After years of recording and mixing on a computer workstation, I've decided to go back to my analog roots and track on an analog 24-track before dumping to digital for mixing. I don't have a lot of outboard and wondered if anybody has tried using Protools as a front end to a 2-inch machine. Example: Mic pre to 888/24 converters through eq/Comp plugin's etc, back through converters and finally onto tape. I'd only use this configuration for initial tracking, so latency issues on overdubs wouldn't be a problem. I guess I'm more concerned about hitting the converters so many times. Any ideas?
Protools and Analog
- Thread starter indiGo
- Start date
RICK FITZPATRICK
New member
Hmmm, I'm not a digital oriented person, but from what I've read from mastering engineers, thats one conversion too many. Every conversion does it's damage I think.
Digital into analog for tracking makes no sense to me. But I'm no digital expert, so you digital guys can ream me if I'm out of line. But if your into digital, why are you lurking here.
Just kidden, I roam the digital stuff too! Just to hear the woe is me stuff! Even at Tascam.
fitZ
Digital into analog for tracking makes no sense to me. But I'm no digital expert, so you digital guys can ream me if I'm out of line. But if your into digital, why are you lurking here.
Just kidden, I roam the digital stuff too! Just to hear the woe is me stuff! Even at Tascam.fitZ
jake-owa
Banned
I would not advise that route. If it's all you have for now I wouldn't worry too much about it. Good AD/DA won't hurt your audio noticeably, the main thing is to get that great tape sound on your tracks.
I would advise doing an A/B session between digital mixes off analog and analog mixes off of tape before deciding on a method.
I will bet you like the tape machine mixed through a Mackie better than a profools mix. Use that computefor edits and leave it out of the mixing...just my opinion.
I would advise doing an A/B session between digital mixes off analog and analog mixes off of tape before deciding on a method.
I will bet you like the tape machine mixed through a Mackie better than a profools mix. Use that computefor edits and leave it out of the mixing...just my opinion.
Fitz,
Thanks for the reply, however. . . many studios use digital consoles (like the Sony Oxford, SSL's digital console, Neve, even Mackie d8b's and Yamaha's) to track to analog tape. A lot depends on the quality of the converters, bit rate, sample rate, clock quality, etc. I guess my question was, and still is: Has anyone tried this configuration? I just wonder if a WAVES renissance compressor, eq or a Massenberg eq, or Universal audio PLUG-IN, (even though routed through a protools channel at 24-bit/48k) would sound better than a "prosumer" dynamics piece.
Thanks for the reply, however. . . many studios use digital consoles (like the Sony Oxford, SSL's digital console, Neve, even Mackie d8b's and Yamaha's) to track to analog tape. A lot depends on the quality of the converters, bit rate, sample rate, clock quality, etc. I guess my question was, and still is: Has anyone tried this configuration? I just wonder if a WAVES renissance compressor, eq or a Massenberg eq, or Universal audio PLUG-IN, (even though routed through a protools channel at 24-bit/48k) would sound better than a "prosumer" dynamics piece.
Chris Shaeffer
Peavey ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
indiGo,
I also use "too many" AD/DA conversions: I record to pro tools (in this case, through a Digi 002- the 888 convertors probably sounds better) and out againg to an analog board for mixing.
In mixing, I combine plugins and outboard gear as needed and route the final mix back again into pro tools.
I'm sure I'm losing something through all that converting, but compared to what I GAIN from the analog board and gear...its well worth it. I always record at 24/44.1 or 24/48, and it seems to sound fine.
As to whether or not a plug sounds better than prosumer hardware... if you have it, it sounds better than stuff you don't have and can't afford. Try it and see.
Take care,
Chris
I also use "too many" AD/DA conversions: I record to pro tools (in this case, through a Digi 002- the 888 convertors probably sounds better) and out againg to an analog board for mixing.
In mixing, I combine plugins and outboard gear as needed and route the final mix back again into pro tools.
I'm sure I'm losing something through all that converting, but compared to what I GAIN from the analog board and gear...its well worth it. I always record at 24/44.1 or 24/48, and it seems to sound fine.
As to whether or not a plug sounds better than prosumer hardware... if you have it, it sounds better than stuff you don't have and can't afford. Try it and see.
Take care,
Chris
Thanks for the input everyone! I think maybe I wasn't clear on exactly what I wanted to do though. Here's the deal:
1) I want to track (basic tracks) on analog.
2) I want to move these tracks to protools.
3) I want to continue with overdubs and mix in protools.
For the past several years, I've been doing everything within a Mackie digital 8 bus-MDR/HDR environment with outboard mic pre's. If I needed a little eq or compression on the way in, I'd get it from the d8b console. The d8b is tied to the MDR via lightpipe and I want to keep it that way and charge a lower rate for that set-up.
Now that I'm tracking to 2-inch, I have no Dynamics Processing. i.e. eq's, compressors, etc., since I cant use the ones on the console anymore. I still have some budget Behringer stuff lying around though.
Anyway, I thought maybe I could use protools as an "input channel strip". I have plenty of I/O (mix plus with 3-888/24's).
I'm waiting for some new patchbays to be built so I can't try this and was just wondering if anyone else had tried this sort of thing. It seems that it is the same concept as having a digital console and tracking to analog. I wondered if it would sound better than using the Behringer conpressors and eq's in an all-analog input path. Ultimately, my ears will be the judge.
1) I want to track (basic tracks) on analog.
2) I want to move these tracks to protools.
3) I want to continue with overdubs and mix in protools.
For the past several years, I've been doing everything within a Mackie digital 8 bus-MDR/HDR environment with outboard mic pre's. If I needed a little eq or compression on the way in, I'd get it from the d8b console. The d8b is tied to the MDR via lightpipe and I want to keep it that way and charge a lower rate for that set-up.
Now that I'm tracking to 2-inch, I have no Dynamics Processing. i.e. eq's, compressors, etc., since I cant use the ones on the console anymore. I still have some budget Behringer stuff lying around though.
Anyway, I thought maybe I could use protools as an "input channel strip". I have plenty of I/O (mix plus with 3-888/24's).
I'm waiting for some new patchbays to be built so I can't try this and was just wondering if anyone else had tried this sort of thing. It seems that it is the same concept as having a digital console and tracking to analog. I wondered if it would sound better than using the Behringer conpressors and eq's in an all-analog input path. Ultimately, my ears will be the judge.
regebro
Insane Genious!
Well, I'm confused.
If you want to use ProTools for everything except tracking, I guess this is because you somehow hope that the 24-track will give you a more 'analog' sound. Well, maybe it will. But probably not to a particularily noticable degree.
One common way is to track everything to 24 track, but through all analog paths, and for mixing, transfer it to ProTools. But converting everything back and forth seems strange, and if you use protools for everything except the actual "storage", you could probably get similar quality by mixing down to a reel-to-reel.
Otherwise the mid-level consoles are getting really cheap now. Top level tascams are going for weel below $2000, and then you'd be back on "track" again.
If you want to use ProTools for everything except tracking, I guess this is because you somehow hope that the 24-track will give you a more 'analog' sound. Well, maybe it will. But probably not to a particularily noticable degree.
One common way is to track everything to 24 track, but through all analog paths, and for mixing, transfer it to ProTools. But converting everything back and forth seems strange, and if you use protools for everything except the actual "storage", you could probably get similar quality by mixing down to a reel-to-reel.
Otherwise the mid-level consoles are getting really cheap now. Top level tascams are going for weel below $2000, and then you'd be back on "track" again.
TexRoadkill
Audio Bum
indiGo said:
You've obviously got some decent gear but it seems like you are missing a few important principles.
Why would you want to use post ADC limiting or compressing while tracking? The whole point in using limiters during tracking is to prevent clipping and if you use it after the ADC it can't do that job. It could be argued that some like to track with comp/lim for the sound but if you are using digital plugins you can just do that during the mix anyway.
If you want an analog sound then track to tape with your external pres and monitor them through the mackie db. Then you can transfer the tracks to PT for mixing and processing.
Tracking through PT to tape sounds like a worst of both worlds type of situation.
I've seen it done all of the following ways:
1. Record to hard disk. Do edits. Dump hard disk to analog. Mix with console (analog or digital).
2. Record to analog. Dump to hard disk. Mix analog.
3. Record to analog. Dump to hard disk. Mix "in the box."
4. Record to digital. Dump to analog. Dump back to digital. Mix with console or in the box.
5. etc.
You get the picture. You can do anything you want. However, I have to wonder why you want to track *to analog* through the 888s... any mixer that can output to the 3x 888s (balanced XLR) can also output to the 24-track (usually balanced TRS, but sometimes balanced XLR also)... unless you just don't want to buy new cables or something.
1. Record to hard disk. Do edits. Dump hard disk to analog. Mix with console (analog or digital).
2. Record to analog. Dump to hard disk. Mix analog.
3. Record to analog. Dump to hard disk. Mix "in the box."
4. Record to digital. Dump to analog. Dump back to digital. Mix with console or in the box.
5. etc.
You get the picture. You can do anything you want. However, I have to wonder why you want to track *to analog* through the 888s... any mixer that can output to the 3x 888s (balanced XLR) can also output to the 24-track (usually balanced TRS, but sometimes balanced XLR also)... unless you just don't want to buy new cables or something.
Ultimately, it won't work the same way. Using PT as an input console (I assume you mean tracking through the plugin EQs and compressors) will still leave your audio subject to clipping and other problems that a hot analog processor won't have to deal with. Plugins and the mixer are AFTER the A/D process, so at that point you already have all the headroom you're going to get from your digital process. Anything you track through a plugin will be no different than applying that plugin later during the mixdown.
TexRoadkill said:
This is true in the digital world, but when I used to track analog, comps, limiters, and gates were used as tools for dynamics processing and noise reduction. This was a necessity. Limiting dynamic range would allow a higher signal to noise ratio, reducing the noise floor etc. It's way easier for me to add a little eq while tracking than try and "fix it in the mix" later.
Admittedly, when working in the digital domain, I often use compression as an effect, to imitate the sound of this process.
It seems to me that PT would work the same way as tracking with a digital console.
I can still adjust PT's OUTPUT berfore hitting tape, right? The default is -18db=analog"0". I would adjust the imput from the pre's just as if I were tracking to PT's alone, except I'd set up a 1:1 input-output config.
I'd agree if there weren't the siginal-to-noise concerns that you have with analog. A lot of those "fat-sounding" compressors and limiters that we've all grown to love were origionally designed to get more level to tape and lower the noise floor. The artifacts of that process sound soooo cool though!!!
Son of Mixerman
Mix Junior
How are you mixing? In the box, PT mixer, analog mixer?
My approach would change depending on the mixer. Most folks I know who are moving the 2" tape to PT are doing al the tracking into a analog console to tape using the console eq and some dynamic processing. After the tracking is done they send the Tape out of the 2" machine into the PT converters to disc. After that all the edits..blah blah is done in the box. The mix could be done on a PT mixer or an analog mixer. Im assuming you have a PT compatible human interface mixer like a pro-control 24? Hitting the tape before PT touches it would be best. A small 8 or 16 channel mixer would be great for getting eveything to tape first.
SoMm
My approach would change depending on the mixer. Most folks I know who are moving the 2" tape to PT are doing al the tracking into a analog console to tape using the console eq and some dynamic processing. After the tracking is done they send the Tape out of the 2" machine into the PT converters to disc. After that all the edits..blah blah is done in the box. The mix could be done on a PT mixer or an analog mixer. Im assuming you have a PT compatible human interface mixer like a pro-control 24? Hitting the tape before PT touches it would be best. A small 8 or 16 channel mixer would be great for getting eveything to tape first.
SoMm
I'll be mixing "in the box". Here's how all this started: I was doing demo work for local bands on a Mackie d8b/hard disc recorder combo with outboard pre's (16 Ch's of Presonus, a couple of Neves, a couple API's). I rarely use outboard EQ or compression when tracking, with the exception of a little hi-boost on Kick and Snare and sometimes, and a little cutting on Toms (especially on a bad set or when the drummer refuses to tune); When I did use it, I would use the d8b's since I had no outboard.
After a while I added a Mix Plus and 3-888/24's. I record basically the same way, sometimes throwing a Waves Renissance Channel in while tracking now and then on drums, especially if the player isn't hitting consistantly. I still use the d8b for monitoring and as a HUI when mixing.
All was great in demo-land until a cherry Sony API-24 with less than 800 hours was practically given to me.
I have no outboard EQ's. . .I can't use the d8b's because It's still tied to the HDR via lightpipe (I charge a lower rate for this rig). and I don't think It would sound that great anyway.
So that's why I wondered about using PT as a front end. I don't have the 10k it would take to add some decent outboard, and I don't want to buy any more crap. . .
After a while I added a Mix Plus and 3-888/24's. I record basically the same way, sometimes throwing a Waves Renissance Channel in while tracking now and then on drums, especially if the player isn't hitting consistantly. I still use the d8b for monitoring and as a HUI when mixing.
All was great in demo-land until a cherry Sony API-24 with less than 800 hours was practically given to me.
I have no outboard EQ's. . .I can't use the d8b's because It's still tied to the HDR via lightpipe (I charge a lower rate for this rig). and I don't think It would sound that great anyway.
So that's why I wondered about using PT as a front end. I don't have the 10k it would take to add some decent outboard, and I don't want to buy any more crap. . .
I'm missing something here. If you have the inputs to your 888s (balanced) from your outboard pres, why not go direct to tape? You're not going to be able to do plugin delay compensation when tracking thru PT without throwing all the tracks off each other. Are you just trying to use the PT comps to get the level louder so you can hit tape harder? It doesn't make complete sense to me.
With a nice tape deck "given" to me, I know I would invest in an analog desk. Something along the lines of a used A&H or a Soundtracs Topaz would be a great affordable way to hit the tape hard, and get decent EQ. 456 and 499 tape is another way to get instant compression. Then do further compression in the box post-recording.
With a nice tape deck "given" to me, I know I would invest in an analog desk. Something along the lines of a used A&H or a Soundtracs Topaz would be a great affordable way to hit the tape hard, and get decent EQ. 456 and 499 tape is another way to get instant compression. Then do further compression in the box post-recording.
Son of Mixerman
Mix Junior
indiGo said:
Nothing worse than trying to integrate a great analog machine into PT...
Oh, actually there is something worse, its having several pieces of gear not designed to be integrated. If the D8B is being used for monitoring only, lose it in favor of a better suited analog console that allows you to use the Sony for tracking along with the outb gear you listed by Neve, API and Presonus. Once you get what you need on tape then transfer it through the triple 8's to the HDR, you can still use the analog console for monitoring if you like and it won't tie your hands by forcing you to mix in the box. It could take some repatching work depending on the console.For what the D8B will fetch on Ebay you could get a nice 24 channel console and some compressors and a couple effects processors that for the most part will surpass what PT uses. I know of a few studio's that have SSL's that are rigged to either track to PT or 2" tape and mix on the analog desk.
IMO
SoMm