Mixing in the old tape days....

B

Bob's Mods

New member
How was mixing done in the tape days? Were the tracks typically recorded flat then, at a later time, each track was passed through a mixing board to add eq, vol and panning then recorded back to tape? Or did they try to set the mix up and get it right before tracking?

Bob
 
I suppose they tried to get it right first time... The option is there for bouncing it off another tape deck I would think... Tho im not sure of the quality implications of that... Ive never tried analogue...
 
We mixed directly to tape as we recorded. Very few available effects. Most boards had at least: Gain, Bass (shelving), Treble (shelving), and either a pan pot, or a switch (labeled Left, Center, Right) per channel. Mic selection and mic placement was everything, along with a good sounding room, and some great musicians.
 
Harvey Gerst said:
We mixed directly to tape as we recorded. Very few available effects. Most boards had at least: Gain, Bass (shelving), Treble (shelving), and either a pan pot, or a switch (labeled Left, Center, Right) per channel. Mic selection and mic placement was everything, along with a good sounding room, and some great musicians.
Click to expand...

(just referencing what he said)
this was how it was done in the old old days.....when they were cutting directly to vinyl. Everything had to be cared for during the recording...especiall when working with vinyl.

Then tape came along, then you had 4, 6, 8+ tracks that you could mix with after the session.....although some people still mixed while recording to tape.
 
It's amazing how quickly the "tape days" are becoming the "old days" in the home studio world. I'm SO glad I got started in a pre-digital world. Like growing up in a poor family, you really learn to appreciate stuff when you have it. Mixing and editing are a hell of a lot easier digitally.

Even in this digital world, I prefer colouring the sound on the way in as opposed to doing it in the computer. It forces me to commit to a sound and work with it.
 
bennychico11 said:
(just referencing what he said)
this was how it was done in the old old days.....when they were cutting directly to vinyl. Everything had to be cared for during the recording...especiall when working with vinyl.
Click to expand...
You hafta remember that most studios had at best 2 or 3 track tape recorders at the time.

Then tape came along, then you had 4, 6, 8+ tracks that you could mix with after the session.....although some people still mixed while recording to tape.
Click to expand...
2 and 4 track tapes were around for a while before the higher track count machines came out. When they finally did come out, it allowed us to delay mix decisions, and that opened up the compressor/effects market in the industry.
 
So it would seem a great deal of experience would have been required to set the mix up before tracking. Did the band play a scratch mix so the engineer could check his settings?

Harvey, I gather from your statement that compression wasn't widely used until tape machines with high track counts were available. Are you saying compression wasn't used much before that time? For instance, was it used very much in the 40's or 50's? I'm thinking the compression era really began in the mid 60's sometime.

Bob
 
no insult to you, but this post depresses me just a little. ah... the good old days, when mixing was actually done with a mixer. :eek:

i had a guy in the studio the other day ask why my mixer had so many channels, if i ever recorded that many people at a time. i had to explain to him that i only used the first 6 or so for recording, and the rest were for playback and mixing. he gave me a blank stare, said he didnt realize you can use mixers to mix with and asked me how i did it, as if it were some secret.

oh well. i dont mean to offend anyone here personally, its just kind of sad to me that everything now is done with computers.
 
Kasey said:
no insult to you, but this post depresses me just a little. ah... the good old days, when mixing was actually done with a mixer.
Click to expand...

It's still done with a mixer... just a digital one contained in software. To tell you the truth, digital mixdowns seem cleaner to me then when I did it all analog.
 
My first look at a "real studio" was in the early 60s. If I remember corectly everything was mixed on the way in. It was a "all at once" recording with everyone playing, three mics ( I think) one for vocals, two for the band. No overdubs, no added enhancements, just twenty or so takes then send the tape to be pressed. The process wasn't at all complicated, just play it, record it, press it. No wonder so many of those old 45s sounded like garage bands, many of them could have been easily called "live".
 
I helped my friend record a band to an Otari a couple months ago. The band couldn't sit still, so we just used a general placement of mics. Levels were set in a practice run, then the band did the song live, and then a mandolin OD was done. I wasn't there for mixdown, so I don't know what she did, but I'm assuming some outboard processing took place. The hardest part was getting the band to play the songs without screwing up too badly. I was pretty skeptical of what the outcome would be when I was there, but she gave me a copy of the finished project and it sounded a whole lot better. There was obviously a bit of compression used, especially on the clarinet and violins. They're one of those Jewish pep bands, I don't know what to call them, haha. They had difficulty playing together, but she managed to hide that reasonably well, considering what the dry takes sounded like. ::sigh:: if only I could afford to record analog like that.
 
Kasey said:
no insult to you, but this post depresses me just a little. ah... the good old days, when mixing was actually done with a mixer. :eek:
Click to expand...

...and the mixer did not have 99 levels of undo!

Yes, and back in the olde days, if you were adding a compression or reverb, you had to run cables from the mixer to a little box--another piece of equipment (not a window on the computer screen). If you only had one compressor, you couldn't simultaneously run sixteen different compression processes. If you could only afford one Midiverb (gulp) you couldn't simultaneously add a plate to your vocals and a chorus on the guitar.

I still like the sound of tape. Still use it, but when it comes to mixing, these computer programs are sooooo convenient (even the cheap ones).
 
Cloneboy Studio said:
Bah. If you're counting on the mix buss to impart some character you missed the boat big time.
Click to expand...

Not the "mix buss", just the whole console.

And if you count on something ITB to impart some character, you have no idea what a boat is! ;)
 
bennychico11 said:
this was how it was done in the old old days.....when they were cutting directly to vinyl. Everything had to be cared for during the recording...especiall when working with vinyl.
Click to expand...

From what I've read/heard this is how mastering was born... The master was 'mastered' to be sure there were no loud spikes..etc. in the sound that might cause the cutter to dig into the record when it was being cut on the lathe... Thus the term: Cutting a Record...

I'm sure Harvey will know more about this, maybe he'll elaborate on it...
 
I began home recording in the 80's with a Fostex X-15.

I'm no expert, but I believe that mastering was a little more complicated a while back when you had vinyl, casette and possibly 8-track and reel to reel home systems all existing at the same time. The mastering for each of the formats was a little different, requiring a different master for each (at least one for tape formats and one for vinyl). Am I remembering this correctly?

I so remember drooling over a Tascam 388 brochure...
 
How did they locate and suppress resonant nodes before recording? Just with acoustic treatment of the room? Sometimes instruments will have nodes too.
 
The recording techniques that were perfected over the last few decades are used with analog or digital. The fundamentals are the same and more people struggle with those than the limitations of either format. I think many aspects of recording have more to do with an era or genre than the recording format.

Of course in time past the end-product was a factor. Things had to be compressed due to the limited dynamic range of cassettes and LPs. Also bass roll-off for the latter.

The main thing is learning the idiosyncrasies of each system. People who were used to tape learned to use compression and limiting where the tape itself did the compression before.

Everyone has his/her own methods that will work regardless of the recording medium. In many ways tracking is tracking. The same good practices are applicable to someone tracking with Pro Tools as were to Les Paul.

Some people like to record with eq going in and some like recording flat and eqing later. But a lot of amateurs forget to strike the board after recording with eq and can’t figure out why their ears are burning. :)

When you say the tape days I guess you mean the old tape days before my time as opposed to the current tape days. You know most major recording studios -- the household name studios, brought analog back years ago (late 90's/early 2ks) for the things that digital can’t do. Most of them also use Pro Tools, various MDMs and DATs for the things that analog can’t do.

The hybrid digital/analog model is very common, if not prevalent. And smaller working studios all over the world are doing the same thing on a smaller scale with Otari, Tascam and Fostex 8, 16 and 24 tracks. Here’s a short list of equipment for those interested. I’m still working on it. You won’t usually hear about this reading Sound On Sound or Electronic Musician. ;)

Abbey Road - London, UK
http://www.abbeyroad.co.uk/
Studer A80:
24 & 16 track in 2"
8 & 4 track in 1"
4 track in ½"
2 track in ¼" and ½"
Studer A810:
2 track with timecode or mono with sync pulse
Studer A820:
6 24-track machines in 2"
1 16-track headblock in 2"
1 2 track in ½" format
Ampex ATR 100:
4 track ½" format
3 track ½" format (playback only)

Air Studios - London, UK
http://www.airstudios.com/technical/analogue.shtml
3 Studer A800 MkIII 2" Analogue 24-Track
1 Studer MkI 2" Analogue 24-Track
2 Studer A827 2" Analogue 24-Track
4 Ampex ATR100 ½" Analogue 2-track Mastering

Ardent Studios - Memphis, TN
http://www.ardentstudios.com
3 - Studer 827 Analog 24 Track (One Optional 16 Track Headstack)
1 - Studer A80RC Analog 1/2" 2 Track
1 - MCI JH110 Analog 1/2" 2 Track
1 - MCI JH110 Analog 1/4" 2 Track
6 Tascam 122 MKIII Cassette Decks

Criteria Studios (The New Hit Factory) Miami, FL
http://www.criteriastudios.com/
2 Studer A-820 24-Track
3 Studer A 827 24-Track
Otari MTR-90 24-Track
2 Studer A-820 2-Track (1/2" or 1/4")
Ampex ATR 102 2-Track (1/2" or 1/4")
MCI JH110-B 2-Track
MCI JH110-B 4-Track

Electric Lady - NYC
http://ridiculousparadigm.com/lady/index.shtml
http://www.electricladystudios.com
2 Studer A-800 MKIII 24-track
Studer A-820 24-track
Studer A-820 1/2" 2-track
Studer A-80 VU 1/2" 2 Track
Studer A-810 VU 1/4" 2 Track

Fame Studios - Muscle Shoals, AL
http://www.fame2.com/studios.html
MCI JH-24 2" 24-track
MCI JH-16 2" 24-track
2 Studer B-67 Half-Track
2 Tascam 122 MKII Cassette Decks

Hyde Street - San Francisco, CA
http://www.hydestreet.com/
Otari MTR90 MKII 24 or 16-track
Otari MX5050 MKIII 1/2" 8-track
Ampex ATR 102 1/2" mastering deck

Jungle Room, Glendale CA
http://www.jungleroom.net
MCI JH24 2" 24 Track
Studer - A-80 1/2" 2 Track

Ocean Way - Hollywood & Sherman Oaks, CA
http://www.oceanwayrecording.com/studios.htm
Studer A827 2" 24-track
Ampex ATR-124 24 or 16-track
A800 MKIII 24 track
2 Ampex ATR-100 1/2" or 1/4" Half-Track Mastering

Paisley Park Studios - Chanhassen, MN (Reopened 2004)
http://www.paisleyparkstudios.net/sound_intro.asp
3 Studer A-800 M III 24-tracks
2 Studer A-827 Gold Edition
Studer A-820 Master Recorder 1/2"
Studer A-820 Master Recorder 1/4"
2 Studer A721 Cassette Deck

Rumbo Recorders - Canoga Park, CA
http://captainandtennille.net/rumbo_pgs/clients.html
3 Studer A-827 Analog 24 track Recorders
1 Studer A-820 1/2" Half-Track Mastering Deck
1 Ampex ATR-104 2 or 4 track 1/2"or 1/4" head stacks

Scream Studios - LA, CA
http://www.screamstudios.com/albums.html
Studer A-827 2" 24-track Recorders
Studer A-820 1/2" Half-Track Mastering Deck

Signature Sound - San Diego CA
http://www.signaturesound.com
Studer A827 24-track
Otari MTR-12C 1/2" mastering deck

Skywalker Sound (Lucas Film LTD)
http://www.skysound.com
2 Studer 827 2" 24-tracks
1 Studer 827 2" 16-track
AMPEX ATR 2-Track & 4-Track Mastering Recorders

Studio in the Country - Bogalusa, LA
http://www.studiointhecountry.com/clients_list.htm
Studer A/820 2" 24-trk recorder w/Dolby SR
Studer A/80 2" 24-trk recorder
Studer A/80 2" half-Track recorder w/Dolby SR
Studer A/721 Cassette Recorder
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top