Mixdown media for mastering from?

RICK FITZPATRICK

RICK FITZPATRICK

New member
Hello, I have an issue that I need some education on. And that is 2 track Analog mixdown. Now, first off, I am no expert. I am asking, not stating anything. Please remember that. And no flames please....I'm just trying to learn.
Here is the issue...IS 2 track tape the medium of choice for mixdown, for major studios to provide to a mastering house for mastering, or ISN'T it. Simple question. I would like some input. Heres why. I recently(today)purchased a Tascam 1/4" 42B-NB mixdown 1/2 track machine. My purchase was based on a lot of information gained here, and there, other forums etc., but not having ever been in a high end studio, I am now perplexed at the overall picture I get of recording information and how many different points of view there are on every subject. Now I know this is the Analog forum, not the mastering forum, but I thought I would start here, since my machine IS analog. The information I have gathered gives the picture that a professional mastering house will kiss the feet of a client who brings them a 2trk MIXDOWN TAPE for mastering. WHAT????? Well, wait a minute. Let me get this straight. Out of all the new digital toys and tools out in recording land, including but not limited to Pro tools, etc.etc.etc., and all the inhouse mastered CD's, etc. etc., the argument states that anytime a mastering house recieves a MIXDOWN CD, they do something to it, but they CANNOT put back what the mixdown to CD process takes away. This is why analog 2trk tape is preferred as a mixdown media. THEY WOULD PREFER to MASTER FROM TAPE!!!
Now, lets get this straight, thats not me saying this, I don't have any credentials whatsoever to make such a statement. Thats why I am asking this question, because if it IS true, then that tells me, whoever is making the decisions in studios to go the digital mixdown route, have thier head where the sun don't shine. HOWEVER, if digital IS the preferred media of choice for mastering FROM, can someone PLEASSSSSE, enlighten me to why and what type. Cause in my mind, IF you were going to mixdown an album, why would anyone in thier right mind mix analog to 16 bit for mastering FROM and then duplication. That makes absolutely no sense at all to me, and if my intuition serves me right, I bet the real digital world don't want all the digital home studio people to know this. Again, in my mind, thats why all the major studios that are tracking studios, USE ANALOG 2", and if the above argument is true, they MIXDOWN to analog 2 trk tape. BUT then again, because of lack of real world exposure I maybe of the wrong opinion. So if somebody knows the real skinny on this, would you take a stab at filling me in on this. It would be very refreshing to hear some authority on this. I don't have the real answer, but I still bought the analog machine, because thats the way I want my mixdowns-analog. I know there are dats, adats, minidisks, portable hardrives 1/4"digital reel to reel etc. etc. etc. I have no experience or knowledge for that matter, about these devices, and maybe some of these are used as mixdown media, but WHAT is the NORM to provide as a mixdown media for professional mastering from for duplication? And WHAT is the media they use to master to, and duplicate from? A CD? Or harddrive? or what? Thanks now for your opinions, I take them seriously.
fitz:) :confused:
 
Is this your question:

Is there a master recording format which is preferred within the industry?

In my experience, CD mastering labs will work with anything you give them. They might cough a bit if you hand over a 48kHz sample rate DAT, but more likely they'll just grin and charge you for format conversion. :)

Cassette duplication with a loop bin system generally starts with a 7½ i.p.s ¼" master tape, but even if you give them this exact format they'll most likely prepare their own master anyway.

In other words, master to the format that suits your needs and has the quality appropriate to your material. I've used ¼" tape, DAT, CD and even NICAM video tape...
 
maybe a little help ...

Hi. I definitely don't have the answers to all your questions, but I do know one thing. When it comes to the really big professional studios, I think 2trk analog is still the preferred method, but it's a 1/2" 2 trk, not 1/4". This is not to say that the machine you bought isn't any good; it's a great machine and you'll get amazing results from it. But studios that have the money will drop the big bucks to get the hardcore 2 trks. There are even 1" 2 trks in some instances.
If you're interested in this, it's very possible to convert your 1/4" to a 1/2" machine if you wanted to drop probably $1,500 to do it. (Actually, the kit would probably only be $700 or so if you were capable of performing the modification yourself.) You can go to JRFmagnetics.com to read about this conversion process.
Regarding mastering and duplication houses and all, I think your best bet is the 1/4" analog as you suspected. The reasoning is that they are going to have better A/D converters and will therefore get a better transfer to CD. If you mix to CD, then it's already converted to 16 bit with poorly quality and there's nothing they can do about that.
Hope this helps! Excellent purchase! I worked with that unit before at a friends, and it sounded beautiful!
 
How do you like your new machine Rick?

I know you were planning to get this, but you didnt say when.

And yes, mastering houses still prefer analog format for the reasons the others gave.

They have all the high-dollar toys to get the best out of your mix and do the transfers themselves.
 
My suspicions, confirmed or not?

Ok, thanks very much. Now, doesn't that make for a good argument for staying with analog, at least through the tracking, mixdown aspect? Naturally, if your going for mastering and duplication, the final product will be CD.
Now as to this opinion...(or maybe fact, which is my point)
Quote "The reasoning is that they are going to have better A/D converters and will therefore get a better transfer to CD. If you mix to CD, then it's alreadyconverted to 16 bit with poorly quality and there's nothing they can do about that." Unquote

This tells me if you are mixing down from tape OR digital, to CD for mastering from, then there is nothing the mastering house can do for you. So what is the POINT, of even tracking to digital, as once you have, even if you mixdown to tape from digital(which seems absurd to me, you have already compromised the recording. Is this CORRECT? If it IS, then the whole digital recording syndrome really IS assanine, if you are planning on having a project professionally mastered. Is this a rational conclusion? IF it is, then pleeeese, someone tell me what the F__k is all the Grandstanding going on about Protools type recording and mixing workstations. What am I missing here? This doesn't happen unless some kind of information is missing. Surely, all the BIG studios(from what I read) that use Protools are aware of this, and must have an ACE up thier sleve. Or maybe, it is because,(again, from what I've read)even the average professional mixing engineer knows that the mastering engineers are going to "squash" what ever quality was gained in tape, will still be mastered down to the same quality and sound that every other broadcast record has. And that is 16 bit, CD, and there isn't a damn thing that anyone can do about this, so you might as well have the editing abilitys and speed that digital has to offer, and forget about any quality above 16 bit, as that is what it is comes down to. Time is money, money is god. Or am I still missing something? Cause now, 96khz, 24 bit is the rage. What is the point? Someone, anyone, pleeeaaaseeee, clue me in.
fitz:confused:
 
PS

opps, hey sennheiser, you snuk that in while I was writing the last reply!!!Thanks for responding. I like your replys I've read around the forums. Sounds like you know whats going on. I won the machine on ebay yesterday, MINT. Paid more than I wanted as someone bid agaist me at the last minute, and brought my bid up to thiers, which was $10 less than my hidden bid. Oh well, still am happy. Won't get to use it for a while thou, but it doesn't matter. I haven't got anything to mix yet anyway:rolleyes: But I will
sonner or later. And it will be ANALOG. Yeaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!
I don't know if I will EVER get to the point where I will need pro mastering anyway, as all of my interest in this has been from a hobby standpoint. I've been interested in recording for a LONG time, but have only been able to afford even semi-pro equipment in the last few years. (Thanks to digital;) Soooo.. I'll let this thread die, as its all academic anyway, at least as far as my recording is concerned right now. But I'm leaving on a trip thursday, to look at the commercial bldg/home I put an offer on, and was accepted but modified, so I really have to take a look at every aspect of this building, before I put my final offer in, and in the meantime, my WIFE has found 3 others she wants to look at while were on this trip. Who knows now.:rolleyes: I can't plan on ANYTHING untill wifey is happy first:D You might know about that....
fitz:)
 
Yep, I thank the digital revolution almost every time I place a bid on E-bay.

There's no way that I could afford most of the gear I have if it weren't for digital.

I will probably never have the need for professional mastering either. At least not until I write and produce something worthy of having it mastered.

But it's good to know you can pick up a 1/2 track analog mastering deck cheap.

Good luck with your properties.
 
When it comes to format conversions, the rule is simple: As few as possible. If you do all your recording an mixdown digitally, using analog for the master makes no sense.

But If you use an analog mixer, then a conversion to digital when mastering is one conversion too many, and if you have a good analog target to mixdown to, use it.
 
This is the Analog forum, so you're preaching to the converted here...

If you record digitally at 16 bit, 44.1kHz then you're right, there is nowhere left to go from that. Any adjustments you or the mastering house might want to make can only subtract from the sound quality - it may be miniscule, even inaudible, but it's loss all the same. To give a gross example - if you have a very quiet digital recording, such that only 8 bits out of the 16 are used, then normalise it to full scale, it will still sound like an 8 bit recording because the resolution wasn't there at the outset. Just the same as boosting a quiet analog recording gives you loadsa noise.

This is why 24 bit recording has been finding favour - not because 16 bits are too few, but to give the processing some headroom. In the example above, the quiet recording would still have 16 bits of resolution and could be boosted considerably. With 24 bit processing, the reduction to 16 bits takes place right at the end of the mastering process and quality is retained. Mastering to analog is essentially the same thing. As long as you look after your signal to noise ratios, the limitations of the digitization process are only introduced at the very end where they can do the least harm.
 
converted, oh, ah....

Hi peter, I guess I was leary of asking this anywhere but here. And I wasn't preaching, although this isn't the first time I've asked questions, only to be taken as preaching. Thanks for the input.
I just posted a url for a mastering house article, that pretty much filled me in. Yours was the icing on the cake. Again, thanks for taking the time.
fitz:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top