track digital then to tape?

[PT]

What do you all think of the idea of tracking to digital (Pro Tools) then sending the tracks to 2" tape. The idea would be to capture a little analog magic with the tape, almost as if I tracked to it in the first place. Then mixing would be off the 2" through an MCI board and down to 1/4" two track.

I track at home, digitally, because I have no money. But I will have mixes done professionally. I can have the engineer mix off 2" or straight from Pro Tools.

[Electricide]

well, If the professional studio can mix from pro-tools, then they probably have better D/A converters than you do.
In that case I'd say track to 2", then xfer to PT. This way you are only involved in one conversion, not two.
Plus the 2" will have more sound to color (pure sound straight from the mic)

[MoreSpaceEcho]

In my limited experience, tracking to digi then dumping to tape isn't as cool as recording to tape in the first place, but it's cooler than just tracking digi and leaving it. Mainly drums. IMO they don't sound like "drums!" without some tape involved. Not saying you can't get kick ass drums straight to digi, i'm saying I can't

anyway, track to PT, bring it to the studio, see what your engineer thinks. do a quick mix from PT to 1/4", see how that sounds. Might be just right, and save you the added time/expense of transfering to 2"

-scott

[cgarges]

I'd say track to tape first, then dump to digital. First of all, it helps you get parts right from the start, rather than relying on editing. Also, it makes a bit more sense sonically in that what you put to tape doesn't come back sounding exactly the same and you can generally get a better idea of how the tape will affect the end product if you can make individual adjustments along the way. For eaxmple, if your snare drum sounds dull coming back off the tape, you can adjust the drum, mic position or change mics, rather than having to rely on EQing (and therefore phase shifting) your tracks. Ultimately, you get a great-sounding analog master that you can then transfer to digital and sort of know what to expect when you go to mix. One more hint: you can actually get more apparent loudness from analog than you can digital because of transient compression.

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

[PT]

Let me clarify: I've already tracked to digital. I simply can't afford to track to tape in a good studio, even though I'd love to. Tracking to Pro Tools at home is where I'm saving tons of money.

With that said, is it worth it to dump my digital tracks on to 2" and then mix? The only cost would be the tape itself and the amount of studio time to transfer the tracks to tape.

[PT]

you can actually get more apparent loudness from analog than you can digital because of transient compression.

I guess what I'm hoping is that I can get some of this "after the fact" by dupming my digital tracks to tape. I realize it's not as good as going to tape in the first place. But, unfortunately, that's not an option for me.

[cgarges]

So you're talking about dumping to tape, then back to digital? Sounds like alot of hassle for minimal results, although I've never done this, so I could be wrong. I'm primarily taking A/D,D/A,A/D conversions into consideration. (This is before you actually mix, too.) What I've done and had terrific luck with is to mix to analog. Then you get all the benefits of an analog 2-track master and you know how it sounds coming back. Maybe there's someone on your area who could rent you a 1/4" machine inexpensively. Mix to the 1/4 machine (at it's fastest speed) and to digital simultaneously, then choose the best-sounding format for mastering. That may help you come closer to the desired result. Hope this helps.

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

[joel hamilton]

I agree with Cgarges...
Just mix out of protools, save on the rewind time and tape, and print to a couple of formats two track wise...

I would print to half inch at 15ips given that situation, but that is just me.

[PT]

So you're talking about dumping to tape, then back to digital?

No, no! Dumping to tape, then mixing to 1/4" tape, then mastering off tape. I'm talking about mixing to analog, just like you mentioned.

The only difference here would be, before mixing I would transfer the digital tracks I have right now on to 2" tape. Then mix all analog, all the time!

Joel says to save the hassel and mix right from Pro Tools to analog. So I take it he does not hear that much of a benefit transfering digital tracks to tape before mixing.

PS Joel, it is indeed a 1/2" machine I'll be mixing down to. I'll go for 15 ips.

[cgarges]

Cool, right on!

Chris

[wayne kerr]

The only difference here would be, before mixing I would transfer the digital tracks I have right now on to 2" tape. Then mix all analog, all the time!

Uhhhh... why don't you just track to analog in the first place??

[thewelfareline]

like always i didn't read the posts infront of me to see if this was already discusd, but i know if i'm tracking and using both formats i want to get the the most out of each format and use their strong points to the fullest. i track to tape so i can hit it hard and hot which is how i like tape, and i will transfer to digital to shift things around and edit and mixing i come out of the computer and mix through a console and use outboard gear. but thats just what i do and i am a big fan of how everything turns out.

[@?,*???&?]

You've got it backwards, track analog, overdub in Pro Tools or the equivalent and then transfer the new overdubs back to tape for mixing off tape. The openness beyond 20Khz on tape is essential for getting the critical harmonics from a drumkit. Remaining in the analog domain for mixing ensures the best preservation of those frequencies. Mastering with a real facility like Sterling Sound, the Mastering Lab or Bernie Grundman off 1/2" analog 2-track will afford you the most transparent copy of your material to send to manufacturing. Every decision accrues, make sure you make the best choices possible.

[MoreSpaceEcho]

guys,

he already tracked digital.

-s

[djslayerissick]

this makes total sense to me.

i look at this like re-amping. tracking straight to the recording platform, then sending the signal out to an amp after its already been recorded. in this case, the "amp" is the tape itself.

if i were to be in a similar situation, i would take my sweet time recording at home to PT. when i've got the best performances i can squeeze out and all the overdubs and everything done i could possibly want to add, i'd transfer the individual tracks to tape, with the same control and everything as if i had originally tracked to tape. and then mix analog with the final format being a tape master.

this way, if i want to slam the snare and kick to tape, but keep the overheads and uneffected, i can adjust the settings for different tracks as i transfer. otherwise, if you just send the full stereo mix straight to tape at the end, you're slamming all the tracks or none - no control. almost like pre-mastering to tape instead of mixing to tape.