|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 7, 2024 0:28:17 GMT -6
Recording to digital and then dumping to analog is arse about to my way of thinking; you want the tape thing uncorrupted by digital in the very first instance ; it's almost defeating any advantage going digital first Cheers, Ross I agree 100% - it almost always sounds worse. Recording TO tape is the best way. I did a mastering job only 2 months ago where the (experienced) band really wanted me to master via my 1/2 Studer A80. They did not like what tape did to it.
Tape always requires some effort to get what I want from it. It’s rarely as simple as any other rack gear. It takes a lot of work in how you send on the way into, and the way out. Kinda like tuning a drum kit and aligning microphones |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Sept 7, 2024 11:15:03 GMT -6
Tape FIRST then transfer and finish in Digital. There is a difference. That said, it's not enough for me to bother with tape anymore. More than anything, I like the workflow, but it's just not viable for me to keep a big machine running anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Sept 7, 2024 14:29:15 GMT -6
Thanks Dr. Bill. Only a little experience here. When I had a mint Teac 40-4. Complete with DBX. And a couple of listening visits to James Lugo's Studio. 16/2" Machine. Studer IIRC. Around 15 years-ish ago. Chris P.S. Even the UA Plugs sound (more than) "good enough" for my screwing around.  |
|
|
|
Post by samuelpepys on Sept 7, 2024 15:23:07 GMT -6
Tape FIRST then transfer and finish in Digital. There is a difference. That said, it's not enough for me to bother with tape anymore. More than anything, I like the workflow, but it's just not viable for me to keep a big machine running anymore. If you still did tape, would you be comfortable printing the mix to a "2 16-track instead of a 2-track if you had the choice between printing on a 2-track or the 16-track? I'm only talking about the sonics. I've still not really gotten a clear answer to my original question. Will there be a sonic advantage to using a 2-track machine for printing the mix, or is it irrelevant if it's a 2" 16-track machine or a 1/4" 2track machine? I'm just so accustomed to seing 1/4" 2-track machines in studios I've worked at, but if I can avoid buying two tape machines, I'd be very happy, but I don't want to compromise sonically in any way. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Sept 7, 2024 18:28:18 GMT -6
I'd prefer a 2 track. Less phase and azimuth issues all things being equal, less things to deal with, and again, all things being equal, I'd trust the transport more than a 2" machine. Plus, 1/2" two track has twice the tape real estate as 2" 16 track.
|
|
|
|
Post by samuelpepys on Sept 7, 2024 19:01:14 GMT -6
I'd prefer a 2 track. Less phase and azimuth issues all things being equal, less things to deal with, and again, all things being equal, I'd trust the transport more than a 2" machine. Plus, 1/2" two track has twice the tape real estate as 2" 16 track. Thanks man! Finally an actual answer to my question, lol. Ok, so that's basically the advantage of mixing down on a 2-track machine, less phase issues and azimuth issues? The track width on a 1/4" and two tracks of a 2" 16-track would be the same though, so the sound quality should be the same if I'm not terribly mistaken. Do you think printing to say track 7 and 8 without anything else on the tape would result in phase issues etc? |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 7, 2024 21:30:39 GMT -6
There are guys who will make you a 2” stereo mixdown headstack.
Also., Go listen to Thriller album. Bruce Swedien used 1/4” tape for his takes and flew the final takes to the 2” tape.
Otherwise it sounds like you don’t really want tape. I’d say stay away from it.
|
|
|
|
Post by drumsound on Sept 7, 2024 23:04:51 GMT -6
There are guys who will make you a 2” stereo mixdown headstack. Also., Go listen to Thriller album. Bruce Swedien used 1/4” tape for his takes and flew the final takes to the 2” tape. Otherwise it sounds like you don’t really want tape. I’d say stay away from it. Why would he have flown the mix from 1/4" to 2"? I've never heard about that. |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Sept 8, 2024 6:51:08 GMT -6
There are guys who will make you a 2” stereo mixdown headstack. Also., Go listen to Thriller album. Bruce Swedien used 1/4” tape for his takes and flew the final takes to the 2” tape. Otherwise it sounds like you don’t really want tape. I’d say stay away from it. Why would he have flown the mix from 1/4" to 2"? I've never heard about that. Just the way it was. I have reels of takes done that way. Thank God for DAWs. The 24 track is a great conversation piece… and that’s about all. |
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on Sept 8, 2024 7:54:49 GMT -6
Find yourself a 1” 2 track ATR-102.
If you can’t find that get a 1/2” 2 track ATR-102
Other than those two machines I personally wouldn’t touch tape these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Sept 8, 2024 8:00:21 GMT -6
Find yourself a 1” 2 track ATR-102. If you can’t find that get a 1/2” 2 track ATR-102 Other than those two machines I personally wouldn’t touch tape these days. And if you get a good ATR, you’ll be touching tape… A LOT! And heads, and cleaner, and swabs, and various allen keys and ofher tools. So bone up on yer lurnin!! |
|
|
|
Post by drumsound on Sept 8, 2024 9:34:34 GMT -6
Why would he have flown the mix from 1/4" to 2"? I've never heard about that. Just the way it was. I have reels of takes done that way. Thank God for DAWs. The 24 track is a great conversation piece… and that’s about all. I understand if you're mixing back to the machine for the sync thing, but why would you mix to 1/4" and fly it back to the multitrack? Is that some form of saftey/backup? |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Sept 8, 2024 12:42:26 GMT -6
Just the way it was. I have reels of takes done that way. Thank God for DAWs. The 24 track is a great conversation piece… and that’s about all. I understand if you're mixing back to the machine for the sync thing, but why would you mix to 1/4" and fly it back to the multitrack? Is that some form of saftey/backup? Track limitations |
|
|
|
Post by drumsound on Sept 8, 2024 17:40:43 GMT -6
I understand if you're mixing back to the machine for the sync thing, but why would you mix to 1/4" and fly it back to the multitrack? Is that some form of saftey/backup? Track limitations Are you talking about 'reduction mixes' for slave reels? |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Sept 9, 2024 7:16:29 GMT -6
Here's a mix I did from 2" 24 track. It was a decent recording done to tape in 1985-ish and I dumped it to digital from a well-maintained tape machine this year. Honestly I can't really tell that it was tape and I don't think I'd be able to tell the difference from a digitally captured mix.. realgearonline.com/thread/17315/said-more-funk-pulled-tape |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Sept 9, 2024 14:38:19 GMT -6
Are you talking about 'reduction mixes' for slave reels? Ok, way back in the olden days when us dinosaurs roamed the earth, we had 24 tracks . . . 1 of which was gone to Time Code. And you had 1 or maybe 2 tracks for lead vocals. So you ran a 2 track, recording a submix on track 2, and each a vocal take on track one. So then you listened back to the 2 track with the mix on one channel and the lead vocal takes on the other channel, and made notes of what you were going to 'fly' into your lead vocal track on your 24 track tape... or if you were lucky (like me) ion a couple of years you had 8 channels of 'Pro Tools' and could fly then in that way. That's just the way it was, Thank God things did change |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,083 
|
Post by ericn on Sept 9, 2024 17:43:01 GMT -6
I don't think I'd want to do the ADAT/RADAR/DA88 method ericn mentions on an analog machine. First off, you'd need to use inside tracks, and there can be feedback and crosstalk issues if you had things from the mix on adjacent tracks so you'd need to plan ahead and not record only say tracks 6 and 7, so now it's a 14 track, then you probably shouldn't have anything on 5 and 8, so now it's a 12-track deck, plus a '2-track machine.' Yeah the sync/punch thing is cool, but... If you're tracking drums and then dumping to PT, you could use a different tape for mixdown, and not deal with the above. But then you're spending a lot of money on your mixdown tape, AND you can't send it to any mastering house to have it mastered from the analog mix. And as you mention that your goal is 'the ultimate sound,' mastering from analog tape through analog gear should figure into your plan. So, you're still going to want/need a 1/4 or 1/2" deck. And if you're going to go that far, you may as well find a mastering room that still has a true A/B setup to master directly to lacquer for a full analog product. Hey Tony I didn’t say it was a great method, just that it had been done😁. Now personally I would track to tape and mix to digital, one major factor that nobody has mentioned that even if a mastering house has a tape machine, it probably is in a corner gathering dust, if they even have an alignment tape it’s probably shedding in a closet, and the odds of someone investing the time to bias it for your favorite tape are nil. |
|
|
|
Post by drumsound on Sept 10, 2024 7:45:19 GMT -6
Are you talking about 'reduction mixes' for slave reels? Ok, way back in the olden days when us dinosaurs roamed the earth, we had 24 tracks . . . 1 of which was gone to Time Code. And you had 1 or maybe 2 tracks for lead vocals. So you ran a 2 track, recording a submix on track 2, and each a vocal take on track one. So then you listened back to the 2 track with the mix on one channel and the lead vocal takes on the other channel, and made notes of what you were going to 'fly' into your lead vocal track on your 24 track tape... or if you were lucky (like me) ion a couple of years you had 8 channels of 'Pro Tools' and could fly then in that way. That's just the way it was, Thank God things did change That's what I thought you were getting at. I spent many a day on 2" tape (my studio is called Oxide Lounge after all) but for various reasons (time and space) I never got into sync. I would cut vocals early so I had a few tracks to comp, and/or did A LOT of punching. I don't think I'd want to do the ADAT/RADAR/DA88 method ericn mentions on an analog machine. First off, you'd need to use inside tracks, and there can be feedback and crosstalk issues if you had things from the mix on adjacent tracks so you'd need to plan ahead and not record only say tracks 6 and 7, so now it's a 14 track, then you probably shouldn't have anything on 5 and 8, so now it's a 12-track deck, plus a '2-track machine.' Yeah the sync/punch thing is cool, but... If you're tracking drums and then dumping to PT, you could use a different tape for mixdown, and not deal with the above. But then you're spending a lot of money on your mixdown tape, AND you can't send it to any mastering house to have it mastered from the analog mix. And as you mention that your goal is 'the ultimate sound,' mastering from analog tape through analog gear should figure into your plan. So, you're still going to want/need a 1/4 or 1/2" deck. And if you're going to go that far, you may as well find a mastering room that still has a true A/B setup to master directly to lacquer for a full analog product. Hey Tony I didn’t say it was a great method, just that it had been done😁. Now personally I would track to tape and mix to digital, one major factor that nobody has mentioned that even if a mastering house has a tape machine, it probably is in a corner gathering dust, if they even have an alignment tape it’s probably shedding in a closet, and the odds of someone investing the time to bias it for your favorite tape are nil. I still have my Studer A80r 1/4" but it gets used less and less. I did a to tape and straight back to the computer on the first mix of an EP recently and the band all preferred the console to PT over the tape mix. My MRL is in good shape and I calibrated the machine after it was on for about a half hour. I didn't bother with the machine after that first mix. Well, except the crappy speaker as an alternative monitor. |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 11, 2024 10:07:16 GMT -6
There are guys who will make you a 2” stereo mixdown headstack. Also., Go listen to Thriller album. Bruce Swedien used 1/4” tape for his takes and flew the final takes to the 2” tape. Otherwise it sounds like you don’t really want tape. I’d say stay away from it. Why would he have flown the mix from 1/4" to 2"? I've never heard about that. Yeah I was blow away to learn that as well. The following is what he called the “acusonic process” probably isn’t technically exactly correct, but it’s very close: First he’d mixdown the rough backing tracks to a 2nd machine, presume 1/4”. And use that mix as a work tape, likely machine synced to microprocessor. Put the 2” tape away. Then on another 1/4” also synced, record vocals, synths, guitars, everything onto 1/4” reels. A benefit is it’s way cheaper in tape costs than 2” work tapes. And every take can be on virgin tape. Also the master 2” reel doesn’t get degraded from shuttling. So he’d have stacks and stacks of 1/4” reels.. and when he had the final takes, they would fly those over build up the 24 track. So the 2” really was the master recorder, as Studer called it. So if OP wants to see how degraded 24” can dupe, he can check out his recording. A 16 track has wider width so it’s gonna be even less degraded |
|
|
|
Post by drumsound on Sept 11, 2024 11:19:49 GMT -6
Why would he have flown the mix from 1/4" to 2"? I've never heard about that. Yeah I was blow away to learn that as well. The following is what he called the “acusonic process” probably isn’t technically exactly correct, but it’s very close: First he’d mixdown the rough backing tracks to a 2nd machine, presume 1/4”. And use that mix as a work tape, likely machine synced to microprocessor. Put the 2” tape away. Then on another 1/4” also synced, record vocals, synths, guitars, everything onto 1/4” reels. A benefit is it’s way cheaper in tape costs than 2” work tapes. And every take can be on virgin tape. Also the master 2” reel doesn’t get degraded from shuttling. So he’d have stacks and stacks of 1/4” reels.. and when he had the final takes, they would fly those over build up the 24 track. So the 2” really was the master recorder, as Studer called it. So if OP wants to see how degraded 24” can dupe, he can check out his recording. A 16 track has wider width so it’s gonna be even less degraded I believe they were at Westlake for most of that record, so I'm not surprised they had than capability. It also sounds like a Bruce Swedien type of thing to do. He loved things in stereo... and pristine recording. I'm glad I never lived in the analog sync world. I'd have torn my hair out, i'm sure. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Sept 11, 2024 14:06:01 GMT -6
The greatest challenge lies in sourcing tape that is free of drop-out issues, a stark contrast to the tape we used in the '70s. Faced with this difficulty, I have resorted to using a plug-in. This is the case for cassettes too. They also claim to be high headroom but crap out or fuzz out on transients more. You're better off just using the Fuse TCS-68 channel strip than a Tascam now and the Tascam was the sound of many music types. It's another sound where the exact thing cannot be reproduced any only the recordings and memory of it remain. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Sept 11, 2024 16:32:21 GMT -6
I'm glad I never lived in the analog sync world. I'd have torn my hair out, i'm sure. It could be challenging for sure. Especially if you did not resolve machines to black burst, and stripe tapes in the same fashion from reel to reel. |
|
