For mastering ! Tascam,Fostex or Otari

letjour

New member
Hi every body,

Sorry in advance for my english,I am from Quebec.

Ok,I will try to explain myself clearly.

I have a little home studio with Nuendo 3,mics:Rode classic and AKG C414XLII,sound card RME Fireface 400,in hardware:Lexicon PCM 60,Presonus Eureka,Presonus ACP-22,DBX 166,and some Waves plug-ins.

I am doing some ok quality trak and mix,but (like every body)I find it is sound kind of cold ....... I am 45 so .....

One guy say to me : buy a old analog machine , transfer your digital mix on , and transfer it back to your computer and TA-DAM !!!! a great analog sound

First Question : is it true ? If yes.is it so simple ?

Second question : I have find some machine near by and I wont a expert opinion to know whitch one is the best and WHY

The machine are : fostex A-2 , Tascam 22-2, Tascam 22-4, Otari 5050 BII

Thanks

Jean
 
Hi Jean,

It might help some, to take the edge off some harsh frequencies, for instance, or introduce some nice analog effects, such as hiss, distortion or compression but, IMHO, your mix will end up sounding more like a digital recording transferred onto tape. I personally think that you would be better off tracking to analog in the first place. No, it's not as simple as your friend makes it out to be. Get a new friend.:D;)

Now, if you still wish to experiment, there's nothing wrong with getting a tape deck for your mixes. The one thing to remember is to always buy locally where you avoid shipping and can actually check the machine is person. Look for excessive head ware.

The 22-2, 5050 BII and A-2 are the so called 2 (half track) recorders and are great for mixing down. I would be looking at the 5050 and 22-2 first and only at the A-2 if the former are in much worse shape than the A-2. BUY THE ONE WHICH IS IN BETTER CONDITION. That should be your only criteria.

If all of the machines were in the same good shape, here's my preference, from first to last: (1) 5050 BII, (2) 22-2 and (3) A-2.

--
 
Yes Jean, mixing to analog tape will have some benefits. It is not magic, but it can add a little character to the mix.

It is difficult to say which machine is best because there are so many things to consider. The 22-4 is not really a mastering deck, so I would narrow your choice down to the A-2, 22-2 and MX5050.

The short answer is to pick the machine that is in the best condition. Any of the above will do if functioning properly.

If all the decks were new I would recommend the Otari MX5050. However, since we are dealing with used decks these days the Tascam 22-2 is going to be easiest and less costly to maintain. I have two of the 22-2 and I love them… very nice for a low-cost machine.

Although the Otari MX5050 is probably the better of all the above machines they tend to have issues as they get older, such as relay problems that you will probably need to get fixed. It depends on the age of the machine and how well it was maintained.

Again, the most important factor is the condition of the particular machines you are looking at.

:)
 
Thanks for your answer

But if I understand, the fact of transfering a final mix on tape will not BLOW ME AWAY.
So, just for a little change it is not worth the pain.I can pass it througt a valve preamp, two time, and I will have a little bit of dirty sound ????!!???

And honestly,I dont have enough experience for recording on tape,OUFFFFFFF


It is easy on computer,you can always fixe your mistake ,but on tape,when it is print,you have to do another track......................
 
Thanks for your answer

But if I understand, the fact of transfering a final mix on tape will not BLOW ME AWAY.
So, just for a little change it is not worth the pain.I can pass it througt a valve preamp, two time, and I will have a little bit of dirty sound ????!!???

And honestly,I dont have enough experience for recording on tape,OUFFFFFFF


It is easy on computer,you can always fixe your mistake ,but on tape,when it is print,you have to do another track......................

You can't get experience if you don't start somewhere.

Many mastering engineers still master to half-track analog... its a secret weapon of sorts. I wouldn't say the results are subtle... you will just get different results if you track to analog in the first place.

For example, I record most of the CDs that I buy to analog and then back to CD. It makes them less fatiguing to listen to… I prefer the sound to the original CD. So yes it makes a difference.

A tube/valve device or tape simulator will not have the same character as tape. It’s not dirt you’re getting with tape… there is something we call “The analog smear” (a term coined by Tom Scholz of Boston) that makes the sound more pleasing to the ear… takes the edge off of it.

Sure digital is convenient, but many of us put music quality first, no matter what we decide to use. Convenience is secondary.

"... The two advantages of digital are that it’s cheap, and it gives you lots of features. As far as sound quality goes, digital is always worse."
~Tom Scholz, Guitar Player - May 2003
 
As others have said, all things equal, I would give the Otari a try. However, if you just want to warm up the sound and not track to tape in the first place, then why not try a tube preamp? Tubes can really add some nice warmth and would be much easier to use than tracking to digital then analog then digital again. Just a thought...:)
 
I recently went through what you are talking about. I bought a Tascam 22 to mix down to. I get some sonic benefit by going to and from tape, but nothing magical. By the way, I think the additional DA/AD conversions going to and from the digital setup probably hurts.

Now when I listen to some recordings I tracked on a four-track cassette that were mixed to digital and other recordings I played on for other people that were tracked to 1" or 2" machines and mixed to digital - I hear what I am looking for.

I've been meaning to run a test where I run individual tracks to and from the Tascam 22, then time-align them back up and mix them, comparing that to mixing digital and running the stereo mix to and from tape. I'm wondering if getting saturation on each track individually makes a much bigger impact. Makes sense in my mind, but it's hard to articulate. It would help me decide if I want to invest in a larger, multi-track machine.
 
One trick to try with the 22-2 or any half-track with two speeds is to mix at 7.5 ips. That's what I do with my commercial CDs. For someone who tracks all digital this will give a thicker, fuzzier sound, which may be what they're looking for.

Open-reel tape at 15 ips or above is actually very clean. People who are only familiar with plugins and tape simulators are often surprised because these plugs and devices really produce a caricature of analog tape sound... a very limited effect.

Other benefits of real tape that you can't get with a tape simulator or tube device are wider stereo image, more accurate instrument placement in the stereo panorama and greater depth. These things will jump out at you if you know what to listen for.

It’s best to have the analog deck as the last thing in the chain before going to 16/44.1 for Red Book compatible CD. Further editing in the digital realm after that is not recommended, as it will negate much of the gains made by mastering to analog.

:)
 
Yes, that has all certainly been my experience. I even find 7.5 IPS too clean on my Tascam usually. The guy who cleaned mine up and changed the belts was used to working on larger machines and thought the 22 was a consumer machine. He was very surprised when he listened to it.
 
I've been meaning to run a test where I run individual tracks to and from the Tascam 22, then time-align them back up and mix them, comparing that to mixing digital and running the stereo mix to and from tape. I'm wondering if getting saturation on each track individually makes a much bigger impact. Makes sense in my mind, but it's hard to articulate. It would help me decide if I want to invest in a larger, multi-track machine.

I ran this little experiment. The ability to push levels on each track made a big difference.

I first tried dumping it to cassette 4-track - a Tascam mkIII (the original recording was only 4 separate tracks recorded on an Edirol R44). I was disappointed that while it had the nice roundness of tape, it did sound "smaller" than the digital mix.

Next I dumped it to my Tascam 22 and back two tracks at a time, then time-aligned them and remixed ITB. Recorded at 15 IPS, but hit the tape pretty hard on all four tracks. This was nice. Got much more of the tape sound than going back and forth to tape with just the 2-track mix.

That was encouraging. So much so that I picked up a Tascam 22-4. I have not recieved it yet, but supposedly has only 10 hours or so on the deck and all the belts were just replaced. Slightly less tape width than the 22, but I can do 4 tracks in one pass and not have to screw around with aligning them.

This is also a little easier because I used to get frustrated that after I got the mix right and sent it to tape and back, I'd have to EQ again to compensate for the head bump (adding another digital process).

I will track to tape when I can, but at least this seems to be a step in the right direction. :)
 
One trick to try with the 22-2 or any half-track with two speeds is to mix at 7.5 ips. That's what I do with my commercial CDs. For someone who tracks all digital this will give a thicker, fuzzier sound, which may be what they're looking for.

Open-reel tape at 15 ips or above is actually very clean. People who are only familiar with plugins and tape simulators are often surprised because these plugs and devices really produce a caricature of analog tape sound... a very limited effect.

Other benefits of real tape that you can't get with a tape simulator or tube device are wider stereo image, more accurate instrument placement in the stereo panorama and greater depth. These things will jump out at you if you know what to listen for.

It’s best to have the analog deck as the last thing in the chain before going to 16/44.1 for Red Book compatible CD. Further editing in the digital realm after that is not recommended, as it will negate much of the gains made by mastering to analog.

:)

Hi beck,,

ok,if I hunderstand correctly.I can have a great benifit to use a transfer to tape at the end of my chain befor put it down on a cd.

And,when my mix is finish on a CD in wave,if I do the samething as you do with your cd,put the cd strait in the tape again and back to cd ???

What do you think about it?

Is it completely stupid or it is sound good ??

I ask a lot of questions becaue I don't wont to buy a real to real for nothing
 
Followup,

What are peoples opinion of using a digital recorder as a replacement for the multitrack. Ie record to digital, 8 16 24 track whatever, but mix etc using an analog board and e.g. 1/2 track 1/4"? I don't think this is what letjour is getting at, as that requires something like a delta 1010 or somesuch with outboard a/d d/a.

I recently acquired an older Creamware 16 in/out and a sonorus ADAT card to go with it. It only samples at 48k but seems adequate. I plan to simply use the creamware and hard disk as a 16track, keeping everything else analog.

Thoughts?
 
Hi beck,,

ok,if I hunderstand correctly.I can have a great benifit to use a transfer to tape at the end of my chain befor put it down on a cd.

And,when my mix is finish on a CD in wave,if I do the samething as you do with your cd,put the cd strait in the tape again and back to cd ???

What do you think about it?

Is it completely stupid or it is sound good ??

I ask a lot of questions becaue I don't wont to buy a real to real for nothing

I would only transfer to tape at the end of your chain and then to CD. For my own recordings I don't transfer back to tape a second time.

What I meant was that I transfer many commercial CD's that I purchase to analog because some of them are so harsh to my ear. It makes them easier to listen to. I just mentioned that as an example of other ways analog can be used to soften edgy CD's.

So, just do your mixdown to tape, and then transfer that tape back to whatever digital device you have at 16/44.1. Try to avoid digital conversion as much as possible. IMO, digital conversion from one bit depth and resolution to another, such as 24/96 to 16/44.1, causes much of the harshness we hear in digitally produced music. There are often many conversions in a totally digital studio. The sound suffers less by using the analog interface.

So record your tracks at the highest rate that is practical. 24/48 is really all you need. Then transfer that to tape from the analog output, and finally transfer the tape back to digital at 16/44.1. There is no good reason to go from the tape to a higher resolution if your final product is going to be 16/44.1 CD.

:)
 
Followup,

What are peoples opinion of using a digital recorder as a replacement for the multitrack. Ie record to digital, 8 16 24 track whatever, but mix etc using an analog board and e.g. 1/2 track 1/4"? I don't think this is what letjour is getting at, as that requires something like a delta 1010 or somesuch with outboard a/d d/a.

I recently acquired an older Creamware 16 in/out and a sonorus ADAT card to go with it. It only samples at 48k but seems adequate. I plan to simply use the creamware and hard disk as a 16track, keeping everything else analog.

Thoughts?

I also use both analog and digital together in my studio. If you are going to track to digital your best bet is to use a digital interface with multiple ins/outs and record through an analog mixer. Avoid mixing ITB and treat each digital track as you would on an analog deck.

I've always really liked the Echo products as digital goes. I have an Echo Layla slaved to my analog deck for additional tracks. When I do a mixdown everything is synced together -- tape, digital and outboard MIDI devices all going through an analog console to the mastering deck.

However, I personally would not rely on digital alone, but it can have its place in an analog studio. Often I don’t need the extra tracks so it’s all analog. When I do use the Layla I record the tracks to analog first and then transfer to digital 7 tracks at a time (Track 8 is for SMPTE time code).

:)
 
There is no good reason to go from the tape to a higher resolution if your final product is going to be 16/44.1 CD.

If I might add a caveat, and pull this conversation about as far from analog as one can get :o:

I think there may be truth to an idea that I read where some converters sound better at different resolutions, even when converted to 16/44.1, based on how steep they roll off the high frequencies and some other factors I don't completely understand.

If I record to my Edirol R44 at 24/44.1 and also at 24/48 and then convert both to 16/44.1, I find the high end a little nicer on the one that was recorded at higher resolution. More creamy, less grainy and harsh. Someone else may have the opposite experience if they use different software or a different recorder.

There was nothing scientific about my comparison - so just take this as a "try it and see for yourself, your mileage may vary, etc.".
:)
 
I also use both analog and digital together in my studio. If you are going to track to digital your best bet is to use a digital interface with multiple ins/outs and record through an analog mixer. Avoid mixing ITB and treat each digital track as you would on an analog deck.

I've always really liked the Echo products as digital goes. I have an Echo Layla slaved to my analog deck for additional tracks. When I do a mixdown everything is synced together -- tape, digital and outboard MIDI devices all going through an analog console to the mastering deck.

However, I personally would not rely on digital alone, but it can have its place in an analog studio. Often I don’t need the extra tracks so it’s all analog. When I do use the Layla I record the tracks to analog first and then transfer to digital 7 tracks at a time (Track 8 is for SMPTE time code).

:)



I still prefer tape as well which is presently limited to 8 tracks. Got the creamware if I needed to go to 16, or for experimentation where I didn't want to commit to tape just yet, sparing the head wear etc. I have a 20 channel board, (M-520) and currently no sync capability althogh 23 tracks digital/analog is intriguing. What do you use for sync?

The M-520 seems perfectly designed for 8 or 16 track use, assuming you can get by with the 8 busses.

IMO I'd still rather keep as much analog as possible, and avoid mixing in software.

BTW New subject, as a patch aid, how good or bad would a PC A/B printer switch be using e.g. a 16 rca <--> DB25 cable as interface instead of multiple patch bays?
 
Back
Top