Analog Tape Recording vs. Direct to Digital Shootout

Decide for yourself in this audio shootout! Does analog tape sound better than direct to digital recording?
I'm trying to decide if I want to record to analog tape and then transfer the recording into the digital realm vs. an all digital recording. I set up a test, using a Teac A3440 4-track reel deck. I set things things up to record the same performance, feeding the audio into the Teac and computer at the same time. I came away feeling that one sounded better than the other. Watch, listen and see what you think!
Check out Shootout Part 2 (comparison between the tape recording and the Waves Kramer Master Tape plugin): • Waves Audio Kramer Mas...
Check out Shootout Part 3 (comparison ofdigital recording copied/bounced to tape!):
• Copy/Bounce Digital Au...
Check out Shootout Part 4 (full band digital mix bounced to tape and compared): • Full Band Digital Mix ...
Link to uncompressed audio files:
chordsoforion.c...
Jecklin Disk/OSS information:
en.wikipedia.or...
DOWNLOAD the LATEST Chords of Orion Ambient Guitar music here: chordsoforion.b...
Equipment used:
Lowden O35 Acoustic Guitar
Oktava MC012 microphones
Jecklin Disk/OSS
Teac A3440 Reel to Reel Tape Deck
RMGI SM911 Reel Tape
Focusrite Scarlett 2i4 audio interface
Apple Logic Pro X
2009 Macbook Pro
chords of orion - ambient/post-rock guitar music for the heart and mind.
bill vencil - guitars, vocals, other instruments and sounds.
web: chordsoforion.com
facebook: / chordsoforion
twitter: / chordsoforion
soundcloud: / chordsoforion

[@ARon82]

Heard the hiss immediately on Two, knew it was tape instantly.

[@ColocasiaCorm]

Yea this was a dumb test

[@nicohfdc]

Didn't know Ser Davos was into music this much!

[@chordsoforion]

OK everyone. I am officially going to create a part 3 in this series (in about 2 weeks)! I will take the digital version of the guitar recording, record it to the tape deck and then run that back into the computer and compare it against the original analog version. Should be interesting to see what the tape does to the digital. And finally, if you've not checked out part 2 of the series, please do so. I compare the analog tape version in this video against the digital version processed by the Waves Kramer Master Tape plugin. Watch and listen over there and let me know what you think Here's the link: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eZyQaouZjdaYnJY

[@chordsoforion]

ANNOUNCEMENT! Part 3 is here! I copied the digital guitar recording back to my A3440 at both 15 ips and 7.5 ips. I then copied it back to the computer, and in the video, compare the results. kzbin.info/www/bejne/anutdGt-isqdjdk

[@nekromachine]

Chords Of Orion one was much better to my ears personally, It captured the attack, sustain and harmonics of your very fine finger style playing and immense sounding lowden. I shall check out the other parts, Cheers for putting them up

[@chordsoforion]

Thanks so much for checking in. It's been really interesting to me to get everyone's thoughts!

[@huss03]

Nekro Dean Digital has high resolution at the top end of the dynamic range when all bits are being used. However, the very quiet stuff is not rendered using all the bits and is not in as much focus. This tends to - at first - make you think that digital is "clearer", because the loud parts (which are by obviously more obvious to the ear) are clean and clear and undistorted. Analog on the other hand can have a bit of distortion going on as you reach the upper limit of the tape's dynamic range...BUT...the softer stuff is actually very clear and the resolution doesn't drop off with decreasing level...it just disappears smoothly into the noise floor. So, the very soft "underlay" of the sound is actually clearer in analog. If you listen again you might hear this - but it's a different "kind" of clarity in a different part of the dynamic range. Think of it this way: imagine you are standing at the base of a skyscraper with a camera. You aim it up the side of the building, and you have a problem; what part of the building do you set the focus on? You decide to set the focus so that the top of the building is sharply in focus, but the building then becomes less focused towards the base; that's your digital recording right there. Now, imagine if we took a second picture with the camera set so that the bottom half of the building is in focus; that's your analog recording....well...sort of. We still need to somehow account for the tape hiss at the very bottom of the dynamic range. OK...so at the moment you snap the second picture with the bottom half of the building in focus, some wind blows a fine mist of smoke across the very base of the building. I find that digital tends to draw one's ear to the front end of the sound and the attack which - again - fools you into thinking "ah...clarity". But analog is more subtle in the way it renders the sound, and the low level stuff and decay is more natural. But having said all of this, it depends on the specifics of the equipment used. One shitty capacitor in the signal path of the audio can be the great equalizer between any two pieces of recording equipment, and make meaningless any comparisons or discussions of analog vs digital.

[@chordsoforion]

Huxxy Real interesting skyscraper analogy that I think has merit when thinking about analog vs. digital. Question - how do you think that the clean "focus" of digital comes into play when analog audio (like the example in this video) is copied to the digital realm. Does the bit resolution affect the softer analog edges of the focus range?

[@BarryCatt]

I know that this happened a few years ago, but I’ve only just found you and started working my way through your content. This is, believe it or not, the first time in my excessively long life, that I’ve listened to a direct analog/digital comparison. Analog wins! (Although my digital setup will remain). Thanks for opening up a new music style for me - I might even post a few videos myself when time permits. 👍🏻

[@chordsoforion]

Thanks for hanging out! If you have any questions about any of the content, let me know.

[@siskokidd]

As a video professional since the 80's, I've obviously worked with both A and D. When it comes to audio in any video production, neither really have an advantage as far as the end product is concerned. Digital is the clear winner, though, when it comes to the entire production process. When it comes to music, I tend to prefer the original instruments recording done with analog for all the reasons your video make obvious (the dynamics, specifically). However, I'm more than happy to use any and all NR to kill that hiss. I'll even sacrifice the extreme top end with a filter to get rid of it. I don't listen to music in anything resembling a purist setting, so ultimately there is very little difference to my ears. Life is too short to be bothered trying to aim for non-existent perfection. Also, great digital gear coupled with an experienced "engineer" can fool many an expert.

[@DMSProduktions]

Totally agree with you. Analogue is not necessarily 'better'! It is just what people are USED to! ONCE I heard digital, I go, 'WHERE'S the MUD?' More freq range, more dynamics, LESS noise or colouration that comes from physical media! Vinyl better than CD? Nah! Physical media were almost always extremely limited in what they could handle! You can MAKE an all digital recording SOUND analogue if you use it properly, don't overload the signal, and AVOID @ all costs, hard limiting to make everything max out @ +4dB! 1 of my friends who has a studio, does both analogue tape and digital, tho he favours digital for ease of use, flexibility and virtually limitless tracks! His recordings have all the warmth and character of tape, without the noise! (So it CAN be done!)

[@willthetrill4849]

I disagree. Analog recordings sound better than digital

[@DMSProduktions]

@@willthetrill4849 LOL! * Citation Required *

[@TheHomeRecordingChannel]

Hi Bill, great video. I have a Tascam 2488mkii digital 24 track home studio. But I still mix down to cassettes and found that it adds real warmth to the sound. Happy recording my friend. Paul. 😊

[@stephenwright2178]

I've recorded using both mediums over the years and not biased to either. Each has its merits and drawbacks, but when I heard the first recording (lack of hiss aside) my immediate thought was that it sounded warm, round and full-bodied and had to be the analogue recording! Who knew!! What's more impressive is that no EQ was applied to either recording, yet to my ears the digital version conveyed warmth and balance with no harsh highs. Bill also obviously knows how to choose his mic and instrument carefully and captured his performance beautifully, which goes to show that the analogue vs digital choice is frequently not the most important factor.

[@ModusVivendiMedia]

I kind of thought the same thing but reserved judgment because it's impossible to tell without comparing - it has more to do with the microphones and mic placement, room acoustics, instrument, playing style, etc.

[@samprock]

Reel-to-reel rules! Got the tape recognized to, coz it sounds cool :)

[@samprock]

Awesome performance as well of course! Enjoyed every time listening

[@thebreathalyzer]

I highly recommend listening to the uncompressed audio files he linked in the description. I feel like some of the attack transients were lost in the analog recording. Ultimately, it's personal taste as far as what people like best. Makes me want to experiment with analog tape saturation using my old NAK cassette deck!

[@julioarana9599]

The analog noise on the background of the second audio immediately told me that was the Tape recording! Great video demostration! Please keep it up

[@MirageLinne]

Wonderful video, good performance. The obvious hiss aside, the fullness, loudness and even width of the analog is quite staggering when doing a/b back and forth.

[@hogblockula9335]

A was crystal clear and B was more coloured and had some hiss so obviously it was the tape. Loved the vibe of it

[@quinnriutta]

Hmm well I have to say that recording one was better, it sounded clearer and more focused were as recording 2 seemed farther away and not as clear, it also seem to pick up more room noise.

[@Playboy_Pee]

Obviously, the tape really saturates and rounds the peak noise pleasingly - especially noticeable on hard picking / staccato hits. There is also noticeable compression and a presence rolloff with the taped recording... It's a classic sound... Very musical and colorful. The tape distortion I'm hearing is very similar to what you get from high end tube processing. The effect on the dynamics and the presence rolloff is reminiscent of what you get out of an 1176 compressor. I also hear some slight modulation in the taped recording (is that modulation also called "flux"?)... I also hear very slight wowing and fluttering. All of the described effects are subtle and weaving (except for the presence rolloff, that's pretty signature). The digital recording, on the other hand is very bright, open, and lively. It really really really allows one to hear the tone of the wood and strings unobstructedly. This could be good or bad depending on the player and the quality of an instrument's different parts... But on this particular recording, the digital sound certainly isn't bad. It's perfectly clean with a hint of transformer grit on the peaks. I suspect that with higher-end preamping, the recording would gain some extra flavoring - but that's neither hear nor there for this review. In the end, I liked the taped recording better for this particular song. It's more interesting on a lot of different fronts., though I'm partial to the bright and open sound. Sometimes, I do prefer some slightly harsh digital/Class-A grit to help an acoustic blues riff cut through a busy mix but in this case, the taped recording is king.

[@chordsoforion]

+Jordan Pauley Thanks so much for listening so closely and providing great detail to what you heard. Lots of good observations here!!

[@Mikas_Emil]

Jordan Pauley a joy to read

[@martinda7446]

Regarding your comment, you mix technical terms and subjective terms together which muddles understanding. If levels are set correctly there will be no 'saturation' and with even a semi-pro tape machine no roll off under 20Khz esp at 15ips. It will be ruler flat from 20-20 within 0.5db. Any tape running at 15ips, as long as it's serviced and running well will not have any wow or flutter that could possibly be audible. The inertia of the capstan flywheel at high speed is tremendous. I guarantee nobody could hear any wow or flutter from a studio quality tape machine running correctly. Listen to any recording from 1955 - 1980 and pick out wow and flutter. Things like 'presence rolloff' can not be attributed to tape as a medium. Compression also is not something that tape machines will automatically do, sure the absolute dynamic range is limited by the higher noise floor, but tape will faithfully capture, on a good machine,with a good tape formulation, well over 70db. Enough to capture a full orchestra with no compression. A guitar is real easy. What is 'transformer grit'? I can't comment on that as I don't know what it is. What is 'Digital/class A grit'? Class A as an output stage topology is 'grit' free from my understanding of the subjective value of grit. Funny though I detected the recording 2 to be recorded at a different level which put it at a disadvantage though I haven't listened to the quality stream. Thanks to the German Tonschreiber and Bing Crosby for the birth of the modern recording industry. We almost certainly would not have Elvis,The Beatles or Beach Boys without them.

[@joaosousa1025]

Digital records are more accurate, so they sound closer to what you would hear live. Analogue adds imperfections that some people actually enjoy.

[@overkill7990]

@@joaosousa1025 "Digital records are more accurate, so they sound closer to what you would hear live." No they're not. The distortion of tape emulates the resonance of actual sound in real life.

[@jonstringer3436]

Beautiful analog it rules for me, lovely playing which I admire from you. All my best from UK

[@mantlemail]

That is a beautiful piece of music sir!

[@campar1043]

cool video, its crazy how close analog emulation plugins are coming nowadays to the real thing

[@chordsoforion]

True. Since I did this video, I have switched over to the Izotope Vintage Tape plugin. I save the real tape for special occasions...

[@declanmurray]

Nice recording - shows that the 'warmth' people talk about is in the music not the medium. The digital sounds amazing and the tape loses most of it because of the hiss.

[@buskman3286]

A couple of comments re the tape machine. Was it recently aligned and calibrated/new pinch roller, circuits all checked/re-capped as necessary, etc or is it as delivered 50 years ago? If so, it was certainly not performing to its original capability. Of course, the Teacs were not studio-grade machines anyway so their overall performance is not of that caliber though they were certainly very widely used by audiophiles - most commonly to record from LPs and subsequently to play the music from the tapes rather than the LPs. In any case, as you mentioned, both recordings are "digital" to anyone listening via U Tube so whatever difference that actually exists is greatly reduced by that process.

[@deathbysonar]

Direct to digital sounded better. The hiss overtone is what swayed me towards my conclusion. If you could tweak that out I'd prefer the warmth of tape. I'm very new to recording on a computer and I gotta say the learning curve sometimes sucks all the inspiration out of me, having come from a standalone recording workstation. I just recently purchased a Tascam 488 and can't wait to do some recording on it. Long live tape!

[@antigen4]

LOVE the guitar work / song. Keep it up. Makes me interested in hearing your other work.

[@chordsoforion]

Thanks very much! I do have some other acoustic videos on this channel, although most of it is electric ambient style guitar.

[@isaacgrinsdale8066]

Wel the hiss kinda gave it away :) The digital recording sound so much better imo, but when you dig in on the 2nd recording the distortion is lovely.

[@skydogz1]

And btw, when you get into high-end analog gear, and multi-tracking, the analog vibe increases exponentially (to put it mildly, lol).

[@steveb.4809]

Thanx Bill ! For doing this ... Been .. Listening to videos on the whole " Vinyl vs Digital". Never ending debate . Youve done a well planned test here .. Yes .. the tape is definitely " warmer " sounding ... But... Is that actually an analog " artifact " our ears R picking up ? .. the digital one definitely allows the notes u r playing..to be heard in an " honest " .. " cleaner " sound ... Im actually hearing the nusnces of your playing more so with the digital ... And ! Minus the hiss... ( And obviously if committed to vinyl... We d hear some inevitable snap.. crackles or occasional Pops ... ) PS this tune brings to mind the great Michael Hedges .. Nice Work ! Thanx again .

[@scottyvalero3691]

You need to do this again while using a DBX noise reduction system with it. Completely transforms the usability of the tape machine.

[@chordsoforion]

I have the DBX unit for this machine, but do not always use it, as it creates subtle dynamics changes that can be really annoying. Been like that since I bought the deck new in the late 70s.

[@KNHSynths]

Honestly I was thinking tape recording was the 1st one. The sound is warmer, trebles are more balanced, low frequencies more present. Recording 2 when hearing it just after the first seems sharpish. It is really hard to decide because a decision need to be based on a well known reference (technical specs or just pleasure or anything else). At least when listening to the video using a good headphone recording 1 is sounding more pleasant for me. But what will be interesting is to compare the frequency response of both used techniques, which one is the nearest to the "real" sound of your guitar ? But immediately another question will rise : what is the "real" sound ? The one you're hearing when you're playing, the one someone is hearing when placed before you while you're playing, or what a microphone (which type ?) can "hear" ? Reality is sometimes a fuzzy concept... Whatever each one will think about the "best" sound, at least for sure there is a difference between the 2 recordings.

[@jasonhobert498]

Great A/B comparison. I'd like to see a C option where you take A and run it with a popular tape emulation plugin.

[@chordsoforion]

Gotcha covered. Check out part 2! kzbin.info/www/bejne/eZyQaouZjdaYnJY. Although I have to honest, I don't use the Waves plugin very much, as I have switched over to Izotope's Vintage Tape, which is part of the Ozone package.

[@jasonhobert498]

You're the man.

[@italianbirdvideos6190]

Recording number one- all day long. Pristine low and high end. If you don't like the high end, then eq; but you can't fix the low-fi sound of the tape. I guess if you like a reduced dynamic range and high noise floor and want to call it warmth and vintage then fine, I'm not going to tell you what you like, but I'd choose that relatively inexpensive interface given what I just heard. By the way- amazing playing!

[@officialjbbeverley]

Thanks for the comparison. And well done on the song. That's a nice one.

[@chordsoforion]

Thank you very much!!

[@Sputz3]

Woooow thought number 1 was analog! It sounds so much warmer!

[@amarabudi1000]

definitely no. 2.. like a gold...

[@jessebalfour5663]

I like both versions. On flicking back through each recording it becomes apparent ( at least to my ears) that the digital rec while cleaner lacks the depth and realism of the tape recording. That being said i think the Focusrite interface DA/AD conversion on this particular unit is pretty average, I think a top shelf DA/AD interface would revile even more differences between the two..:)..Great experiment btw, well done.

[@deelux5519]

For everyone talking about tape hiss as if it's a negative, go listen to "brown Sugar" by the Stones, the hiss is almost as loud as Keith's guitar in the into riff, is it bad? should it be subjected to noise reduction? HELL NO! Tape hiss 4 life!

[@mikeanaro]

And the song would be much better without so many hiss.

[@deelux5519]

Don't tell the Stones I'm sure they would be devastated to know you could have done it better

[@mikeanaro]

Why not? its just another generic Stones style song.

[@deelux5519]

zing!

[@marcottavi2655]

why dont you write one and record it to show us as generic it is ?

[@aquasloth6832]

It’s funny, the first time through I thought the first was a little muddy in the bottom end and the second had more clarity, with some hiss. But I was also focusing more on the composition than the quality of recording (it’s a very nice piece!). Additionally, the “augmented” version at the end sounded really, really nice to my ears. So I went back again and, even knowing which was which, I noticed the first wasn’t as muddy in the low end as I had thought it was, and that the audio seemed to encompass a full, balanced audio spectrum. The second recording then seemed a little unfocused in the bottom end and across the spectrum I felt more of a midrange bump (which is to be expected with analog tape). Suffice to say, however, that both sounded equally great, and it really goes to show you how the most important part of any musical recording is more the performance and the compositional quality than the audio quality itself! Great video! 👍

[@nonchai]

What you did was to digitally record ( at 24/96 ) an analog source - the tape - via the preamp+converter in the focus rite. The preamp was used for direct monitoring too. So you are hearing the effect of the focurite preamp circuitry being applied to the original mic-d up signal ... TWICE. With the added "effect" of whatever circuitry is in the TEAC PLUS the sound of the tape recording process itself ( hysteresis, hiss, transfer function of the tape head you name it ). So bearing in mind that whatever colourations the Scarlett imposes or doesnt impose on the music - your recorder is acting as a SOUND EFFECT. And you can achieve the same kinds of effects by the use of plugins , eq - even tape-effect plugins. The sonic character you like is being IMPOSED and ADDED to your original signal. It isn't the original signal.

[@nonchai]

It also has to be said - you might want to repeat this test with a focusrite that is more pro-level - the Clarett. but of course even then - whatever colourations there are in the clarett would again be present in both versions. My bet would be that for the pain of the tape recording process and medium - you'd be better off getting a really good converter and simply do a little bit of typical EQ and post-processing to add back all those distortions and colourations that you love about the TEAC. The tape recorder "sound" is a SOUND EFFECT.

[@chordsoforion]

It is true that the Focusrite preamp circuit colors both the analog and digital version of the recording, there is no digital conversion occurring between the preamp and the direct outputs. I contacted Focusrite technical support to confirm.

[@thesisdrs]

I actually liked the digital version better. The low end that the tape put on the recording didn't do it for me. I like the tape for the application of saturation, however additional effects is what helps analog tape with the tone... especially for acoustic guitar.

[@ellism7366]

Hi thanks for putting these together and sharing them, really interesting. I don't know if its been pointed out by anyone before? - I'm noticing some subtle L/R phase differences between the direct to digital and the tape recording (I'm listening in headphones through an Avid interface). What I mean is that to my ears the tape sounds to be adding a very small time delay between the left & right channels, creating a very subtle Haas effect / widening in the stereo field. The digital recording when compared sounds to me to be centered ie. there is a clear phantom centre in the stereo field. Perhaps I can download the files and check the L/R phase alignment in my DAW? Possible causes - I imagine an L / R signal could be slightly delayed within the tape deck, perhaps due to an alignment setup detail at record or playback, crosstalk creating combfiltering or perhaps an internal electronic detail like a high pass / low pass filter or any bypass capacitor in the audio signal chain, but clearly this is all just speculation. I hope this is constructive feedback!? All the best.

[@joshthomson1998]

You've inspired me! Haha, thanks for this video, great playing man. Take it easy -Josh

[@chordsoforion]

Thanks!!!!

[@felixfravega]

Hey! very cool sounds from your guitar. Could you explain the routing you made between the interface and tape recorder? Thanks!

[@OCDHIFiGuy]

everyone can dig a little roundness in the bottom end. I could tell the first was digital immediately from the metallic sound of the strings, moreso the attack of fingernails on metal

[@kingdomofheavenmusic3]

Loved both of them. But I see why you would do analog for the round low end. Great video! Great playing as well 👍

[@ralfp6196]

Hi Bill, I have a question regarding the TEAC tape deck: How old is the deck and are the capacitors and other electronic parts original or have they been replaced by new ones?Thanks

[@computarman]

Both are good, but the digital caught my ears. If someone prefers analogue, that's their prerogative but prefer a format that never degrades.

[@DDWyss]

The tape machine certainly rounds off a lot of the harder sonic edges, particularly the highs and mids. I thought it was most noticeable in the percussive right hand 'chuck' strums.

[@qwiklok]

lots of great professional comments. I have the dbx unit for this same machine. almost no hiss. clean gorgeous sound. Actually i think it may even sound better, huge dynamic range. no breathing. Quiet is dead silence. Some say the dbx was the best method out there But we live in a digital age. An SD card holds a years worth of 4 channel music. A 11 reel holds an hour. same cost. the technology is perfected, maybe too much. Too clean, too precise. Flaws make it more natural, dont you think? So that being said, tape is warm, slightly imperfect, human, embracing , kind more reel!!! This notion of being perfect is a bit if a malaise. Perfect women are no fun. But but perfect for each other makes all the difference on the world.

[@ModnificentTV]

Got it right first time. Reason why? The hiss on the second & the dynamic range

[@Hal9000Comp]

Good video and shoot out. one of the best ones I've seen so far. Agreed analog is still and will always be king. Its not even close. Digital cannot capture the harmonics and ambient detail. yes higher sample rates help but it still has its limitation in comparison. well done

[@Dazzer1234567]

The tape recording was easy to hear because it sounded a lot more compressed. Which was nice. The digital version sounded more pointy, bumpy, and too dynamic.

[@g.m.6417]

If you play live or go to hear a live performance, is it digital or analog? Exactly! That's just it! So why should it matter when it comes to recording? You can make it all sound good!

[@Hanssone]

The digital captured your finger articulation and didnt compress your playing dynamic. The tape saturates and compressed the signal, which can be emulated by using a saturation/tape plugin and a limiter/compressor. But the highend information and dynamic lost on tape cannot be recalled. Just a food for thought! BTW Im listen to good monitors in a treated room, just my 2 cents peace out.

[@daudhermansalehe3125]

Michael H make it in swahii language

[@RiotHomeRecording]

#2 Fuller, Rounder, Real!

[@draganantonijevic2441]

58... Gutar playar too... LP's... CD's... and so on... DIGITAL WITHOUT DAUT and IN EVERY SENSE! Raw as it is... ''ANALOG'' in this case is outperform. In other cases... However, it should be kept in mind that: The real and good thing is always a real and a good thing, no matter whether it is ANALOG (LP's, tapes), CD, DSD... and that RECORDED AND REPRODUCED MUSIC will never be the same as LIVE MUSIC, no matter the cost of equipment... and finally, TASTE IS NOT A PARAMETAR, but an TRENED EAR.

[@galus14436]

That tape had a lot of hiss. Obviously, professional analog recordings used for such records from 70's used higher quality. If not, those 8 or 16 track recording would of been extreme noisy mess. Shoot, my tascam 4-track cassette recorder seemed to have less hiss.

[@Ocelopilli]

As soon as recording 2 played I knew it was the tape because of the hiss in the background

[@fiddleronthebike]

by using a Studer you would have reduced the tape hiss by more than 10 dB (and another 15 dB by using a Dolby SR in addition); but of course - these machines are really expensive...

[@renejrhodes88]

I liked the first Recording a lot more before the reveal. I felt like there was more detail and depth. Since I was watching with expectations I cant really say whether that's the recording or placebo.

[@AnthonyMonaghan]

Hi Bill. I preferred the second recording. It was more natural and warm sounding. What year is your Lowden 035? If it's pre 1988 it's a very rare and special instrument. I know Sam Irwin, one of the Luthiers who worked at the Lowden workshop. I grew up in Bangor, Northern Ireland where they were built for a time before they moved to a bigger workshop in Newtownards. It sounds stunning. They make incredible instruments. Thanks for the wonderful composition also. Kind regards from New Zealand

[@chordsoforion]

Hi Anthony. My O35 is a 2004. It's the 22nd guitar that came out of the Downpatrick shop.

[@AnthonyMonaghan]

@@chordsoforion Thanks for the info. That's really nice that you know what number it is. I haven't lived in Northern Ireland for a long time. I knew they had a workshop in Downpatrick, but that was well after I had left. Sam Irwin now runs his own Luthier school in Newtownards. His three month course is renowned around the world for quality and attention to detail. I've played a few of his own hand built guitars many years ago. Really beautiful instruments. I went to school with his eldest son. Nice connection between your video and my past through your Lowden. Take care in the USA. It sounds a bit wild right now. A summer of discontent. I think your channel is excellent. Anthony.

[@donallfinn]

If I remember Focusright direct monitoring is done via a blend of the direct signal and ADDA converted DAW returns, which lead to phase anomalies and all sorts of wild times, direct monitoring exists for a time aquirite cue mix NOT FOR judging the quality of ANYTHING, furthermore the signal is making it's way through the consumer level Focusrite circuit, that is not going to be a signal path dedicated to quality, the end game of which is: YOU CAN'T DO TESTS THIS WAY, you need to have a mixer with identicle output paths so each signal is on equal footing, you can't record one though the other then judge the qualites of the second unit

[@chordsoforion]

Guess you did not see my pinned comment. Direct monitoring is an all analog path according to Focusrite.

[@donallfinn]

And what I'm saying is it is achieved via a blend, remember the M-box? This is how D.M was implemented on budget interfaces for years, which ever if turned all the way direct is still subject to step down resistors, and other consumer level signal path goodies, that interface isn't good enough to use as a through box and not suffer some consequences, Imagine if you had used the tape machine as a though box? Digital fans would be crying foul all the live long day and they would have been RIGHT Each signal should be subject to identical signal paths, you can't use one as a patch bay and pretend it doesn't matter, go get a $20 ART mic splitter, it's not that hard to do this RIGHT, all I'm saying is if you are going to the trouble of doing the shootout, put that little extra bit of effort in, this stuff stays around for years and if you going to half-ass the test, just to save $20 maybe you should let somone else who is willing to go the extra few inches and make it as good as they can, do it, cutting corners then claiming you didn't to save your self a trip to the store results in a copromised test and helps NOBODY, if you are going to do something DO IT RIGHT, if that's too much for you, for DON'T DO IT, there is already enough misinformation on the 'net,

[@chordsoforion]

Whew. You expended a lot of energy complaining about a non-professional personal audio experiment that was shared on YT 3.5 years ago. All the best.

[@markallen381]

I really hate working with digital and computer. How I do miss my A3440, but I don't miss the hiss. I used DBX encode/decode to remove the hiss on the A3440. A few years later I was working with an 8-track reel to reel. 10 years later the tapes were trash and I used grand master!. So tape was a big disappointment. I stored it in the cool of the cellar didn't make any difference. Somebody should bring back the Alesis HD24 but bring up the sample rate to 96Khz and maybe add 8 more channels. I liked the transport keys on the A3440 and HD24. I dislike the computer software. I just want to arm the track make a few adjusts on the mix board and go. Which do I like better. My ears are 69 years old! I like the crispness of the digital without the storage problems of tape. I would gladly buy an Alesis HD32!

[@prairiebrewer6630]

Of course everyone has their "preference" so the comments suffer quite a bit from confirmation bias. But, we all know - digital has a higher dynamic range than tape. But there are so many attributes that will contribute to the quality of recording. Digital ultimately will produce a more accurate "picture" of the sound. The "warmth" that tape guys talk about (and I'm a tape guy) is the saturation and noise - so on paper, sure that sounds bad right? Does it though? If you THINK it sounds better on tape, then it DOES sound better. If person B thinks it sounds better on digital, than it DOES...because this is subjective. Especially when the recordings are both good. But all of this doesn't amount to a hill of beans, if the engineer sucks at his job.

[@accordingtohonda4308]

When all digital simply use 2 mics, one near and a "room" mic to let the guitar breathe, blend to taste to get closer to that fuller "analog" sound. Or don't.

[@RobCoates1]

I'll be damned. The digital to me sounds way better. I've been using tape for years but lately have been thinking that some of what people call that tape magic is not all that magic. I'm just now starting to learn how to make a decent digital recording using analog hardware, without any tape or tape emulators.

[@jamiey5779]

To me, other than the hiss from the tape itself, there wasn't really a big difference in the music's audio quality.

[@mardybum6383]

I would definitely go with analog! wow its such a big difference. is analog recording very expensive??

[@chordsoforion]

It can be. You will need to purchase a good tape deck, and the cost of the tape can be considerable.

[@mikafoxx2717]

I think your recording level was a bit too low for a 4 track at 15ips with how much hiss was there.. unless it was a really bad tape. Using a BASF lgs 35 tape (still made by Recording The Masters) at 7.5ips on my low end, 2 head, high hours machine has far less noise.. Has your machine ever been serviced? If it's an early transistor R2R, germanium transistors (my machine has these) tend to fail by getting very noisy over time. Is the head routinely cleaned? It won't do much for noise, but it'll help the high frequencies record and playback better. A worn out head will also have the same symptoms.. if there's a channel sanded into the head like my machine.. it definitely needs to be changed out. :P

[@john497]

I think the analog picked up some of the percussive thing better. Both good +nice playing as well.

[@javiceres]

Nice song!

[@gauravsharma-eh7sz]

hii chords of orion , please tell me what all would i require to re record on analog tape. ( hardware).

[@marottajoe]

In this application I liked the analogue best. But this is only an acoustic guitar. What would happen with voice and full compliment of instruments? Or a symphony ? I really disliked the manipulation of the original.

[@florin1290]

Hi What I need to clean the tape hads on my reel to reel recorder ? Thanks

[@prep74]

You know that there was a very time and resource consuming, proper scientific controlled test done on this very subject by Geringer, J and Dunnigan, P. published as a peer reviewed paper "Listener Preferences and Perception of Digital versus Analog Live Concert Recordings." in the Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education. 1 Jul. 2000, Number 145: 1-13. The music major subjects listened to digital and analog recordings of the same concert performance, recorded unequalized and unmixed especially for the test. They were able to switch back and forth between the two at will, and everything was double blinded, level matched etc. Overall, the digital version was preferred in all the ten scoring areas. The researchers concluded: "The results showed that music major listeners rated the CD digital versions of live concert recordings higher in quality than corresponding analog tape versions. Participants gave significantly higher ratings to the digital presentations in bass, treble, and overall quality, as well as separation of the instruments/voices. The mean higher ratings for the digital versions were generally consistent across loudspeaker and headphone listening conditions and the four types of performance media."

[@saintofnowhere]

I can believe that. Before I knew which was what I liked #1 better. When people have to choose based only on what they hear they're usually surprised which they thought sounded the best. I'm sure if the results weren't given at the end there'd be a lot more people saying they liked #1 better. Just like I'm sure in the study you mentioned, if they had been told which was digital and which was analog before listening, more would have voted for analog because it's what they think should sound best.

[@prep74]

@@saintofnowhere So true, our perception of sound is greatly influenced by personal expectations. Controlling for these sort of perceptual biases is one of the reasons why double blind tests are the gold standard.

[@theonygard5694]

I liked it better raw than with reverb and compression

[@TradeMarcmultimedia]

Greetings Mr. Orion. Just wondering, did you use the Cardioid or Omni Capsules on your Oktava Mics? .. I'm comparing stereo Microphone techniques and I'm trying to understand how the Jecklin disc maintains the centre of the stereo image without the disc creating a 'null spot'.. I received my Oktava mic's yesterday and recorded a choir last night.. (i did ORTF) sounds great!

[@chordsoforion]

I actually violate the rules for using a Jecklin disk and use the cardioid capsules. Theoretically, you should use omnis to avoid null spots and phase issues, but I have always liked the result with the Oktava cardioid capsules. And still love the Oktavas!!!

[@TradeMarcmultimedia]

+Chords Of Orion ahh I see. Awesome, thanks for the reply it helped me better understand the technique!

[@BPToneReview]

Run your digital tracks with a Neve plug in and you'll be half way there minus the hiss and have the whole universe of convenience in your hands. Analog does sound better but these days you can get so close to that sound, not exact but close....but the convenience....

[@ManoelNunesOSan]

I instantly recognized the first recording as the digital one. It's deep, precise and highly dynamic. I didn't even need to wait for the second one. But when it came, it was obvious to be a tape. The "roundness" you refer to is caused by mild distortions in the soundwave due to magnetic properties of the tape, head and circuitry of the reel to reel recorder (and you actually enjoy it that way!). I'm sure 96Khz 24bit is excellent already, but I think DSD 128, probably would be identical to the live feed even in the most resolving equipment you could find.

[@CaesarNeptuneStudios]

Keep in mind this is just a 4 track recorder and not a professional one which can have like over 20 tracks. Those sound much better

[@cleftturnip7774]

I think i preferred one

[@michaela.ofthenorth4530]

Does the fact that we are listening to both on our computers and phones on a DIGITAL Format (the Internet) have anything to do with the results? Just thinking out loud.

[@chordsoforion]

I am sure it does, and I mention that at the end of the video.

[@rajkiranthomas3579]

Defenitely Analog... It has a dpeth, Life and wholeness 💓

[@ksteiger]

Analog tape adds warmth and softens the high frequencies. High quality digital is far more accurate. There is just no argument. You may like the way analog sounds butter it adds something. beside the fact that you are transferring the whole thing back to a crappy KZbin digital codec.

[@2xhdfusion190]

The Teac is not a great reel to reel machine to get what tracking on tape is all about.

[@Entre_Nous_]

Much prefer "one" which I'm pretty sure is the digital recording.

[@HarmonicsOfNature]

I didn’t need to hear the second recording. I knew the first was digital - just sounded brittle and hollowed out. Strident and medical. The analog seems to have less signal - less in your face, but it moves your emotion instead of engaging only your brain.

[@jessicaembers924]

I like to run digital recording through an analog mix down myself :-)

[@greenharvestproductions6743]

I prefer the analog in 96 Hz does it mean to do your of the bad but I prefer the analog any day

[@alexbusoni]

The second option is better !!!! noises are heard but the sound of the strings sounds uninterrupted! sound more lively! and in the first version everything is refined sounds lifeless!

[@johnbot8460]

Interested in what would would happen if u mixed the 2 recordings? the best out of both worlds or would just be a mess?

[@chordsoforion]

It would not be possible for my recording as I do not have the ability to use SMPTE code to sync the tape deck to the DAW. But it would be interesting for sure.

[@johnbot8460]

@@chordsoforion hmm i would definately like to experiment with that one day, do u know any affordable machines that i would be good to learn the basics of analog recording?

[@stringsnare]

Did you record to the tape or just pass it through back to the focusrite?

[@chordsoforion]

I recorded to the tape and then pulled the tape track back into the DAW for the comparison.

[@antigen4]

acoustic guitar is not really the instrument of choice for showing off tape's abilities - i'd be thinking more like drums and synth etc. digital is great for chamber music etc - though tape really shines when it comes to adding the character to beefy sounds - in general...

[@ou-rb2gv]

it's a nice of music btw.

[@chordsoforion]

Thanks very much!

[@chordsoforion]

NOTE: The signal path from the Focusrite interface to the tape deck (during the initial recording) is all analog. There is NO digital conversion when direct monitoring. I contacted Focusrite tech support and they confirmed this. Thanks!!

[@toastyplatters70]

This is an eyebrow raiser for me! I have the same interface and was always curious about that.

[@tulsafigg]

Hello Bill Vincecil of Chords of Orion I'm in the process of building a home recording studio.I have purchased all the recording tools needed and built a recording booth. My goal is to get the perfect sound quality in all my recordings. I have a AG03 Yamaha recording mixer. 24-bit/ 192khz. Im in the process of ordering a new interface; the foucusrite clarett 4pre from sweetwater.com. My question is if I purchase a reel to reel tape machine will I be able to connetct it to my interface like you did in your video?

[@chordsoforion]

Yes. You should be able to connect it to the Clarett's line inputs.

[@defoperator7993]

yeah but it still effects the sound heavily

[@chrisarias4055]

Chords Of Orion two sounded like shit

[@jpprindle]

Did no one mention that the guitar work is dope? Nice playing, man - killer riffs.

[@chordsoforion]

Many thanks. I truly appreciate it!!!

[@dougg1075]

I’m analog all the way. Digital is cool for certain conditions but yeah, I’m an analog guy.

[@stevenpeterson9735]

Didn't have my system turned up loud enough to catch the tape hiss, but the give away for me was the fuller bodied sound at the beginning of the song. The analog tape just gives it a thicker, warmer tone.

[@stringsnare]

digital = pristine, crisp, no hiss, imo too much high-end shrill analog = hiss, but felt like the guitar player was playing in front of me in a small cozy room. warm.

[@payupatour4886]

stringsnare I was pretty confused, but u explained easily, now I understand thank you 👍🏼

[@MBEG89]

So eq the high end out and add some hiss to the digital and bam, same sound.

[@MICKEYISLOWD]

Correct...and also if you connect to very high end speakers like Adam Classic MK3 series then the analogue signal will be breath taking and the digital too sterile. You simply have to have high end spkrs to really discover what analogue is capable of.

[@nickhaldin8674]

Mickeyislowd you really don’t even need expensive speakers to tell the difference. A DECENT set of speakers and a decent turntable will do wonders for those discovering analog sound. And then as your first album to be wowed by incredible analog recording-Rumors by Fleetwood Mac. You’ll never go back.

[@aestheticbeatz5700]

Sound depth (timbre) is what digital kills

[@chordsoforion]

+alfanth Sorry, but I can't reply to your comment, so I hope you see this! In this video there was no noise reduction used, however, I do have the original DBX noise reduction unit that came with the deck. I use it from time to time, but I find that it does affect the tonality slightly. Another option I have used when transferring old recordings from analog to digital is to use the noise reduction components of Adobe Audition CC. With a little practice, you can get an effective hiss reduction without changing tone of the actual program material.

[@FrankBittom1]

very good work, my advice for hiss man use Izotope RX denoiser is good for that.

[@generalshamic4777]

The hiss gave it away lol sadly i'm not an audiophile, I couldn't really hear the difference

[@schitlipz]

I'm sure it's all psychological (like what isn't). I hooked up my 4-track last night and played some old tapes... it was "warm" to me too. Booting up a computer to process sound is like buying processed cheese slices (vs. a block of cheese).

[@jessevetrone9479]

+daddyrichten I think this is one of the most overlooked points of the analog vs digital debate. couldnt agree more, well put.

[@datamasked623]

+General Shamic It is definitely noticeable...to those of us who are engineers, anyway. Analog will always be noticeable if you listen closely enough because tape physically responds to the input. Imagine walking on wet sand at the beach. When you put your weight down, it captures an imprint of your foot, but in addition to that, around the outside of the image sand bulges and distorts as it is displaced to make room for your foot. This is exactly the same thing that happens to tape. The harder you drive the input, the greater it causes the tape to react to it...this causes compression of the high frequency information, and a pleasant warm tone to the mid-range and low end. Obviously if you drive it too hard it distorts which sounds terrible, but tape, itself, is basically a signal processor itself. Digital converters are not. The reason digital doesn't TYPICALLY sound as alive as analog tape is because it converts the incoming electrical signal to a certain bit depth at a certain frequency (moments in time, not audio frequency). There will always be small errors in capturing the incoming signal, so the computer has to fill in the gaps with what amounts to educated guesses. It will round to the nearest bit, and what not. Over time this results in the perception of dullness in the recording. Also known as jitter. The solution to this problem is to spend $10-20,000 on high quality converters and word clock....but most home recordists cant afford that. When you listen to the SUM of MANY tracks recorded with tape vs computer, the differences become much more apparent.

[@A_massive_wog]

+General Shamic You might also need decent speakers or headphones to hear it, but I heard significant differences. The digital didn't have any background hiss, the low-end of extremely subtle and the high-end was tinny and sharper. The analog recording had the hiss, the low-end was more noticeable and appreciated in a way, but also the medium and high-end had a nicer rounder tone which sounded more natural and less sharp.

[@slimkickens]

+Eric Pederson I have to respectfully disagree that tape distortion sounds terrible.

[@vinyleyezz]

Excellent sound! You really know how to record great sound properly! Awesome video, keep it up!

[@chordsoforion]

+Vinyl Eyezz Thanks!!

[@jamesfrancisco3130]

When I listened, I was pretty sure that #1 was digital, especially after #2 started and I could plainly hear the difference. What is interesting is that I am hearing impaired in my left ear, but only the second recording allowed me to hear certain frequencies from your guitar. Lovely music, fun experiment! I also had, for many years, a Tascam 40-4 open reel deck and miss it greatly. Love your channel! Cheers!

[@mikelunsford7462]

I too immediately stopped listening at mile marker 4 on song #2. I could pretty much tell the difference too. I liked the test I think number 1 was clearer even though I'm a analog nut. I'm sure a normal EQ would have made the difference and it would have been a closer race.

[@chordsoforion]

+J Harris Sorry - I can't reply to your comment directly (think it's your G+ settings). Anyway, The Jecklin disk is typically my preferred configuration for recording acoustic guitar in stereo. I really like the separation that it provides. And just to be clear - the signal from both the right and left mics was split and fed into both the tape and digital recordings so each version got the same stereo image from the mics.