The end of audiotape?

[Adam]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4259503

Last American Audio Tape Maker Closes

Morning Edition, January 5, 2005 · Employees of the audiotape manufacturer Quantegy in Opelika, Ala., started the new year looking for work. The company shut down without notice, surprising everyone in town. The company's closing could signal the end of the audiotape industry. NPR's Scott Horsley reports.

[AfricaBrass]

Wow!

I wonder what the recording studios are going to do?

[7/4]

Wow!

I wonder what the recording studios are going to do?

Use another brand?

[Ron S]

Wow!

I wonder what the recording studios are going to do?

Don't they mostly record direct to hard drive now?

[couw]

can't they just use existing recordings and tape them over? much cheaper that way.

[AfricaBrass]

Wow! 

I wonder what the recording studios are going to do?

Use another brand?

I know when I used to record in studios, we used Ampex tape. Everyone I knew used Ampex tape (which is Quantegy now).

Are there any other good brands are out there?

I know a lot of people are recording digitally, but there are fans of analog recording out there.

[AfricaBrass]

can't they just use existing recordings and tape them over? much cheaper that way.

They just need to be careful which recordings to tape over.

As long as they're Dave Koz or Kenny G tapes, it shouldn't be a problem...

[7/4]

Wow! 

I wonder what the recording studios are going to do?

Use another brand?

I know when I used to record in studios, we used Ampex tape. Everyone I knew used Ampex tape (which is Quantegy now).

Are there any other good brands are out there?

I know a lot of people are recording digitally, but there are fans of analog recording out there.

I didn't know that. When I recorded at a local studio two years ago, we used Quantegy.

Cat Shatner sure is looking...perkey these days.

Edited January 6, 2005 by 7/4

[Christiern]

It will be Chinese tape, of course!

You know, red tape.

[AfricaBrass]

It will be Chinese tape, of course!

You know, red tape.

[AfricaBrass]

Cat Shatner sure is looking...perkey these days.

Once again, Cat Shatner points the way to the future.

[7/4]

Cat Shatner sure is looking...perkey these days. 

Once again, Cat Shatner points the way to the future.

[Brandon Burke]

can't they just use existing recordings and tape them over? much cheaper that way.

It's both possible and common but also noisy. Virgin tape emits less noise than that which has previous housed a recording.

[Brandon Burke]

This is an interesting story. Generally speaking, I hardly think that this is the end of magnetic tape. Either some smaller manufacturers will pop up in the West or we will begin buying tape from Asia.

I'm waiting to see what happens to those patents that Quantegy got when they split from Ampex? Either they go for a zillion dollars or somebody's gonna make out like a bandit.... B-)

Edited January 6, 2005 by Brandon Burke

[Jim Alfredson]

Quantegy bought Ampex back in the mid-90s. Ampex tape used to be the best tape you could buy. In the last few years, the quality has suffered enormously, to such an effect that I know many studio owners who actually look for old-stock, even if it has been used before (usually if it's only been recorded on once, you're ok, but you could still have dropouts) and they pay good money for it.

No other company is currently producing reel to reel tape, the kind used in recording studios. So once the current stock of G9 is used up, that's it unless somebody else comes along and bails the company out or starts making their own tape.

The smart thing to do, in my mind, would be to buy the Ampex name, which has a lot of clout, and start making really high-quality reel to reel tape and charge double what it was going for previously. People would still pay the higher price if it was as good as it used to be.

I read this news awhile ago and was pretty bummed since an upcoming project with the trio was going to be tracked to 2", 24-track analog. It will probably be tracked straight to ProTools now.

And yes, it's true that most studios are using harddisks so this doesn't cripple the industry. To my ears, however, analog tape still sounds better. The problem is that, like vinyl, it is now a boutique format.

[Soul Stream]

It's a real crime that this format of audio storage is becoming an antique. Like the tube, it's an intergral part of what makes music sound good. Digital has come a long way, and we'll never go back. But imho, recording on digital and then recording the final mix on 1/4 inch magnetic tape is a vital part of making things sound good to the human ear.

The problem now is new engineers aren't even hip to magnetic tape. Aligning the tape heads, cleaning the machine, those are becoming a thing of the past.

This is all bad news to me.

[mikeweil]

In a way, some of this sounds like moaning the vanishing of horsecarts once the automobile was invented.

Given it is used properly and with taste, any digital recording method is by far superior to analog tape as far as dynamics and resolution are concerned. Remember direct-to-disc recording was invented in the 1970's to avoid the narrow dynamics of analog tape? Listening habits die hard. And fool us all the time - that's why compression works so well with pop music listeners. I've discussed this many times with a friend who knows a lot about engineering and we agreed that most arguments by fans of analog recording are either irrational or nonsense - matters of taste nonwithstanding.

I think the basic approch to recording - live to the recording medium, with natural room ambience and high quality microphones - is much more important.

[Christiern]

We didn't use tape back in the good old cylinder days--hell, we didn't even use microphones, or, for that matter, make pressings. Every little cylinder was a beautiful original.

Now, if you will excuse me, I'll get back to the liner notes I'm writing.

[Chuck Nessa]

Now, if you will excuse me, I'll get back to the liner notes I'm writing.

Chiseling tablets again?

[JSngry]

Does this mean the end of videotape, too?

And if not, why couldn't videotape manufacturers make audiotape as well?

Neverthenonetheless, I've got a several shelfloads of cassettes that were wearing black when I got in this mourning. Guess they heard the news

[Jim Alfredson]

In a way, some of this sounds like moaning the vanishing of horsecarts once the automobile was invented.

Given it is used properly and with taste, any digital recording method is by far superior to analog tape as far as dynamics and resolution are concerned.

Well, yes theoretically. In theory, 16bit 44.1kHz has better dynamic room and resolution but it still sounds like crap compared to good analog, especially wide tape running at 30ips.

Remember direct-to-disc recording was invented in the 1970's to avoid the narrow dynamics of analog tape? Listening habits die hard. And fool us all the time - that's why compression works so well with pop music listeners.

Are you saying jazz recordings don't use compression?

I've discussed this many times with a friend who knows a lot about engineering and we agreed that most arguments by fans of analog recording are either irrational or nonsense - matters of taste nonwithstanding.

Digital has finally gotten to the point where it sounds neutral thanks to high resolution formats like 24bit, 96kHz recording. But it's been a long time coming. And it is wholy dependent on the quality of the converters and the strength of the word clock. Tape still has a certain sound that is only attainable by using tape.

To me this arguement is like digital pianos vs. real pianos. In theory, digital pianos should sound great! You don't have to tune them, or worry about regulation (the action is always the same), they use samples from the best pianos in the world, meticulously recorded, etc. etc. But we all know compared to the real thing they sound like crap.

Or even better, it's like the arguement of film vesus digital video. Digital video gives you all sorts of options that you don't have with film: It's easier, more convenient, easily manipulated, cheaper, looks sharp, etc. But I don't think anyone wants film as a format to die. Maybe it's because our eyes are "used" to it, but when I see film next to DV, film wins every time. It's just so rich. That's the best way to describe analog tape as well. Rich. Like chocolate. Digital is like tofu.

[AllenLowe]

well, I've been on all sides of this one, and have recorded, and engineered recordings, in all formats. I do believe that, as Mike has said, with the right mikes, a good room, and a smart engineer (and no compression, but that's just my thing) you can make digital recordings that rival good analog. A bigger problem these days is isolation and what amounts to digital modeling of all instruments - if you record close-microphoned in a dead room than you will have to create all acoustic properties in the board, an unfortunate thing that will NOT make it sound natural. I have recently done some a-b'ing with a good multi-track tape machine and a direct-to-disc machine (at 16/44), with great monitors, and was truly hard-pressed to tell the difference. Now, give me two-inch with Dolby S, and THAN we can talk, as I am certain that would be noticeably better. But there is a gigantic grey area for musicians like myself, who need to make high quality recordings, are too old to deal with tape, and whose ears accept the very nice, if not perfect, digital results.

Edited January 7, 2005 by AllenLowe

[Chuck Nessa]

A bigger problem these days is isolation and what amounts to digital modeling of all instruments - if you record close-microphoned in a dead room than you will have to create all acoustic properties in the board, an unfortunate thing that will NOT make it sound natural

This situation has existed for at least half a century, so we can't blame digital. Isolation and dead rooms are not necessarily the same thing.

"Natural sound" can be many different things to different listeners in different listening situations and I don't believe it is always the best sound for a given musical presentation.

[AllenLowe]

I agree about this problem being an old one - and isolation and dead rooms may not be the same problem, but they frequently are part of the same problem. More and more engineers seem to be trying to deaden acoustics in order to have more freedom to play with the music afterwards - and this, today, amounts to acoustic modeling. In the old days it amounted to modeling by plate reverb, or whatever was used. Isolation, even in a good sounding environment, is a problem, in my opinion - the complete acoustic separation of instruments is why so many multi-track recordings sound so bad - each instrument exists in some weird kind of acoustically separate space, and no amount of good mixing can make it sound natural - for this you need bleed. I recently did a "live" multi-track of my own group with total bleed between tracks - I was able to have the flexibility to mix levels, but it still sounded like a real group playing together in a real room. About ten years ago I used the same technique to record Roswell Rudd with my group - and Roswell, who has done a lot of recording, but is very difficult to capture, told me it was the best that his sound has ever been recorded - (it also helped that I used no cpmpression or limiting, as this is often done with him as well) -

[AllenLowe]

just to add, I agree with Chuck that in certain cases "natural" sound is irrelevant - but in this I would tend to refer to projects that are more electronic, in which the recorded object is itself the artistic point, either electronically or through some other means. Look at Brian Wilson's amazing work, in which the layers of sound are specifically intended to evoke a certain feeling that has nothing to do with the group in its natural habitat. This could not have been done "live" -