Jump to content

(not a deal) T-RackS Tascam Tape Collection now available


Peter - IK Multimedia

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Jacques Boileau said:

Is the human such a creature of habit and nostalgia that whatever it has been accustomed to for years is always better?

I would say not always, but music is a form of communication. As such, after people have used certain sounds to communicate, they become part of the feeling that's being communicated.

The first time this argument came around was 60 years ago, when transistor amplification came out and was said by everyone to be "superior" to tube amplification in every way. Less harmonic distortion, transistors "never" wore out, were lighter, gave off less heat, used less electricity to put out more audio level, were much cheaper to manufacture. You name it, the transistor did everything tubes did, better. My electronics books from the era concur: tubes are gone, transistors are better in every way.

The big blind spot in this was that the people (who dealt mostly in theory) making these statements didn't know how musicians were actually using instrument amplifiers. The venues at the time didn't have "house PA's" where all the amps and drums were mic'd up, they were big halls with, if you were lucky, a mic each for your singers. So the amplified musicians were cranking their amps up way into clipping just to be heard over the 500+ kids in the ballroom.

Under these conditions:

 Tubes: still sounded okay, because the harmonic and clipping distortion was already recognized as part of rock 'n' roll. Could handle being run past clipping all night long without burning up. Sounded louder because their clipping waveforms were comparatively rounder than the transistor amps'. Could be easily serviced. If one power tube blew up, the amp would still make sound without the missing power tube, and then just plug in another one, and if you knew what you were doing, adjust the bias, if not, well, it'll probably be at least okay. Since they are imperfect, do not reproduce extreme highs as well, adding pleasing softening and compression effects.

Transistors: sounded buzzy and thin, because they clipped hard when driven out of their linear region. Burned up because while they initially run cooler, once they start heating up, they really heat up. Much harder to service, because when an output transistor fries, it often takes out the rest of the output transistors AND the driver circuitry, all of which is likely on a printed circuit board that has to be completely removed for servicing. Are very accurate at reproducing higher frequencies, which can come off as shrill. Can produce unwanted phase shifts and group delay when used in the massively fed back designs that most high-powered SS amps use.

Even if the difference in price between a tube amp and a transistor one were substantial (and of course at first it wasn't, because the makers of them needed to keep that money to cover their development costs), who cares if you saved $200 if the thing goes up in smoke in the middle of the first gig and you can't be heard over the drummer?

As we now know, if you understand the application, you can design and build solid state guitar amps that sound great and are reasonably rugged and serviceable (overdesign your heat sinks and socket the transistors, please). I've serviced 50-year-old Acoustic SS amps that could still be working after I'm dead. We're now generations into electronics engineers who wanted to both play rock 'n' roll and design amps starting when they were kids.

Understanding the differences in the technology is critical: tape has similar charms to valve technology, when it gets too hot a signal it's more forgiving, it has a harder time reproducing high frequencies, which we experience as pleasant, it has a built-in compression, very much similar happy accidents that these technologies' shortcomings happened to do things that turned out to be pleasing to the human ear, and that we've incorporated into how electronically reproduced music is "supposed" to sound.

So we put computers inside solid state guitar amps to make them sound like tube amps, and we have little plug-in programs in our DAW's to make them sound like tape recorders. There's no paradox there, just us making our new stuff sound like older stuff that we're used to and still think sounds good. That old gear colored the sound. A lot of smart people put a lot of work into making sure that if it couldn't reproduce 100% accurately, at least when it fell short it would sound good doing so. I don't think most people are going to use the IK Tascam package to create the hissy frequency-choked over dbx'd sounds that we felt were holding us back. But it turns out that our brains do like a bit of constant white noise in the background (like those rain machines that people buy to help them sleep, maybe because nature always has background noise, who knows?). And our ears like a bit of compression and harmonic complexity. And different tape decks had different sonic signatures. Nothing weird about sprinkling some of that on our modern productions. The ear likes what it likes, even when our minds don't fully understand why.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Brian Walton said:

I think they could have done a little bit better job with the marketing around explaining the X-Gear pedals.  I can confirm they do not sound like the older Amplitube Effects, algos are clearly different.  

Most people also associate Amplitube with the Amp Sims, of which are entirely missing from the line up (and is honestly the only physical pedal I would have been interested in), though I'm liking the Software versions they did relase of effects - I just think at that price point they have some real competition and I already have a high end pedal board that doesn't feel lacking to me.

Tape Sims you have to be careful with, and I'm the first person to jump on the bandwaggon of things like "vinyl isn't better than CD, becuase it has a smaller dynamic range, introduces distortion at multiple places and almost always has a more limited frequency response"  that said, Tape style saturation doesn't by nature have "limitations" other than the inherant creates distortion property, and potentially has compression.  But both of those can be in flavors that are pleasing and musical to the final product.  Even on a clean guitar tone, just about everyone actually wants at least just a touch of saturation truly clean tone tends to sound sterile and I think of recording in this same way.  Absolutly pure and clean tone usually doesn't sound as good as a little harmonic warmth going on for just about any style other than classical.  

 

As for these tape sims, I wonder what the market perception will be for these.  I think many pepole associate Tascam with porta-studio and consumer grade gear, even though they made some legit studio machines also.  

my understanding  is x-gear are not emulations of old vintage effects. they never were. they are an attempt to compete with other guitar effects makes making new pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jacques Boileau said:

Sometimes I wonder, if digital would have been invented first and now we where just starting to get analog gear. Would people complain that analog is not as crisp as digital? That it introduces distortion that we didn't have before and therefore not as clean as we are used to?

Is the human such a creature of habit and nostalgia that whatever it has been accustomed to for years is always better?

Hum, I wonder... 🤔

its all a quest to get more humanity and feel into music. i see it similar to watching art made with computers vs art made by hand. there is a certain appeal to art made by hand that computer are doesnt have. there is a certain interesting appeal to looking at some types of multi media art where the created is using a mix of digital photos, videos and also art made by hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Starship Krupa said:

I would say not always, but music is a form of communication. As such, after people have used certain sounds to communicate, they become part of the feeling that's being communicated.

The first time this argument came around was 60 years ago, when transistor amplification came out and was said by everyone to be "superior" to tube amplification in every way. Less harmonic distortion, transistors "never" wore out, were lighter, gave off less heat, used less electricity to put out more audio level, were much cheaper to manufacture. You name it, the transistor did everything tubes did, better. My electronics books from the era concur: tubes are gone, transistors are better in every way.

The big blind spot in this was that the people (who dealt mostly in theory) making these statements didn't know how musicians were actually using instrument amplifiers. The venues at the time didn't have "house PA's" where all the amps and drums were mic'd up, they were big halls with, if you were lucky, a mic each for your singers. So the amplified musicians were cranking their amps up way into clipping just to be heard over the 500+ kids in the ballroom.

Under these conditions:

 Tubes: still sounded okay, because the harmonic and clipping distortion was already recognized as part of rock 'n' roll. Could handle being run past clipping all night long without burning up. Sounded louder because their clipping waveforms were comparatively rounder than the transistor amps'. Could be easily serviced. If one power tube blew up, the amp would still make sound without the missing power tube, and then just plug in another one, and if you knew what you were doing, adjust the bias, if not, well, it'll probably be at least okay. Since they are imperfect, do not reproduce extreme highs as well, adding pleasing softening and compression effects.

Transistors: sounded buzzy and thin, because they clipped hard when driven out of their linear region. Burned up because while they initially run cooler, once they start heating up, they really heat up. Much harder to service, because when an output transistor fries, it often takes out the rest of the output transistors AND the driver circuitry, all of which is likely on a printed circuit board that has to be completely removed for servicing. Are very accurate at reproducing higher frequencies, which can come off as shrill. Can produce unwanted phase shifts and group delay when used in the massively fed back designs that most high-powered SS amps use.

Even if the difference in price between a tube amp and a transistor one were substantial (and of course at first it wasn't, because the makers of them needed to keep that money to cover their development costs), who cares if you saved $200 if the thing goes up in smoke in the middle of the first gig and you can't be heard over the drummer?

As we now know, if you understand the application, you can design and build solid state guitar amps that sound great and are reasonably rugged and serviceable (overdesign your heat sinks and socket the transistors, please). I've serviced 50-year-old Acoustic SS amps that could still be working after I'm dead. We're now generations into electronics engineers who wanted to both play rock 'n' roll and design amps starting when they were kids.

Understanding the differences in the technology is critical: tape has similar charms to valve technology, when it gets too hot a signal it's more forgiving, it has a harder time reproducing high frequencies, which we experience as pleasant, it has a built-in compression, very much similar happy accidents that these technologies' shortcomings happened to do things that turned out to be pleasing to the human ear, and that we've incorporated into how electronically reproduced music is "supposed" to sound.

So we put computers inside solid state guitar amps to make them sound like tube amps, and we have little plug-in programs in our DAW's to make them sound like tape recorders. There's no paradox there, just us making our new stuff sound like older stuff that we're used to and still think sounds good. That old gear colored the sound. A lot of smart people put a lot of work into making sure that if it couldn't reproduce 100% accurately, at least when it fell short it would sound good doing so. I don't think most people are going to use the IK Tascam package to create the hissy frequency-choked over dbx'd sounds that we felt were holding us back. But it turns out that our brains do like a bit of constant white noise in the background (like those rain machines that people buy to help them sleep, maybe because nature always has background noise, who knows?). And our ears like a bit of compression and harmonic complexity. And different tape decks had different sonic signatures. Nothing weird about sprinkling some of that on our modern productions. The ear likes what it likes, even when our minds don't fully understand why.

That was fascinating, thank you for posting this. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Starship Krupa said:

I would say not always, but music is a form of communication. As such, after people have used certain sounds to communicate, they become part of the feeling that's being communicated.

The first time this argument came around was 60 years ago, when transistor amplification came out and was said by everyone to be "superior" to tube amplification in every way. Less harmonic distortion, transistors "never" wore out, were lighter, gave off less heat, used less electricity to put out more audio level, were much cheaper to manufacture. You name it, the transistor did everything tubes did, better. My electronics books from the era concur: tubes are gone, transistors are better in every way.

The big blind spot in this was that the people (who dealt mostly in theory) making these statements didn't know how musicians were actually using instrument amplifiers. The venues at the time didn't have "house PA's" where all the amps and drums were mic'd up, they were big halls with, if you were lucky, a mic each for your singers. So the amplified musicians were cranking their amps up way into clipping just to be heard over the 500+ kids in the ballroom.

Under these conditions:

 Tubes: still sounded okay, because the harmonic and clipping distortion was already recognized as part of rock 'n' roll. Could handle being run past clipping all night long without burning up. Sounded louder because their clipping waveforms were comparatively rounder than the transistor amps'. Could be easily serviced. If one power tube blew up, the amp would still make sound without the missing power tube, and then just plug in another one, and if you knew what you were doing, adjust the bias, if not, well, it'll probably be at least okay. Since they are imperfect, do not reproduce extreme highs as well, adding pleasing softening and compression effects.

Transistors: sounded buzzy and thin, because they clipped hard when driven out of their linear region. Burned up because while they initially run cooler, once they start heating up, they really heat up. Much harder to service, because when an output transistor fries, it often takes out the rest of the output transistors AND the driver circuitry, all of which is likely on a printed circuit board that has to be completely removed for servicing. Are very accurate at reproducing higher frequencies, which can come off as shrill. Can produce unwanted phase shifts and group delay when used in the massively fed back designs that most high-powered SS amps use.

Even if the difference in price between a tube amp and a transistor one were substantial (and of course at first it wasn't, because the makers of them needed to keep that money to cover their development costs), who cares if you saved $200 if the thing goes up in smoke in the middle of the first gig and you can't be heard over the drummer?

As we now know, if you understand the application, you can design and build solid state guitar amps that sound great and are reasonably rugged and serviceable (overdesign your heat sinks and socket the transistors, please). I've serviced 50-year-old Acoustic SS amps that could still be working after I'm dead. We're now generations into electronics engineers who wanted to both play rock 'n' roll and design amps starting when they were kids.

Understanding the differences in the technology is critical: tape has similar charms to valve technology, when it gets too hot a signal it's more forgiving, it has a harder time reproducing high frequencies, which we experience as pleasant, it has a built-in compression, very much similar happy accidents that these technologies' shortcomings happened to do things that turned out to be pleasing to the human ear, and that we've incorporated into how electronically reproduced music is "supposed" to sound.

So we put computers inside solid state guitar amps to make them sound like tube amps, and we have little plug-in programs in our DAW's to make them sound like tape recorders. There's no paradox there, just us making our new stuff sound like older stuff that we're used to and still think sounds good. That old gear colored the sound. A lot of smart people put a lot of work into making sure that if it couldn't reproduce 100% accurately, at least when it fell short it would sound good doing so. I don't think most people are going to use the IK Tascam package to create the hissy frequency-choked over dbx'd sounds that we felt were holding us back. But it turns out that our brains do like a bit of constant white noise in the background (like those rain machines that people buy to help them sleep, maybe because nature always has background noise, who knows?). And our ears like a bit of compression and harmonic complexity. And different tape decks had different sonic signatures. Nothing weird about sprinkling some of that on our modern productions. The ear likes what it likes, even when our minds don't fully understand why.

That right there is the reason I made my earlier comment.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Starship Krupa said:

I would say not always, but music is a form of communication. As such, after people have used certain sounds to communicate, they become part of the feeling that's being communicated.

The first time this argument came around was 60 years ago, when transistor amplification came out and was said by everyone to be "superior" to tube amplification in every way. Less harmonic distortion, transistors "never" wore out, were lighter, gave off less heat, used less electricity to put out more audio level, were much cheaper to manufacture. You name it, the transistor did everything tubes did, better. My electronics books from the era concur: tubes are gone, transistors are better in every way.

The big blind spot in this was that the people (who dealt mostly in theory) making these statements didn't know how musicians were actually using instrument amplifiers. The venues at the time didn't have "house PA's" where all the amps and drums were mic'd up, they were big halls with, if you were lucky, a mic each for your singers. So the amplified musicians were cranking their amps up way into clipping just to be heard over the 500+ kids in the ballroom.

Under these conditions:

 Tubes: still sounded okay, because the harmonic and clipping distortion was already recognized as part of rock 'n' roll. Could handle being run past clipping all night long without burning up. Sounded louder because their clipping waveforms were comparatively rounder than the transistor amps'. Could be easily serviced. If one power tube blew up, the amp would still make sound without the missing power tube, and then just plug in another one, and if you knew what you were doing, adjust the bias, if not, well, it'll probably be at least okay. Since they are imperfect, do not reproduce extreme highs as well, adding pleasing softening and compression effects.

Transistors: sounded buzzy and thin, because they clipped hard when driven out of their linear region. Burned up because while they initially run cooler, once they start heating up, they really heat up. Much harder to service, because when an output transistor fries, it often takes out the rest of the output transistors AND the driver circuitry, all of which is likely on a printed circuit board that has to be completely removed for servicing. Are very accurate at reproducing higher frequencies, which can come off as shrill. Can produce unwanted phase shifts and group delay when used in the massively fed back designs that most high-powered SS amps use.

Even if the difference in price between a tube amp and a transistor one were substantial (and of course at first it wasn't, because the makers of them needed to keep that money to cover their development costs), who cares if you saved $200 if the thing goes up in smoke in the middle of the first gig and you can't be heard over the drummer?

As we now know, if you understand the application, you can design and build solid state guitar amps that sound great and are reasonably rugged and serviceable (overdesign your heat sinks and socket the transistors, please). I've serviced 50-year-old Acoustic SS amps that could still be working after I'm dead. We're now generations into electronics engineers who wanted to both play rock 'n' roll and design amps starting when they were kids.

Understanding the differences in the technology is critical: tape has similar charms to valve technology, when it gets too hot a signal it's more forgiving, it has a harder time reproducing high frequencies, which we experience as pleasant, it has a built-in compression, very much similar happy accidents that these technologies' shortcomings happened to do things that turned out to be pleasing to the human ear, and that we've incorporated into how electronically reproduced music is "supposed" to sound.

So we put computers inside solid state guitar amps to make them sound like tube amps, and we have little plug-in programs in our DAW's to make them sound like tape recorders. There's no paradox there, just us making our new stuff sound like older stuff that we're used to and still think sounds good. That old gear colored the sound. A lot of smart people put a lot of work into making sure that if it couldn't reproduce 100% accurately, at least when it fell short it would sound good doing so. I don't think most people are going to use the IK Tascam package to create the hissy frequency-choked over dbx'd sounds that we felt were holding us back. But it turns out that our brains do like a bit of constant white noise in the background (like those rain machines that people buy to help them sleep, maybe because nature always has background noise, who knows?). And our ears like a bit of compression and harmonic complexity. And different tape decks had different sonic signatures. Nothing weird about sprinkling some of that on our modern productions. The ear likes what it likes, even when our minds don't fully understand why.

Thanks for this. I am kind of glad I asked the question!

I do think though that it can sometimes be overused to the detriment to the song in the name of goodness. But that is like any other effect. You get instant gratification (ear candy) without realizing what you are loosing to get there. Mostly clarity I guess.

I remember many years ago when I discovered SACDs, how ecstatic I was about the jump in clarity and detail over CDs. Hotel California in 5.1 SACD is so clear that, on a good sound system, you can easily pickup on each guitar part individually. Avalon SACD by Roxy Music is another great example of feeling in the studio with the band and having Brian Ferry feel like he is singing in your living room. The digital medium, to me, is not cold and lifeless as some describe it to be. I guess I am just not one to give up clarity over warmness. But like spices, it is how things are blended tastefully.

I totally agree on guitar sound! That is certainly an area that is very complex and where linearity does not work in its favor. And it does not take much of the wrong distortion and/or response to kill the vibe. I found that the hard way in the 80s when I was building my own effects and amps. Not as easy as I thought it would be! But the journey was a great learning experience and fun part of my life! Luckily I had help in Craig Anderton's book Electronic Projects for Musicians and his columns in Guitar Player.

Edited by Jacques Boileau
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, telecode 101 said:

my understanding  is x-gear are not emulations of old vintage effects. they never were. they are an attempt to compete with other guitar effects makes making new pedals.

 The vast majority of the effects in the Drive and Vibe pedals are very much emulations of old gear with a few bells and whistles added.   Names like Cat, Muff Fuzz, Phasor 9, and Fox Phaser kind of give that away.  The delays model tape and analog delays and the reverb pedals model springs and plates,  These are definitely models of old gear, although not always based on a specific piece of gear.

They want to get into the hardware pedal market, and realized that it's a selling point that you can have the same sounds on your pedalboard as on your computer, thus Amplitube integration.  People may complain about the price points, but compare the delay pedal to Line 6's DL-4, both of which are priced at $300.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hurricane said:

When I make demos on my Portastudio, I usually use one track for the entire drum part, the other 3 tracks for bass, keys, and a synth:

 

 

Would love to hear it just flat !!! no eq just to appreciate the freq response of each options  without bias of the eq ;) 

Nice video !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Magic Russ said:

 

They want to get into the hardware pedal market, and realized that it's a selling point that you can have the same sounds on your pedalboard as on your computer, thus Amplitube integration.  People may complain about the price points, but compare the delay pedal to Line 6's DL-4, both of which are priced at $300.  

I got a Line 6 Helix Stomp this year along with Helix Native.  It operates brilliantly between the two - they both sound identical, and you can share presets between the two.   It really works flawlessly. 

 

I think this is what IK is trying to do. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Magic Russ said:

 The vast majority of the effects in the Drive and Vibe pedals are very much emulations of old gear with a few bells and whistles added.   Names like Cat, Muff Fuzz, Phasor 9, and Fox Phaser kind of give that away.  The delays model tape and analog delays and the reverb pedals model springs and plates,  These are definitely models of old gear, although not always based on a specific piece of gear.

They want to get into the hardware pedal market, and realized that it's a selling point that you can have the same sounds on your pedalboard as on your computer, thus Amplitube integration.  People may complain about the price points, but compare the delay pedal to Line 6's DL-4, both of which are priced at $300.  

The DL4 brought lopping to a mass market and has managed to keep the popularity, but they also released those delays in the echo park which was less than $150 and regularly sold for about $80.  

The IK pedals are positioned more in the Strymon, Helix and Eventide market, IMO with the pricing and form 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems the Tascam multitrack tape recorders are missing!

In 1984 I had bought a Tascam 38 8-track half inch recorder. Later I complemented it with 2 Tascam dbx noise reduction units, a Tascam M-208 mixer and a Tascam 32 tape recorder for mastering. The sound, but also the tape consumption (1/2 inch tape, 15 ips) was awesome!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 10/12/2021 at 12:11 PM, simon said:

isn't nostalgia marketing wonderful

 

On 10/12/2021 at 2:20 PM, Soundwise said:

(the)  benefit of mimicking tape style signal degradation.

As noted elsewhere, it can be useful on drum busses.

...

Just wondering when they'll come out with the "perfect recreation" of  a "complete authentic" experience with a "vintage" master bus version featuring an "award winning" mix down matrix that only allows first generation signal degradation of "exquisitely modeled tape warmth and color" for the original number of tracks, and applies additional layers of "glorious tone and other audible hallmarks" for successive iterations that exceed the original track count. Wouldn't it be awesome to emulate the "unique sonic character ... behind many famous song demos, and even whole albums made by some of the most influential rock bands ever" by selecting the order in which your tracks are bounced to inject a new level of authenticity and vibrancy into a wide range of music and other recording efforts."

They could launch this with a contest to mix down the tracks for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. 

  • Great Idea 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, marled said:

It seems the Tascam multitrack tape recorders are missing!

In 1984 I had bought a Tascam 38 8-track half inch recorder. Later I complemented it with 2 Tascam dbx noise reduction units, a Tascam M-208 mixer and a Tascam 32 tape recorder for mastering. The sound, but also the tape consumption (1/2 inch tape, 15 ips) was awesome!

I did the same thing. Even if the sound was awesome my skills were severely lacking those days. Just like today.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bapu said:

I did the same thing. Even if the sound was awesome my skills were severely lacking those days. Just like today.

Sxxx, now you have exposed me! 😄 You could not have better described me! But I have to add that those days my skills were not only bad, there were almost no skills at all!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.soundclick.com/music/songInfo.cfm?songID=14328066

 

the first part was recorded on a task ms 688

 

the last part was in the box

 

I'm not going back

if you can't see the light, then go to bed

the file below was in the slit

you know what I mean?  the slit

https://www.soundclick.com/music/songInfo.cfm?songID=14326998

Edited by Jesse Screed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...