Recording to tape then dumping it to computer. Waste of time?

R

rcktdg

New member
I have an old Teac 3340s 4 track packed away at my parents house. I was thinking of having them send it to me and experimenting with tracking drums and such with it and then rerecording them into Sonar.

Would I actually be able to get anything meaningful or would I just be wasting my time. I thought recording kick, snare and OH might sound interesting.

I think it will record at something like 15 ips. Can 1/4" tape take a hot signal enough to get that toasty warm tape compression?

It will cost about $40-$50 to get it sent to me and it's huge. If it wont really do anything for me then I will probably just forget about it.

Thanks, RD
 
Sure..try it out and see what you come up with. It won't sound like a 2" Studer, but I bet you can get alot of character into the drums that way. I still drag out my 4 track Yammie for certain things because its got a "sound" to it.

SoMm
 
it's prolly not worth it, but hey, why not, ya know? it might have a good sound to it and might surprise you. it might not.

it'd prolly be better to mix down onto, to be honest, rather than tracking to.....but hey, give it a whirl.

i've got an Akai 1/4" (2 track) that just sits here collecting dust. i've thought about ebaying it (i got it for free), as i never use it....it's not that good of a machine.


wade
 
It's mostly an issue of size and cost to get it here. I could spend $50 on some cables or a stand and get some use out of it all the time. I do remeber being impressed with the "fatness" of the bass I was able to get out of it.

I didn't know what I was doing at all at the time but specifically remember that it sounded thick and not flabby or muddy. Kind of makes me think it might sound good for a kick and Bass. I could pretty easily record to both at the same time and blend them together.

Ultimately I'm a bit more into the front end than the recording medium. I figure it's what's up front that does the most.

Cheers, RD
 
I used to do it all the time.

After a while, I started realizing that the difference it made was rather miniscule. And the added time, effort, and money I had in my tape deck could be better spent on other things . . . like better A/D converters. :D
 
Ya know, I got a TEAC 3324? I think that's the model.
Its been around in its original box not in use, collecting dust.
Its the lower level to the 3340., and if I remember correctly the difference was the 3340 is actually a 4 track, and the 3324 is a 4track but only records 2 X2. Meaning is can only overdub in stereo no what I mean? Anyway that doesn't really matter, cuz I got it modded to be able to track in mono X4.
I thought of trying it out to see what kind of saturation color I could get, but have not gotten to it yet.
If ya want I can check it out and let you know, before getting yours shipped for nothing??
Tony
 
On a small track format like 1/4 inch four track, I would not bother. The results are not really preferable until you get into 1/2 inch four track, and even then you need to know how to use the tape to it's best advantage to make it sound good.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
 
To over simplify things even more: 2" tape is about 3 tracks per 1/4", that's only slightly more recording surface per track than 4 per 1/4". I'm not really sure if it makes a huge difference or not.

I figure the real difference is the strength of the signal written to the tape itself. I don't know how you measure the magnetic energy put out by the write head.

I even wondered if I could record one signal to two tracks to burn something extra hot. Not sure it that's even possible. It does run at 15 ips so a reasonably hot signal is possible.

Probably a waste but I think my mom would like to get rid of it.

Cheers, RD
 
i've done a lot of analog four track recording and a lot of computer recording, and i'll tell you what-- the analog four track seems to capture the moment, the inspiration much better, but i havent really figured out how to input all that hours and hours of great mix downs into the computer.

but my point being i guess, that -- aside from wishing i could figure out how to input my analog into my comp, i really found it important, in order to preserve the hotness or overdrive or "turning it up to eleven" as they say on spinal tap-- which you can't really do successfully on a computer-- is to mic EVERYTHING-- fuck the direct input to computer-- mjic the shit out of your amps ala the great sonic engineers like jimi page who says "distance is depth" and if you're going directly to ones and zeroes, what kind of fucking DEPTH IS THAT?

i absolutely despise the 'direct input' sound it sounds like the fucking dead, digital lifeless nineties,. fuck that. i recorded an album on cubasis but then my computer freaked and now i cant burn it to cd so i bought a hundred dollar tascam analog four track, and i love it, and it has hiss, but fuck, man. at least you dont get errors and soundcard shit, and its all so simple and your creativity can flourish without reading a two hundred page user manual and still get fucking errors. long live analog, if i could figure out how to get it into my computer without losinbg all my fucking sound quality. keep it HOT and overdriven-- try mixiing comp recording down onto analog tape (after you;ve mic'ed your amps, not d.i.'d them-- and see how that fares for posterity)
 
Don't know if this really helps you decide but hitting tape then boucing to hard drive can make a HUGE difference. I have an all digital synth, Kawai K5000s, that can sound completely posessed and demonic. Really difficult to control dynamically and the highs can be shriller than dragging nails across a chalkboard. Did an experimental project with a friend and sent the master mix to a Tascam 1/4" tape deck (regular stereo).

Didn't think it would make a big difference but after bouncing to disk and cleaning up just a tad in Sound Forge it sounded amazingly warm. If I didn't know any better some of the synth parts sounded positively analog. I don't think we used compression on the individual tracks and the levels were all over the place. The tape helped a LOT and tamed things down. I just wish it had a repro mode. I think I have to record, rewind and playback but maybe some pro here can tell me how to rewire the sucker :)
 
Seems like analogue VS digital!

I say go a head and try it! The sound will be a warm but I don't know if I would go through the extra effort myself, when the warmth can be achieved with digital too. Good A/D converters can make a huge difference in the sound that is being captured.

I think in this day and age that analogue sound/warmth will always have a place in some peoples minds. Though I don't quite share the same views, I think everyone needs to make that choice themselves.

So try it and if you like it, use that 4 track for what you think is would add to your recordings. It's all about the learning and trying new things that might be part of "your sound".

Give it a try,
sonicpaint
:D
 
rcktdg said:
To over simplify things even more: 2" tape is about 3 tracks per 1/4", that's only slightly more recording surface per track than 4 per 1/4". I'm not really sure if it makes a huge difference or not.
Click to expand...


Well, I always run 2" at 30 ips, so I am getting considerably more tape over the head than with 1/4 inch 4 track. On top of that, most 2" machines have much better electronics than a 1/4 inch 4 track.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top