Incorporating Analog tape into DAW (thoughts)

S

sushi-mon

New member
I am considering purchasing a used 2 track 1/4 inch reel to reel. This was essentially mastering quality back in the 70s and 80's. I figure to use this for tracking as well as running digital submixes onto, then incorporating it back into my DAW to see what kind of supposed analog dirt and warmth I can add to my digital tracks and mixes.

Any thoughts or experiences doing this ? :cool:
 
wow...well I'm not sure exactly what type of tape machine we are talking about, but I'll just lay out some stuff and you can use the information as you wish:


Analog does have its sound, but alot of that also has to do with having a really good tape machine. If any tape machine, whether new or old is not properly calibrated or in poor condition, I don't see any benefits of running daw mixes through it. So I'm not sure if you're used to calibrating tape machines, but that's just part of the gig.

Which means you need to spend money on an MRL, for starters. That's how you're going to cal your tape machine. One of those can run you a few hundred dollars. Then you'd have to set operating levels (ex. +6 or +9 operating level?), keeping in mind the type of tape you have and do all this stuff to get the machine working the best it can. In fact, some people make a good living just calibrating tape machines all day.

Without that calibration and maintinence, your frequency range could be compromised, your dynamic range could be compromised, your phase could be compromised, which means it was better to stay inside the DAW anyway. You'd have to consider your tape speeds (15ips or 30ips) and the benefits to each, and that they even make the type of tape your looking for. Not all reels sound the same, nor do they perform the same.

Then you'd have to check the condition of the tape heads. Replacing those can get really expensive. On a studer 2inch tape machine, that can reach up to 13grand to get good heads.

Oh and demagging the machine also comes up. Usually a special tech does that. If you don't do that, you risk having bad high end response.

If it's a good tape machine, and you have knowledge of how to calibrate one flawlessly, then it can help you out a little more. Even then, it's the A/D conversion that kills you.

So it's give and take. If you're able to accept some loss of quality at the expense of passing mixes through a tape machine, then go for it.

On the plus side, tape does gel things better than a DAW could ever do alone. It smooths out your highs and rounds off your lows. I will gel things in the overall mix better. The 2nd and 3rd harmonic distortion will give a pleasing sound to the human ear. It makes a song sound like a song (in my opinion).


I guess the reason question is: If you're good at calibrating that machine, able to take on extra expenses for nessessary items, know exactly what type of tape you want (if they even make it anymore), know the general result to expect and are all around proficent with a tape machine, then maybe it's worth your while.


If you feel a little unsure about how to use one, I can't say that it will benefit you in any way. Of course, that's just my opinion. Not my money. :D
 
LeeRosario said:
wow...well I'm not sure exactly what type of tape machine we are talking about, but I'll just lay out some stuff and you can use the information as you wish...If you feel a little unsure about how to use one, I can't say that it will benefit you in any way. Of course, that's just my opinion. Not my money. :D
Click to expand...

Nice post! There's a lot of myths/beliefs going around (not to ressurect THAT old post again :D ) that point-blank "analog will make everything sound warm and 70's-ish, no matter what the tape/machine/maintenance/skill going into it is"
I think it's really cool to experiment with various machines and recording methods, and putting anything to tape will alter the sound of it (for better or worse) but it's also good to be aware that just because you run something through a 1/4" TEAC from a garage sale, it won't sound like Dark Side of the Moon.
Good luck with the experiment, but definitely listen to Lee in terms of what you actualy want out of using tape (especially since you're going to be putting money into it :) )
 
hold up....

I demag my own machines all the time.

although lee brings up some very good points, don't get scared off altogether. just find a machine that is in 8/10 or better condition, that has the manual, and be prepared to spend some extra money on a demagger, new test tape (if the machine comes with one it will likely be sticky and un-useable), multimeter, and perhaps even a new pinch roller. tape isn't cheap, either.

if you have good converters, the extra conversion will be negligible. in fact, if you get a good 1/4" running, you might find that your converters will be the next thing you want to upgrade. mytek sound very "analog" to me.

if dirt is all you are after...i ran some tracks back through a blue tube last night and it provided some really nice distortion! some people run tracks through a headphone amp on full blast....get creative! a 1/4" might be better used for mastering and archiving.
 
good posts people

Thanks. I actually did look into all the calibration stuff, and I am an Electrical Engineer by degree, so it does not scare me too much, besides buying something that could really be messed up. But, this deck appears to be in flawless condition and it does have the original manual. I probably can get it for a couple hundred bucks.

One of the major reasons I am doing this, is so I can learn more about analog, and what its benefits could be, especially with the sterility of DAWs.

Adding the dirt, I think brings in the cohesiveness that Lee mentioned. I just starting using Antares Tube plug in and it is definitely a good plug in for adding some warmth to tracks. Especially on bass tracks and it does help on a mix track too.

Lee would appreciate that I am going this way based on advice from Bob Katz on his website. He suggests putting together a hybrid rig that combines analog tape and DAW.
 
Why 1/4 "...

Well, at two tracks for 1/4 inch, that would be the equivalent of running 16 tracks on 2 inch tape. So that is better fidelity than 24 track 2 inch tape, which I have used. I figure it would give me the best sound quality and lowest signal to noise ratio, especially for bouncing two track sub mixes.

Of course, only doing two tracks at a time could be a problem, but really only for tracking live drums. I plan on using it for two vocal tracks, two bass tracks, two guitar tracks, and a mixed drum track. All at different times, using my DAW as the source for all the scratch tracks and for putting it all back together.

It will definitely be a learning experience for sure ! :cool:
 
sushi-mon said:
Well, at two tracks for 1/4 inch, that would be the equivalent of running 16 tracks on 2 inch tape. So that is better fidelity than 24 track 2 inch tape, which I have used. I figure it would give me the best sound quality and lowest signal to noise ratio, especially for bouncing two track sub mixes.
Click to expand...

Tape track width is only one of many, many factors that contribute to the sound quality of a tape recorder. You make no mention of tape speed. What machine are you actually looking at?
 
yes, and the machine's electronics will make an even larger difference.

It might prove difficult to sync the machine up for overdubs. if you are simply running off the repro head there will be a lag...which will make it difficult to track if not impossible. a better solution might be to record the tracks to disc and then run them through the tape machine and then re-sync the new tracks. without some sort of syncing device, the tape machine will never sync up with your digital setup otherwise. and to use a syncing device, it will take up 1 track. another option might be to look at a 1/2" 8-track, which is 2/3 the width of a 2" 24-track machine...but won't be so hot for mixdowns.
 
sushi-mon said:
Well, at two tracks for 1/4 inch, that would be the equivalent of running 16 tracks on 2 inch tape. So that is better fidelity than 24 track 2 inch tape, which I have used. I figure it would give me the best sound quality and lowest signal to noise ratio, especially for bouncing two track sub mixes.

Of course, only doing two tracks at a time could be a problem, but really only for tracking live drums. I plan on using it for two vocal tracks, two bass tracks, two guitar tracks, and a mixed drum track. All at different times, using my DAW as the source for all the scratch tracks and for putting it all back together.

It will definitely be a learning experience for sure ! :cool:
Click to expand...



ahh, but see...that quality you're looking for depends on the tape level and who makes it. (Edit: and tape speed, too) Some tapes are at +3 some +6....some even +9. I think they even have +12 now. Although I cant verify that.

The higher the tape can allow, the lower the noise floor. I beleive the general standard is +6, but if you're looking for a -3 db lower noise floor, or +3 db higher head room (or maybe a little of botg), then you would theoretically use +9 and then cal using your tape calibration equation.

I beleive that was VU= MRL-OP Level

So the manufacturer who makes the tape and the level it can operate at will indicate that fidelity you're refering to. I just can't remember if 1/4 inch actually sounded better than 2inch. I don't think it should, it's essentially magnetic tape, right? (good question).

The MRL is important because you're going to have to print test tones for calibration. You do this if you want to transfer your tapes to another studio. It will have a guy say, "blah blah blah...something tape calibration at 1k" and then a test tone at 1k to which you calibrate your VU meters at. Then another at 10k for high end calibration. Then you might have 100hz for low end stuff. However, low end calibration can get pretty nutty on tape machines. I think the term used was "Fringing".

There's a whole process devoted to calibrating tape machines properly, both mechanically (head adjustments) and electronically. If I can find that list, I'll send it your way.

It's been a long time since I've been at a tape machine session. Besides, alot of that info will come on the tape. Quantegy is a good place to start now in terms of tape. Alot of the 80s up to the mid 90s made that habit of using Ampex tape.
 
Last edited:
LeeRosario said:
Some tapes are at +3 some +6....some even +9. I think they even have +12 now. Although I cant verify that.
Click to expand...

When throwing these numbers around, you MUST qualify them. +3 over what? In general, I would say if there is no qualification mentioned, just +3 for instance. That would be taken to mean +3db over 185 nano-Webers per meter. However, that is by no means ever clear. I have seen many a tape machine misaligned by people not qualifying +x over what.

The studios that I came up in the world at often use 250nW/m as the baseline. That means when I would say +6 at those studios, it was +6 over 250nW/m. However, to someone else, that may mean +9. Confused? Good, that is why you must always specify +(x)dB over (y)nW/m. Then there will be no confusion.

As for +12 tape. I can only assume by your mention of +9 that you are using a reference on 185nW/m. While there is tape that will run at +9/185nW/m I am not aware of any formulation that is optimised for +12dB/185nW/m. I have assisted on a session where the 24 track was aligned for +12dB/185nW/m, running Quantegy's GP9 tape. That was a mistake, but it turned out alright. Luckily the tracking engineer always tracked at conservative levels. We only found out after the session what the machine was actually aligned to. That misalignement was due to miscommunication between the tracking engineer and the green assistant who did the machine alignment. During set-up, I asked another assistant to align the machine for the session. He asked the engineer how he wanted the machine aligned. The engineer replied "+9". So the assistant aligned to +9dB/250nW/m! Our house MRL was a 250nW/m tape. What the engineer was really requesting was +9dB/185nW/m which is equal to +6dB/250nW/m. What the engineer actually got was +9dB/250 which is equal to +12/185!

You must specify!
 
Thanks for the responses.

I am not sure that the dubbing will be as much a problem. I would plan on recording straight into the tape machine through a mixer, while the person is listening to the scratch P-tulz mix on headphones. Then afterwards record the analog performance from tape straight into Ptulz and line up the tracks accordingly.

Over Dubs would be a problem, but then I could have the person just add new sections or get a tape worth of several takes and cut and paste the best parts in p-tulz.

Quantegy makes plenty of these tapes, and the test tape for 1/4 is only $79. I figure having a good manual for the deck should provide plenty of guidance as well.
 
I read about bands all the time that track to 2" 24 trk tape then dump it into DAW for editing and mixing then 2 trk master back to 1/4" tape to ensure.

These are major label bands I read about by the way. I'd venture to guess that if you had crappy cables or for that matter the wrong ones that it would induce noise into that type of analog system. Of course being mostly analog it's plenty noisy.

Then again if your talking about using for tape saturation for sometype of effect. Just buy a crappy tube mic pre, and you'll get enough of that tape sound your looking for.
 
I use a 2 tape machines in concert with my PC. A porta studio (MT100) 4 track & a TRUVOX stereo R2Reel.
I much prefer working through them & then into the PC.
The calibration thing is an issue that needs to be dealt with to get the BEST from the machines - don't do it - don't expect the best.
Demagnetising is something that most analogue users do for themselves & again isn't a problem really.
I used tape exclusively for almost 18 years. Then PC exclusively for 2 years. I don't really like the sound straight to PC. I used tube pres etc to give some "warmth", as well as exciters, enhancers etc. but in the end wasn't overly fussed with the results.
Then I started to combine the two (or three) formats & things sound "better". Not great by any means as my means are very limited.
Go with it, try it, see if you like what you're doing.
 
Raw-Tracks said:
You must specify!
Click to expand...


Honest mistake, yeah I was going with 250 nano webers (I think? Pretty positive). It's been a while! Appreciate the correction, though.


Also, I wasn't sure if "mastering" reels go through the same process, or if they take another process altogether. Sometimes I wish I was born into a pre pro tools world.
 
LeeRosario said:
Honest mistake, yeah I was going with 250 nano webers (I think? Pretty positive). It's been a while! Appreciate the correction, though.
Click to expand...

If you are thinking 250nW/m, the hottest widely accepted operating level is +6/250. That's generally where you will see Quantegy 499 and GP9 aligned to, as well as EMTEC 900.


Also, I wasn't sure if "mastering" reels go through the same process, or if they take another process altogether. Sometimes I wish I was born into a pre pro tools world.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you are really asking here. What do you mean by "mastering reels"? 1/4" or 1/2" 2-track? Just not sure.
 
I pretty much agree with everybody that has responded so far in one form or another. Just a little more grist for the mill.

On the referbing issue, what wasn't mentioned but is often one of the biggest issues when buying used/old tape gear is the condition of all parts rubber or rubber-like. While this can apply to many things, the key culprits here will be the condition of any belts and - very importantly - any rubber surface on the capstan or pinch roller. Look to see that the rubber is still fairly pliable and not dry or even cracked around the edges and that the rubber is not grooved/indented at all in the center where the tape path exists. also, - this depends entirely upon the make and model of deck, of course, - but replacement heads on a 2-track 1/4" should not be all that expensive, unless they are simply rare or hard-to-find models that jacks the price to a premium. They'll still not be ultra-cheap, but relative to something like a 16-track head assembly, if you're looking at somthing like a TEAC or Fostex or Sony 2-track, they'll seem very cheap.

On the tape issue, one thing that kind of bothers me is the definitive lack of tape brand choice these days as compared to the "good old days". Back when I used a 2-track sound-with-sound for the very kind of thing you're referring to (we're talking 20 years ago now), choices were plentiful. This came in handy as there was a definite performance difference between, say, Ampex and Maxell and BASF (there were many other brands, I'm just picking three out of a hat), even ones that were rated at the same bias current levels and had similar formulations.

The advantage here was that while the Ampex sounded "best" on one deck, the Maxell would sound "best" on another (subjective, of course.) Now, unless I'm mistaken (Lee or someone correct me if I'm wrong here), unless one really searches for the right sourcing, the choices these days for 1/4" are pretty much between Quantegy, Quantegy and Quantegy ;). That alone I think limits the spectrum of sound options that one has for this application, at least compared to the days of yore.

But let's say that all of that is accounted for satisfactorily, the bottom line question is, "does the technique work?" If by that you mean does mastering to, or at least processing through, 1/4" analog make a difference in the sound? If done right, Yes, I believe it does. I used to do it for many years with my old setup.

But notice I said "used to". One reason I don't anymore is because when I switched over to my current setup, which is basically all digital once the signal gets past my outboard analog mixer and insert processors, is that I felt that I would be paying to high of a cost in signal distortion running though the average-quality A/D//D/A converters I currently use (MOTU 2408 original). Whatever benefit I used to pick up via my old 1/4" would more or less be obviated by the extra conversion steps.

If/when I had or will have better converters in my next studio upgrade (I have my eyes on possibly Apogee or UA), then I think the border between the analog and digital worlds might be transparent enough to warrent frequently crossing it again. Just an IMHO on that one.

G.
 
Raw-Tracks said:
Not sure what you are really asking here. What do you mean by "mastering reels"? 1/4" or 1/2" 2-track? Just not sure.
Click to expand...


Oh I ment the calibration steps for a mastering tape machine. Should be the same, right?


unless one really searches for the right sourcing, the choices these days for 1/4" are pretty much between Quantegy, Quantegy and Quantegy
Click to expand...


Yeah man, as far as I know, it's the same conclusion for me. Quantegy Quategy Quategy. :D

I know Fullsail is almost exclusive with quantegy (I keep in contact occasionally with some of the people there), so that kind of gives me a general indication.


I'm not sure if it's true, but I think 3M was trying to get back in the race? I can't find that information anywhere, so I can't say it's true as of now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top