Recording levels

A

AnalogDimitri

New member
Just recently got my basic analog setup working: 16 channel/8buss mixer into 8 track tape machine. Everything is working fine but I was wondering what is the best way to keep a strong and consistent signal so the signal is not too low for my tape machine.

I know the sensible thing to do is get a compressor but is there anything else I can right now without spending money. Eventually I'll invest in a compressor, maybe I'll get one for Christmas!

Any input would be nice!
 
AnalogDimitri said:
Just recently got my basic analog setup working: 16 channel/8buss mixer into 8 track tape machine. Everything is working fine but I was wondering what is the best way to keep a strong and consistent signal so the signal is not too low for my tape machine.

I know the sensible thing to do is get a compressor but is there anything else I can right now without spending money. Eventually I'll invest in a compressor, maybe I'll get one for Christmas!

Any input would be nice!
Click to expand...

Hah! Well I shall tell thee! The guys on the faders during recording sessions were often musicians who were s'hot sight readers and they followed a score during a performance sot that they could anticipate the fffs and "artistically" pull the faders down and up in all the right places.

That's "classical" stuff of course but the rock/pop boys were no less talented and knew how to "ride the faders" to get the best signal to noise ratio but it takes many years of experience.

Me? I would just use a PC and 24bits, set a decently low average level then repair to the bar for the evening!

Dave.
 
When using tape one of the plus sides is that tape is more forgiving. You can hit the red pretty hard on a tape machine and a very short hard hit will almost be undetectable, as apposed to digital recording where you can't hit the red. The correct name here is tape compression. The tape compression in effect smooths out the peaks and makes the track louder, this is particularly good when recording drums.

You will need to experiment with what you can get away with level wise before it changes the sound too much. An example is that when I used tape, I wish I still did, I used to hit +5 quite often with kick and snare and loved the sound of this, but it does change depending on the tape machine and tape type being used.

Alan.
 
Alan is of course perfectly correct, I am being rather bloody minded about tape!

But of course this "hit it hard, sounds great" concept is only applicable to the "rock" genre (I use the term loosely to include everything that isn't "classical" Big Band or acoustic jazz) and is rather born of necessity (if I were to be B.M again I might say "desperation!"). The compression or distortion to give it its proper name, might add something to a pop vocal or guitar take but sounds bad when applied to a piano sonata, at its worse rather like a speaker voice coil rubbing.

But enough of my prejudice! The bottom line is,...Tape is hard! Even with "The Forgiveness" you still have an appallingly narrow dynamic "window" in which to record compared to even 16 bit digital.
You can cheat of course! Shush! Come here...Record everything at 24bits, neg 20 then you can run that out to tape and play around with levels and distortion to your hearts!
Nobody will EVER know!

Dave.
 
AnalogDimitri said:
.. I know the sensible thing to do is get a compressor but is there anything else I can right now without spending money. Eventually I'll invest in a compressor, maybe I'll get one for Christmas!

Any input would be nice!
Click to expand...
A compressor, in the tracking stage sure, on an instrument or a few perhaps at once. But in my humble experience as much or more for the sound of it and getting you closer to finished sound than record level control.
That is likely to be quite a different compression set up, in the way it's applied, threshold etc, than attempting to keep the bulk of a track down for example, or lower level stuff up. (That would be closer to fader riding as mentioned.
 
One thing I'd mention is that the type and quality of metering on hand affects what I decide to do with my levels. I'm much more conservative on a basic VU than I am with a standard (well, standard in the UK) BBC-style PPM. With a PPM I get a pretty accurate reading of what my peaks are doing and happily allow things to go up to around +12 (PPM 6). On a VU, I'm much less certain what my actual levels are and keep thing down to around the zero VU point on the meter.

Compressor? Well, I use a compressor on each channel when I record. However, I try to adjust both my levels and the compressor so it works simply as a limiter--and (hopefully) only limits once or twice a year. I see it more as a way to insure against an otherwise good take being ruined than something to depend on.
 
Bobbsy said:
..Compressor? Well, I use a compressor on each channel when I record. However, I try to adjust both my levels and the compressor so it works simply as a limiter--and (hopefully) only limits once or twice a year. I see it more as a way to insure against an otherwise good take being ruined than something to depend on.
Click to expand...
Interesting, (and I realize this is 'to tape here). But as opposed to my point of ref -i.e. digital', where the comfort range is huge, and I wouldn't worry at all about a safety net', but rather use tracking comp to get me closer to a desired final place.
:)
But people do do that to tape as well? At least I would presume.
 
Bobbsy said:
..Compressor? Well, I use a compressor on each channel when I record. However, I try to adjust both my levels and the compressor so it works simply as a limiter--and (hopefully) only limits once or twice a year. I see it more as a way to insure against an otherwise good take being ruined than something to depend on.
Click to expand...
I just realized there is another whole angle to this I had totally forgotten- Where no mistakes are permitted, and/or no time to 'work out good compressor settings' for a track, (nor risk trying some 'best guess' .
Grins..
 
ecc83 said:
Alan is of course perfectly correct, I am being rather bloody minded about tape!

But of course this "hit it hard, sounds great" concept is only applicable to the "rock" genre (I use the term loosely to include everything that isn't "classical" Big Band or acoustic jazz) and is rather born of necessity (if I were to be B.M again I might say "desperation!"). The compression or distortion to give it its proper name, might add something to a pop vocal or guitar take but sounds bad when applied to a piano sonata, at its worse rather like a speaker voice coil rubbing.

But enough of my prejudice! The bottom line is,...Tape is hard! Even with "The Forgiveness" you still have an appallingly narrow dynamic "window" in which to record compared to even 16 bit digital.
You can cheat of course! Shush! Come here...Record everything at 24bits, neg 20 then you can run that out to tape and play around with levels and distortion to your hearts!
Nobody will EVER know!

Dave.
Click to expand...

Well I was trying to make the point about forgiveness with tape, the fact that the odd overload here or there will be fine, yes this is different when recording classical or some jazz, etc.

The narrow window only exists if you don’t have a good noise reduction system on the machine; I mean a good working noise reduction system, which opens the window up a bit. Tape without NR will have about a 60dB signal to noise, with DBX about 90 dB and Dolby S or SR about 110 dB.

Cheers
Alan
 
mixsit said:
I just realized there is another whole angle to this I had totally forgotten- Where no mistakes are permitted, and/or no time to 'work out good compressor settings' for a track, (nor risk trying some 'best guess' .
Grins..
Click to expand...

There's probably a lot to that. As some know, my professional life (before I retired) was spent in television where "get it right the first time" was the order of the day (and a total necessity when doing live stuff). This probably colours my opinion of things.

Also, it's worth saying that I don't think I've ever used a compressor to "colour" a recording. Maybe it's the stuff I work on or maybe just that I've always thought of a compressor as a tool you use to control dynamic range rather than a creative part of the recording process.

Maybe I should play more!
 
AnalogDimitri said:
Just recently got my basic analog setup working: 16 channel/8buss mixer into 8 track tape machine. Everything is working fine but I was wondering what is the best way to keep a strong and consistent signal so the signal is not too low for my tape machine.

I know the sensible thing to do is get a compressor but is there anything else I can right now without spending money. Eventually I'll invest in a compressor, maybe I'll get one for Christmas!

Any input would be nice!
Click to expand...

Yes indeed. There is plenty you can do. People have been recording to tape for decades without all sorts of processing.

Dont put to much stock in the digital naysayers that like to stir crap in the analog forum, tape works great.

If you are just using tape as an effect then hit it harder, who cares, its just an effect after all.

But I got the feeling from your post you are trying to use tape as a recording medium, not an effect.

If so. If the sound is percussive like drums, set the levels for peaks on the meter at around -6dB (give or take). Why? The ballistics of a VU meter are too slow to keep up with a percussive signal. Guitars, I find can be recorder higher on the scale, hitting towards 0dB or even brief peaks into the red. Bass and vocals can be treated similarly.

Ive used this method since I started and it works for me. Also, I dont like processing on the way in. Processing is destructive by nature and not reversible. Just my 2 cents.

Give it a try and have a blast! Thats what it is all about!

Mark
 
mdainsd said:
Yes indeed. There is plenty you can do. People have been recording to tape for decades without all sorts of processing.

Dont put to much stock in the digital naysayers that like to stir crap in the analog forum, tape works great.

If you are just using tape as an effect then hit it harder, who cares, its just an effect after all.

But I got the feeling from your post you are trying to use tape as a recording medium, not an effect.

If so. If the sound is percussive like drums, set the levels for peaks on the meter at around -6dB (give or take). Why? The ballistics of a VU meter are too slow to keep up with a percussive signal. Guitars, I find can be recorder higher on the scale, hitting towards 0dB or even brief peaks into the red. Bass and vocals can be treated similarly.

Ive used this method since I started and it works for me. Also, I dont like processing on the way in. Processing is destructive by nature and not reversible. Just my 2 cents.

Give it a try and have a blast! Thats what it is all about!

Mark
Click to expand...

Stir crap? Moir?
Ok so I like to poke a bit of a stick at the beast but I mean no harm (I mean if peeps want to waste thei......) .
I just took the OP at his word, getting levels right with tape IS tricky but if that is "The Sound" he is after he will have to learn. Been there personally, many years ago and now can't be doing with it.

Not sure about noise reduction? Dolby A is great but you need to keep a very precise eye on levels. DBX was never really embraced by the "classical" music industry, they said it could be heard "working" on certain combinations of signals?
Then there were (are?) the Purest of pure tape guys that eschew noise reduction entirely and use a terrifying 30ips!

Dolby SR? Lovely! About $1400 for the OP's 8 channels if the prices I see on ebay are anything to go by. But then surely if you are getting a 16bit dynamic range you will not need to get close to "warmf and squash" at all? And it seems like cheating a bit to me as well!

Dave.
 
witzendoz said:
The narrow window only exists if you don’t have a good noise reduction system on the machine; I mean a good working noise reduction system, which opens the window up a bit. Tape without NR will have about a 60dB signal to noise, with DBX about 90 dB and Dolby S or SR about 110 dB.
Click to expand...

I'll mention an old trick that has worked well for me without NR. I like to boost the way high frequencies (and I mean higher than sibilance) on the way to tape, and then roll them off a bit on playback. Cuts down a lot of the 'perceived' noise, and I like what tape does when you drive it a bit harder with high frequencies.
 
ecc83 said:
,...Tape is hard! Even with "The Forgiveness" you still have an appallingly narrow dynamic "window" in which to record compared to even 16 bit digital.
Click to expand...

If one just looks at the numbers...it appears that way on paper.
However, seeing how the digital recording norm for many is to nuke every track, plus the mix....there's often little of that theoretical dynamic range left. ;)
I've got some sampled drum tracks that I dropped to tape, so I could record my other stuff with the drums and not needing to lock the DAW for it. Then I transfered those drum tracks back into the DAW...and AFTER going to tape, they sound beefier and more 3D than the original samples when I play them side by side. It's subtle, but it's there.\
I would close my eyes and quickly hit the mouse a bunch of times to switch between the tracks, so I have no idea which one I'm going to be listening to. Then I go A/B while keeping my eyes closed. I did that with the complete drum mix, and individual tracks (Kick, Snare, Hat, etc)
Every time I would stop on what I thought was the better sounding track, and look at which it was.....it was ALWAYS the tracks that came back from the tape deck. :)

So, while I use to save the sampled tracks in the DAW for "just in case"...I know toss them, and just use the ones coming back off the tape. It kinda sucks 'cuz I eat up 8 tape tracks for the drums doing that, whereas if I used the original sampled tracks in the DAW, I could just drop a stereo pair "scratch kit" on the tape, which would give me 6 more tape tracks for recording., and then just sync up the tape deck to the DAW drum tracks.....but I just prefer the sound of the tape drum tracks whenever I use sampled drum tracks.

AFA noise reduction.....I don't use any, and I track at 15 ips on my Otari MX-80 2"....and man, it's quiet as a mouse.
I've got some piano chord tails that ring out for a real long time, and when transfered to my DAW, they will fade to digital black and you never hear even the slightest tape "hiss" coming of the tracks that were done on the MX-80....
....and I don't go out of my way to really "hit the tape hard" inm order to increase the S/N.
 
Last edited:
7upPartridge said:
I'll mention an old trick that has worked well for me without NR. I like to boost the way high frequencies (and I mean higher than sibilance) on the way to tape, and then roll them off a bit on playback. Cuts down a lot of the 'perceived' noise, and I like what tape does when you drive it a bit harder with high frequencies.
Click to expand...

Yeah....that's been used successfully for non-NR recording.
Add a bunch of high-end going in, then remove the same going out later...both for improving the S/N and for keeping the highs crisp.
Personally, I'm use to the slight roll-off of the high-end with tape....and I tend to like that sound more than the super crisp, almost strident quality you get when you go direct to digital.

It's funny, lots of folks who praise that aspect of digital...that it can maintain the crisp high-end better than tape recording....often end up using some sort of tape/analog/tube plugins to give them the more softer/subtle high-end quality.
I mean, in the end, you can work with both equally well to end up in the same place....it's just a matter of adjusting your process to either fit tape or digital recording. :thumbs up:
 
Last edited:
"If one just looks at the numbers...it appears that way on paper.
However, seeing how the digital recording norm for many is to nuke every track, plus the mix....there's often little of that theoretical dynamic range left. "

Yeah, well. Two wrongs do not a right make! My responses are somewhat tongue in cheek Miroslav. The OP asked about levels and I pointed out that there is an art to keeping to decent signal to noise level and preserving "fidelity". Of course this is going to be genre specific and down to the taste of the recordist/producer.

I am not anti-tape. I would not DARE be! My son spent over 20 years making music on a Teac A-3440 and I agree, for a one pass recording with a good machine in top nick and good tape the noise performance is good enough and your machines are going to be 3 6dB better than the 1/4track Teac. It is when you start bouncing tracks and building songs that the limitations start to show. Once Son had a computer, mixer and 2496 soundcard the 3440 just gathered dust for 3 years.

He did want to get back into it a couple of years ago and "dad" had to do a bit of quick servicing (capstan belt fell off) . Like many, he is after that "tape sound" but the short playing time and the other technical shortcomings soon came home to roost. See, he likes the IDEA of tape sound but is frustrated by the problems and work (mainly for me!) that it throws up!

I really do not mean any disrespect to any of you guys struggling with tape!

Dave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top