record to tape then mix on computer; what are the pitfalls?

[tguncle]

I've always recorded and mixed on my 388, but this new band I'm in wants to record to tape and then dump it all to a computer for mixing. My TOMB search for information about this found mostly posts about people's preferences rather than things to consider when taking this route. Please share your experiences, what are the top 5 pitfalls to consider (in advance) when taking this route? Thanks! -Jason

[logancircle]

You'll want to do your A/D transfer somewhere with good converters, which might mean going someplace else if you're all analog. Other than that, the digital domain makes editting infinitely easier, it's a fine idea. One pitfall would be that the band might want to mix their record themselves now that it's recorded, but sometimes that's a good thing.

[MoreSpaceEcho]

yeah just make sure you use some decent converters, don't hit them too hard, and you're good.

[drumsound]

You might consider renting some really great converters or taking the 388 into a studio to do the transfer. Are you planning to add overdubs in the computer too?

An added benefit is that you could do some of the old track sharing thing, like shakers in one part of the song and keys in another or whatever, but once in the computer those are easy to split into their own tracks.

With a full ITB mix you have total recall and infinite re mix/tweak possibilities. I'll let you decide if that's a good thing or not...

[Kowalski1973]

Ok, here's a pitfall-

If you didn't use compression during tracking you may have some hiss issues. Originally I didn't think this would be a big deal and would sound cool. I figured track to tape hot with some decent mic pres, transfer via an Apogee and then use plug-in compression. Well the hiss got boosted as well and the inconsistent level made it stand out in an bad way. Not cool.

That was the biggest pitfall for me besides the total change in sound from hearing it through a mixer direct from the tape and then hearing it through a DAW to a converter. Just so you know it's not enough of a difference to stop me from continuing to work this way. Make several transfers per song and save the tracks as flac files in the pc. I used to do listening tests of things tracked digitally and then the same thing tracked to tape and then transferred. Night and day. And like other said the converter is crucial. Rent a good converter and spend a few hours getting some nice transfers. Or you can pay that dude in New Jersey to transfer it for you. See current issue of Tape Op.

[okcrecording]

problems:

tape flutter and wow. tape dropouts, impedence mismatches, tape hiss, and just using 8 track cassette.

you will loose some on the transfer, but considering the source, i wouldnt loose any sleep about using only apogee converters, just dump it and try it, start with one song to see if this is something you like the sound of. you might and you might not.

[drumsound]

problems:

tape flutter and wow. tape dropouts, impedence mismatches, tape hiss, and just using 8 track cassette.

you will loose some on the transfer, but considering the source, i wouldnt loose any sleep about using only apogee converters, just dump it and try it, start with one song to see if this is something you like the sound of. you might and you might not.

The 388 is 1/4" 15ips 8-track. Still not ideal but better (in theory) that 8-track cassette. The 388 gets a lot of love here on hte TOMB. I used to really want one, but I kinda skipped that step...

[okcrecording]

ahhh, my fault, still, 1/4" isnt much better. and you still have the same tape pitfalls.

[chris harris]

Make several transfers per song

why?

and save the tracks as flac files in the pc.

why?

[Gabe]

I recently did a session where we tracked drums and guitar on my Teac 80-8 machine then dumped to pro tools. I then recorded the piano, bass, and vocals over top.

Here is my big warning:

for one song we didn't have guitars done but needed to track piano. So i figured why not just bounce drums to digital, track piano over top, then later after i've recorded guitars on tape i could rebounce everything from tape.

i didn't realize that imperceptibly the machine drifts slightly out of time over the course of the song, so now my piano that was very tight with the initial bounce is completely out of time with the new dump from the tape. i'm trying to realign my tracks now and regret going back and forth like that.

I went to my school's studio and used their API's with Mytek's so everything sounds excellent, if only for that timing issue! Have fun with it!

[shedshrine]

drumsound said

The 388 is 1/4" 15ips 8-track. Still not ideal but better (in theory) that 8-track cassette. The 388 gets a lot of love here on hte TOMB. I used to really want one, but I kinda skipped that step...

I would so love to get a 15ips mod on my 388. That would rule
For now I'll just muddle through with the stock 7.5 ips and be happy with my lot in life.

(8.5 and change if pitch control maxed.. )



hculture said

problems:

tape flutter and wow. tape dropouts, impedence mismatches, tape hiss, and just using 8 track cassette.

you will loose some on the transfer, but considering the source, i wouldnt loose any sleep about using only apogee converters, just dump it and try it, start with one song to see if this is something you like the sound of. you might and you might not.

p.s-they really don't sound that bad.

[Kowalski1973]

Make several transfers per song

why?

and save the tracks as flac files in the pc.

why?

Well he asked about pitfalls. One I can think of is if this guy gets studio time and does his transfer and then finds out there was a flare from the output on a channel of another glitch from the tape recorder. If he were to rewind and then do it again then he would have another copy as a backup. He may listen to the first pass but not notice something. Maybe I should have added getting the level right as some decks are -10db it may sound a bit weak when transferred to digital. As for the flac I think a pitfall would be to have gone to all this trouble to transfer these things to digital and to have not used a lossless format. This guy has never done this. He could find a friend that says "no problem I'll do it for you" and then hands him back a cd with all his tracks as 128 mp3s.

How's this, since he asks us for "things to consider"-
1) considering making multiple passes from the recorder 2) consider using a lossless format when creating the masters.

[chris harris]

Well he asked about pitfalls. One I can think of is if this guy gets studio time and does his transfer and then finds out there was a flare from the output on a channel of another glitch from the tape recorder. If he were to rewind and then do it again then he would have another copy as a backup. He may listen to the first pass but not notice something.

that's like telling a client, "Play that song again. You may have made a mistake that I did not notice. The best thing to do is play it again, just in case."
Just listen to it. If you got it and everything sounds good, move on.

As for the flac I think a pitfall would be to have gone to all this trouble to transfer these things to digital and to have not used a lossless format. This guy has never done this. He could find a friend that says "no problem I'll do it for you" and then hands him back a cd with all his tracks as 128 mp3s.

You can call FLAC "lossless" all you want. But, honestly FLAC files have no place in a recording studio. Hard drives are HUGE, FAST and CHEAP these days. You should be using full resolution, 24bit .wav, .aif, or Broadcast Wave files.

I appreciate the spirit of your advice.

1. Listen carefully.
2. Transfer at 24bit, using high quality converters.

You're right about pitfalls to watch out for. I just disagree about what to do to avoid those pitfalls.

[;ivlunsdystf]

2) consider using a lossless format when creating the masters.

WAV files and their larger/higher quality equivalents are already "lossless", although you don't hear many people refer to them as such because they are also not data compressed for portability which is the key feature of FLAC. The word "lossless" describes the data compression itself (FLAC, SHN, whatever). Yes, FLAC would be better than 128 MP3 or apple format or something, but FLAC is absolutely no better than WAV. Actually worse, probably, since you have to convert them back to WAV or equivalent to deal with them in most DAW software (unless you are using some DAW software that reads FLAC files, in which case your computer will probably be less efficient, what with the burden of FLAC decoding, than if it is playing back WAV files).

Around this forum, there aren't many people who would mistakenly settle for 128 MP3. Don't worry. Everything will be fine.

Bottom line: "lossless" is neat-o for bittorrent and other times you want to push big files around on the interwad, but is not even necessary to think about in this thread today. Stop confusing people with your half-info. Thanks.

Oh, the original question: Yeah, I do it all the time, drag files from tape into computer for editing that is. It's great fun. The biggest pitfall: Mixing escalates from a 1-hour process into a weeklong throwdown. The computer crashes. Carpal tunnel sets in. Etc. It's good fun though.

EDIT: Said AIFF, meant apple format ooops

[JohnDavisNYC]

it really should be a fairly easy process... i used to have a 388 and track onto that and then dump into logic with my 828... never had any problems. set your levels well (you do have tones on your tape, right?) so that 0vu is an appropriate digital level (i like -20, but i doubt that the 388 is putting out +20 over 0vu...) and record as 24bit Broadcast Waves (.BWF)... listen back to each transfer to make sure everything is ok (monitors and headphones, maybe... 'phones can sometimes catch something you might miss on monitors) then save the files in 2 places (digital files should really live in 3 places at all times) and you are good to go. Make sure that you are careful and methodical in your process, and you should have no problems... make sure that if you are working at someone elses studio for the transfer that they really know what they are doing... spend a little more and go to a better studio if you have to to get someone who knows what the hell they are doing.

john