"Tracking to Tape" vs. "Mixing to Tape"
-
- alignin' 24-trk
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 11:17 pm
- Location: Denver CO
- Contact:
"Tracking to Tape" vs. "Mixing to Tape"
I certainly have an opinion on the subject but am interested to hear what others think. I am an upright bass player in a region with not that many upright players. I end up getting a lot of calls for session work and over the years have had the opportunity to play in a wide variety of studios around the southwest. Some sketchy, and some very very nice. I also record and mix music in my studio for my "day job". My place is not super high end, but it's not that shitty either.
For me, the financial factors have dictated that it's pretty cool to have a couple of nice half track quarter inch machines to mix to, while resisting the urge to spend lots of money on multi-track recording machines that are expensive to upkeep and have a limited (though enthusiastic) draw in terms of clients. I will admit that I have been very impressed with a couple of studios that I have recorded in that tracked to tape (most notably Bill Palmer of Hundred Year Flood fame at Frogville Studios in Santa Fe, NM). I will also admit that I have been very unimpressed by a couple of other studios that I have tracked at that have made famous records and have a reputation for tape (most notably Names With-Held).
When recording at sample/bit rates that exceed the range of human hearing and then dropping them to tape at the mix stage, I feel that I am able to take advantage of certain pleasing aspects of tape, and still keep things financially do-able in terms of time spent, ease of editing, and cost of tape/upkeep/parts. Sometimes, rather than dropping whole mixes to tape, I opt to throw down drum busses or guitar tracks or whatever, and bring them back in, sync them up, and I'm a happy camper.
I am reasonably sure that someone will strongly disagree with me on the idea that mixing to tape can yield comparable benefits to multi-tracking to tape. I am interested to hear the arguments. Does anyone else have a strong opinion either way?
For me, the financial factors have dictated that it's pretty cool to have a couple of nice half track quarter inch machines to mix to, while resisting the urge to spend lots of money on multi-track recording machines that are expensive to upkeep and have a limited (though enthusiastic) draw in terms of clients. I will admit that I have been very impressed with a couple of studios that I have recorded in that tracked to tape (most notably Bill Palmer of Hundred Year Flood fame at Frogville Studios in Santa Fe, NM). I will also admit that I have been very unimpressed by a couple of other studios that I have tracked at that have made famous records and have a reputation for tape (most notably Names With-Held).
When recording at sample/bit rates that exceed the range of human hearing and then dropping them to tape at the mix stage, I feel that I am able to take advantage of certain pleasing aspects of tape, and still keep things financially do-able in terms of time spent, ease of editing, and cost of tape/upkeep/parts. Sometimes, rather than dropping whole mixes to tape, I opt to throw down drum busses or guitar tracks or whatever, and bring them back in, sync them up, and I'm a happy camper.
I am reasonably sure that someone will strongly disagree with me on the idea that mixing to tape can yield comparable benefits to multi-tracking to tape. I am interested to hear the arguments. Does anyone else have a strong opinion either way?
Michael-
-
- zen recordist
- Posts: 7474
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 10:30 pm
- Location: Bloomington IL
- Contact:
I like tape. I use it for tracking and mixing whenever possible. I find that it makes a sonic impact whenever in the process its used. I feel it has more impact i tracking than mixing, but I still feel trcking to digital and mixing to analog is worth the money. Part of why I think tracking to tape makes a bigger impact, is because mixing off tape seems to be easier to me. Tomes come together faster and there always seems to be more blend from the onset.
Or I just tell myself that to justify the washing machine sized power eater in the back of the room...
Or I just tell myself that to justify the washing machine sized power eater in the back of the room...
The main difference for me is that drum transients specifically are more "softened", thus making them easier to fit into space, so to speak. I find also that my mixes feel more dense when I track and mix to tape..... even if I track to tape then dump to Pro Tools..... you gain the transient softening when doing so..... it feels like compressors/limiters, etc.... react more favorably for me when the tracks have hit tape first.... but, it's my taste.
All in all, there is definitely a difference, and mixing to tape does not yield the same result......
All in all, there is definitely a difference, and mixing to tape does not yield the same result......
-
- steve albini likes it
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 12:43 pm
- Location: inner space
- Contact:
I've never tracked to tape (unless 4-track cassette counts) so I can't talk about that. But a lot of times I'll mix to an open pair on my HD24 and then bounce that to my Tascam 22-2 (cheap 1/4" deck). Other times I?ll skip the HD24 open pair step and just mix straight to the tape machine. Usually I like what it does, but not always. I'd have a hard time explaining what it does in solid technical terms, but in the language I speak, I would say that bouncing to tape just seems to (usually) make my mixes more cohesive and more (get ready to cringe) musical. I don't know what I mean by "musical" exactly, but I think that's the best word I can come up with. My tape mixes have an aura about them that a lot of my digital mixes don?t. They somehow feel more believable to me. I wonder if that?s just because I grew up listening to the radio in the 70s and 80s, and somewhere in my subconscious there?s a belief that that?s how songs are ?supposed to? sound. Who knows.
Oh, one more thing: I usually get better low-end sounds on my tape mixes. My deck only goes up to 15ips, which is just fine with me. I?ve heard that slower tape speeds pick up bass better, but I have no idea whether that?s true.
Sorry for this non-tech perspective, but that?s what I have to offer.
Oh, one more thing: I usually get better low-end sounds on my tape mixes. My deck only goes up to 15ips, which is just fine with me. I?ve heard that slower tape speeds pick up bass better, but I have no idea whether that?s true.
Sorry for this non-tech perspective, but that?s what I have to offer.
Anybody try the Rupert Neve Designs Portico tape emulation unit? I think it actually has tape heads inside, but no tape ...? I would be very curious to see what you guys who have experience with real tape machines think of these things. I would normally be very skeptical of any emulators, but I've heard that that Neve guy's stuff usually ain't bad.
- Boogdish
- takin' a dinner break
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 10:18 pm
- Location: Lampasas, TX
- Contact:
For you guys who're mixing to tape, how long is it staying on tape for you? Are you sending the reels to the mastering houses or are you transferring back to digital right after going to tape? What're you using to transfer?
I found a used record store that had a ton of used 1/4" tapes on the cheap this weekend and it peaked my interest on maybe getting a reel to reel to mix to.
I found a used record store that had a ton of used 1/4" tapes on the cheap this weekend and it peaked my interest on maybe getting a reel to reel to mix to.
-
- steve albini likes it
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 6:25 pm
- Location: brooklyn
- Contact:
ideally if it's being mixed to tape, i'd send the reels to mastering. the people that usually do my stuff have much better converters than me, and it has less stages of conversion if they are using an analog processing chain in mastering. If someone won't pay for the tape or something I will often mix to tape and record simultaneously then send those to mastering. I don't think this is as good for the above reasons, but it's simple and doesn't involve anything negative over mixing back into the computer anyway.Boogdish wrote:For you guys who're mixing to tape, how long is it staying on tape for you? Are you sending the reels to the mastering houses or are you transferring back to digital right after going to tape? What're you using to transfer?
for tracking, i usually dump to the computer right after basic tracking and doing fixer parts where we need the same sounds. For me vocals and lots of overdubs are then to digital unless there is something we think will benefit from tape beforehand. if something needs to go to tape at that point, my mixdown deck is better quality per channel for an overdub than my 16 track and i'll just monitor on the way in, record off repro, and sync after doing a take.
I always master from the tape source. I mix either 1/4" or 1/2" (depending on material), at 15 ips CCIR, then I master from that. I do however, take a 24/96 safety of the tape masters, in the event of analog meltdown. I also print to the pro tools session in real time (straight off the 2-buss), and Masterlink 24.
99.99999% of the time, I master from the analog tapes......
99.99999% of the time, I master from the analog tapes......
-
- carpal tunnel
- Posts: 1584
- Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 7:30 pm
- Location: The US North Coast
- Contact:
Littlepokey--have you ever tried tracking through tape--recording a signal to tape on one of those 1/4" decks, and sthen ending it straight out again to the computer through the playback head? It seems like that might get you some of the benefits of tracking to tape without the expense of a huge multitrack machine... and then from there to mixdown on tape... it just seems like that would make things much more ... I dunno... "tapey."
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 57 guests