|
Post by wiz on Jan 13, 2017 20:14:21 GMT -6
I wouldnt say my levels are low... 8)... a mix peaking at around -13 is pretty standard for me.. given what I set my 0VU point at and what I run my outboard at ... What is the 0VU point in dBm that Zulu would expect? cheers Wiz To answer your question: Its complicated. Running on equipment that's calibrated with 0VU = +4dbm, Zulu is fine when signal is at 0VU. Is it instantly distorting when you go beyond that? Nope. Does Zulu's reaction to signal that reaches 0VU and exceed 0VU change every time you adjust the Calibration, Headroom and Enhance controls, never mind the Deck? Yup. How far do you have to go before Zulu craps down and cries? We've run it +15db over 0 out of an SSL compressor before and for the source it exhibited usable signal without going into full blown distortion. THD was extremely high but in a musical way. I do this all the time for my clients mixes with my SP5A pres, driving them as much as I can but still on the cleaner side of the spectrum but slamming Zulu at the input. One thing to note, Zulu doesn't have what we identify per se as a threshold. Its not like you'll get the jamba juice to kick in at the same point on every mix or every source. Yes we could measure this with sine waves, scopes and all sorts of fun measurement equipment. It won't tell you a thing about how your mix is going to sound through it. I've listened to our A810, Teac machines and cassette 4 tracks (all devices with books full of specs and measurements) for 2 years straight trying to find the magic point that it all starts to happen and the reality is, these things have minds of their own. Every mix and source will do something different, every setting will shift around the patina, but this is true on a deck too. You listen, you close your eyes and when it sounds so sweet you could cry, look up...those meters are your enemy LOL. Depending on how you set up Zulu, that sweet spot could be -6db, it could be -.5, it could be +10db, you just have to go with it. When I did your prints on this song (dope record by the way), I wanted to try it full passive, especially since Lay Down through Zulu just sounded so damn good when I spanked the bejesus out of it with the mic pres and I wanted to see what the difference was on a production like yours. I noticed the best places to park it where when your mix was +13db on the send to the converters and at +9db on the send. Now mind you that was also because of the settings. I did a test but didn't upload it yet, where I had Enhance at 90%, Bias was Bright and the send level was +8db send to Zulu. Totally different sounding result and it sounded SCHWEET. Regarding your mix level, I didn't mean it as a slant against how you work, but I wanted to share how I'd suggest you approach this particular mix using it with Zulu, if you didn't have any fancy pres and such available to you. Each of these methods has its own dimension of sonics to offer the user. So it makes sense at the minimum to share my findings with each of these scenarios. Now, if you like the way your mixes sound coming out of your converters at -13db vs pushing them at -.5db then the use of a line amp is highly recommended and Zulu appreciates the extra spank. Read this 3 times, there's gold hiding in this statement. In your case, if you like peaking at -13db, then you may want to try strapping a pair of those juicy mic pres you got there (or the Soundcraft board for that matter) on the outputs of Zulu, this mode offers a cleaner sound than hitting it with a mic pre first or using it in a DAC>ADC loop. It also needs less juice from the source to get back a gorgeous sounding result By far this hookup is pure fun. I have a pair of Shure M67 that just slay in this application. I mean just so good! I have to try out my new Dukane and Unified Electronics pres to see how they do. Hope this helps some to illustrate what to expect! Thanks -L. Thanks for that..I didn't take anything you said as a slant. I was just clearing up how "I" would go about incorporating Zulu into my work flow, which is really heavily based about 0VU = +4dBm. Personally, I like to leave my converters "headroom" and run everything at that 0VU level I specified. It all works for me, regards repeatability, monitoring level, I can push and pull volumes if I need to out of a specific box... and everything I send to mastering (Bob O) has that sort of level on it. Looking forward to seeing how you go matching that lovely 440 that Noah has.... man that thing sounds sweet. cheers Wiz
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Jan 13, 2017 20:18:05 GMT -6
Wiz, was this song inspired by recent political events? Or just musing about the state of the world? Thanks -L. A little of both I guess.... 8) a touch of global dismay if you will.... I was sitting at the radio station, where i do my weekly "gig guide" report, and was looking at the fish tank.. watching this fish beat up all the other fish (and thinking about the parallel between the powerful and the meek).... and was thinking about how the earth is like that fish bowl... and how we treat it like if we take a leak on one side of the bowl, its not gonna effect everywhere else... and I was also thinking about Carl Sagan's monologue about the earth.. and also how "justice" in the pure sense of the word, has seem to gone by the wayside, if indeed it has ever truly existed in the first place.... you asked.... 8) cheers Wiz
|
|
|
Post by illacov on Jan 13, 2017 20:25:33 GMT -6
First of all sweet decks. Second of all, dammit these all sound good! I think I hear different pleasing harmonic non-linearity between these clips. I think between the 440B and the MM1000, the 440B has a really nice low end to it that I'm seriously digging on Wiz's song. The MM1000 has a nice top end sheen to it too. Both are definitely machines you can "hear." I already know how I can set Zulu to get pretty close to this sound. It is a really nice sounding result. I think with the Bias rolled back, it softens things a bit that can be perfect or imperfect for a source, that's why it goes both directions Thank you for running these tests. I'm sure you have a million ways you can do this (same here) but thanks for showcasing even this singular way that you've done it. Thanks -L.
|
|
|
Post by illacov on Jan 13, 2017 20:32:33 GMT -6
To answer your question: Its complicated. Running on equipment that's calibrated with 0VU = +4dbm, Zulu is fine when signal is at 0VU. Is it instantly distorting when you go beyond that? Nope. Does Zulu's reaction to signal that reaches 0VU and exceed 0VU change every time you adjust the Calibration, Headroom and Enhance controls, never mind the Deck? Yup. How far do you have to go before Zulu craps down and cries? We've run it +15db over 0 out of an SSL compressor before and for the source it exhibited usable signal without going into full blown distortion. THD was extremely high but in a musical way. I do this all the time for my clients mixes with my SP5A pres, driving them as much as I can but still on the cleaner side of the spectrum but slamming Zulu at the input. One thing to note, Zulu doesn't have what we identify per se as a threshold. Its not like you'll get the jamba juice to kick in at the same point on every mix or every source. Yes we could measure this with sine waves, scopes and all sorts of fun measurement equipment. It won't tell you a thing about how your mix is going to sound through it. I've listened to our A810, Teac machines and cassette 4 tracks (all devices with books full of specs and measurements) for 2 years straight trying to find the magic point that it all starts to happen and the reality is, these things have minds of their own. Every mix and source will do something different, every setting will shift around the patina, but this is true on a deck too. You listen, you close your eyes and when it sounds so sweet you could cry, look up...those meters are your enemy LOL. Depending on how you set up Zulu, that sweet spot could be -6db, it could be -.5, it could be +10db, you just have to go with it. When I did your prints on this song (dope record by the way), I wanted to try it full passive, especially since Lay Down through Zulu just sounded so damn good when I spanked the bejesus out of it with the mic pres and I wanted to see what the difference was on a production like yours. I noticed the best places to park it where when your mix was +13db on the send to the converters and at +9db on the send. Now mind you that was also because of the settings. I did a test but didn't upload it yet, where I had Enhance at 90%, Bias was Bright and the send level was +8db send to Zulu. Totally different sounding result and it sounded SCHWEET. Regarding your mix level, I didn't mean it as a slant against how you work, but I wanted to share how I'd suggest you approach this particular mix using it with Zulu, if you didn't have any fancy pres and such available to you. Each of these methods has its own dimension of sonics to offer the user. So it makes sense at the minimum to share my findings with each of these scenarios. Now, if you like the way your mixes sound coming out of your converters at -13db vs pushing them at -.5db then the use of a line amp is highly recommended and Zulu appreciates the extra spank. Read this 3 times, there's gold hiding in this statement. In your case, if you like peaking at -13db, then you may want to try strapping a pair of those juicy mic pres you got there (or the Soundcraft board for that matter) on the outputs of Zulu, this mode offers a cleaner sound than hitting it with a mic pre first or using it in a DAC>ADC loop. It also needs less juice from the source to get back a gorgeous sounding result By far this hookup is pure fun. I have a pair of Shure M67 that just slay in this application. I mean just so good! I have to try out my new Dukane and Unified Electronics pres to see how they do. Hope this helps some to illustrate what to expect! Thanks -L. Thanks for that..I didn't take anything you said as a slant. I was just clearing up how "I" would go about incorporating Zulu into my work flow, which is really heavily based about 0VU = +4dBm. Personally, I like to leave my converters "headroom" and run everything at that 0VU level I specified. It all works for me, regards repeatability, monitoring level, I can push and pull volumes if I need to out of a specific box... and everything I send to mastering (Bob O) has that sort of level on it. Looking forward to seeing how you go matching that lovely 440 that Noah has.... man that thing sounds sweet. cheers Wiz The 440 and the MM1000? Dammit you're getting all the goodies! I'll spit on my mitts and see what we can see. That 440 does sound pretty sweet man! Its got smooth top and thick bottom. I think where I may experiment a bit is with the way I have my Calibration settings. HX mode is super clean and next to no compression is happening on transients. The 440B doesn't sound like that and you can see it in the waveforms. I'm going to dig into the controls and see what gets me where Thanks -L.
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jan 13, 2017 20:37:03 GMT -6
Thanks so much Noah for doing this... the 440 sounds gorgeous...... man... the stacked backing vocals I did sound awesome on that... The other one the 1100 is good too, but that 440.... baby...8) Be interesting to see what everyone else thinks? In my session, I have put Kramer Tape, and VTM in as well.... and its interesting to compare the Plugs, Zulu and your two tape machines.... Wow.. the 440.... dammit 8) cheers Wiz Youre welcome. It was fun to do. Cool song. Ampex people will argue and disagree all day about these machines. For me the 440 is the one. It's also the most difficult to align and depend on. The mm1000 is pretty solid once it's aligned usually but even then I'm running over to it, adjusting levels, pulling and replacing cards, bias adjustments, fussing about. They're tricky. It sounds on those passes like potentially the 1000 could have used more bias on those 2 channels that I used which would have effectively smoothed out the top some. One of the cool things to do on a tape machine is bias to the sound you're recording. Swing the pot around and see what sounds best. I also aligned for +6 on the ATR which is a +9 tape. That sounds the best to me. It tends to get hard to my ears as I approach +9. It's also not the kind of tape that does that tape compression sound well to my ears. The point is there's more messing around with levels and bias that could be done to achieve different results. Time consuming and tricky. illacov seems to have factored all that cool stuff in to his design. Props for that. It's worth saying here that I'm really excited for Zulu, I gently tried to get illacov to send me one to try out and that I'm sure I will end up with one. I love the old tape machines but I also love all the new products designed to produce the sounds we miss as tape machines become more difficult to maintain and justify.
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jan 13, 2017 20:47:36 GMT -6
Also worth noting that you are hearing the playback circuit of the 440 which you would NOT hear if you mastered from tape. You'd hear the mastering studios playback circuit. I always send them tape and a digital capture through the latte of the 440. Sometimes it's better, usually it's not.
|
|
|
Post by illacov on Jan 13, 2017 21:07:06 GMT -6
Also worth noting that you are hearing the playback circuit of the 440 which you would NOT hear if you mastered from tape. You'd hear the mastering studios playback circuit. I always send them tape and a digital capture through the latte of the 440. Sometimes it's better, usually it's not. The preamp follower hookup is golden for this. You got options on options like this. By shooting Zulu through a mic channel (preamp dependent) you can get some pretty sick results. The preamps input trafo or lack thereof interacts with Zulu's output section and redistributes the harmonic and compression variables. The really crazy part is every different preamp will not only make sound different but also act different. Got Neves? API? Noah Im down to visit with a Zulu or two or 3. We can do a demo day.. etc You love what you hear? Then cash is king Thanks -L.
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Jan 13, 2017 22:07:19 GMT -6
I really, really, really like the mm1000.... smoking. I am hoping that illacov you can match that. if you do then........
|
|
|
Post by keymod on Jan 14, 2017 4:59:53 GMT -6
Is the "CLASP" unit still being built/sold? It would seem to me that anyone serious about integrating tape into a modern hybrid studio would want/need the marriage between a CLASP and the DAW/tape machine of choice. Of course, it adds a considerable amount of money to the equation but, from my limited point of view, the convenience of integrated workflow would make it worthwhile. FWIW, I am completely happy to track to my RADAR 24. I see using something like the ZULU with it as a nice option, and that may be the perfect solution. However, I have an eight bus board with which I plan to be able to sub-mix to my Otari 1/2" eight track and then final mix to my Otari MTR12 1/2" two track. The final two options are what I may try to offer as a service.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2017 7:41:38 GMT -6
Really cool thing to do. All 4 tracks added something nice to the clip, and yeah, the 440 was special. After that I couldn't decide between the Zulu +13S +6R (whatever that means lol) and the mm1000. Thanks Wiz, Illacov and Noah.
|
|
|
Post by illacov on Jan 14, 2017 9:26:03 GMT -6
FYI these comparisons at the moment are kind of out of context. I simply ran Wiz's mix through Zulu just because he asked me to, while we waited for Noah to run the song through his Ampex decks. The files I've uploaded are not my approximation via Zulu of an Ampex 440B or an MM1000 or any other Ampex. They are just me trying some cool settings out for Wiz. Now that we have a solid set of reference files from Noah, I can use those with my Zulu and really dial in the top end, the compression or lack thereof etc... The 440B is special, but the low end on it reminded me of what Zulu does to the low end on digital mixes ALOT. I have to really ear train the results vs Zulu in my studio to get them even closer but the 440B is definitely lurking somewhere within the settings of Zulu or damn close to it. The MM1000 clip does seem to have an interesting Bias sort of thing happening. The more compressed/crunchy Calibration settings like TK and MX will impact the compression and saturation of the low end in this way. Each of these decks presents an interesting set of parameters necessary to get their sound but they don't strike me as 100% beyond Zulu's reach. The more I spend time with all of these variation tape machines or good examples of what they can do, the more I realize that my blind concept of getting a core sound that you can configure, continues to dovetail into sonic opportunity in design. You know the whole issue of tape machines with failing/ailing components and bad heads or dead motors, gave me a wonderful idea. I'll try to find the right time and place to share it. BTW, anybody try adding hiss to the Zulu files yet? If you dig what the hiss does to the perception of the audio on the Ampex files, try adding some to the Zulu tracks. Its really cool Thanks -L.
|
|
|
Post by jimwilliams on Jan 14, 2017 10:22:38 GMT -6
I've rebuilt everything from 440's to Sony APR's. I like the MCI JH series the best. Those can record flat to 32k hz at 30 IPS with mods. THD will also lower from .55% at +3 to .15% at +9. 440's can sound pretty good with modern transistors and caps. I never liked dirty analog machines nor any in band roll-offs. Clean analog is a joy to behold.
I recently sent out some rebuilt Lyrec cards from Denmark along with a rebuilt Dolby 363 SR/A rack. Those came out great as they were designed with 072 opamps. I used a combo of OPA1612's, OPA1642's, AD 8512's and LME49720's. The front end head amp jfets were changed to low noise Toshiba 2SC3329BL's. Most of these rebuilt two tracks I do here are for archiving houses. They are relying on complete transparency and a recovery of all the electrons.
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Jan 14, 2017 15:37:27 GMT -6
I've rebuilt everything from 440's to Sony APR's. I like the MCI JH series the best. Those can record flat to 32k hz at 30 IPS with mods. THD will also lower from .55% at +3 to .15% at +9. 440's can sound pretty good with modern transistors and caps. I never liked dirty analog machines nor any in band roll-offs. Clean analog is a joy to behold. I recently sent out some rebuilt Lyrec cards from Denmark along with a rebuilt Dolby 363 SR/A rack. Those came out great as they were designed with 072 opamps. I used a combo of OPA1612's, OPA1642's, AD 8512's and LME49720's. The front end head amp jfets were changed to low noise Toshiba 2SC3329BL's. Most of these rebuilt two tracks I do here are for archiving houses. They are relying on complete transparency and a recovery of all the electrons. Hi Jim what would we expect sonically, if we played my original mix out to the MCI JH, as has been done with the MM1000 the 440 and the Zulu? What changes to the mix would you expect it would have? cheers Wiz
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Jan 14, 2017 15:39:43 GMT -6
If anyone else has a tape machine laying around and they have the time to pass the original mix out through I sure would appreciate it... I am sure everyone else would love to hear it too.
Also, try putting your favourite Tape Plug Ins on the mix and see how they fare against the hardware approaches... I can't even get close (close being relative) with VTM or KRAMER.. how does the UAD stuff fare?
cheers
Wiz
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Jan 14, 2017 18:23:57 GMT -6
Also worth noting that you are hearing the playback circuit of the 440 which you would NOT hear if you mastered from tape. You'd hear the mastering studios playback circuit. I always send them tape and a digital capture through the latte of the 440. Sometimes it's better, usually it's not. As someone not from the tape era, can you explain why ( for me a noob tape wise ) if you mastered from tape you would not hear the 440 playback circuit? You capitalized not making me ask if the 440 playback circuit is unwanted/ flawed/ skewing the mix? When you send off to mastering the tape capture which playback circuit are you using? ( latte? ) And I assume the digital capture of the 440 is done via the latte into the DAW and printed... Thanks in advance
|
|
|
Post by jjinvegas on Jan 14, 2017 18:44:51 GMT -6
I am going to make a few assumptions here for the sake of clarity. The main one being that the romance for tape-based recording is typically from people too young to have actually experienced it, but have read about it or obviously heard all kinds of records. But what are they really wanting, is it actually the machines themselves or is it an aesthetic consideration? Considering the impractical and expensive nature of the format, I believe it is all about aesthetics and production values. So what do you think impacted the recordings they favor, the format or all the other factors which are all about production decisions. Truly, it has a lot more to do with how you approach songs and your knowledge of various styles and your ability to call them up. Here is a song I did today, which sounds like it was done on a tape recorder, but not even a tape sim in sight. Just guitar, bass, drums, bit of organ, and a lead, recorded in your typical seventies manner. I think it has more to do with equalization to bring out more harmonic information is ranges that are era-appropriate, compression settings, and arrangement, and also a bit flashier playing style. But if anyone thinks that putting through a tape machine or simulator would make it more enjoyable i am all for it and will happily supply a WAV file for anyone who wishes to do it..... Here is the song.... clyp.it/agn2mhm0
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Jan 14, 2017 19:14:24 GMT -6
The fact that our 1" 8 track has been mothballed for almost three years says something I guess.
I have been occasionally toying with the idea of getting a 2 Track MCI JH-110 for use as an analog tape delay and for a mixdown machine but it would have to be in decent condition and cheap.
|
|
|
Post by illacov on Jan 14, 2017 19:30:09 GMT -6
I am going to make a few assumptions here for the sake of clarity. The main one being that the romance for tape-based recording is typically from people too young to have actually experienced it, but have read about it or obviously heard all kinds of records. But what are they really wanting, is it actually the machines themselves or is it an aesthetic consideration? Considering the impractical and expensive nature of the format, I believe it is all about aesthetics and production values. So what do you think impacted the recordings they favor, the format or all the other factors which are all about production decisions. Truly, it has a lot more to do with how you approach songs and your knowledge of various styles and your ability to call them up. Here is a song I did today, which sounds like it was done on a tape recorder, but not even a tape sim in sight. Just guitar, bass, drums, bit of organ, and a lead, recorded in your typical seventies manner. I think it has more to do with equalization to bring out more harmonic information is ranges that are era-appropriate, compression settings, and arrangement, and also a bit flashier playing style. But if anyone thinks that putting through a tape machine or simulator would make it more enjoyable i am all for it and will happily supply a WAV file for anyone who wishes to do it..... Here is the song.... clyp.it/agn2mhm0So pass it through Zulu as is? I havent listened yet, is it mastered? Whatever you've done stylistically can only be further driven home by adding an excellent sounding deck. I think of Gaucho by Steely Dan as a clear change in sonics from tape to digital. It still sounded great but it sounded different. Have to look up the deets. Thanks -L.
|
|
|
Post by scumbum on Jan 14, 2017 21:49:52 GMT -6
I am going to make a few assumptions here for the sake of clarity. The main one being that the romance for tape-based recording is typically from people too young to have actually experienced it, but have read about it or obviously heard all kinds of records. But what are they really wanting, is it actually the machines themselves or is it an aesthetic consideration? Considering the impractical and expensive nature of the format, I believe it is all about aesthetics and production values. So what do you think impacted the recordings they favor, the format or all the other factors which are all about production decisions. Truly, it has a lot more to do with how you approach songs and your knowledge of various styles and your ability to call them up. Here is a song I did today, which sounds like it was done on a tape recorder, but not even a tape sim in sight. Just guitar, bass, drums, bit of organ, and a lead, recorded in your typical seventies manner. I think it has more to do with equalization to bring out more harmonic information is ranges that are era-appropriate, compression settings, and arrangement, and also a bit flashier playing style. But if anyone thinks that putting through a tape machine or simulator would make it more enjoyable i am all for it and will happily supply a WAV file for anyone who wishes to do it..... Here is the song.... clyp.it/agn2mhm0The Black Keys album Brothers that Tchad Blake mixed .....it was all digital but EVERYBODY thought it was all analog . They used radar and mixed ITB with Pro Tools . Recording the album Magic Potion , “Then the tape machine broke on the second day we were working on the record, so we were just going straight into Pro Tools. But at that point I had some decent preamps — I had an API Lunchbox and I have a Shadow Hills eight–channel preamp thing that they don’t make any longer but it’s the same as the GAMA series.” Theres a funny picture somewhere online for one of these albums when they were recording with a digital recorder sitting on top of a broken tape machine . That was all the tape machine contributed to recording the album . Yet everyone always assumes they always record all analog .
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on Jan 14, 2017 22:05:35 GMT -6
I am going to make a few assumptions here for the sake of clarity. The main one being that the romance for tape-based recording is typically from people too young to have actually experienced it, but have read about it or obviously heard all kinds of records. But what are they really wanting, is it actually the machines themselves or is it an aesthetic consideration? Considering the impractical and expensive nature of the format, I believe it is all about aesthetics and production values. So what do you think impacted the recordings they favor, the format or all the other factors which are all about production decisions. Truly, it has a lot more to do with how you approach songs and your knowledge of various styles and your ability to call them up. Here is a song I did today, which sounds like it was done on a tape recorder, but not even a tape sim in sight. Just guitar, bass, drums, bit of organ, and a lead, recorded in your typical seventies manner. I think it has more to do with equalization to bring out more harmonic information is ranges that are era-appropriate, compression settings, and arrangement, and also a bit flashier playing style. But if anyone thinks that putting through a tape machine or simulator would make it more enjoyable i am all for it and will happily supply a WAV file for anyone who wishes to do it..... Here is the song.... clyp.it/agn2mhm0I very much so enjoy the process of making records with tape. I'm not talking about dumping to digital either - just straight tape start to finish. I personally feel that the musicians give more, they come better prepared, they LISTEN more while at the studio, and instead of saying "hey zoom in there I wanna see if I'm playing on top in that section compared to the drummer", they just adjust their playing on the next take. I feel like its easier to get sounds as well. Our tape machines aren't even in the control room. They are down an entire floor - we just have the remotes in the control room. I can turn a screen on to see the meters, but I never do cause you can just listen and hear how hot to hit the tape. I feel like the second you put a screen with info on it in a room that is made for LISTENING, it can really screw things up and gives lots of distractions to musicians who should just be concerned with playing.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 14, 2017 22:09:12 GMT -6
I've mentioned this several times in the past, but the production esthetic in the tape era was vastly different than today's generalized production esthetic. I agree with jjinvegas. I think this has more to do with sonics than "tape" does by a long shot. As is evidenced, many albums done digitally sound very tape like, but I suspect that is the direction of the producer. Tape alone will not get you to sound like you're in the 70's or 80's.
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jan 14, 2017 22:29:21 GMT -6
Also worth noting that you are hearing the playback circuit of the 440 which you would NOT hear if you mastered from tape. You'd hear the mastering studios playback circuit. I always send them tape and a digital capture through the latte of the 440. Sometimes it's better, usually it's not. As someone not from the tape era, can you explain why ( for me a noob tape wise ) if you mastered from tape you would not hear the 440 playback circuit? You capitalized not making me ask if the 440 playback circuit is unwanted/ flawed/ skewing the mix? When you send off to mastering the tape capture which playback circuit are you using? ( latte? ) And I assume the digital capture of the 440 is done via the latte into the DAW and printed... Thanks in advance So the tape machine is capturing the 2 track mix on the tape, THEN it's playing it back and you're monitoring that playback. Then you take the reel off the machine and send the tape to mastering. The mastering guy plays the tape on his machine and he captures that playback digitally. That is your master. You never hear your machine's playback circuit except when you are using it to monitor your mix. Make sense? You can think of it like your stereo D/A that provides your monitoring while you mix. You're hearing it but you're not recording it. When you play back in your car or House or somewhere else you aren't hearing the D/A that you monitored with while you mixed. Like I said before though, I'll always capture the playback of my 440 as I print. Then I send the tape AND the digital file to mastering just in case I like the sound of the 440 playback better. Mastering houses are not using 440s. They're usually using extremely modified and ultra hi-fi playback machines. They sound a bit different.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Jan 14, 2017 22:34:55 GMT -6
I am going to make a few assumptions here for the sake of clarity. The main one being that the romance for tape-based recording is typically from people too young to have actually experienced it, but have read about it or obviously heard all kinds of records. But what are they really wanting, is it actually the machines themselves or is it an aesthetic consideration? Considering the impractical and expensive nature of the format, I believe it is all about aesthetics and production values. So what do you think impacted the recordings they favor, the format or all the other factors which are all about production decisions. Truly, it has a lot more to do with how you approach songs and your knowledge of various styles and your ability to call them up. Here is a song I did today, which sounds like it was done on a tape recorder, but not even a tape sim in sight. Just guitar, bass, drums, bit of organ, and a lead, recorded in your typical seventies manner. I think it has more to do with equalization to bring out more harmonic information is ranges that are era-appropriate, compression settings, and arrangement, and also a bit flashier playing style. But if anyone thinks that putting through a tape machine or simulator would make it more enjoyable i am all for it and will happily supply a WAV file for anyone who wishes to do it..... Here is the song.... clyp.it/agn2mhm0So pass it through Zulu as is? I havent listened yet, is it mastered? Whatever you've done stylistically can only be further driven home by adding an excellent sounding deck. I think of Gaucho by Steely Dan as a clear change in sonics from tape to digital. It still sounded great but it sounded different. Have to look up the deets. Thanks -L. You prolly SHOULD look up the details.... ...pretty sure it's all analog. You're gonna have to jump ahead a decade to find all a lot of all digital recordings. The sound of the 80s was digital SOURCES (synths/Synclavier)....and the rise of "engineer ego" as influence on sound--and the ego's choice of mixer: SSL.
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jan 14, 2017 22:40:24 GMT -6
I hope that the silly romantic notion about tape dies a quick and final death and that all those people holding on to useless old doorstop tape machines start listing them for free on Craigslist like old pianos. It's a fact...tape is dead. It's all romance and BS...right wiz ? Spread the word!!!
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on Jan 14, 2017 22:47:51 GMT -6
Gaucho is analog tape for sure.
|
|