couldn&apos;t feel anything but flatness from the 192k Protools. Eddie Van Halen was interviewed years back about how they were tracking and I remember him saying they used two tracks per mic, literally doubling the amount of tape width per track. It DOES make a difference. It&apos;s math vs. mass, folks. You can calculate a punch to the gut on any chalk board, give it all the number representations you like, but you have no idea what it is really like until you&apos;ve been punched in the gut. We have been sold a bunch of lies by geeks working for rich guys who want to make more money via UPGRADES and SOFTWARE. You used to be able to buy a product that just worked and would work for several decades, but those cost a lot to manufacture and manufacturers didn&apos;t make much money on them. Now, we buy stuff that has to be replaced every 10 years, and during that time needs to be UPGRADED several times. It&apos;s a money trap that they can only sell by sleight of hand and BS math. Sure, digital recordings have certain advantages but sound quality is not one of them.

  16

• BU

  @buhlir · 10 months ago

  even with the volume diff its still unbelievable cool.. its got this soft punch squishy thing, and things get closer but also deeper.. Tape is just magic..

  1

• HI

  @hitsonacousticguitar · 1 year ago

  This is a great video, thanks for the work. As some other already mentioned, the 8 Track sounds better to the Pro Tools but seems to be louder. I would love to have a 2nd video with normalized stereo files switching between all four recordings? Anyways: Thank you for this.

  38

• RO

  @rogerrobindore6163 · 1 year ago (edited)

  As someone who&apos;s set up these comparisons before, the question of level matching isn&apos;t as simple as it seems. For example, I&apos;m confident that all the systems were calibrated for unity gain (output level equals input level), but what level do you record at? If your converters are set up so 0dBfs = 24 dBu, a good level to the digital system is going to result in a healthy amount of tape compression on the analog machines. I&apos;m speculating, but that&apos;s what it sounds like is happening here - drums especially are benefitting from tape compression. Also, let&apos;s call the analog machines&apos; head bump what it is - a low end EQ boost.<br><br>An alternate approach could be to print at a level that&apos;s much lower to avoid tape compression, but now you&apos;ll hear a level of tape hiss that isn&apos;t representative of normal use. The 24-bit Pro Tools rig would record at the lower level with no appreciable degradation. This doesn&apos;t remove the analog head bump EQ, though.<br><br>Also, what&apos;s &quot;better&quot;? If a comparison was made between each system and the direct signal from the mics, I suspect the Pro Tools rig would be &quot;best&quot; at faithfully reproducing the direct sound - in this instance, the tape compression and head bump are unquestionalby cool, but they would be undesirable with other material.<br><br>In the end, it&apos;s an admirable technical achievement to get all this locked and level-matched, but be careful with the conclusions you draw. Does analog sound cool in this example, and would I choose analog? - yes! Is analog better than digital - hmmm, depends.

  4

• JA

  @Jamyangshouseoffoley · 1 year ago

  I for one really enjoyed the gentle disregard for PT.

  1