Using Reel to Reel for Mixdown from Digital Multitrack

R

Ron Schilling

New member
Hi,

Has anyone tried mixing down from a digital multitrack recorder to a reel to reel 1/4" 4-track using basically one side of the tape for L (Tape tracks 1 and 3) and the other side of the tape for R (Tape tracks 2 and 4)? It's a little off the wall, and it isn't 1/2" tape, but I already have TEAC A3340S sitting on the shelf, and this might just be an easy way to get the advantages of mixing down to analog from the digital multitrack without having to spend anything more.

Your thoughts?

Ron
 
You don't get any advantage, cos you're still dealing with small-width heads (per channel) - the end result being 2 noisy channels of signal instead of just one!

Bruce
 
Yeah- but expand that to 1/2" @ 30ips for two tracks and I think you've crossed a barrier.... :)

The Scully half track is my reason for this post.
 
I have tons of my old band tapes from the 70s and early 80s that were mixed to 1/4 inch quarter track stereo at 7.5 ips.on my Teac 3300SX and Viking 88. I have been putting the all on CD as I have time. They are a little hissy but I was using junk tape most of the time. The sound is still as analog as my Otari MTR-10 which was a 13 thousand dollar machine 13 years ago. With 456 tape and a good alignment you would be very pleased with the result, Paul.
 
I just finished mixing down a song from the Tascam DA-38 to both DAT and my old Teac 3340 simultaneously, using the exact same eq settings. I took both "masters" and dubbed them to CD to compare. Wow! The mixdown to Tape at 15IPS really did sound noticeably better. It was clearly less brittle and had more base response than the DAT copy. I brought my wife and teenage son in the room to compare, and both definitely preferred the CD track that was burned from tape--and that's with using a 4 track deck, so I was only using 1/2 the tape width!

Also, since the tape was 1st generation all the way through, noise was NOT a problem. Anyway, I'm sold on mixing down to tape now. I'll keep the DAT for copies, but the tape sure did sound nice!

Cheers,
Ron
 
Last edited:
Both Revox (Studer) and Tandberg used to make 1/4" machines where each channel was half the width of the tape.At 15ips they sounded very good.I wouldn't mind having one now.
 
Here's what it sounded like

Well, here's what it sounded like mixing down from 8 track digital to a Teac 3340S using tracks 1 and 3 at 15 IPS. I guess I'm not as picky as I should be, but I thought the noise level was very satisfactory. By the way, be gentle, it's only the 5th song I've put together--hey, no one said you had to be good to use MP3.com!

Anyway, the song mixed down to tape is called Foreign Land.

http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/321/ronnie_schilling.html

Cheers,
Ron
 
Wow...... :eek:

Waaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too bright! It's edgy and sibilant.... I think you leaned too hard on the high-shelf EQ....

Just a note - "air" doesn't come from boosting the highs, it comes from arrangement and properly defining the frequency ranges used by the individual tracks.

If you were trying to "warm" up the sound by going to tape, I can tell you right now it's not "digital" that's giving you the problem, it's your tracking and/or mixing technique that needs improvement. If you're tracking with EQ, stop it - minimize the signal path, use a decent pre and mic, and get the sound you want by mic placement instead of the EQ knob.

On mixing, if you got the sound close to where it should be during tracking, again - you will not need to use EQ much.

You're learning, but you've made a few mistakes common to many starting out - EQ is no excuse for not getting the tracking right!

Keep at it...
Cheers,

Bruce
 
Bruce,

Very fair assessment, and I agree with you on the sibilance, particularly on over use of highs on the drums/high hat. At the same time, one of the very best things about "home" recording is we don't need to be perfect every time, just a little better every time. Still, I was pretty happy with the minimal amount of background hiss from using the tape (without noise reduction) for mixdown, particularly with my overuse of the highs.

Again, very fair and pertinent comments on the highs/sibilance. If it's ok with you, I'd appreciate your inputs on my next song's mix.

Cheers,
Ron
 
Just listened again specifically for the tape hiss (I forgot about hiss when I heard the exaggerrated brightness!!)

For anyone used to a tape deck, that's a familiar sound... too noisy for my tastes! Good thing is though, that the music's dynamics aren't soft enough to make the hiss noticeable.

Like I said - you should be more than able to get great sound from your DAT... so much so that tape is not even necessary. Pay attention to technique and signal chain, and you'll get much better results!

Lay your next one on me!! ;)

Bruce
 
Hey Ron, Very nice song. Are you singing on that track? I dont use a hi hat mic but use a variety of overhangs depending on the drumer and setup. I always set the eq flat for tracking. If you get the chance try 2 58s on the cymbals it might soften the highs a bit. Paul.
 
Hi Paulie,

Thanks for the words. Yep, that's me singing. Singing is by far the one thing I've had to work on year after year, even just to get average results. It's those guys who can simply sit down and sound great without really working at it that drive me nuts, and most of them don't even appreciate the talent they were given.

As far as the high hat mics go, I must now admit those drums ain't drums. I use a Roland M-BD1 sound module for the drum sounds and sequence them. To me it seems that as long as you don't over sequence, and only "play" the same number of drum notes a two-handed drummer can play, the sequenced drums work fine--particularly for a married dad with kids and a full time job simply cutting bedroom demos! On the next cut, I'll take out some of the highs on the drum track, and then also cut the volume on the partially open high hat notes (those seem to be the ones with the most annoying highs).

Again, thanks for the comments and ideas!

Cheers,
Ron
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top