generation loss

nate_dennis

nate_dennis

Well-known member
So I have a question on generation loss . . .

If one were to record all eight tracks on a 1/4" machine and then bounce them down to a 1/2track 1/4" machine . . . then re-record that stereo track to the eight track . . . .would this produce serious generation loss or would this be a feasible option for bouncing and still using eight tracks? I hope this is a clear question. Thanks guys.
 
That's exactly how it works. Generation loss depends on your equipment but shouldn't be bad. You do have to plan ahead because what you mixed to stereo and back to the multi-track it can't be changed.
 
When I had my 8 track, I used to record 6 tracks and then do an internal stereo bounce to the two remaining tracks. This way, it would only cause one generation to be done on the beds. Then I'd have 6 more tracks to play with at first generation quality which was good for things like vocals and lead instruments. Then just master that off to a CD recorder with pretty good sound quality maintained.

If you were dealing with a more complex song that required the extra tracks then you could do it your way still. Otherwise, keep it simple if you can.

Cheers! :)
 
+1 to all that.

IMHO "generation-loss" was a pet "evil of analog" that got broadcast by the advent of digital. Sure, analog generation loss is going to present itself much sooner than digital, but I believe it to be of more strategic concern in cassette multitracking, particularly 8-track cassette...BUT, I was involved in even a cassette 8-track full-length production in the early 90's and we had to do some bouncing of tracks and the project STILL sounded great IMO.

On a good 1/4" 8-track (Tascam 388 or Fostex M-80 or R8) with a decent mixer doing the internal bounce can be done with unnoticeable results, even 2 generations if handled properly. Don't get freaked by the hype...even doing the 8 to 2 and back to the 8-track, again depending on the gear is no deal-breaker at all AFAIC.

Sheesh...if you haven't checked out Famous Beagle's stuff he did with his wife with bounces on a 414...:eek: It should lay all concerns to rest. Period.
 
yeh don't worry too much about it, the most important thing (as mentioned by others) is that you really need to focus on getting the mix right when you bounce. for this reason, i prefer to do internal bounces of smaller sections rather than one group of 6 or 8 tracks. like, record 1, 2, 3 then bounce those to 5, etc and so on. i usually end up with 2-3 submixed groups of 2-4 tracks and then the rest individual discrete tracks. it is a good idea to mix together instruments that can be "separated" with EQ ... you can also bounce and record new tracks at the same time to avoid generation loss. for example, i recently did a submix of a glockenspiel and kick drum while recording live bass (played by someone else!) all to the same track. if the mix is not perfect, i can boost high mids for more glockenspiel, cut low end for more bass guitar and less kick, boost low end for more kick, etc, you get the idea. there are for sure limitations but if your submix is close then you have some extra wiggle room later in the final.
 
Yeah, what Ghost said... fill up 6 tracks if that's enough and bounce those to the remaining two. You eliminate a generation that way. I've always done it that way. But keep in mind generation loss is a bit overrated and was hyped to beat hell during the digital revolution. The reality is two or three generations aren't a big deal if you know what you're doing as far as levels to tape, etc.

Whenever I hear people rant about analog generation loss I point them to Tom Scholz and the Boston debut album. According to Scholz he did so much bouncing and layering he lost count... and no noise reduction whatsoever on the Scully 1” 12-track he did most of it on in his basement. He used noise gates on everything. And after all that it was transferred again to 2” 24-track for the studio... and of course finally to half-track analog for mastering. But it wasn't all that uncommon in the golden days of rock for a piece to see a few analog generations. Frankly, when comparing today's finished product to those of the 70's and 80's I'd say we could use a few more analog generations. ;)

I do try to keep them to a minimum however. I’ll usually only bounce once during tracking. And the way I work with SMPTE some things go first generation to the half-track master. Any synth or drum machine that can be synced with MIDI is first generation right to the final mix.

And it depends on the genre of course. You wouldn’t want to put a symphony through too many analog transfers. But guitar dominated rock… it just might be the sound you’re looking for.

Oh by the way when bouncing within the same machine avoid bouncing to adjacent tracks. So for example if bouncing tracks 1-6 to 7 & 8 make sure track six goes to track 8 and not track 7 right next to it.

:)
 
don't sweat it........alot of what was released by Motown was eighth generation at least from what i've read. when i was a broadcast major many years ago when digital editing was just coming around we did tons of stuff that was 3rd 4th generation or more on otari 5050s cause we didn't have multitracks available. You couldn't usually tell a difference.
 
dodgeaspen said:
Most of the albums you might listen to were bounced like mad. Pet Sounds, SGT Pepper ETC ETC
Click to expand...

Court of the Crimson King, done on an 8 track. Tons of bouncing in that.

I've a couple multi tracks of the Boston record. There are a lot of cut ins and cut outs of different instruments on the same tracks. Which is another way to free up tracks.

BTW does anyone know where the link was to the article about the recording of the King Crimson album? Somebody posted it here a little while ago and I can't find it.
 
yeah ..... I used to bounce 4 or 5 times with no real problems.

It is important though, to get the levels just right. You absolutely want them bumping the red a little bit which will basically keep the signal to noise as low as possible.

In my experience, added hiss is the biggest potential problem more than degradation of the signal.
So you make sure that the playback and recording are set to the optimal lowest noise leverl which is usually right around having the VU's bump up against the red.
 
Back in my 4-track days I would mix down to a 2-track...bring that back over to the 4-track...mix all that down again to 2-track...etc.
(This was using 1/4" tape decks.)

It wasn't *bad*...but with every bounce you WILL get some frequency loss (mostly the high end) and you WILL add some tape hiss with each generation.

Your ears will tell you how many is too many...but 2-3 bounces can be very useable as long as you plan ahead for those bounces by getting your initial levels right, and of course, getting your mix balance and levels right with each bounce.
 
Ok, seriously now...

My thoughts on bouncing and generation loss...

I finally had my Otari half track set up this Spring and it was a total godsend. It's set up for +9 operation on ATR tape and if used correctly, it records a near mirror-copy of whatever I pipe into it.

(Quick note on my preference for +9 operation and ATR tape for mixdown: Most of the music I work on is fairly "delicate" and quiet at times, and I've found that this combination preserves the dynamic range and HF detail of my recordings extremely well. Your Mileage May Vary, but for my situation this thing is perfect.)

That said, of course there will be noticeable generation loss when you bounce back onto a narrow format multitrack, but I've developed a few techniques to mitigate whatever loss may occur.

First, when recording onto the halftrack, I monitor on its repro head and A/B my mix and the tape monitor to make sure I'm going to get what I want to hear. This sometimes requires a little EQ adjustment on my mix but not very much.

Second, when I'm bouncing back, I also monitor the repro head on my multitrack to make sure I'm getting the sound I want. I'll do a trial run first where I set levels with the tape rolling and turn dbx NR on and off to see which setting produces a better sound. Rewind, then lay it down "for real".

With some patience, you'll notice only the slightest bit of generation loss. It sometimes helps to boost the upper mids and high frequencies in your mix just a little bit so that detail will survive the transfer more intact.

I personally prefer to do 'external bounces' because I can always go back and change something and redo the bounce later; with internal bouncing you inevitably erase the source tracks and you might find yourself wishing you could redo the mix... at least that's what I've found in my experience.

I wrote a bit about this in a blog article I wrote in September, which I'd really like to share (*please* offer criticism or suggestions if you have any). It's right here: Tracking and Mixing Tips

Hope this helps! I also hope that this wasn't too didactic; I'm just sharing what I know :)
 
My first recordings were playing over tracks bounced back and forth between very cheap cassette machines (and cheap cassettes). That did produced some generational loss. ;)
 
Sgt. Pepper done on 4 track. Loads of bouncing at every turn. Now has anyone ever dared to say it sounds bad? Virtually everything done before 8 tracks had sub mix bouncing. Some of that music is held in the highest esteem. However its best to be running at at least 15ips on a professional machine or at the very least a prosumer machine.
 
Just want to point out that the examples of bouncing used on recordings from the early classic era were done on big format machines like half inch 3 tracks and one inch 4 tracks. And Quarter inch mono decks.

Keep in mind the typical quality of playback equipment the average user had then, also.

Probably bookshelf speakers at best or AM radio.

Also I like to print a little bright if know it is going to be collapsed later.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top