Benefit of using Inserts as Direct Outs? (With 8 Track Tape Recorder)

O

olbean

New member
Currently I am using an Allen & Heath ZED R16 (analogue desk with firewire output) to track into Logic.

I've just purchased a Tascam TSR-8 (8 track reel to reel) to add some extra dimension to my recordings, but don't have any tape to play with yet so I'm in my planning stages.

The best way I've thought to integrate it into my setup would be to have each track on the Tascam fed from the inserts of channels 1-8 on the desk.

For example: Mic into desk input 1 > insert out to Tascam track 1 > Tascam track 1 output back to desk insert return >through the rest of the channel strip and into Logic.

I could then also use 9-16 on the desk as 'non tape' inputs, thus going through the channel strip straight to Logic, but allowing me freedom to send that audio back out of Logic to Track 1 (for example) for further tape saturation.

Here's where I'm confused... I'm reading a lot about people using inserts as direct outs - either with modified TRS cables or using a regular TS cable but pushed in only 1 click. I am simply struggling to understand the benefit of doing this?

For example:

Mic into desk input 1 > direct out (insert jack) into track 1 of Tascam > Tascam track 1 output to track 9 on desk (tape return)

What difference does it make if the tape return is on a separate channel as opposed to just using an insert jack as a regular insert jack?
 
Hi,
I think the people who are tapping into inserts simply don't have direct outputs.

I'm not sure there's a real advantage or disadvantage; It's simply what they've got. :)
 
Oh yeah, they don't have direct outputs (and nor do I) - but what I'm asking is why don't they just use the inserts to return back to the same channel? As opposed to simulating a direct out and returning to a different channel?

Is it because the original channel would then be totally unaffected by whatever's in the "direct out"?
 
Oh, sorry; I misunderstood.

olbean said:
Mic into desk input 1 > direct out (insert jack) into track 1 of Tascam > Tascam track 1 output to track 9 on desk (tape return)
Click to expand...

If you use a direct out and return to a new separate mixer channel, then I guess you'd have a dry and a wet on the mixer, where as send/return would leave you with wet only.
Could that be the reason?

Of course the processing unit may have a wet/dry control but it could be convenient to have control at the mixer, I guess.
 
Yep, that's it! I get it now, thank you! :)

Now I just need to work out which way would give me the most options/be the most beneficial?

1) If I had each track through an insert send/return on desk channels 1-8, I would be 100% wet tape signal to Logic on those channels and I could use desk channels 9-16 if I want dry, but I couldn't capture both wet and dry at the same time, right?

2) If I had each track send from a direct out of desk channels 1-8, and tape returns on 9-16 I could record dry and wet at the same time?
 
I think most people who go out of the insert but don't return are recording in a DAW and just using the mixer for mic preamps. There is no need to come back into the mixer if everything after that happens in the DAW.
 
I think that's correct.
If you use eight mixer channels and use send/return to go through tape, then you're committed to a tape-processed recording.

If you use eight channels, out to tape, and return to 9-16, then you have the option of recording (to logic) 1-8 dry and/or 9-16 wet.

Whether you actually want wet + dry (tape and non tape) is up to you. :)
 
Farview said:
I think most people who go out of the insert but don't return are recording in a DAW and just using the mixer for mic preamps. There is no need to come back into the mixer if everything after that happens in the DAW.
Click to expand...

Okay, pretty sure I'm getting the hang of this! So usually people would go direct out of the mic pre into tape, and then into their interface to DAW? In which case that explains why I'm getting confused, because my mixer IS my interface as well, so I can achieve the same result by returning on the insert path of the same channel strip?!


Steenamaroo said:
I think that's correct.
If you use eight mixer channels and use send/return to go through tape, then you're committed to a tape-processed recording.

If you use eight channels, out to tape, and return to 9-16, then you have the option of recording (to logic) 1-8 dry and/or 9-16 wet.

Whether you actually want wet + dry (tape and non tape) is up to you. :)
Click to expand...

Great, thanks for confirming! I guess it's better to have both just in case something messed up with the tape recording but was an otherwise good take!
 
olbean said:
Great, thanks for confirming! I guess it's better to have both just in case something messed up with the tape recording but was an otherwise good take!
Click to expand...

For sure. Good plan.

olbean said:
Okay, pretty sure I'm getting the hang of this! So usually people would go direct out of the mic pre into tape, and then into their interface to DAW? In which case that explains why I'm getting confused, because my mixer IS my interface as well, so I can achieve the same result by returning on the insert path of the same channel strip?!
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's it. The fact that you don't need an analog cable path to an audio interface is opening up more options for you here.
Nice setup. :)
 
Steenamaroo said:
For sure. Good plan.



Yeah, that's it. The fact that you don't need an analog cable path to an audio interface is opening up more options for you here.
Nice setup. :)
Click to expand...


I’ve actually been doing even more thinking and realised that my inserts are pre EQ, which is probably not ideal for slamming to tape, maybe I’d be better off using my aux sends (I only have 4, mind) and returning those onto spare channels? That way I’d still have a tape and a pure signal that could be sent to my DAW, but the tape signal could be EQd before hitting the tape! SO many options!
 
You could do something like that, although be aware that your tape-processed tracks will come with a delay, so lining them up with direct tracks might be tricky.
 
Yeah, luckily Logic makes it pretty easy to line them back up - if it drifts it might be a little tricky though... On the plus side it could introduce some cool phasing effects. Also, the TSR-8 is a 2-head machine, so I won't hear a delay while tracking both channels luckily!
 
olbean said:
Okay, pretty sure I'm getting the hang of this! So usually people would go direct out of the mic pre into tape, and then into their interface to DAW?
Click to expand...
No. Most people don't have a tape machine. They go straight from the mixer to the DAW
 
Or in my case back when' it was D/O to tape track, and on playback the channel's Flip' function brought those tracks back via their 'tape returns.
 
http://museumofmagneticsoundrecording.org/images/R2R/TeacTascam808Phantom03.jpg

Looks like a 3 headed beast to me? A few months ago I did a 'back of envelope' diagram for a switching system for inserts so that you could use the same channels for replay as record.

Be careful with 'EQ on the way in'. Tape overload is frequency sensitive and can soon sound very nasty.

Whatever you do, don't go for that half arsed 'one click' bllx, recipe for some hair pulling there.

Dave.
 
olbean said:
I could then also use 9-16 on the desk as 'non tape' inputs, thus going through the channel strip straight to Logic, but allowing me freedom to send that audio back out of Logic to Track 1 (for example) for further tape saturation.
Click to expand...

If you're planning to go back-n-forth between tape deck and DAW...you might need to consider some synchronization solutions.
 
" if it drifts it might be a little tricky though..."

Err?^ You can't have track to track drift, the signal is locked into the oxide! You will get end to end speed variations so moving chunks of songs around could be fraught?

Dave.
 
ecc83 said:
http://museumofmagneticsoundrecording.org/images/R2R/TeacTascam808Phantom03.jpg

Looks like a 3 headed beast to me? A few months ago I did a 'back of envelope' diagram for a switching system for inserts so that you could use the same channels for replay as record.

Be careful with 'EQ on the way in'. Tape overload is frequency sensitive and can soon sound very nasty.

Whatever you do, don't go for that half arsed 'one click' bllx, recipe for some hair pulling there.

Dave.
Click to expand...

That's a model 80-8, the one I've got is a TSR-8 - definitely a 2 head machine. In terms of the EQ, I guess the best thing to do is try it both ways and see which sound best to my ears. The main reason I've purchased the machine is to take advantage of the tape saturation, so actually tape overload sounds very nice to me! :)

No plan to do the 'one click' method - I would've modified some TRS cables, however I think I'm more likely to use inserts as send/returns as it has just occurred to me that I will still be able to print a 'non tape' take into logic - it would still be going through the Tascam's pre-amp of course, but that'll most likely improve the sound rather degrade it.


miroslav said:
If you're planning to go back-n-forth between tape deck and DAW...you might need to consider some synchronization solutions.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this has occurred to me - although I can't see it being too much of an issue. If I'm going to transfer multiple tracks from tape into DAW, I will of course do them all in one go - but I actually quite like the effect that can be achieved by having the tracks not quite line up - especially on drums.. makes for some cool phasing.


ecc83 said:
" if it drifts it might be a little tricky though..."

Err?^ You can't have track to track drift, the signal is locked into the oxide! You will get end to end speed variations so moving chunks of songs around could be fraught?

Dave.
Click to expand...

When I say drift, I don't mean between the tape tracks. I mean an inconsistent tape speed when compared with a take I would do directly into my DAW - like you said, end to end speed variations. For example if I record a guitar part straight into Logic, it might be 3 minutes exactly, but when I bring the 'from tape' version into Logic, that might be 2:59, or it might be 3:02.

I guess I just need to experiment with all my options and decide which workflow and overall sound I like the most.
 
In fact, I've just had an even better idea. Maybe I send auxes 1-4 to tracks 1-4 on the Tascam & return to 9-12 on the ZED, and then use tracks 5-8 with the tape machine fed from the insert jacks as direct outs returning on 13-16. That way I can have my inputs 1-4 wired up for post EQ tracking to tape, and inputs 5-8 pre EQ!
 
The TSR-8 wouldn't be my first choice for tape saturation, the 80-8 would probably have been a better bet. The TSR-8 is a really nice machine, but it was intended as a cheaper alternative to a digital recorder so they put a lot of effort into making the response flat. In other words it might be a bit too clean for what you're trying to do.
For this I'd definitely run the machine with the DBX turned off, since overloading the DBX will cause tracking errors instead of saturation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top