using reel-to-reel in conjunction with DAW

[famous beagle]

I've heard of a technique where you track everything digitally and then run some of the tracks out one- or two-at-a-time through a 2-track reel-to-reel and back into the DAW in order to achieve analog warmth and/or tape compression. Does anyone know about this or know of any links that discuss this technique?

Thanks!

[BRDTS]

Actually, you just described the entire technique. System specifics as to routing, nudging of the tracks to allow for head delay etc all depend on the specific daw you're using. Some folks do a variation on the digital/analog thing by tracking on analog, then dump to digital. Or stay digital from the start and only mix down to analog for the final mix etc. No end to the possibilities. At various times, I use about every combination of daw/analog tape you can think of.

As to the results?

It's all personal opinion as to whether the results are cool or not worth the time hassle. You'll just have to try it and see what you think.

[famous beagle]

Thanks BRDTS. I guess I thought there was more to it, but now that I think about it, I suppose it's not as complicated as I thought. I'm looking forward to trying it out.

[Fletcher]

You will negate a lot of the possitive attributes of tape by recording to digital first and then using analog like a processing device... especially if you're using 'semi-pro' quality converters [like MOTU or RME stuff].

With that said... "analog tape" itself is not any kind of magic bullet... the deck to which you print has to be up to the task. If you're talking about something like a Tascam 80-8 you might as well not bother with that part of the process... if you're talking about a Studer deck or an Otari or an MCI then while the machine is capable of being a "positive" the care and feeding of that machine is of paramount importance.

You will need to know that you have a proper tape path alignment, proper tape path tensions, proper head alignment [azimuth, zenith and wrap] as well as a proper electronic alignment [level, frequency response and bias].

If you have all those things in order you may very well reap a benefit from tracking to analog then locking your digital machine [computer] to the analog deck and printing the stuff back to digital after you record analog. I have a system that can work that way in my place and we've been finding that over 60% of the time... after we've spent an hour or two making sure the analog deck is working flawlessly, we decide we like the digital print better and decide to shutdown the analog.

No, I'm not kidding.

I have also found that both the Thermionic Culture "Culture Vulture" as well as the Empirical Labs "FATSO Jr." see a lot more use in the way I work than my analog maching does [1987 MCI JH-24 w/85% remaining headlife on play and record rolling RGI 911 tape... tried it with GP-9 and just hated the shit, could have been from a bad batch (that happens some times)].

Best of luck with all you do.

[famous beagle]

Originally Posted by Fletcher

You will negate a lot of the possitive attributes of tape by recording to digital first and then using analog like a processing device... especially if you're using 'semi-pro' quality converters [like MOTU or RME stuff].

With that said... "analog tape" itself is not any kind of magic bullet... the deck to which you print has to be up to the task. If you're talking about something like a Tascam 80-8 you might as well not bother with that part of the process... if you're talking about a Studer deck or an Otari or an MCI then while the machine is capable of being a "positive" the care and feeding of that machine is of paramount importance.

You will need to know that you have a proper tape path alignment, proper tape path tensions, proper head alignment [azimuth, zenith and wrap] as well as a proper electronic alignment [level, frequency response and bias].

If you have all those things in order you may very well reap a benefit from tracking to analog then locking your digital machine [computer] to the analog deck and printing the stuff back to digital after you record analog. I have a system that can work that way in my place and we've been finding that over 60% of the time... after we've spent an hour or two making sure the analog deck is working flawlessly, we decide we like the digital print better and decide to shutdown the analog.

No, I'm not kidding.

I have also found that both the Thermionic Culture "Culture Vulture" as well as the Empirical Labs "FATSO Jr." see a lot more use in the way I work than my analog maching does [1987 MCI JH-24 w/85% remaining headlife on play and record rolling RGI 911 tape... tried it with GP-9 and just hated the shit, could have been from a bad batch (that happens some times)].

Best of luck with all you do.

Thanks much for the info!

[MessianicDreams]

Originally Posted by Fletcher

You will negate a lot of the possitive attributes of tape by recording to digital first and then using analog like a processing device...

could you expand on this a bit Fletcher? Recently i've been tracking to PT HD through a 192io, and then bouncing out to an Otari MTR90 and back into Tools, and am curious as to what you think of this as a pratice.


also you have ried any tape emulation plug-ins, and if so what did you think of them?

cheers,

MD

[MCI2424]

Originally Posted by famous beagle

I've heard of a technique where you track everything digitally and then run some of the tracks out one- or two-at-a-time through a 2-track reel-to-reel and back into the DAW in order to achieve analog warmth and/or tape compression. Does anyone know about this or know of any links that discuss this technique?

Thanks!

Yeah. It is useless, Unless you are recording to tape, you are only adding the sound of the tape deck pre-amplifiers which are not always the best in and of themselves. You can't get "tape compression" unless tape is involved and if you are using a tape deck that either uses noise reduction or has low headroom in the recording circuits, you can't get tape compression at all.

Work on the sound in the recording itself with proper mic placement, good sounding instruments and decent equipment in a treated sound environment coupled with good mixing skills. There is no "warmth" that you can "add" later.

[famous beagle]

Originally Posted by MCI2424

Yeah. It is useless, Unless you are recording to tape, you are only adding the sound of the tape deck pre-amplifiers which are not always the best in and of themselves. You can't get "tape compression" unless tape is involved and if you are using a tape deck that either uses noise reduction or has low headroom in the recording circuits, you can't get tape compression at all.

Work on the sound in the recording itself with proper mic placement, good sounding instruments and decent equipment in a treated sound environment coupled with good mixing skills. There is no "warmth" that you can "add" later.

I don't understand. How does the reel-to-reel know the difference between a pre-recorded signal that's coming from a line in or a live signal that's coming from a mic pre?

[MCI2424]

Originally Posted by famous beagle

I don't understand. How does the reel-to-reel know the difference between a pre-recorded signal that's coming from a line in or a live signal that's coming from a mic pre?

The reel to reel doesn't but you can't get *tape compression* if you have no tape. Tape compression is the saturation of the magnetic field transferred to the actual tape. You have to be recording a signal to saturate the signal on tape. As Fletcher points out, and I avoided, this only works with pro level equipment as the home stuff doesn't have the massive headroom to run a signal that hot in the linear range.

If you only run a signal through the tape machine and roll no tape, you are only introducing the tape decks input AND output amplifiers adding good or bad artifacts to the signal.

[famous beagle]

Originally Posted by MCI2424

The reel to reel doesn't but you can't get *tape compression* if you have no tape. Tape compression is the saturation of the magnetic field transferred to the actual tape. You have to be recording a signal to saturate the signal on tape. As Fletcher points out, and I avoided, this only works with pro level equipment as the home stuff doesn't have the massive headroom to run a signal that hot in the linear range.

If you only run a signal through the tape machine and roll no tape, you are only introducing the tape decks input AND output amplifiers adding good or bad artifacts to the signal.

Oh I see what you mean! I guess I wasn't clear enough in my original post. I did intend to actually record to tape and then bounce that back into the hard disk.

As far as the caliber of machine, I was thinking of something along the lines of a 2-track Otari (maybe like an MX 55, 5050, or MTR 10). (Of course it would be properly aligned, calibrated, and biased, etc.)

[famous beagle]

Originally Posted by MCI2424

The reel to reel doesn't but you can't get *tape compression* if you have no tape. Tape compression is the saturation of the magnetic field transferred to the actual tape. You have to be recording a signal to saturate the signal on tape. As Fletcher points out, and I avoided, this only works with pro level equipment as the home stuff doesn't have the massive headroom to run a signal that hot in the linear range.

If you only run a signal through the tape machine and roll no tape, you are only introducing the tape decks input AND output amplifiers adding good or bad artifacts to the signal.

However, though, isn't it possible to record the signal to tape and have that signal instantly pass through the output at the same time? (There would be a slight delay, obviously.)

[MCI2424]

Originally Posted by famous beagle

However, though, isn't it possible to record the signal to tape and have that signal instantly pass through the output at the same time? (There would be a slight delay, obviously.)

Only if you have a 3 head deck and that deck has no noise reduction and has enough headroom in the electronics to properly slam the tape without running out of steam (TASCAM and FOSTEX home machines will not do it)

MCI, Studer will.

[famous beagle]

Originally Posted by MCI2424

Only if you have a 3 head deck and that deck has no noise reduction and has enough headroom in the electronics to properly slam the tape without running out of steam (TASCAM and FOSTEX home machines will not do it)

MCI, Studer will.

So ... Otari won't?

[MCI2424]

Originally Posted by famous beagle

So ... Otari won't?

Only the non-narrow gap machines (read pro) have substantially better electronics to do this. The narrow cannot be run this hot because of the narrow gap head design. There would be too much crosstalk and noise. The electronics were designed to get a good signal within the range of recording.

So, pro Otaris will do it fine.

[famous beagle]

Originally Posted by MCI2424

Only if you have a 3 head deck and that deck has no noise reduction and has enough headroom in the electronics to properly slam the tape without running out of steam (TASCAM and FOSTEX home machines will not do it)

MCI, Studer will.

The whole reason that I'm considering this route is because it seemed like a decent compromise between what I'd ideally want and what I can afford at this point. Ideally, I'd love a 24-track Studer, a huge board, and all kinds of outboard processors, but my budget is very limited at this point.

I had a Tascam 38 that was set up properly and running great. But I was never able to afford all the other things I needed (mixer and outboard FX/dynamic processors). On the few things I recorded with it (making do with my little 8x2 mixer by having to repatch when recording or listening back), I really liked the sound. But the problems were:

1. It required the use of a outboard mixer and outboard processors, which I can't afford at this time, and

2. 8 tracks wasn't enough to do what I'd like to do. (I'm mostly a one-man operation at this point.)

By replacing the R2R with a Yamaha AW16G, I got rid of the mixer problem, acquired some passable processors (for the time---remember I'm broke!), and obtained 16 tracks (not including the virtual tracks, of course). The downside is that I miss the sound of my R2R.

I'm not an expert on R2Rs and don't have any experience with Studers, MCIs, or other really hi-end stuff. I have experience with Tascam and Otari.

What I'm saying is that, since I liked the sound of the R2R I used (a lower end one, compared to MCI), would this method be a good compromise to get that sound and still have the flexibility that Yamaha affords (more tracks, FX, and editing capability)?

[famous beagle]

Originally Posted by MCI2424

Only the non-narrow gap machines (read pro) have substantially better electronics to do this. The narrow cannot be run this hot because of the narrow gap head design. There would be too much crosstalk and noise. The electronics were designed to get a good signal within the range of recording.

So, pro Otaris will do it fine.

Ok, but how do I know the pro from the non-pro? Just about every Otari being sold on ebay is touted as "professional," and I'm sure that's not the case.

Thanks for your help, by the way.

[FALKEN]

Originally Posted by MCI2424

(TASCAM and FOSTEX home machines will not do it)

MCI, Studer will.

My Fostex E-22 has +28 db headroom above +4dbu standard level. I think it will "do it". Only "it" I wouldn't really bother "doing". Even a tascam 32 with +18 or +22 db headroom above operating level should be able to get some compression without overloading the electronics (but it is possible to overload). MOL of 456 tape is +6 and I believe I read somewhere that distortion sets in at +12 so it should be possible to squeeze a little something out. Unless my thinking is totally along the wrong lines. I agree though that just mixing down to the recorder would be beneficial, no matter what "brand", as long as it is at least 1/4" half track and running good.

[famous beagle]

Originally Posted by FALKEN

My Fostex E-22 has +28 db headroom above +4dbu standard level. I think it will "do it". Only "it" I wouldn't really bother "doing". Even a tascam 32 with +18 or +22 db headroom above operating level should be able to get some compression without overloading the electronics (but it is possible to overload). MOL of 456 tape is +9 and I believe I read somewhere that distortion sets in at +12 so it should be possible to squeeze a little something out. Unless my thinking is totally along the wrong lines. I agree though that just mixing down to the recorder would be beneficial, no matter what "brand", as long as it is at least 1/4" half track and running good.

How come? Would it not be comparable to tracking on the analog machine from the beginning? And if not, why not?

[FALKEN]

no it would not be comparable. the reason why not is because now the analog machine is capturing a digital copy, not the original. is a photocopy of a drawing as good as the original?

here's another way of thinking about it: is putting a compressor after an eq going to sound the same as putting the eq after the compressor? the same processes in a different order can equal different results.

[famous beagle]

Originally Posted by FALKEN

no it would not be comparable. the reason why not is because now the analog machine is capturing a digital copy, not the original. is a photocopy of a drawing as good as the original?

here's another way of thinking about it: is putting a compressor after an eq going to sound the same as putting the eq after the compressor? the same processes in a different order can equal different results.

Wouldn't this depend on the accuracy of your digital system? I know my Yamaha isn't pro-level, but aren't pro-level digital systems praised for their transparency whereas analog systems are praised for their coloration?

I suppose comparable wasn't the right word. Wouldn't it get me closer to that sound though?

[FALKEN]

if you assume that the digital conversions are transparent, then there is no difference.

[AGCurry]

I think we're confusing the issue a bit here. Using an analog tape deck in any way in the digital recording process should be viewed as an effect, same as any other effect.

The results will differ, obviously, with the tape deck used. If you want the recording to sound like it was recorded on a professional tape machine, you need a professional tape machine. But, if you want to create a different effect, the cheapest of machines may do what you want.

For example, years ago I used a Tascam cassette recorder. Although it was by no means high fidelity, I wish I still had that machine because it imparted a weird but pleasing sound.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by AGCurry

I think we're confusing the issue a bit here. Using an analog tape deck in any way in the digital recording process should be viewed as an effect, same as any other effect.

Bingo! IMHO, AGC has hit the nail on the head with that whole post.

Several years ago I used to use an old Pioneer RT1020L 10" 2-track open reel for similar puproses. I found that when gained correctly it often put a very nice patina on my 2mixes as a finishing step. It was not appropriate for all mixes or production styles, any more than a specific compressor or EQ is always appropriate for all songs. It also did not sound anything like a 2" Sony or Studer or anything like that. Nor did I expect it to. But it definitely had a positive sound and a positive purpose for many a 2mix.

G.

[MCI2424]

Originally Posted by famous beagle

Oh I see what you mean! I guess I wasn't clear enough in my original post. I did intend to actually record to tape and then bounce that back into the hard disk.

As far as the caliber of machine, I was thinking of something along the lines of a 2-track Otari (maybe like an MX 55, 5050, or MTR 10). (Of course it would be properly aligned, calibrated, and biased, etc.)

Those units will probably work as long as you bias (align) them fairly low. The best tape compression sound is derived when the record electronics work in the linear range and slam the tape creating a easy magnetic saturation (pleasing compression) as opposed to record electronics that have the measurable headroom, but are not in a linear range. This type of tape comression sounds nasty. Measured headroom (like +28 ) means nothing if the signal above +12 is non-linear (like many low end narrow format machines). It is something to try as all these machines are different and some will do it, some will not.

Think of it this way. Take a 10Watt amplifier and a 100Watt amplifier and run the 10Watt amp at 75% power (7.5watts). Measure the distortion of the signal. Now, run the 100Watt amp at 7.5Watts and measure the signal. The 100Watt amp will have 10 times lower distortion. Same measured power but the 10Watt amp runs out of it's linear range and starts to crap out where the 100Watt amp has plenty more to go to even begin to distort. Pro decks have tons of clean gain to slam the tape where home narrow gap units tend to run out of steam when slamming the tape. It is a matter of cutting corners for price point. All these decks were never meant to slam the tape as designed. It just turned out that people figured out in pro studios that this effect was possible and it caught on. As usual, the info got around and it is accepted that every tape deck can accomplish it. My Fostexs and TASCAMS of past ownership never quite could get there. They sounded pretty bad when trying to slam the tape. I guess it is something to try as you have nothing to lose unless you run GP9 where you will not be even close.

[Fletcher]

Originally Posted by MessianicDreams

could you expand on this a bit Fletcher? Recently i've been tracking to PT HD through a 192io, and then bouncing out to an Otari MTR90 and back into Tools, and am curious as to what you think of this as a pratice.

The resolution of even 24 bit digital can not match the resolution of analog... so by sending the digital signal through an extra set of conversion processes you're not really sending "the sound" to the machine... you're sending something that resembles the original sound to the machine. While analog might be able to fill in some of the holes, add some noise [etc.] I would suggest running to the analog deck first and then doing only one A/D conversion to get into P-T... I would also suggest you scrap the "HD" converters for something that sounds a measure clearer and fuller [like Apogee AD-16x and/or DA-16x... or a Crane Song "Spider", etc., etc., etc.]

also you have ried any tape emulation plug-ins, and if so what did you think of them?

I've used the Crane Song plugins a couple of times and they seemed to help in a big way... I don't run PT at my joint [we're about to switch from Nuendo to Logic Pro... and my main storage device is a RADAR V-Nyquist] so its not something I use on a regular basis. The few times I have been sentenced to having to suffer through Pro-sTools I've used the Crane Song plug ins [which helped tremendously!!] and Apogee D/A converters to sum the product in the analog domain [usually through a Folcrom summing box with a Thermionic Culture "Earlybird 2" as the output amplifier].