what's your 2-track mixdown deck?

G

gororbs

New member
I'm just curious as to where you analog guys send your 2 track mix. Computer? 2-track reel to reel? cd recorder?

And how loud is your stereo mix when you send it to your mixdown deck?

Just curious :)
 
At the studio, I like using the Otari DAT recorder, just because of its consistency and reliability. The default 2-track recorder in the studio is Sound Forge, which uses a Card-D as the sound card AD-DA converter in it. (BTW, more often that not, Sound Forge has given me random HICKUPS in my mixes. REALLY PISSES ME OFF!!!) So, I like to stay away from soundforge, and patch the stereo mix into the Otari DAT. All you have to do is shuttle the tape forward and backward before recording, and you're golden.

We have an MCI JH-110 2-track recorder (half-inch and quarter-inch convertible) that's hopefully soon-to-be fixed and reinstalled. I cannot WAIT to get my hands on it when it's fully up and running. :D
 
gororbs said:
I'm just curious as to where you analog guys send your 2 track mix. Computer? 2-track reel to reel? cd recorder?

And how loud is your stereo mix when you send it to your mixdown deck?

Just curious :)
Click to expand...

I mix (at least historically!) to 1/4" 2-track, though long ago I mixed a lot of stuff to a Nakamichi cassette and borrowed a 1/4" machine only occasionally. These days, I generally run 15 ips IEC1 on my tracking machines and my mix decks. The M-79-2 does 30 ips, which sounds great, but I'm old enough now that 15 ips sounds about the same on the high end and perhaps better on the low end, plus it saves me big bucks on tape cost.

I'm not sure what you mean by loud. It means a couple of things to me. As far as tape levels, I usually calibrate to 355 nWb/m (+6) on modern tape, even though I use 996 some, which can take 500 nWb/m (+9). My old machines would need some tweaking to properly erase and bias at that level, so I just run a little more conservatively. I've sometimes used the old style Ampex 631 and I calibrate to 250 nWn/m (3 dB too hot and it doesn't sound good to me if I push it) and go easy on the meters. Right now the M-79 is set up for BASF 911, which was their equivalent to Ampex 456, and I'm running it at 355 nWb/m.

If you mean signal level, I mix through a little Mackie mixer, so I turn the recorder gain up about 6 dB, so that a -2 dBU signal from the Mackie gives me a 0 VU signal on the recorder, rather than +4 dBU. That keeps the signal level down on the Mackie outputs, so it sounds less strained and has more headroom.

if you mean loud as in squashed of all dynamics, I don't have Dorrough meters so I can't tell you the peak to average level ratio, though on my projects it's often far greater than abysmal commercial norms, in part because most of my music is not seeking loud as a goal. I would guess 14 to 18 dB would be typical, which is toward the quiet side these days. Loud was a goal on a project with a teenage punk band a couple of years ago, so we ran the levels pretty hot.

If you mean loud as in monitoring volume, I try to maintain consistent loudness and not at ultraloud levels, but I don't have it calibrated to a standard monitoring level yet.

It looks like some of these tape machines will disappear in the near future, but if I have occasion to mix analog tracks in the future, I want to compare mixing down to my little MicroTrack to mixing to tape. It'll really annoy me if the MicroTrack sounds as good as the tape. ;-) I suspect I will have a 2-track for a while, because I'm not likely to sell my old M-23 unless my friend Mitch Easter wants it. The questions are, will I still have a tape machine for tracking, and will I mix from it or port things over to the computer?

Now that I'm starting to record in Live 5, I'm going to have to get used to a new mix set up, too. I'm not quite sure how that works...

Otto
 
Thanks for sharing, guys. It's very interesting... I read somewhere that some "pro engineers" throw their mixes down to -20db and then send it into a computer/cd, and then the mastering engineer does his magic from there. I'm curious about that... Not sure if this is true???
 
Well, if you assume the average level is about 0 VU and a peak to average ratio of 14 dB on tape, then -18 dB is considered a bare minimum but with 24 bit recording, 20 dB or perhaps more works quite well. I think most mastering is done in the digital domain nowadays. I know Bob Katz does.

Otto

gororbs said:
Thanks for sharing, guys. It's very interesting... I read somewhere that some "pro engineers" throw their mixes down to -20db and then send it into a computer/cd, and then the mastering engineer does his magic from there. I'm curious about that... Not sure if this is true???
Click to expand...
 
I think that having the "option" to edit and master in a computer is a very safe choice. Maybe even a "smart" choice. The sound can be great and it allows for flexibility.

Once all of the tracking and mixing is done in the analog world, sending a 2-track stereo mix to a computer is ok with me. A good sound card and a decent editor like WaveLab can be delicious. After all, our mixes are going to end up on a CD anyway, right?

Just thinking... I don't believe that editing and mastering in "the box" tarnishes the analog work. I guess it depends on how you use “the box” and whether or not “the box” is causing the engineer any audible problems... However, I totally respect and admire the guys who don't use computers for their work (for whatever reason). Very cool!

:)
 
Last edited:
gororbs said:
I'm just curious as to where you analog guys send your 2 track mix. Computer? 2-track reel to reel? cd recorder?

And how loud is your stereo mix when you send it to your mixdown deck?

Just curious :)
Click to expand...

It depends on the music, but I usually master to 1/4" half-track TASCAM 22-2 @15 ips, and from there to a Fostex CR300 stand-alone CD recorder. The A/D/A conversion on this thing is as sweet as digital can be. A good stand-alone CD recorder is a better way to convert to digital than most soundcards… all but the most expensive soundcards, anyway.

Mastering to analog first, even if you track with digital, is a great way to tame levels and increase the perceived loudness of the stereo mix. The natural compression characteristics of tape allow you to push the mix; something you can’t do going directly to digital. IMO, this is preferable to compression or limiting while mastering directly to digital.

I also have a Sony super beta hi-fi VCR for mastering that sounds incredible. Mastering audio to beta is a lost art, but most duplication houses from about mid 1980’s through the 90’s accepted beta hi-fi tapes as one of the standard audio formats; some still do.

~Tim
:)
 
mix down deck

Im going to pickup a stand alone cd recorder when I have the money. I have a Tascam 424 MKIII, and Im somewhat new at this, so with all the options, I think I would rather mixdown to a good stand alone cd recorder, than screw around with my computer.

I really need to keep things simple, because Im a 50 year old fart, and all of this new stuff, just overwhelms me. Im thinking of a Tascam 900 cd standalone recorder for around $600.00.

Anyone have any thoughts on that unit. The post I just read was a Fostex CR 300 stand alone, and the guy sounds really happy with it.


thanks,

clevodrummer
 
...mixdown...well, I have a Tascam 2488 DAW, and I recently acquired a Studer 807 1/4-inch (7.5/15/30ips option) to use for layback when I get to recording again.

Basically I will track vocals on tape, add instruments and mix down on the 2488 and sling the whole mess to tape and back before mastering. I am awaiting a set of Dolby A units, so 15 will be as sweet as 30, noise-wise, but with more bottom, if needed. There is nothing like tape....

Best,
C.
 
Yes!

clevodrummer said:
Im going to pickup a stand alone cd recorder when I have the money. I have a Tascam 424 MKIII, and Im somewhat new at this, so with all the options, I think I would rather mixdown to a good stand alone cd recorder, than screw around with my computer.

I really need to keep things simple, because Im a 50 year old fart, and all of this new stuff, just overwhelms me. Im thinking of a Tascam 900 cd standalone recorder for around $600.00.

Anyone have any thoughts on that unit. The post I just read was a Fostex CR 300 stand alone, and the guy sounds really happy with it.


thanks,

clevodrummer
Click to expand...

I've heard really good things about the TASCAM CD recorders. In fact, my "reel to reel repair guy" is behind those machines 100%... and he's a real analog freak!
 
I'm sure the Tascam CD recorders are great, but checkout the Alesis Masterlink. SOOOOO EASY TO USE. Sounds great. Lots you can do with it, including......archiving you're analog mixes at 24/96, which is kinda cool.
 
Beck said:
and from there to a Fostex CR300 stand-alone CD recorder. The A/D/A conversion on this thing is as sweet as digital can be. A good stand-alone CD recorder is a better way to convert to digital
Click to expand...

Was going to pick up that CD recorder you had up for sale but it only did 60hz. :( Was it a Pioneer ... ?? Great specs tho. :)
 
Last edited:
Yes, Pioneer. Pioneer makes the Fostex units as well. Philips makes the TASCAMS. I'm a big TASCAM fan, but the Fostex CR300 is one of only two Fostex products that have made it into my studio.

For some reason the Pioneer stuff just sounds good to me… even the older consumer players. I had a PD5100 that I thought sounded better than anything else for listening. Unfortunately it finally died and I was in a “don’t-feel-like-fixing-anything-else” mood, so I tossed it without even taking the bonnet off. Kinda wish I hadn’t been so hasty now.

Even compared to newer products with all the alleged advances in converters I would buy another old Pioneer player if I found one in great condition. :)
 
Did someone say Fostex?

I just picked up an E-22. I haven't used it on a project yet but I tested it and its basically new. I've been searching for it for a very long time so I am very happy now. This replaces a tascam 32. the 1/4" definitely has a certain sound though and I don't think I am going to want to give that up so easily.

Typically I have been mixing to tape and then from there "mastering" to the final medium which has been CD so nice converters into the PC. I would like to try a standalone CD player and I have been contemplating building some mastering gear to make the process even more rewarding.

by the way, the E-22 has +28 db of headroom!!! I can't wait to test its limits.
 
I always thought E-22 was a promising looking machine. It was the only ½-inch half-track available at a manageable cost… for me anyway. I never had the privilege of using one, but the specs look great (I have an old brochure from when it first came out). You’ve got to hand it to Fostex for having the balls to introduce something like that when the only other options were Studer, Ampex, Sony, etc.

I’ve considered getting one if the opportunity arose and the price was right. I’m really happy with the ¼-inch format right now. The little TASCAM 22-2 sounds so good I don’t feel compelled to “upgrade” to a different ¼-inch; that’s for sure. It would have to be a move to ½-inch to make it worth the while.

Let us know what you think as you are getting on with it. Definitely no noise reduction needed, I’m sure. It looks like it might be a good candidate for +9 tapes. :)
 
Last edited:
I passed on an EBbay'd E-22 in my local area several months ago,...

and it went for a ridiculously low price,... like $260 or something like that. (Maybe that was FALKEN's score?) I'd been ogling it for a while, but on the day it closed, I just wasn't motivated to bid. A lot of it has to do with the gigantic load of equipment that I already have that hasn't gotten properly used yet,... and perhaps I didn't feel like parting with the cash that day. Something deep down in my heart says I should'a gotten the E-22 when I had the chance,... but no regrets really. I have plenty of other gear and precious little time to record. :eek: ;)

PS: This E-22 deal I passed on came from Studio City,... or some other local neighborhood in LA County (Simi Valley? or wha-? can't remember), & would have been a local pick up for me. :eek:
 
Beck said:
Yes, Pioneer. Pioneer makes the Fostex units as well. Philips makes the TASCAMS. I'm a big TASCAM fan, but the Fostex CR300 is one of only two Fostex products that have made it into my studio.

For some reason the Pioneer stuff just sounds good to me… even the older consumer players. I had a PD5100 that I thought sounded better than anything else for listening. Unfortunately it finally died and I was in a “don’t-feel-like-fixing-anything-else” mood, so I tossed it without even taking the bonnet off. Kinda wish I hadn’t been so hasty now.

Even compared to newer products with all the alleged advances in converters I would buy another old Pioneer player if I found one in great condition. :)
Click to expand...

I know that this is not a "digital" board but what are your thoughts on using one's cheap ass CD/DVD player solely as an "extractor" of a music CD (ie: "Abbey Road", "Pet Sounds" etc ..) and, provided the player has a digital out, buying a seperate D/A converter. I've read a bit about it and it seems it's the way to go especially if one wants to extract every bit of info as accurately as possible off of the music CD, without having to get an expensive player which may or may not have better converters. My followup would be which D/A converter would you recommend for best price / performance ratio and can something be purchased for a couple of $$ that would be worthwhile ? Thanks as always.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top