Tape Emulation roundup

[Burillo]

I just re-read his posts twice and could not find what you claim he wrote - can you provide an actual quote?

sure:

...If you look more closely at the topic (and actually use *real* wide-format tape) and dive into the physics involved, it should become more clear that taking everything into account is mandatory with serious tape-sound reproduction, and once you omit a seemingly unwanted aspect, it all falls apart and becomes a caricature of a thing. Fine if you like that but please don't call it tape then.

right there, clear as day: don't call something tape if it isn't actually modeling tape and using oversimplifications. note: he's not saying digital tools are inferior, he's clearly stating if that the stated goal is to reproduce tape sound, if you oversimplify complex processes then the sound is "inferior to analog" (meaning, doesn't sound like the thing it's supposed to sound like), so don't call it tape - call it something else.

[jens]

Sure, but this quote does not mention anything at all in regards to superiority/inferiority concearning digital vs. analog, which we were talking about i.e. the quote you provided is unrelated to our recent discussion. your quote simply adds nothing of any significance.

[jens]

But it's the tiny subtleties that make up the sound, not the distortion that comes up when overused. Try using a simulation like they did in former times: slap instances across multiple tracks and busses, it's the accumulated effect that counts, and often best used when it's not noticeable right away but chances are there's something missing when you bypass all instances.

Tape has just so much interaction going on [...]. And it's interaction that makes things live and breathe. It's the oversimplification of complex phenomena that makes digital tools sound inferiour[sic!] to analog, not the domain per se.

You've misunderstood. Digital is [...] inferiour[sic!] to analog if you leave out important aspects.

[cthonophonic]

You may not be able to judge the quality of a sound objectively, but you can absolutely measure the quality of an emulation objectively. And seeing as how the context here is digital emulations of analog sounds, it seems weird to get your hackles up over the statement that overly simple emulations do a bad job.

I definitely don't claim to have a golden ear. More than once, I've been watching some YouTube demo of a console emulation where the narrator is cooing over the warmth or punch this plugin introduces, saying "do you hear that?" and I'm like "haha, nope." But all those old electronics are the result of years (or decades) of refinement, and the changes they introduce in the sound are not just artifacts that no one could get rid of; they were shaped to sound that way, and their character is part of the reason people like them. If someone likes the sound of tape, including all the character and subtle imperfections, well, why not give it to them? And if all someone wants is a saturator with a bit of high-frequency roll-off, hey, that's fine, but maybe they're not looking for a tape emulation at all?

[Delta Sign]

I just feel sorry for Sascha and all the other devs providing insight into the thought process behind their work.

It's sad how much people will twist and turn words until they become a tool to support their own narrative, but it's sadly quite common on the internet.
I mean, if these people have basic reading comprehension skills, which I assume they do, they must know what Sascha meant in this case. What's the point of trying to put words into his mouth? Drama? Attention?

But I'm maybe I'm overestimating people.

[jens]

I am not putting anything into his mouth if you refer to me. . All I say is that it is perfectly fair to interpret his words in that he said digital is inferior to analog unless it properly emulates "the tiny subtleties", the " complex phenomena", the "interaction that makes things live and breathe" of analog. It is also perfectly fair to argue this stance.

Only Sascha knows what he really meant and until he comes along and clarifies it in an un-ambigious way, I can't see anything wrong with arguing what we assume he stated / claimed. It's not like his words are holy or something.

So personally I fail to see a reason just why you would have to come up with ad-hominem attacks as you did. What is the point of that?

[jens]

If someone likes the sound of tape, including all the character and subtle imperfections, well, why not give it to them?

Nobody argues that. Nobody said there is anything wrong with tape-emulations. Would we be here if we would think that?

[sleepcircle]

I just feel sorry for Sascha and all the other devs providing insight into the thought process behind their work.

It's sad how much people will twist and turn words until they become a tool to support their own narrative, but it's sadly quite common on the internet.

it is regularly a source of profound dudgeon to me

[plexuss]

I have the posts sorted in reverse chronological order - newst first. I was hoping to get up to date on Tape Emulations but instead see reactions to sasha's post. I went back to read the post and scanned through the replies. I'd like to chime in...

I used tape from the late 70s until the '10s. I still have a deck but havn't used it in the last 8 years. I am well acquainted with tape. I also studied both electrical engineering and physics in university. I only mention this because it so parallels sasha's opening line.

Nothing sasha said is incorrect as far as my own experience goes or what I have gathered in knowledge. His comments about both tape and analogue are true - where I am using the word true to mean "with significant observable evidence that either unanbiguous or withing some narrow margin of error".

Rock on.

[sleepcircle]

anyway let me contribute positively to this topic by agreeing with everyone who has had a good word to say about Airwindows ToTape5

[Burillo]

But it's the tiny subtleties that make up the sound, not the distortion that comes up when overused. Try using a simulation like they did in former times: slap instances across multiple tracks and busses, it's the accumulated effect that counts, and often best used when it's not noticeable right away but chances are there's something missing when you bypass all instances.

Tape has just so much interaction going on [...]. And it's interaction that makes things live and breathe. It's the oversimplification of complex phenomena that makes digital tools sound inferiour[sic!] to analog, not the domain per se.

You've misunderstood. Digital is [...] inferiour[sic!] to analog if you leave out important aspects.

those things were said in context of a discussion about tape. why are you taking Sascha's words out of context and pretend like he said something he didn't say?

[jens]

Huh, you mean he was actually referring to digital tape vs analog tape?

You got me all confused here now... *scratches head, mumbling to himself while wandering off*

[Burillo]

Huh, you mean he was actually referring to digital tape vs analog tape?

well, yes - analog tape vs. digital models of tape, and how well they reproduce the sound of analog tape. did you think he was referring to a compressor or something? or are you now being anal and implying it's not clear that when he said "digital tools", he clearly meant "plugins" and not digital outboard gear?

[jens]

Straight to the point: I think he meant that the best digital tape emulation is objectively superior - as a tool - to a tape simulation that does not (more or less) perfectly emulate all the complex systematically intrinsic idiocracies of tape and also objectively superior to no tape emulation at all (i.e. pure digital). I am not arguing for the sake fo it but because that - hand on heart - is how I interpret his posts and while I can not be perfectly sure (because they are ambigious, purposely or not) personally I am convinced that is what he meant. Unlike you I am not saying everyone interpreting it differently than me is wrong.

As a sidenote: I really DO find you U-He followers seriously irritating (to say the least)and it is one thing that really puts me off (I am not saying this to stir the pot but because it is true).

[jens]

double-post...