Recording, mixdown to analog source ::

Badtz

New member
Was wondering if I had a song/mix done on my PC, if I wanted a more "analog" sound...... what's the best way to achieve this?

via.....

a tube amp/compressor of some sort?

or

into a tape-based source?

*benefits from going either way?

also, i would have to re-route all of this back into the PC to record onto CD right?

any suggestion on equipment?

thanks
 
If you wanted "warm" you should have recorded it that way!

What is "warmth"??? Rolled-off highs???

The implication in your post is that somehow "digital" fucked with your sound and it now lacks warmth.... well it's not "digital" that did it to you, it was the way you tracked it! The warmth is supposed to come from your sound source, not the recorder!


Bruce
 
This idea comes from 2 points.

First the old low end digital systems, which sucked. And they made stuff sound harsh. But that's history now...

Then, second there's the coloration of the analog equipement taperecorders and tubegear. This can be nice, but it's not necessary. You can have perfectly good recordings without them, if you get it right from the start, as bruce said.
 
Actually... try this.... do a stereo submix to 2 new tracks....... push both tracks ahead by 10mS or so, then run the 2 submix'd tracks out to a 3-head cassette deck... take the output of the cassette deck (monitoring off the PLAY head - which will play back the freshly recorded tape - hence the need to push the submix ahead a few mS) and run it back into your PC and record it onto 2 NEW tracks...

This way, everything is in-sync and you have a submix copy of the analog sound for comparison purposes to the non-analog submix.

You can then mix some of the "analog" signal back into your mix as needed....

I bet, however, that it won't do much for you........... ie, you won't get the "warmth" you expect from it....


Bruce
 
I would like to add my 2 cents. If your not recording at a high bit rate/frequency clock rate or playing back at the same rate your digital signal will not replicate what you initially recorded. Say if your recording/playback is at 44.1/16 bit. Will the recording/playback be as accurate as the sound you recorded? I think this is the frigid sound people speak of. Now that we can do those things at higher rates digital recording is better. Although digital has come along way. I still think the recording industry prefers recording to analog tape. I know that what I said doesn't help. I just thought I would add to the discussion.
 
thanks chaplin!

i guess it's because i keep hearing about producers re-routing their mix into an analog-based storage medium to get that "warmth" of analog, then digitizing it again to burn.........

i have no idea what equipment they use to achieve this........ or even ideas
 
chalin27 said:
If your not recording at a high bit rate/frequency clock rate your digital signal will not replicate what you initially recorded.
Nonsense... a good 16-bit/44.1K converter will outperform a bad 24/96 one....

chalin27 said:
Say if your recording/playback is at 44.1/16 bit. Will the recording/playback be as accurate as the sound you recorded?
Absolutely... IF the converters are good............

Bruce
 
What do you mean..... if it's a bad converter then it's not actually sampling at the rate/bit it's supposed to. Duh...:rolleyes: This is digital data we are talking about here. Were not talking about the equipment. This is all in theory. In theory something sampled at a higher bit/rate is more accurate.
 
chalin27 said:
What do you mean..... if it's a bad converter then it's not actually sampling at the rate/bit it's supposed to. Duh...:rolleyes: This is digital data we are talking about here. Were not talking about the equipment. This is all in theory. In theory something sampled at a higher bit/rate is more accurate.
No... not if the samples are inaccurate or badly timed... or misread...

Seems you need to re-read John Watkinson's "Art of Digital Audio", which is required reading for any pro working in the field of digital recording.......

What's that you say? You never heard of it??? That explains a lot............. :rolleyes:
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
Actually... try this.... do a stereo submix to 2 new tracks....... push both tracks ahead by 10mS or so, then run the 2 submix'd tracks out to a 3-head cassette deck... take the output of the cassette deck (monitoring off the PLAY head - which will play back the freshly recorded tape - hence the need to push the submix ahead a few mS) and run it back into your PC and record it onto 2 NEW tracks...

This way, everything is in-sync and you have a submix copy of the analog sound for comparison purposes to the non-analog submix.

You can then mix some of the "analog" signal back into your mix as needed....

I bet, however, that it won't do much for you........... ie, you won't get the "warmth" you expect from it....


Bruce

Yeah...especially since your trying to get your analog "warmth" from a friggin cassette deck. What's that all about??
 
Well... I just didn't think it was too likely he had a studer or Otari 1/2 track lyin' around... and without that calibre of analog, it really wouldn't matter WHAT he used, now would it!?!?! ;)

:D
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
No... not if the samples are inaccurate or badly timed... or misread...

Seems you need to re-read John Watkinson's "Art of Digital Audio", which is required reading for any pro working in the field of digital recording.......

What's that you say? You never heard of it??? That explains a lot............. :rolleyes:

What would cause the sample to be badly timed? You are still talking about the actual converters when I'm talking about the theory. If you had great converters 24/96 is more accurate. Why are you hat'n on me. You come with all these "Not if this" and "Not if that" Even a damn computer won't do the job it's intended to do if a part of the equation is screwed up. INTENDED I repeat that because that 'what 24/96 is intended to do acurrately relect the sound better than 16/44.1. If that's not the theory then why even use that rate. If you see how a wave looks sampled at that rate it's looks really jagged. The wave form looks more like it self when done at a higher rate. But this is still in theory. This is if every thing in the equation works perfectly. I don't even know what equipment Badtz has. I was just adding my thoughts.
 
chalin27 said:
What would cause the sample to be badly timed?
A jittery clock would cause a sample to be badly timed....

A 16/44 converter with a good clock will outperform a 24/96 converter with a jittery clock, all things being equal....

Bruce
 
Back
Top