tape emulation plugins
 

I've been curious about how much difference tape emulation software makes on tracks, so I demoed a few. I grabbed three plugins (Waves J37 Tape, Slate Virtual Tape Machines, UAD Studer A800) and A/B-ed them against each other on individual tracks and decided the UAD Studer A800 was more pleasing to the ear. Then I demoed the UAD Ampex ATR-102 and put that on the Master Bus.

Using a rough mix of a song I'm working on, I created two mp3 files. One with the tape plugins, the other without. To my ear, the mix with the tape is much less brittle on the top end and has a smoother feel throughout. The only difference on the two tracks is the tape plugins being bypassed. I think it's makes a pretty big and positive difference, enough so that I'm probably going to lay out the cash to grab these.

This is a rough mix because I only have a limited time to demo these plugins, but I'm curious to hear what others think.





For anyone who's interested, this is a song I wrote after I read about the high divorce rate among combat veterans who return home from war zones too mentally damaged to cope.

What mic and preamp are you using?

Ty Ford

Try it on non-compressed files (WAV, AIC, FLAC).

Very nice tune and performance.

Both sound good. The differences are pretty subtle. The one with the tape is about a decibel or so louder with a little boost in the lower frequencies. Very low frequencies are coming though so you might want to add a high pass filter (say around 35 hertz or so).

The preamp is a Hardy M1. I'm pretty sure the guitar was tracked with a pair of ADK A6 mics and the pickup is blended in there as well.

That's a good idea. Do you think the difference will be more noticeable? I went with mp3 because that's the format most people use now to listen to music.

Thanks. I know the mix is rough. I didn't do much to the bass except compression. I did it quickly because the demo period is short, the sale ends in 10 days, and I need to decide if these plugs are worth plopping down $400 (For that $400, I'll also be able to get the Chandler Mastering EQ). Any difference in loudness comes from the tape emulations. The only difference between the two versions is that those tape plugins were bypassed. I'm going to spend some time in the car with these and see how I feel. I'm still leaning towards buying them but I'll be okay if I wind up not.

Hey the song is outstanding kudos

I was only listening on laptop ear buds I'll give a listen in my studio later.
But first impression was it simply eliminated some of the top air
Is that smoother or is that just less info and slightly less air ????

As a general note I have mixed feeling about Tape emulations and saturation plugins in general .
When Slates Virtual mix console came out I got it an for about 6 or 8 months thought is was the bees knees. But honestly I have stopped using it completely.

Thanks. I appreciate the compliment and the feedback on the tape emulation.

Interesting. I just gave both versions another listen with that in mind. I think the top end in the no-tape version is a bit harsh. The tape seems to eliminate that harshness. I'm very interested in hearing your thoughts after you give it a go in the studio. If you think the top end is lacking, I could try to eq a bit more air into the mix and see if it's still less harsh.

I demoed the Slate VTM plug this week. Compared to the UAD Studer, I thought it was a little lacking. It wasn't bad, but I thought the UAD Studer was better. I also tried the Waves C37 but honestly that plug is so subtle I couldn't hear a difference when I used it. Perhaps if I was doing songs with 30+ tracks and had it on all them, I'd notice it, but my songs tend to be a 20 tracks or less ...much less if there are no drums.

Somehow it seems on point: :D

http://www.in2guitar.com/images3/aesxmas.png

I've still got Sony analog tape machines back in my machine room!

Bob

Yes but are analog versions actually getting close to reproducing the algorithm ?:D

Seriously though, Do you still get clients who want to record to tape ?

Emulation:

roll off the highs, crunch the mids and create tape hiss.

Yes, I know that there's more to it than that.

Kev, what was your discovery process that led to you first liking and then not liking the plugin?

When I read that, I thought about how frequently we can be wooed by something new only to find that, in the end, it's not so great.

Regards,

Ty

Hah!

http://www.in2guitar.com/myhistory/tapedeck2sm.jpg
That's 24 tracks of Dolby SR noise reduction above the APR-24 multitrack, by the way. My favorite combo is 15 IPS with Dolby SR. The bass is more solid than at 30 IPS and I like the saturation better.
What I get more these days is producers bringing in their master tapes and asking for a modern mix to be accomplished. My latest was a film soundtrack from the '90s that had suddenly become popular but had never been released on CD. I sent the tapes off to a lab to have them baked to remove humidity and chemically treated to stabilize them. When I got them back, hermetically sealed, I put them up, aligned the machine, and then transferred them into the workstation immediately. I was then able to execute the mixes over a few weeks and sequence the master for CD production.

I've always dreamed of adding the CLASP system to our operations but as long as the clients aren't crowing for it it is hard to justify it. Clasp uses your multitrack as a closed-loop analog processor. You just put up a tape and punch record on the workstation and the CLASP loops it out to the tape recorder to be recorded as you see fit (saturated or clean) and then brings it back in off the playback head and aligns the clips properly. Analog warmth with digital convenience!

Bob

Humm good question. To clarify the plugin I was using was not a tape emulation it was the Slate VMC (Virtual Mix Console ) an emulation of the design circuitry etc. of several different classic analog mixing consoles. The theory being it would add more "analog presence and feel 3D effect etc. etc. " But unless I increased the input or drive parameter (which effectively increased the level sort of like make up gain on a compressor) I could not hear much difference and while at first it did sound like more presence I think it was actually simply more volume. Now I do think there was some subtle change or coloration going on, but I did not feel like it really increased the presence or 3 D aspect, any more than simply bumping the level a bit.

I was able to watch a demonstration of the CLASP by the company at a studio in Denver a couple years ago, it was impressive. If I remember correctly it was something on the order of $5k to $10k

I usually use the UAD Ampex plugin on my solo guitar tracks. It probably adds 0.01% of something, and even that may be my imagination, but to me it sounds better in than not. Just a tad warmer and smoother.

Sonar's Pro Channel has a Tape Emulator built into it, which is quite interesting, it has record levels that can boost up the signal to get a really strong signal up to a distorted signal, or anywhere in between. At the right setting it does add a nice touch, and spruces up the sound quite a bit. I just listened to some acoustic guitar with it applied and it did indeed sounded better. I had to fiddle with the settings a little but it didn't take long to get a nice sound. I'm sure it doesn't compare to a $5-10,000 dollar plug-in, but for me it's nice.

Regarding the op's samples, on my monitors, I could hear a definite nice difference with the tape. It sounded a little richer. A little bit nicer. I'll have to keep this in mind.

I have a particular problem with anything that calls itself an emulator, hardware or software. My problem is that there is seldom a control group of the original whatever box against which to compare the new thing.

They may SAY they do that in the skunk works when making it, but I think it's mostly marketing hype.

e. g. There are no new U47s around to compare. What did they sound like new? Surely they now sound different than they used to. Which one are you "modeling", the new or the old.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Well even my lowly Sonar Tape Emulator changes the sound for the better, so it's all good.

Someone pointed out to me that the "with tape" version of my song has a little bit of a mid frequency honk. I didn't hear it until he pointed it out but it's there. It's easily fixed and I think it's still a good trade-off for the way it smooths out the high end.

I still haven't pulled the trigger on them yet. I've got a week to decide though I'm still leaning towards buying them.

Technically, any change from the original sound is distortion.

You may prefer it, or, like Kev said, you may think you prefer it......for a while.

"for the better" begs the question, "Why wasn't it recorded that way in the first place?"

Regards,

Ty

Well with tape emulation, you're probably making a digital recording and want to emulate that old fashioned tape sound, that you don't get with a digital recording. Yes you can go back and record with tape, but it's really expensive compared to digital recording. So the next best thing is to record digitally and add a tape emulation sound to your recording. Some people just simply don't have access to a quality tape machine, due to the high cost of them. Those 2" reels of tape get mighty expensive when you're making lot's of multiple takes of one song.

Yes, I saw a hardware based analog tape emulator at AES in NYC, The Anamod.
$3k. From my review of the AES show....

ANA MOD
If your world is too digital, perhaps you need to return to your analog roots. AnaMod's ATS-1 analog tape simulator is a two channel box. You can see it here in the top slot of the rack with the light faceplate and dual analog meters. You can choose 7.5, 15 and 30 i.p.s.. The modes have the corresponding head bumps built in. There are four types of tape machine and four different tape formulations. You can add hiss in stereo. (how quaint.) There is also bias control and hi and low EQ. There is nothing digital in this unit.

The ATS-1 models up to four types of tape machine and up to four types of analog recording tape. Machine and tape formula changes are done by SIMM cards. The unit ships with Quantegy GP9 and Ampex 456.

Applications include tracking in front of A/D converters and mastering to achieve a more analog sound.

Pendulum Audio
Not far away was Greg Gualtieri's Pendulum Audio with racks of analog and tube-based gear. Shown here from top to bottom are:

The Class A OCL-2, Electro-Optical, Vacuum Tube Compressor Limiter.

The Class A ES-8 Remote Cutoff Tube Limiter.

The Class A 6386 Remote Cutoff Tube Limiter.

The PL-2 JFET/MOSFET Two-Channel Brickwall Peak limiter.

I'm 68 years old. I grew up working with vinyl and analog tape. I get nothing out of it now and haven't for some time. Sorry, I'm not after an old-fashioned sound with tape hiss, flutter, wow and other non-linearities. I just don't get the point.

courses and horses,

Ty Ford

I don't want tape hiss, wow and flutter either, those were all qualities of cheaper recording units. The more expensive recorders had a nice warm, rich, sound to them that is lacking with digital recording. The quality tape machines used to pick up a quality of sound that's just not there with digital. Much more realistic. Much more distinct. instruments and vocals sounded like they were in the same room as you. Not so much with digital recordings. Like I said, my cheap emulator brings some of that back.

I use them occasionally to add a bit a smoothness but I don't buy into the marketing hype of it making my tracks sound like they were recorded on a Studer or Ampex because it doesn't

I don't know about that...I went to the Ampeg website and watched their video,,,,, their demo sounded pretty good to me. It added a real nice touch to the music. I believe their plugin costs around $199, my Sonar tape emulator plugin will have to do for now.

You may prefer analog tape to digital, but your reasons above? I'll have to disagree with you. Hope that's OK.

I guess I have to ask what's wrong with the digital technology you've been using. Digital recording today can be quite nice. Good A/Ds make a noticeable difference. They will however reveal that most cheap condenser mics to sound raw and unappealing.

Ty Ford

Ya it's okay...however if you get a chance, play some old 78 records, you'll hear what I'm talking about.

I agree about digital recording, I love it, it's very user friendly and affordable. I get great sounding recordings, but there's always room to spruce them up a bit. My recordings using the Nuemann TLM 102 mics sound awesome to my ears. I'm using a Focusrite interface which sounds great to me. I wouldn't go back to analog recording for anything because of the high costs, maintenance, and all the fumbling around required.

This discussion about digital and analog or perhaps digital vs. analog, has been ongoing since at least the late 90's when digital began to get traction commercially, if not before. Complete with claims, counter claims and everything from academic style informative discussion to ridiculous heated debate and controversy .

For me while I find the discussion interesting, I find the debate and controversy aspect, pointless.
I think that there are some possible advantages sonically and logistically to each format. I think the vast variables involved in things like the quality of particular analog or digital equipment involved, render blanket pronouncements on the subject pretty meaningless.

Also when you stop and think about it, while there were and still are, entirely analog systems. There really is no entirely digital recording / playback system. With digital it is in reality, a hybrid analog digital system, to greater or lesser degrees.

In my system I use an outboard digital reverb and an outboard analog tube compressor and while I do prefer the sound of using both, to any of the plugins for those processes. I cannot honestly say it is anything more than personal preference . Do I personally think they sound "better" than the plug ins ? yes ...Does it really sound "better" I don't know, and honestly I really don't care, it is what I like.

Granted. Some years ago, my parents asked me to come to dinner and explain why the 33 1/3 LPs didn't sound as good as their 78 rpms. We listened. I said:

1. 78rpm has over twice the play speed of a 33 1/3. Think about 7.5 its versus 15 ips.

2. The material of the 78 is harder, the 33 1/3 disk is vinyl and softer. More attack (perhaps).

3. The mixes were different. The 33 1/3 rpm recordings had more reverb, sounded less present.

4. (Maybe) The 78 rpm stylus and groove are about 10 times as big as the 33 rpm gear.

Regards,

Ty

We're all trying to do the same thing: get from raw recorded tracks to a finished product that sounds good. There's no one path that gets us there. If someone has a fantastic mic locker, great pres, a superior A/D converter, and the knowledge & experience to get the most out of that gear, they'll get to the goal a lot easier than most. Anyone coming up short on some combination of hardware, knowledge, & experience may need to take a different route to get there. And along the way we'll learn, and years down the road we'll do things differently. In the meantime, if there's something affordable out there that helps me get closer to what I want, I'm going to take advantage even if some number of purists tell me it's not authentic. Appeasing the purists isn't my goal.

Emulations fall short of the actual hardware upon which they're based. That's not a secret. I haven't heard anyone saying those tape emulations make it sound just like it would if we'd run that sound through a Studer and an Ampex machine. I certainly haven't, but I have said I think the plugins make the song sound better. Better. I'd love to have a room full of the great and wonderful gear that plugin developers have tried to emulate. Budget wise, it's not realistic.