Re: The SOS interview

[afcpeters@aol.com (AFC PeterS)]

In article <01HCKW0UE1X6AAY2XA@ccmail.sunysb.edu>,
PMANCHESTER@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Peter Byrne Manchester) writes:

> "We weren't really sure whether it was going to work or not--we
were
> kind of thinking that without tape compression we may not get the
> same drum sounds...".  Huh?!  By "tape compression" he presumably
> means the clipping of transients due to the limited dynamic range
> of analogue tape.  There are better and worse ways for this to
> exhibit itself--better is simply a dulling down of the impact or
> punch aspect of the percussive `hit'; worse is audible splattering
> of the leading edge of the sound.  But surely neither is a sound
> one would relish, and not want to part with!? 

Actually, tape compression can sound pretty good, and many engineers
still prefer to use analog tape and hit it very hard to get that
sound. Roy Thomas Baker was particularly famous (or infamous) for
this; he slammed the tape something fierce for the Queen records he
did, and I think they sound splendid. One result is that you get a
lot of third harmonic distortion which, rather than dulling the
sound, tends to make it sound brighter and silkier. This is similar
to tube (valve, to you) distortion. Obviously, there's a limit before
it starts to sound bad, but pushing the needle into the red is quite
acceptable for analog recording. In digital, it's disasterous.

Of course, there are other ways to get that sort of sound when
recording digitally. A good tube compressor would be one way. I think
Del's choice of a "cold" sounding compressor is a mistake, especially
when printing to digital; a warmer sound could still work for what he
wants to do, it just wouldn't be so horribly exaggerated.


Peter Stoller