Digital Recording Transferred To Tape- Worth It?

[@?,*???&?]

I love tape. Don't get me wrong.
But when I spend a long time getting a tone just right, that sits with the tracks already printed, then print it, and have it play back just different enough that it's no longer just right, because of the (often glorious) imperfections of tape, it bums be out. So to say tape is "always beneficial" is really misleading...

Also, I've done some mixes where we did both analog and digital, and at the end of the day, the digital mixes won out. (Admittedly, the minority of the time...) It's not 100%. And yes, the machine was nicely calibrated and maintained.

Worry about hiss? Generally, no. But again, context is everything. Perhaps adding to the noise floor that already exists isn't beneficial to the recording.

To say that "things can sound more musical" is spot-on. The operative word being "can".

So, my point? Try it. It might work. If it doesn't, no sweat, and now you know.

I know where you're coming from here. The Studer A-80 1/2" machine has a particular bump on the bottom and depending on you over or under bias, your top end can move around too. All decks running 30 IPS exhibit this. 15 ips can be more flat overall. I used to dislike that unpredictable coloration below 60 hz myself, but then I found out that the machine printed with a flat frequency response and the playback electronics were the culprit. Then I started using BASF 911 1/2" tape and all was blessed and markedly better. Great tape. Anyhow, RMGI now manufactures a tape based on the BASF 911 formulation. Give it a shot.

[Mark Alan Miller]

Jeff - thanks for the tip. I've used that formulation, too. It's great.

I'm in a place now where, when I go to tape, I do it for the coloration. Best of both worlds kinda way to live, and it suits me well.

[Meriphew]

I recorded my upcoming release with some really good mics/pres to a HD recorder. I then mixed it through a nice Neve console to a 1/2" Ampex deck. Yum. I think it's a great idea to hit tape somewhere.

[Roman Sokal]

i myself noticed a reasonable improvement in sound when i first transfewrred a digital recording to analog.
it was something recorded on adat, and i mixed it down to 2 tracks of a teac 1/4" 4-track. then i took the mix from that and transferred it to cd-r and dat. it, well, helped make it appear to sound more 'analog'!

[Mark Alan Miller]

i myself noticed a reasonable improvement in sound when i first transfewrred a digital recording to analog.
it was something recorded on adat, and i mixed it down to 2 tracks of a teac 1/4" 4-track. then i took the mix from that and transferred it to cd-r and dat. it, well, helped make it appear to sound more 'analog'!

I'll say that transferring anything recorded on ADAT to tape will be improved!

[joninc]

booo - adats aren't the devil - ever listened to Yo La Tengo's masterpiece - "i can hear the heart beating as one"? yup, adats.

the format is not the most important link in the chain people! it's about great songs/performances/arrangements and engineering. not about tape vs digital or motu vs PT.

not to say there are no differences BUT it will not make a thin mix sound fat! it won;t make bad recordings sound good - not to say your recordings are bad. i used to blame bad sounds on gear all the time - and then i got to mix on an ssl. was it better? sort of - clearer for sure but the same mix problems i had at home i still had there. there is so much to be said for good engineering. a great engineer can make a good sounding album with the most basic of tools.

here's an idea - why don't you get someone you respect or trust to mix a tune you have already mixed and see how different it can be? maybe do a day in a different studio with a different set up of speakers and outboard and see if it makes a difference? maybe your room is lying to you. maybe your monitors are flattering you....

good luck!

j

[Mark Alan Miller]

booo - adats aren't the devil - ever listened to Yo La Tengo's masterpiece - "i can hear the heart beating as one"? yup, adats.

the format is not the most important link in the chain people! it's about great songs/performances/arrangements and engineering. not about tape vs digital or motu vs PT.

not to say there are no differences BUT it will not make a thin mix sound fat! it won;t make bad recordings sound good - not to say your recordings are bad. i used to blame bad sounds on gear all the time - and then i got to mix on an ssl. was it better? sort of - clearer for sure but the same mix problems i had at home i still had there. there is so much to be said for good engineering. a great engineer can make a good sounding album with the most basic of tools.

here's an idea - why don't you get someone you respect or trust to mix a tune you have already mixed and see how different it can be? maybe do a day in a different studio with a different set up of speakers and outboard and see if it makes a difference? maybe your room is lying to you. maybe your monitors are flattering you....

good luck!

j

I do agree with all the points above, for sure, but I still stand by what I said. ADAT converters, especially older ones, sound less-than-great. Does that mean great records can't be made on them? Heck no. Does that even mean that I personally haven't made records that I think sound wonderful on them? Heck no again! Does that mean that I didn't have to work with (or against, perhaps) the limitations of the converters? Again, no. Was I making a sweeping generalization about the sound of ADATs and how analog could affect such sound. Sure!

So, back to agreeing with you. If it's a matter of the tools vs who's using them, the latter always wins regarding the results.

[w_]

Another question...is this process going to add any noise? I actually would like a little noise to bring everthing together, so to speak. I'm now considering if I should just do this myself on a 1/4" or 1/2" deck.

[vatoben]

good question. this thread has me wanting to put some tape "silence" in between tracks. it would probably sound great in stoppy parts of songs when all the sound files are trimmed....got me thinking...

[amyfarrand]

Another question...is this process going to add any noise? I actually would like a little noise to bring everthing together, so to speak. I'm now considering if I should just do this myself on a 1/4" or 1/2" deck.

sure it will add a little noise.
you can always add more to the tape.
i don't know how many tracks you're working with, but it's pretty easy to find
1/2" 8 tracks.
i recorded a record on one and THEN transferred it.
it sounds warm and full.
if you do this, you'll probably want to transfer to tape and then back to digital.(for mastering)
i know a couple of people who have done that.
it's a pain in the ass, but it worked.
i say go for it.
you'll learn something no matter what.

[oxfist]

since i work almost exclusively in the digital realm, i have done a couple of experiments with tape. cassettes mostly, since my card only has 2 ins and 2 outs.

after dumping to cassette and re-recording back into my machine, i have found that the waveform itself is noticably altered. rounded edges rule where jagged lines once called home. now, i can't explain all that tape does, but it does something... cause i have seen it and have heard a difference in the wave file itself.

(yes, there is a lot more going on than just a tape dump... a/d, tape, d/a, but this is a discussion about the wonders of tape, right?)

i like a lot of the other suggestions people have made about finding the one track in your song that could use a kick in the pants. gain, eq, saturation, expanders and analog distortion are all your best friends in the world of 1's and 0's.

hell, skip the tape and strap a couple "warming" plugs across your buses. the right combo could be better than tape!

there is no right or wrong way. have fun. experiment. you aren't going to be tested on any of this stuff.