Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Is this possible?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away
    Posts
    1,125
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    5024734

    Is this possible?

    Sign in to disable this ad
    I'm daydreaming (like I always do) about recording sessions I want to do. If I were to record the rhythm (drums, bass, guitars, etc) on an 8 track; could I record multiple takes of a string section to a 1/2 track then fly it in with any kind of syncronization?

    I want to be able to do multiple takes of the strings and keep the best one, so I thought a seperate deck would be ideal. I just don't know how I'd get it synced up with the 8 track. Any ideas?

    Thanks


    (and no, this isn't pressing, I don't even have my decks yet.)
    -Nate








    Quote Originally Posted by miroslav View Post
    No...the Neve doesn't have all those high-tech, upgraded options like the Behringer....

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    8,553
    Thanks
    223
    Thanked 218 Times in 198 Posts
    Rep Power
    3753124
    String section recorded in stereo or mono? I'm asking because sync between two transports is always going to take up 1 track on each machine. If stereo then you'd be looking for a halftrack with a center timecode track. Then you'd record your multiple takes and you'd have to program in locate points so the system "remembers" the timecode offset for each take. Sure it can be done. Sounds like a major league PITA to me. Sync cables, synchronizer...more expensive halftrack. If this is something you'd want to do I'd get a 1/2" or 1" 16-track and use the extra tracks for multiple takes. I think you'd be ahead financially, especially considering what you'd save in headache medicine.

    My 2p.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away
    Posts
    1,125
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    5024734
    Interesting. Yeah, I don't know. I'm just kicking ideas around. I want the strings in stereo, but who knows, maybe mono would sound good too. Here's to options.
    -Nate








    Quote Originally Posted by miroslav View Post
    No...the Neve doesn't have all those high-tech, upgraded options like the Behringer....

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    792
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 13 Times in 12 Posts
    Rep Power
    741177
    yeh sounds like the more difficult scenario. 16 or 24 track would be better if you really want to do take after take and keep the best ones later. but this is part of the nature of analog (partularly with 4 & 8 track) ... you kind of have to figure it out while you're recording. i actually really love this element to recording, it helps keep things focused. you have to decide when you've got a good take while it's happening. over time, you may develop a sense to know when the take was "the one" ... for me, that usually means the fine line between getting it perfect and still having the inspiration. i will usually go with jagged takes that "feel" right or have moments of inspiration as opposed to being technically "correct" or "perfect".

    lately i've been staying on my toes by submixing groups and recording new elements at the same time to the same track. really adds a sense of urgency and finality to the proceedings!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    8,553
    Thanks
    223
    Thanked 218 Times in 198 Posts
    Rep Power
    3753124
    Yes...may seem contrary to my plans to build up my Ampex MM-1000 into a 16 track, but ultimately I'd love to settle on a 3-track mix for drums using 7 mics...kick, snare (bottom head), overheads, one out front of the kick above and angled toward the front head, and 1 on each of two toms...that would be for a certain multi-mic sound but preserving track count...other times just two overheads and one kick to 3 tracks or submixed to two tracks.

    There's something freeing about not being able to change it later, and I think it actually takes some pressure off during tracking and shifts the focus.

    There's a classic casting method called "lost-wax" casting...a cast is carved out of wax, and then as the molten metal is poured in it destroys the cast but the wax quenches the molten metal enough for the metal to hold shape. Something like that. The point is that you get one chance at that casting. That's what I like about tracking to analog. You are committing tracks, and if something wasn't right you are forever deleting what was before as you re-record (if over the previous material). An analog process does indeed shift the focus.

    Even when tracking to digital I typically use an analog process.

    A friend of mine in college loved recording sessions with last minute changes, or rearrangements last minute at the gig...the rush of "can I do it?" Or stepping in to sub a session.

    Not stepping on your musings nate_dennis...just other thoughts. I admit that my original impetus for striving for a good two-track drum mix was to track that to my BR-20T (slaved to my DAW...it has a center timecode track) and then, doing just as you suggested above, building tracks two at a time and using timecode offsets and locate points to essentially build takes linearly on the halftrack but stack them simultaneously in the DAW. The takes are preserved on the tape machine. It would work, and I anticipate trying ths someday for fun, but I'm a bit distracted by getting the MM-1000 going.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    120
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    37447
    So in this original "daydream" scenario, you'd be striping the 'same' time code on to different sections of tape on the "B"/(strings) machine and then use which ever section you liked?

    I've never done any tape synching (except as I've forgotten the process of a long, long time ago with a drum machine & 4 track cassette), but could you do that ?: stripe the 'same' synch code so you could have the "B" deck follow with whatever section of tape you cued up? ...interesting "what if..."

    what I have thought could be interesting/useful sometimes would be to synch a multi-track cassette machine to a reel to reel for those times when "ohhh, i just need two more tracks..." for some arrangement idea, but quality on those (backing harmony or whatever) tracks is not of the highest concern. could even be interesting having the different colors of tape 'resolution'.

    I guess I'm not going to get around to trying anything like that for a long time...
    "Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric. " - Bertrand Russell

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    792
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 13 Times in 12 Posts
    Rep Power
    741177
    Quote Originally Posted by sweetbeats View Post
    Yes...may seem contrary to my plans to build up my Ampex MM-1000 into a 16 track, but ultimately I'd love to settle on a 3-track mix for drums using 7 mics...
    THREE tracks! youre crazy! i've been doing 1 track lately (2 mics submixed to one track using a shure m67) and its the best drum sound i've been able to get so far. i've been really into the idea of recording mulitple musicians live to one track on the tape to avoid bouncing later as well. its exactly what you're talking about with the wax sculptures ... just gets you in a different frame of mind. i really believe that this was a lot of what was cool about the '60s records ... this kind of recording where you just kind of accept the inconsistencies and the results are more unique and character-filled.

    i have actually recorded a track with 5-piece band live to mono with one mic. it didn't sound good by conventional standards but it had a weird vibe that i like so i'm gonna use that one as a master. the tambourine is way louder than anything else because it was closer to the mic

  8. #8
    Beck Guest
    Flying in short sections without synchronization was done with analog for decades. If the section is short enough the decks will stay in sync for long enough to pull it off. You will go through some trial and error to get the decks to start at the same instant, but I used to do this on occasion and it works fine. It will eventually drift, so it's not usefull for long sections.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    792
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 13 Times in 12 Posts
    Rep Power
    741177
    Quote Originally Posted by Beck View Post
    Flying in short sections without synchronization was done with analog for decades. If the section is short enough the decks will stay in sync for long enough to pull it off. You will go through some trial and error to get the decks to start at the same instant, but I used to do this on occasion and it works fine. It will eventually drift, so it's not usefull for long sections.
    indeed. i did this with an entire vocal track recently in fact! it was not perfect, but close enough. i tend to view this as being kind of a fix in a bind or a special situation as opposed to something that you plan to do ahead of time as a general practice!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wales
    Age
    43
    Posts
    3,404
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 106 Times in 97 Posts
    Rep Power
    2215120
    I did this with the chorus for 'Beings and Creatures' in 2006.
    I tracked it normally, added flanging using two additional decks and recorded the flanged version to the fourth deck. (The flanging process threw the timing by about 1/15th sec owing to the inter-head gap).

    Then I flew the chorus back into the master each time it was needed. It was a real hassle to get the timing right, took a lot of takes and I never did get it 100%.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •