More than 4 tracks on a 4-track

N

nem

New member
I've done a decent amount of 4-track recording on tape, but just for recording sketches. I recently bought and fixed a Tascam 244 and am planning on using it for a more serious project. A couple times in the past, I have bounced each track from tape to the computer and edited it there, thus enabling me to use as many tracks as possible. I want to be stubborn and keep everything on tape this time. I know I can bounce multiple tracks from the 4 track to a tape on another deck, put that back on the 4-track, and then use the remaining open tracks - thus recording more than 4 tracks.. (I hope that makes sense)

ANYWAY, my question is: If you have experience with this, at what point do the original tracks begin to lose their quality? Meaning - how many times can you do this before it sounds bad?

I realize how subjective a question this is - and I intend to try it out for myself - but I'd be interested in your opinions. Also, of course, I'd love to hear if you know ways of doing this kind of thing most efficiently.. THANKS.
 
When I had my 244, I tried to keep the productions down to 2 bounces or less, depending on the complexity of the composition. Anything more then that and things would start to get ugly with dbx breathing artifacts in the low end and too much high frequency drop off. The ideal way would be to have two 244's and that way you could do stereo bounces to the other unit and add your additional tracks after the bounce. For those that like to live life on the edge, you can also attempt playing live parts during a bounce to squeeze more parts in without adding an extra generation. You'll need the musical chops and mixing skills to pull that off successfully.

Cheers! :)
 
I used to do similarly by bouncing out to a DAT and bringing the stereo pair back into the 4 track, filling up the third and fourth tracks, and doing it again. The first bounce was pretty negligible really, but by the third it was pretty obvious. Two bounces was IMO well within the bounds of acceptability.

By the time the DAT died, I had procured a computer - based DAW, so now I just use it for the external bounces instead of the DAT.

Edit: I should mention that I wasn't using a 244 when I would do that. It was either a Porta One or a 414. I'm guessing the 244 would have better specs than both of those.

I have a 246 now that's been fully restored, and I'm getting ready to start work on a 246 album---right after I get done with this point, as a matter of fact---so I'll certainly be putting it through its track-bouncing paces soon! :)
 
Last edited:
Two bounces is about what I was expecting. Eventually I'm going to have to just do a test and see how many bounces I can do before it becomes overwhelming. I might just have to stick to bouncing to computer..
 
With a 246, I have done the Dat bounce method without losing anything.
I would mix the 4 tracks to either a stereo, or one mono track onto the Dat machine then bring it into the 246 on one or two tracks, but on a fresh cassette tape. Fill up the rest of the tracks and repeat the process.
No loss because you are never bouncing. You have to preplan, and submix well, but the results are good.
 
RFR said:
No loss because you are never bouncing. You have to preplan, and submix well, but the results are good.
Click to expand...


Mmm...I wouldn't really say that.
It's still a bounce....just not as many analog tape bounces because the DAT is replacing one analog tape bounce....but when you go back to analog tape from the DAT, you are still re-recording to analog tape what was previously recorded and played back from a different analog tape...so it's still a bounce, and still some degradation...but yeah, the DAT lets you skip one analog tape generation.

However...the double conversion to-and-from the DAT (A/D - D/A) is certainly adding two more "generations" to the audio signal of a different type.

At the end of the day...it can be subjective right up to the point where very obvious audio degradation kicks in...but otherwise, for one person 2 generations may be the acceptable limit, while another may have no complaints doing 6 or more generations.

Aside from that...I agree that in most cases, the real PITA is the submix and planning and subsequent loss of final mix control once a bounce is made. You have ZERO choices left for any individual track adjustments down the road, on that bounce generation.
That may not be a big deal for some mixes, and if you can be 100% sure on what you are locking in with the bounce...but it certainly does present limitations that you then simply have to accept...or start all over.

IMO...these days...you might as well just dump to DAW and mix out from there. That way it's just one A/D conversion and ZERO analog tape bouncing and degradation....though with only a 4-track...you have the sync issue to deal with for multiple dumps to DAW, but it's workable.

Anyway...not real right/wrong way...it just comes down to personal preferences, tastes and both subjective and objective acceptance of your production goals and results. Sometimes...almost anything can yield great results when things fall into place. :)
 
I used to record on a Yamaha MT3x four track cassette recorder.

In those days I would use this method to maximise the amount of tracks and minimise generations.

Record material on tracks 1, 2 & 3.
Mix these three onto track four while adding another track. That gives me three second generation tracks plus one first generation track on track 4.
Record material onto tracks 1 & 2 (over-writing what was there before) and bounce these to track 3 plus adding another track. This two more second generation tracks and another first generation track.
Record new material on track 1, then bounce this onto track 2 while adding more new stuff. This one more second generation track and one more first generation track
Record new material on track 1.

All up, this gave me 10 tracks, six of which were second generation, four of which were first generation, all recorded onto the four tracks of the cassette.

I then mixed this down onto another cassette deck to create the master.
 
miroslav said:
That may not be a big deal for some mixes, and if you can be 100% sure on what you are locking in with the bounce...but it certainly does present limitations that you then simply have to accept...or start all over.
Click to expand...

Well, you don't have to start all over. Assuming you were bouncing back to fresh sections of tape, you'd only need to go back to the first bounce that contained the mixing issue.
 
gecko zzed said:
I used to record on a Yamaha MT3x four track cassette recorder.

In those days I would use this method to maximise the amount of tracks and minimise generations.

Record material on tracks 1, 2 & 3.
Mix these three onto track four while adding another track. That gives me three second generation tracks plus one first generation track on track 4.
Record material onto tracks 1 & 2 (over-writing what was there before) and bounce these to track 3 plus adding another track. This two more second generation tracks and another first generation track.
Record new material on track 1, then bounce this onto track 2 while adding more new stuff. This one more second generation track and one more first generation track
Record new material on track 1.

All up, this gave me 10 tracks, six of which were second generation, four of which were first generation, all recorded onto the four tracks of the cassette.

I then mixed this down onto another cassette deck to create the master.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is the internal bounce method, and very well explained! The only issue with doing it this way is that you're never able to maintain stereo imaging when doing a bounce. That may not be an issue for some songs. But if you'd recorded drums, for example, they would be mono this way (which isn't a terrible thing in my mind --- drums were often mono in 60s music).
 
famous beagle said:
Well, you don't have to start all over. Assuming you were bouncing back to fresh sections of tape, you'd only need to go back to the first bounce that contained the mixing issue.
Click to expand...

Depends...you don't always know you have a mixing issue until you get to the end...and then, did you save all the individual generations separately...or just kept bouncing erasing off the same two sections of tape? :)

I was bouncing 4-track back in the late '70s...use to use same brand stereo 4-track and 2-track (2+2 tracks) machines...so I would bounce off the 4-track to the 2-track....take reel off the 2-track and put it on the 4-track, which gave me 2 fresh tracks, and no need to bounce from the 2-track to the 4-track...it lined up perfectly.

Anyway...after the first set of bounces, the mixing becomes a rather "as-it-falls" exercise, and sometimes it's good, but never perfect. You always end up "accepting" what's there and moving on.
 
miroslav said:
Depends...you don't always know you have a mixing issue until you get to the end...and then, did you save all the individual generations separately...or just kept bouncing erasing off the same two sections of tape? :)

I was bouncing 4-track back in the late '70s...use to use same brand stereo 4-track and 2-track (2+2 tracks) machines...so I would bounce off the 4-track to the 2-track....take reel off the 2-track and put it on the 4-track, which gave me 2 fresh tracks, and no need to bounce from the 2-track to the 4-track...it lined up perfectly.

Anyway...after the first set of bounces, the mixing becomes a rather "as-it-falls" exercise, and sometimes it's good, but never perfect. You always end up "accepting" what's there and moving on.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I meant to say. If you always bounce back to a later (new) section of tape each time, then you'll maintain all your previous bounces intact. That's what I do with cassette 4-tracks because cassettes are cheap, comparatively speaking. But if I were using a reel to reel, it may be a different story (depending on how important the recording was).

I didn't know two track R2Rs worked that way. They only use half the tape width when going one direction?
 
There are some good, valid points here. To my ear the "dat bounce" sounded like nothing was lost. When I'd come back in the 246, what was coming from the dat sounded exactly the same as the 4 tracks coming off the cassette.
Early on, I tried internal bouncing on the cassette. Didn't like it. Sounded like shit and any mix capability was lost.

Good cassette tape was cheap and plentiful, and whenever I went from the dat back into the multitrack, I used a new tape for my next generation.

If you saved all your multitrack cassettes it was still possible to remix, because you had all the source material.

Anyway, fun times, although that was like 500 years ago.

There were valuable things to be learned from those old days, that's stuff that will always stay with you.

To the OP,
good luck with your 4 track album.
 
RFR said:
There are some good, valid points here. To my ear the "dat bounce" sounded like nothing was lost. When I'd come back in the 246, what was coming from the dat sounded exactly the same as the 4 tracks coming off the cassette.
Early on, I tried internal bouncing on the cassette. Didn't like it. Sounded like shit and any mix capability was lost.

Good cassette tape was cheap and plentiful, and whenever I went from the dat back into the multitrack, I used a new tape for my next generation.

If you saved all your multitrack cassettes it was still possible to remix, because you had all the source material.

Anyway, fun times, although that was like 500 years ago.

There were valuable things to be learned from those old days, that's stuff that will always stay with you.

To the OP,
good luck with your 4 track album.
Click to expand...

The DAT bounce is definitely much cleaner than tape-to-tape bounces. You're essentially cutting those bounces in half. But Miroslav is right in that you are recording back onto the tape after you bounced to DAT. Even though you used a new tape, the tape hiss (for instance) that was a part of your original 4-track tape was added to by a new tape hiss when you transferred back to tracks 3 and 4. Granted, with DBX on the 246, the tape hiss was minimal.

But yes, using a DAT or a DAW for the bounces is definitely a way to get plenty of bounces out of the thing and maintain good fidelity.
 
Ahhh, Tape hiss. Means absolutely nothing to me.:D I have 4 mean fucking cats!!! you should hear them Hiss!!!!
 
RFR said:
Ahhh, Tape hiss. Means absolutely nothing to me.:D I have 4 mean fucking cats!!! you should hear them Hiss!!!!
Click to expand...

:) I have two, but used to have 3. That was way too many for us. In fact, two is too many! When either of them checks out, we'll be down to one dog and one cat, and we won't be replenishing the supply. :)
 
Haha. I used to be able to blame it on my woman. She brought home two. Tricked me with both.:D With one she even had the nerve to bring it home as an "Anniversary present":facepalm: What man in his right mind thinks that is the perfect present???

But, I'm to blame too. Picked up two female ferile cats and domesticated them. Sweetest things in the world, Just don't fuck with them!!! They'll go all jungle ghetto on your ass real fast.:D
 
I'd be tempted to try getting at least one more person in the studio and recording as many parts as possible onto one track. Theoretically, it should be possible to record 16 distinct parts on the 244, as long as you don't mind the final mix being in mono...
 
famous beagle said:
I didn't know two track R2Rs worked that way. They only use half the tape width when going one direction?
Click to expand...

Yup. on the 2-channel/4-track you would flip the tape and record stereo on the other side too.

Of course, there are 2-channel 1/4" decks that only have TWO tracks...so it's L/R across the whole tape in one direction only.

My Otari 5050 BIII is a 2-channl/2-track Rec/Play deck (uses the whole tape for L/R)...BUT, it also adds a 2-channel/4-track playback-only head so you can use the same deck for playback of more standard consumer formats (2-channel/4-track)
 
RFR said:
Ahhh, Tape hiss. Means absolutely nothing to me.:D I have 4 mean fucking cats!!! you should hear them Hiss!!!!
Click to expand...

My cats don't hiss.
You could fuck with them all day long, and they just purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. :)
They are super mellow cats who love to hang in my studio the whole time I'm in there playing.
They just don't like when there's drum playing/recording...but then, I don't blame them...otherwise, I could jam out loud on guitar and they just hang. :cool:
 
miroslav said:
Yup. on the 2-channel/4-track you would flip the tape and record stereo on the other side too.

Of course, there are 2-channel 1/4" decks that only have TWO tracks...so it's L/R across the whole tape in one direction only.

My Otari 5050 BIII is a 2-channl/2-track Rec/Play deck (uses the whole tape for L/R)...BUT, it also adds a 2-channel/4-track playback-only head so you can use the same deck for playback of more standard consumer formats (2-channel/4-track)
Click to expand...

Oh ok, wow. I thought the second kind was the only kind made. Learn something new every day! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top