Low End: 4 Track Mixing Question: Analog or Digital

[Help Help]

Hello friends,

I have some questions about mixing. I am recording on a Tascam 234. Please weigh in with your opinions on the following, and correct me wherever I say something wrong or miss something I should take into consideration, because I have a great deal to learn about recording. Here goes: Is it “better”(in your soundwise opinion) to transfer the 4 tracks separately to computer, and then mix on computer, OR, is it “better”(in your soundwise opinion, bear with me here), to mix on an analog board (I know such considerations may well depend on what kind of board etc., but I’m thinking the board from another 4 track for my meagre mixing needs(the 234 doesnt’t have one), weigh in on that if you can or wish be it a good or bad decision), and then MIXDOWN to computer? The processes themselves are quite different, and, inevitably, the sound must reflect that. My instinct tells me the latter may be the way to go, but a lot of people seem to dump to computer. What say you?

To mix on another 4 track(in my case the Yamaha MT4X) and then transfer the tracks individually to computer for mixdown seems to me like it can be ruled out as an option, as it would defeat a lot of the purpose of mixing on analog to begin with. Would it not? Computer could match the analog process with EQ but perhaps not with the analog “blend”, I’m thinking. So I feel it’s basically the one or the other of the above options.

So, if I was to use the MT4X as a mixing board:

Correct me where I’m wrong!

1. RCA outs of 234 to 1/4 inch inputs of MT4X
2. Mix Using MT4X board
3. RCA Stereo Outs of MT4X to Digital IN of Tascam US-1800 (LEV -10)??

Also, what are the drawbacks of using the board of another 4 track in regards to the raw sound entering in? Basically what I’m asking, do your tracks lose something in the transfer or gain something unwanted?(Haven’t been able to test this yet, awaiting some accessories)

Any guidance here would be so terribly appreciated. Possibilities stress me out. I think some consideration on this question from some of you knowledgeable folks might be of assistance to many other out of the loop 4 trackers as well, and so hopefully I’m not wasting anyone’s time with my ignorance. I could really use some understanding here. Thanks!

 

[ashcat_lt]

Hello friends,

I have some questions about mixing. I am recording on a Tascam 234. Please weigh in with your opinions on the following, and correct me wherever I say something wrong or miss something I should take into consideration, because I have a great deal to learn about recording. Here goes: Is it “better”(in your soundwise opinion) to transfer the 4 tracks separately to computer, and then mix on computer, OR, is it “better”(in your soundwise opinion, bear with me here), to mix on an analog board (I know such considerations may well depend on what kind of board etc., but I’m thinking the board from another 4 track for my meagre mixing needs(the 234 doesnt’t have one), weigh in on that if you can or wish be it a good or bad decision), and then MIXDOWN to computer? The processes themselves are quite different, and, inevitably, the sound must reflect that. My instinct tells me the latter may be the way to go, but a lot of people seem to dump to computer. What say you?

To mix on another 4 track(in my case the Yamaha MT4X) and then transfer the tracks individually to computer for mixdown seems to me like it can be ruled out as an option, as it would defeat a lot of the purpose of mixing on analog to begin with. Would it not? Computer could match the analog process with EQ but perhaps not with the analog “blend”, I’m thinking. So I feel it’s basically the one or the other of the above options.

NO. Just no. Try both and decide for yourself is the only correct answer to any of that.

3. RCA Stereo Outs of MT4X to Digital IN of Tascam US-1800 (LEV -10)??

No. The signal is still analog coming out of the Yamaha, and needs to go to an analog input on the interface.

 

[Farview]

To elaborate on some of the options:

If you were to transfer the separate tracks to the computer, you would need to transfer all 4 tracks at once. If you do it in separate passes, they will never sync up because the MT4X will never play back at the exact same speed for each pass. Even if it is in perfect shape, you will still lose or gain some time over the course of a 5 minute song. This means both the timing and the tuning will be off.

While there is nothing wrong with the mixer on a 4 track, it really isn't the pinnacle of analog goodness. It will not add any magic to the sound, The EQ's are rudimentary at best, any effects will have to be outboard units and you will be limited to the number of physical effects sends the mixer has.

If you do transfer into the computer, you will still have the sound of the cassette, but you will also have a bunch of EQ's, compressors, and effects at your disposal during mixdown.

Either way, the music will end up in the computer, if you mix in the computer, you have many more options for mixdown.

But you will have to try it yourself to see which set of compromises suits you the best.

 

[Help Help]

No. The signal is still analog coming out of the Yamaha, and needs to go to an analog input on the interface.

So I need an RCA to single 1/4 inch input cable, and then pick one of the 4 inputs on the Tascam US-1800?

NO. Just no. Try both and decide for yourself is the only correct answer to any of that.

So only no. Got it.


Would transferring to the MT4X be any worse than if the 234 had a mixer? Any worse than the mixer on any other 4 track?

 

[Help Help]

I know I would need to transfer all 4 at once into computer. I guess I'm wondering if, as all I'm after is some minor EQ options, if the analog process could reap some benefits all the same. And also, what kind of cables I would need if I were to mix pre-transfer to computer. An RCA to a single 1/4 inch cable? Then on the US-1800 plug that into any one of the input options?

 

[ashcat_lt]

So I need an RCA to single 1/4 inch input cable, and then pick one of the 4 inputs on the Tascam US-1800?

Two, actually, for stereo.

So only no. Got it.


Would transferring to the MT4X be any worse than if the 234 had a mixer? Any worse than the mixer on any other 4 track?

My "no" was re: "better" and "best". The best way is the one that gets what you want in a way you are comfortable working. IMNSHO, the best way to figure that out (especially if you're raw enough to come here asking such a question) is to actually try it both ways. Either way has its pros and cons, and I was kind of hoping to cut off the meaningless debate which might follow.

Like Farview said, the mixer built into the 4-track is not going to be the super awesomest analog signal path, but they are generally decent.

If it was me, I'd do the individual track thing, but then I'd also avoid the 4-track altogether...

 

[Farview]

Would transferring to the MT4X be any worse than if the 234 had a mixer? Any worse than the mixer on any other 4 track?

It depends on how you are transferring.

If you are coming out of the individual line outputs on your recorder, into the inputs on the Yamaha and mixing it as you are playing the tape off of your recorder, it would be the same as if your recorder has it's own mixer.

If you are taking the tape and playing it from the Yamaha, it could be worse because the tape path is different and any noise reduction you used might not track the same on the Yamaha. So, it's possible that playing your tape on any other 4 track might really monkey up the sound.

Like I said, that mixer isn't going to be any worse than any other $50 mixer you could get. But just because it's analog, doesn't mean that it is full of warm, gooey wonderfulness. Just because it's digital doesn't mean it's harsh and thin. Cheap equipment is cheap equipment, analog or digital.

 

[Help Help]

Yeah. If it's possible, I have even less interest in such analog vs. digital debates as you do, so I don't blame you for wanting to avoid anything like that. I HATE that debate. But it can be a fine line between a contrived debate and a "maybe an experienced 4 tracker can point me in the right direction before I get lost in the wrong one while wearing the tape out." That you would never record on 4 track separates us from talking about the same thing. I guess I want some advice on the different options for 4 tracking itself, and am not asking for anything outside of 4 track considerations.

But would the signal path through an analog mixer alter the signal if all the dials are on "0". Would it not be the same signal, and then altered by the mixing itself?

I know my questions seem really terrible to those that know better. Please just ignore me if they do! Thanks.

 

[Help Help]

It depends on how you are transferring.

If you are coming out of the individual line outputs on your recorder, into the inputs on the Yamaha and mixing it as you are playing the tape off of your recorder, it would be the same as if your recorder has it's own mixer.

If you are taking the tape and playing it from the Yamaha, it could be worse because the tape path is different and any noise reduction you used might not track the same on the Yamaha. So, it's possible that playing your tape on any other 4 track might really monkey up the sound.

Like I said, that mixer isn't going to be any worse than any other $50 mixer you could get. But just because it's analog, doesn't mean that it is full of warm, gooey wonderfulness. Just because it's digital doesn't mean it's harsh and thin. Cheap equipment is cheap equipment, analog or digital.

Hey, really appreciate that reply! A lot of what I wanted clarified there. Thanks!

 

[Farview]

But would the signal path through an analog mixer alter the signal if all the dials are on "0". Would it not be the same signal, and then altered by the mixing itself?

Everything you run signal through will alter it some way. Most of the time it isn't that noticeable. The only way to really quantify it would be to send the same signal to two different mixers and A-B compare them to decide which is 'better'.

The less expensive the gear, the less transparent it will be. But some cheap stuff sounds thin, other cheap stuff sounds muddy, so it is really a case by case thing.

In the 'transparent quality/bang for the buck' contest, solid state analog path (as opposed to tubes) to digital recording device wins hands down. If you like the sound of cassette tape, cool. But if you want more transparency from tape, you will have to go to two inch.

 

[Help Help]

In the 'transparent quality/bang for the buck' contest, solid state analog path (as opposed to tubes) to digital recording device wins hands down.

Hey Farview, I was curious as to what exactly you meant in this statement. By "solid state analog path" do you mean unaltered analog path? As in no mixer unless a high quality mixer? Tubes to mean the mixer on a 4 track?

By “to digital recording device”, do you mean transferred and summed into a single track on digital, or do you mean the 4 individual tracks transferred to digital?

Sorry ha. Thanks a lot.

 

[miroslav]

He means analog with transistors (solid state) instead of tubes....recorded to digital.

Mic---solid state preamp---A/D converter---track by track, not summed.

 

[Help Help]

He means analog with transistors (solid state) instead of tubes....recorded to digital.

Mic---solid state preamp---A/D converter---track by track, not summed.

Thanks for reply! Sorry, I'm not sure what the difference is sadly. As in transistors is high quality analog mixer, while tubes would be what make up a 4 track mixer? So track by track to digital is what is being recommended. Sorry for my ignorance. Thanks.

 

[Farview]

I was talking about the topography of the design in general. I wasn't speaking specifically to your situation, I was speaking in general.

I'm sorry, I've gone too deep into the general design of electronic equipment for the conversation. please disregard.

 

[ashcat_lt]

Thanks for reply! Sorry, I'm not sure what the difference is sadly. As in transistors is high quality analog mixer, while tubes would be what make up a 4 track mixer? So track by track to digital is what is being recommended. Sorry for my ignorance. Thanks.

Tubes man! Valves, glowing glass, like in a guitar amp. Your four track doesn't have any tubes in it.

The thing is this: you've got all of the equipment that you're talking about, right? So plug it in and try it! Try it a couple different ways. See which way you like better both in terms of sound and work flow. You will actually get something mixed and learn something that way. Or just sit here asking us what we think, get nothing accomplished, and learn nothing concrete at all.

 

[Help Help]

Tubes man! Valves, glowing glass, like in a guitar amp. Your four track doesn't have any tubes in it.

The thing is this: you've got all of the equipment that you're talking about, right? So plug it in and try it! Try it a couple different ways. See which way you like better both in terms of sound and work flow. You will actually get something mixed and learn something that way. Or just sit here asking us what we think, get nothing accomplished, and learn nothing concrete at all.

Well I've been waiting for cables to come in the mail and trying to learn as much as possible before they come. Perhaps you know that it depends on this or that, what you are trying to do, what your ear likes etc. If that's the case that's all I am curious about, and you are right, there's nothing more for anyone to tell me. I usually do everything trying to figure it out myself, and find out later that "oh, if only I had known this" or that, if only I had had a minute worth of conversation with someone that knew what they were talking about, there was bit of assumed recording knowledge that could have greatly improved my work. I've ruined plenty of stuff with sheer ignorance, diving into things thinking I'll figure it out myself. This has happened enough to make me kinda paranoid, so I'm trying to learn all things I "should" know, asking stupid questions etc. I also care a lot about the recordings that have me all in a tizzy on here ha. The processes I was asking about are very different, so people may explain differences and things I "should" know. Or maybe I'm being shamelessly helpless. Probably!

If anyone has anything to say on what solid state analog path verse tubes means, feel free to say ha. Just curious as to what Farview meant "wins hands down". Otherwise thanks for the input and I'll figure out the rest!

 

[ashcat_lt]

Well I've been waiting for cables to come in the mail and trying to learn as much as possible before they come. Perhaps you know that it depends on this or that, what you are trying to do, what your ear likes etc. If that's the case that's all I am curious about, and you are right, there's nothing more for anyone to tell me. I usually do everything trying to figure it out myself, and find out later that "oh, if only I had known this" or that, if only I had had a minute worth of conversation with someone that knew what they were talking about, there was bit of assumed recording knowledge that could have greatly improved my work. I've ruined plenty of stuff with sheer ignorance, diving into things thinking I'll figure it out myself. This has happened enough to make me kinda paranoid, so I'm trying to learn all things I "should" know, asking stupid questions etc. I also care a lot about the recordings that have me all in a tizzy on here ha. The processes I was asking about are very different, so people may explain differences and things I "should" know. Or maybe I'm being shamelessly helpless. Probably!

If anyone has anything to say on what solid state analog path verse tubes means, feel free to say ha. Just curious as to what Farview meant "wins hands down". Otherwise thanks for the input and I'll figure out the rest!

I believe he was trying to say that if transparency (getting out exactly what you put in) is the goal, then the shortest solid state signal path possible before getting into digital is the best by far. Tubes, transformers and tapes all will color the signal either via filter action, distortion, or both. Solid state stages will do this also, but not nearly as "bad". They all add more or less noise also.

If any of your stuff had tubes in it, it would tell you. I'm pretty confident that your rig is 100% solid state already. So how does this apply to you? Well, you're talking about running through the solid state technology in one machine, into the solid state tech in another machine, and then into the digital world. That's more stages than absolutely necessary. You will add at least a small amount of distortion, might change the frequency response some, and will definitely add noise.

But pure and transparent are not always the goal. Sometimes you want all that coloration. You must, else you wouldn't be using such a substandard recording medium.

Everybody all along has said that you're using prosumer gear at best, it's not going to be great to begin with and doubling up the mediocrity is not likely to help.

 

[Help Help]

I believe he was trying to say that if transparency (getting out exactly what you put in) is the goal, then the shortest solid state signal path possible before getting into digital is the best by far. Tubes, transformers and tapes all will color the signal either via filter action, distortion, or both. Solid state stages will do this also, but not nearly as "bad". They all add more or less noise also.

If any of your stuff had tubes in it, it would tell you. I'm pretty confident that your rig is 100% solid state already. So how does this apply to you? Well, you're talking about running through the solid state technology in one machine, into the solid state tech in another machine, and then into the digital world. That's more stages than absolutely necessary. You will add at least a small amount of distortion, might change the frequency response some, and will definitely add noise.

But pure and transparent are not always the goal. Sometimes you want all that coloration. You must, else you wouldn't be using such a substandard recording medium.

Everybody all along has said that you're using prosumer gear at best, it's not going to be great to begin with and doubling up the mediocrity is not likely to help.

Hey thanks for the thought out reply! Yeah, I was wondering more about if there's an advantage in using the other board for the summing itself, not for using it then putting each signal separately into the computer, which would seem pointless to me. I think it's definitely possible that using the other 4 track for a final mixdown into digital could have advantages, but I'll have to find that out for myself. There's nothing "mediocre" about using a 4 track as far as I'm concerned, and for what my interests are with recording. The most mediocre recordings I've ever heard(by my standard) are the spiritless Protools ones that have become the status quo, having less resemblance to an actual performance imho than the cheapest tape formats. If sounding nothing like that is the best I can do, it's plenty good enough for me. Not all of them of course, but the vast majority I've heard. I know that's not your opinion, your ears have a different standard, and I respect that, but may as well throw mine out there as you do yours.

 

[miroslav]

Possibilities stress me out.

I don't want to sound too harsh...but the possibility of tracking to one 4-track cassette recorder and then mixing down to another 4-track cassette recorder...and then dumping that mix to the DAW.....
....stresses me out.



Honestly, unless your are consciously going for a lo-fi analog sound....there's very little the two cassette recorders are going to do to imporve your sound.
If you like recording to the cassette initially....then record your tracks there, and then dump them to the DAW and continue on in there.

 

[Help Help]

I don't want to sound too harsh...but the possibility of tracking to one 4-track cassette recorder and then mixing down to another 4-track cassette recorder...and then dumping that mix to the DAW.....
....stresses me out.



Honestly, unless your are consciously going for a lo-fi analog sound....there's very little the two cassette recorders are going to do to imporve your sound.
If you like recording to the cassette initially....then record your tracks there, and then dump them to the DAW and continue on in there.

Yeah thanks for the advice! I think the "possibilities stress me out" thing is probably entirely relatable to anyone that makes any effort at all on their recordings, or on any creative endeavors whatsoever, or practically anything else in this life if you think about it too much, which I seem to be doing. You want to know what your options are and choose the most fitting one for whatever it is that you are trying to do. If for whatever reason that happened to involve using two 4 tracks in the way mentioned, what would stress me out would be the possibility that that could be effective. The process itself would not stress me out once that was clearly discerned either/or. I appreciate the opinion that that wouldn't be effective, cause the only thing that stresses a person out about anything in life is the endless options and decisions themselves, not the appropriation of those decisions. My question was largely about summing itself, which I'm curious about the opinions of others for. Two very different processes making for two very different final mixdowns I imagine. Maybe the analog mixdown is really warm sounding even with cheap gear, maybe the mixdown once all is on computer is way generally way better than the former could ever be, maybe it is entirely a matter of finding out through trial and error. Perhaps I've taken advantage of the internet and should just figure it out for myself, but I figured I'd throw it out there just cause. So sue me ha.

I am away from home for a week but will start transferring everything when I get there, now that I have a few things I needed. I've just been recording in the meantime cause I had full control of that and felt comfortable with that ha. Must seem silly to the lot of you. Really appreciate the input for what it's worth. Thanks!