Recording into PT, then recording from PT into 24 track tape

Recording on to tape first in theory gives you some compression, so for many that means using less outboard. For a lot of people tape is as much about the workflow as the sound.

I'd think you'd want to treat it like an initial recording, including leaving a lot of processing off. But sure, get the edits and the comps first.

Regarding your second point: Why would it matter if using VU meters to set the levels? I mean, you'd set the levels on the tape machine using VU meters to adjust level just like you would if recording straight to tape, considering we're treating the output from ProTools like an output from a microphone. I'm talking about sending for example 8 drum tracks from PT like it was just the signal going straight out of the console into the tape machine, then adding the rest of the instruments/vocals the same way, basically doing the exact same thing and building the track the same way you'd do with a 24-track machine in 1979, and not setting levels within PT at all, but rather doing all that to tape instead. Other than several trips through conversion, it should be the exact same thing as recording straight to tape, right? Or am I missing something? It seems to me a signal from PT and a signal from a microhone through a preamp is 100% the same thing and should work the same going into the tape machine?

Yes, that's what I said in my last sentence.  (though I think many would disagree that the signal is 100% the same thing, nothing is perfect, but with a great interface it's close.) You can do it but it's time consuming and requires more circuitry in the signal path, both in gain stages (console) and converters.  There's no such thing as 100% transparent gear.  It's not bad, but in practice I got better sounding results by hitting tape first.  Maybe you will have different results.  You should try it for yourself.

Yeah level set minimally (console type) processed outputs to the machine as you would if you were recording directly to it at the beginning. Transfer it back. Let the tape sit a week. Transfer it again, see which you like. Do it after a month....

The question of more conversion seems like a thing so many people are comfortably ignoring in their workflows now already, tape is gonna swamp all of that. Recording to tape first and then importing for editing might be better, but is it enough for the workflow differences? Especially if you don't own a machine!

I agree with Justin.  ^^^^^^^^

OP - For sonics - tape first, digitize second.  I have different reasons *why* than Justin, but that's my experience.  Once you hit the A/D for the first time, something is lost that you can't recover.  It's not lost when you hit tape.  Or I guess to be honest, some of it is, but it's lost in a really GREAT way which is why you're even suggesting this exercise to begin with.  More of an additive process than digital's subtractive process.  (That's the best way I can put it.  It's pretty intangible and hard to put into words.)

Unless you've lived with a tape machine day after day and really come to instinctively realize what it's doing to the sonics at various levels, various speeds, which track you're recording too, etc., there is a good chance you'll just think I'm a crackpot.

Of course, from pure convenience, putting the DAW first - then editing, comping, etc. and using the tape machine as an "effect processor" later seems the way to go.  IME, it's not if you are after the sound of tape.

Capture it first before digitizing.

Absolutely.  But I think that may be a different - although fascinating - conversation.

Hmm, that makes sense. I use an old great sounding Telefunken 2-track to print my mixes to as it is and is considering a Studer a810 as well, but I'd like to include a 24-track into the equation so that each individual track is passing through the process and getting the much coveted tape compression, rather than just the entire mix. Since I really don't compress anythning these days, some subtle tape compression on each individual track before mixing would be a welcome thing. However, I'm not interested in losing the convenience of PT in the comping/editing stage, which is why I'm trying to figure out how to get the tracks onto a 24-track machine without having to transfer to PT after the fact and manually allign the 60 or so takes to comp. We're talking many hundreds and hundreds of takes on just one song, and having to manually transfer and allign that many tracks in PT from tape seems like literally days of work. This is why I'm trying to find ways to get the same sound without having to deal with tape before editing. Hmmm, could a machine possibly be modified to play back from the tape what is being recorded as it is recorded? Seems like an esotheric thought, but that could be a way to go about it if it works. There's also mix:analog and other services where you can run a mix through tape machines, and I'm wondering how they manage to achieve the same thing.

My goal is to offer a service someday for guys like us who want the tape sound. IF I can ever finish my Studer in the DIY section hehe. These beasts are hard to rebuild and many have failed lol.

I can already bounce digital to tape and back and it’s sample accurate using my JH110. MCI are just solid timing wise. I can do a typical 5min 20 track song in about 1 hour. Everything lined up with the original wavs, timstamped, so we could choose the tape vs digital easily. Shockingly even drums show no phase issues..

...sets 550 opposite of this....

With a bunch of smaller tape machines sitting in storage & having owned a 2 in and having been talked down from the ledge of buying more than a 2in machines in the DAW age before you make that leap sit down and figure out how your going to pay for it. I don’t just mean the purchase, I mean the up keep as well, got tech? I mean tape, as well ask anyone with a tape machine how many clients walked in the door craving the sound of tape till they found out the cost. I know the concept of “ my niche is going to be offering 2in, nobody around me offers it. There is this whole community that craves it.” Yeah I have heard it and seen the results of this buisness plan time and time again, what you have to realize is why that old studio that has been around for over 30 years either dumped their tape machine or is selling it, because at this point it isn’t making money!

I actually have a tape machine and have done these very experiments, so I know the difference.

Preamps can give you a much hotter output signal than the outputs of a DAC and it makes it much easier to overdrive the tape (and it's electronics) a bit. You can do it with a DAC, but you start getting into the levels where the DAC outputs might not have enough gain to get the tape to distort.

However, the tape sound is a lot more subtle than anyone knows. A well maintained and aligned machine should NOT be adding a bunch of compression and harmonics to the signal even at pretty hot levels. You have to FORCE this to happen either with really hot input signals, or by purposely aligning the machine so that it becomes nonlinear at much lower levels.

So either way can get you what you want, but a properly aligned machine will only really give you that tape "sound" when you use super-hot preamp outputs pushing it.