Tape Compression / Spectral Compression

[Per Liljesson]

Can the characteristics of tape compression be simulated with multiband
compression (only compression of course, not analog circuitry), such as
Voxengo Soniformer VST plug(www.voxengo.com, not using it just speculating
whether possible). I guess I'm interested to know what's causing the the
richness when using tape. If someone could explain or direct me to some
material would be great.



--
/Per

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
Per Liljesson > wrote:
>Can the characteristics of tape compression be simulated with multiband
>compression (only compression of course, not analog circuitry), such as
>Voxengo Soniformer VST plug(www.voxengo.com, not using it just speculating
>whether possible). I guess I'm interested to know what's causing the the
>richness when using tape. If someone could explain or direct me to some
>material would be great.

All kinds of stuff are going on with tape, most of which have very little
to do with actual compression if you're not hitting the tape hard. And
I don't think anyone has done a real study on it, but if they have, Jay
McKnight will probably have it up on his web site.

The 'blending' effect you get from analogue tape probably has more to do
with IMD than anything else.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"Per Liljesson" > wrote in message
...
> Can the characteristics of tape compression be simulated with multiband
> compression (only compression of course, not analog circuitry), such as
> Voxengo Soniformer VST plug(www.voxengo.com, not using it just speculating
> whether possible). I guess I'm interested to know what's causing the the
> richness when using tape. If someone could explain or direct me to some
> material would be great.
>

There's lot of plugins that specialize in doing just tape compression.

[P Stamler]

>All kinds of stuff are going on with tape, most of which have very little
>to do with actual compression if you're not hitting the tape hard. And
>I don't think anyone has done a real study on it, but if they have, Jay
>McKnight will probably have it up on his web site.
>
>The 'blending' effect you get from analogue tape probably has more to do
>with IMD than anything else.

What Scott said. But there are a few things to mention. One is that many of the
multitrack and mixdown recorders used in pro studios over the last 20 years are
Studer machines, and they have a sound of their own, quite aside from what the
tape does. You can hear it when you listen through them with the selector set
to SOURCE: a rounding-off of the sound, almost like subtle compression. It's
been characteristic of every Studer machine I've used, from B67 through the big
guys. Personally I don't like it, which is why I prefer Ampexes (Ampices?), but
a lot of people do.

The second thing to consider is that many popular tapes, most notably Ampex
(Quantegy) 456, exhibit noticeable softening in the highs during the first week
or two after they've been recorded, and more slowly thereafter. Again, not
something I like, which is why I preferred Agfa (BASF) 468 back when I did a
lot of analog recording. (I haven't used much analog tape since the really hot
formulations like 499 came out, so can't say whether they do the same thing.)

Those are just a couple of factors. There are, as Scott says, lots more.

Peace,
Paul

[Winter]

"Ricky W. Hunt" > wrote in message
news:q7vob.69224$Fm2.56797@attbi_s04...
> "Per Liljesson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Can the characteristics of tape compression be simulated with multiband
> > compression (only compression of course, not analog circuitry), such as
> > Voxengo Soniformer VST plug(www.voxengo.com, not using it just
speculating
> > whether possible). I guess I'm interested to know what's causing the the
> > richness when using tape. If someone could explain or direct me to some
> > material would be great.
> >
>
> There's lot of plugins that specialize in doing just tape compression.
>
Hardware boxes, too. Like Crane Song's HEDD192 & Empirical Labs' FATSO.

--
Winter
www.EMBStudios.com
A World of Good Music
(510)325-1029

[Paul Bawol]

What Paul S. said. Lots of recordings tracked on MCI machines and mixed down
to Ampex ATR-102 decks in the last 20 years also. With and without Dolby SR
at both the tracking and mixdown phases, the presence of which substitutes
it's own agenda for a lot of the tape compression possible without NR. Each
machine has a sound all its own, a well tempered MCI is often thought to be
especially sweet on the top end as opposed to the Studer, which can have a
big, tight low end. Analog recording itself is, in effect, an effect.

As for what went on prior to the last 20 years, the name Scully rears its
head, and that's a whole 'nother story...

....Paul

--
************************************************** ********
"In the analog realm, it ain't "OVER" 'til it's over."


"P Stamler" > wrote in message
...
> >All kinds of stuff are going on with tape, most of which have very little
> >to do with actual compression if you're not hitting the tape hard. And
> >I don't think anyone has done a real study on it, but if they have, Jay
> >McKnight will probably have it up on his web site.
> >
> >The 'blending' effect you get from analogue tape probably has more to do
> >with IMD than anything else.
>
> What Scott said. But there are a few things to mention. One is that many
of the
> multitrack and mixdown recorders used in pro studios over the last 20
years are
> Studer machines, and they have a sound of their own, quite aside from what
the
> tape does. You can hear it when you listen through them with the selector
set
> to SOURCE: a rounding-off of the sound, almost like subtle compression.
It's
> been characteristic of every Studer machine I've used, from B67 through
the big
> guys. Personally I don't like it, which is why I prefer Ampexes
(Ampices?), but
> a lot of people do.
>
> The second thing to consider is that many popular tapes, most notably
Ampex
> (Quantegy) 456, exhibit noticeable softening in the highs during the first
week
> or two after they've been recorded, and more slowly thereafter. Again, not
> something I like, which is why I preferred Agfa (BASF) 468 back when I did
a
> lot of analog recording. (I haven't used much analog tape since the really
hot
> formulations like 499 came out, so can't say whether they do the same
thing.)
>
> Those are just a couple of factors. There are, as Scott says, lots more.
>
> Peace,
> Paul

[Fill X]

>Studer machines, and they have a sound of their own, quite aside from what
>the
>tape does. You can hear it when you listen through them with the selector set
>to SOURCE: a rounding-off of the sound, almost like subtle compression. It's
>been characteristic of every Studer machine I've used, from B67 through the
>big
>guys. Personally I don't like it, which is why I prefer Ampexes (Ampices?),
>but
>a lot of people do.

I think ampex machines in general have a lot more of a "Sound" than studers do.



P h i l i p

______________________________

"I'm too ****ing busy and vice-versa"

- Dorothy Parker

[Fill X]

I think tape compression is thought of in much too extreme a way these days. It
really depends on what type of tape formula you're talking about. While modern
tape will compress and saturate some, it's nothing like old tape formulations.

I do NOT have the experience a lot of people do with tape emulators (i use
tape, i dont need 'em) but that said, whenever I've heard one I've like the
sound of the recording better without it, because I have often just seen people
basically adding 3rd order harmonic distortion in an amount, or form, that I
don't find pleasing. A good tape machine can be very pleasing and I'm surprised
more people ( i realize there are legitimate reasons) don't just use a tape
machine when they want that tape "sound".

I'm sure it can be used well, but I guess it's like auto-tune; people who use
it tend to use way too much.


P h i l i p

______________________________

"I'm too ****ing busy and vice-versa"

- Dorothy Parker

[Scott Dorsey]

Fill X > wrote:
>>Studer machines, and they have a sound of their own, quite aside from what
>>the
>>tape does. You can hear it when you listen through them with the selector set
>>to SOURCE: a rounding-off of the sound, almost like subtle compression. It's
>>been characteristic of every Studer machine I've used, from B67 through the
>>big
>>guys. Personally I don't like it, which is why I prefer Ampexes (Ampices?),
>>but
>>a lot of people do.
>
>I think ampex machines in general have a lot more of a "Sound" than studers do.

Depends a lot on the machine. My old 350 had a very obvious sound, but the
ATR-100 is pretty amazing about not having one (if you avoid the I/O units).
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[John Noll]

Fill X wrote:

snip...


.. A good tape machine can be very pleasing and I'm surprised
> more people ( i realize there are legitimate reasons) don't just use a tape
> machine when they want that tape "sound".
>
>

It never ceases to amaze me that people will try so hard to emulate a
particular sound when it is easy and inexpensive to use the real thing
with much better results.

--
--
John Noll
Retromedia Sound Studios
Red Bank, NJ 07701

Phone: 732-842-3853 Fax: 732-842-5631

http://www.retromedia.net